Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Republican Establishment Hates New Ideas. Want More Of The Same.

ROMNEY CONFIRMS: INDEPENDENT NEWS THE PROBLEM

Exclusive: Joseph Farah say Mitt's recent remarks prove 'he was never there to win'

The former Republican presidential candidate confided to David Axelrod that it’s all the fault of the emergence of the independent media, the demise of the establishment press and the rise of “insurgent” Republicans who prevent Republicans from compromising more with Democrats.

Romney pointed to Rep. Paul Ryan’s bid to become House speaker as an example, explaining “extremes within our respective parties are having a louder and louder voice and demanding more attention” and “immediate action” as opposed to more “collaborative action.”

This phenomenon is made possible, Romney said, by a “change in the world of media.”

“There was a time when we all got the news with the same facts, if you will,” he said. “We had three networks we watched for the evening news. Most of us got newspapers. Everybody in the middle class got a newspaper, so we got the same facts whether we agreed or not with them.”

Romney bemoaned the fact that more people “get their news on the Web” and “they tend to read those things which they agree with.” He said people are “not seeing the other side” and “not even getting the same facts” while “we have commentators” on left-leaning and right-leaning cable news channels “who are hyperbolic in expressing their views on issues.”

“There are some in our party who think the best approach is throwing bombs,” he said. “The problem with bomb throwing so far is that most of the bombs have landed on our own team. That doesn’t help.”

It’s hardly surprising that Romney believes these things.

However, it’s worth noting to whom he made these admissions.

Who is David Axelrod?

He was Barack Obama’s chief political strategist in 2008 and 2012. After Obama won in 2008, Axelrod was appointed as senior adviser to the president. He left that post in 2011 to become senior strategist for Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. Today he is a senior political commentator for CNN.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

The revelation by Romney confirms publicly that the Republican establishment he represents has more in common with the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate, statist media.

It’s no surprise to me.

Did you know that during the 2012 election, the Romney campaign prohibited any advertising dollars to be spent on WND? On the other hand, as many of you noted with chagrin, the Obama campaign flooded WND with advertising messages.

What does that show?

Romney didn’t covet WND visitors as voters. Perhaps he felt it was a lost cause. Obama wanted them.

Now, let me ask you a rhetorical question: Do you think there were more potential Romney voters on WND or potential Obama voters?

It shows the difference between the Democratic Party establishment and the Republican establishment. The Democrats compete for every vote. The Republicans don’t.

It also shows that the Republican establishment is actually more hostile to independent, Constitution-minded voters than is the Democratic establishment.

It may suggest that the Republican establishment cares less about winning than in perpetuating business as usual in Washington – borrowing and spending, bigger and more powerful centralized government, open borders, etc.

The cat’s out of the bag. Mitt Romney’s moment of candor with the chief architect of Obama’s victory over himself confirms, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Republican establishment hates conservatives, independents and voters who want to see a return to limited government, responsibility in Washington, the rule of law and the accountability to the will of the people.

Incredible, isn’t it?

I’m glad he admitted it.

He was never there to win.

He was there to ensure voters had no real choice.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Isn't It Sad We Must Force IRS To Produce Emails? Are They Not Public Servants?

Judge Orders IRS To Swear To An Explanation Of How Lerner’s Emails Disappeared

July 10, 2014 by Ben Bullard

165

Only a day before a U.S. District judge will weigh arguments to decide whether to use independent IT experts to track down Lois Lerner’s missing emails, another judge in a separate lawsuit has ordered the IRS to describe, under oath, exactly how those emails turned up missing.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan following a hearing today, pertains to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the IRS by nonprofit government watchdog Judicial Watch.

The Federal tax collecting agency is also a defendant in a similar lawsuit filed by True the Vote, a Texas-based conservative group that alleges it was among the conservative nonprofits targeted by the IRS for political discrimination ahead of the 2012 Presidential campaign season.

Sullivan’s order today gives the IRS 30 days to assign an agency official to file a declaration that outlines how the emails, long sought after by Congressional investigators as part of a House Oversight inquiry, disappeared from computer hard drives, as well as mail servers, backup systems and possibly even employees’ mobile devices. The IRS official responsible for delivering that declaration will be doing so under oath, as the information contained in the document will be comparable with other forms of sworn testimony.

According to Fox News, Sullivan intentionally worded his instructions to the IRS in broad fashion in order to compel the agency to give a thorough explanation. He also ordered the agency to provide the court with information on how the emails could, at this point, be retrieved.

Judicial Watch had already filed its FOIA suit before the IRS admitted to Congress last month that it had essentially been sitting on the knowledge that the emails had disappeared. Tom Fitton, president of the organization, said today the IRS intentionally failed to act properly as a defendant in the case by withholding that knowledge from both Judicial Watch and the court itself.

“In our view, there has been a cover-up that has been going on. The Department of Justice; the IRS, had an obligation, an absolute obligation … to alert the court and alert Judicial Watch as soon as they knew when these records were supposedly lost,” Fitton said.

On Friday, the IRS will argue in the True the Vote case against a potential court order that could authorize outside technical experts to verify the truth of the agency’s claim that the emails are, in fact, irrevocably lost. You can read more about that case here.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Gas Prices Going Up--Thanks EPA

Now that the economy has fully recovered from the 2008

crash, that we have no unemployment problem and

our budget is balanced, it is time to clean up

the environment. (Yea sure. Please don't choke

on your drink!) So says the Environmental Protection

Agency. They have announced that they are

mandating a new formulation of gasoline that

will only add 9 cents to each gallon. Now

everyone can pay the same high gas prices

as California already is. Such malarky!

The EPA is another branch of government which
is out of control and needs to be reined in.
When they can arbitrarily make regulations which
impose more costs on already hard pressed
Americans, this makes absolutely no sense. The irony
is that these regulations were delayed by 15 months
to avoid any "political" repercussions
Yea, they wanted Obama re-elected
so they put off these election killers until he
was back in office.

Just as the economy seems to be showing some
growth, this measure will undoubtedly have a
negative effect. If the average car is driven
12000 miles per year, that would be 1000 miles
per month. Also assuming that the average car
gets 25 miles per gallon that would equate to
$3.60 per month or $43.20 per year. Not a
real budget breaker, but enough to hurt most working people.

Will it throw the entire country into a depression,
of course not. However, the camel did not collapse
until that one small twig was added to his load. Where
is the breaking point. We are not sure but do believe
it is not far off.

We do not need anymore taxes. This additional cost i
s a tax. We have to purchase fuel and therefore have
no choice. Enough is enough. Stop all the taxes.

Conservative Tom

New EPA Rules to Add ‘9 Cents a Gallon’ to Gas

Friday, 29 Mar 2013 10:59 AM

By David Yonkman, Newsmax Washington Correspondent

More . . .

A A |

Email Us |

Print |

Forward Article

0
inShare

New regulations to be announced by the Environmental Protection Agency Friday are set to push the already-high price of gas up by a further 9 cents a gallon, petroleum industry experts are warning.

“There is a tsunami of federal regulations coming out of the EPA that could put upward pressure on gasoline prices. EPA’s proposed fuel regulations are the latest example,” Bob Greco, director of the American Petroleum Institute Downstream Group, told Newsmax.

Editor's Note: 5 Signs Stock Market Will Collapse in 2013

The regulations, aimed at reducing the amount of sulfur emissions, will add as much as 9 cents, according to industry experts, although the administration insisted the cost at the pump would be lower.

The Washington Post quoted a senior administration official saying the new standards would cost less than a penny a gallon and have the same environmental impact as taking 33 million cars off the road.

Congressional Republicans lashed out at the new regulations.

“The Obama administration cannot be more out of touch,” GOP Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, chairman of a House Energy subcommittee, told Newsmax. “With hard-pressed families already struggling to afford each fill-up, Congress needs to take a hard look at any new EPA regulation that may raise the price at the pump.

“This is just another example of an overzealous EPA,” Whitfield said.

The EPA says the rules are needed because high sulfur content reduces the effectiveness of catalytic converters, causing more emissions to be released into the air.

The EPA rule will force 49 states to follow regulations already in place in California that set stricter standards on gasoline’s sulfur content. Currently, states can have 30 parts of sulfur per million, but the new rules will lower it further to 10 parts.

The industry has already cut sulfur content by 90 percent in recent years, from 300 parts per million to 30 parts, at a cost of $10 billion, Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, told The New York Times.

The new rules would cost another $10 billion, Drevna claimed.

The Petroleum Institute’s Greco told Newsmax, “Our government should not be adding unnecessary regulations that raise manufacturing costs, especially when there are no proven environmental benefits.

“We should not pile on new regulations when existing regulations are working,” he added.

Greco said the new rules would increase greenhouse gas emissions because of the “energy-intensive equipment required to comply.”

Republican House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan said the move was another example of the Obama administration’s misguided energy policy.

“Instead of raising gas prices, the Obama administration should focus on bringing stability and greater supplies to our energy markets by green-lighting projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, which will bring approximately 1 million barrels per day of oil from a close ally to the United States,” Upton told Newsmax.

Editor's Note: 5 Signs Stock Market Will Collapse in 2013

The EPA’s proposal has been ready for 15 months but was delayed until after the election to avoid making rising gas prices a major campaign issue, The New York Times reported.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gasoline-nine-cents-sulfur/2013/03/29/id/496938?s=al&promo_code=12FA4-1#ixzz2OxqIMvRz
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Monday, November 5, 2012

Choose Wisely Tomorrow

The following piece came from a friend of mine. We especially liked the final paragraph. Are we going to be slaves or masters? Are we going to reclaim the American dream or let it die? Are we going to return honesty and openness to government or will we continue to accept the lack thereof? These are the questions facing us tomorrow. How will you vote?

Conservative Tom

P.S. Later tonight we will post what we believe will happen tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Excerpted from "It's About Liberty, and You're Not Stupid," by Dave Carter · November 3, 2012 (available on ricochet.com). Choose wisely tomorrow...it's a big deal...a really big deal:

The systematic violation of Constitutional limits on federal power is neither hope nor change, but rather the subversion of American law and a declaration of war on the individual citizen. To say, as the President of the United States did of Congress, a little over a year ago that, "Where they won't act, I will," is to announce the seizure of legislative power and the brazen violation of his own oath of office. From unilaterally violating federal immigration law, to defying a court order to resume oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, to illegally taking upon himself the power to declare Congress in recess, to commanding private citizens to enter into contracts against their will, to reaching into federal welfare reform law and removing requirements he found objectionable, he has undertaken intrusions into the private lives of a free people that make George III look like an amateur.

His government prescribes the content of our food, and the size and type of plumbing in our toilets and showers. They dictate what we can and cannot do with a puddle of water on our property, and even presume to intrude into our healthcare and thus into matters of our life and death. They swallow up private businesses under the guise of helping them, and distribute the bounty to cronies and union bosses. They choose which industries to favor (solar) and which to disfavor (coal), with the predictable result being that both fail. All this and more will be yours, your children's and your grandchildren's, for the bargain basement price of a mere $16,000,000,000,000.00 (before interest), along with enough regulations to sink the Queen Mary.

What are we to make of a President who sees no moral prohibition against forcibly seizing whatever portion of an individual's property he views as necessary to finance his utopian projects; who routinely violates the law and yet expects the rest of us to abide by the volumes of laws and rules his leviathan administration hurls in our direction; who spends more time on the golf course than in intelligence briefings; who has taken more vacations in one term than many of us take in a lifetime; and who rails against "fat cats" while taking his family on lavish trips in separate jets at our expense? Are we actually to believe that he relates to us? What are we to make of a Commander-in-Chief who tells victims of the hurricane that we leave no one behind, when he very specifically abandoned Americans under terrorist attack in Benghazi and refuses to tell the truth about it? Answer: That he is perhaps the worst Commander-in-Chief in American history.

And how does Barack Obama answer? By playing adolescent word games with his opponent's last name, and describing such ideas as are contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as, "the failed policies of the past."

This election, certainly the most significant in our lifetime, is not about "revenge," as the President so boorishly announced. It's about 9,000 coal mining jobs lost in the last month alone. It's about 48 million people on food stamps, and 23 million people unemployed. It's about a work force that is smaller now than when Barack Obama was inaugurated. It's about a 14.3 percent unemployment rate in the black community. It's about a new IRS requirement that will take effect in 2014, requiring all taxpayers, in the words of sworn testimony, to, "… file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment." It's about the evisceration of our national defense and, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, troops who no longer trust their Commander-in-Chief.

It is ultimately a referendum on us, and it's about what kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit. It's about whether they will be free men and women -- freedom here being defined differently than the progressive's definition, which stipulates that one must be freed from want or fear through the dictates of centralized planners.

We see now what the Founders knew over two centuries ago; that free people and free markets are the surest means to freedom from want and fear, and that centralized government control over a nation is the surest path to despair, want, fear, and servitude. It's about Liberty. It's about We the People, endowed with unalienable rights, being the masters of our lives and our government instead of the other way around. It's time to reclaim the American ideal.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Results: 315 For Romney-Could We Be So Lucky?

Michael Barone predict a major blowout! Could we be so lucky? If you listened to the "experts" this morning on the Sunday talk shows, you would think that Barone was smoking some funny cigarettes.

We think it will be closer than 315 for Romney which will result in hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits against precincts, cities and states. It could push off the results for weeks or even months. Could we see the inauguration put off until after litigation efforts end?

Conservative Tom

Barone Predicts Blowout… 315 Electoral Votes For Mitt Romney

On November 4, 2012, in 2012 Roadmap, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, by Eric Odom

In case you missed it… Michael Barone is predicting a massive landslide victory for Romney. Normally I wouldn’t post a prediction such as this, but Barone is no dummy. He’s got a great grasp on the data and his view on this race a few days out is stunning.
His reasoning on the matter is quite sound.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don’t identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.
That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting — and about their candidate — than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.
That’s been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

I can see PA ending with a big surprise Romney win. I would say Obama has a better shot there, but anything is possible. The big surprise for me is Barone’s take that Nevada would go Obama… even in this environment.

LIBERTY ADS: WORLD FAMOUS RESTICKERS ARE HERE!

We've completely re-invented the bumper sticker industry! Long gone are the days of permanent bumper stickers that can only be used once. Meet ReStickers... the #1 conservative bumper stickers on the web!

CLICK HERE NOW!

Nevada (6). Democratic early-voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas’ Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions’ turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they’ll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.

Here’s the thing. Las Vegas outright rejected Sharon Angle in 2010. In fact, Angle couldn’t even win her own home county of Washoe, which is traditionally a very conservative/Republican county. The 2010 race in Nevada was less an acceptance of Harry Reid as it was a rejection of Angle. Additionally, Dean Heller is set to win a big Senate battle and Angle didn’t have another epic race on the ticket alongside to help.
I think if Barone’s prediction of 315 electoral votes for Romney comes true, it will likely be 321 with Nevada’s 6.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

What Are We Missing?

Monday, October 1, 2012

Is Class Warfare Good For The Country

This is not an investment piece, rather it is a philosophy article. We think it really sums up the difference between the two parties in this election year. It will effect the future of the United States.

We would like to hear your take.

Conservative Tom

Is This 'Untruth' Keeping You From Getting Rich?
By Alex Green, Chief Investment Strategist, Investment U

I know it's a political year, but I don't generally like to talk politics.

When I'm not making readers money, I'd like to at least make them happy. And when you talk politics, you often make half your audience – and sometimes more – unhappy.

Still, I'm shocked and surprised by an ominous development in this year's presidential election. No, not the personal attacks, negative ads, or over-the-top promises. Those have been staples in national elections for more than 200 years. What's new – and troubling, in my view – is that some see political gain in demonizing economic success.

I don't get it. As a kid growing up in a solidly middle-class family, I admired the businessmen, entrepreneurs, and professionals in my community who earned large financial rewards. I remember feeling that these folks must have studied hard, put in long hours, or taken big risks. I didn't envy them. I wanted to be like them.

Yet there was former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic Convention stoking the flames of resentment with his remark that some "want a you're-on-your-own, winner-take-all society."

I find this disheartening, in part because Bill Clinton is not a left-wing ideologue. Yes, he's a card-carrying liberal but in his two terms, he promoted free trade, slashed capital gains taxes, and reformed the welfare system.

I thought the class-warfare remarks were beneath him. For starters, capitalism is about voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. Businesses don't "take" money. Only government (which has a monopoly on the legal use of force) and criminals do that. Businesses merely collect the money that consumers and other businesses voluntarily trade for products and services.

Perhaps Clinton meant the rich "take" in that they don't pay their fair share in taxes. This is certainly a debate worth having – and opinions are bound to vary. But we should begin with the facts. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the top 10% of Americans pays almost 70% of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50% pays essentially nothing. What would George Orwell say about calling the 10% of Americans who pay 70% of the taxes "takers" … and stoking a sense of grievance among the half that pays nothing?

I'm also confused about the "you're-on-your-own" bit. No one objects to a social safety net for the truly needy. But when I reached the age of majority – after receiving a free public-school education and a library card – I expected to take care of myself.

If I couldn't take care of myself in a pinch, I knew I might have to lean on family or friends temporarily. If I couldn't find help there, I might have to count on churches or local charities for a while. And if that still weren't enough, maybe I would have to turn to the state government as a last resort.

I never imagined that some bureaucrat in far-off Washington cared about me… or even wanted to meet me. Some folks seem to mistake government for community.

My point is that class warriors aren't just attacking Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (two men with whom I have my own differences). They aren't just vilifying the Republican party (a party fully deserving of some vilification). They are attacking the very notion of individual initiative and personal responsibility. Now that's new.

You might reasonably ask what this has to do with investing. My answer is everything. Investment begins with savings. Savings comes from earned income. An income high enough to permit saving comes from education and hard work. And the desire to get educated and work hard comes from a belief that the system is fair and these qualities will be rewarded.

To me, it seems particularly corrosive to tell people – for political advantage – that they don't have a fair shot… that the system is rigged… that Wall Street is corrupt… that the rich don't pay their fair share… and that, somehow, you have less because "millionaires and billionaires" have more.

This strategy may win votes in some quarters… But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it what it is: a profound untruth.

Good investing,

Alex Green

Friday, August 10, 2012

Obama's Leadership Skills Revealed

If we were running the Romney campaign, we would be hammering the President on the Gulf oil spill every day. It is an example of his inaction, his attention to everything else including his golf game, while the oil kept spilling. This is how Obama leads or should we say follows. He is not a leader.

People blamed President Bush for not getting to the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina but he was there within a couple days. It took Obama nearly 7 days before there even was a public statement on the problem and did not visit for weeks later. Yet, he seems to get a pass on this. Are we so enamored with Obama that we will not hold him accountable for things that happen in this country?

The public does not seem to be concerned that we have unbelievable unemployment and underemployment, a housing crisis that has not been resolved, a foreclosure problem that will not go away and yet, he is still popular with the country. Are we so dumbed down that we cannot see what he is doing to this country?

This election should be a cake walk for any challenger given the economy, Obama's ruling by administrative fiat, his constant campaigning and his lack of leadership. Yet, right now polls indicate that he is either ahead or tied with Romney. Either that says that the Republican is a poor candidate or that Obama has the best press coverage. It is very concerning.

Conservative Tom

Should you have forgotten what occurred during the gulf oil spill, the link below is a great encapsulation of it.
http://vimeo.com/12933322

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Is it Ron Paul's time?

In November last year we wrote in a post (November 23 entitled "Ron Paul Republican Candidate?" which is reproduced below), that we felt Paul could be around near the end of the campaign. It seems that we were on the right track. Interestingly, Santorum, Perry, Cain, Bachman et al are out of the race and who is still there--the missing man, Ron Paul! Will he continue to run until the convention? We believe so. Will he get more press coverage, doubtful. Will he win the nomination for Republican Candidate for President, again probably not. However, should Romney stumble, it is possible (10-25%) but highly unlikely.

That's my opinion, what's yours?

Conservative Tom

Time To Step Up For Ron Paul

April 11, 2012 by Bob Livingston

UPI FILE

Ron Paul is a more attractive candidate to independents and moderates than Mitt Romney.

With Rick Santorum (faux conservative-Pa.)officially “suspending” his campaign andNewt Gingrich (corporatist adulterer-Ga.)fading to inconsequentialness, now is the time for all those “anybody-but-Mitt Romney” Republicans to get behind the only true conservative in the race: Congressman Ron Paul.

Unlike Mitt the Flip, who never held a position he couldn’t change in an instant, Paul has been a consistent and rock-solid conservative his whole career.

He has run his campaign the same way. While other candidates have soared to the top of the polls only to flame out like a New Year’s sparkler, Paul’s campaign has plodded along, amassing delegates along the way. (Don’t believe the media’s delegate count. Paul’s people are working behind the scenes to capture uncommitted delegates and take over local Republican Party offices, much to the dismay of the Republican establishment.)

Unlike Romney, Paul holds truly conservative ideals. He has pledged to balance the budget in three years. He will cut $1 trillion from the budget in the first year and eliminate five cabinet departments (Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education). He will abolish the Transportation Security Administration, end corporate subsidies (corporate welfare), stop foreign aid and return most spending to 2006 levels.

According to a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, 69 percent of Americans believe the United States should end its involvement in the Afghanistan war. Paul has said he’ll bring the troops home immediately.

Paul is more pro-gun, pro-Constitution and pro-liberty than Romney. Most importantly, while Romney wears Massachusetts’ Romneycare around his neck like a millstone, Paul has none of that baggage. And Paul is a more attractive candidate to independents and moderates than Romney.

There are still 19 States that have not held their primaries: Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah. There are still 1,152 delegates left to be awarded in those States. And while Paul will not win enough delegates before the convention to lock up the nomination, it’s important that Romney doesn’t either.

Then real conservatives can nominate a real conservative candidate that can beat Barack Obama in November.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2011

Ron Paul The Republican Candidate?

Can Ron Paul win? Can he get enough air time in the debates to show his abilities? Can he defeat Gingrich and Romney at a game where he is not slick? Is he a valuable commodity to the Republican race or a distraction? All of these are interesting academic questions and would make a great debate if one wanted to start one. Which I do!
As I see it Romney and Gingrich are both progressives in the Republican party. Neither is really conservative and both really do not see anything wrong with the country right now except that Republicans don't have their hands on all the handles of power. Would either be better than Obama, marginally. Not much would change if either were elected.
On the other hand, if Ron Paul would be the President, one could expect to see major departures in policy. We would see a major pull back in troop deployment around the world and a departure in who we pay foreign aid. In both of these areas, we believe he is on the right track. However, he also would propose major reductions in military spending, more than the SuperCommittee's lack of leadership has given us. We need to maintain our armed forces to be the best in the world and we don't think that is the same goal that Dr. Paul has.
Ron may be the last man standing when the dust settles. If Gingrich and Romney go after each other, they could destroy themselves and their opponent and that would leave Dr. Paul. Additionally, the way the Republicans have gone to proportional delegate counts and done away with "winner takes all', opens the door to a long Republican campaign. It might force the convention decide the winner. That would be fun!
The next year will bring all sorts of intrigue and for those of us who love the battle of politics, it is very interesting to see how it will play out.

Contact Form