You are here: Home / Archives for Politics

How Obama Will Win a Second Term.

January 13, 2012 By 13 Comments

Ron Paul supporters think themselves too principled to vote for anyone else. Meanwhile Soros and the NWO types, as well as the Marxists on the left are in the shadows waiting to take our liberties away as soon as the Paul supporters hand the election over to them as I anticipate will happen. Is Ron Paul misunderstood? Let’s take a look at this question.

The Texan advocates policies which are the exact opposite of his rhetoric. If you visit his website it indicates he supports many things he actually opposes.
With Ron Paul you always have to read the fine print. His speeches before conservative audiences are often impressive, but the reality is completely different. Some examples are:

  • Paul is a registered Republican but expresses considerable disdain for the GOP. He says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. In 1987 the Congressman said “I want to completely disassociate myself from Ronald Reagan,” and described his administration as a “dramatic failure.”
    He accused George H.W. Bush of war crimes, and wanted to impeach George W. Bush because of the non-existent North American Union. He says Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is part of the “international conspiracy” and endorsed his primary opponent. Paul refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, and was the only Republican to express approval when Democrats captured control of the House and Senate in 2006. If Paul is not nominated, he refuses to pledge support for the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.
All this dissension does is foster contempt for the GOP by his followers, and anyone listening within the sound of his voice. I would argue that Ron Paul is doing more harm than good to the Republican party by running as a republican. Imagine a prominent democrat figure such as Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid running as a Republican but then saying every nasty thing they could about the republican party. Then coloring their speeches with words of righteous indignation. Soon their supporters start to believe they are the only right kind of republican, everyone else is a neoconservative (neocon) or stupid, or uninformed. Then imagine scores of crowds especially disaffected young people, and TeaParty types who are discouraged by the lack of fiscal restraint and decisive action by their party flocking to the NEW right republican the only true conservative. Then imagine support coming in from the left, and the Democrats with who this new message resonates and money flowing from the powerful Soros crowd who now see an opportunity to disrupt the Republican field and confuse the independents into believing “this guy knows my plight.”  Soon infighting, confusion, and arguments ensue among the party faithful and  ”independents” who have taken on the title of Libertarian and are now furious at the GOP. Sound crazy? I have just described what I see going on right now in America among the conservatives, Republicans, and Independents who would vote Republican. We are split and they are winning. I now see clearly how Obama will get a second term
If you want to discuss my opinions or give me yours you may find me on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rosie-Onthe-Right/184115634955854
for source concerning Soros funding Ron Paul campaign to split the republican party click here

 

Filed Under: Featured, Politics, United States Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Third Party Effort Guarantees Obama Win?

January 10, 2012 By 1 Comment

 

 

By Aaron Klein

A mysteriously funded, highly organized effort to secure the ballot for a third party candidate in this year’s election has ties to President Obama and top Democrats, KleinOnline has learned.

The group, calling itself Americans Elect, or AE, seems designed to appear like a massive, grassroots effort involving millions of citizens acting to draft a third party candidate.

However, the organization’s voting process has been called into question while there are concerns AE’s bylaws may allow the group’s own board members to bypass votes and nominate their own candidate.

AE describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded by Americans from across the political spectrum who are worried that our nation’s deep political divisions keep big problems from being solved.”

AE seeks to hold its own nominating convention on the Internet this June to select an independent presidential and vice-presidential candidate. The group says any registered voter can sign up to participate in the June convention.

AE has reportedly raised more than $22 million so far and has already been certified to be placed on the ballot in 12 states now, including California.

To getting on state ballots, AE evidenced mass organizing skills. The group says it collected over 2 million signatures nationwide in its effort to get on state ballots.

KleinOnline found that two of AE’s board members, Kellen Arno and Michael Arno, were paid by the group for helping to run the massive signature gathering drive via their firm, Arno Political Consultants.

Arno’s firm, APC, has previously reportedly been accused of forging signatures and collecting signatures using fraud.

In 2004, APC was accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.

The next year, Boston’s Fox 25 News ran a feature interviewing paid signature collectors hired by APC through subcontractors. The interviewees said they were trained on how to trick people into signing a petition using fraud, including by switching the actual petition text after each signature was collected.

In 2007, APC reportedly hired JSM, Inc. who in turn hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.

Then 2009, APC gathered signatures to put the Ohio Casino Initiative on the November 3, 2009 ballot, but a subsequent review reportedly found the overall validity of the signatures were certified at just under 51%.

AE, meanwhile, was reportedly originally associated with another group that sought an independent candidate. That organization, calling itself Unity08, eventually suspended operations citing organizing and fundraising issues.

Unity08 said it did not back any particular candidate, but two of its founders launched their own national effort to draft New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run for president

The Irregular Times documented how AE and Unity 08 shared the same Washington D.C. address. Previously, Unity08 shared its address with the Draft Bloomberg Committee.

Irregular Times also found that the founders of Unity08 “registered the domain name draftmichaelbloomberg.com in 2007 at a time when Unity08 was insisting that it had no candidates in mind.”

Mysterious funding

AE’s funding has been called into question.

In late 2010, AE changed its tax status from a tax-exempt group to what is known as a 501(c)(4), or social-welfare organization, which is not required to show its donor list.

Capital Weekly reported that prior to the change, in the second and third quarters of 2010, AE’s more than $1.5 million in funding came from one person – venture capitalist, Unity08 activist and Obama donor, Peter Ackerman.

Ackerman reportedly gave AE a total of at least $5 million in seed money.  Many of AE’s other donors are unknown.

AE officials have defended their secretive donor collection practices.

“We have to be able to raise significant amounts of money to be able to take on the status quo,” Kahlil Byrd, AE’s chief executive officer, told Mother Jones last November.

Byrd said that if his group were compelled to disclose its donors, there would be “a chilling effect…on people’s willingness to participate in this process.”

Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, two campaign finance watchdogs, requested in September the IRS investigate Americans Elect’s charging they may be violating nonprofit status by function like a political party.

Voting issues

Finances are not the only source of controversy.

Mother Jones reported that AE’s Internet voting system has been called into question.

Pamela Smith, president of VerifiedVoting.org, a voters’ advocacy group, argued AE’s reliance on Internet voting is insecure and difficult to audit.

“If you allow it to be used in public elections without assurance that the results are verifiably accurate, that is an extraordinary and unnecessary risk to democracy,” she says.

Regardless of the results, there are concerns that current guidelines reportedly allow AE to anoint its own candidate.

Salon.com reporter Justin Elliott noted candidates chosen by voters must be approved by a Candidate Certification Committee, which according to the group’s bylaws consist of AE’s board members.

The Committee, according to the bylaws obtained by Salon, will need to certify a “balanced ticket obligation” consisting og candidates who are “responsive to the vast majority of citizens while remaining independent of special interests and the partisan interests of either major political party.”

In response, AE official Darry Sragow told Salon’s Elliot that his group’s guidelines are subject to change.

Sragow went on to defend AE’s board, even likening them to the Founding Fathers.

“While we don’t mean to put the board in the company of the Founding Fathers, we’d point out that nobody picked the Founding Fathers, either,” Sragow stated.

“They took it upon themselves to turn a popular dream into a shared reality. And they, too, had debates over how much control should be centralized. They knew that too much power in the hands of too few isn’t real democracy, but that power too diffuse is anarchy.”

Obama backers

KleinOnline reviewed AE’s board, finding multiple ties to Obama while some Republicans also graced the committee.

Besides Ackerman, an Obama donor who gave money to help start AE, the advisory board includes Lawrence Lessig, an Obama technology adviser.

Lessig has been mentioned as a future candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. He is an activist for reduced legal restrictions on copyright material and advised Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

AE’s CEO, Kahlil Byrd, has drawn scrutiny from conservatives because he formerly served as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s Communications Director. Patrick’s chief strategist was top Obama strategist David Axelrod.

AE board member W. Bowman Cutter is senior adviser to the Podesta Group lobbying and public relations firm, which was founded by John Podesta, who directed Obama’s transition into the White House in 2008.

Podesta is director of the Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

Meanwhile, AE’s board also includes former John McCain aide Mark McKinnon, Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute, former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institute, and former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair.

