Michele Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll


Meeting Michele Bachmann In Honolulu

She’s a contender. Bachmann pulled off a victory despite the doubters (funny how those migraines didn’t seem to slow her down for one second.) When asked by Byron York during the GOP debate about being “submissive” to her husband, she gave the response that likely propelled her to victory. Here’s a further explanation: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274505/michele-bachmann-not-running-wife-chief-nancy-french#

I can tell you from first-hand experience that Bachmann is a dynamo and an outstanding speaker. Of course, Perry entered the race today so things are getting very interesting indeed. One thing’s for sure – I don’t care if it’s Bachmann, Perry or Romney, ANY of them would be better than the joke we have sitting in the Oval Office now. (Sidenote: Ron Paul got second place in the Iowa Straw Poll. Figures. He needs to go away.)

Advertisements

Tags: ,

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

38 responses to “Michele Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll”

  1. David says :

    Mike,

    I read the article. It is probably factual. The 2 main culprits for Texas wildfires are cigarettes and fireworks. The article is pretty weak for not mentioning that. Texas spends millions and millions unexpectedly on fires in some years. The counties bear the cost. It raises real estate taxes in those counties to ridiculous levels. Perry was trying to provide those counties’ residents tax relief.

    Please read again what I wrote. The state of Texas economy speaks for itself. The tax situation there speaks for itself. What other state has grown so fast and contributes so much to the private sector and has not had massive tax increases? None. The Bush political machine is Perry’s worst enemy. They hate him. Perry will feel the heat from both sides. Big government is petrified of Perry. He is a true believer in the 10th Amendment. Google ‘Who is Rick Perry’ Mike. That article is also true.

    Thanks for the challenge Mike. The discourse is what’s important, not the details.

    David

  2. David says :

    Rick Perry is a politician, not a Messiah. He’s not perfect, but he is certainly no duplicitous scoundrel either. I moved to Texas in 1988 and have had a home there ever since. Texas has not only thrived under Perry, but prospered. Taxes? Which ones did he raise Mike? No income tax, no personal property tax. Sales tax about the same as always.

    Perry has appeal, not just to Republicans but to conservative Democrats also, and certainly to a host of Independents like me. If you think one far right wing conservative can turn this country around, you are delusional. If you think our problems can be solved in a magic “100 days” you are a hopeless optimist. It will take quite a while to unwind the mess that career Democrats and moderate Republicans have spun.

    Perry will do what the people want, because he understands that he must in order to be a successful politician. That is to reign in government’s influence on our lives. He won’t do it all at once, and he won’t finish the job, but he will do what he can. Ask for more, and you’ll get nothing close to what you hear promised.

    I think he may get the chance to go up against Obama.

  3. MikeHawaii says :

    Why would you want to replace one duplicitous scoundrel with another? … It’s clear now that the press did not do its job exposing the fake identity that is Barack Obama. Why wouldn’t you want to know the truth about Rick Perry’s background?

    • giliar says :

      Of course we want to know the truth about any candidates background. And I have no doubt there are “truths” about all of them that we won’t like. What I object to is how conservatives are so stringent in how they look at their candidates that they do “let perfect be the enemy of good.” You NEVER see this on the left.

    • Lee says :

      To compare the deception of the Leftwing press about Obongo and any misconceptions or incomplete understanding by the electorate of anyone on the conservative/Right is ridiculous on its face.

      But if you want to consider how the press has covered up information about politicians, just note the silence of the Leftist PC press about the “Ron Paul Freedom Report,” a White nationalist publication by Paul in the 1980s and ’90s. Because Paul shared the media’s goal of defeating America in Iraq, he was given a pass on what would have been held up as the height of racism for any other on the conservative/Right. Of course, had your hero somehow won the GOP nomination against the Great Black Hope, the media would have suddenly discovered this, and by November, half the country would have thought his name was, “Ron Paul Freedom Report.”

  4. Lee says :

    (Reply to “Lee….what I find amazing…”) Well noted, my padawon apprentice. What you describe is the natural and inevitable outcome of the purism, libertarianism, and individualism of the conservative/Right which I have railed against for ages. The overfocus on the individual–whether it be a particular individual’s absolute values (social, especially religious, conservatives), or the concept of the individual as opposed to the community (fiscal and Paultard-esque conservatives, including Teabrainers)–blocks these people from seeing the need for coalitions and cooperation.

    Despite what was accomplished by selling their souls to the Tea Party in 2010, there are still Christian pro-lifers who won’t vote for a pro-choicer no matter what. Similar causes have some similar adherents. And despite what was accomplished by setting aside personal preferences in that same context, “What’s in it for me?” remains an active force in many conservatives’ minds. And they are PROUD of it! They wear halos for self-righteousness or express selfish indignation at the idea of sacrificing (witness the Teabrainer attitude in the recent budget battle).

    A particular example close to my heart of what you, Gilia, discussed is the behavior of Gun Owners of America in the 2008 election. They put out a scathing criticism of John McCain! Nevermind that he voted TWICE against the “assault weapons” ban and was the only viable opponent to Barack Obama, who believed the DC handgun ban was constitutional. But because McCain wasn’t perfect, they attacked him seemingly more than they did the Great Black Hope.

    Having 75 percent of what we’d like to see is better than 25 percent, and securing your position for future gain is better than having no chance at gain and in fact being oppressed. Conservatives have trouble seeing this, because it requires that they look beyond their preferences and their portfolios. On this, see what LTC Allen West has to say: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/West-teaparty-debt-deal/2011/08/04/id/406093?s=al&promo_code=CC44-1

    The counterargument offered by those opposed to this correct way is that such “compromise” is what has gotten us into our current bad situation. This is false. What has gotten us into this situation is the unwillingness of the conservative/Right AS A WHOLE to stand together against the overall pull to the Left.

    All on the conservative/Right have a particular issue where they go Left (Palin: feminism; Peter King of NY: gun control; Me: animal WELFARE, not “rights”). The Left plays this unavoidable fact to split us up. In the original cut of “The Undefeated,” Tammy Bruce, that openly lesbian pro-choice conservative, noted that the Tea Party set aside social issues and thus (and this was included in the regular release) deprived the Left of the ability to divide them. By doing so, we see one of the most pro-life and pro-gun House of Representatives’ in ages. As much as I hate long-term the focus on the economy, it did serve as a means of getting conservatives to pull together more (albeit out of materialism).

    This article goes into the need for the cooperation on the conservative/Right you, Gilia, so rightly note is lacking: http://thepatriotsnews.com/indx.php/content/174

    As for attitude, see this article for a discussion of what is needed. Note the comments from “conservatives” about how selfishness is superior to cooperation. Though I would quibble with a few characterizations made in it, and hold the War Powers Crap to be unconstitutional, this is a lesson you all need to learn: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_need_for_a_militant_conservative_movement.html

    NOTE: I also left this comment:

    ——
    One commenter said, “Because the “conservative spirit” is fundamentally introspective, the very notion of “militancy” is antithetical to—and is indeed the polar-opposite of—conservatism.”

    I knew when I first saw this that conservatives would object to its truth because it conflicts with their selfishness. The real lesson is that “conservatism” as described by the commenter simply doesn’t work. To be “introspective” is simply another way of saying selfish, self-centered and self-defeating. If conservatives don’t learn the lesson of this article, they will lose, and deservedly so.

    Critics need to simply shut up with their selfish objections and do the right thing. (NOTE: This last line was edited out on the article. Too bad.)
    ——

    I could say more, but this brief discussion should point people in the correct direction. What is really needed is a sense of putting cause and country ahead of person and preference. In other words, some good ole fashioned patriotism.

    • giliar says :

      “…putting cause and country ahead of person and preference.” Where is the spirit of the Founding Fathers? We’ve become so spoiled that we whine when it’s too hot, whine when it’s too cold and complain if our McDonald’s fries are more than 5 minutes old. (That rhymed and I didn’t even plan it that way.) Anyhow, thanks for the great introspection and links, Lee!

      • Lee says :

        “Introspection”??? You take that back! Definition of “introspection”: “self-examination: the detailed mental examination of your own feelings, thoughts, and motives” http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+introspection&qpvt=introspection+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

        As I brilliantly said, “To be ‘introspective’ is simply another way of saying selfish, self-centered and self-defeating.” What I sought to do was look at the matter outwardly, not from a self-focused perspective.

      • giliar says :

        Ha, Ha!!!! Just seeing if you were paying attention 😉 A more appropriate word would be “insightful.”

      • Lee says :

        As for where “the spirit of the Founding Fathers is,” it got lost when American freedom became license for individualism. The Libertarian Party arose to resist encroachment by government, but in their overreaction to that, they have taken the conservative/Right off-target. These people, including Teabrainers, honestly think that America started out as libertarian. They are completely ignorant of our country’s founding due to their lack of academic education. In other words, they are TEABRAINERS!

        Unfortunately, I am reminded of something Bill Maher said, namely, that the Teabrainers would hate the Founders, and vice versa. While I hate Maher, and he had some different reasons for this analysis–including how many of the Founders didn’t agree with biblical morality, “except for the part about it’s cool to own slaves” (in short, exactly the opposite of many Teabrainers, who uphold biblical morality on everything BUT slavery)–his points of varying validity are worth considering: http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2011/01/18/bill-maher-to-tea-party-the-founding-fathers-would-have-hated-your-guts.htm

      • Lee says :

        And thank you for the retraction. *makes note to self to cancel hack attack*

      • MikeHawaii says :

        “…putting cause and country ahead of person and preference.”

        This phrase has no meaning if the word cause is not defined. Herein lies the problem, knowing the real cause, not just the propaganda. Blind allegiance to country is what Hitler used to corrupt the young men and women of Germany in the 1930s.

        Our brave men and women are put in harm’s way every day to protect trans-national corporate interests not to defend the United States from aggression. … If our soldiers knew what they were really fighting and dying for, they would find the fastest way they could out of the military.

        The Freedom Information Center
        http://www.AAAFreedom.us
        Pass Code: 2011-FreedomForce

      • Lee says :

        Isn’t there a little rule in American political debate that the first side to bring up the Hitler/Nazi comparison loses? Yeah, that sounds about right.

        In any case, notice how this fellow equates the sentiments of Commodore Stephen Decatur, hero in America’s first war against Jihad, and even the fourth verse of our national anthem, with such a regime. He has no right to say anything about “blind alligiance” to one’s country when he himself has no allegiance to his whatsoever.

        We face threats to our country and heritage from all sides, foreign and domestic. We have an administration too busy apologizing for the country to win its wars. We have a large Leftwing that wants to tear down what the country is. We have an idiotic movement of Teabrainers who have no idea what they are talking about trying to save the country, but being influenced by a non-patriotic, even treasonous element of the Rightwing represented by this conspiracy-theory-spouting nut.

        You know, Gilia, maybe a little “blind allegiance” to America and our heritage is what we need.

      • MikeHawaii says :

        I wonder how Lee would describe the difference between his form of militaristic National Socialism and Hitler’s form of militaristic National Socialism? …

        Some have called our current form of government, Corporate Socialism, because the major international corporations control our socialist government by writing the laws that Congress passes, making the overwhelming amount of contributions to the political parties, and effectively controlling the regulatory agencies which are administered by former employees of the regulated corporations. The political science books call this fascism – when the major corporations and government conspire against the people. Is this not our condition today?

        If readers like that kind of government, I would guess that you would agree with Lee’s form of the status quo. If readers remember that militaristic National Socialism is what destroyed freedom and devastated the population of Germany in the 1930s, they might want to consider the message and principles espoused by Ron Paul before deciding on who they want to be President.

        Everyone who is NOT aware of the 10-step blueprint that despots (Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin) use to close down open societies should watch this short talk describing the similarities between the United States today and former open societies like Germany, Italy, and Russia:

      • giliar says :

        MikeHawaii – I know you are a big fan of Ron Paul and just like other fans of his, you are unwavering in your support. I can’t support him for the reasons I’ve noted before: his dangerous military and isolationist ideas. You may be interested in this: Why Is Russian TV Backing Ron Paul? There’s also this: Muslim Newspaper Endorses Ron Paul in Michigan So if the Russians & Muslims support him, that’s enough for me to be extremely suspicious. In fact, it’s enough for me to consider him an unfit candidate for POTUS.

      • Lee says :

        Well, MikeHawaii, first I am not a fan of “democracy.” Our Founders set up our constitutional system for a society where by some estimates only about one percent of the population could vote, being limited by property ownership and to certain demographics (largely male, almost entirely White). Also, restrictions on private behavior and public speech were common at the state level. America was assuredly NOT “libertarian.” So to oppose your libertarian approach to political power puts me squarely within our American heritage.

        Just consider: Under your libertarian/individualist ideas, the country will fall to foreign enemies of some stripe and/or domestic enemies on the Left, and people like you and me will be on the outs with the new regime. Under my ideas, the country can be saved, and most people will retain at least some of the freedom and prosperity enjoyed now (you won’t, of course–“I’ll raise his taxes!”–but decent Americans will). As the situation here grows more and more desperate, America will more and more face a “Center cannot hold” condition, and thus a choice between an extreme Left regime destroying our heritage and culture, and an extreme Right regime maintaining the core of our heritage and culture. Your libertarian mindset would allow the Left to win because of your insistence on your personal preferences, and thus cost you your freedom. My patriotic mindset will fight for the country at all costs, and thus maintain our national culture, and thus at least some freedom.

        So go ahead and make your comparisons all you want. Your “Nazi” and “Fascist” labeling mean about as much to me as people labeling me, “racist”–that is, they don’t matter at all. The point remains that your approach will lead to our destruction and the loss of people’s individual freedom, while mine offers a chance for our survival and thus the retention of freedom.

        Reality is reality. Face it.

      • Lee says :

        Good links, Gilia. This article, linked to in one of your articles, is also good for perspective: http://bigpeace.com/smitsotakis/2011/08/15/ron-paul-the-gops-henry-wallace/

        The writer is correct that Paul is not sympathetic to Communism. However, he misses the real reasons for Paul’s positions, some of which are laid out before:

        1. Many White nationalists have a negative view of the authorities from their valid and legitimate grudges against PC Affirmation Action and other discriminations against Whites and the White race. While this feeling varies in outcome from person to person and group to group, it tends to manifest itself in opposition to national functions like foreign affairs and war.

        2. He is like many White nationalists, advocating individualism/libertarianism as a counter to anti-White “Affirmative Action” reverse discrimination. It’s technically a renunciation of their White identity, but they usually stop short of that. In truth, though, most aren’t really libertarian, though Paul does himself seem to be.

        Interestingly, libertarianism necessitates the deprecating of community and country. Foreign involvement and war is the ultimate expression of national identity and government power. Hence, causing defeat–which plays easily into the White nationalism–seems at first blush to forward their cause, though it in fact undercuts resistance to the Left, which uses a similar approach. As JFK said, the extremes often look like each other more than the Center. And as Pat Caddell has noted, these extremes of the spectrum will often “meet in the back” to produce the same immediate conclusion.

        (NOTE: In my own politically incorrect White nationalism [remember, if “Black pride” and “Red pride” and “Yellow pride” are permitted, so is “White pride”–cf Charlton Heston], I obviously don’t follow this self-defeating and country-killing approach.)

        3. Conspiracy theories are necessary for breaking down people’s general respect for government authority without breaking down their appreciation of other traditional points like private property. Obviously then, any war or foreign intervention must be played as being–and to the “true believers” is perceived as being–part of the conspiracy. Paul does this in at least a very general way.

        In fairness, Ron Paul does stand out as seemingly the most White nationalistic of any mainstream and *puke* respected *puke* politician today. It is truly a shame that, regardless of the exact motivation, he has taken the path he has taken. I don’t know if that is Mikey’s thing, or if he’s simply a brain-adled libertarian fully embracing some basic conspiracy theories. Either way, their extreme, while not generally the direct threat to the country which the Left’s tack on these matters is, is at best a severe block to combating the true threats to the country–Leftism and Muslim Jihadism.

      • giliar says :

        Interesting and well written article! Isn’t it funny how history so often repeats itself? If only we Americans knew history……

      • Lee says :

        “If only we Americans knew history……”

        But that would require something called, “scholarship,” and Teabra…, ur, Tea Partiers call that “elitist.” All one really needs to know about American history according to them is how the Good Lord came over on the Mayflower over a hundred years ago and had the Founders put “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the “all men are created equal” line in the Constitution, which Congress violated when it passed that “Roe V. Wade” law. And a bonus for anyone who can find that woman’s full middle name, and not just the “V” abbreviation: He or she will get to be on “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?”! That brainiac will be the smartest one ever in that Classroom gallery!

        Sorry. Had to take the shot. Feel free to delete. But I hope this makes the point. Knowing things like history and political science comes into play in dealing with real-world issues. Ron Paultards lack a realistic perspective on the global situation, or refuse to apply it, and the result is them falling for isolationist rhetoric.

      • giliar says :

        Ah….but remember, Lee, I’m a “Teabrainer” and I’m the one who expressed the lament in the first place.

      • Lee says :

        But GIlia, I’ll bet you know the problems in the little history lesson I left. You might be surprised how many Tea Partiers really don’t. I’ve told you the story of the Constitution-waving legislator here, and if you’re objective, you know there is a basis of truth in that stereotype.

        Conservatives–and most Tea Partiers are conservative–are, as that one comment on that one article said, “introspective.” They really don’t study beyond their discipline and career. My good-natured pokes are intended to wake them up to the need to be a little bit academic. If you objectively look at your fellow Tea Partiers, you know what I mean.

        I’ve had conversations with strong Leftists, and while I utterly disagree with most of their positions, I normally find the Leftists have a better grasp of the historical and political facts. For instance, a recent conversation involved one saying that the Founders really weren’t the “Power to the People” type that people like Tea Partiers make them out to be. He was right on that. However, I disagree with his negative characterization of it, to be expected of a modern Leftist, seeing them instead as an elite who saw the limitations of the common people–today’s Tea Partiers–and then sought to push what then would be by the Left-Right spectrum some rather liberal/Left ideas with wise limitations and doing so without the agenda of the modern, Marx-esque Left. So… I agree with his facts, but disagree with his characterization.

        JFK was right.

        The typical Tea Partier, however, would listen to Glenn “We can’t remove Obama, even if he’s Kenyan, because a hundred cities would burn” Beck and think the Founders were these ultra-radical proponents of a totally new concept. They wouldn’t understand how the Founders built on pre-existing ideas from British and other philosophers and political scientists. They wouldn’t know or appreciate that part of the reason behind the Electoral College was to insulate the Presidency from the mere common people. And the religious conservatives certainly wouldn’t appreciate the rather loose use of Christian scripture and doctrine (in one case in the Constitution, nearly reversing the instructions of Scripture–compare Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 to Deuteronomy 23:15).

        Simply put, it’s hard to get the most basic point across to them, since they on agregate lack even the foundational knowledge to explain things to them. And being so “introspective,” too often they have trouble appreciating the consequences of what I try to say to them. If you ever saw the movie, “Mom and Dad Save the Planet,” you know what I mean (“Just because you’re stupid that doesn’t mean you can’t rule a planet. Hey! Come to Earth sometime.”).

        And Tea Partiers deep down know this to be true, and some try to cover it up. A conservative blog some time back had a story countering criticism by Karl Rove of the Tea Party’s lack of economic understanding by claiming that Tea Partiers regularly discuss the works of the Austrian School of economics. Does anyone really believe that people who can’t spell, “didn’t” even know about, let alone discuss, a “school” of dead economists with Nazi-sounding names? Bachmann recently claimed to read the works of Ludwig Von Mises at the beach. Can you honestly imagine Bachmann sunning herself in a bikini *pauses for visual, sighs* reading such material? Rove has been wrong about a number of things, but on this he is right.

        Honestly, I try not to get too big-headed about this. I make my share of mistakes. But when I hear someone get up before tons of people and utter things almost as ridiculous as my little history lesson, how can I, or anyone with an academic education in matters such as history or political science, not think, “These are a bunch of… ” Well, I won’t even put it down encrypted. But please, I don’t believe it’s asking too much for your cohorts to get facts right and talk only about what they understand.

        So please take this good-natured poke as it is intended. And please urge your fellow Tea Partiers, especially the truly Teabrainy (and you know who they are), to read and research something BEFORE talking or writing about it. It’s worth the effort.

  5. mrethman says :

    As a retired Army officer, Defense too needs to take cuts. This sounds draconian but it need not be so. The USAF has little need for new $100M fighter airplanes going forward, indeed the advance technology we jam into these aerial hotrods helps drive an arms race that’s increasingly irrelevant in light of how much technology it costs to keep their weakest link — pilots — alive. If the wars in SW Asia have taught us anything, it’s that drones (robots) are cheaper and in many cases better, esp. considering the costs.
    Now to the Navy: The Marine Corps needs to close-up shop. Their raison d’etre (forced entry from the sea surface) is long gone. Subs? Hard to say what the needs are, but nuclear boomers? If we maintain more than two or three, that’s a waste. Carriers remain useful, albeit expensive. Better to equip more and smaller ships (easier to protect and faster-moving with, hey, guess what — Predators, etc. Military medicine and dentistry needs to be fully “purple.” While active duty docs, nurses, dentists etc. remain necessary, having each service running its own medical/dental operations is a waste. We need to withdraw troops from many places around the world or get more host input into paying for them if they still want them on their property. A few exceptions exist of course, but we’ve got soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen stationed all over the world based on inertia rather than missions. I’m guessing that DoD could cut 20%+ of its budget and not lose a single bit of capability, not hit pay/benefits are all the good things that make the volunteer force viable. Of course, the services would have to cut actual fat and not muscle… and this would be a serious break with past tradition as I saw it when I was there. If the rest of the gov’t cut 20%+ of its costs, S&P would have to create a new standard for credit worthiness beyond that which the feckless Obama Administration just pissed away.

    • giliar says :

      Yes, there is lots of waste in the military, but the problem is that the bureaucrats in DC will NEVER cut the unnecessary stuff….and I fear our military capabilities will suffer. I agree that if a serious look at waste in the military was done, we could cut a great deal (20% is a great deal in my mind) and not lose military strength. But I’m not sure that’s possible, based on how the pinheads in DC make decisions.

    • Lee says :

      Gilia, your friend here is making the Barney Fife mistake. Aside from some of the administrative matters he mentions, he wants to cut the very things that create the situation than makes those cuts feasible. By cutting our strategic forces, our conventional forces, and withdrawing from the world, the way is opened for foreign domination. It may be the best example ever of the proverbial “trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too.”

      Quibble about specific weapon systems all you want, but it’s better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them. It’s better we have too many fighters than not enough. It’s better we have too many nukes than not enough.

      As for my experience in the military, I have seen a lot of inefficiency and waste, but I also saw a reason for some of it. Unlike every other government action, the military has to get it right. If some idiot at HUD screws up a handout for some lazy*** family in Louisiana to improve the roof on their house so the rain doesn’t leak on the big-screen TV they ripped off during Katrina, it won’t really kill the country (and might actually improve it!). But if the military screws up things, it can have real effect with no do-over.

      From my time entering Basic to my deployment rampups, I saw us having to do redundant paperwork and receive redundant items. They do this because no matter how computerized something might be, the old-fashioned way is sure to work. For instance, when my Guard unit activated for a deployment, we were issued slightly-obsolete equipment by my state at the armory, knowing full well we’d be issued new stuff at our domestic training camp. But it had to be done, just in case something got screwed up and we didn’t get the stuff issued. Overseas, we were issued some extreme-cold-weather, “They could drop us on ice planet Hoth and we’d be okay” stuff for an area that doesn’t get that cold. They did this because they learned the “Barbarossa lesson,” and knew that anything could happen. Things could have been done more efficiently, indeed, but this way the results were guaranteed.

      One thing in the military that can and should be cut is the PC “mandatory training” garbage. “Suicide prevention,” “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and even a very anti-White “racial sensitivity” presentation from the 1970s or early ’80s shown the week after the Great Black Hope was election pResident are just a few of the things military members must sit through, taking time away from learning how to do their jobs and kill people we don’t like. Here is the real waste in the military.

      Cuts should come from things I don’t care about, like welfare and future entitlements. While we must keep our promises to those who’ve earned it, we should tell the people who receive welfare to simply go back to work. If they don’t, they starve, and the rest of us get their stuff. If they decide to go criminal, we eliminate these drains on society, and the rest of us get their stuff. Wow! Reduction of expenses and enrichment of decent people. Win-win!

  6. MikeHawaii says :

    In regards to Rick Perry…

    Right now, Rick Perry is trying to portray himself as a “good conservative” so that if he enters the race he will be accepted by Christian conservatives. If Rick Perry did win the Republican nomination, he would have a great chance of winning the general election because he would very much be an “establishment” candidate.

    But before Republicans get too excited about Rick Perry, there are a whole lot of things that they should know about him.

    The following are 14 reasons why Rick Perry would be a really, really bad president….

    #1 Rick Perry is a “big government” politician. When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government.

    #2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control. According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932. If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.

    #4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.

    #5 Rick Perry claims that he has a “track record” of not raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.

    #7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president. In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore’s campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.

    #12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.

    #14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with an untested and unproven vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light. Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do. According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when “apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.”

    See the rest of the 14 reasons why Rick Perry should not be President at:
    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-reasons-why-rick-perry-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president

    • giliar says :

      Yes, now that Perry has announced he’s running there is a lot coming out about him. Bottom line: we need to do our homework and make sure we understand where each candidate stands on the important issues. But I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: ANYONE OF THE GOP CANDIDATES (except RP) WOULD BE BETTER THAN OBAMA! Perry’s not perfect, but none of the others are either. A wise person I know likes to remind me that we “shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”

      • Lee says :

        Remember, Gilia, if Mike the Paultard dislikes Perry that much, Perry can’t be all that bad.

        I saw an article about Bachmann winning the Iowa poll. It had a poll of its own on who people would have voted for. As I looked down the list of names, the only one that at all appealed to me was ROMNEY! (Bachmann needs to win either a war or statewide election.) Perry is at least the governor of a state where people carry guns. While he needs to toughen his border and illegal immigration stance, I can excuse a few economic choices for that.

      • giliar says :

        Lee….what I find amazing is that people who think 0bama must go tear down a candidate who has a good chance of beating him. Perry will get enough negative press from the lamestream media, but for people who are supposedly appalled by all that 0bama is doing to gun for him straight out of the gate is…well…disturbing. The left and progressives NEVER do this to their candidates. But the right and conservatives always form circular firing squads.

  7. MikeHawaii says :

    The Iowa Republican straw poll is in and the results are astounding. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul won 1st (29%) and 2nd (28%) in a virtual dead heat finish, with Tim Pawlenty being a distant third. With 57% of the vote between them, Paul and Bachmann proved the people of this nation are more than ready to embrace Tea Party candidates.

    Today’s second-place finish is a clear victory for Congressman Paul, who neither hails from Iowa nor espouses the foreign interventionism that continues to resonate with some Iowa Republicans.

    “Ron Paul is taking dead aim at issues no one else will even touch,” noted Woods. “No one was talking about the Federal Reserve System until someone of Ron Paul’s boldness and knowledge came along and showed us how this institution was making our economy so unstable and ripping us off in the process. No one questions the premises behind our government’s disastrous foreign policy. Ron Paul is trying to undo 100 years of brainwashing, from both official Left and official Right. The Left has its faith in Big Government at home, and the neoconservative Right an equally misplaced faith in Big Government abroad. Both have embraced fairy tales over real history.

    “Ron Paul rejects it all. The same corrupt political class that has wrecked our economy is the same corrupt political class that has us mired in these trillion-dollar wars. It’s about time both sides woke up and realized they’ve been had. That’s what Ron Paul is trying to tell his countrymen. And in light of his strong showing in Ames, the message is getting through.”

    Operation: Awake and Aware
    http://www.AwakeAndAware.us
    Pass Code: 2011-FreedomForce

    • giliar says :

      MIkeHawaii….a few points: 1) Ron Paul always does well in these straw polls because his “get out the vote” grassroots efforts are strong. He is NOT a viable candidate! Anyone who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon is not viable. Remember, Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Do you honestly think they don’t feel the same about us? 2) Who is the “Woods” you quote in your comment? Has Tiger taken up politics now that he can’t play golf worth a darn? 3) I will give Ron Paul credit for his insistence on going after the Fed. But his wacky ideas on defense overshadow that bright spot.

    • Lee says :

      Paul needs to be put out in a nice place with trees and singing birds and cells with soft walls. Either that or put in prison for treason. But presuming he’s sincere about his foreign policy and not simply playing fools in the electorate, his ideas are based on an 18th-century analysis of the world, where our country could hide being oceans (and the Royal Navy). We learned early on this approach didn’t work when the Brits decided to pay off rather than fight the Barbary Jihadists, and then when they impressed our seamen, leading to our near-defeat in the War of 1812.

      We live in a world where some sheethead can punch three buttons on a cell phone, and a city halfway around the world will blow up.

      The old “Andy Griffith Show” had an episode where Barney and a few of the local yocals organize to protect Andy from someone they fear is out to get him. Otis, one of these yocals, raises the point that it could be dangerous, saying, “None of us is good at this sort of thing, and that includes you, Barney.” Barney responds with, “Andy will be there! He won’t let us get hurt!” LOL

      What we see in that comedic scene is someone who is so accustomed to a condition where Andy has the power to protect them, that when faced with a situation where Andy’s power is in question, he responds to it by presuming Andy has that power, without considering the contradiction.

      One question I regularly ask Ron Paultard-type isolationists is this: “Which foreign power do you want to dominate the United States?” I explain to them that if America withdraws from world activism as they call for, another power or powers will arise to fill the vacuum of power. And at least one of those powers will dominate our country, even as the U.S. and USSR dominated once-powerful countries after World War II.

      Invariably I get responses that they want no power to dominate us. They say this despite the reality that a power or powers will indeed, simply by the nature of our world, dominate us. They seem to think, “America is too powerful to be dominated like that.” Yet that power comes from the very situation they want to end–world involvement, a disproportionately strong military, and an active covert intelligence system. They aren’t thinking through the contradiction.

      CONCLUSION: Paultards have the perception of Barney Fife.

      If you want an end to “trillion-dollar wars,” you need to help change the wimped-down (from the Left) and self-centered (from the Right) attitude of the American people and help recreate the mentality that allowed us to nuke two cities of a race of people that didn’t look like most of us (just making the PC point, Gilia). You need to help move the American people to a point where our enemies know that if they threaten our interests anywhere on the planet or above it (and yes, we will have interests around the globe–don’t fall into long-obsolete thinking), they will simply be erased from existence. Short of that, your only choice is to support “trillion-dollar wars”… or prepare to lose your standard of living.

      Please don’t raise the “But I want…” garbage. You have to be realistic. Isolationism will lead to our domination.

      • MikeHawaii says :

        There is a bunch of incredible nonsense in Lee’s comment…

        We need to “recreate the mentality that allowed us to nuke two cities of a race of people that didn’t look like most of us?” What does that mean? Is that really the kind of mentality we need?

        Our “only choice is to support ‘trillion-dollar wars’ or prepare to lose your standard of living?” He says this as if the cost of those wars isn’t one of the main reasons that our standard of living is already on the decline? Our “only choice?” Is he serious? We must debase our currency forever in the name of security from an imaginary threat? We must fight those who have caused us no harm? We must continue to kill innocent men, women and children, as well as sacrifice our brave young men and women around the world to maintain the profits of the military/industrial complex? Is he serious?

        It appears in Lee’s mind that there is only one way to deal with others in the world, that is to bully or be bullied. That doesn’t sound like the creed of a free people who love liberty and respect others who cause no harm to them. This attitude can only lead to more hate around the world, perfectly fine for the military/industrial complex, but not so good for the rest of us.

        The claim that it is necessary to dominate or be dominated is a false claim with no substance and no evidence to back it up. One can be strong to ward off challengers without having to dominate over others.

        Finally, a current definition of isolationism is, “a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.” Do we believe other countries should be involved in the political affairs of our country? … I think not. … Then why should we be involved in the political affairs of other countries?

        The United States became an empire during the second half of the 20th century. Like the British Empire and the Roman Empire before it, the United States empire is crumbling from within because history shows that empires always crumble from corruption and greed from within. It is Ron Paul who is trying to convince his countrymen of this historical fact before it’s too late.

      • giliar says :

        MikeHawaii…..Ron Paul has made us aware of some important issues (namely The Fed) but his policies concerning national defense and the military are out there. He seemed not only incoherent during the GOP debate last week, but far from understanding the reality of today’s world.

      • Lee says :

        Gilia, your Hawaiian friend is shown to be either a moron or a disingenuous traitor. I’m betting on the latter.

        MH: “We need to “recreate the mentality that allowed us to nuke two cities of a race of people that didn’t look like most of us?” What does that mean? Is that really the kind of mentality we need?

        ME: The fellow apparently didn’t read my explanation. Note how he intentionally left it out of his quote. And yes, we need the mentality that we will do whatever it takes to WIN our wars, disregarding PC pressures.

        MH: Our “only choice is to support ‘trillion-dollar wars’ or prepare to lose your standard of living?” He says this as if the cost of those wars isn’t one of the main reasons that our standard of living is already on the decline? Our “only choice?” Is he serious? We must debase our currency forever in the name of security from an imaginary threat? We must fight those who have caused us no harm? We must continue to kill innocent men, women and children, as well as sacrifice our brave young men and women around the world to maintain the profits of the military/industrial complex? Is he serious?

        ME: His objection here is invalid, as it is based on his ridiculous conspiracy theory. He’s saying, “Because I’m right, Lee is wrong, therefore I am right.”

        MH: It appears in Lee’s mind that there is only one way to deal with others in the world, that is to bully or be bullied. That doesn’t sound like the creed of a free people who love liberty and respect others who cause no harm to them. This attitude can only lead to more hate around the world, perfectly fine for the military/industrial complex, but not so good for the rest of us.

        ME: The fellow is a moron if he believes that others, especially those NOT holding to his “creed of a free people” will show the respect of others he demands of his own people. In other words, he’s unrealistic, talking from either disingenuousness or the addled brain of conspiracy theorist.

        MH: The claim that it is necessary to dominate or be dominated is a false claim with no substance and no evidence to back it up. One can be strong to ward off challengers without having to dominate over others.

        ME: See previous comment.

        MH: Finally, a current definition of isolationism is, “a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.” Do we believe other countries should be involved in the political affairs of our country? … I think not. … Then why should we be involved in the political affairs of other countries?

        ME: By failing to put his own country ahead and above others, he is at best “non-patriotic” (which is comparable to many fiscal conservatives, including defense-cutting Teabrainers), and probably far worse (see later in this brilliant post of mine). Thus his ideology is thus morally unworthy of consideration, not to mention naive (see previous comment).

        MH: The United States became an empire during the second half of the 20th century. Like the British Empire and the Roman Empire before it, the United States empire is crumbling from within because history shows that empires always crumble from corruption and greed from within. It is Ron Paul who is trying to convince his countrymen of this historical fact before it’s too late.

        ME: While acknowledging his recognition of some domestic “greed” (except that this greed lies not just with corporate entities, but with defense-cutting Teabrainers and libertarian/individualists who refuse to sacrifice for the benefit of our country and people), his analysis fails to address whether Americans really want to lose the benefits of empire. People complain about, “Press 1 for English.” Would they prefer “Press 3 for English”? The mistakes of empires of the past should not be taken as arguments against empire, but rather as case studies to teach us to avoid their mistakes in managing an empire.

        He also fails to consider the nature of the American Empire. Since he dates it to the mid-20th century, let’s consider just what this empire has done. Well, in 1946, we gave independence to our largest colonial possession, the Philippines, and when later we were asked to leave our bases there, we did. Hardly the actions of an oppressive or aggressive power. We have given independence or extreme autonomy to Pacific island groups we gained after World War II.

        What we have done is expand economic growth and improvements in lifestyle to the world. Our trade and involvement has done far more good than harm, and most of the alleged “harm” occurred to people who proved unworthy and undeserving of the help for which they begged (e.g., Somalia). And in doing so, we have raised our standard of living to what is (was) the envy of the world, all the while being the leading power in combating Jihadist terrorism (or, as your friend would call them, “allies against American imperialism”). Your Hawaiian friend would sign away that birthright, probably with no appreciation of just what he would have our people surrender.

        A person I know put it quite nicely: Countries and people CHOOSE to be part of the American Empire. If a country or people don’t want to be part of it, they simply need to not buy and sell with us!

        Of course, your ridiculous fellow Hawaiian will yell at that in his hatred for America and shortsighted Paultard mentality. He will say it’s impossible for those people to not trade with us and remain commercially viable. To which I say, “Absolutely!”

        Our people have toiled and fought for our freedom and our prosperity. For us to give this up without a fight is an insult to our ancestors. Your friend’s attitude reminds me of a joke formula about PC versus un-PC ideals, of how two sides see exactly the same facts, but have different reactions. And so, I leave you with this simple assessment, THE ONE THING ANYONE REALLY NEEDS TO TAKE WITH THEM FROM THIS DISCUSSION:

        “An American patriot believes America is the most dominant, most powerful country on Earth, and is happy about it. An American traitor believes America is most dominant, most powerful country on Earth, and is mad about it.”

      • Lee says :

        I must apologize for not pushing the discussion along these lines before, but is it not interesting how the Left and Mikey’s element of the Right hold in common their disdain for holding their country in special esteem? The Left has Obama with his unexceptional “American exceptionalism,” while Paultards have Mikey’s “Do we believe other countries should be involved in the political affairs of our country? … I think not. … Then why should we be involved in the political affairs of other countries?” The result is the same–America is no better than any other country.

        This, of course, matches JFK’s observation that the opposite extremes often look more like each other than they do the Center. But what is truly noteworthy is how both extremes discussed here can actually lead to the same outcome–the loss of American sovereignty. The Left would, of course, gladly give it up. Mikey’s element of the Right, though, will find that without the American exceptionalism that justifies our power over the world, they will have no basis for refusing yielding national control to a, uh, shall we say, “new order in the world” in the event of a true global threat. Be it a singular megapower, an environmental threat, or an extraterrestrial attack, they will have no ideological or political grounds for opposing surrendering sovereignty to a central world power to combat the threat. “America is no better than any other country,” they will be reminded, and so if America wants to share in the benefit of the combined effort to save humanity, it will have to pay the same as every other country. The idiots will thus have to decide between hypocritically retaining sovereignty while the rest of the world deals with the problem, or being left to fall to it. It might even lead to America having its sovereignty taken from it by a world needful of its resources to face the problem. Mikey’s approach leaves America with no allies and no political will to resist the takeover. Such is the basic problem of any libertarian-driven regime, one that rejects “putting cause and country ahead of person and preference.”

        On the other, the proper, patriotic approach allows for America to coordinate with, cooperate with, and collaborate with other countries and world powers without sacrificing sovereignty. As the lead and prime nation, we simply tell the world, “Form up on us,” and they will, for we hold hegemony over them and the world. We retain sovereignty, the other nations yield theirs. And that is how it should be.

        Phil Graham noted as the Cold War wound down, that if we are to live in a world where the lion lies down with the lamb, it was essential we always be the lion. Not “just another lamb,” or even “just another lion,” but THE lion–the leading force on the planet. Anything short of this opens the way for other powers to build the kind of empire Mikey so hates, but one of which we are not the possessors, but the subordinates.

        “Paultardism,” if I may coin that term, is short-sighted, naive, uneducated, and completely unrealistic from the standpoint of national survival. In other words, it’s the foreign policy version of a lot of Teabrainery. It ignores political, economic, ideological, and even psychological reality. But for its inclusion of certain, uh, “nationalist” sentiments for the foundational demographic of the country, it would be no better than the Left. And in a race between Obama and Paul, on foreign affairs, it is worse. [CLOSING SENTENCE SELF-CENSORED TO SAVE GILIA THE TROUBLE–GILIA, YOU KNOW THE ONE I MEAN]

  8. Lee says :

    She beat Ron “Let’s let Iran have nukes while we retreat from the world and leave the way open for our interests to be threatened” Paul.

    But I must disagree with you on your comment that “ANY of them would be better than the joke we have sitting in the Oval Office now”. After that debate comment of Paul’s, I would vote for Obama if Paul is the candidate and there is no remotely viable third-party candidate. National security and sovereignty is the absolutely important issue. (Second Amendment rights, actually an adjunct of national security, is only domestic issue of importance, and given the state of Congress and of the law, this right is on the most solid ground it has been since probably the Amendment’s adoption.)

    Don’t tell me about the economy. I’m sick and tired of the economy. I’m sick and tired of the defense-cutting Tea Party elements who probably voted for Ron Paul. If losing our standard of living is what is required to maintain our hegemony in the world, then so be it. Anyone who would sacrifice the survival of America’s standing in favor of the betterment of their own portfolios needs to reevaluate their priorities.

%d bloggers like this: