“IT IS the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular.”
-- Gilbert Keith Chesterton --
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus
The RNC Power Grab:
Ignoring GOP injustices makes 'us' as bad as 'them.'
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on September 03, 2012)
GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul
Ron Paul is showing remarkable foresight in paving the way for a future generation of liberty people, even as he begins to see the end of his own road in sight
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on August 23, 2012)
According to the latest reports, the "liberty man” is not going to be given an official speaking slot at the Republican National Convention in Tampa at the end of the month. Texas congressman Ron Paul is missing from the RNC’s list of announced speakers, The Blaze reported Friday. Although this is hardly an unexpected omission, it has served to heighten the tension surrounding the event. Delegates from all over the country will meet in Florida on August 27th to nominate the Republican Party’s presidential candidate and Barack Obama’s opponent. Paul supporters, which comprise a hefty number of the delegates, will certainly be making their presence felt, as they have been doing for months.
The Ron Paul Campaign has planned a rally to be held on the afternoon of August 26th, with the theme ‘We Are the Future – A Rally for the Liberty Delegates’. Another rally organized by Paul’s supporters will run simultaneously in Tampa. These events are expected to draw huge crowds and put a spotlight on Paul’s gigantic influence, despite the Republican Party’s snub.
Paul supporters, of course, are still holding out for a Ron Paul presidency. Although it’s becoming increasingly likely that the party will nominate Mitt Romney at the convention, it is theoretically possible for Paul’s delegates to pull off a last-minute takeover next week. This possibility may shed some light on the Republican Party’s seemingly dangerous and unwise decision not to humor Paul supporters by giving their spokesman a speaking slot. Perhaps the RNC organizers know that Paul shines on a podium when given a reasonable amount of time to explain his views and that when his remarks are not limited to sound-bite-length statements in a televised debate, his fact-based arguments are fascinatingly convincing.
Paul supporters are weary of seeing their man ignored and cheated out of his votes. Many are fed up with the party and some have taken to wearing buttons which declare boldly, “No One But Paul: good luck winning without us!” They understand something the GOP doesn’t seem to grasp. They have become a massive electoral base, and if they abandon the party this November, Mitt Romney and his supporters will be in a sorry state.
But what about the man himself? Where does Ron Paul come down in all of this confusion? Although he can’t help but be aware of the injustices done to his campaign and of his supporters’ frustration, the congressman is showing remarkable foresight in paving the way for a future generation of liberty people, even as he himself begins to see the end of his own road in sight.
In a message to his supporters, concerning the rally his campaign has planned in Tampa, Paul said, “I’m sure it will not only be a great time, but it will also go a long way to proving you and I are the future of the Republican Party.”
Ron Paul’s dream is to see his supporters take the message of liberty into the heart of the GOP and transform the Republican Party. He wants to see his dedication to fair play, his passion for the Constitution, his commitment to push back on the overreaching US government, and his enmity towards the Federal Reserve reach the utmost corners of the establishment. He wants the Republican Party to radically redefine its idea of government authority.
Paul continues to urge respectful discourse. He know his supporters are inclined to get excited, and he wants them to fight their battles courteously, bearing in mind that kindness and patience are more effective than threats and taunts. He is paving a way for them to take when he is gone. Ron Paul still has hope for the GOP. He has a vision of what the GOP can become.
Paul knows that he won’t be around forever and that unless his supporters can learn how to fiercely guard their principles and at the same time work amiably with the powers that be, they will soon become an irrelevant minority. He understands that they must find a way to keep their passion pure and unadulterated and still show the GOP they can be team players. He understands there is a danger that the movement he has started will die out with him, and he wants his supporters to understand that they will have to move on when he is gone and fight for the truth even without a charismatic and popular leader to unite them. He wants them to carry their values forward even without a nationally recognized spokesperson to lead the charge. Does he hope his followers will one day be able to charge under the banner of the GOP?
Fortunately, the GOP has left some loopholes open for kindly and pleasant discourse with the Paul supporters next week. They have announced that Ron Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul will be given a “very prominent speaking place,” and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus told Fox News yesterday that Ron Paul supporters are "welcomed with open arms" to the convention.
There are a lot of things that remain to be seen. It remains to be seen whether Paul supporters will embrace the path their leader has paved for them, or whether they will allow their resentment to get the best of them and to choke out the message they bear. Additionally, it remains to be seen whether the liberty people will be able to find enough common ground with the GOP to enable them to get along, as Paul seems to hope they will. “Unity is important but what do we unify behind?” Paul asked a crowd at the Texas Republican State Convention in June, making it clear that he doesn’t advocate giving an inch of the moral high ground. It remains to be seen how the GOP will treat these steadfast and impassioned liberty people.
Why the GOP must do a fast about-face or face disaster in November...
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on July 31, 2012)
Despite their spirited outward demeanor and cheerful speculation, is the Grand Old Party beginning to realize that they made a mistake in anointing Mitt Romney to lead the assault on socialism and Barack Obama? For their sake, let’s hope so. Because the only way for the Republicans to avoid the trap they’ve set for themselves is to understand the magnitude of their error and start back-pedaling as fast as they can.
The case against the GOP’s selection of Romney to carry the banner of conservatism on to the White House is easy to make. Our first premise is obviously that Romney is not a conservative. He is, in fact, a self-proclaimed “moderate” who “holds progressive views.” Needless to say, this makes his suitability for the afore-mentioned position rather dubious from the get-go.
Those few folks who are willing to look ridiculous by asserting that Romney is no longer left-leaning and that his opportunely-timed conversion to limited government and family values is genuine will be quickly hushed by a little research. Take, for example, these excerpts from an open letter signed by notable conservative leaders such as the Homeschool Legal Defense Association’s Michael Farris and Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute.
“Romney changed his position on over thirty key issues as he prepared to run for President four years ago. We all expect a politician to change their mind on one or two issues over the course of their career, but when someone changes their mind on EVERY foundational issue of importance to conservatives, we must be skeptical. Indeed, it is hard to accept Romney’s conversion on so many issues as authentic….
…As Governor, Romney implemented an Executive Order that created a vast ‘diversity’ agency to make sure those of all races and ‘sexual orientations’ be hired throughout state government. Romney [also] issued a state proclamation honoring ‘Gay/Straight Youth Pride March’…
…Romney’s administration gave funds to Planned Parenthood. In November 2006, Romney’s economic development agency approved a $5 billion tax-exempt bond to be used by Planned Parenthood to build an abortion clinic in Worchester…
…For thirty years Mitt Romney was a strong advocate of abortion. His wife, Ann, contributed money to Planned Parenthood in 1994 at a PP event both her and her husband attended, but she was filmed during the 2008 campaign claiming, ‘I’ve always been pro-life…’ ”
Another video shows Ann Romney insisting that pro-abortion women have no need to worry about her husband due to his commitment to the abortion issue. (Once you’ve watched the 22-second clip, ask yourself if this is the voice of a pro-life woman!) To make matters worse for Romney’s record, even in the wake of his pro-life “conversion” experience in 2004, he continued to fund embryonic stem cell research and was recorded in 2005 stating “I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintaining the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I’ve been able to successfully do that.” In 2006, Romney introduced RomneyCare, which covers abortion and makes it easy for people to obtain a state-funded abortion for as low as $50.
The Cato Institute reported that in his first year as Governor, Romney “proposed $140 [million] in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code,” and according to job creation experts Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin of Northeastern University, manufacturing employment during the Romney years “declined by 14%, the third worse record in the country. Sum and McLaughlin also wrote that ‘from 2001 to 2006, Massachusetts ranked 49th in the nation in job creation…’
Having put to rest the myth that Romney is or ever has been “severely conservative,” as he now claims to be, it’s time to take a look at what that means for the GOP. The short answer is trouble.
Last December, former senator Bob Dole endorsed Mitt Romney. Let’s run that tape:
“The time has now come for us to decide who among [the Republican candidates] can defeat Barack Obama in 2012. I’ve made my decision, and I believe our best hope lies in Governor Mitt Romney. I’ve run for president myself and –”
Alright, stop. Stop it right there.
Let’s see what we remember about Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign. One thing really stands out in my mind. He lost, and he lost big.
It was a rough year for Republicans. They were trying to take down President Bill Clinton, who was running for re-election, and they thought they had a clear lead over him. In 1994, a poll asked Americans to choose between Bill Clinton and " the Republican Party's candidate for President." Result? Clinton got 43% of the vote. The ghost Republican beat him with 50%. “Anyone can beat Clinton,” was the popular refrain, which has become so infamous today.
The Republicans nominated Bob Dole, an uninspiring moderate who did nothing to fan the flames of conviction. Dole didn’t understand that a huge portion of the Republican base was staunchly conservative and willing to take a stand for it at the polling place – even if it was going to hurt them. He failed to excite his base, and a third party candidate, Ross Perot, came in and snagged all of the votes his moderate stances didn’t bring in. Dole was a massive failure, and he gave us four more years of Clinton. His endorsement of Romney is anything but reassuring.
Fast-forward to 2008: the Republican Party’s next big loss. Faced with the alarming prospect of Obama as POTUS, the Republicans nominated another moderate, John McCain. McCain, just like Dole before him, did not succeed in capturing the enthusiasm of his base. Indeed, many Republicans were disgusted with him, and it wasn’t until his selection of conservative Sarah Palin for his running mate that his poll numbers began to climb. Palin ensured that the race would at least be competitive. McCain still lost.
This myth that moderates have the best chance to beat popular Democrats is just that: a myth. History clearly shows that Republicans do poorly when they nominate candidates who don’t pull in impassioned voters. Voters with strong opinions who care about real issues and will fight for them. Moderate voters by their very nature are a bad group to rely on in an election. Because their stances are less radical, they are less likely to be a virulent crowd and less likely to give sacrificially or inspire enthusiasm. While conservatives and liberals are people who feel strongly about ideas, moderates are people who delight in the muddy waters of the “middle ground”, and who, in large part, make decisions pragmatically rather than relying on principles.
The Republican Party ignores at their peril the fact that their candidate is a poor one. Their best hope for a comeback in November is to breathe life into their party by welcoming a staunch conservative darling into their ranks in the position of Vice President. If they fail to do this, I doubt if even Obama’s own alarming radicalism will keep him out of the White House for another four years. The question is, does the GOP want to hoist the banner of conservatism (and win) or slide back into moderate positions (and lose)?
Are politicians buying your vote with money and elaborate voter analysis programs or winning it with a display of consistent standards and ethics?
(Posted by Bryana Joy on April o3, 2012)
“To defeat Barack Obama, Republicans can’t nominate a candidate who relies on outspending his opponents 7-1,” said Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich earlier this week, referring to rival Mitt Romney who overwhelmingly won the Illinois primary on March 20th. Indeed, the Associated Press reported that Romney and his allies outspent Santorum and his backers by $3.5 million to $500,000, an advantage of 7-1.
Gingrich’s remark showcases an inevitable aspect of the election process: our votes are up for auction and the highest bidder gets them. Sadly, he doesn’t always have to offer payment in the form of results, credentials, policies, or history. And he doesn’t always have to offer it to us. More often than not, the lucky buyer who walks away with the prized purchase of our votes has not given us anything at all, but has shelled out his funds on advertising, analysis, traveling and staffing costs. I can’t help but feel that we’re getting the raw end of the deal.
Gingrich’s insightful comment does not, of course, signify that his campaign has decided to take a principled stand against exorbitant spending, but merely that his synapses are still firing quickly enough to turn out those characteristically witty comebacks which were responsible for his short-lived surge in the polls late last year. When reports came in last month that big-money Republican donor Sheldon Adelson was expected to give $10 million to Gingrich’s Super PAC, the media networks were all abuzz with predictions that the new funds would shake up the primary race and give the former House Speaker a dramatic rise in the polls. This story serves to illustrate the fact that the pecuniary nature of elections is well-known generally and not frowned upon by our society.
There is another metaphor that aptly describes the means by which political hopefuls manipulate their voting blocs: we are the potential buyers and they are the products that are up for sale. Their number one focus is on selling themselves to us, and, in order to do that, they invest heavily in elaborate analysis programs that they use to plumb the quagmire of public opinion. One very disturbing example of this is Romney’s New Hampshire modus operandi as catalogued in this hard-hitting piece by the LA Times.
“Romney's operatives paired the voter data with several hundred thousand paid and volunteer calls. They knew his sweet spot was among older, higher-income voters — those with annual household incomes of between $75,000 and $150,000 and with upscale interests like gourmet cooking. He was particularly appealing to older women and did best — as they knew from 2008 — among self-identified Republicans. They also knew that Romney, a father of five sons, held particular appeal for voters whose consumer preferences showed a focus on children and family-centered activities. That knowledge guided the $1.3 million that Romney spent on television ads in New Hampshire, which focused heavily on his four-decade marriage and family values, as well as his business background.
Most important, the Romney team was able to weed out voters unlikely to support him — allowing it to steer away from socially conservative voters whose affinity for church or Bible interests, for example, suggested they might be a tougher target for a Mormon candidate.”
In a video that went viral across the web on Wednesday, Eric Fehrnstrom, a top aide for the Romney campaign, explained that taking conservative positions during the primary that may upset the liberal media is no problem for Mitt Romney. “Everything changes,” Fehrnstrom told CNN. “It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”
During President Obama’s meeting Monday with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Obama let fall an appalling statement, unaware that his mic was still on.
“ On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev at the end of their 90-minute meeting, apparently referring to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Medvedev replied, “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”
“This is my last election,” said Obama. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”
The Russian leader responded, “I understand. I transmit this information to Vladimir.”
Needless to say, when the biggest concern faced by a candidate is how he might best sell himself to the public, trifles like principles, ethics and standards are almost foreordained to fall by the wayside. Rather, the sum of the candidate’s energies will be devoted to probing the interests of his voting bloc and catering to them through advertisements and statements carefully crafted to hit them in their most vulnerable places. We shouldn’t be surprised if this preoccupation with public opinion causes those in the limelight of politics to stumble around a bit, on occasion. Or to be forced to cede major talking points when polls show that a large number of voters have changed their minds about something.
Should politicians put a cap on their campaign spending and stop using in-depth analysis programs like those utilized by the Romney campaign? Perhaps. But those are unrealistic goals, to say the least. What we must do as citizens is make ourselves aware of the fact that we are being played “like violins,” (to steal a phrase from Hamlet) and that, in elections, as in all other business transactions, the byword is caveat emptor: buyer beware! (First posted at The College Conservative)
Is Ron Paul anti-Israel or does he have a new and improved stance on the Jewish Nation?
(Posted by Bryana Joy on February 01, 2012)
The Washington Times Communities)
“He’s right on,” say many Republican voters of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, “--except on foreign policy.” Among social conservatives, who tend to be in favor of extensive defense spending and to be staunch supporters of Israel, this take on the Texas Congressman’s campaign is all too common. Members of this large and very important electoral block appreciate Paul’s fiscal sanity, his dedication to Austrian economics, and his determination to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office. They embrace his pro-life position and concern for homeschooling rights. Some of them are beginning to understand his opposition to an unaccountable central bank and call to end the Federal Reserve. He also receives accolades because he respects the U.S. Constitution so stalwartly. But they just can’t get over his approach to foreign policy, which they see as dangerous and anti-Israel. The question we need to be asking is whether this disconnect is really a result of Dr. Paul’s policies or only of how these voters perceive them.
One of the biggest complaints against the Congressman is that he advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel. That fact alone makes many unwilling to consider supporting him or even taking time to learn more about his position. This knee-jerk reaction prevents many voters from coming to an understanding of Paul’s beliefs or even of the particulars surrounding his statements.
“To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries, and it becomes weapons of war –” said Paul at the Western Republican Presidential Debate.
“Congressman Paul, would you cut foreign aid to Israel?” interrupted the moderator.
“I would cut all foreign aid,” the candidate responded. “I would treat everybody equally and fairly.”
Paul’s aim then is not to cut foreign aid to Israel specifically, but to cut foreign aid to everybody the US currently supports abroad. As he explained in an interview with Newsmax last month, Israel would actually come out on top in such a scenario.
“Stop and consider America’s policy,” the congressman said, “We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.”
“What should our relationship be with Israel?” asked Newsmax contributor Doug Wead.
“We should be their friend and their trading partner,” said Paul. “They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy…. I say [to Christian evangelicals who want foreign aid to Israel to continue] that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel…we should stop interfering with them. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.”
Paul then went on to talk about previous conflicts in which he had shown support for the sovereignty of Israel.Unbeknownst to many, the candidate stood by Israel three decades ago when she was heavily criticized by most politicians in congress at that the time.
“In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.”
Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic recently wrote that Ron Paul’s position is actually the closest to a Zionist of all the Republican candidates, because, “a true Zionist is a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”
It would seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also feels strongly about the importance of Israel’s independence and self-reliance – values that Paul insists are crucial to the Jewish nation. Said Netanyahu in his 2011 address to the U.S. congress,
“My friends, you don't have to --you don't need to do nation-building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves."
Israel certainly does defend herself. It has been estimated that the nation possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons.In addition to concerns about undermining Israel’s national sovereignty through interference with their policies, Paul has offered another major reason why the foreign aid spending has to go. “We’re in bankruptcy,” he says, referring to the United States, a country with a $15.2 trillion national debt. “We’re not going to be there forever, we’re going to come home.” Thus, he maintains that dependence on U.S. money is “a bad risk” for Israel. “I think their dependency on us is very, very harmful to them,” he stated.
Perhaps social conservatives and Israel-supporters should take another look at Ron Paul and determine based on the full import of his statements whether he really is as anti-Israel as some of the media networks are making out. Before holding him up to their standards of what support for Israel is meant to look like, should they perhaps be double-checking their own policies? With his concern for her long-term interests and condemnation of the substantial U.S. funding extended to her enemies, could it be that Dr. No really has the best stance on Israel, one that will provide her with the strongest national defense and the most wholesome relationship with the US?
(First posted at
New Hampshire Governor Lynch
Shocking disregard for justice: sting video raises concern about voter fraud, New Hampshire Attorney General sues…….James O’Keefe!
(Posted by Bryana Joy on January 25th, 2012)
In July of 2011, New Hampshire governor John Lynch vetoed a bill that would have required New Hampshire voters to show photo ID before entering the polls. “Voter turnout in New Hampshire is among the highest in the nation, election after election. There is no voter fraud problem in New Hampshire,” said Governor Lynch in a statement last summer. “We already have strong election laws that are effective in regulating our elections.” Not surprisingly, the governor was outraged last week when a watchdog group, Project Veritas, organized an undercover sting operation to test the veracity of his reassurances. What they found was appalling, if not unexpected.
The incidents, which were recorded on hidden cameras, involved actors entering multiple polling places and obtaining ballots using the names of deceased voters. Some of these late voters had been dead for well over a year. When the actors explained that they had forgotten to bring any ID with them, they were told by poll workers that New Hampshire law didn’t require them to show ID. In each case, the actors, feigning shock, said they would feel more comfortable if they went out to their vehicles to get their ID. According to Project Veritas, none of the actors cast a vote with the ballots they had acquired during the sting.
Furthermore, in an official statement about the investigative videos, Project Veritas explained,
“not a single one of our citizen journalists broke any laws or misrepresented themselves in any way to election officials or anyone else while filming this report. They simply inquired to poll workers if a certain individual’s name was present on the voter list, and were then offered a ballot with no further questions…..
Shockingly, rather than owning that, in light of the expose, measures should be taken to make the system in New Hampshire more effective, Governor Lynch has condemned the sting operation altogether and is calling for Project Veritas to be prosecuted for obtaining ballots under false pretenses.
"I think it is outrageous that we have out-of-staters coming into New Hampshire, [said the governor] coming into our polling places and misrepresenting themselves to the election officials, and I hope that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if in fact they're found guilty of some criminal act."
Joining the governor in this blatant refusal to acknowledge the facts are Keith Olbermann, Ryan Reilly and MSNBC’s Al Sharpton. Sharpton’s coverage bears the heading, “James O’Keefe has another run-in with the law,” and over the course of the bitterly partisan six-minute session of commentary, Sharpton calls O’Keefe “the professional smear artist who was behind the fake ACORN scam,” and adds that O’Keefe “sent his cohorts out to fraudulently collect ballots in New Hampshire.”
“…James O’Keefe has struck again, exposing the non-existent problem of voter fraud in New Hampshire. The conservative filmmaker and others working on behalf of Project Veritas are now facing a criminal investigation by [New Hampshire’s] attorney general. There is every indication that O’Keefe and his colleagues committed voter fraud at primary polling locations Tuesday night.”
So, wait. Let me get this straight – citizen journalists conduct a sting operation for the purpose of raising concern about voter fraud and when they release the tapes they are the ones who get charged with voter fraud?
“ Has voter fraud ever been a problem in New Hampshire?” Olbermann asks of Ryan Reilly in an interview devoted almost solely to discrediting Project Veritas.
“ You know, it really – there’s no evidence that it has,” responds Reilly. “Specifically in-person voter – impersonation fraud hasn’t been an issue, nor has it been across the country.”
Project Veritas’ actors were given a similar story by Ryk Bullock, the New Hampshire Ward Moderator whom they consulted for the purpose of expressing their concerns about the possibility of voter fraud. When asked whether fraudulent impersonation could occur, Bullock explained,
“It could, it could…[But] I’ve been here 43 years and, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never had it happen. In theory, it could happen…”
But it doesn’t happen, they assure us. It can, of course, as there aren’t sufficient safeguards to prevent it (as demonstrated by the recent sting). But it won’t.
Should we find this nonchalance reassuring, or should it cause us to become doubtful about the integrity of the officials and media moguls who continue to drill us in the unconstitutionality of photo ID laws? When we stop to consider, we will realize that every vote cast fraudulently cancels out the vote of some conscientious citizen who took care to register legally and provide the required information in order to be able to perform his or her civic duties. The argument that such votes will not be cast even though they can be is absurd. It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have lifeguards at public pools where no one is ever known to have drowned, or suggesting that we abolish fire departments in areas that have never been ravaged by forest fires.
Voting legally is a fairly painless process. I recently registered to vote in Texas, and it could hardly have been easier. I signed up online to receive the simple registration form, which was mailed to me. After filling it out, I dropped it in my mailbox. I didn’t even have to pay for postage. Under pending photo ID laws, voters will be able to flash any form of government-issued photographic identification at the polls. This could be a drivers’ license, passport, gun permit card, or any ID card issued by your local DMV office. Registered voters who do not possess photo ID will be provided with the necessary ID by The Department of Safety and Homeland Security at no charge. As photo ID is already required for the purchase of tobacco or alcohol products, vehicle rentals and banking transactions, it is safe to assume that most citizens of legal voting age will already be in possession of such ID. The only residents who might have difficulty in obtaining photographic identification are – well, non-citizens. And they aren’t allowed to vote anyway.
So, what is all of the fuss really about? That’s a good question. Perhaps Keith Olbermann answers it best himself,
“The right wing’s fixation with voter fraud is largely used as a justification for passing restrictive ballot access measure designed to suppress voter turnout among people who tend to vote for Democrats.” Exactly who are these “people who tend to vote for Democrats”? People who can’t obtain photo ID? Wait, that means they’re probably ----- yep, you got it. Illegal.
Will new photo ID laws cause some hassle for those legal citizens who don’t already possess the necessary identification and are forced to get a lift down to their local DMV office? Yes. But as Thomas Sowell reminds us, “There are no solutions….there are only tradeoffs.” Inconveniencing a miniscule percentage of the population in order to protect the votes of millions of legal Americans sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to me.
The former governor has three Achilles' heels in the 2012 Presidential Race - what are they?
(Posted by Bryana Joy on January 9th, 2011)
With the New Hampshire Republican primary just a day away, polls are showing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leading substantially in New Hampshire with Congressman Ron Paul coming in as a decisive second. While no modern presidential candidate has ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary elections and failed to capture the nomination, there has to be a first time for everything – and 2012 just might be it. Political analysts are pointing out three major reasons for Romney to leave off behaving as though his nomination by the Republican Party is a foregone conclusion, and get back to work.
Historic Iowa Caucus
The January 3rd Iowa caucus, in which Romney just barely garnered the numbers necessary to put him in first place, was unlike any other in the state’s history, separating the winning candidates by just eight votes. Recent accounts of a reporting error have cast even more doubt on the former governor’s already precarious win. It is also significant that he paid dearly for his miniscule margin over Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, laying out $1.47 million for his Iowa campaign while Santorum only spent $22,000 of his personal funds. Seen in this light, Romney’s eight point advantage doesn’t seem like any kind of triumph for Romney. The battle in Iowa hardly made his road to the Republican nomination seem any more likely.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign has evolved into a massive threat for Romney’s aspirations. Dr. Paul’s recent rise in New Hampshire polls indicates that Tuesday’s race may be closer than many think. His base of supporters is dedicated, passionate and making up for scanty media coverage of their hero by enthusiastic utilization of social media networks. Moreover, they are attracted to him because of his staunch opposition to runaway spending and government overreach, and his adherence to Constitutional law. Even in the event that the Congressman should begin to lose momentum, the vast majority of his supporters will never embrace Romney, whose weakly conservative platform and approach is alien to everything they love about Dr. Paul.
Conservative Values Voters
There is a large portion of the GOP base that remains aloof and unexcited about Romney: voters whose concern for traditional conservative values trumps their concern for beating Obama at any cost. This group, a massive and influential segment of Republican voters, is politically passionate and decisively anti-Romney. They call attention to Romney’s troubling record as a self-described “moderate with progressive views,” his past support for the pro-choice cause, his wife’s donation to Planned Parenthood, his support for the gay rights movement, and his controversial health care plan. Many of them are likely to vote against Romney even if he captures the Republican nomination.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s decision to suspend her campaign after a poor showing in Iowa will also work against Romney, as will Rick Perry’s probable withdrawal in the near future, because these candidates’ fan bases will not shift their support to the Romney campaign. On the contrary, their admirers are more likely to transfer their political energies to the Santorum campaign, finding it more in line with the traditional values they cherish.
Mitt Romney, due to his suave debate performances and well-calculated official statements, may continue to appeal to moderates and Republican voters whose fear of Obama trumps their attention to conservative positions – but his relatively steady polling percentage of %25 shows that a good 75% of Republican voters just aren't excited about a Romney presidency. He has a tough road ahead of him and those predicting a landslide Romney win should hedge their bets.
He’s eloquent, knowledgeable, and smooth as a buttered casserole dish, but - in case you’ve forgotten -here's why we must under no circumstances nominate Newt Gingrich for the GOP Presidential Candidacy
(Posted by Bryana Joy on November 9th, 2011)
One of my favorite things about twitter is the community atmosphere that exists in my news feed during debates, events or addresses that other political junkies are watching. The hashtag culture allows us to discuss our thoughts on the event and get feedback from others who are also watching it live. We are offered a unique way to gauge the political climate.
As I watched the Cain/Gingrich “Lincoln-Douglas” debate (discussion) on November 5, I did just that. And I was a bit disappointed by what I saw – countless conservatives who admitted to having been Newt-shy before the discussion praised him highly and, in their 144-character tweets, explored the possibility of switching over……
I want to remind everyone of just a few straightforward reasons why we still don’t want Newt and never will. These are by no means all of the reasons – they are, in fact, just a smattering of incidents that illustrate the troubled history haunting the Gingrich campaign – but they are some of the ones that bother me the most.
The first is definitely his extra-marital infidelities, and I am not ashamed of holding this “old-fashioned” position. I spoke recently with a young mother whose husband had left her and moved in with a new girlfriend. While she tried to refrain from coming across as emotional about his abandonment of her and her children, her inconsolable grief seeped out of everything she said. It is plausible that her life will never be whole again.
Adultery is destructive on more levels than one. It ruins marriages (obviously), but also ruins children’s lives, and entire families. Gingrich’s decisions to engage at least twice in adulterous relationships destructively affected not one family, but many families: the two families he created and left, the three families of the women who were involved with him, possibly the families of his children - who’s to say how far the circle of hurt and devastation goes?
The premise that a man can be one thing in his private life and another in his public life is a far-fetched, mythical invention of the establishment. There is only one man, and if he is unable to remain faithful in his private life, how can he be faithful to the people of the country he claims to want to serve? It is absurd to suppose that a man who is not self-disciplined and self-governing can discipline and govern our entire country.
The second reason not to elect Newt is his despicable hypocrisy. At the same time that Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton for obstruction of justice in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair, he was having his own extra-marital affair with Callista Bisek. When Gingrich was calling for the expulsion of representatives Dan Crane and Gerry Studds upon the eruption of the 1983 Congressional Page sex scandal, he had recently divorced his first wife to marry Marianne Ginther with whom he’d been having an affair. While Gingrich recently called Mitt Romney “a Nelson Rockefeller Republican,” it was not Romney but Gingrich who was Southern regional director for Nelson Rockefeller in 1968. A man who is this unconcerned with walking his talk isn’t getting my vote.
The third reason? In 2008, Gingrich appeared with Nancy Pelosi in this sickly little climate change ad. The ad was part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.
In case you don’t know, Al Gore, who is a noted climate change alarmist and politician, was responsible for the production of the environmental documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was ruled by a UK high court judge to contain nine scientific errors. Unfortunately, Gore still received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Christopher Monckton has more on Gore and his clashes with science here and here.
Evidently, Gingrich has bought into the pseudo-scientific claims of the global warming activists. This shows a lack of comprehensive research on his part, and also illustrates his willingness to cooperate with political figures who seek to take away our liberty.
If the GOP nominates Gingrich, my vote is one that they can count on not getting.
2012 Presidential Candidate Herman Cain
Herman Cain's recent TeaCon straw poll win and some questions about whether major media networks are picking up on who the conservative voters really want for 2012
(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 04, 2011)
After watching the September 22nd Orlando GOP debate on Fox News, I hung around the site for a bit and listened to various commentators discuss what had transpired on the stage. I was surprised at what I heard, to say the least. No, to state it plainly, I was shocked.
While I felt that Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and even the oddly out of place and pro-choice Gary Johnson were connecting with the people more effectively and collecting more audience enthusiasm than either Romney or Perry, this was apparently not so. On the contrary, Romney and Perry were still “the two front-runners,” and pretty much all of the post-debate discussion by the Fox News commentators concerned them.
The live comment stream flooding the page, however, told a different story. As I watched the viewers’ comments pour in for about five minutes, I found more support for Herman Cain and Ron Paul than even I was expecting. “Now watch the mainstream media try to shove Perry and Romney down our throats,” wrote several indignant commenters.
Of course, now we all know that Herman Cain won the Florida GOP straw poll on the 24th. Did that change anything? Hardly.
On Sunday evening, Kasie Hunt of the Associated Press wrote:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's entry into the 2012 presidential race could dramatically reshape what has become a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
Ironically, the poll results of the first ever TeaCon straw poll came out at about the time I read this AP article, with Herman Cain getting a whopping 77% of the vote! No candidate in this campaign has yet captured even close to 77% of any straw poll vote. And was the closest runner-up Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry? Well, my friends, as it turns out, the closest runner-up was Michele Bachmann.
Now, what two-man race was that again?
Jon Stewart picked up on some of the selective reporting in this morbidly amusing expose of Fox News’ attitude about libertarian candidate Ron Paul: