Casting a Paul on the Republicans

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Capital Flag
By Gerald S Glazer
I predict that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, will run on a third-party ticket next November. Here is why:

1. He is out of step with other Republicans.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Paul wants to cut federal spending and taxes. But he would go much further than any of the others: Paul would cut a trillion dollars in the first year alone! He would also abolish the Federal Reserve System (established in 1913), which controls the U.S. money supply, issues currency and regulates banking. If his ideas were implemented, we could face a 1930s-style Depression.

Unlike other Republicans, he considers the war in Iraq a mistake, and opposes any efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. He opposes all foreign aid and military assistance.

Other GOP candidates know all this, but don’t bother attacking him because they believe he has no chance of being nominated anyway.

2. A new group could provide nationwide ballot access.
AmericansElect (http://americanselect.org/) plans to select an independent presidential candidate via the Internet in June of 2012. Ron Paul’s young supporters have the tech-savvy to win this contest.

AmericansElect are now gathering signatures to place their ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. Each potential nominee will select his own running-mate, who must not be a member of the same political party.

3. He has done this before.
In 1988 Ron Paul was the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, so running on a third ticket does not scare him. He has repeatedly refused to rule-out doing so in 2012. At his age (76), Rep. Paul is not worried about blowing his chances for a future Republican nomination. (However, his son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would lose some credibility as a loyal Republican if he supported his father.)

Although numerous polls show that many (if not most) Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and would consider voting for an independent ticket, I doubt that Ron Paul would carry even one state. But all his votes would come from conservatives, so he might draw enough votes away from the Republican ticket to swing some states to the Democrats. That could be enough to re-elect President Obama.

I predict that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, will run on a third-party ticket next November. Here is why:

1. He is out of step with other Republicans.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Paul wants to cut federal spending and taxes. But he would go much further than any of the others: Paul would cut a trillion dollars in the first year alone! He would also abolish the Federal Reserve System (established in 1913), which controls the U.S. money supply, issues currency and regulates banking. If his ideas were implemented, we could face a 1930s-style Depression.

Unlike other Republicans, he considers the war in Iraq a mistake, and opposes any efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. He opposes all foreign aid and military assistance.

Other GOP candidates know all this, but don’t bother attacking him because they believe he has no chance of being nominated anyway.

2. A new group could provide nationwide ballot access.
AmericansElect (http://americanselect.org/) plans to select an independent presidential candidate via the Internet in June of 2012. Ron Paul’s young supporters have the tech-savvy to win this contest.

AmericansElect are now gathering signatures to place their ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. Each potential nominee will select his own running-mate, who must not be a member of the same political party.

3. He has done this before.
In 1988 Ron Paul was the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, so running on a third ticket does not scare him. He has repeatedly refused to rule-out doing so in 2012. At his age (76), Rep. Paul is not worried about blowing his chances for a future Republican nomination. (However, his son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would lose some credibility as a loyal Republican if he supported his father.)

Although numerous polls show that many (if not most) Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and would consider voting for an independent ticket, I doubt that Ron Paul would carry even one state. But all his votes would come from conservatives, so he might draw enough votes away from the Republican ticket to swing some states to the Democrats. That could be enough to re-elect President Obama.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Gingrich: The Ultimate Partisan

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Newt Gingrich image
“Everybody on this stage would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama!” Newt Gingrich at Republican candidate forum, Nov. 12, 2011

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, apparently Mr. November in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, has been faulted for accepting about $1.6 million in consulting fees from the failed government-backed mortgage investor Freddie Mac. (1) But it is common for big time politicians to cash in on their savvy and connections after leaving public office, so that is not scandalous. (I would have taken the money myself, had it been offered, and I am pure as the driven snow.) Apparently, Newt has no problem with profligate spending by quasi-public entities such as Freddie Mac, as long as the money is spent on him.

As a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, he would be expected to guarantee his support for the 2012 GOP ticket. (2) But the statement quoted above goes way beyond that: he declared that every other Republican candidate (including those who have no chance of winning the nomination) is preferable to President Barack Obama, which implies that partisanship trumps all other considerations in evaluating candidates.

All the Republican candidates are for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. But aside from that Republican orthodoxy, some differ from each other as much as they differ from President Obama. For example, Jon Hunstman represented Obama’s China policies in Beijing with no problem for nearly three years, while Mitt Romney advocates punishing China for its predatory currency and trade practices. Since Gingrich considers both preferable to Obama, how to deal with China is no big deal to him.

Newt Gingrich considers himself a friend of Israel, and supported aid to Israel while in Congress, yet would rather have Rep. Ron Paul in charge of US Middle East policy than Barack Obama. Obama has been justly criticized for his opposition to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, but the President has supported over $3 billion in aid to the Jewish state every year of his presidency and gave Israel the $200 million “Iron Dome” missile defense system. In sharp contrast, Rep. Paul has consistently voted against all foreign aid (of which Israel is the largest recipient) and cast one of only 5 votes in the entire House of Representatives (3) against supporting Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Paul has long been rightly labeled one of the most anti-Israel members of the House, which Gingrich certainly knows, yet he would still prefer him over Obama! Apparently Gingrich’s love for Israel is overwhelmed by his love for the Republican Party.

Herman Cain’s 9% sales tax? No problem! Rick Perry’s desire to abolish the Department of Energy (which includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog over possible radioactive contamination) plus other agencies to named later? No problem! Michelle Bachmann’s hope to eliminate all federal taxes, so the government would have to close down permanently (not just a few days)? No problem! They are all Republicans, so they would all be better than Obama!

Newt Gingrich has a checkered past, including two (out of three, so far) failed marriages, shutting down the US government in 1995, impeachment of President Clinton, a $300,000 fine for an ethics violation while Speaker and his resignation from Congress (4). He has wisely refrained from lambasting his fellow Republican presidential candidates, which will help him pick up the support of those who fall by the wayside. But if he is nominated, his obsessive partisanship and cantankerous personality will probably sink the GOP ticket.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————————-

(1) “Gingrich defends Freddie Mac pay” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2011, page 7A. “Freddie Mac” is a popular nickname for FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which was taken over by the US Government in 2008 to prevent collapse.

(2) After Eugene McCarthy refused to promise to support the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket, he never won another election.

(3)The others were Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall and our own Gwen Moore.

(4) Wikipedia biography.

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Romney / Gingrich Ticket?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.5/7 (2 votes cast)

Romney Ginrich Image
A Romney/Gingrich republican presidential ticket could work well to solve the economic problems destroying our country.

As president, Romney would command the role of front man, presenting the ideals of the party to the American public, including repeal of ObamaCare, reduction of unnecessary regulation by government agencies, gradual elimination of the IRS, protection of our borders and anything else that is reasonable to get Americans back to work—without spending trillions of dollars in the process.

Behind Romney would be Gingrich. As vice-president, Gingrich has the political experience in congress to work both sides of the aisle in the background to obtain consensus for passage of proposed legislation.

Obama learned a hard lesson in his failed presidency, demonstrating to the country his inability to join congress in implementing policies that move our country out of recession.

Vice-president Biden has demonstrated the ability to do nothing but cause controversy. Typical for a phony busted for plagiarizing many years ago.

Sure, Obama got things done say liberals. Anyone could ram healthcare legislation down the throats of Americas when you have a congressional majority. And Obama’s method includes getting a bill passed, even when few representatives took the time to actually read the bill.

Nice governing!

Other than that, Obama does a great job charging up the public’s credit card, but has no clue as to how to substantially curtail spending in order to pay back the debt.

A Romney/Gingrich ticket combines Romney’s business experience of successfully running a company in the black, along with Gingrich’s congressional technocrat expertise.

As a nation, we don’t have time to bicker over how many wives Gingrich has had, or Romney’s religious affiliation. The people who promote those issues should go back to watching The Kardashians.

We need solutions that work. A Romney/Gingrich ticket is gold.

 
VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.5/7 (2 votes cast)

Palin Makes Right Decision Not To Run

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Sarah Palin Photo
Sarah Palin’s announcement not to run for President in 2012 was noble.

Consider her qualifications.

Like Obama, she isn’t qualified to be the President of the most powerful nation on this planet. Having served as mayor of a small town and then briefly as Governor of Alaska, she lacks Federal legislative and executive experience in the brutal Washington political environment.

Moreover, she may not fully understand the enormous power struggles that go on in the Federal level and the difficult compromises that must be garnered, especially those that go against her principles.

Actually, Palin is more valuable to this country as a “cheerleader” for the Tea Party. She has a talent for motivating the base.

Finally, as a writer and an advocate at paid public appearances, she’s in a better place financially.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

‘Dark Days Are Upon Us’….Really?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Dark days ahead

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” …Abraham Lincoln

Wouldn’t it be nice if one of these mornings we could wake up to no ‘bad’ news? Where a morning cup of coffee would buoy your spirits and fire you up to a brand new day full of prospect and good fortune?

But a sinking economy, recession, appeasement of those that would harm our country, a foreign policy that dilutes our supremacy on the world stage coupled with the now daily reports of the Obama administration’s corrupt dealings, would seem to sap our resolve in believing that Obama has killed American ‘exceptionalism’ and hope for a brighter future.

With all of that said, and some not said, I believe the American spirit, key to our survival of individual rights, freedom of choice and traditions, will triumph in the end despite the sad sack policies of a President whose every action seems intent on diluting and eventually killing that American spirit. Abraham Lincoln’s quote would seem to encourage us in that resolve, to rise up and take matters into our own hands. However, the intent was metaphorical.

We are slowly rising up especially with the advent of the Tea Party which has tweaked the American conscience to action. The key to success will be for us to be as unrelenting in our message in opposition to the Obama lemmings who seem to have no clue that their path, if successful, will lead to the eventual destruction of our country. Time to get up, get out and throw Obama and his pantywaist followers out of Washington in 2012.

But the battle will be only half won if the corrupting forces of the K St lobbyists and lawyers are allowed to continue do to everything possible to keep their ‘status quo,’ at the expense of the American people. Our mission then is to make sure whoever replaces the Alinskyite zombie now in the White House, is not allowed to continue in that vain. Just my opinion.

William McCullough

____________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns.  Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 7.0/7 (1 vote cast)

Israel Is The Issue

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.3/7 (2 votes cast)

“(Obama has been) throwing Israel under the bus!” Former Gov. Mitt Romney. (1)

“The Obama administration has appeased the Arab street…” Gov. Rick Perry (1)

These candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination have pounced on one of President Obama’s major vulnerabilities: his tepid record of support for Israel. Since Evangelical Christians are strong backers of the Jewish state, both candidates are also appealing to this group, which can play a significant role in GOP primaries.

But are they right about Obama? Although the President has consistently supported and approved aid to Israel (as promised by previous presidents) and gave it the Iron Dome missile-defense system ($200 billion paid by the US), Obama has tilted American policy toward the Palestinian cause three ways:

1. The Cairo Speech. Obama declared American ties to Israel “unbreakable,” but also promised the creation of a Palestinian state on land won by Israel in 1967. Since this promise was not contingent upon any concessions by the Arab side, the Palestinians have held out for their maximalist demands, assured as they were of American support.

2. The 1967 Borders. The President called for negotiations based upon the pre-Six Day War borders, with “swaps” of some land. But the Palestine Authority has executed Arabs for selling land to Jews, so it will never voluntarily transfer any land (especially in or near Jerusalem, a city holy to Islam) to Israel—so there will be no “swaps.” And Israel will not withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, which the present government deems indefensible.

3. Jerusalem. Eastern Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in 1968, and it includes the Old City and Temple Mount, where Jews intend to rebuild the Beth HaMikdash (Temple) in Messianic times. There is virtually no chance than any Israeli government, now or in the foreseeable future, will cede any substantial part of this city to the Palestinians. In 2008 Barack Obama assured the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that Jerusalem would be the “undivided capital of Israel”, but subsequently complained incessantly every time Israel has even proposed building housing in East Jerusalem. This has encouraged the Palestinians to stiffen their demands about “settlements” in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As a result, Jews are abandoning Obama, who garnered about 78% of their votes in 2008. The Republican victory in Anthony Weiner’s former congressional district, perhaps the most Jewish in the nation, is a sign that Jewish antipathy toward Obama is strong enough to sink other Democratic candidates. Without a big Jewish vote, Obama cannot carry New York in 2012, and without New York’s electoral votes, Obama cannot be re-elected. (No Democrat since Truman has won the presidency without New York.)

Even if he orders that the US veto a Security Council resolution recognizing the State of Palestine later this month, it may be too late for Barack Obama to win back crucial Jewish support. If he is the Democratic nominee, he will not only lose the presidency, but may also drag down other Democratic nominees for the Senate and House with him. So, if Obama really cares about health care, jobs and taxes, he should decline to seek the Democratic nomination for another term, so that a more popular Democrat (probably Hillary Clinton) can be nominated and go on to win. President Hayes declined to run in 1880, and his party kept the presidency. (2)

Gerald S Glazer

—————————————————————–

(1) Associated Press, Sept. 21, 2011.

(2) The Republicans nominated James Garfield, who won. Hayes was the last president to decline to seek renomination after only four years in the White House.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not be verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 6.3/7 (2 votes cast)

Are We In A Recession, Or Depression?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
dollar sign melting

As our massive economic downturn enters its fourth year, demoralized citizens nationwide are questioning whether our “great recession” is actually a full-blown depression.

Webster’s Dictionary defines a recession as “a period of reduced economic activity”, and a depression as “a period of low general economic activity marked especially by rising levels of unemployment.”

Rising levels of unemployment? According to Mort Zuckerman, Editor-In-Chief of US News and World Report, in his 6/20/2011 article “Why The Jobs Situation Is Worse Than It Looks”:

“In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there has been no net increases in full-time jobs … Total payrolls today amount to 131 million, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of 2000, even though our population has grown by nearly 30 million.”

The unemployment rate remains at 9.1%, with some estimates — but, when you factor in the millions who have stopped looking for work — the unemployment rate exceeds 16%.

Those stimulative fiscal and monetary policies have compounded another problem contributing to our economic woes: an out-of-control federal budget deficit. Since President Obama took office in 2009, the federal deficit has grown by $3.5 trillion, with 41 cents of every dollar spent being borrowed.

Further, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the US’s ratio of debt-to-GNP (gross national product) will be 69% in 2011, and expand to 101% in 2021 if current policies aren’t altered.

Obviously, a debt crisis of this magnitude does little to generate the consumer and investor confidence necessary for economic recovery. Nor do three wars, collapsing home values, rising food and gas prices, and increasing inflation, foreclosure rates and personal bankruptcy filings. Not to mention the fact that the European economy is in even worse shape than ours.

So, are we in a recession or a depression?

Ronald Reagan answered this question brilliantly during his 1980 presidential campaign. In describing similarly dire economic conditions he said, “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours; and a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

Let’s just hope the recovery has begun long before we follow Reagan’s advice in November 2012.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Lincoln: Obama’s Mentor?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
The case of General Motors and our Federal Government  is becoming suspicious.

The intent of the bailout, according to our government, is to provide stabilization of GM in order to protect thousands of job losses and protect automotive suppliers from financial disaster, all in an effort to protect from collapse our nation’s economy.

Sounds noble, doesn’t it?

As we know, President Obama and his financial team pressured GM to oust and replace its CEO.  Apparently board members are soon to be escorted to the door as well.

Obama, a learned historian of President Lincoln, may be mirroring similar acts of the magnitude during Lincoln’s presidency and his era’s version of a national crisis—the civil war and the south’s intent to secede from our Union.

Could Obama be violating our constitution to protect our Union during this national crisis as did Lincoln?

At the initial stages of GM’s plea for government bailout monies, GM’s mantra to our legislature was clearly their imminent financial collapse.

Here’s my problem with the whole process:

The Federal Court provides a remedy for businesses in financial distress.  We all know that remedial provision: Bankruptcy.  Why wasn’t GM told to take advantage of that remedy?

GM argued that plunging the company into bankruptcy court would raise immediate cessation of consumer confidence in GM, thus creating further damage to the company.

Since the government announced their intent to back all GM new car warranties, the bankruptcy option is now being carefully broached to potential consumers. My prediction is that, once the shock of a GM bankruptcy option wears off, then GM will file.

Why didn’t GM use this option from the inception of their plea for help?  And why, with the talk of a controlled and fast-tracked bankruptcy proceeding, would GM be allowed to receive special consideration under the bankruptcy rules that could affect bondholders, shareholders and creditors rights under the bankruptcy code that otherwise they would not be subjected to?

While observing, keep your focus on existing law, how our government is suspending those provisions, and the constitutionality of government action during this crisis.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Obama Superior to McCain at Presidential Persuasion

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
The greatest power held by a President is his or her ability to persuade.  That was the premise of late author Richard E. Neustadt, written in his 1960′s book, Presidential Power.

Neustadt opined that a president only has the power to persuade both the public and congress to enact his vision for America through legislation. Without which, a president may be doomed for failure.

When the public is inspired, we expect congress to respond.  And they should, because according to the mandates of our constitution, they’re duty is to represent us, not their own self-interest.

That concept seems to have been lost.

When congress fails to respond, the President, in order to be effective, is required to inspire public sentiment, allowing the energy he creates to influence congressional acts.

Partisanship aside, which presidential candidate has this gift?

Contrary to the “lack of leadership” label bestowed upon him by republicans, Barack Obama possesses a striking power to persuade the public, similar to that of JFK.

Drawing thousands of supporters and curiosity seekers to his public appearances, Obama commands attention.  Under a democratic-controlled congress, there may be no need to promote his vision beyond that.  The director may simply use his gift to introduce the congressional choir’s next song on the program to his audience.

That arrangement, however, will backfire on the Democrats if their agenda is skewed too far to the left.  Moderation always wins.

Despite enviable personal courage, any chance for John McCain to persuade the public is automatically cancelled out by his republican affiliation.

Unjustified wars, more wealth continuously heaved upon the rich, and an economy pointed to disaster, are repugnant to Americans and their ideals. Nobody is really listening to his proclamations.

Instead, at his rallies, his faithful are screaming at him for reform. But they’ve come to realize, that despite their efforts, he doesn’t hear them.

McCain’s perceived disconnect with our generation, even with the addition of young Sarah Palin to the ticket, relegates him to second trombone.

His tired policies are uninspiring to this generation thirsting for innovation and raised in the age of the pervasive power of electronic social networking.

Who wants to pay big money to see the tired Rolling Stones just one more time?

Despite the persuasion of political partisanship, this time, presidential persuasion trumps, because this election represents the political establishment’s final ride on their merry-go-round.  The public has declared that it will no longer allow it to operate on their festival grounds.

Once Obama’s plan for America smacks those awakened by the groundswell of unintended constitutionalists, an inspired third party will inevitably emerge to lead this generation, and put the final kibosh on the politics of our two floundering political parties, no matter who bears its standard with all of the qualities to persuade.

That day is coming. Obama and his Democrats are unknowingly taking us down that path to the final chapter of tired politics, as we know it.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)