AE also has ties to Hillary Clinton supporters.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who is a prominent Hillary Clinton backer, is on the board, as is Doug Schoen, a former pollster and adviser to Bill Clinton.

Schoen was recently in the news after he teamed up with Jimmy Carter​’s former aid Patrick  to publish an editorial in the Wall Street Journal last month, entitled “The Hillary Moment,” in which they called for Clinton to throw her hat into the ring for the presidency.

The two wrote another piece at Politico.com calling for Democratic voters nationally — particularly in New Hampshire — to organize a write-in campaign for Clinton.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

 

 

Filed Under: Politics, United States Tagged With: , , , ,

Obama’s Alternate Universe – Weak U.S Military Makes World a “Safer Place.”

January 9, 2012 By 1 Comment

President Barack Obama traveled to the Pentagon last Thursday to announce that the “tide of war is receding” for the United States, thereby justifying massive cuts to the U.S. military. “In short, we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership. That makes us safer and it makes us stronger.” Mr. President what alter universe do you live in?

Iran finds itself on the front page of America’s newspapers, this time with news that the rogue regime has sentenced a U.S. citizen to death for working for the CIA and that it has started refining uranium deep inside a mountain bunker. The type of uranium not used for electricity.  In the meantime Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is launching a week-long trip through South America in order to bolster ties with his allies in the region in hopes of strengthening the country’s challenge to the United States.

This news comes just after a series of Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz–a provocative move that would cut off a quarter of the world’s energy supply and wreak havoc on the global economy. Of course, on top of this verbal threat, Iran is continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons despite an uproar from the international community.

President Obama, though, did not mention the Iranian threat, North Korea’s new 28-year-old leader whose finger rests on a nuclear trigger, and the growing dominance of China as a regional power. In other words, the President is pursuing a strategy to cut the U.S. military by a half-trillion dollars over ten years based on the argument that the world is a safer place, yet he is totally ignoring the very real threats around the world today. Defense expert Mackenzie Eaglen explains how the military plans to cope with the resulting reduction in funding and forces, one component of which includes a “strategic pivot” from southwest Asia to East Asia in order to counter a rising China:

Pentagon leaders plan to skirt the lack of capabilities through an increased reliance on National Guard and reserve forces–the same men and women who are worn out from a decade of multiple tours overseas. DoD plans to assume more risk in the active component and the capabilities that are available immediately in the event of conflict or crisis. Examples include heavy armor brigades and tactical fighter wings.

Another tenet of the “pivot” to Asia is the transition from a military focused on manpower-intensive counterinsurgency to the light footprint doctrine of counterterrorism. Panetta has mentioned unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft, cyber, and special forces as key areas that must be protected from budget cuts. They may even get more money.

Of course, the Pentagon will do its best to answer the call to duty under the limitations that the White House imposes. But that does not mean that it will be as well-equipped as it could and should be to defend the United States, at home and abroad. As Heritage’s James Carafano writes, “It is completely unreasonable for the White House to argue the world has changed so much that we can just do all this with less.” That is especially true given the threats that are lurking around the corner from the likes of Iran, North Korea, and China. When choosing a President in 2012 Americans should ask themselves. Who understands the world we live in the most? Who understands the US constitution the best? Who will defend me, my property ad my country the best?

Filed Under: Capital Offenses, Featured, United States Tagged With: , , , , ,

Herman Cain still the Front Runner despite Hatchet Job by Politco

November 6, 2011 By 5 Comments

I beg to differ with Larry Sabato. I would say; not that Herman Cain has been lucky but that he is rather a man who has nothing to hide, and always tells it like it is. That seems more likely to be the reason Cain is weathering this storm. There is something about Herman Cain which is pleasantly surprising about someone running for political office. Could it be his affable manner? Or maybe it is the way he just won’t back down.

According to veteran political analyst,  Dr. Larry Sabato. “Hermain Cain is surviving the growing sexual harassment controversy because he has been lucky so far,” In an exclusive interview, Dr. Sabato told Newsmax, “Compared to other sex scandals, Cain has been lucky here. As of yet there is no woman who has stepped forward to put a face on the allegations.”

Although it is true that t is very difficult for anyone outside press insiders who’ve seen the relevant documents to know what we’re even talking about. This Republican presidential candidate who still leads the latest polls despite the scandal has not backed down from his accusers, has not canceled any of his previously scheduled interviews. In other words he is acting like a man with nothing to hide, and I think that has helped him a great deal.

This controversy exploded last Sunday night when Politico came out with a story in which it said two women had reached settlements with the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s when Cain was head of the group.

The report said the women complained Cain had acted inappropriately towards them.In an interview with Fox News this week, Cain said he has never engaged in sexual harassment. He said that in the case of one female employee, he had believed she had received what amounted to a termination of services settlement based on her job performance, but that he knew nothing about a sexual harassment settlement.

I happen to know first hand how insurance companies settle all the time without even telling you what is going on. I once had a customer trip over a parking stop while arguing and yelling on her phone she wasn’t watching where she was going and tripped though her own negligence she tripped! She sued my insurance company. and the payed her off.  I had no knowledge about it. How she got my insurance information is a mystery to me. I can only guess she called one of my locations and was given the name of the insurance company I used or she called the office and spoke to some low level asssitant who gave up the information up, but didnt think it was important to inform me about the call.  Never the less the point I am making is this: Without so much as a phone call to me; my insurance company paid her $43,000.00. That could easily have been the case here in this alligation against Herman Cain.

When I found out about the settlement I inquired with my agent. The agent just said. “We settle rather than go to court in many cases it is in your best interest to do that.” I was very upset because I felt settling is an admission of guilt on my part and I knew our company did nothing wrong.

 

Insurance agencies are quick to settle the matter for fear a drawn out legal matter will cost them endless attorney fees where a well thought out settlement is a sure thing in terms of certainty of cash output.

It has since been reported by Politico that sexual assault allegations during Cain’s tenure as NRA CEO led to at least two settlements with employees, including one for $45,000 and another for over $30, 000.

The story which surfaced last Sunday night triggered a wave of fingerpointing with the Cain campaign blaming Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s camp for leaking the allegations to Politico. and the Perry camp denying that claim and then blaming Mitt Romney’s campaign for leaking it, a claim his camp also denies.

A much anticipated interview on Fox News last night with Gloria Cain didn’t happen, Cain’s wife decided to not do the interview but said she might do it in the future. Herman Cain should not be blamed for what Mrs. Cain will or will not do after all; do you really expect the wife to go on camera after this? I would not expect Herman Cain to make his wife appear on camera and have to answer to something she not only had no party to but would be humiliated by. Those who say it is a faux pas for Mrs. Cain to have canceled the interview are not thinking clearly.  It think it was totally appropriate for her to do what makes her comfortable and for Mr. Can to allow his wife to make that decision.

In his article Sabato said “It was hoped by many she would have shed some new light on the story.” To me, that does not seem reasonable.

About the allegations, Sabato emphasized, “Apparently, no actual sex is involved – just language or come-on lines. If this is all there is, and if no woman comes forward, then Cain has probably survived this unusual episode.”

“He’s both gained and lost as a result. Many Republicans have come to his defense, comparing Cain’s apparently lesser transgressions to Bill Clinton’s much more extensive ones involving many women – just to cite one example,”  Sabato added. He also points out, ” His fundraising is up, his backers have criticized him overtly about this.” This coming Thursday will be the first GOP presidential debate since the story came to light last weekend.

Sabato is not expecting the controversy to be mentioned by all of the candidates on the stage, but I think anything is possible and probable in politics. I do expect someone to use this as a low blow, and if they do I predict that candidate will be highly criticized for it. I would look to Perry, Bachmann or even Santorum to do it. Perry because he can’t help imploding during debates and the other two because they have nothing to lose. However that would be a mistake because my guess is the audience would probably side with Cain.

