Thoughts on Ron Paul?

Provisional new member John Fielding of Berks Conservative has cross-posted this Joseph Farah piece:


Earmark this, Ron Paul!

By Joseph Farah

Posted: December 27, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite being called every name in the book and then some by rabid Ron Paul supporters over the last year, I still had a modicum of respect for the candidate himself – until his big moment on "Meet the Press."

I've had my disagreements with Ron Paul – and they are big ones.

He and his supporters seem to think America can, in 2008, decide we just don't want to be involved with determined foreign enemies who have sought to destroy the U.S. since it became a nation. He and his supporters seem to think that America itself is to blame for creating its enemies because of its own interventionist meddling.

While I agree America has involved itself in world problems far more than it should, I will never accept that our enemies will leave us alone if we leave them alone.

Having studied America's No. 1 foreign enemy, Islamic radicalism, for the better part of the last 28 years, I can only say Ron Paul and his supporters are just dead wrong about this. Furthermore, we'll all be dead wrong if we follow his prescription.

Believe me, I wish it were as easy as Ron Paul suggests. But the sad truth is that if we run from this enemy now, our days as a country living in relative peace and prosperity are over. Dr. Paul's prescription for peace is actually the kind of prescription you'd expect from Dr. Kevorkian.

Nevertheless, despite those serious differences, I thought there was much to like and admire about Ron Paul.

What I had always appreciated about him was his outspoken support for the Constitution, the fact that he didn't get caught up in the trappings of Washington power, that he wasn't a hypocrite.

I believed all that. And I have to thank Tim Russert for blowing his cover.

I just simply didn't know that Ron Paul plays the Washington racket just like the rest of the gang. The only difference is he has figured out a system of plausible deniability for himself – a way he can still maintain his image of incorruptibility and integrity, while bringing home the pork to his Texas district with the kind of efficiency that would make Robert Byrd blush.

Ron Paul developed his reputation as a constitutional tax fighter and proponent of limited government through decades of voting "no."

But that hasn't stopped him from earmarking federal tax dollars for his district's own pet pork projects – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars!

Paul defended his actions on "Meet the Press" in spin that would make Bill Clinton proud.

"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," he explained. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

This is actually as ingenious as it is immoral.

Ron Paul knows his vote against his own earmarks for pork is meaningless to the actual outcome. He's going to get his pork because every member of Congress gets his pork. But Ron Paul gets the psychic satisfaction of voting against it – after, of course, he proposed it.

While I'm sure this makes him feel better about himself, is he really any less guilty of picking taxpayer pockets than the rest of them?

And I love the second part of his explanation in which he likens his support of pork to a "tax credit." Yet, isn't this logic that any one of the other bandits in the House and Senate could use to justify their own game of unconstitutional plunder?

Here's another problem I have with his answer: Is pork good or bad? I don't understand his duplicitous answer. Is he defending pork as a good way of bringing money back to taxpayers? Or is he condemning it as the waste we all know it to be?

Ron Paul wants to have it both ways, doesn't he?

While portraying himself as cleaner than the wind-driven snow, a man standing up against the machine, a courageous freedom fighter, it turns out Ron Paul is just another politician using the system for his own empowerment, his own ego and defending this abuse of the Constitution with his own relativistic moral code.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Stop The Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution." He also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

Bhutto's Assassination Another Huck-Up?

So thinks Jay over at Stop the ACLU!

The story is long and full of cross-references.

Please click HERE to read the whole thing!

Social Liberal vs Fiscal Liberal

Thus ponders Daniel Ruwe this week:

Conservatives have reason to beware of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, as nearly everyone must know, is more or less a liberal on taxes, immigration, and crime. Many conservatives, and justifiably so, are condemning him for these positions. Without much success, evidently, since he is the national frontrunner.

But this isn't the first time in this campaign that we had an obvious liberal as the GOP frontrunner. Rudy Giuliani has consistently led in the polls for the majority of the race. While he led, many conservatives simply shrugged and commented on the fact that it was remarkable that a pro-abortion candidate could possibly get the nomination. "He may be liberal on some issues, but maybe he can beat Hillary." Very few prominent conservatives really got into the whole Giuliani-bashing business. Most treated him as a well-qualified candidate.

When the social liberal Giuliani was teh frontrunner, conservative pundits said nothing. When fiscal liberal Huckabee was the frontrunner, the same conservative pundits said "HUCKACIDE.!!! It's the end of the Republican Party!".

When social liberals are welcomed as the frontrunner, while fiscal liberals are anathema, is it any wonder that so many embittered social conservatives embrace one of their own, even at the expense of the well-being of the Republican party?

Fred Thompson & The Troops!

Marie offers her latest Two Cents:

Fred Thompson is about to embark on a campaign blitz that will take him all over Iowa. And after his performance at the last debate the "show of hands" game the moderator tried to get the candidates to play that Fred Thompson was'nt having any part of and let her know it, show's he's got his old gumption back and isnt there to play games.

Along the way Fred has picked up the most important endorsement of all that really counts, The Troops! If they want him to be thier Commander-In-Chief then that's good enough for me.

Here is a *snip* of a letter from one Soldier To Another:


Vets For Fred

Dear Fellow Veteran:

While most of us are stateside enjoying the comforts of home with family and friends during this holiday season, hundreds of thousands of brave men and women will remain abroad defending our freedom and that of others.

We are in the trenches stateside helping Fred Thompson run for President because he is the most experienced and consistent conservative leader of the major candidates. It is imperative to have a solid Commander-in-Chief to lead our nation during time of war, and Fred is that man.

Some of our troops in Iraq agree, and are showing their support for Fred there. You can see more on the Vets for Fred site.

Last month, Fred rolled out his plan to revitalize our military in a speech at the Citadel entitled: "Four Pillars of a Revitalized National Defense" which you can review by clicking here. His plan is being widely hailed as a substantive and sound policy proposal.

Fred's plan increases the defense budget to 4.5% of GDP and builds a "million member" ground force with and Army end strength of 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. This will enable us to handle peacetime and wartime missions without wearing out our troops or increasing the vulnerability of the United States. As Fred stated, "Half-measures and small increases will no longer do."

Here is what a people have said about Fred's plan:

*Investor's Business Daily:

"Fred Thompson wants a million-man ground force and more modern equipment on the ground, in the air and on the water. The arsenal of democracy needs some retooling....Once again the U.S. military is depleted and exhausted...It may be time for another buildup like Reagan's that brought down the evil empire and gave us the means for victory in Desert Storm."

*The Weekly Standard:

"Fred Thompson staked out a Reaganesque position on defense spending and the need to increase the size of the military... Thompson is talking about a real build-up of the kind that this administration should have undertaken from the moment it entered office, but failed to do even after the attacks on 9/11."

*The National Review:

"While most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end...Thompson has set a standard of specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to."

Our troops, veterans and their families deserve a Commander in Chief who is ready on Day One, not someone who needs on-the-job training when it comes to foreign affairs and national security.

Fred Thompson will be ready to lead the minute he is sworn in, and that is why we are supporting him for President.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Livingston
Co-Chairman
Veterans for Fred
MAJGEN, USMC (Ret.)
Medal of Honor Recipient

Joe Repya
National Executive Director
Veterans for Fred
LTC, USA (Ret.)

Vets For Fred

Press Release

Thompsons Troops
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make History with Fred Thompson
As we head into the final 20 days before the first in the nation Iowa Caucuses, the campaign is asking for the help of its strong grassroots organization to carry Fred across the finish line on caucus night. This campaign began as a grassroots attempt to bring Fred Thompson into the race, and this campaign will continue to work with those same grassroots activists to ensure a strong performance on January 3rd in Iowa.
Join: Thompsons Troops


Bikers For Fred


Fred Thompson And The Rude Moderator
I Stole This Video From-The Liberal Lies The Conservative Truth & The Chatterbox Chronicles :-)

I Feel Momentum Building :-)

Alan Keyes?

So asks Marie, in her weekly Two Cents:


Alan Keyes????????



Just how did this guy get in the race all of the sudden? It seemed as if we were in Church listening to a Sermon when he was speaking today in the Iowa Republican Debate!

Another New Member Joins the Fold!

The Red November Initiative welcomes Daniel Ruwe of Right Minds to the fold.

Daniel was referred by Marie of Marie's Two Cents!

Thanks, Marie!

Thoughts on Immigration

Robert at Conservative Commentary makes this excellent post:


As we move at virtual lightspeed into this new election season which has lasted longer than the NBA playoffs, one issue continues to remain out in the cold, and no one seems willing to let it into the warmth of the living room.

Illegal Immigration.

Despite overwhelming resistance to all of the immigration bills that have been presented in Congress, there is a segment of our society that believes we should extend a hand in welcome to anyone who cares to sneak across our borders. The state of North Carolina is mandating that the state's college system accept illegal immigrants. The liberal left refer to "undocumented workers" until a GOP candidate hired a company that hired illegal immigrants and tried to derail his campaign.

On the flip side, the state of Arizona is enforcing new laws against illegal immigration that have lead to hundreds of illegals leaving the state each day. The jobs are drying up, the benefits are being denied, and the state is returning to they way they want their state. Of course there are lawsuits, but Arizona should stand up and tell the Federal Courts to put a sock in it and stand back. Have we forgotten that the individual states are supposed to have the protection of the federal government and not squirm under it's thumb? If the federal government can refuse to enforce their own laws, they should step back when a state decides to set its own.

We need movement on illegal immigration. It doens't have to be sweeping new legislation. It doesn't have to be "reform", which is politico-speak for "finding a new way to do the same old stupid stuff but everyone thinks we are moving forward". What is has to be is the commitment to America, a dedication for the preservation of our union, and some acknowledgment that Americans should place America before anyone else.

World citizenship be damned.