tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53437817301006266042024-03-13T13:46:06.400-07:00Sensible ConservatismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-38212254665407297162018-06-21T19:37:00.000-07:002018-06-21T19:37:01.178-07:00The Facts About The Current So-Called Border Crisis<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I don’t wish to beat around the bush on this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are flat out lies spreading around
mostly as a result of a corrupt media.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So let’s get a few things straight, first, about the current crisis of
family separations at the border.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">First, although some media outlets are falsely
reporting that there some 12,000 children who have been separated from their
parents into these facilities where they are being held, this is not true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of those 12K, ten thousand of them are
unaccompanied minors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are
approximately 2,000 who are being held who came here with someone that, at
present, is assumed to be their parent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Second, although some media outlets are falsely
reporting that these children came across the border seeking asylum, the only
thing we know for sure is they crossed illegally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which means they did not cross at one of the
25 authorized ports of entry at the southern border.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, alone, is completely illegal, no matter
what they came across the border seeking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even an American citizen crossing the border at any place other than the
25 authorized ports of entry is committing a crime and subject to arrest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Third, these two thousand children were separated from
their supposed parents because those parents were arrested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is fairly common practice in every country
in the world that when you arrest someone, you don’t allow their children to
stay with them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fourth, these children are being detained because they
crossed the border illegally…as party to their supposed parents’ illegal
act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to our own laws, they are
held for a certain period whereby it is determined what country they came
from.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By our laws, if they came from Mexico,
we will deport them back to Mexico.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
they came from any non-contiguous country, like Honduras, we cannot send them
back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are required to find them a
place to stay here in the US.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stupid law…though
I’d have to say in the case of the 10K unaccompanied minors, if its really true
that their parents sent them on this journey unaccompanied, I sure wouldn’t
want to see them sent back to those parents.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Fifth, by pure logic, there are only five options to
resolve this situation: a) separate these kids from their parents while their
parents are being processed for their crime; b) keep them with their parents
either in the same facility as all the other kids being held or in the holding
facility for all the illegal alien adults; c) create a third holding facility
just for these kids and their parents while the parents’ arrests are being
processed (what Trump just ordered by EO); d) don’t stop any one crossing the
border at all…leave the border completely open and let anyone cross (this is what
the open border radical liberals like Pelosi and Schumer want); or e) to make
it honestly fair, make it illegal for any law enforcement agency to arrest
anyone, citizen or not, if it would result in that person’s children being
potentially traumatized by being separated from their parents.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">At first, the radical left were up in arms over these
separations because they said its just not right to separate children from their
parents…it’s akin to child abuse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No
matter how much rational people tried to counter the absurd argument that
children just shouldn’t be separated from their parents when the parents commit
a crime, the radical left just weren’t going to let this one go.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">As soon as Trump signed his EO creating a means by
which these arrested parents and their children could remain together through
this process, the radical left showed their hand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not about the children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It never was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Otherwise this would be done with now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now, finally showing their real intentions, Pelosi, Schumer and others
from the deep left have made it clear their objective is get the Trump
administration to stop arresting any person crossing into this country in an
illegal manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They want complete and
open borders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Here’s the funny part about that…well, two funny
parts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, these very Democrats were
deeply outspoken about illegal immigration not so many years ago.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 1.25in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA) in 1993: "The day when America could be the welfare
system for Mexico is gone. We simply can't afford it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 1.25in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"Senator Harry
Reid (D-NV) in 1993: "Can it be any wonder that the American people think
our immigration policies are a joke when we select 40,000 new immigrants a year
by lottery?"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 1.25in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">President Bill Clinton
in 1995: "But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately
self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our
immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop
it."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 1.25in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-VT) in 2006: "These provisions are not amnesty. Undocumented immigrants
already in the country would not get to cut to the front of the line, but, in
accordance with the Committee's bipartisan plan, will need to pay fines, pay
back taxes, work hard, and wait in line for green cards."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 1.25in; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Senator Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) in 2007: "I happen to think that the Congress should be spending a
lot more time discussing this issue and making it easier for us to create
decent paying jobs for American workers instead of allowing corporate interest
to drive wages down by importing more and more people into this country to do
the work that Americans should be doing."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">For
more about this, go <a href="https://www.gop.com/the-democrat-hard-left-turn-on-illegal-immigration-rsr/">HERE</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
second funny part is that these liberals somehow want Trump to order this open
border via execute fiat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They know full
well that the very laws that Congress itself passed, along with the constitutional
separation of powers, lays out the laws upon which any US President must
act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To do so outside the scope of those
laws is tantamount to writing his own laws and violates the very principle of
the separation of powers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obama, himself
knew this, and said so on many occasions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 21.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #16374f; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have
argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here]
illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put
an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... <strong>I believe
such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.</strong> It
would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be
no repercussions for such a decision. <strong>And this could lead to a
surge in more illegal immigration.</strong> And it would also ignore the
millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here
legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation
to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no
matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, <strong>the 11
million who broke these laws should be held accountable</strong>.” (<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-comprehensive-immigration-reform" style="transition: color 0.2s, background 0.2s;"><span style="color: #ec1f27;">7/1/10</span></a>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span><strong><span style="background: white; color: #16374f; font-size: 12.0pt;">I am president, I am
not king. I can't do these things just by myself. </span></strong><span style="background: white; color: #16374f; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">We have a system of
government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make
it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but </span><strong style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I've got to have some partners</strong><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> to do it. …
The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. …
[T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way
the system works – again, I just want to repeat, </span><strong style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I'm president, I'm not king.</strong><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> If Congress
has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented
have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we
deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a
opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. </span><strong style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">But there's a limit to the
discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. </strong><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">That's what the
Executive Branch means. </span><strong style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I can't just make the laws up by myself.</strong><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> So the most important thing that we can do is focus on
changing the underlying laws.” (</span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/transcript-of-president-barack-obama-with-univision.html" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; transition: color 0.2s, background 0.2s; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background: white; color: #ec1f27;">10/25/10</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #16374f;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">)</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 16.5pt; margin-bottom: 11.25pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #464646; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">For
more on this, see Speaker Ryan’s <a href="https://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law">webpage</a>
where is lists the many times Obama said similar things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Yet, after all this, because the MSM blasted the
airwaves with image after image after image (some images which were take in 2014,
before Trump even ran for President) of children being kept behind fences and
sleeping in large groups the radical left decided this was a chance to pounce on
Trump yet again in hopes of swaying public opinion against him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">But once again it didn’t work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It made them look stupid and foolish and
desperate…in some cases (Peter Fonda and others) nasty and mean…and in one
instance (Occupy Wall St.) purely evil where they released the names and
addresses of hundreds of ICE agents and called for their death. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
Many on the left were all too happy to have the distraction of this happening
this past week or so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They desperately
needed the public’s attention away from Trump’s accomplishments with the
economy and with North Korea, and to stifle the right wing side of the media
from their coverage of the IG report and he subsequent testimony before Senate
and House committees.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The bottom line to all this is that the left is
clearly painting the picture of what they are running on this November and
where they want to take this country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are desperate for you all not to know this, but they will clear a
path towards impeachment of Trump should they win back the House.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’ve made it very clear that their
solution to a failing Obamacare is not to repeal it but to bolster it right
into an universal healthcare system, a la England.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pelosi has made it abundantly clear that
should they take back the House that they will repeal the tax cuts of last December.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And there is little doubt in my mind that they
will pursue major steps towards either abolishing the second amendment or weakening
it severely<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And now, their latest comments about the border make
it finally unquestionably clear that they plan on pushing for complete open
borders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is why they refuse to vote
to end chain migration, or build a wall or fix our immigration system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their primary financier, George Soros, is the
quintessential advocate for global open borders on the way to a global ruling
class.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">This coming November is as important an election as
the one in 2016 was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine where we’d be
right now if HRC had won in November 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now, with these five clear planks to their platform revealed, imagine
where we will be if they do take over the House and Senate in November
2018.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We couldn’t let HRC win in 2016,
and we cannot afford to let the Dems win this fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must get out the vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must not fall back asleep just because Trump
is succeeding.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There’s so much more left to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have finish what has been started in North
Korea, with trade renegotiations and in isolating Iran and defeating ISIS to
the end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">We must continue to drain the swamp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So many have been exposed in various agencies
and in Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judges need to continue
to be appointed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to begin seeing
indictments and prosecutions and convictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We need to turn the light on the cockroaches that remain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And we need to prepare to win again in 2020 so we can
solidify this revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please, if you
agree with this and would like to see this happen, then step up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should extraordinarily proud of what our
President has accomplished even in the face of powerful opposition in
Washington.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-87706728285079540582018-06-01T15:09:00.002-07:002018-06-01T15:09:39.483-07:00Tariffs: Who Opposes Them Tells You All You Need To Know<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI1jTgnT9FsF00WMFpC7I9HOixtUrE4RO65Tk5Wrht9XfU-M5Kkay-q0Q-twGuoTVyr07WHR1_qkqx6VItr22TU_Bcp7G4ev4gfKFwP1V-K4nbo7pOSdx06Oe9Mt8BvptjZsqIkDnJCFME/s1600/steel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="246" data-original-width="456" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI1jTgnT9FsF00WMFpC7I9HOixtUrE4RO65Tk5Wrht9XfU-M5Kkay-q0Q-twGuoTVyr07WHR1_qkqx6VItr22TU_Bcp7G4ev4gfKFwP1V-K4nbo7pOSdx06Oe9Mt8BvptjZsqIkDnJCFME/s320/steel.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For most of this country's history, the only source of revenue for the national government were from tariffs. For a young and vibrant country like the early United States, it makes sense to impose tariffs but not to impose direct taxes on income. Such was the case from our founders.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Imposing tariffs on foreign goods assists a young economy in gaining its ground. It helps new businesses and essentially new industries to have room to grow. Think of them as like those stakes you plant with a new tree to help it bear up against winds and other weather.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">As a young economy flourishes the needs for government intervention is relative to where individual industries are in relation to foreign competitors. In the case of the steel tariffs Trump has imposed, there was a definite purpose for them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">China has built several steel mills from which they produce an over-abundance of steel. Their objective is clear. They understand market economics...supply and demand. They have a huge supply, they subsidize their steel industry and thus they can deal with selling their products far below market rates. In doing that, they put immense pressure on steel mills and companies globally. The goal being to put them out of business...and to have the world depend up on them for their steel.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There is a huge problem with this. Steel is the backbone of any modern industrialized nation. From making cars to building ships and airplanes. It's a core product from which the costs of everything 'upstream' from it is affected. And because of that, it becomes imperative that we, as a nation, not become reliant on any one for that product. If we have to ramp up our military for a war, we can't be depending upon a country like China for the steel we need. If we had a natural disaster and had to rebuild a city or region, we can't be completely reliant upon China for the steel we need.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In other words, while it is fine to be compelled by market forces to compete with China on the world markets, it is not right when we have to compete under unfair and manufactured market conditions. The imposition of steel tariffs on China and other countries which have become outlets for China's steel, has given our steel industry the chance to compete.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The short term problems with tariffs might be that the costs of some related goods would rise accordingly. The cost of a new car might be $100 higher. But the long term ramifications of NOT shoring up our own steel industry would be far worse.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In the face of not imposing these tariffs, our own steel industry was gasping for air and on the verge of collapsing. If that were to happen we would become completely dependent upon foreign sources of steel for every segment of our economy. Which is completely unacceptable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The same thing was on the verge of happening to our energy independence. We had become so reliant upon foreign sources of oil and gas, when we have enough untapped sources, that we were facing serious issues overseas. When we are dependent upon the middle east for our oil, we have to become involved in regional conflicts in order to protect our supplies.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But when we tap our own resources and become energy independent, we don't have to take sides with parties in the middle east who don't have our best interests at heart. Our recent swing towards being a net exporter of oil and gas has put us in a position in the middle east where don't have to make decisions there based purely or even primarily upon protecting only our oil our interests there.<br /><br />No conservative like taxes, and that's what tariffs are. But the bottom line is the long term value of those taxes. Congress knows this all too well. They do it all the time with our domestic taxes. They provide tax relief for this sector of the economy vs. higher taxes/fees for another sector. They add deductions here but reduce them there. All designed to aid or stiffen competition in areas of our economy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Sometimes people balk at these things, but they have their place. Are they misused? Absolutely. Simply pointing out that the tax code has become a tool for politics will say all you need to know. There's a reason why the committee that writes and re-writes our tax code is such a prominent committee to be on.<br /><br />Applying these principles to the notion of lower corporate income taxes. Trump's idea behind this was simple...it was doing to the rest of the world what China was doing relative to steel. But lowering corporate tax rates, essentially what Trump is doing is placing America as the premier place for corporations and the wealthy to invest their money. Its cheaper for them to invest it here. They can make more profits and accomplish more. And what are the consequences? New factories opening, millions of new jobs. Taxable activity. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But look at it by a simplistic example. Corporate ABC made, say $200M in profits last year...AFTER they parked $400M overseas and out of the reach of the IRS. They paid say $70m in taxes on that. But now this year they bring that money back into the country. They are actually able to do more business this year as well because more people have more money to spend. So they make $250M in domestic profits and another $500m they don't park overseas but keep here and pay taxes on it...at a rate of 20% say. 20% of $750m = $150m...more than twice what they paid last year.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That's how it works. That's how even with much lower rates, tax revenues rise. You see, tax revenues don't rise from higher rates. These tariffs are proof of that. The US won't collect more revenue from these higher tariffs. What they WILL do though, is help US Steel companies to stay in business, make more money and re-invest it back in the US. China won't pay more in money to the US, because they just won't do as much business here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The same thing happens in domestic taxes. The liberals love raising taxes on the rich...their version of China. But the rich won't pay more taxes just because the rate is higher. They will simple transfer the tax liability risk to either the future, when they hope rates are lower or to a country where the profits aren't taxed as high<br /><br />Let this continue for 3-4 years and watch how this economy grows.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-11648738006023872752017-01-11T12:58:00.002-08:002017-01-25T11:09:02.667-08:00The Trump Presidency - A Journal of Accomplishments<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is a
journal of all successes and failures of Trump as president. I wanted to keep a log simply to be able to
reference them for those who attack him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Pre-Inauguration<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>November 10, 2016 - </i>Canadian Prime Minister is already saying he will sit down with Trump to renegotiate NAFTA. It won't take long. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/10/justin-trudeau-canada-willing-renegotiate-nafta-trump/</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>November 17, 2016</i></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> – Ford decides not to move its
Kentucky plant to Mexico following the election. - <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/17/trump-ford-plant-stay-kentucky/94056118/">http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/17/trump-ford-plant-stay-kentucky/94056118/</a><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>November 19, 2016 - </i>Only took 10+ days, but already Mexico's president is agreeing to sit down with Trump to "modernize" NAFTA. Jobs are coming home. https://libertywritersnews.com/2016/11/breaking-trump-just-won-look-mexico-agreed-today/</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">November 29, 2016</span></i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> - Carrier decides not to move its
plant to Mexico, saving 800-1000 jobs.
- <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">December 6, 2016</span></i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> – Japanese investor, owner of Sprint,
to invest $50B in the US and create 50K new jobs. It was speculated that Son chose to invest
this money in the US because he felt the situation under Trump would make it
more feasible for Sprint to complete their merger to T-Mobile. But let’s get real. That’s exactly why businesses invest money…to
make money. So, they create 50000 new
jobs in the process…let’s ignore that. -
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/06/trump-announces-japanese-bank-investing-50-billion-in-the-united-states/?utm_term=.61f8110e547b">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/06/trump-announces-japanese-bank-investing-50-billion-in-the-united-states/?utm_term=.61f8110e547b</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">December 28, 2016</span></i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> – He begins the process of helping
veterans by bringing in heads of major non-profit hospitals to negotiate them
allowing veterans access to their services using their veterans benefits. - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-28/trump-gathers-top-hospital-ceos-in-florida-for-health-care-chat">https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-28/trump-gathers-top-hospital-ceos-in-florida-for-health-care-chat</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 3, 2017</i> – Trump convinces
Ford to build a new plant in Michigan creating 700-2000 new jobs for
Americans. - <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos-idUSKBN14N1T0">http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos-idUSKBN14N1T0</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">January 6, 2017</span></i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> – Fiat Chrysler to invest $1B in new
projects in the US. They tried to deny
that Trump had anything to do with it, but really, let’s get real. Businesses don’t spend their money in an
environment where they won’t make money in return. - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-08/fiat-chrysler-commits-1-billion-to-u-s-plants-for-jeeps-rams">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-08/fiat-chrysler-commits-1-billion-to-u-s-plants-for-jeeps-rams</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">January 11, 2017</span></i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> – Trump divests himself from his
business completely. Even though the law
doesn’t require him to do so, he did it anyway.
He handed everything over to his sons and a business partner. He made sure there were no ties at all. He is excluded from decisions. He has no informational rights. He has made sure that the company is making
no international deals during his presidency.
He made sure that the is an ethics attorney signing off on all deals to
make sure there are no conflicts of interest.
He even cancelled all deals that were already in the process but
unfinished till now...costing him and his children and others tens of millions
of dollars. He did everything necessary
to make sure that the American people have no reason to believe he is using the
Oval Office for his own benefit. - <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/11/watch-live-trump-press-conference-trump-tower/">http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/11/watch-live-trump-press-conference-trump-tower/</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 11, 2017 - </i>German software company SAP will be adding 400+ jobs to their Pittsburgh and Philadelphia facilities this year. - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/SAP-to-add-nearly-400-jobs-at-Pa-offices.html</span><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">January 12, 2017</span></i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> – Trump's bitter rival, Bezos and his Amazon kingdom will be adding 100,000+ new jobs over the next 18 months. Clearly the atmosphere for businesses is even making Trump's enemies smile. - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-inc-jobs-idUSKBN14W21G</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January, 13, 2017</i> - Lockheed will doing their part to bring more jobs to America with 1800 more to work on the F35...thank you Mr. Trump. http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article126384814.html</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 16, 2017</i> - IMF adjusted their growth forecast for the USA because of the "Trump factor"...raising it to 2.5% for 2017 compared 1.6% for 2016. A reminder that Obama was the first two term US president never to experience a single year of 3% growth or better. - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WORLD_ECONOMY_IMF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-16-09-09-48</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 16, 2017</i> - GM investing a billion dollars in the US market...1000+ new jobs. - http://www.wsj.com/articles/general-motors-plans-at-least-1-billion-in-fresh-u-s-investment-1484611776</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 17, 2017</i> - Bayer AG to invest $8B in US R&D creating thousands of jobs. http://www.breitbart.com/news/bayer-monsanto-to-invest-8-bln-in-us/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 17, 2017</i> - Walmart to expand, adding 10K retail and 24K construction jobs. - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/17/walmart-create-10000-retail-jobs-24000-construction-jobs/</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 17, 2017</i> - Publicly traded automotive company LKQ Corp is establishing a new headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. It is another sign that the company feels the automotive industry in the U.S. is on track to grow under a Trump presidency. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "georgia" , serif;">- http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/01/17/fortune-500-auto-business-expanding-nashville.html</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><b style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><i><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 19.9733px;">Post Inauguration - Year One</span></u></i></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "georgia" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
<i style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;">January 20, 2017 - </i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">One of his first Executive Orders was to authorize the Dept. of HHS to do whatever they can do within the bounds of the law to relieve Americans and American businesses suffering from the effects of Obamacare. His first step in dismantling Obamacare is to do whatever he can within the law to help people suffering. This is amazing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 20, 2017</i> - A small aside about the man himself, Trump is said to have written a personal check for $10,000 to a man he met during the day who was suffering from tremendous hardships but found a way to get to the inauguration. - http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/01/20/greatest-guy-unlikely-meeting-trump-just-inauguration-moves-fedex-courier-tears-437952</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 22, 2017</i> - Moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem...this is a huge deal and says a whole lot about his support of Israel. God will not forget this. - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/22/report-trump-move-u-s-embassy-jerusalem-monday/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 22, 2017</i> - Trump's inauguration has prompted Merkel to say she will negotiate on military and trade. The "Negotiator in-chief" wins again. - http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/22/trump-first-win-germanys-agrees-compromise-trade-military/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 22, 2017</i> - Another $7B investment in America. - http://www.breitbart.com/news/taiwans-foxconn-chief-confirms-mulling-7-bn-us-investment/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 22, 2017</i> - Trump expected to sign an Executive Order cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. Promise kept. - http://www.breitbart.com/news/taiwans-foxconn-chief-confirms-mulling-7-bn-us-investment/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 23, 2017</i> - Trump officially withdraws the US from TPP as he promised he would. - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/president-trump-kills-tpp-executive-order-officially-withdrawing/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 23, 2017</i> - Trump cuts off funding to any international organization that performs abortions. And puts a freeze on federal hiring, except for military. - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/donald-trump-executive-orders-kills-tpp-announces-federal-hiring-freeze-restores-mexico-city-policy/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 23, 2017</i> - Krogens and Auto Zone adding 10000 jobs each. Looking better. - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kroger-employement-idUSKBN1571NU?il=0</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 24, 2017</i> - Keystone and Dakota Pipelines advancing...energy independence is coming. - http://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-to-sign-orders-advancing-keystone-dakota-pipelines/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 24, 2017</i> - Corruption at the VA is already being cleaned out... http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/days-into-trump-admin-corrupt-employees-are-already-being-fired-at-the-va/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 24, 2017</i> - Trump uses his business acumen to prioritize infrastructure projects. Wise use of funds and reduces cronyism will benefit us all. - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 24, 2017</i> - Toyota, after a meeting between Trump and automakers, said they will invest $10B in the US over the next 5 years in manufacturing their SUVs. - http://ilovemyfreedom.org/breaking-toyota-just-made-a-huge-announcement-after-trump-meets-with-auto-makers/</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>January 25, 2017</i> - Defunding sanctuary states and cities and ordering the wall built...promises made, promises kept. - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN1591HP?il=0</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-10132898130116828662016-09-30T12:13:00.002-07:002016-09-30T12:13:50.086-07:00Comparing Trump & Hillary - Economy: Budget & Deficits<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The budget
and the debt just might be the single greatest advantage Trump has over
Hillary. Both candidates are making some
hefty promises regarding certain issues that will cost the taxpayers a lot of
money. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hillary
wants to push the healthcare button towards full and complete government run
healthcare. But she not only wants to
push that button, she wants to include illegal immigrants into that equation as
well. Her solution to paying for this…as
is the case with every liberal entitlement, by taxing the rich. As though the rich will just keep paying more
and more while getting less and less for their money.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Hillary also
wants to make a college education free for all who want it. This is yet another nine figure entitlement
that will bankrupt this country. And, of
course, the rich will pay for this too.
Because the rich want to.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Trump also
wants to revamp the healthcare programs.
He wants to get rid of Obamacare and push the healthcare industry back
in the direction of free market competition.
He wants to allow for cross-state competition and to restrict lawsuits
against doctors. Thus lower costs for
Americans. He does want to try to extend
our medicare program to those who have no group coverage and can’t afford
health insurance. But his solution to
paying for it is to go hard after corruption and theft in the system and to
inject competition into Medicare that would lower costs, thus opening the doors
to paying for others to be a part of the Medicare system without raising costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Trump’s
child care program is another that would cost money. However, he is going into this with the idea
of paying for it by finding waste and corruption in the current budget. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Having read Martin
Gross’ book, The Government Racket: Washington Waste A to Z, I can tell you unequivocally
that hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved every year by simply
imposing a simple rule on the federal budget.
It’s called the Zero Base Budget rule.
It requires every department and agency in the government to start from
zero every year when submitting their budget requests. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let me
explain by telling you what happens now.
As a particular budget year comes to an end, agencies and even
individual congress persons rush to spend the budget they were given that year. You hear about, for example, congressional
overseas trips at the end of the budget year.
These are done a simple reason: they want to make sure they spend all
that was budgeted to them. The reason
for this is that when they submit their budget request for the following year,
all they have to do is show they spent their entire budget the previous year
and thus all they need to do is ask for some percentage increase.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">They don’t
have to justify the increase except by showing they spent everything the year
before. It doesn’t matter whether they
actually need the increase. They’ll just
take it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Every agency
does this. Imagine the Department of
Agriculture requesting an additional $200m to build a new Midwest office for
their Dept. The next year, with the building complete,
they show that they spent their entire budget the year before and request an
automatic increase of 10%. It doesn’t
matter that they don’t have to spend $200M on a new building this year. There is no justifying the increase. They just get the increase.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">A Zero Based
Budget would require each department and agency and congress person justify
their budget requests each year. It is
estimated that using a ZBB on the federal budget would save between $50B and
$500B/per year. And that compounds
because every year the ZBB prevents an agency or department from just
automatically increasing their budget saves exponentially.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Combined
with millions more jobs contributing to the treasury with taxes, the better
trade deals that benefit Americans and also increase the treasury, negotiating
contracts to build what we need at a reasonable cost and more, this is how
Trump plans on balancing the budget while still doing so much to rebuild our
country. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-37728872110336206982016-09-28T08:41:00.000-07:002016-09-28T09:54:22.988-07:00Comparing Trump & Clinton: Economy - Trade<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">One of Barack Obama’s
last attempts to destroy America’s greatness economically is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP). Like NAFTA before it,
the left, and Hillary, will argue that this is the evolution in global
economics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Hillary Clinton once
endorsed the TPP as the ‘gold standard’ for global trade. While she argued in the debate that she didn’t
call it the ‘gold standard’, but only ‘hoped’ it would be, fact checks show she
did actually call it the ‘gold standard’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">And as Trump has said,
once he pointed out the huge problems with the TPP, she changed her tune.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“I will stop any trade
deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific
Partnership”, she said at a campaign stop in Ohio back in August. “I oppose it
now. I’ll oppose it after the
election. And I’ll oppose it as
President.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So
did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The
deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated,
involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam
and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico.
It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key
to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama
hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s
opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As a member of the Obama
Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the
president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as
negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she
outlined the goals for it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“This
TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair
trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing
field,” she said then<sup>1</sup>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Since TPP is still in
negotiation stage, we’ll leave judgment of it for later. However, it is worthy to note that Trump has
clearly suggested that Clinton would backtrack on her rejection of it once in
office. Of this, I have no doubt. She will suggest that whatever concerned her
during the campaign has been resolved and she’ll be right back on the trail of
being a globalist.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">And there in lay the
fundamental difference between what Hillary wants to do in trade deals vs. what
Donald Trump wants to do. All Hillary’s
trade deals will be rooted in her belief and goal for a global economy run by a
global government for global purposes.
As, with Barack Obama, Clinton’s interests lay first with the global
community and somewhere down the line with the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is not to suggest
she hates the United States. Nor does
Barack Obama, for that matter. What they
hate is how the United States, as it is now, stands in the way of the global
progress, they and their global financiers desire. They want the US to prosper, but under a
global umbrella. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Let me explain with a
little more local example. Before the 17<sup>th</sup>
Amendment was ratified, Senators were appointed by State Legislatures. Now, of course, they are elected in general
elections by the people. You may wonder
why that’s such a bad thing. After all,
isn’t it always better for the people to do the voting? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Yes and no. In the case of the United States, our
Constitution was designed to spread out and separate powers. The people’s representatives were elected
every 2 years into the House of Representatives. The States were represented by the
appointment of two Senators. And the
Nation was represented by the President through the electoral college process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">All were either directly
or indirectly voted on by the people. We’re
all well aware that the president isn’t always elected by the popular
vote. And, in fact, the so-called will
of the people could be set aside, by the Constitution, through the electoral
college.<sup>2</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">With the State
Legislatures appointing Senators, they were assured that the interests of the
State will represented in Congress. If
it weren’t the Legislature could simply recall the Senator. Now, no matter what the Senator does, so long
as he can convince the majority of state voters (usually the one with the most
money) then they can keep their jobs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is exactly what is
happening with trade agreements like TPP and other agreements. The global community is slowly forming their
own version of the United States. And
the United States is slowly, with the aid of globalists like Obama and Clinton,
just becoming another state in that global union.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Donald Trump looks at
trade not from a globalist’ perspective, but from a nationalist’s
perspective. He understands that we are
involved in a global economy. We have
been for much longer than any of us have been alive. But when Donald Trump goes out to negotiate a
trade deal he’s going out first as an American.
Making sure that deal benefits us, our economy, our workers, our
businesses and our people is most important to him. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Does he care about the
global economy? Absolutely. He knows that a strong global economy aids
Americans. But to him, that is secondary
to making sure that we come first.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">When he threatens
tariffs, he does so, not because he wants to raise prices for products
Americans buy, but because sometimes tariffs are necessary to show our trade
partners that we are not happy with an unfair trade deal and we’re not playing
games.<sup>3</sup><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: 20.25pt; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The argument some have
against tariffs is legitimate. If not
used wisely, it could cause a ripple of negative financial effects. But when it comes right down to it, are you
more at peace having a businessman in charge of our trade negotiations or would
you rather have a globalist politician in charge?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> 1. <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> 2. <a href="http://www.silentbull.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/">http://www.silentbull.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 13.5pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; line-height: 107%;"> 3. </span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 107%;">Tariffs would be necessary in
some cases “because they have to understand that we’re not playing games
anymore,” – Tampa, FL rally August 24, 2016</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-26036466949982104482016-09-27T12:02:00.000-07:002016-09-27T16:28:05.025-07:00Comparing Trump and Clinton: Economy - Taxes<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I created a blog back in
2008 during the first Obama election, which I affectionately called Sensible
Conservatism. The meaning of the name
was just this: that while I view all issues through the prism of conservative
principles, I am not so pig-headed that I automatically reject something a
liberal might say just because they’re liberal.
A wise person will listen to all positions and make his decisions off of
all the information. Does that make me right all the time? Goodness no.
But when sensibility is applied to these discussions, I believe right
answers and solutions are found far more often.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">I had pretty much abandoned
this blog in 2014 leading up to the last midterms. But I think this is the right time to bring
it back out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> -----------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Having been a trained
debater, I have to tell you that watching the first presidential debate was
torturous. It was so painful because I
could tell that Clinton was the more trained debater. And yet, having researched the issues so
thoroughly, it was even more painful because I knew the right way to respond to
her plethora of lies and assertions and yet Trump was, for the most part, not
responding well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">That being said, I found it
quite intriguing that virtually every snap poll showed Trump winning the
debate. After the surprise and relief
subsided I began to wonder how he won so decisively. And it came down to two issues. One, that Hillary Clinton is an icon of all
that we voters have come to despise about Washington D.C. And two, that despite her better presentation
skills, she still can’t sell her ideas to us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So I have decided that I
wanted to start a process whereby we can study the differences between Trump
and Clinton on many of the issues. After all, there are still some people on
the fence and we have six weeks to bring them onto our side of the fence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let’s begin with the
economy. This subject would include such
issues as jobs, taxes, trade, the deficit and the debt.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Let’s be clear about one
thing first. Both candidates…for that
matter, all of us…have to accept that the rich have the money and our common
goal is for us to find ways to get them to distribute that money to the rest of
us. The difference between Clinton and
Trump is in how to get them to distribute it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To be clear, let me just
point out that there are really only three fundamental ways to get money from
the rich: 1) they invest it in something like their own business, other
businesses, the stock market, whatever…and thus that money is injected into the
economy. Even investing it into a bank,
injects it into the economy. 2) they spend it.
In spending it, even on what you or I would consider a luxury item like
a yacht, they are injecting it into the middle class. The person who sold them the yacht. The company who many the yacht hired
employees. The companies that made the
parts that make the yacht hire employees.
The company that transports the yachts hires people. The companies that repair the yachts hires
people. And so on. 3) Its either taken
from them or they give it away. They can
donate it to charities and in that case, it gets to the people who need it with
few middle men or someone takes it like a thief. And I would venture to say that we’ve become
numb to the idea that even taxation is little more than legalized theft.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">To Clinton and the leftists
like her, the best way to get the rich to distribute money to the rest of us is
to have the government take it from them and let the government decide how to
best distribute it to us. That’s nice,
but it has several negative effects.
First, the rich, as any of us would do if the government tried to
confiscate our money, will try every means of preventing the government from
taking their money.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">They will find loopholes in
tax laws. They will move their money to
other countries where the tax laws are less intrusive. They’ll set up trusts
and foundations. There are hundreds, if
not thousands of ways to shelter their money from the government. Why do they do that? The obvious reason is that they, like the
rest of us, don’t want anyone just taking their money. And if someone does take their money, they’d
like some say so in where it goes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The end result of this is
that it stifles job growth…except for jobs that the government pays, or helps
pay, for. Any growth in the economy
occurs where the government wants it to grow…not necessarily where we want it
to grow or where it should grow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Second, when the government
gets involved in controlling more and more of the economy, that’s when these
artificial bubbles develop and when they burst, we’re all hurt. And what happens when they burst? The government steps in as some sort of faux
white knight to rescue us and ends up taking more control over even more of our
lives. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">From my experience, the
government does this through three means: 1) economic disasters, 2) wars, and
3) health crises. And we keep falling for it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Trump, on the other hand,
advocates what those on the left have disparagingly called “trickle down
economics”. It is what is more
technically known as “supply side economics”.
The basis of all capitalism is supply and demand. And that’s what Trump advocates for.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">In his plan, he lowers taxes
on businesses primarily. Why? Because when taxes (and regulations) are
lowered on businesses, their cost of doing business lowers. The Hillary’s of the world will suggest that’s
bad because they fear that business owners will greedily take that extra cash
and hoard it and keep it for themselves.
And perhaps some will.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">But the theories of supply
side economics suggest that a vast majority of those business owners will
re-invest that cash back into their business.
There is a simple reason most people go into business for
themselves. They know that the simple
rules of economics suggest that if they can successfully leverage other people’s
labor, cash and assets, that they can exponentially grow their own wealth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The Hillary’s of the world
think that’s just evil. Ironically, that’s
exactly what government does as well.
But somehow it’s evil when individuals do it for business purposes, but
not evil when the government does it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">But when individuals and
businesses do this, it creates jobs. And
every new job creates more demand…for one product/service or another. Which creates more jobs and more demand. And
what happens with every demand? A
purchase and a local tax is paid. And
what happens with every new job? Taxes
are paid to the state and the feds. And when those businesses successfully
leverage other people’s labor and cash and assets, what happens? They make more profits, which are, of course,
TAXED.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">So, in the end, the money
that the wealthy possessed STILL ends up in the government’s hands. Except instead of the government simply
confiscating it, it goes through millions upon millions of middle class hands
on its way to the government. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">There is the appearance that
the burden was upon the middle class to pay those taxes. But who really paid them? The money still came from the rich. But instead of running those sticky
government hands first, it goes through our hands first before it gets to the
government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Simple question…which would
you prefer?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">But I’m not done, nor is
Trump’s plan. Once money gets into the
hands of individuals, there are individual taxes to pay. In Trump’s plan, he lowers the overall rate
of taxation down to three brackets. In
addition, he raises the threshold on how much someone can earn and NOT pay
taxes (aside from FICA). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">The part of this that
Hillary attacks is the lower tax bracket for the wealthy. There’s only one problem with her
complaint. In lowered the bracket, Trump
is proposing virtually eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy. Without the loopholes, there’s no game of
hide and seek played by the wealthy with their money. They earned money? Here’s the tax rate for it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Tomorrow, I will address
trade and its effect on jobs and the economy.
If there is a subject you wish to read about, let me know. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-63348474860054816942014-06-26T23:45:00.003-07:002014-06-26T23:55:10.392-07:00An Open Letter to the GOPI grew into the Grand Old Party through Ronald Reagan in 1980. It was my first presidential election and it laid the foundation for the next 34 years of my political life. I have supported every candidate with an (R) after their name ever since. Even when I didn't think Bob Dole stood a chance...even when I thought McCain was not the man to run against Obama in '08...and even during the 2012 primary season when I swore up and down I would support any candidate except Romney, I STILL supported Romney.<br />
<br />
However many times I thought the Establishment GOP was taking their conservative base for granted, I kept supporting the party. Then the way in which the GOP treated us conservatives took a decidedly nasty turn in 2010. Instead of embracing the Tea Party and the grass roots energy we brought to the political landscape, you treated us like a plague. Instead of accepting the turn to the right that the conservatives were engendering, you stood in open opposition and defiance to us. Instead of accepting the will of the voters in several primaries in 2010, you rejected your own people and refused to support a candidate YOU didn't choose for us. And when those Tea Party candidates didn't win in the general election, you blamed US. <br />
<br />
Like some spoiled little kid, when the conservatives in the party wouldn't play by YOUR rules, you took your ball (your money) and went home. Instead of taking back the Senate in 2010, like we easily could have, you were content to let the Dems keep their power just so you can maintain your unresistant control of the party. And you blamed US for our loss in the Senate. <br />
<br />
I should have walked away then. I should have seen the writing on the wall. But for the sake of not letting Obama win re-election, I stuck with you. I gave you another chance in 2012. There were some great candidates in 2012...even a couple whom you could have worked with...like Newt or Santorum. We could have had any number of non-Romney candidates who could have beaten Obama. Rick Perry...do you really think his flub about naming three agencies compares to the gaffes made by Obama and his 57 states? Herman Cain...too much of an outsider for your tastes? <br />
<br />
But, no. You made a deal with Romney in 2008 that he could be the next candidate and you were determined to ruin the reputations of some very good men who stood in the way of you nominating YOUR guy. How'd that turn out for ya? Not good...and even worse for the country. Thanks a bunch.<br />
<br />
Now things have turned down right nasty. You don't just support your chosen candidates anymore, you destroy any conservative who stands in the way. It started in Virginia with their 2013 elections. If you had show an ounce of support for Cuccinelli there is little question he'd have won and Virginia would have been spared such an uniquely piss poor governor for the next four years.<br />
<br />
Then came the primary season...California, Oklahoma, Iowa, Mississippi and many more. You couldn't just let two good candidates fight it out and save your bias for the general election by supporting whom the party in each state nominated, could you? You had to lie, cheat, destroy any conservative who stood in your way. And its quite clear you do so because you are so confident that we'll still vote GOP no matter how many times you piss on us.<br />
<br />
But let me point something out to you about that Romney thing. Barack Obama received 5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008...while Romney couldn't even garner as many as McCain got in 2008. You had the perfect chance to defeat Obama. His support was never going to be as strong as it was in 2008. Too many eyes were opened to what he was doing. But instead of riding the wave of the TeaParty and the conservatives in the party, you shoved a terrible candidate down our throats, the very last one any conservative wanted. And what was the result? Millions of us stayed home. Why do you think we lost house seats and even Senate seats? Because you forced us to stay home.<br />
<br />
You're about to do the same thing again in 2014. You have pissed on us far too many times. We won't stand for it anymore. You may actually survive the election and win the Senate. But I will tell you this, get your affairs in order, because that may be the last thing the GOP ever wins. Every time you piss on us, you lose tens of thousands of more voters....you assure that the third party you've been terrified of will emerge and YOU...and the American people will be the ultimate losers.<br />
<br />
Why? Because those liberals you so adoringly embraced in Mississippi to help ole boy Thad win the nomination will show you no mercy. They will wipe the floor of every political corner with the corpse of the GOP party and frankly I'm not sure our country will survive....thanks to YOU.<br />
<br />
Bottom line...you lost me. I'm out. The GOP no longer represents my political beliefs. And I will no longer support it. You are no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. You wanted to be the party of Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Thad Cochran and that's how you'll be remembered.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-64726502018075854572014-06-26T16:03:00.001-07:002014-06-26T16:23:39.379-07:00A Free Press Is No Longer Free When They Fail To Defend That Freedom<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"><span style="background-color: #f4cccc; font-size: x-small;"><i>"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."</i> --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491 </span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">For more than two hundred years our country has stood tall on the liberties afforded us by God, and protected by our Constitution. But as we have come to realize over decades of progressively more vile corruption in government, the only real security we have against a small ruling elitist group of people from completely reversing the course of individual liberty in this country is us...we, the people.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Every despot, every dictator has known throughout history that their power is only safe so long as they can control the spread of opinions that contradict their authority. Once the people rise up in opposition to their authority, they have no power to squelch them. Sooner or later they will fall.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">This is exactly why one of the most vital actions any despotic ruler must take in gaining control over the masses is to control the distribution of information...i.e. - Control the Media. And this is exactly why our Founding Fathers thought so highly about insuring that our press is free from government intrusion, as well as being free from government influence. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">All leaders in any government eventually fall prey to the temptations to cut corners in pursuit of their political agendas. None have been more emboldened to do so than this generation of politicians. Not fifty years ago if any of the things that today's politicians do with regularity were even tried by any politician from either side of the aisle our press would have exposed them like a string bikini.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Today, not only are our politicians emboldened by the lack of press scrutiny, they're encouraged by the level of actual unwillingness there is in the press to investigate corruption in government...EXCEPT...when it comes to politicians who don't fit in nicely with the agenda of the ruling class...think Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herb Cain, etc. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The number of scandals in this administration alone could conceivably total more than all previous administrations combined. I know, I'm being ridiculous. Or am I? I don't really know, I haven't really researched it. I do know, however, that there is little doubt that if any previous administration, especially a Republican one, had done a tenth of the things this administration has done that the press would have excoriated them.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Now days, the press is no long independent of the government. They are no longer guardians of free access to information. They are no longer concerned with informing the public with anything more than what their handlers direct them to do. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The public's perception of the press has followed suit. Less than 25% of us still trust the media to present us with the truth. The consequences of this are beyond conception. How does one make an informed decision when they can't trust the information they're getting as being real or true.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Let me set an example. We all know of the Sandy Hook mass shooting. We all know that 26 people died from one shooter. But did you know there are no death certificates on file. All people were pronounced dead on the scene by police...not in the hospital by medical personnel...that the shooter, a young boy was supposedly hauling around 50+ lbs of guns and ammo and shooting people with the accuracy of a world class shooter? Did you know that there is a great deal of evidence suggesting the entire Sandy Hook incident was a staged "wag the dog" event? </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Do I believe it? I don't know. I don't know what to believe anymore. Can our government pull something like that off? I don't know anymore. And why don't I know? Because my ability to trust the press to present me with nothing but the facts is almost non-existent. Because my ability to believe that there are limits to what these elitists can do with the press sitting completely in their pocket is null and void. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">How does the head of the IRS walk into a hearing in Congress tell us that the emails of seven relevant members of the congressional investigation were destroyed in a computer crash in two different cities that didn't effect anyone else...also happened at a time when there were no redundant back ups for those emails and the copies in the mailboxes of the people to whom they sent mail were also not there...that there were no hard copies of these emails despite the law that requires there be. How does he say that with a straight face and the entirety of the US news corp NOT rush to find answers to how this happened and who's getting fired for it happening.?</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">How do four Americans die in Benghazi under the cloud of accusations that it happened as a result of illegal gun running to Syrian rebels through Libya and the entirety of the news media NOT rush the White House, State Department and Pentagon demanding answers? Why is the only personality on any major network who took the time and energy to do her job to investigate this event end up being forced out of her job by the very network executives who hired her to do such work?</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The news media in the United States is no longer reliable, trustworthy or worthy of the exemptions and protections our Constitution affords them. They must begin to, once again, become the watchtowers of our society or face the inevitable consequences of the corruption they have become so willing to protect. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, SansSerif, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: aliceblue; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-34579770081250665502014-06-18T15:21:00.001-07:002014-06-18T15:21:44.324-07:00Historical Connection: Nixon and ObamaEveryday I roam through Facebook, news sites, blogs, and various other postings online seeing people call for Barack Obama's impeachment. The long list of potential violations have been often published, updated and republished. <br /><br />At one time, recently, I listed off thirty-five different scandals within this administrations. Admittedly, not all of them would be impeachable offenses. But no less than 8-10 would be impeachable offenses. Here's that list (and yes, I would not be surprised that others could be added):<br /><br />Libya<br />
Benghazi<br />
Bergdahl/5 Taliban Leaders<br />
Solyndra<br />
Fast n Furious<br />
Obamacare (multiple incidents)<br />
The Border (multiple incidents)<br />
IRS<br />
NSA<br />
Assassination of US citizens<br />
<br />
Below are the exact Articles of Impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974. I've taken the time to highlight the sections of the articles for which I believe our current president could also be impeached. I invite you to post comments agreeing or disagreeing with those highlights and/or adding others.<br />
<br />
For those not interested in doing that activity, read them anyway and tell me WHY this president has not been impeached yet.<br />
<br />
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.<br />
<br />
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, <b><i><span style="color: red;">in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice</span></i></b>, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, <span style="color: red;"><b><i>using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.</i></b></span> The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:<br />
<br />
(1) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States</i></b></span>.<br />
<br />
(2) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States</i></b></span>.<br />
<br />
(3) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings</i></b></span>.<br />
<br />
(4) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by</i></b></span> the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and <span style="color: red;"><i><b>congressional committees</b></i></span>.<br />
<br />
(5) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in</i></b></span>, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of <b><i><span style="color: red;">obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated</span></i></b> in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.<br />
<br />
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.<br />
<br />
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.<br />
<br />
(8) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation</i></b></span> of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or<br />
<br />
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.<br />
<br />
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon <span style="color: red;"><b><i>has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States</i></b></span>.<br />
<br />
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.<br />
<br />
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)<br />
<br />
Article 2: Abuse of Power.<br />
<br />
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.<br />
This conduct has included one or more of the following:<br />
<br />
(1) <span style="color: red;"><b><i>He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.</i></b></span><br />
<br />
(2) <b><i><span style="color: red;">He misused</span></i></b> the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other <span style="color: red;"><b><i>executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, </i></b></span>the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.<br />
<br />
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.<br />
<br />
(4) <span style="color: red;"><i><b>He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act</b></i></span> when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.<br />
<br />
(5)<span style="color: red;"><i> In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power </i></span>by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, <span style="color: red;"><b><i>in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.</i></b></span><br />
<br />
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.<br />
<br />
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.<br />
<br />
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)<br />
<br />
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><i>In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued</i></b></span> by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. <span style="color: red;"><i><b>The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.</b></i></span><br />
<br />
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.<br />
<br />
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.<br /><br />So, again, I ask, why has this president NOT been impeached. The duty of the House of Representatives to file and vote upon impeachment papers is not dependent upon the political expediency of filing or not filing. They have their own constitutional obligation to do what is lawfully necessary without bias or prejudice. They are obligated to do what it necessary whether or not their own individual or party's positions of power are at risk or not. They are obligated to their constitutional duties whether or not there are social, political or other risks apparent.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-1331616812164167702013-12-05T15:14:00.003-08:002013-12-06T01:40:08.923-08:00Obamacare: A Moment of Enlightenment For Our Young Voters<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Obama is so blatantly obvious. Everything he does is designed to garner votes for either himself or his party. Look at this. CLEARLY he knew that he was BSing the Millenium generation about Obamacare. He knew full well that the only way for Obamacare to not collapse on itself was for him to force tens of millions of healthy AND YOUNG Americans off their current plans and onto the exchanges. He knew long ago this would mean jacked up rates for those people. So what does he do to alleviate the fallout?:</span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); box-sizing: border-box; color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;" />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">1) Letting families keep kids on their plans till age 26. Why is that important? Because it keeps those young people from seeing...and worse, feeling...the actual impact of Obamacare on their rates. Their parents might complain, but what the hell do these young people care...if their parents are paying the premiums.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); box-sizing: border-box; color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;" />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">2) Pushing for increase in minimum wage. Why is that important? Because these young people don't understand the consequences of raising the minimum wage. They just see a bigger pay check. They hardly notice that their bosses are firing people or cutting hours because as business owners they know full well that they have to have a very specific budget to make ends meet...and if they can't afford to raise prices or do other things to raise revenues to justify the higher payroll costs that their only recourse is to cut hours and/or fire people. Nor do these young people notice that higher minimum wages merely means prices rise on everyday goods. And that the rich business owners aren't the ones who'll suffer from higher costs...THEY will, along with their parents.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); box-sizing: border-box; color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;" />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">3) Next on the list...forgiveness of student loans. Why is that important? Duh!! Do these young people give a rip that the debt doesn't just go away? it's still gotta be paid by someone, sometime. They just know they won't have to make a monthly payment. But who cares the consequences? Nor does Obama care the negative consequences so long as he reels the young vote back into the fold. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); box-sizing: border-box; color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;" />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">After decades of following politics I'm convinced of one thing: Democrats have no principles. They will do whatever they have to...spend whatever money they don't have...say whatever lie they must to garner the votes they need to obtain the power they want. Does that mean the GOP don't do similar things? No. But when you have principles, which I think most conservative politicians do (to some small degree at least), those principles hamper the depth to which you go to garner those votes. Conservatives have thought for generations that the fundamental principles of the American Dream and the possibilities that this country affords it's people would be enough to garner all the votes they need. The problem is, however, that the liberals have succeeded over multiple generations in obstructing the view of most people as to what it actually takes to have something in this life. Generation after generation has become number and number to the values that must accompany freedom and prosperity...the principles of hard work, wisdom, charity and self-reliance. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); box-sizing: border-box; color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;" />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.952941); color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Conservatives have a golden opportunity through the eye-opening consequences of Obamacare to enlighten a new generation to the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon. We have a true chance to win over the minds of our young in a way we've not had in more than 30 years. Unlike 30+ years ago, however, we have no Ronald Reagan to rally around. We must join as one to achieve this. Make it work, friends. This may be our last chance.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-40287576090181961132012-09-26T12:26:00.000-07:002012-10-01T01:11:20.111-07:00Top 25 Numbers of the Obama AdministrationIt's been quite awhile since I've written a blog post. But I think it is time to write again. This first post is in response to the 47% comment made by Romney at that fundraiser last spring. Now, you won't get an argument from me about whether he articulated his point well or not. I don't think he did. But a simple reading of the text will reveal that the 47%, as he put it, actually represents the percentage of people he surmises would never vote for him no matter what. He did NOT say that he didn't care about those people. What he DID say was that he is not going to waste time trying to convince them to vote for him. That he was more concerned about winning the votes of the 6-10% who are undecided.<br />
<br />
That being said, even IF you could turn his 47% into a negative number and attach it to his campaign, let's take a look at the top 25 'numbers' associated with Obama and let's see if they sway any of those 6-10% undecided.<br />
<br />
1) +8.0% unemployment - 44 straight months<br />
<br />
2) 11.4% TRUE unemployment<br />
<br />
3) 14.8% REAL unemployment<br />
<br />
4) 23million unemployed or underemployed<br />
<br />
5) 47million on food stamps<br />
<br />
6) $16Trillion in Debt....YES, Mr. President, WE remember.<br />
<br />
7) 1 in 6 living in poverty<br />
<br />
8) 8.2% decline in median income per household<br />
<br />
9) more new welfare recipients than jobs created last month<br />
<br />
10) 6million middle class families paying the Obamacare TAX<br />
<br />
11) 4 dead Americans in Libya<br />
<br />
12) 100+ golf rounds<br />
<br />
13) 150+ fundraisers (including one the day after 4 dead Americans)<br />
<br />
14) less than 40% of intelligence briefings attended<br />
<br />
<!--40--><!--40--><br />
15) who know how many dead because of Fast and Furious<br />
<br />
16) 1/3 of the Gitmo detainees to be released...nicely timed announcement after Libya<br />
<br />
<br />
17) $3.85/gallon gas<br />
<br />
18) 40+ czars with no Senate approval<br />
<br />
19) $1.8T/year revised cost of Obamacare<br />
<br />
20) $716B taken from Medicare to make Obamacare APPEAR revenue neutral<br />
<br />
21) $300K...average cost from the stimulus per job created or saved (and that's ONLY if you believe the Obama Administration's claim that the Stimulus created or saved 4 million jobs)<br />
<br />
22) >$500M to Solyndra<br />
<br />
23) $3000 average increase in the cost of family health insurance.<br />
<br />
24) $2500 what Obama said would be the average DECREASE in the cost of health insurance through Obamacare.<br />
<br />
25) ZERO - number of budgets passed in the last 3+ years<br />
<br />
Let's hope that last number also represents the number of additional years Obama remains our president.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-42154454023004685302012-01-11T15:14:00.001-08:002012-01-11T15:14:45.892-08:00What is Newt Really Attacking?Look, people, let's get this straight about what exactly Newt did when attacking some of the practices of Mitt/Bain Capital. He is not attacking capitalism. He is attacking certain practices of Bain Capital that are, in his mind, a CORRUPTION of the capitalistic system. Attacking one person's corrupt VERSION of capitalism is NOT the same as attacking capitalism.<br /><br />Republicans took a vow a couple of years ago to place a moratorium on earmarks. Earmarks, as Santorum and RP have shown, are very much a constitutional principle. The stand against earmarks was not a stand against the Constitution. It was a stand against what has become a CORRUPT version of earmarks...where they are used as a payback to political supporters.<br /><br />The problem with Bain and Mitt is not that they are capitalists...but that in some of their acquisitions they stepped over the line and abused the capitalist system to gain bigger profits.<br /><br />The argument that this somehow sounds like the liberals when they attack capitalism is absurd. Perhaps the complaints are similar but what's wrong with pointing out problems that are occurring in our system. The big difference is that when liberals complain about things like this their solution is END capitalism. Newt is nowhere even remotely suggesting that. He IS, however, suggesting that there IS a place for us, even as conservatives, to say that there ARE corruptions within our system...and it IS our duty to point them out AND offer ways to fix them in our efforts to restore integrity to that system.<br /><br />The entire TP movement is ABOUT pointing out the corruptions in our system...our VERY GOOD system of government. Are WE advocating ending that system and installing a different one? Hell no. We are looking to weed out the corruption and fix the problems that are giving our VERY GOOD SYSTEM a bad name. <br /><br />Newt is doing nothing different. We should be embracing what Newt is doing. The entire OWS movement is trying to convince enough people to join them in their efforts to replace our entire economic and political system because of corruptions IN that system just like what Newt is pointing out in Bain Capital. Instead of fighting against OWS by denying that such corruptions exist...we should be the one LEADING the fight to weed out those corruptions to restore the integrity of the economic and political systems we cherish so highly.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-73035290612812270352011-12-18T11:42:00.000-08:002011-12-18T12:45:56.714-08:00Leadership vs. IdealsThere are numerous reasons why our government is made up of three branches of government. There are reasons why the legislative branch has two chambers. There are many reasons why there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate. But the common reason for all these things lay in the fact that our country is made up millions upon millions of people all with different ideas of what liberty means to them. And as a country of liberty, the number one role of government is to protect that liberty, not, as some would think, to hoist upon the others their definition of what 'liberty' means.<br /><br />There is no question that Washington has become deeply corrupted by lobbyists and special interests groups. It has always been a strategy of power to pool resources. That's the fundamental purpose of those lobbyists and special interest groups. That being said, the corruption of buying votes in Congress is rampant and unchecked at this point. But that begs the question, how do we change that? How DO we bring our country back more in line with the foundations of our Constitution?<br /><br />First, let me say that lasting change must come from two different directions concurrently. The internal enemies of our country, Progressives/Liberals/Socialist/etc, have gotten this country to where it is through decades of unrelenting work at taking over our education system, our entertainment industry, our media and even our churches. If we are going to bring our country back to the right...and keep it there...we cannot simply elect a good conservative president and re-take the Senate. We must commit ourselves to retaking those institutions where the Progressives have won the hearts and minds our young.<br /><br />That being said, this coming presidential election carries significant importance. Newt Gingrich has been criticized over the course of the campaign for having called Paul Ryan's plan for our Medicare system, "right wing engineering". However, if you look at the video, he wasn't speaking of what he thought of the plan itself...but what he thought of the method of trying to pass such aggressive reformations without a strong consensus from the people. In his thought, it was no different than what Obama did in forcing Obamacare onto the people without our support. As much as the ideas Ryan proposed were good, and Newt said as much, it was not a good idea to push them onto the people without a consensus from them to pass such legislation.<br /><br />That, in a strong sense, is what we're facing in this election. We COULD vote in someone with strong conservative convictions and an uncompromising commitment towards governing strictly by the Constitution. But there are two problems with that. One, how does an UNcompromising president get anything passed through a Congress where his uncompromising manner would rapidly isolate him from? And two, even if he were to garner sufficient support from Congress to pass his legislative proposals, would such dramatic changes in our society be acceptable to a large enough segment of society that it wouldn't come back on him through social revolt? People don't like change as it is...and they certainly won't like the rug of how they're used to having things done pulled out from under them. It makes them feel off balance, insecure, and the first sense they have that things aren't going the way they were told they would, they're bail back the security of the way things were. <br /><br />So let's look at the candidates and see them through these filters:<br /><br />Senator Santorum has a reasonable good history as Senator. He's been in positions where he has helped the leadership in the GOP to accomplish many good objectives. Congresswoman Bachmann has not had a long career in the House, and although she has been outspoken and a verbal leader in the House, she has rarely been in a position of leadership and thus, has never had to do the work necessary to garner the support needed to pass any of her proposals. Dr. Paul is, in my opinion, much worse. In 24+ years as a congressman, he has never once shown the ability to author a bill and garner the support necessary to get the bill passed. For all their idealism, neither Bachmann nor Paul have ever shown they have the skill set necessary for a president to implement their ideals into legislation.<br /><br />We could also vote for someone with executive experience. There are three candidates in this campaign who have had to do their share of compromising in order to get things done in their respective states. Mitt Romney had to do it in a state where conservatism is almost an endangered species. In doing what he did, he actually didn't enact much of anything by way of conservative principles. Is that his fault? Does that mean Mitt is not a conservative? We don't really know. That's sort of the problem. Governors Perry and Huntsman did well in their states while working with conservative legislatures. Even so, Governor Huntsman still espouses to more moderate views on many issues. Governor Perry has done well with a supportive legislature and his views still remain conservative. How he would do with an uncooperative legislature is not known.<br /><br />Lastly, we have former Speaker, Newt Gingrich. For a large portion of Newt's twenty years in Congress, he has been in a position of leadership. He was Minority Whip for several years. The Whip is the person in the party who goes around whipping up support for an upcoming vote. He will work the members of, in his case, the GOP caucus to get them to vote in a way the Caucus leaders would like them to vote. He also is the one to whom those members will communicate their concerns over a specific bill. They will also let the Whip know if there is anything they want added to or changed in a bill before they will vote for or against it. <br /><br />As Speaker, his position and power was even greater. He had to make sure that he had enough votes to get his bills through. He had to make sure to work with the president to ensure his signature. In his years as Minority Whip, Newt had to work with first a GOP president (Bush, Sr.) and then a Dem. president (Clinton). As Speaker, he had to work solely with a Dem. President.<br /><br />The most common thing that we idealists forget when vetting our candidates is the fact that a president, as a leader, in order to garner sufficient support to get his agenda passed into law, must know how to work with people with political ideologies quite different than their own. We've seen over the past three years what happens when we have an idealistic president who hasn't the skill set to work with a Congress that isn't always on the same page as he is. When he had a majority in Congress, he still had to force his ideas onto us (Obamacare). He was able to garner enough votes within his own party to pass those bills, but the public, to this day, is still rebelling against it. And when he no longer had a majority in Congress, he was completely exposed for his utter inability to get anything accomplished. <br /><br />Do we want our next president to be in the same boat? Ideals are wonderful...and are easy to have when you aren't in a position of leadership. I want a president who has ideals...but also has the will power and wisdom to be able to pick and choose what to push for and when to push for it...how to negotiate for what he wants and knows how to get things done. Does it mean sometimes he has to put aside some of his goals, for now, in order to achieve the more important one today? Yes. And frankly, we NEED a President who knows how that's done. <br /><br />THAT is why I will vote for Newt Gingrich. Has he had to put aside some ideals at certain times in order to achieve what he perceived was a higher ideal? yes. Does that make him less conservative? You could argue that, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it. That's called leadership. And we definitely need a leader. We need someone capable pulling the country away from the left and back to the right. Would we like it if he could pull us ALL the way back to the right? Sure. Can that be done this time round? In my opinion, no. It has to be done in stages. That's how we got in this mess in the first place.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-20671371732079225822011-12-18T01:22:00.000-08:002011-12-18T01:23:17.935-08:00The Ron Paul Laundry List<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says “If you have the inconsistency then you’re not defending liberty.” Paul has always been inconsistent. This inconsistency was noted by conservative commentator Mark Levin who says “Paul is poison. Hate America first crowd.” </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">A major reason is because the Texan advocates policies which are the exact opposite of his rhetoric. If you visit his website it indicates he supports many things he actually opposes.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> With Ron Paul you always have to read the fine print. His speeches before conservative audiences are often impressive, but the reality is completely different. Some examples are:</span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Paul is a registered Republican but expresses considerable disdain for the GOP. He says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. In 1987 the Congressman said “I want to completely disassociate myself from Ronald Reagan,” and described his administration as a “dramatic failure.”</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">He accused George H.W. Bush of war crimes, and wanted to impeach George W. Bush because of the non-existent North American Union. He says Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is part of the “international conspiracy” and endorsed his primary opponent.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Paul refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, and was the only Republican to express approval when Democrats captured control of the House and Senate in 2006. If Paul is not nominated, he refuses to pledge support the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.</span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">The Congressman says he supports a strong national defense and emphasizes his military service. He was an Air Force gynecologist who never left the United States. Today he wants to cut $1 trillion out of the Pentagon budget. He would abandon NATO and abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">He would give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. He would also ignore the major lesson from WW I and WW II, collective security. He would abandon our allies who paid 100% of the costs of Operation Desert Storm and have suffered 35% of all combat casualties in Afghanistan.</span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">The Texan says he is an advocate of free trade, but opposes practically every free trade agreement. As the Club for Growth notes, Paul “lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that ‘tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,’ but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He claims to be a right to life champion, but his plan allows abortion on the state level. He is against taxpayer funded abortions but not self paid abortions in the states’ rights category.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He claims to be against illegal immigration. He did vote for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and claims to support the Border Fence, but he also voted against it on numerous occasions and has repeatedly said it is not needed. He says sensors at the border are enough. He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient.</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The Border Patrol is not mentioned in the Constitution and he use to claim they were unconstitutional. On one hand Paul is arguing for complete sovereignty and isolationism, but on the other hand he is opposing the border fence.</span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He also claims to be against amnesty but his book, <i>Liberty Defined</i>, advocates it. He claims to be against birthright citizenship but his book supports it. He also opposes the E-Verify system to check employment.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He says we should not tell other countries what to do, but is always the first to criticize Israel. </span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He describes himself as a fiscal conservative but he has voted for numerous pork barrel projects and was against the Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto. He says it is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to the president. Paul is one of only four Republicans who supports earmarks, and opposes the GOP Ryan plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Ron Paul says he is for health care reform, but he opposes the GOP plan. Republicans believe excessive litigation increases health care costs and they advocate tort reform. Ron Paul is against it because it “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.”</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">According to the <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i>: “Ten years ago, 19 hospitals in Philadelphia were in the business of delivering babies. Next month, only eight will remain.” This is because of “high expenses for malpractice insurance.” The result is that hospitals lose about “$2000 per delivery” and are being forced to close their OB units. </span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He says the growth of entitlements are a major problem and admits they are insolvent, but opposed George Bush’s social security reforms. Paul wants to end social security, medicare and medicaid, but would not accept the Bush plan as a interim step to reduce costs.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He has criticized welfare for decades but was one of of just four GOP Congressmen who voted against extending welfare reform in 2002. Most Americans are not fond of welfare but the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996″ was a GOP proposal signed by a reluctant Bill Clinton.</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">When Clinton added his signature the sign on his desk said “Welfare to Work,” and the promise came true. The act resulted in a large reduction in the number of people collecting welfare and that is why Republicans have supported its continuation.</span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Paul says he is against gun control but advocates policies which would allow states to disarm their residents.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He says he is against gay marriage, but voted against the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The amendment would have outlawed gay marriage but not civil unions. At the 2007 Values Voter Debate Paul said, “True Christians believe marriage is a church function, not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.” By that definition any liberal church would be free to perform gay marriages that would be recognized by the state. </span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">As a medical doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and to “prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” Nevertheless, Paul is at the forefront of the anti-vaccine movement which has had a serious impact.</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Now the U.S. is struggling with a large number of cases of measles and other disease which were once thought to have been eradicated. According to the Centers for Disease Control, America is experiencing the largest outbreak in 15 years.</span></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">His admirers claim he is the only truthful lawmaker on Capitol Hill, but he tells outrageous lies. Paul falsely claims 1) Israel created Hamas, 2) Palestinians are starving and confined to a “concentration camp,” 3) the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the first Afghan War, 4) the CIA is behind the sale of illegal drugs, and 5) there is an “international conspiracy” focused on the non-existent North American Union.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Rep. Paul has won the presidential straw vote at the last two Conservative Political Action Conferences, but his 2011 rating from the liberal ACLU is 80%. They oppose all aspects of the War on Terror. Paul voted against the constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. He is against the death penalty, allowing silent school prayer, and school vouchers.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Paul claims to be a champion of individual liberty but is the only lawmaker to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Act, and voted against the legislation on its 40th anniversary. This is the law which allows blacks to eat at the lunch counter and says they cannot be turned away from hotels.</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Ron Paul is not a conservative or a “Constitutionalist.” He is a libertarian who has been consistent since his election to Congress in 1976 in advocating unilateral disarmament of America’s defense and trade policy. Many of his supporters describe themselves as conservatives, but they back a national security agenda which is almost identical with the radical left.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Among the many additional reasons conservatives should oppose him are:<b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>DEFICIT SPENDING: </b>He claims to be for limited government but Ron Paul was one of four Republicans who opposed the Paul Ryan budget plan to reduce the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade. Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Paul said it did not cut enough, but he would not accept the Ryan plan as a starting point. He also said it was “maintaining our empire” and “being the policeman of the world.” </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">EARMARKS: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">He is the only GOP candidate who continues to support earmarks and pork barrel spending. When Neil Cavuto asked him about this Paul replied: “I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Earmarks are placed in appropriations bills while they are in committee. This is what Paul has always done, and then he claims to have never voted or an earmark. He votes against every appropriations bill but knows they will pass by a wide margin.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The end result is that he receives his usual $400 million in earmarks every year. In Texas he brags about these pork barrel projects, but in the presidential campaign he claims to be against earmarks. Paul is one of only four Republicans on Capitol Hill who requested earmarks in the 2011 budget.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul defends earmarks by saying “I don’t think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back.” The earmarks he requests are a complete contradiction of his self-proclaimed “opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>TRADE:</b> He claims to support free trade but votes against practically every free trade agreement.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He wants America to leave the World Trade Organization, and is one of the greatest protectionists in the Republican Party.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>ABORTION:</b> He claims to be pro-life, and says Right to Life is the foundation for all rights in the Constitution. He even says “life does begin at conception.” The truth is that he is really pro-choice on the state level. That is the purpose of his Sanctity of Life Bill.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He is essential saying it is fine with him to kill a child if a state agrees. During the 2008 campaign every GOP candidate had a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, except Ron Paul. He received a 65% score in 2006, 75% in 2005 and 65% in 2004. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>IMMIGRATION: </b>He claims to be against illegal immigration, but has repeatedly voted against the border fence (with one exception in 2006), as well as the E-Verify program to stop employers from hiring illegal aliens. In fact, he is against all laws prohibiting employers from hiring illegal aliens.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He opposes Arizona’s get tough policies and the deportation of people who are here illegally. He claims to oppose amnesty but that is what his program advocates. If a state wants open borders that is fine with him.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> When he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, Paul advocated the official policy of his party. He said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” At the same time he advocated the complete elimination of the Border Patrol, which he said was unconstitutional.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He has since changed his mind and now has strong rhetoric against illegal immigration on the campaign trail. This is not supported by his voting record or other actions. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) recent said: “I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend ...Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> In their “2012 Presidential Hopefuls Immigration Stances Report Card”, NumbersUSA gives him an “F” rating on immigration. The organization says:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The ratings add up to an overall stance that just barely misses warranting an F-minus and squeaks through just better than President Obama. It is significantly worse than the grade of former Speaker Newt Gingrich who had previously been the worst of all Republican Hopefuls on immigration. . . only one Republican in Congress has a worse grade on border issues than Ron Paul. Furthermore, he has failed to act in every category of immigration during this new Congress. Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose “amnesty,” Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between “legalization” or mass deportation.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> D<b>EFENSE: </b>If elected president, Paul, 75, says he could see “no reason” to ever justify military action:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The Texan wants to ignore all state sponsors of terrorism. He claims no one will ever attack us but that is what the America First isolationists said in the 1930′s right up until Pearl Harbor. The terrorists have attacked us: 1993 (World Trade Center I), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (African Embassies), 2000 (USS Cole), and 2001 (9/11). Paul’s “non-intervention” policy would have barred America from helping Europe against Hitler.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> There would have been no West Berlin airlift (1948), the North Koreans would have been allowed to take over South Korea (1950). We also would have ignored Grenada (1984), and there would have been no Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait (1991).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul says he supports a strong national defense but the $1 trillion in Pentagon reductions he is seeking would end all modernization and readiness programs. It would return America to the hollow military of the 1970s when many service members were eligible for food stamps.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Bush and Obama now agree on practically every war on terror policy including the Patriot Act and the use of Predator drones. They are opposed by Ron Paul and Code Pink. [26]<b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>FOREIGN POLICY: </b>The introduction to Paul’s book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, says the Cold War and the War on Terror are both a “farce”, and designed to justify a larger role for government. He compares the U.S. role in Iraq and Afghanistan to “a schoolyard bully.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The Congressman says if he was President:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> 1) He would not have authorized the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. He said killing bin Laden “was absolutely not necessary.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> 2) No U.S. soldiers were killed in the former Yugoslavia but he believes it was wrong to join the NATO mission which stopped genocide, ethnic cleansing and rape camps. The Milosevic dictatorship would have continued and Bosnia would have been taken over if it was up to Ron Paul.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> 3) Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to walk away, but that will not make our nation safe and it will not stop terrorism. The problems associated with radical Islamic fundamentalists will remain. It is not a problem we can just turn over to Europe or the UN (which does not have an army). If we abandon the war on terror we will soon have to confront it on the U.S. homeland.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>SADDAM HUSSEIN:</b> Ron Paul was not only opposed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to liberate Kuwait, but to this day he continues to defend the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He says Iraq invasion was justified because Kuwait broke off negotiations and was slant drilling in an attempt to steal $14 billion of Iraq’s oil.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He says “Over 500,000 people were slaughtered in Bush’s war.” The accusations are absurd. Iraq had plenty of money through the UN Oil for Food program, but the dictator decided to build 54 palaces instead of feeding his people. Kuwait never stole Iraq’s oil.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> If Rep. Paul had his way, Iraq would have been allowed to take over Kuwait and he would have done nothing if they threatened to capture three-quarters of the world’s reserves by taking over the Saudi oil fields. An attack on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have violated the UN charter and had terrible repercussions for our energy security. Paul would not have responded because “it did not involve an attack on America.” He always voted against placing sanctions on Saddam Hussein, and he opposes sanctions on Iran.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>WAR ON DRUGS:</b> Paul would immediately end the war on drugs. All dangerous drugs would be legal if they were approved by a state government.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>CIVIL RIGHTS: </b>He is the only Republican in the House or Senate who opposes the Civil Rights Act. We have heard his sovereignty arguments before. That is what the Southern states said when they started the Civil War. They said it again in the Southern Manifesto of 1957 to keep black children out of public schools, and they repeated it in 1964 when they tried to stop the Civil Rights Act. Because of states’ rights opposition, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had to send in the U.S. military to open the schools. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>HUMAN RIGHTS:</b> Rep. Paul has always been a friend of dictators because he consistently votes against sanctions and human rights resolutions. He was the only Member of Congress who voted against “condolences and sympathy” for Myanmar (Burma) after the devastating 2007 cyclone. Paul is also the only Republican Member of Congress who will not vote to condemn the Islamic Republic of Iran for gross human rights violations.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Iranian women have to endure cruel torture. They have been hanged and stoned to death for behavior which is normal in America. They are routinely jailed for the following offenses: 1) Anyone who has tucked her pants inside her boots. 2) Those who do not wear long dresses under their winter coats. 3) Those who wear a hat without wearing a scarf or Hijab underneath. 4) Long boots, tight pants and tight coats are strictly forbidden.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> When confronted with evil, Ron Paul always looks the other way. He says what happens in Iran is not our business. That was also the attitude in the 1930s when Hitler’s treatment of the Jews was well known, but was ignored by the League of Nations because it was “an internal German matter.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Similar to Paul, the isolationists in 1941 wanted to ignore Japan’s seizure of Indo-China because it did not involve an attack on the United States. The U.S. government rejected their advice and placed sanctions on Japan. America did nothing in 1933 when Japan took over Manchuria, which is one third of China. Even if there is no change, I am glad the United States has gone on record in opposition to the cruel behavior of the Islamic Republic.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>ISRAEL:</b> In defending many of his past controversial statements, the Ron Paul campaign frequently mentions his endorsement by “Americans For Israel.” This is a front group which was specifically established to promote Ron Paul. It has no other focus.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The candidate says we should worry about our own borders not Israel’s. He is the only Republican who refused to vote for the resolution condemning Iran’s President after he said “Israel should be wiped off the map.” The Congressman would end all foreign aid to Israel but never mentions that 85% of it is military assistance.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul claims Israel created the terrorist group Hamas, and the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Both statements are outrageous lies. Paul has also said he would end America’s special relationship with Israel. In “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” Paul wrote: “I see no reason that our friendship with Israel cannot continue. I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. But that also means no special privileges like foreign aid. . .” With good reason, the Republican Jewish Coalition has barred Paul from their candidate forums.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>GAZA: </b>He claims Israel is keeping food, medicine and humanitarian supplies out of Gaza, even though the Red Cross says this is not true and there is no crisis. He says Palestinians in Gaza are confined to a “concentration camp.” Israel’s blockade is only stopping weapons, but Paul says Hamas was democratically elected so they should have weapons. He believes they are entitled to more Katusha rockets even though they have already launched 10,000 of them at Israel during the last six years.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He voted against House Resolution 34 (1/09/08) recognizing Israel’s “right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks” and reaffirming U.S. support for Israel. Paul said:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side? . . I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war — and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>IRAN: </b>Ron Paul says he will not vote for a resolution criticizing Iran because 1) We should not comment on the internal affairs of another nation and 2) The Islamic Republic is not attacking anyone. Iran is the chief sponsor of the terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Their oil wealth has made them the central banker of terrorism.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Iran does have terrible financial problems, but nevertheless, the nation’s official budget lists over $1 billion which is distributed to terrorist organizations on an annual basis. They also train and provide guidance and weapons to numerous terrorist and militant organizations. They have been meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza for many years. Iran’s nuclear activities and human rights abuses are not the only ones that violate UN resolutions. The Islamic Republic’s support for terrorist organizations does so as well.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> I<b>NTELLIGENCE:</b> He accuses the CIA of being in the drug business and says they need to be “taken out. . . There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> A suicide bomber attacked Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan and took the lives of seven CIA agents. They are heroes who were on the front lines protecting us. We should be praising them, not making false allegations. The CIA did not invent crack cocaine and they have never been in the drug business. It is Muslim extremists who intentionally target civilians, not the CIA or the US military.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Rep. Paul wants to abolish the CIA and when the Wikileaks revelations were made he said:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name? . . The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>GOLD STANDARD:</b> He is the author of four books advocating a return to the gold standard. It did not work in the past, and no country has ever been able to maintain it. Gold is not sound money and it can be easily manipulated. Gold based dollars were devalued in the past to make exports cheaper. Gold would decrease the U.S. monetary supply by about half, cause massive deflation and threaten an economic collapse. The Congressman advocates private money (anyone can have their own currency), a 100% gold ratio and outlawing Fractional Reserve lending. Very few economists are advocating a gold backed dollar.<b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>ECONOMY:</b> Paul believes in the Austrian School of Economics which is totally ignored by mainstream academia. The standard economics texts used on the university level do not even mention it. There are no more than 75 scholars worldwide who follow the Austrian School while there are over 20,000 PhD level members of the American Economics Association. Mainstream economists use the scientific method, but the Austrians reject it. Mainstream economists make heavy use of statistics, but the Austrians claim they have little value. Mainstream economists believe in fiat money, while the Austrians believe in the gold standard. Libertarian economics is a small cult.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Similar to the Austrian School, Paul proposes simple but highly impractical solutions. For example, how should we solve the current crisis over the debt ceiling? It is easy according to the Congressman. Just abolish the Federal Reserve Board, declare bankruptcy and have the Fed destroy the government bonds it now holds. Paul says “We owe, like, $1.6 trillion because the Federal Reserve bought that debt, so we have to work hard to pay the interest to the Federal Reserve. We don’t, I mean, they’re nobody; why do we have to pay them off?”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> First, the Fed returns that interest to the government (it was $79 billion last year), and 2) Paul’s solution is a contractual breach and it could never happen. Unlike corporations, sovereign nations cannot declare bankruptcy, and all of America’s Federal Reserve Notes must be fully collateralized. As of last year, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks held $1.066 trillion in Treasury securities, and $925 billion was pledged to secure their note issues.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> So for the Fed to return these securities to the Treasury for cancellation would require the Fed to recall 98% of the U.S. currency in circulation. Paul’s recommendation would lead to an insolvent central bank, which he desires, but it would be disastrous for our economy.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>GUN CONTROL:</b> The Congressman has always been a strong supporter of gun rights, but his unusual views are a real danger to the Second Amendment. He rejects the entire idea that the federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> If the states did not have to follow the bill of rights they could ignore the Second Amendment and disarm their residents.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He wants no restrictions at all, but there is no right to own a bazooka, tank or fighter jet. The radical libertarians want no restrictions on gun ownership. No background checks to prevent convicted criminals, registered sex offenders, suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants or anyone else from getting their hands on fully automatic weapons.<b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND AMERO CURRENCY:</b> The Texas Congressman is a firm isolationist and wants to pull out of NATO, the WTO, and to abandon America’s veto in the UN Security Council. He promotes many conspiracy theories. He has spoken frequently of the dangers of the North American Union (NAU) and an “Amero” currency. Neither of these things exist, and were never planned by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, Paul was one of four lawmakers to co-sponsor a resolution outlawing an NAU whose only advocate was an obscure university professor.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The <i>Boston Globe</i> said Paul “has made the North American Union one of his central issues.” The NAU and the Amero are complete and total fantasy, but this conspiracy theory is difficult to ignore because in 2008 it was among the topic three subjects raised in the over 125 “Ask Mitt Romney Anything” town hall meetings. The other two were Iraq and healthcare.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The single Amero currency for the US, Mexico and Canada was proposed in 1999 by Canadian economist Herbert Grubel. This was when the euro was first entering circulation. Grubel admits no government official has ever approved of his plan, and “There wouldn’t be very much benefit for the United States.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The Congressman’s current website makes these outrageous claims: “NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY:</b> U.S./Mexico trade has quadrupled since the NAFTA agreement was signed in 1993. The agreement added to the economic boom in Paul’s home state of Texas. nevertheless, one of the Congressman’s greatest fears is a new highway.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He has nothing to worry about. The NAFTA Superhighway conspiracy theory was mentioned repeatedly by the Congressman during the 2008 campaign. When he participated in the CNN GOP presidential debate on November 28, 2007, Paul said:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> They don’t talk about it [the NAFTA superhighway], and they might not admit it, but there’s been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They’re planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The “NAFTA Superhighway” was a name private contractors gave to their proposal for expanding an existing road, Interstate 35. It was never a government project. Paul later used the term to refer to the Trans Texas Corridor which was canceled. It was always a state and never a federal initiative. Ian Grossman, a spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration told the <i>Los Angeles Times,</i> “There is no such superhighway like the one [Paul is] talking about. It doesn’t exist, in plans or anywhere else.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> This conspiracy theories were completely debunked by the <i>Washington Post’s</i> Fact Checker, <i>Newsweek</i> and the urban legend site Snopes.com. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>WERE OTHER GOP LEADERS ISOLATIONISTS? </b>The Congressman claims he is following a GOP tradition by advocating isolationism, and points to the policies of former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Mona Charen responded to this by noting:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower ‘who stopped the Korean War’ and including Nixon ‘who stopped the war in Vietnam.’ Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chile, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of ‘minding our own business.’</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>RON PAUL IS FOR A THIRD PARTY, NOT THE GOP:</b> Paul was the 1988 presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party and abandoned the GOP at that time. A vote for Paul will be a vote for a third party. He refused to support the last GOP candidate and of course he will not support the 2012 GOP nominee.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> In the last campaign he issued a “blanket endorsement” for former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) of the Green Party, independent Ralph Nader, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul endorsed the four candidates after they signed a joint policy statement to “bring the troops home, investigate the Federal Reserve,” and oppose the Patriot Act, FISA and the Military Commissions Act. The Congressman said he opposed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) because “I couldn’t find anything that we agreed on.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> When asked why he ran as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, Paul responded: “Because the system is so biased against alternative parties. . .Republicans and Democrats are actually alike on economic policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, everything. They pretend they are a little bit different. . . there’s no difference, they’re both for sending more troops to Afghanistan, they’re both for all these laws to address the subject of terrorism and the Patriot Act. There’s really no difference between them.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> McCain’s 2010 rating from the American Conservative Union is 100%, and in 2009 it was 96%. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) lifetime ACU rating as a Senator is 10%.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Rep. Paul did not see any differences and instead endorsed <b>Cynthia McKinney</b> who was the highest elected official to support the 9/11 Truth movement, which believes the U.S. government knew in advance about the attacks. She endorsed the 2008 primary opponent of Nancy Pelosi because she thought the then Speaker was not sufficiently liberal.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul endorsed <b>Ralph Nader</b> who as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000 claimed Al Gore was not a true liberal on environmental issues. He described Bush and Cheney as “war criminals.” <b>Chuck Baldwin</b> of the Constitution Party is a protectionist who is also associated with the 9/11 truth movement. He believes “the South was right in the War Between the States”, and leaders of the Confederacy were not racists. The Constitution Party opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.<b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>Bob Barr </b>of the Libertarian Party was opposed to every program in the War on Terror which was endorsed by George W. Bush and subsequently Barack Obama. Barr was employed by the ACLU to lobby against the Patriot Act.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> In 2007 he said one of the candidates he identifies with is the most liberal Member of Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the founder of the Progressive Caucus.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> When the GOP lost control of the House and Senate in 2006, Rep. Paul was pleased. Controversial radio host Alex Jones asked him if the Democratic victory wasn’t a “rejection of neo-fascist imperialism.” Paul replied, “Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I’m concerned.” <b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>ANTI-VACCINE MOVEMENT: </b>Ron Paul and his anti-vaccine supporters are wrong. Vaccinations save millions of lives every year. People no longer die of cholera, smallpox, scarlet fever, and dozens of other diseases which were once endemic to the United States.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Children should be immunized. A very small number of people have adverse reactions, but there is no reason to stop these programs. The benefits far outweigh the risks.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> We cannot return to the days when thousands of children were in iron lungs or walking on crutches because of polio. When Ron Paul was in high school he had friends and neighbors who died of polio. He admits there is an effective vaccine, but does not approve of any mandatory medical treatment because it is a violation of the 14th amendment. Paul says government “should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The Congressman was asked “If a dangerous disease was spreading like wildfire would you change your view and require immunization in a dire situation?” Paul responded “No, I wouldn’t do it, because the person who doesn’t take the shot is the one at risk.” <b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>PROSTITUTION:</b> He describes himself as an evangelical Christian, but prostitution is fine with him if it is approved at the state level. He says prostitution can be legal because it does not hurt anyone. He is wrong. It hurts the women who are being trafficked, whether it is voluntary or not. Prostitutes have been killed, but the more common problem is drug addiction. Other concerns are the spread of diseases such as HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes. Many men have brought these diseases home to their wives.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>EXTREMISM:</b> He says one of his first political mentors was the late Rep. Larry McDonald (D-GA), who was Chairman of the extremist conspiracy theory group, the John Birch Society (JBS). McDonald was the first person Paul called when he decided to run for Congress in 1974. Paul was the keynote speaker at the JBS 50th anniversary dinner. JBS is the organization which accused President Eisenhower of being an agent of the Communist conspiracy and they were thrown out of the conservative movement by Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Many JBS officials have had a prominent role in the Paul campaign.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul has voted to protect the privacy of sexual predators. He will not require operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child pornography to report it to the government. He was one of 14 Congressmen who opposed the “Child Abduction Emergency” or “Amber Alerts.” The decision to declare an Amber Alert is made by the State Police or Highway Patrol.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He said Governor Rick Perry’s (R-TX) attendance at a 2007 Bilderberg meeting was “A sign that he’s involved in the international conspiracy.” Paul also does not want the Census Bureau to be allowed to collect demographic data on age, race, and income. The data is essential for determining allocation of state and national budgets. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>NEW WORLD ORDER:</b> After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush used the phrase “new world order” in his 1991 State of the Union Address. Bush said:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a world order in which ‘the principles of justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong.’ A world where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf War put this new world to its first test. And my fellow Americans, we passed that test.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Bush later described this as the world our Founding Fathers wanted. He was definitely not referring to a world government, or a single currency, bank, or religion. Bush was never part of any conspiracy to deny Americans their rights or sovereignty. Ron Paul refused to accept this explanation, and for the past two decades he has spoken of a conspiracy. In 2007 he said:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The first President Bush said the New World Order was in tune– and that’s what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They’re working right now very significantly towards a North American Union (NAU). That’s why there’s a lot of people in Washington right now who don’t care too much about our borders. They have a philosophical belief that national sovereignty is not important. It’s also the reason I’ve made the very strong suggestion the U.S. need not be in the U.N. for national security reasons.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> There is no U.S. elected official who is advocating the programs Paul describes, and the NAU does not exist. The only group I could locate which is associated with such a strange plan is one affiliated with Ron Paul. The Congressman has been a Distinguished Counselor at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute since it was formed in 1982. Once again, Paul believes in the strange Austrian School of Economics, and one of its most important books is the massive <i>Human Action</i> by von Mises. Von Mises is the one who advocates a one world government. He says one of the four requirements for a free market is a single coersive government. The late economist believed free trade would lead to global supplier of a given product.<b> </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">ROSA PARKS:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> She started the Montgomery Bus Boycott which was a milestone in the civil rights movement, and deserves the gratitude of all Americans. The only lawmaker to vote against giving her a Congressional Gold Medal was Ron Paul.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He said medals cost too much and offered to make a personal contribution to a private medal, and also claimed Rosa Parks would not want it. Rosa Parks was alive at the time and gratefully accepted the medal.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Rep. Paul tries to portray himself as the only consistent fiscal conservative on Capitol Hill, and his supporters praise his opposition. As usual, they never tell the truth. The Rosa Parks medal did not cost the taxpayers anything.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> It was funded by the Treasury’s Private Enterprise Fund, and the entire cost was offset by replicas which sold out. The Congressman’s offer to make a personal contribution was one of his many hollow gestures. Paul’s Republican and Democratic colleagues said his arguments had no merit, and the Congressman knew they were telling the truth.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> He was a co-sponsor and voted for the Boy Scout Commemorative Coin. It came out of the same fund, but this time the profits went to the Boy Scouts, not the Treasury. The taxpayers paid for the Boy Scout coin, not the Rosa Parks medal.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>RACISM:</b> Ron Paul says he is not a racist but once again, he is the only Republican in the House and Senate who opposes civil rights. He has always denounced the legislation and voted it against it on its 40th anniversary. The “Ron Paul Report” newsletters began in 1978 and in the 1980s the publication’s gross income was in excess of $1 million/year. The newsletters were filled with racism, and for 15 years the newsletter staff included his wife and daughter.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> During the 2008 presidential campaign major publications reprinted some of the racist comments, and Paul claimed he did not know what was in the newsletter which carried his name. In the previous two decades he had never voiced a complaint.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The newsletter said: “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Along with “even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming. . . opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> The Congressman received $500 from Don Black of the white supremacy group Stormfront, and despite numerous media inquiries he never returned it. Black is also a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. According to <i>The New Republic</i>:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> “In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’ While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Paul supporters falsely claim the Congressman has been vindicated because the NAACP says he is “not a racist”. That never happened. In 2008, George Linder, the president of the Austin, Texas branch of the organization, made that statement. Linder emphasized he was speaking as a private citizen and was not authorized to speak on behalf of the NAACP. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>REAGAN, BUCKLEY AND TAFT WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED PAUL: </b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Ron Paul supporters often claim Ronald Reagan, Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft (R-OH) and conservative journalist William F. Buckley were admirers of the Texan, and would have supported him. Nothing could be further from the truth.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Despite all of Paul’s harsh comments about Reagan, his most prominent 2008 TV featured the former president. The narrator said: “We need to keep him fighting for our country,” and the words are attributed to Reagan. This was a pro forma endorsement Reagan had given to every GOP lawmaker in 1982.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> When Paul tried to use the quote in his 1996 Congressional campaign, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas to insist that Reagan had offered no recent endorsements.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Taft was an isolationist prior to WW II and opposed NATO after the war. However, Taft was not as extreme as Ron Paul. He supported the creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. He also advocated “100 percent support for the Chinese National government on Formosa,” “occasional extensions … into Europe, Asia, and Africa,” and he wanted to keep six divisions (120,000 troops) in Europe.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Buckley had libertarian tendencies and advocated the legalization of marijuana, but was not a Ron Paul supporter. He contributed to the 2008 McCain campaign. When he was running for president in 1988, Paul was the only guest on Buckley’s TV program which lasted for for an hour. A 2007 interview with the <i>Pittsburgh Tribune-Review</i>, had this exchange with Buckley:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> QUESTION: You know who Ron Paul is — the congressman. He’s derided and discounted by many conservatives and his fellow Republicans as a kook. Yet his strong stands in favor of limited constitutional government, lower taxes, more personal freedoms and nonintervention overseas make him in many ways sound like a conservative of old — a Robert Taft, or a Coolidge kind of conservative in some ways.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> BUCKLEY: “I agree, yeah.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> <b>SUMMATION – HE OPPOSES PROGRESS:</b> Ron Paul’s answer is always the same simplistic solution. Remove the role of the federal government and everything will be fine. All Republicans advocate a balanced budget and major cutbacks in government programs, but there are many vital areas in which it would be foolish to abolish federal role. The best summation of Ron Paul’s career comes from the Club for Growth in their 2007 White Paper, “Ron Paul The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that Members of Congress develop and propose idealized solutions.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-83853527017287682622011-12-07T10:47:00.000-08:002011-12-07T10:50:52.224-08:00The Unorthodoxed Genius of Sitting on a Park Bench<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In the past few months, since coming out in support of Newt Gingrich, I’ve seen hundreds of attacks against him…by conservatives.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They’ve attacked Newt from a hundred different angles.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And why not?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It’s easy to find something in his forty plus year career that you won’t like.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He’s voted more than 7200 times.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He’s given more than 15000 speeches.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He’s written hundreds of articles, papers and books on dozens of topics.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>His career has spanned ten presidents. He’s fought from a position of minority.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He’s battled to bring the GOP back into power in Washington.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Considering the sheer volume of information available about Newt and from Newt it would be nearly impossible to do an exhaustive and copious study of his position on any single issue, let alone all of them. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That being the case, I believe the single most telling incident in his personal history lay on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Newt has written it off as one of the dumbest things he’s done in recent history.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Yet conservatives just won’t let it go.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The answer to that question may best be found in understanding what it was that Newt was trying to accomplish by sitting on the bench in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>He has told us that his purpose in doing that public service ad was to show that conservatives have solutions to the issue of global climate change too.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Think about the ramifications of that statement alone.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In saying that, Newt public acknowledges there is such a thing as global climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Did he admit that man is the cause of that climate change?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But does that stop some conservatives from still attacking him for admitting that there is such a thing as global climate change?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Still, no.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Why does that bother some conservatives?<br /><br /><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That answer may be best found by first attempting to discover why Nancy Pelosi would choose to sit on a park bench with Newt Gingrich for a PSA about global climate change?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Since she’s never really spoken out as to her reasons, it would be difficult to know for sure what her motives were.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But I think we can make some educated guesses.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>First, it can be safely assumed that she…to some degree…actually believes there is global climate change occurring.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>To some conservatives it is reasonable and sane to take whatever stand a liberal has and merely take the opposite.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>She believes in global climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Therefore I should not believe in it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>But Newt takes a different approach.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Is it so distasteful to accept that the temperature of the earth does fluctuate?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It shouldn’t be distasteful.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The temperature of the earth does, indeed, fluctuate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>By admitting that, while sitting on that park bench, Newt accomplishes several things: 1) he disarms Nancy’s stage one attack against conservatives.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>You see, it’s like this.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>She knows that when she, as a liberal, says the sky is blue, that the knee-jerk reaction of many conservatives will be to argue that the sky ISN’T blue. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It makes a certain segment of conservatives sound a bit insane.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>By accepting the premise that there is such a thing as global climate change, Newt takes that weapon away from Nancy.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>2) Because Newt accepted that premise, he is afforded a stage whereby he can stand in opposition to Nancy’s second premise that mankind is a major contributor to climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Some conservatives would then take this opportunity to stand tall and argue with Nancy that this isn’t true at all.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But again Newt takes a different approach in an attempt to, again, disarm her further.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He doesn’t argue that man is NOT the cause of climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He argues that he doesn’t know.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He argues that there are scientists who stand on either side of that debate.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And he argues that there isn’t enough evidence either way.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In doing this he places the onus upon Nancy to either accept the reasonableness of Newt’s claim that there is no conclusive evidence either way or risk sounding unreasonable and argumentative herself.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In a matter of a few seconds, Newt has completely turned the tables on Nancy regarding this issue.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>She must now either accept that there is no solid evidence either way regarding man-made climate change or risk giving the high ground to Newt and conservatives.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>However, at this point, it’s actually too late.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Newt has won the battle to control the conversation.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>No one is asking Nancy what her position is on this issue.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>No one is asking her what her solutions are.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Everyone knows.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>She believes in climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>She believes man-made activities is a major cause of that climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And we know she believes that the solutions lay in giving the federal government more power of our lives so they can control our country’s ‘carbon footprint’ as a whole.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /><br /><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>But instead of people asking Nancy or even giving her the time of day in that discussion, people are looking at Newt and asking him what HIS ideas are for this issue.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>HE gets to show his ideas.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He gets the microphone and he gets to tell what he would do.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He gets to tell people that he does believe the global climate is changing.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He gets people to nod in agreement with him when he presents the saner idea that there IS no solid evidence either way regarding man’s involvement in causing that change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And then he gets to present his solutions: an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy and alternative energy sources, free market approaches, and ideas that not only can be labeled “green”, but also would stimulate free market enterprises and capitalism.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" > </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Unfortunately, many conservatives don’t see it that way still.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They approach it in a manner that allows liberals to dictate our positions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They take position A, so we must take the opposite.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Many people forget that Conservatism is not the most extreme right end of the political spectrum.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>To the far right of conservatism are the Reactionaries.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Such a perfect word for what I’ve been describing about some conservatives.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>They approach political issues by reacting to what their opposition does.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Liberals believe X, so they REACT and decide they must believe Y.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Instead, Newt’s approach is one of initiation.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Why should the left be the ones initiative intellectually engagement?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Why should they get to make the first move?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Many in the political world call this “getting out in front of an issue”.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Take control of the dialog.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Show yourself to be the sane one…the logical one…the reasonable one.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Place the onus upon your opponents to either agree with YOU or risk being labeled the insane one, the illogical one, the unreasonable one.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Times New Roman","serif"font-family:";" ><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>If you view Newt’s record, history and approach to virtually every issue, this is how he does it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He disarms his opponents by laying the groundwork regarding those aspects of an issue that they can both agree upon.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Then he looks for the first opportunity to show himself and his views to be the sane, logical and reasonable ones…putting his opponents in the position of having to react to him.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>By doing that, he takes control of the dialog and he becomes the one people turn to for ‘solutions.’<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I guarantee you that if you look at Newt’s historical views on any issue, this is how he has approached it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>There is an old saying that if want to change the direction that a stubborn horse is going, you don’t yank on the reigns and try to fight the horse.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Instead you climb on its back and start by riding it in the direction it’s already going and slowly begin to guide it back to where you want it to go.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>There is no better analogy of Newt’s approach to virtually every issue.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He’s been doing it this whole campaign.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He refuses to get into a battle of 30 second attack ads with his fellow Republicans.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He’s stood his ground on that and merely taken every opportunity possible to share his message.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Little by little people went from one clanging cymbal to another until finally there was Newt doing the same thing he’s always done…and looking better and better all the time.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Slowly turning the horse.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-51185307028413015362011-12-05T22:38:00.000-08:002011-12-05T22:42:17.638-08:00Response To Ed Evans<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> </p><p><span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">Let's begin with.... GINGRICH HAS NOT FOUGHT ON LIFE ISSUES</span></span><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich: “My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion.” [Face The Nation, 4/9/1995]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">He was absolutely right.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Explain how he is wrong in his view?</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><br /></b><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich: Abortion “has diverted Republican energies and it has led the Republican party into a very dangerous period of focusing on what divides us rather than what unites us.” [Washington Post, 1/22/1990]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">He’s absolutely right too.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The TP movement is PROOF of that.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The vast majority of the TP’s success is attributed to the fact that they focus on THREE very powerful issues that unite most, if not all, conservatives.</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><br /></b><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">In a 2005 interview, Gingrich stated that abortion should be illegal, but was unsure about how to enforce that provision. He stated that punishing doctors who perform the procedure was preferable to punishing women who have an abortion.</span></p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">In 1995, Congress put forth an amendment in response to Clinton administration actions that defined an abortion in response to rape or incest as medically necessary that allowed each state to opt out of this provision and decline funding. While Congressman Gingrich stated that he himself supported funding for cases of rape or incest, he supported the amendment.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">In 2011, Congressman Gingrich supported an Ohio law that made abortions illegal after a detectable heart beat is present. His campaign literature for the 2012 Presidential election states that he supports reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, supports cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and opposes federal funding for abortion.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">While in office, Congressman Gingrich twice voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">The Hyde amendment states that federal funding for abortion cannot be used for abortion unless the abortion is medically necessary. In 1993 the Clinton administration made move to define the cases of rape and incest as medically necessary. House Republicans put forth an amendment to allow states to decline funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest. On March 2, 1995 Congressman Gingrich was quoted as supporting the amendment.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">This is not an issue which is going away. Each side of the issue will try to find their best advantage in bringing it up. All we can do is try to find a common ground to hold ourselves together while we have the debate.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">The actual wording of the amendment is identical to existing statutes and clarifies congressional intent, allowing but not requiring states to pay for abortions. I support the Istook amendment.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">On April 9, 1995 Congressman Gingrich appeared on "Face the Nation" and noted that he supported funding for an abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother.</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step. ...</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;">My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion. There are remarkably few Americans who favor abortion as a contraception or who think of abortion as a trivial matter. And so I think we can have a pretty large area of civil discussion without it breaking down into automatic hostility."</p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">PROTECTING LIFE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY<br />"There is no liberty without religious liberty” – Newt Gingrich<br /><br />The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator” – the source of our rights - from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America. </span></p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Principles to protect life and religious liberty</span></p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><ol style="font-weight: bold;" start="1" type="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list .5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.</span></li></ol><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">Newt has also suggested in speeches and interviews that he believes it to be plausible to have Congress bypass the courts over abortion and define ‘life’ as beginning at conception.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This would, as he suggests, place the unborn child into the category of citizen protected by the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment.<br /> <br /> </span></p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">I could continue, if you wish.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><br /> <br /> </span></p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">Pro-Life</span><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"><br />Yes<br /><i>"I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I'm not sure."</i><br />The American View, 2005<br /><br />Federal ban on abortions<br />Adoption<br />Supports<br /><i>And in that sense that we want to move the society as rapidly as we can that people should select <span id="IL_AD2"><span class="ilad">adoption</span></span> rather than abortion and that choosing abortion is not acceptable."</i><br />The American View, 2005<br /><br />Parental notification<br />Supportive<br /><i>“He backs parental notification before minors can have abortions”</i><br /><span class="ilad"><span id="IL_AD4">New Hampshire</span></span> Sunday News, May 15, 2011<br /><br /><span class="ilad"><span id="IL_AD6">Planned Parenthood</span></span><br />Against<br /><i>“I think that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and I think it's a very significant issue to say to people, 'Should your tax <span id="IL_AD1"><span class="ilad">money</span></span> go to pay the leading abortion provider in America?’”</i><br />Gingrich’s press release, 23 May 2011<br /><br />Embryonic <span id="IL_AD3"><span class="ilad">stem cell research</span></span><br />Against<br />Gingrich, his capacity as the Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, together with Rick Tyler, wrote a critical piece on President Obama’s decision to <i>“unilaterally lifted embryonic-stem-cell research restrictions”</i> - NewsMax, 15 March 2009</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"></span><span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">THE STORY OF GINGRICH AND FREDDIE MAC</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="commentbody"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">These are nice accusations and all…but what evidence do you have that Newt did anything but give advice to FDMC?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Do you have an iota of proof that Newt or his firm ever did anything by way of lobbying FOR FDMC?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If not, what you are suggesting is that a man should be berated for making money from a contract his firm made with another firm, just because that firm is FDMC and that firm chose to NOT take his advice and as a consequence FDMC and the mortgage industry collapsed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>You want to blame Newt for the fact that FDMC didn’t take his advice.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>How stupid is that?</span></b></span><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Freddie Mac say Gingrich was hired as a consultant to keep conservatives from tearing apart the company:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Former Freddie Mac officials…say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/2011]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich earned almost $2m working for Freddie Mac:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich Was Paid Up To $1.8 Million By Freddie Mac. “Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/2011]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">GINGRICH WAS PAID BY FREDDIE MAC AND DEFENDED THE COMPANY UNTIL THE BUBBLE BURST:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">In early 2008, while still under contract, Gingrich said that going after those responsible for the subprime lending crisis was a bad idea:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“I was very jarred last night when Senator McCain talked about maybe some people need to be punished for the subprime mortgages. I don't -- I think if we started introducing a criminalization, class warfare model, we're going to wreck this economy. And I found what he said last night about going after some people, about they may need to be punished, I thought that illustrated a very bad understanding of the free market and how this world works.” [Hannity and Colmes, 1/31/2008]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich got paid by Freddie Mac up until the end, when the government seized the company:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s $30,000-a-month consulting gig with Freddie Mac only ended after the housing meltdown forced the federal government to take over the failing mortgage giant.” [Politico, 11/17/2011]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich started criticizing Freddie Mac when they stopped paying him, talking about how close the company was to Democrats and Washington politicians:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“The speech that Senator McCain gave in which he outlined today very dramatic differences in how he would approach it and how Senator Obama would approach it -- and the difference between the Democratic Party's extraordinary closeness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two huge financial institutions that the government has temporarily taken over. I think you're going to see some very interesting fireworks over the next 46 days, and one of the questions is going to be whether or not Senator Dodd should step down as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee because, given his closeness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's inconceivable that he could be fair in writing a bill that protects the taxpayers.” [Fox News, 9/19/2008]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">October 2008, Gingrich demanded that Obama give back all the campaign contributions he received from Freddie Mac:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“I'm very saddened that John McCain hasn't had the nerve and the coherence to go nose to nose with Obama, and force Obama to give back the money that he's taken from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, forced him to fire Franklin Raines, who after all got $90 million in six years while totally mismanaging Fannie Mae.” [Fox News, 10/10/2008]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">This year, Gingrich didn’t deny that he wanted people to go to jail over being too close to Freddie Mac:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?” GINGRICH: “Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back to look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac. All I'm saying is, everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who were at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country.” [Bloomberg Debate, 10/12/2011]</span><br /> <br /> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">Is that REALLY what Newt was saying?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Is he really saying Frank should go to jail for being TOO CLOSE to FNMA and FDMC?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>You don’t think, perhaps, that he might be suggesting they go to jail for taking BRIBES from FDMC and FNMA in order to make sure that the Dodd/Frank bill didn’t do anything to regulate them?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Nah…that’s not a crime, is it?</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich said he would make his Freddie records public, but he has not:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Freddie Mac is a quasi-government agency and sometimes its records are not considered public. Gingrich said that his campaign will make the records public ‘to the degree we can,’ although he and his national spokesman R.C. Hammond declined to say a timeline when such records would be available.” [Des Moines Register, 11/16/2011]<br /><br /></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Yeah, you DO know what a confidentiality agreement is, right?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He cannot give out information that FDMC will not agree for him to release.</b><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich is incredibly saying he didn’t earn the Freddie Mac money – that his company, the “Gingrich group,” did instead:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“‘I didn’t take it,’ Gingrich said after an event at Harvard University when asked about reports that he collected nearly $2 million from Freddie Mac. He said the funds were paid to the Gingrich Group, his health care consulting firm, and he didn’t directly answer when asked if he would return the money to Freddie Mac.” [Boston Globe, 11/19/2011]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Give us one good reason why he should return the money?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Did they request a refund?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Did they sue and win judgment that his firm didn’t fulfill their contractual obligation?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Why is it that a conservative is all for capitalism EXCEPT when it doesn’t suit their predisposed opinions about someone?</b></span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Not my earnings”??<br /><br /></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Yeah, you know…like when a corporation makes money…it belongs to the corporation, not the individual.</b><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Newt Gingrich told reporters … that it ‘would be my hope’ that the Gingrich Group will release information about how much money it made from home mortgage giant Freddie Mac. … He insisted that the $1.6 million he reportedly got from the controversial quasi-governmental entity were ‘not my earnings’ and that the decision to reveal the details is not his call.” [National Journal, 11/18/2011]</span><br /><br /><b style="">It is called a confidentiality agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And whether Newt knew the full extent of the contract provisions is completely irrelevant.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It was, as I’ve said a hundred times, a case of two private sector companies doing business together.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>You don’t like how FDMC spent the money, talk to them.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Newt has made it clear that it is his contracts with ALL firms with whom he consulted that neither he nor anyone in his firm would lobby on their behalf.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He was hired not to give his stamp of approval on various companies’ plans but to give his opinion and recommendations regarding issues on the table.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If they didn’t want to take his advice, that was their choice.</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /><span style="font-family: "Cambria","serif";"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><br /></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin">GINGRICH’S 2006 IMMIGRATION STUDY</span></span><span style="font-family:"Cambria","serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin"><span class="commentbody"><a href="http://aei.org/papers/society-and-culture/ending-the-dishonesty/" target="_blank"></a></span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich: “Anything less than requiring people who are working here illegally to return home to apply for a worker visa is amnesty.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">And how is this different than his espousing of the Red Card Solution?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What’s the point to be made here?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Are you intent of making it seem like his ‘humane’ view on illegals who’ve been here for decades and have roots here is amnesty?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Would it make you feel better to be able to call it that?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If so, then tell me…how many illegals would you think (of the 11 million or so living here) would qualify under this ‘human’ part of his overall plan?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And exactly how does this ‘human’ part of his plan differ from that of Michelle Bachmann or virtually all the other candidates?</b></span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Unlike now, Gingrich wrote that those working in the U.S. illegally must return to their home country first and that visas shouldn’t be applied for from the U.S. “under any circumstances”:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Doing it the right way means that all those who are currently working in the United States illegally and who wish to apply for the worker visa program must return to their home country and apply. Application for the worker visa program should not be permitted in the United States under any circumstances.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Unlike now, Gingrich once said people could not “be allowed to start their time in the United States by breaking the law”:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Amnesty undermines the rule of law. As we learned from New York City’s successful turnaround in the 1990s, disrespect for the law, even for minor infractions, leads to lawlessness. This is as true for immigration laws as it is for urban crime. Individuals cannot be allowed to start their time in the United States by breaking the law.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Great, he’s evolved.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I like that he has on this issue.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I think it is fundamentally insane to think that you can approach 11 million illegals all the same way.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I am proud to support his ten point plan on immigration.</b></span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich said English should be America’s “primary language,” but not the “only language”:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Maintaining English as the primary language of America. English is not and never has been the only language in America. We have a long tradition of people speaking many languages in their local community and with other immigrants. But English has been and should remain our primary language.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Might wanna get this one right.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Newt actually has always advocated that English be the official language of GOVERNMENT.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He understands that the country as a whole incorporates dozens, if not hundreds of languages.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></b></span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich said illegal immigrants’ status “keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities”:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Millions of people are working here illegally because Americans are hiring them. They have jobs in your neighborhood… The illegal status of these hard working people makes them vulnerable to criminals and keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich called the U.S. immigration bureaucracy “heartless”:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“Adding insult to this state of affairs is an immigration bureaucracy that has been slow, cumbersome, rude, heartless, and incompetent in the discharge of its duties.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]<br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">It IS heartless AND insane.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>One of the very reasons why more than half the illegals are here strictly to work (and frankly, have no interest in making America their home nation) is the fact that it is utterly impossible for a foreign national to obtain a work visa quickly or even to find work on US soil while living in their home country.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If you haven’t read the Red Card Solution white paper, you should.</b></span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">Gingrich called for a work visa program for illegal immigrants that could lead to citizenship:</span><br /><br /><span class="commentbody">“A worker visa program should be established to make it easier for people to enter the country legally and to work here at a specific job for a set of period of time. This program should not be an automatic qualification for citizenship, though eventual citizenship could be held out as an opportunity.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]</span><br /><br /><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">And what exactly is the problem with this?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Please do tell me why someone who comes here on a work visa should not be allowed to get into the proper lines whereby they can make the decision to make America their home country.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Is there anything in that statement that says that Newt is advocating they get to cut to the front of the line or even to the middle of the line?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>No…<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>You really should figure out why it is you find yourself so prejudicial regarding Newt.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It honestly didn’t even take much effort to refute every note of these posts.</b></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-76139773697719457242011-12-01T13:22:00.000-08:002011-12-01T13:30:08.248-08:00Senate Bill S.1867<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Bold","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:NewCenturySchlbk-Bold;color:black">Subtitle D—Detainee Matters</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Bold","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: NewCenturySchlbk-Bold;color:black">SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(a) I</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">N </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">G</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ENERAL</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(b) <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">C</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">OVERED </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">P</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">ERSONS</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—A covered person under</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times-Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">this section is any person as follows:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(1) <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.</b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(2) <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times-Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Times-Roman;color:black"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(c) D</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ISPOSITION </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">U</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">NDER </span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">L</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">AW OF </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">W</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">AR</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(d) C</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ONSTRUCTION</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(e) R</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">EQUIREMENT FOR </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">B</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">RIEFINGS OF </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">C</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ONGRESS</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Bold","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: NewCenturySchlbk-Bold;color:black">SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(a) C</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">USTODY </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">P</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ENDING </span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">D</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">ISPOSITION </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">U</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">NDER </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">L</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">AW OF </span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">W</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">AR</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(1) I</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">N GENERAL</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(2) C</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">OVERED PERSONS</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—</b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Bold","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: NewCenturySchlbk-Bold;color:black"></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(3) D</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">ISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(4) W</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">AIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY</span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">(b) A</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">PPLICABILITY TO </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">U</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">NITED </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">S</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">TATES </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">C</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ITIZENS AND </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">L</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">AWFUL </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">R</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">ESIDENT </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">A</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">LIENS</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.</span></b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">— </span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(1) U</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">NITED STATES CITIZENS</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.</b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(2) L</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">AWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"> (c) I</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">MPLEMENTATION </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">P</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">ROCEDURES</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(1) I</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">N GENERAL</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—Not later than 60 days after</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times-Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Times-Roman;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(2) E</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family: DeVinne;color:black">LEMENTS</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black">.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne;color:black"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times-Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;color:black"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne; color:black">interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">require the interruption of any such ongoing</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times-Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Times-Roman"> </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">session.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times-Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Times-Roman"> </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne; mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>(d) E</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">FFECTIVE </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">D</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">ATE</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:DeVinne;mso-bidi-font-family:DeVinne">.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-51146146526085711862011-11-16T00:27:00.000-08:002011-11-16T00:33:34.640-08:00Conservative CannibalismSix months ago...two years ago...even a few weeks ago, I wouldn't have imagined writing this to any one. But I'm through with conservatives. No, I will not be so arrogant as to use the phrase "so-called conservatives" like many people on these groups do on a regular basis. I considered anyone who wanted to take back this country from the Progressives who have stolen it from us to be conservative. But that doesn't matter anymore.<br /><br />From what I've seen on these groups the past several months I can't even imagine how we'll ever restore this country to its conservative integrity. We not only can't agree on what that means...we can't even agree that its okay that it means different things to different conservatives.<br /><br />I've been fighting the conservative battles earnestly since the early days of the Clinton years. I've fought the IRS, the California FTB, the courts, and numerous corrupt officials. My family lost our first home because of those battles with the IRS. We lived in near poverty for several years because we fought for our convictions with every dime we had. And watched as our efforts went for naught because most conservatives decided that it was better to be asleep than it was to fight the corruption.<br /><br />Then we fought the election of this current usurper in the White House. We fought over his very eligibility. We tried to warn people what would happen if he was elected and still most conservatives slept or mocked (and still mock) us for even questioning his eligibility.<br /><br />Then we fought every battle for three years as this president and his cohorts in Congress began execution of their final game plan for the overthrow of the country we've loved our entire lives. And slowly people woke up. We won in Virginia in 2009. We even won a Senate seat in Massachusetts held by a liberal Kennedy for more than 50 years (and people actually complained he wasn't conservative ENOUGH). Then we fought and won back the House...even though we SHOULD have won back the Senate too. But we couldn't stand together enough to beat back even the establishment GOP in Delaware, Alaska, and other places to win the seats we needed. <br /><br />Now we're looking at a legitimate chance to actually win back the White House, along with the Senate. And what happens? We decided the liberal media is right about us...we're our own worst enemy.<br /><br />First we decide to kill a good man from Texas. Is he a poor debater? Sure. Does he have weaknesses? Absolutely. But we didn't just point out his weaknesses. We decided to decimate him. Take him out...destroy him and any chance he has of winning the nomination.<br /><br />Then we get this nice outsider who could, it seemed, win the nomination. And we aren't satisfied. Did the Obama camp throw out those women with their accusations? Don't fool yourself. What possible good would it do them to bring those things up now. If he won the nomination, they would have locked up re-election by doing that next fall. This crap came from some of us...someone inside OUR party. Why? Because we are truly our won worst enemy.<br /><br />Now we have another man in the forefront. The only man who wasn't taking potshots at the other candidates. The only one who actually put into practice the mantra of keeping the campaign clean. Why? No doubt in some part because he knows he has his own dirty laundry. But also because he believed that a candidate could win based upon the issues and not the thirty second attack ads.<br /><br />And what happens now? He's being eating alive not by the liberal media or the Obama camp...but by our own people. <br /><br />Even that other Texas candidate...that funny old guy with the really strange notions that we should actually run our country based upon the fuddy duddy old Constitution...he can't catch a break either. Why? Because so many of his crazy, lunatic supporters are the worst cannibals of all. Most of the ones we meet on here are incapable to accepting anything except their own definition of what a conservative is. And, of course, the rest of us respond by eating HIM alive in return. <br /><br />So now what? As for me, I have some real friends I've made on here. Others who have winced every time they see another cannibal fest and wished they could figure out a way to make it all stop. Wished they knew how to get the rest of us to stop killing each other and all the candidates so we can go out and at least take the next step in restoring our country. Those people I will continue to share conversation with...encourage and perhaps even pray with. I'll go out and vote in our state primary come June and then figure out to what degree I can go help our nominee win against Obama next fall. <br /><br />But I will not be participating any longer in our own self-destruction. For the many times I have spoken out in anger at the baseless attacks made against one candidate or another, I apologize for including anger in those responses. I will come say hello once in awhile to my friends here. But at this point I feel I've actually wasted the last 25 years of my life fighting for....for this. We honestly don't really deserve to have our country back. We would, if this is any indication, only destroy it ourselves as we fight each other over what its supposed to look like. I wish you all the best.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-53858745386701981682011-11-15T09:11:00.000-08:002011-11-15T09:24:25.474-08:00Bruised and Bloodied ConservativesOne of the most distressing characteristics of many conservatives is their penchant for thinking that ANYTHING that comes from a liberal must inherently be evil and should be shunned in every way possible.<br /><br />Back in the days of Jesus there was a sect of the Pharisees known as the Bruised and Bloodied Pharisees. They weren't that way because they were battle tested or anything like that. They were so intent on sustaining the purity of their faith that they didn't even want to risk the chance that they might look upon a woman with lust. So when they were walking along and came upon a woman they would instantly close their eyes and keep walking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how they got their nickname.<br /><br />Many conservatives treat their political views in much the same way. They want to maintain some sense of purity to their political views and thus whenever a liberal opens their mouth to speak they close their minds and reject even the possibility that they might say something of worth. <br /><br />Newt is not one of those people. He is not afraid to let a liberal speak and should he find something of value in what they say, he is unafraid to admit it. Unfortunately for him, that makes him a bad person to our Bruised and Bloodied Conservatives. When explaining why on earth he would ever get on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi he said he thought, at the time, it was a good idea to let it be known that conservatives can show they are concerned about our environment and at least willing to at least identify conservative ways in which we can approach environmental issues...instead of summarily rejecting them simply because the left so ardently supports them.<br /><br />The same thing occurred when Newt endorsed The Third Wave. The Third Wave is a semi-futuristic look at where American society is heading. Written by two extremely progressive authors, Newt found it deeply satisfying that even in their attempt to write about a future for America that they ultimately saw a future America with a far more decentralized government and far more individual liberty and responsibility. <br /><br />It is not difficult to understand why many conservatives struggle with the way conservatives like Newt are able and willing to reach across the aisle to work with people with whom they fundamentally disagree on so many issues. For me, I find it refreshing when a politician can see the good even in something otherwise so deeply bad. That's a man who can more readily find solutions and find ways of acquiring the support he needs FOR those solutions.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-27073003178000244302011-10-14T13:09:00.001-07:002011-10-14T15:40:21.879-07:00Path to the PresidencyAt this point, the GOP nomination process hasn't even vetted itself down from the eight or nine candidates still participating in the debates. That being said, I do think that the candidates have divided themselves into three categories: frontrunners, middle-of-the-pack, and also-rans.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Also-Rans</span><br />Huntsman: far to liberal to garner any foothold at this time in the GOP history.<br />Johnson: Ron Paul's Mini-Me.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Middle-of-the-Pack</span><br />Bachman: Had her chance to prove she knows more than she really does about the broader issues. Might be a good VP candidate (see later discussion)<br />Santorum: He is well rounded and knows the issues, but appears to be more like an attack dog, than a presidential contender. He, too, might make a good VP candidate.<br />Ron Paul: no one has more devoted followers. But no one also isolates himself from the mainstream GOP voters than he does. Might make a great Treasury Secretary, if he doesn't shoot himself in the foot and try to run independent.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Frontrunners</span><br />Gingrich: 21st Century Contract with America is going over well with voters. It is a long read, because of its detail, but as people take the time to read it you're seeing his numbers rise. His stance on Ryan's budget and Scozzafava in NY23 back 2009 make him a less appealing conservative. But no one can debate better than he can. He would sufficiently undercut Obama in a debate that Obama would have to call out the attack dogs to go after Newt personally...where he IS vulnerable.<br /><br />Perry: once the frontrunner, but his poor performances in debates as others have attacked his record, whether accurately or not, has dulled him in the eyes of the voters. He has about six weeks, from now, to make or break his campaign. His energy independence plan, released today, will go a long ways towards deciding if the people want him or not.<br /><br />Cain: the newest front-runner. He has appeal as a non-politician. He has handled pressure and attacks better than Perry and even though his 9-9-9 plan has received mixed views, and could be his Achilles Heel in any debate against Obama, he continues to do well. He is the only Frontrunner whom I think would consider joining another ticket as a VP candidate.<br /><br />Romney: a noticeable flip-flopper and the least conservative of the frontrunners, Romney is s calm and cool debater and seasoned campaigner. He has the finances to compete with Obama as well. He is the hand-picked choice of the Establishment GOP, which is good for him, but doesn't go over well with the conservative segment of the GOP...which is very strong right now.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Road to the Nomination</span><br /><br />Romney is clearly trying to manipulate the primary calendar to his favor. The earlier the primaries, the least likely Cain, Perry or Newt will be able to garner enough support to overtake him in NH, SC, and Nevada. He will likely win NH, no matter when that primary takes place. Romney is quietly working in Iowa, but at this point that Caucus likely goes to Cain, with Perry and Newt not far behind. South Carolina is a key primary. Cain, Perry and Newt are looking strong there, but Romney is likely to push hard there...and in Nevada. He feels that if he can come away with those three by the end of January he will have sufficiently drained the fight from most of the competition. If Cain or Newt or Perry (or someone else) comes in and "steal" SC or Nevada, then this thing will go much further into the Primary season than Romney would like.<br /><br />If that's the case, Super Tuesday, March 6th, will be the next big test. However, leading up to Super Tuesday are a number of important primaries: NH* (23), Iowa* (28), SC (50), Nevada (28), Florida (99), Colorado* (36), Minnesota* (40), Maine (24), Arizona (58), Washington* (43) and Michigan (59). That represents approximately 488 delegates. I say "approximately" because of several factors. First, with several states moving their primaries up on the calendar there is a good chance the RNC will exercise their power to cut several states' delegate counts by 50% as per their rules. There is also the fact that several of the delegate counts are based upon bonus delegates from the RNC rules. So the numbers in parentheses are approximations. Also note that * represents states with caucuses which are NOT winner-take-all states.<br /><br />Of those states listed above, Romney is strongly favored to win in Nevada*, NH, Colorado*, Maine*, Washington* and Michigan, totally, 189 delegates. Of those 189 delegates 131 come from states with a caucus. How many of those delegates Romney will win is anyone's guess. Some experts are suggesting that Ron Paul is focusing much of his efforts in the states holding caucuses because the results can be skewed by turnout. That, plus the fact that Romney is not holding huge leads in any of those states would imply that he might gain only 80-90 of those delegates. Of the remaining 51-61 delegates, they would probably be divided pretty equally based upon current polling numbers. <br /><br />Cain, Perry and Newt are jockeying for wins in SC, Florida, Arizona, and Iowa* (235 delegates)...with Minnesota* potentially favoring Bachman, though Romney is a strong candidate there too. My rough projection is that Romney will walk into Super Tuesday with approximately 175 delegates. That leaves about 313 divided between Perry/Newt/Cain...and Ron Paul. These projection could dramatically change over the next 10-20 weeks, and probably will.<br /><br />Super Tuesday is the official opening to the primary season and includes, at this point, these states: Alaska* (27), Georgia (76), Idaho* (32), Massachusetts (46), North Dakota* (28), Ohio (66), Oklahoma (43), Tennessee (58), Texas (155), Vermont (17), and Virginia (49). That's 566 delegates, or about 1/2 the number needed to land the nomination. This is why Romney is pushing for early primaries. He wants to walk into Super Tuesday with 300+ delegates in pocket. He'll win Massachusetts and Vermont, and will garner 20+ delegates from the three caucuses. By my projections, that would give him about 250-260 delegates. Perry will likely win Texas, which will push his count, depending on how he does in the pre-Super Tuesday primaries, to a near dead heat with Romney. The other eight states are the key. Romney could push himself into the 500+ delegate range or those delegates could split up any number of other ways, giving Perry a lead over Romney or pulling Newt or Cain into a three or four way race with Romney and Perry.<br /><br />April could be the killer month for Cain/Perry/Newt. There are seven primaries that months, D.C. (19), Maryland (37), Wisconsin (42), Connecticut (28), Delaware (17), New York (95), Pennsylvania (72) and Rhode Island (19). Every one of these states could easily go to Romney. In order for either of the other three to stand a chance of beating Romney they have to do two things: A) the Cain/Perry/Newt group will have to win a large portion of the post-Super Tuesday delegates leading into April (Wyoming* (29), Kansas* (40), US Virgin Islands* (9), Alabama (50), Hawaii* (20), Mississippi (37), Missouri* (52), Illinois (69), and Louisiana (45)). That represents 306 delegates. Romney could be favored to pull in close to 100 of those delegates. That would give him about 450-500 delegates at this point. B) Someone in the Perry/Cain/Newt group is going to HAVE to win 2 or more of the seven states in April, representing 328 delegates. The two to focus on are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. <br /><br />With California's June 5th primary counting for 172 winner-take-all delegates, the Cain/Perry/Newt group will have to keep Romney below, by my estimation, 800 delegates before that primary. If they can do that, then there is a good chance that the campaign continues into September without a clear winner. In that case, the convention becomes the key.<br /><br />Of course, with the way things have been going these past couple of months, everything in this blog could and should be obsolete in about three weeks. I think one scenario that could play out would be if Newt or Cain pulls out and endorses the other. Cain/Newt could be dead even with Romney by Super Tuesday and could focus their joint attention of stealing Texas away from Perry. In doing so, they could become the front runner. That would push Perry out of the race and propel them to big wins in the remaining March primaries and even to two or three victories in April. They could legitimately be within a couple of hundred delegates of the nomination before California. In which case, California becomes Romney's last stand. If he wins it and the rest of June's primaries, he will likely win the nomination. If he loses California, then he likely loses and we see a Newt/Cain ticket emerge from the convention...or Cain/Daniels...or Newt/Bachmann....or Cain/Thune...or Newt/West.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Beating Obama in 2012</span><br /><br />Beating Obama in 2012 is not going to be as simple as it might seem. Yes, his presidency is a shambles. But with the GOP nomination process potentially coming down to a convention fight, that does not bode well for the GOP. While our top candidates are spending their money fighting each other, Obama is gathering half a billion dollars in preparation for what will amount to a two month dog fight next fall. <br /><br />Once the conventions are over, the battleground states will be the same as they are today: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10). That represents 161 electoral votes. At this point, Obama is locked in with 186 electoral votes and the GOP nominee is locked in with 191 electoral votes. Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico will tilt to Obama under normal circumstances. That brings Obama to 226, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia are tilting GOP. That brings the GOP nominee to 243. That leaves Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the key toss-ups. If Ohio AND Pennsylvania BOTH go to one party or the other, it's over. But the GOP could lock it up with EITHER of those two states AND either North Carolina or Wisconsin.<br /><br />I don't think there is any reason to think we cannot bring a victory to any of the four primary GOP hopefuls in a battle against Obama. As has often been suggested, the goal of the GOP must always be to nominate the most electable conservative. In previous elections it was probably true that we would have needed to nominate a Romney to run against Obama. But not this election. I think any of the four primary GOP hopefuls can beat Obama if we can pull ourselves together by the time the convention takes place.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-48317796621072887912011-09-04T01:36:00.000-07:002011-09-04T02:57:54.561-07:00Senate 2012 - First LookNot all the candidates are in yet. And we're a very long way from November 2012. But I think it is a good time to make a first run at projecting what could happen in 15 months in the US Senate.
<br />
<br />There are 23 Democrat/Independent and 10 GOP seats up for grabs. The current makeup of the Senate is 51-D/47-R/2-I. Let's do the easy part first. Let's look at the very safe seats on either side first.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">SAFE SEATS:</span>
<br />GOP: Wicker (MS), Corker (TN), TEXAS (Hutchison is Retiring), UTAH (either Hatch or some other GOP), Barrasso (WY).
<br />
<br />DEM: Feinstein (CA), Carper (DE), Cardin (MD), Gillibrand (NY), Whitehouse (RI), Sanders-I (VT), Cantwell (WA - ONLY BECAUSE NO GOOD GOP CANDIDATE HAS COME OUT)
<br />
<br />The count after these seats is now: 36-D/42-R/1-I
<br />
<br />At this point we have some potential change overs. I will list the seats likely to go to one party or another with the change overs in bold.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">LIKELY</span>
<br />GOP: ARIZONA (Kyl is retiring but likely to go GOP anyway), Lugar (IN), Snowe (ME), <span style="font-weight:bold;">NORTH DAKOTA</span> (Conrad is retiring).
<br />
<br />DEM: <span style="font-weight:bold;">CONNECTICUT </span>(with Leiberman retiring, this is likely going DEM, but this could change dramatically after both the Dem and GOP primaries), Stabenow (MI - this seat is vulnerable if a good GOP candidate comes out of the primary), Klobuchar (MN), Casey (PA - this could change very quickly depending on the GOP primary and the strength of the Red Tide).
<br />
<br />Again, being very early in the races, several of these could change dramatically, including Connecticut, which has a few very strong GOP candidates in the primaries, and Maine, which is a very blue state and may not like what Snowe is doing.
<br />
<br />The count now stands at: 40-D/46-R/1-I.
<br />
<br />The following are the battleground Senate races. As you can see by the current count, if things projected above hold out, the GOP would need 5 of the following seats to take the Senate.
<br />
<br />Florida - Nelson (D) - presently leans democrat but there are two or three very good GOP candidates in the primary.
<br />
<br />Hawaii - Akaka (D) is retiring - Hawaii is a very blue state, but with former GOP governor Dingle running for this seat, it leans Democrat, but could easily go GOP.
<br />
<br />Massachusetts - Brown (R) - Massachusetts being the blue state that it is, this could easily go Dem. If Heller stays GOP, that's a wash on the part of the predictions. But don't count Brown out. Despite angering many Tea Partiers for voting against TP wishes, he's still very popular in Massachusetts.
<br />
<br />Missouri - McCaskill (D) - She is entrenched and can't be counted out. But she is extremely vulnerable, especially against Steelman or Akin.
<br />
<br />Montana - Tester (D) - Denny Rehnberg will give Tester a serious problem, especially in an otherwise Red state.
<br />
<br />Nebraska - Nelson (D) - the Cornhusker Kickback and conservative Nebraska could very easily throw Nelson out on his ear. The only reason this is still a toss-up and not already in the GOP column is the fact that there are so many GOP candidates vying to face Nelson.
<br />
<br />New Jersey - Menendez (D) - a very blue state that gave us GOP Rep, John Runyan in 2010, could hop on Christie's back and send Menendez packing.
<br />
<br />New Mexico - Bingaman (D) is retiring - if Bingaman had stayed in the race, this one could still have gone GOP. With Bingaman out, the chances are even greater the GOP could take this seat.
<br />
<br />Nevada - Heller (R) - only his predecessor's sex scandal can possibly keep Heller from keeping his newly acquired seat.
<br />
<br />Ohio - Brown (D) - Ohio is always a toss-up state and this year is no different. Though the Red Tide is pushing through Ohio too. Mandel could raise lots of money and unseat the vulnerable Brown.
<br />
<br />Virginia - Webb (D) is retiring - this will be an interesting race. Former DNC Chair, Tim Kaine, will be running against Ex-Sen. George Allen. The deciding factor may be the heavy GOP tide from 2010.
<br />
<br />Wisconsin - Kohl (D) is retiring - This, too, is a very interesting race. Ron Kind, former Dem. Rep, will be facing a GOP challenge which could be former Gov. Tommy Thompson (if he decides to run). That could be a good race.
<br />
<br />West Virginia - Manchin (D) - West Virginia is still a blue state. But Obama's actions against the coal industry could cause problems for Manchin, especially if John Raese enters the race for the GOP.
<br />
<br />Of the two GOP seats in this list, Heller is the safest. Of the eleven Democrat every one of them is in play...for reasons listed next them.
<br />
<br />Pre-Season Prediction for the Final Senate Totals: GOP - 54 / DEM - 45 / Ind - 1
<br />
<br />I honestly think that the numbers, depending up what happens in the next 15 months could move in either direction. We could be looking at something like 59 - 40 - 1, or we could be looking at 51 - 48 - 1. It will depend upon the state of the economy by then and the degree to which one party or the other can get their message across.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-64970071372874293702011-08-24T01:48:00.000-07:002011-08-24T01:49:05.644-07:00Libya War CrimesI'd like to share a letter I wrote to the editor of our local paper regarding the crimes of Obama surrounding the Libya War. In doing so, please also consider reading the speech made by Tom McClintock on March 31 (http://www.tommcclintock.com/blog/house-floor-speech-on-libya) and watching a video of another speech he gave in July (http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-finally-a-congressman-tells-the-country-why-obama-is-so-dangerous/)
<br />
<br />Now that forces supported by the US military are closing in on Qaddafi, I think it is again time to revisit the manner in which we became involved in this war. Yes, it IS a war, no matter how you try to paint it. Over the six months of this war, our representative, Tom McClintock has made several speeches regarding the unconstitutional nature in which this president brought our nation into the conflict. On March 31st, Congressman McClintock said:
<br />
<br />"When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe 'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'”
<br />
<br />Later in that same speech her reminded us that even under the War Powers Act, the president is authorized to conduct war for sixty days (not six months) and only for the following reasons: “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
<br />
<br />I contend, along with Mr. McClintock, that our president did, indeed, engage in an overt and aggressive act of war against Libya. These very acts are nothing short of war crimes and clear violations of the president's executive authority. They are nothing short of impeachable offensives, no matter who the president is.
<br />
<br />Some may suggest that the president was within his right to do these things because of our country's long standing treaties with NATO and the UN. But, as Mr. McClintock, again, pointed out, "The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization."
<br />
<br />The president suggested that he didn't have time to consult with Congress before Libya faced a humanitarian crisis. Yet he had time to consult with the UN and NATO. Therein lay the foundation for the war in Libya. The United Nation's Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect. The UN has declared their right to intervene in any country where they believe there is a threat to civilians of any significant nature. This is the most dangerous of all doctrines ever enacted by the United Nations. For by this doctrine the UN might feel compelled to send troops, or compel its member nations to send troops, to virtually anywhere in the world. By this doctrine, a sitting president of the United States was compelled to violate the very fabric of our Constitution and every law pertaining to such acts. Is this how we wish to have our country governed now? I certainly hope not. And I certainly hope Congress will have the courage to bring charges against our president for these egregious acts.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-32948818974211266452011-06-24T22:02:00.000-07:002011-06-24T22:03:53.563-07:00Why the Birth Certificate Issue Is Only of Secondary ImportanceOur Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace. <br /><br />...in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. And since Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, Obama is therefore not a natural born citizen and is thus ineligible to be President." (Basically, forget the birth certificate!!! This is ALL you need to follow the law and to understand the term from “those days”.)<br /><br />Here's the link: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm<br /><br />Further, Obama agreed to this definition spelled out in S.R. 511, and he himself does not meet the criteria. The most obvious reason is that his father was from the country now known as Kenya..thus making him a British National.<br /><br />Part II of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads: 5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. <br /><br />Being the son of a man who was a British National by means of his being born in the colony later known as Kenya made Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. a British National. ASSUMING BHO Jr was born in Hawaii (whether or not the BC we see online is real or not), he would also be considered an US Citizen by virtue of his mother's citizenship. There is no disputing this under the above assumption. The only questions that remain, under this scenario, are: <br /><br />1) does the Natural Born Citizen clause of the constitution allow for a person born under dual citizenship to be president of the United States; <br /><br />2) Did Kenya's subsequent independence from the British Empire remove both Obamas British citizenship?; <br /><br />3) As of 1963, when Kenya became independent, Obama Sr. and Obama Jr. became citizens of Kenya. However, according to Kenyan law, as of age 23, the younger Obama could not maintain both an US and a Kenyan citizenship. SO question is...did the 23 year old BHO Jr. make such a choice? Did he choose to renounce his Kenyan Citizenship? <br /><br />4) Was BHO Jr. legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham's next husband? If so, did that make him an Indonesian citizen as the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro? Evidence of Obama's school records in Indonesia would suggest that is a possibility. In which case, all this takes a wild turn since Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship at that time in their history. So question <br /><br />5) If Obama did take on Indonesian citizenship under his step father, Lolo Soetoro, did he ever take back either his Kenyan Citizenship or US Citizenship?<br /><br />6) And, does ANY of that adversely affect his eligibility to be president of the United States? What do the courts say about Dual Citizenship as pertaining to Natural Born status? What happens to his US Citizenship if he was made an Indonesian citizen and never made a conscious adult decision to restore his US citizenship?<br /><br />Ironically, as I've said all along, the birth certificate issue is relatively moot and at best secondary in importance. It matters whether he was born in Hawaii, don't get me wrong. If he is born in Kenya or anywhere else int he world, his mother's age and his father's lack of US citizenship would make BHO not a US citizen of ANY kind. BUT, even if he's born in Hawaii...if BHO Sr. is his father, he, without question, became a British National and later a Kenyan Citizenship THROUGH his father. At best, making BHO Jr. a dual citizen. <br /><br />The Lolo Soetoro situation only complicates matters...and may, ultimately, depending upon how the courts rule about dual citizens being considered natural born, make the Indonesia situation moot.<br /><br />The real answers are most likely to be found in Obama's school records at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Unfortunately, these are records Obama has made sure we will not see.<br /><br />For reference, one of the best sites for delineating the facts on how the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to Natural Born Citizens vs. other citizens is by Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. Donofrio does a completely thorough analysis of both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases. These cases would help to determine whether Obama is or is not a Natural Born Citizen. <br /><br /> Notice the wording of the Minor case regarding the court's decision that Minor was a Natural Born Citizen and compare that wording to SR 511, co-sponsored by Obama in 2008 to affirm that his future opponent, John McCain was, indeed, qualified as a natural born citizen to be president of the United States.<br /><br />Minor case: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."<br /><br />SR 511 states: "Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;..Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."<br /><br />Further understand that the "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born "Citizen." The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention. They clearly understood its meaning and the most common understanding of its meaning at that time was from Vattel's Law of Nations. <br /><br />Later in 1790, the Naturalization Law of 1790 provided: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens. Once again clearly connecting to Vattel's definition as written in Law of Nations.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-62048941857492821742011-04-30T18:20:00.000-07:002011-04-30T20:01:01.130-07:00Are We Being Scammed By All of Them?That question has entered my mind a hundred times since Obama produced what is supposed to be his long form birth certificate a few days ago. There are two, and ONLY two, possible answers to this. We either ARE being bamboozled by both Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Progressive, the Left AND the Right over this birth certificate issue, or the people in power on the Right are just so stinking scared of being lumped in with what the MSM and the far left have labeled as "fringe extremists" that they don't dare jump in on this issue.<br /><br />Trump's recent attacks on Obama regarding the birth certificate did catch the MSM and the far left off guard a bit. He put so much pressure on them about the president's unwillingness to provide ANY documentation regarding his past that the MSM couldn't spin it into the far-right fringe extremism they would have liked to have done. Trump forced the hand of the president and he had to deal with the issue. <br /><br />But instead of resolving the issue, all Obama accomplished was two things. First, he successfully salved the fears of enough people who, although they were coming to doubt the president's birth place, were not willing to really jump in with both feet to challenge him on the issue. Look at Michelle Backman and Sarah Palin and so many others on the right. When things first started looking like Trump was getting to Obama on this issue, most of those on the right, at least, we willing step up and tell the president to, at least, produce the certificate and get this issue behind us. But not ONE of them were willing to say, "You know, Mr. President, enough is enough. There are way too many questions rising about this issue. Either put up or we WILL demand a full scale investigation."<br /><br />Instead, they sounded like a bunch of wimps imploring the president to do something to give them an out so they don't have to join ranks with the kooks of the far right.<br /><br />So the president DOES produce a long form birth certificate. And before the mics at his press conference are even turned off, it seemed like a collective sigh of relief escaped the mouths of not just the far left nuts...but even those people many of conservatives have looked to as leaders in our fight to restore our country.<br /><br />Not more than an hour or two after the certificate was released, Glenn Beck and his pals on his radio show were lampooning the "birthers" whom they just knew would question the validity of the document. Well, Mr. Beck, haven't you been telling us for years now to QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS and to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH? Yes, I think I remember you saying those things once or twice or a thousand times. How can you possibly think we will ever take you seriously with regards to those principles when you can't even take one second to question the validity of the document before you're ready to declare it legitimate. <br /><br />I now question YOUR legitimacy. And I am one person I never thought would ever say that about you. I have been one of your biggest proponents. You see, Mr. Beck, I actually took you seriously and I DID question with boldness whether there is anything that can be done to substantiate the validity of that document. I DID do my research. And although, I cannot, unwaveringly state that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii and that there is NO legitimate birth certificate (you remember how hard it is to prove a negative), I CAN, without doubt, say that this document does leave me with far too many unanswered questions. There is no way I can look at the evidence before me and believe that this document is anything but a fake.<br /><br />1. Despite some attempts from some to explain the multiple layers in the document when opened in Adobe Illustrator, there are sufficient numbers of other "experts" who claim that it is not possible for that to happen. There is more than enough discrepancy in 'expert' analysis to suggest that, there is something questionable about this document. Nothing is explained away or proven from this point alone.<br /><br />2. However, explain to me how there is no chromatic distortions on this supposed scan of the original document? A chromatic distortion is those blue and red tints you see on opposite sides of the letterings when you zoom in on the image. Unless Hawaii has one of the most sophisticated scanners in existence, those distortions will ALWAYS show up in a scan. Some have suggested this is because it is a black and white image. Well, no it is not. The greenish watermark proves that to be false.<br /><br />3. How do you explain the crisp watermark surrounding the text portion of the document, while the same watermark is clearly more diffused under the writings?<br /><br />4. How do you explain the white glow around most of the lettering?<br /><br />5. How do you explain how some letters in the mom's signature are clearly written from a pen (like a real signature would be) and others are crisp and without distortion, as a digital font would produce?<br /><br />6. How do you explain the fact that this certificate has a registration number HIGHER than that of the Nordyke twins born a day AFTER Obama in the same hospital? When I first saw this one come up, I was honest enough to think it possible that the Recorder just simply had a pile of birth certificates to stamp and didn't take time to put them in chronological order...a reasonable explanation. Except for one thing. At the same time that the certificate is given a certificate number, it is also date stamped. The Nordyke twins' certificates were stamped three days AFTER Obama's.<br />7. How do you explain the curiosity that, although Americans were moving in the direction of becoming more respectful of black people, we still called them "negros" on birth certificates back then, not "blacks" as Obama's certificate shows? I have to continue my research on this. I would like to find the birth certificate of another black person born in Hawaii around that same time to clarify whether this is a legitimate question or not. But, that being said, has Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin researched this at all? They have far greater access to research than I do on these matters.<br /><br />8. Does is not also make you wonder how his certificate shows the hospital name as something other than what it was called in 1961? The hospital had a different name in 1961, it was not named Kapiolani Maternity and Gynocological Hospital, it was called Kaokiolani Children's Hospital. It did not get the Kapiolani name until the mid-1970s when they merged.<br /><br />9. Additionally, how is possible for his father to be from "Kenya", as the certificate states, when the country was not known as Kenya until 1964 (and even then it was known officially as the Republic of Kenya)? At the time of Obama's birth Kenya was a British Crown Colony and would have used "The Royal Crown Colony of Kenya" or similar wording on all official documents. Documents with the Term "Republic of Kenya" would NOT have been used prior to December 12, 1964<br /><br />10. Why do the courts continue to refuse to hear any case questioning the legitimacy of Obama's constitutional qualifications for being president? Why is no one with a microphone asking that question for all the world to hear? Is it not the courts' job to determine issues of constitutionality?<br /> <br />11. With all the questions about the certificate still no one with a platform to speak is asking the questions about Obama's time in Indonesia. Was he really adopted? If so, did Lolo Soetoro really make him an Indonesian citizen? If so, didn't Indonesia require a person RESCIND all other citizenships prior to becoming an Indonesian citizen? Wouldn't that mean that Obama's mom would have had to reinstate his AMercian citizenship when he returned to AMerica? Where's that documentation....because if it doesn't exist then it doesn't matter WHERE he was born.<br /><br />12. What's with the stinking social security numbers? Why is he using a Social Security number NOT assigned to him? Why is NO ONE asking about this...NO ONE is researching it?<br /><br />13. And let's not forget about the numerous other questions arising about this man: why did he voluntarily give up his law license? Who does such a thing? Why was he NEVER the lone attorney on ANY case in which he worked WHEN he was an attorney? How did he get into Columbia in the first place...with his grades? What did he ever do to earn the position of Editor of the Harvard Law Review?<br /><br />But my biggest question is this: with all this information...with all these questions going unanswered or challenged by virtually ANYONE with a serious microphone in their hands, whom do we now trust? Nobody, who legitimately wants to challenge what this president is doing to this country, can look at the information above (and so much more not mentioned) without feeling the honest need to get to the bottom of all this. And until such time as someone DOES take this seriously, we can no longer take them seriously. Is this country being systematically destroyed, as Glenn Beck surmised? Is Glenn Beck not contributing to that destruction by cavalierly belittling people who have legitimate questions about this president's qualifications for being president?<br /><br />If I were a jurist in a trial determining the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, on constitutional grounds, there would be no reasonable doubt in my mind as to the fact that this document he produced is a flat out fake...that he is guilty of perpetrating the crime surrounding this forgery...that he has never once produced sufficient evidence to prove he has a legitimate claim to the presidency of the United States...and that we now face a constitutional crisis of our own as we now have to rescind everything he has done, or anyone ever appointed or hired by him has done.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5343781730100626604.post-50587599862098600772011-04-21T11:34:00.000-07:002011-04-21T12:25:57.331-07:00Two Questions, Same AnswerWhile driving three hours yesterday to pick my son up from college for Easter break I was listening to various conservative personalities on the radio. One of the more common topics of conversation was, of course, Donald Trump and his plethora of controversial comments concerning Obama's birth certificate, eligibility to be president, authorship of his first book, associations with Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Both callers and hosts were asking the questions why was Trump's willingness to discuss these issues both controversial AND stirring the conservative pot? The answer to both questions is the same.<br /><br />For decades now, Democrats have, through their conscious effort to take control of the mainstream media, controlled the dialog in this country. They have used their cohorts in the media to isolate and ostracize politically dangerous opponents and topics. Ever since the topic of Obama's birth certificate came to light nearly three years ago by the Clinton campaign, the Obama team has worked diligently with organizations like Media Matters, MSNBC and others to demonized and isolate those who suggest that Obama is not qualified to be president. And, until a few weeks ago, they were very successful in that effort.<br /><br />Even staunchly conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had shied away from suggesting that Obama might not be qualified to be president. They both, along Centrist, Bill O'Reilly, have called the 'birthers' various disparaging names such as "kook", "whackos" and "extremists". <br /><br />All that began to change when Trump stepped forward and opened all those cans of worms. He is the first big-name personality to stand up and question Obama's legitimacy as president. And although the Obama-media has tried to paint Trump into a lunatic corner, they have failed to realize that by opening those cans Trump has done one other thing as well. He's pulled the curtain back on the Obama-media. The far left media continues flailing away, telling anyone who will listen to ignore the man behind the curtain, but its too late. <br /><br />More and more Americans are questioning Obama's legitimate claim to the Oval Office that not even the Obama-media can stop it. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are still checking over their shoulders and trembling at what the media can do, and has done in the past, to people who cross that boundary. Michelle Bachman, for example, comes out one day and suggests Obama should show the birth certificate and then the next day tells the media to stop asking questions about it. Governor Brewer of Arizona has a chance to sign a bill that would require presidential candidates to provide evidence of their natural born status, but vetoes it instead.<br /><br />After decades of intimidation and ruining careers, the MSM still can instill fear in public figures. What GOP presidential hopefuls fear most, is actually coming to pass. Large numbers of GOP voters are questioning Obama's legitimacy as president and we want THEM to stop shying away from it. Just last week, a poll came out of Iowa suggesting that only 26% of GOP voters believe Obama was born in the United States. That leaves 74% of the voters these GOP Presidential hopefuls are courting questioning whether Obama has a right to even be president. The questions will HAVE to be answered or many GOP voters will feel the candidates are capitulating once again to the far left. But, what most GOP voters fail to realize is that this is a very complex issue.<br /><br />Just once I would love to hear someone...anyone...express concern over the ramifications and consequences our country would face if, indeed, Obama ends up NOT being qualified to be president. Everything he ever did as president would be questioned and challenged...overturned and repealed. Every appointment made would be invalidated and every act performed by anyone appointed by him invalidated. Every court case heard by a judge, at any level, would have to be reheard. Every case prosecuted by an US Attorney appointed by him or by Holder, would have to be re-tried. Every bill he's signed, repealed...every executive order rescinded. Anyone damaged in any way by a law or order he's signed or by someone he's appointed would have grounds for suit.<br /><br />The far left, no matter how much evidence is produced to show him ineligible, would not simply roll over. They would fight. We could face deeply rooted race riots. The unions would not accept such a turn over of their newly found powers. They, too, would fight. Our military could be put in the middle of a serious civil war.<br /><br />Factions would vie for control of the Oval Office. Imagine the arguments: Obama and his closest people would not give up the office without a fight; Biden would think himself to be the legitimate successor, since he is VP; Boehner would claim Biden is out because he is part of the "ticket"; while Pelosi could claim she was the third in line when he first took office illegitimately and would have take over if it had been pursued right away; McCain could argue all of Obama's votes should be his; Hillary could claim she should have been the rightful DNC candidate and would have won.<br /><br />Our economy could collapse in a heartbeat as the world would immediately consider our country unstable both politically and economically. Our currency could collapse overnight. The ramifications and consequences would be staggering. It definitely forces one to pause and consider whether or not we really even want to pursue this course...except we all know, as our parents tried to teach us, that right is right. When in doubt, do the right thing and face the consequences of your choices.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0