Bachmann is the only one who has offered any criticism of Cain on the harassment charges. Bachmann was one of the first candidates to confront the charges, saying on Tuesday that the GOP’s presidential nominee must not have any skeletons in the closet. “This is the year when we can’t have any surprises with our candidate,” Bachmann said addressing a meeting of Baptists in Marshalltown, Iowa. Oh, please lets not invoke our “Christian values” and let he without sin cast the first stone.

As the voting begins in under two months, Republicans will get deadly serious about picking someone who can actually go toe to toe with Obama and win. Cain’s campaign needs to get its act together as the caucuses and primaries fast approach.

Organization will begin to matter a lot more, and although some Cain supporters say that Cain is weak in that area. I see no evidence of that.

Cain’s team is getting busy, rushing to his side. His “9-9-9 Fund” super-pac has come out with a video which defends Cain’s record on this issue.

The video features Rush Limbaugh attacking the media for going after the black conservative candidate and shows liberals on the attack against Cain.

The super-pac told CNN Saturday that a short version of the video will appear next week in TV ads in Iowa and that there will also be robocalls made to voters in Iowa and Nebraska in the next week. The Iowa caucuses are January 3rd and Nevada’s caucuses take place February 4th.

The super-pac was formed last month to help Cain’s efforts in the early primaries and caucuses.

Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election?  Vote Here Now!

editorial by Rosie Onthe Right

 

 

 

Filed Under: Politics, United States Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The Communist Manifesto & Rules for Revolution Exposed

October 19, 2011 By 14 Comments 

 AND Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

 

None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....

COMMUNIST RULES FOR REVOLUTION (Captured at Dusseldorf in May 1919 by Allied Forces) – see snopes.com

  1. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
  2. By specious argument cause the breakdown of old moral virtues; honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
  3. Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. (L.A. riots were just a coincidence? … Of course!)
  4. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. (Racial differences?)
  5. Get people’s minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities.
  6. Get control of all means of publicity. (Media)
  7. Destroy the people’s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace).
  8. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscation and leaving the population helpless.

According to snopes.com the ‘document’ is a fake.  However, the snopes site doesn’t explain why the document is a fake so I’ll take their well meaning assertions with a grain of salt. They make the case that there was no record of this document before it appeared in 1946.

From the Urban Legends site:

The earliest known publication of these rules was in the periodical Moral Re-Armament in February 1946, and circulation of the list really took off after Florida state attorney George A. Brautigam endorsed them as true in 1954.

If this document is a fabrication, who can disagree that the mentioned goals seem to have been achieved or strived for in our current western societies? Communism, known under different terms like ‘the Fabians’ in London, existed prior to 1919 so it is not beyond the realm of possiblity that is document could be authentic. The rabble that Rothschild and buddies paid for to start the communist revolution in Russia were working to a script even though they were not aware of it. It was called the Communist Manifesto.

In the early ’60′s during the days of the “former” Soviet Union, Russian Premier Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium of the United Nations and shouted to the West, “We will bury you!” Fearing an invasion from the Reds, America proceeded to build the most awesome military machine in history. Unfortunately, we forgot to guard our political homefront from being taken over by socialist – communist – liberal activists who would gain office and destroy American law by process of gradually installing the Communist agenda within our legal system and separate branches of government. The Communist program from the start has been one which sees their revolution of 1917 succesful only upon total domination of the world. (See Brain Washing, A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics) Americans, being the most naive people among the nations, now believe that Communism is dead because the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain have been removed. The ironic truth is that Communism has just switched names to become more “politically correct”. Today it is called international democracy. The reason that the Berlin Wall came crashing down is not because Communism is dead but because they have achieved the planned agenda to communize the West, including America. Washington D.C. has indeed become part of the New World Order of atheist governments. With the last vestiges of Christian law having been removed from “American government” over the last twenty years, there is no longer a threat of resistance against world Communism. In reality, “American government” became part of the Iron Curtain, thus there was no more need for the likes of a Berlin Wall. Once again, in their foolishness, the American public has believed the lies of their “leaders” who applaud “the fall of Communism”, while they have sold out the country to anti-Christian, anti-American statutes and regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been “buried in Communism” by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become commmunist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist.

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
    of land to public purposes.

2.  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.  Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.  Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means
    of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive
    monopoly.

6.  Centralisation of the means of communication and transport
    in the hands of the State.

7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
    the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and
    the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a
    common plan.

8.  Equal liability of all to labour.  Establishment of
    industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
    gradual abolition of the distinction between town and
    country, by a more equable distribution of the population
    over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.
    Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.
    Combination of education with industrial production

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

“The following document, dated May 1979, was found on July 7, 1986, in an IBM copier that had been purchased at a sureplus sale” - “Behold a Pale Horse”, Milton William Cooper, page 36.

Milton William Cooper, a former Navel Intelligence Officer with the Commander in Cheif of Pacific Fleet, and a 38 level above top secret clearence, read the same report in Navel Intelligence Majority Twelve file, it was listed as compiled by the Bilderberger Group. Here is a link to the entire document: Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.

Reading the “Top Secret” document, what jumped out at me was the “Theory of Economic Shock Testing.”  If you’ve read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine then you’d know she claims “shock” is the term people at high levels of government used to describe their own policies. Here we see this idea being presented like a computer algorithm as far back as 1979. Seems to fit.

 

What is most shocking is how quickly a generation forgets that FREEDOM is not FREE. Ironically you have to fight for it, guard it with your mind, your possessions, all your strength and might. You have to be alert and vigilant. Are you alert and vigilant. Please share.

Filed Under: Points Of Interest Tagged With: , , , ,

Why Is our Economy Failing?

October 12, 2011 By 7 Comments

When Rahm Emmanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste?” last August, I wondered ”  ”What if Keynesian stimulus works, but no one can ever actually afford to do it, short of something like World War II, where the government can tap into a patriotic outpouring of national savings by issuing bonds with negative real yields.” To properly explain what I am talking about I am going to have to explain the Keynesian economic theory. This is the wikipedia defenition:

 

Keynesianism and Keynesian theory is a school of macroeconomic thought based on the ideas of 20th-century English economist John Maynard Keynes.

Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy” predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector ” and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945-1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.[2]

 

Here it is in a nutshell:

John Maynard Keynes known as "the father of modern economics." 
believed the classical economic policies of non-intervention
would not work. The economy would need prodding if it was to head in the right direction, and this meant active intervention by the government to
manage the level of demand. He didn't have the same confidence in the labor market as Classical economists. He argued that workers would not be happy about taking wage cuts and would resist this. This would mean that wages would not necessarily fall enough to clear the market and unemployment would linger.
Keynes explanations of slumps ran something like this: in a normal economy, there is a high level of employment, and everyone is spending their earnings as usual. This means there is a circular flow of money in the economy, as my spending becomes part of your earnings, and your spending becomes part of my earnings. But suppose something happens to shake consumer confidence in the economy. Worried consumers may then try to weather the coming economic hardship by saving their money. But because my spending is part of your earnings, my decision to hoard money makes things worse for you. And you, responding to your own difficult times, will start hoarding money too, making things even worse for me. So there's a vicious circle at work here: people hoard money in difficult times, but times become more difficult when people hoard money. 

The cure for this, Keynes said, was for the central bank to expand the money supply. By putting more bills in people's hands, consumer confidence would return, people would spend, and the circular flow of money would be reestablished. Just that simple! Too simple, in fact, for the policy-makers of that time.
If this is the proposed definition and cure for recessions, then what about depressions? Keynes believed that depressions were recessions that had fallen into a "liquidity trap." A liquidity trap is when people hoard money and refuse to spend no matter how much the government tries to expand the money supply. In these dire circumstances, Keynes believed that the government should do what individuals were not, namely, spend. In his memorable phrase, Keynes called this "priming the pump" of the economy, a final government effort to reestablish the circular flow of money. 

Let's return now to the reasons why people start hoarding money in the first place. There are many possible explanations, all of which are open to argument. It may be a consumer loss of confidence in the economy, perhaps triggered by a visible event like a stock market crash. It may be a natural disaster, such as a drought, earthquake or hurricane. It may be a sudden loss of jobs, or a weak sector of the economy. It may be inequality of wealth, which results in the rich producing a surplus of goods, but leaving the poor too poor to buy them. It may be something intrinsic within the economy which causes it to go through a natural cycle of recessions and recoveries. Or the Federal Reserve may tighten the money supply too much, compelling people to hang on to their disappearing dollars. This last point is especially important, since many critics of activist government believe that is how the Great Depression started.

As mentioned above, Keynes' advice on ending the Great Depression was rejected. President Roosevelt tried countless other approaches, all of which failed. Almost all economists agree that World War II cured the Great Depression; Keynesians believe this was so because the U.S. finally began massive public spending on defense. This is a large part of the reason why "wars are good for the economy." Although no one knows the full secret to economic growth (the world's top economists are still working on this mystery), wars are an economic boon in part because governments always resort to Keynesian spending during them. Of course, such spending need not be directed only towards war -- social programs are much more preferable. If it sound as if I am a Keynesian please continue to read. I am not. I happen to believe in the free markets but wait there's more to tell, One of the first major critics was Milton Friedman. Although he accepted Keynes' definition of recessions, he rejected the cure. Government should butt out of the business of expanding or contracting the money supply, he argued. It should keep the money supply steady, expanding it slightly each year only to allow for the growth of the economy and a few other basic factors. Inflation, unemployment and output would adjust themselves according to market demands. This policy he named monetarism.
Friedman is also famous for a second theory, this one containing more merit. It's called the natural rate of unemployment, and it goes something like this: 

Imagine an economy where the cost of everything doubles. You have to pay twice as much for your groceries, but you don't mind, because your paycheck is also twice as large. Economists call this theneutrality of money. If inflation worked this way, then it would be harmless. Indeed, most presidents after World War II decided to accept high inflation if it meant low unemployment, and therefore urged the Federal Reserve to conduct an expansionary monetary policy. But why is it that when the Fed expands money by, say, 5 percent, that all prices and wages everywhere do not go up by 5 percent as well? Why is it that the neutrality of money does not make this expansion meaningless? Friedman argued that it was because the public was unaware of the expansion, or what it meant, or by how much if it did. In other words, they didn't know that they should raise their prices by 5 percent. When the extra money was pumped into the economy, therefore, it was unwittingly translated into more economic activity, not higher prices.

Of course, if businessmen knew that a 5 percent increase was coming, it would be in their best interest to just raise their prices 5 percent. That way, they would make the same increased profits without having to work for them. If everyone did this, then the Fed's monetary increases would become meaningless -- instead of resulting in more jobs, it would just create higher inflation. Friedman and others argued that as businessmen became savvier and learned to follow the Fed's actions, they would build their inflationary expectations into their prices. Not only would this make inflation worse, but the nation would be left with no tool to fight unemployment, which would eventually rise as well. The twin dragons of inflation and unemployment would therefore grow together, forming "stagflation." 

Friedman showed that monetary policy could not be used to wipe out unemployment, one of the optimistic goals of the Keynesians shortly after World War II. Instead, the most monetary policy could do was keep unemployment at about 6 percent, which is the rate normally achieved when the inflation rate is what the market expects it to be. Friedman called this the "natural rate of unemployment," and it secured his fame. But Keynesian policies are still useful in keeping the unemployment
rate as close to 6 percent as possible.

 

NY TIMES writer, Paul Krugman says that almost $900 billion in stimulus didn’t work because it wasn’t big enough, you have to wonder if an adequate Keynesian stimulus is even possible.  Could any government anywhere borrow 15% of GDP or more to spend on temporary measures with the blessing of their citizens?  For that matter, would the markets lend the money without ratcheting up interest rates?  Can an extra 15% of GDP be spent without showing sharply diminishing returns; meaning that you’d need even more spending to generate the effects you want?
Today Alex Tabarrok looks at the history and concludes that even if Keynesian economics works in theory, Keynesian politics fails in practice at least in a Republic such as ours run as a democracy.
I conclude with this:
If in the past these economic stimulus projects worked it was in part because the public was unaware of the puppet masters pulling the strings. The public and the markets behaved according to plan, but today with media awareness and information super highway driving the economy as fast as it can there is no ability for the Fed to manipulate thoughts and behaviors as it had in the past. The public is running for the hills. That coupled with the fact that .40 cents of every dollar spent by the US Government is borrowed from China; makes it an impossible situation for our Keynesian President Obama to survive.
sources for this article were found here  and at
Filed Under: Economy, Featured Tagged With: , , , ,

The New Democrat, By Dr. Truth

October 8, 2011 By 3 Comments

 

 A Parody in celebration of the

Tea Party Movement.

The sun did not shine. The Iraq war dragged on.

Our once great economy was almost all gone.

I sat there with Franklin. We sat there, we two.

I wished, at that moment, for somebody new.

The “big tent” Republicans kept expanding the state.

And the health of our country was quite far from great.

So all we could do was to

FRET

FRET

FRET

FRET!

We did not like Bush! Didn’t care whom we’d get!

CHANGE!!!!

someone yelled! “CHANGE” Oh How that “change” sounded strange.

We looked at the TV, and saw him thereat.

WE LOOKED, and we saw him A NEW DEMOCRAT!

He said to us “Why are you frowning like that?”

“I know you are poor, and the outlook’s not sunny,

But we can have fun with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!

“I know some good games we could play” said the cat

I know some good tricks” said this new Democrat

“We can bail out the banks.” I’ll find the money with ease.

We can borrow it all from our friends the Chinese”

Then Franklin and I did not know what to say.

The voters don’t want to be governed this way.

Then Glenn Beck said “NO, NO!” Make that fool go away!

Tell that Democrat cat that your grandkids will pay

his profligate of spending..

His lust for power and pelf..

He’s not helping you .

He cares for himself!”

“Now! Now! Have no fear” said the agent of ‘hope’

“My plans are not bad, now stop saying “NOPE”

We can stimulate everyone, If only you let.

with a game that I call

up

Up

UP with the DEBT!”

“cut that out said old Glenn. This is not a good plan.

You can’t bring prosperity to a country or a man,

by just handing out cash when there’s nothing produced!

Only when the power of production is loosed

can you hope to give our economy a BOOST!”

“Let’s be clear”, said the cat

I know what to do.

I’ll take over GM

and then Chrysler too!

Then the people who make

the post office so fast

will make you new car,

Since your old one won’t last!

With my ‘cash for clunkers,’

You’ll be paid to destroy

You’re old SUV,

So that we can employ

More union workers

Whose votes aren’t in doubt,

And when it all falls apart,

We’ll just BAIL THEM OUT!”

“I can change all the things that once made us great.

And if you disagree

Why, you’re just filled with hate!

“Yes, I’ll pay for my votes with the money I tax.

But that is not all I do!

just sit back and relax….

I’ll build myself up, and make America small.

But that is not all!

No, that is not all!

“I’ll make friends with our enemies.

They’ll do us no harm….

If they see we are weak.

We must therefore disarm!

“I’ll grovel to dictators

And bow to their kings.

Who cares about dignity?

I’ll just kiss their rings!”

“Look at me! Look at me NOW!!

It’s fun to win prizes, but you have to know how

So I got the Nobel without doing a thing!

Then ran out of town,

skipping lunch with the King.”

“Since they all hate George Bush, so they voted for me.

The same as you all.

Now we’ll see what will be…

Pussy Cat, Pussy Cat

Where have you been?

“Sending an ipod…

A gift for the Queen!”

“Now let me be clear, It’s not just us that I hate.

But also our allies,

who thought we were great

Before I came to power.

So that means they’re bad!

And they better not make

My friends, the dictators, mad!

Cause we don’t need allies anymore.

Don’t you see? All that America now needs is ME!”

BOY, Glenn was angry! His collar was hot!

He said “Do I like this?

Oh, NO! I do not!

“Now look at what you’ve done!” said old Glenn to the cat.

“Look at our country!

It’s being laughed at!”

“Your stimulus plan

Has made things much worse

Our whole economy is now in reverse!”

“We’re so deep in debt

That we’ll never get out.

And you’ve emboldened our enemies!

We have no more clout.”

Our founding fathers

would turn in their graves,

If they could see now

How their successors behaves.

“Who would stay on this course,

As our country derails?!?

I can only just pray and hope that he fails!”

“But I like what I’m doing Oh I like it a lot!

And I’m just fulfilling

What Alinsky has taught.”

“I don’t wish to stop in fact, I’ll do more!” Said the new Democrat

As he rushed to the door, then he ran our and came back with

a box. It was painted all red. With a couple of locks.

“Now see whats in here said the cat with a SMIRK.

I’ve got some small friends to help with my work”

Then he unlocked the locks, and out came his crew.

“Perhaps you should meet them it’s

DEM ONE, and DEM TWO

Well, Franklin and I could not think what to do.

and the looked pretty harmless,

That Dem One and Dem Two.

But Glenn Beck yelled!

“NO! NO! this cannot be we can’t trust our freedoms to this radical pair.

We must vote them out! Said Glenn Beck near despair.

“Now here is a game that I like said the Cat. “I want to run healthcare

And chip away at

your freedom of choice

Now please don’t protest

because I know what’s best!”

Of course it might mean that grandma must go,

Our friendly death panel will be letting you know”

But their plan was no popular. so guess what they’ll do? Dem1 and Dem 2…

They’ll be bribing your leaders to vote against you!

“No! Not our Healthcare!” said Glenn Beck from his post

“without freedom there, our whole country is toast!”

“Our doctors will then be enslaved to the state

with government bureaucrats deciding our fate!”

for more obama parody follow Dr. Truth on Twitter

www.OBAMAPARODY.COM

 

Filed Under: Featured, Points Of Interest Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz “You’re FIRED!”

September 30, 2011 By 3 Comments

I went to the CPAC of Florida (Conservative Political Action Conference) and the Presidency 5 of FL both held at the Orlando Convention Center in Orlando, Florida this past weekend. Of all the candidates I heard speak, and of all I saw this past weekend nothing caught my attention more than a booth which advocated firing Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. You may ask yourself who is she and why do we want to fire her? I’m glad you asked, but first here is a little background on Wasserman-Schultz.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz  (born September 27, 1966) is the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 20th congressional district, serving since 2005. She is a member of the Democratic Party and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. She previously served in theFlorida House of Representatives  and theFlorida Senate. She is the first Jewish Congresswoman ever elected from Florida.[3] This district covers parts of Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, including the cities of Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach, and ever since her election she has proven to be one of the most divisive and insulting members of her party. If it is true Prsident Obama wants to “get along” and “tone down the retoric in Washington” then appointing Rep Wasserman-Schultz did nothing to accomplish that goal.

Wasserman-Schultz constantly berates other members of congress, and uses class war fare whenever possible where she attacks opponents of the other party not for what they stand for but for imaginary wrongs. An example is her stand against the investigations of Planned Parenthood. This after Planned Parenthood was caught over and over again breaking the law by a couple of students. The students posed as a pimp and a prostitute looking for an abortion, furthermore the students claimed the girl needing the abortion was under age. As you might remember this story got much national attention. The public outcry for an investigation of Planned Parenthood was unprecedented except on the left where they refused to acknowledge that given the current expose exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal activity; continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer public funds would be immoral.  Instead Wasserman-Schultz accused Republican colleagues of launching a burdensome and politically motivated, big-government investigation of Planned Parenthood.  No Debbie it’s called accountability.

Her assertions that Planned Parenthood provides a service for Cancer screenings and screenings of STD’s ignores the facts that those services are available on medicare for the poor and indigent we don’t need Planned Parenthood to do that work.  (original comments by Wasserman here ) A debate between Wasserman-Schults and Representative Paul Ryan (R) on whether or not Obamacare funds taxpayer abortions can be found here. Clearly she is again on the wrong side of an issue.

 

Wasserman-Schultz has also made such comments as: “CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was wrong to say that ” the wealthiest Americans, they pay the most in taxes already — 50 percent of Americans don’t even pay any federal income tax.”

note: On Sept. 13, 2011, we checked Wasserman’s Schultz’s claim that “it’s not true that 50 percent of Americans don’t even pay any federal income tax.” She is wrong, it is a false statement by Wasserman-Schultz. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s statement that 50 % of the population don’t pay federal income taxes is right. Further more in 1972 only 14% of the American population did not pay federal income taxes. (source)

 

It seems since President Obama has appointed Wasserman-Schultz the Chair of the DNC her statements have become even more ridiculous and divisive. An example of her unintelligent statements include: ” Republicans believe illegal immigration should be a crime” and she has also said Republicans are trying to make crossing the border by illegals, a crime” What? Do I have to point out the operative word here is ILLEGAL?

Her entire career she has spent it in front of the camera on news programs bashing republicans. Recently Representative

Col. Allen West (R) of FL. had words with her and said this in an e-mail, he called her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives.” He concluded: “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” He said an apology was “not happening” the e-mailto Schultz and members of both houses had on the subject line: “Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz.”

 

OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE:

I won’t waste anymore time in explaining why Wasserman-Schultz needs to go. A simple google of her name and you can find all her rhetoric. I do want to on the other hand introduce you to a candidate I had the good pleasure of meeting. His name is Joe Kauffman.

Republican candidate for United States Congress, Joe Kaufman, who is looking to unseat Wasserman Schultz in November 2012, stated “Americans and Floridians are suffering, jobs are scarce, food and gas prices are way too high, and the country is preparing to face another natural disaster. What the President and his assistant Debbie’s response? A Massachusetts vacation!

Joe Kauffman was responding to the fact that while the economy is tanking, and people are struggling especially in Florida, President Obama has been hitting the golf course, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, his number one cheerleader, has been heading up various fundraisers for the President, under the title ˜Voices for Obama. ” Clearly these people are out of control, and out of touch. We need representatives in Washington who acknowleadge the hard times Florida is going through. Representatives with real ideas, and solutions. I had an opportunity to hear him speak and I was very impressed. I encourage all my friends and anyone who reads this story to please donate to Joe Kauffman and FIRE Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If you want to Fire Debbie Wasserman-Schultz click here this is a link to her PINK SLIP DEBBIE right here
Filed Under: Politics, United States Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Ron Paul Here to Stay.

August 19, 2011 By 13 Comments

Ron Paul narrowly lost the Iowa straw poll last week to Michele Bachmann by a few hundred votes.  He spent a fraction that Bachmann spent on advertising and campaigning throughout Iowa.  You would never know that seeing as how many in the media are already writing him off as an illegitimate candidate.  Like Rodney Dangerfield, Mr. Paul doesn’t get any respect, despite being immensely popular and performing well in the Iowa straw poll and the CPAC straw poll two years in a row.  Despite developing a solid foundation of support, which has grown consistently stronger over the last few years, few in the media are taking his campaign seriously.  Like it or not, Ron Paul is proving that he is here to stay and will be a solid fixture in the race for the GOP nomination.

The basis for Ron Paul’s appeal is his message, which is unique and consistent, something few other politicians can say.  It doesn’t matter if Paul is on MSNBC or Fox News; it doesn’t matter if you’re Democrat or Republican, Ron Paul never flip-flops and doesn’t sugar coat his message to appease the masses.  Paul often found himself at odds with his own party over several issues such as the war in Iraq and spending.  (FYI Mr. Paul was against the Iraq war from the start and voted against it, something many Democrats who ran against the war a few years ago can’t say such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry.)  Paul has also spoken out and voted against military aid to nations such as Egypt, Israel, and Pakistan.  Along with that, he has long been an advocate of closing military bases throughout the world and bringing all our troops home to save money, an idea that once was unthinkable, but is now plausible.

Another reason Ron Paul is so appealing is his foresight, because if you look at his record, he has been sounding the alarm about our dangerous level of spending for over a decade.  Throughout the years, Paul has put his money where his mouth is on spending, voicing his support for a balanced budget amendment as far back as 2000.  He voted against the bogus bailout packages that GM and Chrysler got that will end up costing the tax payers billions of dollars when all is said and done.  Paul is a strong conservative who has a strong record of fighting for less government and more personal freedoms.

The mainstream media can try to ignore Ron Paul all they want, but he isn’t going anywhere anytime fast.  Even if he doesn’t get the GOP nod, he will be a strong candidate for the presidency even if he has to run as an independent.  I’m not saying that Ron Paul is going to be the next president; what I am saying is that Ron Paul is a serious contender and is here to stay, whether those in the media like it or not.    By: Tom O’Brien

 

My take: Thank you Tom O’Brien for that eloquent reminder that Ron Paul is here to stay. What is not covered in this piece is the facts about Paul’s refusal to name Shari’a a threat to the United States Constitution. Shari’a Law is the theo-political arm of Islam. Without it Islam ceases to be Islam. You can’t have one without the other. For those who don’t know what Shari’a Law is, it is according to Islamic followers the laws that govern the Islamic people. It is above man’s laws. Many Imams have publicly said the goal of Shari’a Law in America is to over come the U.S Constitution in the United States. If you don’t think it can happen just look at the UK. Everything that is happening in London, France, Norway, the Netherlands… and now it’s coming here too.  I need a president who sees that impending danger as well as all the other dangers. Islamist claim since it is above man’s made laws it is superior and that no Muslim will follow the U.S Constitution above Shari’a Law. Shari’a Law is what is practiced in Iran. You know the cutting off of hands when you are caught stealing, the stoning of women who are raped because it is her responsibility to cover her whole body since the male species has no control over his body, the honor killings…laws like that. I don’t know about you but Ron Paul does well to take a second look at that. If he is the Constitutionalist he says he is he should see the threat,, but he does not. He has famously said “we are not at war with Islam” Mr. Paul we may not be at war with Islam but they are at war with us; to ignore their own words is to ignore that fact, and to ignore that fact is to revert back to the policies in place on Sept 11,2001 when we were attacked by Saudi men on behalf of Allah. BY their own admission they did it for Allah and for the sake of Islam. On Aug 16,2011 while on Ron Paul on Fox News Ron Paul said if Iran got a nuke and fired it on Israel “the United States should do nothing.” That’s right. According to Ron Paul the U.S should do nothing to support our only ally in the Middle East. If Israel is gone that would mean the U.S would cease to have a friend in that region. If you think gas is expensive now wait until a President Ron Paul is in office. That is not even good economic sense. It is really too bad because I like Ron Paul on so many issues; for example his position on the border is right. His position on auditing the Fed is spot on, on debt, on even the war in Iraq was right. He had the foresight to see what many would not or could not see, but on this one issue he is so wrong . I can not defend his position, and I can not support him for president in 2012. 

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Who Is Governor Rick Perry? Part 1

August 18, 2011 By 13 Comments

There has not appeared a current standout for the conservatives presidential field, all eyes are now on Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

Perry, who has been elected governor three times and served for more than 10 years, enjoys accolades from social conservatives and Tea Party-types alike. Glenn Beck even described Rick Perry as a man he was so enamored with that he wanted to “French kiss.” him. I’m sure he was joking but you get the picture.

I thought it is worth taking a closer look at his record as governor, but more importantly I thought I would take a look at what the left is saying about Governor Perry. Somewhere between what’s being said about him and what he says about himself is the truth.  What I did was take the top things being said by bloggers and media. I am going to give you my take on issues across the board.  In some instances I am giving you my common sense opinion which I am calling MY TAKE. I will also give you whatever facts I can dig up to substantiate my position as well as whatever Governor Perry himself has said, or what he’s been quoted as saying.  I will let you decide for yourselves. There is already enough negative press about Governor Perry, and since I am a conservative it is up to me to weed out the truth. I can not depend on the main steam media to do it for me.  I am looking at all of it. Everything from Perry’s support for dropping out of Social Security and Medicaid to his relationships with Al Gore, and  Imams pushing Sharia Law in Texas schools, to his proposal that Texas secede from the United States, however there is so much material. I will be writing this in parts. This is part one.

 

(1) PERRY USED TO BE A DEMOCRAT AND AL GORE’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER

Both statements are true. Perry was raised in a Democrat family where his father was a long-serving Democrat county commissioner. It was natural for him to start his political career as a Democrat. He won his first election in 1984 when he was elected to the Texas house and soon became a rising star in Texas democrat politics. An opportunity to advance himself presented itself and he became Gore’s Texas campaign manager in 1988.

Those too young to remember wouldn’t recognize the Al Gore of 1988. He opposed the federal funding of abortion, supported a moment of silence in schools for prayer, approved funding of the Nicaraguan contras and was against the ban on interstate handgun sales. Gore’s platform was one that a conservative West Texas Democrat like state representative Perry could support when he signed up to chair the Senator’s Texas campaign.

From the election on, the Gore/Perry partnership began to crumble and the way that their paths diverged in the past three decades speaks eloquently to the way American politics has been reshaped. Gore has sailed left, while Perry’s political odyssey has seen him tack in the other direction — and to the opposing party.

 

My Take:  I grew up in a household of democrats, but I am as conservative as can be. My mother used to drag me with her to hand out union flyers and listen to speeches by the left. Yet look at me, I grew up to be a Republican.  In fact most of my family are still democrats which makes for lively discussions.  If critics insist that it’s fair to criticize Perry now for his actions of 22 years ago, it is also fair to apply that same scrutiny and criticism to positions espoused by every other politician covering the past 22 years – President Obama included. Is it time to revisit Obama’s anti-American associations, his time in Rev. Wright’s church, his “present” votes, etc.? Let the scrutiny and criticism begin … most people are not the same person they were 22 years ago. We should allow even politicians the right to change the minds, and grow from who they were to who they are now. It should not be an issue unless it becomes a habit.

 

Gov. Perry’s Response: Perry says that the Gore experience helped him to “come to his senses,” and he switched to the Republican party in 1989, fully 22 years ago. Perry switched parties over two decades ago and critics somehow think that bringing it up now is newsworthy? Sorry guys, as they say in Texas, that dog won’t hunt.

 

 

 

(2) PERRY ALLOWED THE EXECUTION OF A LIKELY INNOCENT MAN, THEN IMPEDED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER: This is a troubling case.  In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by lethal injection in Huntsville, Texas after being convicted of arson and the murder of his three daughters before Christmas 1991. At Willingham’s trial, Texas fire investigators said they found clear indicators that the fire at the Willingham home in the small town of Corsicana had been intentionally set. By the time of Willingham’s execution in February, 2004, the science of fire investigation had dramatically advanced and what investigators had for decades considered telltale signs of arson were no longer considered reliable.  It has been said that even after significant evidence emerged showing that arson had not caused the fire that Perry refused to grant a stay of execution. It wasn’t until five years after Willingham was executed, a report from a Texas Forensic Science Commission investigator found that the fire could not have been arson. As the commission prepared to hear testimony from the investigator in October 2009, Detractors say Perry quickly fired and replaced three of its members, forcing an indefinite delay in the hearing.

 

My take:

In the final days before Willingham was put to death, his lawyer filed with the courts a report from Gerald Hurst, one of the nation’s most renowned fire scientists. Hurst’s four-page report asserted for the first time in the case that the indicators of arson the investigators cited had been debunked by scientific advances. The fire, Hurst concluded, might well have been an accident – he did not state categorically that it was an accident. Perry reviewed the report and determined it did not present new information, only new opinion. He also decided it did not merit a stay of execution. 

Under Texas law, the Governor can only issue a one-time temporary 30-day stay of execution. Any other clemency or commutation of sentence must be recommended to the Governor by the state’s Pardons and Paroles board. None was forthcoming in the Willingham case. 

Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman said, “Willingham’s conviction was reviewed and upheld by multiple levels of state and federal courts, including nine federal courts – four times by the U.S. Supreme Court alone – over the course of more than a decade.” 

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reviewed the latest evidence and refused to recommend that Governor Perry act in this case. Governor Perry independently decided that the evidence did not warrant a stay and he allowed Willingham’s execution to proceed in accordance with his responsibility as Governor. 

Did Texas execute an innocent man? In a case that could not have been overturned based on something as definitive as DNA evidence and seven years after the 2004 execution, there’s no way to be 100% sure, but under Texas law, the most that Perry could have done was issue a single 30-day stay. When someone takes the position that Willingham was “innocent,” that person is intentionally ignoring all of the legal maneuvers that occurred and is basing that determination on “feelings.” He was never deemed “innocent” by any legal authority.

The words “Significant evidence” is subjectively used by MoveOn.og and other Leftist who have tried to use this case against Governor Perry, but I say let the system work. If someone has been convicted of a crime with SIGNIFICANT evidence, then trying to bring in other evidence after the fact which was not originally allowed or brought in during the trial process is not only not the way our justice system works but  the information brought forward should be viewed as insignificant which is what Governor Perry chose to do.

Gov. Perry’s response: “I think people are making a lot of this issue,” Perry told reporters Thursday in Austin, Texas. He said the replacement of commission Chairman Sam Bassett and commissioners Alan Levy and Aliece Watts, whose terms had expired, was “pretty normal protocol.” ”If you’ve got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process, rather than bring people in there for a short period of time and then replace them,” he said. “I think it makes a whole lot more sense to make a change now than to make a change later.”

source: CNN

 

 

(2) PERRY WANTS TO REPEAL THE 16th AND 17th AMENDMENTS, ENDING DIRECT ELECTION OF U.S. SENATORS AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX: In his 2010 book Fed Up!, Perry called the 16th and 17th Amendments “mistaken” and said they resulted from “a fit of populist rage.” The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income taxes, which is the single biggest source of revenue, accounting for 45 percent of all receipts. The 17th Amendment took electing U.S. senators out of the hands of political insiders and allowed the American public to decide their representation instead.

My take: Governor Perry is not alone. I don’t know of anyone who given the opportunity to NOT pay taxes wouldn’t repeal the 16th Amendment. The 17th Amendment however is a little more tricky. In order for you to understand what Gov. Perry is advocating for you need to understand a little bit of the history of the Senate. Please humor me and let me explain. Originally, each Senator was elected by his state’s legislature to represent that state in the Senate. This was intended to protect each state’s power within the federation established by the Constitution by having its own direct representation in the Congress. While an unqualified candidate might win a popular-vote majority through demagoguery or superficial qualities, the legislature, which could deliberate on its choice, and whose members had been selected by their constituents and had experience in politics, were thought safe from such influence. Finally, election by the legislature was expected to insulate Senators from the distraction of public campaigning for election or re-election, leaving them free to concentrate on the great business of the federal government. This last purpose was also the reason for the six-year term for Senators, as compared to the two-year term for U.S. Representatives.

Election by legislatures generally occurred without major problems up to the mid-1850s. There were frequent vacancies of a few days up to several months, but these nearly always occurred when Congress was not in session. In the 1850s, the sectional crisis over slavery led to increasing partisanship and strife. As a result, Indiana failed to elect a Senator from March 1855 to February 1857, while California failed to elect one from March 1855 to January 1857. California had previously failed to elect from March 1851 through January 1852, missing two months of the first session of the 32nd Congress, while Delaware failed to elect from September 1839 to January 1841, missing the entire first session and half the second session of the 26th Congress.  After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton asserted that the exact method for elections was murky and varied by state. In response, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when each state elected Senators. This was the first change in the process of Senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate (the more things change the more they stay the same) between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. In the worst case, from March 1899 to March 1903 Delaware failed to elect a Senator; this resulted in both of Delaware’s Senate seats being vacant for two years. Popular support of Senatorial election reform grew in 1905, 29 directly elected Senators supported legislation to promote direct election, but to make direct election general, a constitutional amendment was required. That is why the 17th amendment was required. I said all that to say this. The difficulty for travel from their states to Washington DC was a hardship. There were no planes,. Every one traveled by stage coach, and getting to the House to vote on senators for individual states became an obsolete way to conduct business.  I have not been able to find his statements on this either, nonetheless I thought I should address it and explain it for you.  As far as I am concerned, it is not that important.

 

 

(4) PERRY WAS ATTENDED THE BILDERBRAND GROUP’S SECRET MEETING. Many conservatives are taken aback by the governors acceptance of this particular invitation. The Bilderbrand Group  has been long a secret society of power brokers meeting in secret lavish places. Named after the hotel which hosted the first meeting in 1954 – the group was created by Denis (now Lord) Healey, Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (a former SS officer) – the group’s stated aim was to develop understanding between Europe and the US at the height of the Cold War by bringing together financiers, industrialists, politicians and opinion formers the press have never been allowed access and all discussions are under Chatham House rules (no quoting). and all is secret.

My take:  Many conspirators believe the NEW WORLD ORDER was given birth by the Bilderbrand group and that they have worked ever since tirelessly to accomplish their true goal of a one world government. For many Americans who treasure the US Constitution, and it’s sovereignty the Bilderbrand group and any of its associations are unpatriotic to say the least, or down right evil. For the Teaparty movement and the GOP to have a presidential candidate who is seen as cozy with the Bilderbrand group is to seal that candidates fate. How do I feel about his attendance? If in fact he was invited, simply went out of curiosity but has never been invited back, and is found to have NO dealings with the group; then I can forgive him and move on…but then again that is me and I am known to be forgiving. It will be up to you to watch him for yourselves. As I will. In other words. The jury is still out on this one.

Gov. Perry’s response: He said he was invited to the Bilderberg meeting and attended out of curiosity. “I found it to be an interesting group of people. I have yet to find out why they want to keep it a secret,” he said. “I haven’t been invited back and that was 5 years ago, so I guess I didn’t impress them.”

source: politico

 

(5) PERRY NAME HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED GROVER NORQUIST A FRONT MAN FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: 

Grover Norquist’s background is no secret.  Grover Norquist is toxic and should be persona non grata in the Republican party. He is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. And has been exposed as the recipient of huge donations from a Brotherhood figure who is now in jail for financing terror activity. I don’t want to see a GOP presidential candidate palling around with Grover and his thugs. I want a presidential candidate to declare that he will appoint an attorney general at the DOJ who will press forward immediately with the prosecutions of the co-conspirators named in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror funding trial in our nation’s history. I want a presidential candidate who is unafraid of the stealth jihadists in our midst, and who will vow that he will clean out the infiltrators. There are legitimate questions about the Aga Khan, also. The Ismailis are peaceful, yes, and the Aga Khan Foundation is an established Islamic charity. But the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development is also part-owner of the Pakistan-based Bank al-Habib, which Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s widow Mariane sued in 2007 for damages relating to its funding of al-Qaeda and involvement in the murder of her husband by Islamic jihad terrorists. She dropped the suit later that year without explanation, except to note that the Habib Bank had never answered her charges.

My Take:. Norquist heads up Americans for Tax Reform, and Perry’s tax-cutting message is redolent of Norquist’s influence. If I had been asked to speak at a forum where Norquist was speaking, I would refuse to speak at the same event in partnership with Grover Norquist. I would also never promote him on my website, which Perry did.   It could be that Gov. Perry sees Norquist as a tax reformer in his own image and either ignores or is ignorant of Norquist’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but either way I think Gov. Perry has some explaining to do on this issue.  Aga Khan  is another friend of Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The multimillionaire head of the Ismailis, a Shiite sect of Islam that today proclaims its nonviolence but in ages past was the sect that gave rise to the Assassins. Having said that I will reserve my opinion until such time as he has explained himself thoroughly. As far as I can tell Governor Perry has not responded to this yet.

 

 

(6) PERRY WANTED TO MANDATE HPV VACCINATIONS IN TEXAS: Gardasil was believed to be a way to stop certain types of cancer among young women. Studies appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several (but not all) of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

Some critics maintain that Gardasil has a record of “very serious safety issues.” That obvious attempt to further tarnish Perry’s image by intimating that not only did he do the bidding of Merck in ordering the vaccinations, he did so without considering the possible serious side effects. There is little doubt that Governor Perry knew a great deal more about Gardasil at the time than those critics do now. The CDC has been following Gardasil since its licensing and some current facts follow. Taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website:

“Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. “As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® have been distributed in the U.S. and the safety monitoring system (VAERS) received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.”

“Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious. Out of 35,000,000 doses distributed, there were 1,498 occasions of serious complications; that equates to a .0000428 chance that a dose will cause a serious adverse reaction.” Hardly enough to consider the vaccine “a very serious safety issue” as claimed by some critics. Apparently, they are too lazy to “do a little research.”

As of June, 2011, the CDC says: “Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines.” Check out the CDC’s statements about Gardasil for yourself. And specifically check out the Summary at the end for the CDC’s conclusion about Gardasil’s effectiveness.

In Gardasil, Merck believed that they had a credible, FDA-approved, CDC recommended, fact-backed case for vaccinating young women and lobbied state officials to do so. Were they trying to make money on the drug? Without a doubt, that’s what a business does.Although I personally do not agree with government mandates for healthcare including vaccinations what is the big deal about this mandate? I mean the govt already mandates children get vaccinations before entering the public school system in most states. Why would this be so different? When Perry mandated Gardasil, it would have become part of a school-related vaccine package which was then covered by insurance for simply the cost of a co-pay. Agree or disagree, that does seem to be a reasonable justification for Perry’s actions.

 

My Take:  Governor Perry made the following statement because some in his state were accusing him that mandating the HPV vaccine was tantamount to promoting promiscuity among teenage girls. I happen to disagree with them. In fact I think the most valid point he makes is that insurance companies would not cover the vaccine unless it was a mandated for school attendance. His point was there were many low income people in Texas who would not be able to afford the vaccine, and it would not be right for only rich or well to do families to be protected when he had the power to give them all the ability to do so. Good job in this one.

Gov. Perry’s response: “As governor of Texas, I will do everything in my power to protect public health. The executive order I signed last Friday will help stop the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV) and prevent cervical cancer in young women. Some are focused on the cause of this cancer, but I remain focused on the cure. And if I err, I will always err on the side of protecting life.  If we could stop lung cancer, would some shy away claiming it might encourage tobacco use?  This is a rare opportunity to act, and as a pro-life governor, I will always take the side of protecting life. Though some might argue that we should wait several years before requiring the vaccine, I believe such a delay unnecessarily risks the lives of young women..” click here for source

Perry maintains that the justification for his executive order making the shot mandatory was twofold:

1) that the vaccine offered a chance to save lives that might have otherwise been taken away by cervical cancer and

2) that insurance companies wouldn’t cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen) when it was simply an optional “recommended” vaccine. That put it out of the reach for most low-income Texans. This from the Time Magazine article  “Some pediatricians and gynecologists are refusing to stock Gardasil because many insurance companies reimburse so little for the vaccine, which costs $360 for the three required doses.”

 

 

(7) PERRY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF UNINSURED AS FAR AS HEALTHCARE IS CONCERNED: On Bill Bennett’s radio show last year, Perry claimed that “Texas has the best health care in the country.”  Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents of any state. More than one in four Texans lack coverage; the national average is just 15.4 percent. As such, there are more uninsured residents in Texas than there are people in 33 states. Despite Texas’s low coverage rates, the state has some of the most restrictive Medicaid eligibility thresholds, and Perry has even proposed dropping out of the program. Texas also has an inordinately high percentage of impoverished children, yet Perry opposed expanding the successful State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

 

My take: Governor Perry also has the most illegals of ANY state in the union. If he has the MOST uninsured it is because he has the MOST illegals and illegals almost always will be uninsured. The fact that Texas has the highest rate of uninsured doesnt make his statement any less true. Texas may have one of the best healthcare in the country. The two are two separate subjects. I believe Gov. Perry was talking about Texas actual health care facilities and the reason Texas is able to attract the best and the brightest is because of their tort reform laws.

Gov. Perry’s response: “I believe it is because of tort law.  We do, yes. I spoke with the doctors yesterday in San Antonio. We’ve got, you know, three of the great health care regions. When you think about the medical center in Houston, there are more doctors, nurses, researchers go to work there than any other place in the world, every day. You got UT Southwestern up in University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Scott & White. I mean these fabulous health care facilities are rated among the best in the country”

source: The Birmingham News

 

 

(8) PERRY AND THE TRANS TEXAS CORRIDOR : The “Trans-Texas Corridor” (TTC) term identifies a plan, introduced by Governor Perry in 2001, that some saw as the beginning of a “North American Union” highway system. It was to extend from the Texas border with Mexico to the border with Oklahoma and would be a 4,000 mile system with routes crisscrossing Texas. The $175+ billion dollar project would have been the largest engineering project ever proposed for the state of Texas.
When details of the plan became public, critics became concerned that it would lead to a “NAFTA Superhighway” that would facilitate the United States, Canada and Mexico merging into a North American Union (a fringe conspiracy theory).

As envisioned, the TTC consisted of multi-use right-of-ways that would be up to 1,200 feet wide to accommodate six 80 mph vehicle lanes, 4 truck lanes, two tracks each for high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail, a 200 ft. wide utility zone to accommodate underground water, natural gas, and petroleum pipelines, telecommunications cables and high-voltage electric transmission lines. A full-sized right of way would have required 146 sq. acres per mile.

While the concept of multi-use right-of-ways can be considered forward-thinking and progressive (in the proper use of the word), many were concerned that the proposed methods of land acquisition and financing could take advantage of landowners and the taxpaying public to the benefit of private entities.

In March of 2005, a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA) was signed with Cintra/Zachry, a partnership between Cintra (Cintra Concesiones deInfraestructuras de Transporte,S.A.), an international developer of transport infrastructure, and Zachry Construction Corp., one of the country’s largest construction companies. There were several other participants in the CDA, but these are the two most prominent.

Headquartered in Madrid, Spain, with subsidiaries on three continents, Cintra is one of the world’s largest private-sector developers of transport infrastructure. Zachry is a privately held company founded in 1924 and headquartered in San Antonio,Texas. The concerns that critics raised over the TTC were:

Cintra, a Spanish firm, was the largest financer. They would build, design and operate the highway (that included collecting toll revenue). While the Spanish firm would not own the system, they would benefit financially off of Texas’ infrastructure. All roads in Texas are owned by Texas and managed under Texas’ Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) authority.
Since most of the Trans-Texas Corridor roads would be toll roads, toll earnings would be used to pay investors (Cintra) and to maintain the roads. If any public money was used to pay for part of the TTC, it would constitute double taxation. Motorists would have contributed gasoline tax revenues towards building and maintaining Texas highways and still have to pay for tolls on the TTC.
It was estimated that 580,000 acres (906 square miles) would have been taken from private owners (mostly ranch and farm land) and either purchased by, or seized (via eminent domain) by the state for the Trans-Texas Corridor.
The possible misuse of eminent domain – confiscating private land for “public” use – was a major concern.

 

My Take: Here is a local (Houston) story that sums up the public outcry over the TTC. By law, toll roads in Texas can never be owned by anyone other than the state and are not being “leased away.” The public never relinquished ownership of any state roads. Governor Perry signed a law in 2005 that prevents a free road from being “converted” to a toll road. This is current law under the Transportation Code, Chapter 228.201 and he signed SB 18 on May 19, 2011, a bill which strengthened property owner’s rights when eminent domain is exercised by a government entity. Eminent domain “land grabs” were one of the big concerns that Texans had relating to the TTA.  Unlike the current administration in Washington, Gov. Rick Perry heard the people and backed off. What more can you ask for in a politician?

Gov Perry’s response:  Perry’s defense was that as Texas continues to grow by about 1,200 people every day, the state’s infrastructure must be improved to accommodate the growth. The TTC was an attempt to create a state-of-the-art, coordinated system of thousands of miles of roadways, rail lines, and gas transportation systems without raising taxes by using a financing method called a “Public Private Partnership” (P3s). It is important to note that P3s are a procurement option, not a revenue source. Some current examples are: the Chicago Skyway, the South Bay Expressway in California, and the Capital Beltway high-occupancy toll lanes in DC. Here is more on P3s from the Federal Highway Administration.

 

There is so much t cover on Gov. Rick Perry that I will be writing several articles covering him.

All sources are highlighted within the article.

 

Thanks to the politics Fix on facebook for much valuable information which contributed to this article.

 

Find Rosie Onthe iIght fan page on facebook HERE.

 

 

 

Filed Under: United States Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts