The Libertarian Patriot

TLP Quik Hits: L.L. Bean Heiress Endorses Ron Paul In Maine

2012-01-28T19:31:00.000-07:00

Could Ron Paul win the Maine Caucus? Some experts think so.

CNN

Linda Bean, an heiress to famed Maine outfitter L.L. Bean, came out in support of Ron Paul on Saturday as the candidate made a campaign swing through the state.

Bean, who is a part owner of her family's company and sits on its board, said she is a longtime supporter of the Texas congressman. She backed his 2008 presidential bid, but hasn't made a public endorsement in the current race until now.

"I've been for Ron Paul for years," Bean said. "I watched his House races in Texas, and he's just true blue. He doesn't waver from the Constitution and I like that very much."

"He's very electable, he crosses all ideological lines because of his strong message," Bean said. "He's for the gold standard. I think people want stability in this country. He's for helping America domestically, and staying out of aggressive wars. We're just spending ourselves down the drain in these countries year after year with occupation."

When asked why she wasn't supporting fellow New Englander Mitt Romney, Bean said, "I've always been for Ron Paul."

Via Memeorandum

Does The GOP Marginalize Ron Paul At Their Peril?

2012-01-28T18:04:00.000-07:00

Jack and Suzy Welch penned an interesting article which basically says that the GOP needs to treat Ron Paul with kid gloves and do whatever it takes to keep him and his followers in the fold.

They are not the first to suggest and probably not the last to say this, but to me this is meaningless for the GOP in the short term for the 2012 election unless Dr Paul is the nominee.

The reason I say this is because, like myself most libertarian and independent minded people are not members of the GOP nor will we vote for the likes of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum in the general election. The reason for this is quite simple; they are all for big government and believe in an interventionist foreign policy.

Sure there is a small percentage of Paul followers will vote for one of these men because they do not want to see Barry get a second term, but is voting for the lesser of the two evils going to do anything to get our republic back on track?

National GOP polls show that there is consistent support for Ron Paul at around 13% with a December PPP Poll giving him 17% in a three-way race between him, Obama and Romney. As you can see, the good doctor has a steady base of support.

So where am I going with this?

Well, in the same PPP Poll former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is the presumptive Libertarian Party nominee, carries 9%. The latest PPP Poll has him at 7% against Barry and Mittens.

Like many Johnson supporters, I have turned my energies toward Ron Paul since the Governor jumped ship from the GOP after he was ignored by the mediots and excluded from the debates. This is not to say that come the General Election he will not get my vote if Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee; I will most certainly be casting my vote for GJ and so will a lot of other Paul supporters.

The GOP has already lost maybe 15% of the votes that they are counting on in the 2012 Presidential Election because of the way they have treated Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and their collective supporters.

This of course changes if the party does something completely unexpected and puts either Ron or Rand Paul on the 2012 ticket as Vice President. Then all bets are off.

Big picture, however, the GOP has a chance beyond 2012 by giving Dr Paul a prominent role at the convention and adopting his ideas of Constitutional fidelity. This will also position Rand nicely for a 2016 run as he believe in much of the same principles as his father and draws from the same base of support. His support will also grow considerably if the ideas of his father that were considered so radical in the 2008 campaign are part of the mainstream discussion in 2015.

In the long run, people like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint along with Jack and Suzy Welch are correct; the GOP needs to treat Ron Paul and his supporters with respect or they will find themselves on the outside looking in.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Illegal Immigrants Affecting Congressional Apportionment

2012-01-28T16:40:00.000-07:00

The Progressives leave little doubt as to their end game.

With their calls for relaxed voting rules, their pandering to the illegal community and the push to have non-citizens counted in the census, they hope to swing the balance of power to their side in order to promote their socialist agenda.

Yes, we need to have comprehensive immigration reform in this country but the first step needs to be that we secure our borders and end the incentives for illegal immigrants to come here, which are provided by the welfare-state.

Big Government

Are you aware that the U.S. Census Bureau counts illegal aliens when determining how many seats in Congress a state should receive? That means states with large illegal alien populations are now receiving a disproportionate amount of seats in Congress and therefore more power in establishing national policy.

Judicial Watch is now involved in a high-stakes legal campaign to put a stop to this unconstitutional policy.

Recently, we filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Louisiana challenging the current federal policy in which “unlawfully present aliens” were counted in the 2010 Census (Louisiana v. Bryson).

The government used these census numbers to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives and, as a result, the State of Louisiana lost a House seat to which it was entitled. Louisiana is asking that the Supreme Court order the federal government to recalculate the 2010 apportionment of House seats based upon legal residents as the U.S. Constitution requires.

Judicial Watch, in partnership with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF), filed the brief on January 13, 2012, in a lawsuit filed by the State of Louisiana against John Bryson, U.S. Secretary of Commerce; Robert Groves, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau; and Karen Lehman Hass, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Here’s a brief excerpt from our amicus:

Amici are concerned about the failure to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and the corrosive effect of this failure on our institutions and the rule of law. Among the problems caused by this failure is a redistribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to States with large populations of unlawfully present aliens.

Amici respectfully submit that neither Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution authorize or permit the inclusion of unlawfully present aliens in the apportionment process. As a result, this case raises issues critical not just to Louisiana, but to every State, every American citizen, and our federal system of government.
Judicial Watch argues that, due to this Census Bureau policy, at least five states will lose House seats to which they are entitled.

For example, based upon the Census Bureau’s calculation, Louisiana is being allocated only six House seats, as opposed to the seven that it would have been apportioned, were it not for the inclusion of illegal aliens and “non-immigrant foreign nationals,” which encompasses holders of student visas and guest workers. The brief also notes that the “apportionment, in turn, determines the apportionment of electors in the Electoral College for the next three presidential elections.”

It is the contention of the State of Louisiana, Judicial Watch, and AEF that “the policy of counting unlawfully present aliens in the nation’s decennial census is unconstitutional and undermines both our federal system of government and our democratic institutions,” and is the “direct result of the failure to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.”

In other words, the U.S. Census is distorting the democratic process.

And the problem is only going to get worse considering the Obama administration’s hostility to enforcing illegal immigration laws, which is causing greater numbers of illegal aliens to flood into the country. You can see how that this failure to enforce immigration law undermines a foundational aspect of our democracy. We are pleased to join with the Allied Educational Foundation to file this amicus curiae brief in support of the State of Louisiana and the rule of law. And we hope the Supreme Court takes up this historic case and vindicates the right of American citizens to have full representation in Washington.

TLP Quik Hits: The Ron Paul Media Blackout Is Back On

2012-01-26T21:54:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that while the mediots ignore Ron Paul, the three other remaining candidates parrot just about everything he has to say when it comes to the economy.

The Atlantic Wire

After a brief spike in interest, the mainstream media coverage of GOP candidate Ron Paul is back to nearly nothing, according to the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. This week, less than 5 percent of all campaign stories focused on Paul, the lowest point since Dec. 11. when strong performances in Iowa and New Hampshire helped stoke some interest. Over the same period, Paul's performance in the polls has only improved, going from the single digits to 12.7 percent, putting him nearly even with Rick Santorum, in the current RealClearPolitics average.

But in Pew's weekly study, Paul has been heading in the opposite direction. Pew tracks a list of 52 mainstream news outlets across broadcast television, cable news, newspapers, radio and the 12 most popular news sites to measure exposure. As you can see from the graph below, the downward trajectory of coverage volume has been steep for Paul, as the star of New Gingrich rose following his decisive victory in South Carolina and strong polling in Florida.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism also tracks the tone of coverage, which in the last week, saw a sharp drop in "positive" stories and a slight increase in "negative" stories:

TLP Quik Hits: Another Obama Backed Green Company Files For Bankruptcy

2012-01-26T21:32:00.001-07:00

Given his record, I want to know who Barry likes in the Super Bowl; then I'll bet against them.

The Hill

An Indiana-based energy-storage company, whose subsidiary received a $118.5 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department, filed for bankruptcy Thursday.

Ener1 is asking a federal bankruptcy court in New York to approve a plan to restructure the company’s debt and infuse $81 million in equity funding.

The Energy Department in 2009 approved a $118.5 million stimulus grant for EnerDel, a subsidiary of the company that develops lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles. The company has so far spent $55 million of the federal funding.

EnerDel has received support from Republicans, including more than $4 million in federal grants under the George W. Bush administration.

The Obama administration's grant was part of a broader program aimed at promoting the development of electric-vehicle battery technology.

President Obama touted the program in his State of the Union address this year.

“In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” he said.

Via Memeorandom

Another Obama Program To Benefit His Rich Cronies

2012-01-26T20:44:00.001-07:00

Barry puts the kibosh on the the Keystone XL Pipeline and his billionaire buddy Warren Buffett, through his railroad company Burlington Northern Santa Fe, could come out a winner.

Well now the Occupier in Chief wants to promote natural gas incentives for the transportation industry. Big winner here, according to the Heritage Foundation's Lachlan Markay, is another of Barry's billionaire buddies, George Soros.

The proposal would offer incentives for companies to buy and use trucks powered by natural gas. Obama announced the effort at a UPS facility in Las Vegas that received stimulus funding to buy natural gas vehicles and build a fueling station for them.

One company that stands to benefit handsomely from the president’s proposal is Westport Innovations. The company converts diesel engines to be fueled by natural gas. Wall Street analysts predicted a boom for the company if the NAT GAS Act were passed. CNBC analyst Jim Cramer said he “expects shares to absolutely explode” in the event the legislation were to pass.

If Westport reaps the predicted windfall, one of the chief beneficiaries will be George Soros, a major Obama donor and supporter. Soros’s hedge fund holds 3,160,063 company shares (as of its last SEC filing).

Ah, crony capitalism at it's finest.

TLP Quik Hits: Shocker - Federal Employees Owe $1.03B In Unpaid Taxes

2012-01-25T22:53:00.000-07:00

I once heard some nimrod defend these delinquents by saying that since their salaries come from federal taxes, they should be exempt from paying them because that would be like a private sector worker paying his employer for their job.

In the words of the immortal Kelly Bundy, "It wobbles the mind".

Anyway, here is a list of which departments the cheats work for and what they owe. No surprise that USPS employees are near the top of the chart with $269.6 million outstanding.

Maybe their checks got lost in the mail.

WaPo

About 98,000 federal, postal and congressional employees owed $1.03 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal 2010, according to records provided by the Internal Revenue Service. The total number of delinquent employees dipped slightly from 2009, but the amount owed jumped by $32 million.

The figures are “totally unacceptable and disrespectful to hardworking American taxpayers,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). “If you’re on the federal payroll, the very least you can do is pay your taxes.”

The Fraud of Mitt Romney's Electability

2012-01-25T21:13:00.000-07:00

Maybe we should just ask Mitt: Are you electable?
Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

"Let's be perfectly honest: Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin...To everybody else on the right, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama would be a "lesser of two evils" election where we'd grudgingly back Mitt because we wouldn’t lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets people fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards."

--John Hawkins, Townhall.com, December 27, 2011: "7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney's Electability is a Myth"

I would add neo-conservative liberal flake A.M. talker Michael Medved to Hawkins' short list of fervent, unflappable Romney-bots.

Hawkins' seven-point list on Romney's unelectability is spot-on (I missed it with the busy holiday); here's a synopsis and my take on each point from his article (his words in italics):

1) Likeability (Mitt's lack thereof). I tell friends that Mitt Romney reminds me of that opportunist fraud of yesteryear -- "Tricky Dick" Nixon. I don't know what others see (that steady 20% primary voter); I see Romney as stiff, cold, robotic and unlikable. So does Hawkins; Hawkins thinks voters in January, 2012 will too.

2) Mitt's a loser. Writes Hawkins, "There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not a career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote." No analysis needed on my part. Again, just why is ultra-liberal Mitt "inevitable"?

3) He's too liberal for the South in the General. My heart is in the South, as opposed to the Left Coast where I hail from, and I agree, he's too Northeast-liberal.

4) The "inevitability" establishment canard won't play for poo-poo in the General. Hawkins writes, "Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee. Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency. He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt. Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him. Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media." I'll add to this: and because he's a liberal, the conservative grassroots won't coalesce around him, even given the stakes. I saw this dynamic with my own eyes with John McCain's "Maverick" run. Conservative voters in the GOP bastion of San Diego just stayed home.

5) Bain. I don't necessarily agree with Hawkins that Bain is Romney's albatross. But, his lack of defense for his record is certainly suspect. Voters can sniff out a fraud. And Romney's likely tepid support for his capitalist record will sink his ship. And given the choice between even a socialist -- Obama -- and a fraud (Romney) they will unfortunately choose... a socialist. It happened in 2008 after all. Plus, the Obama $1,000,000,000 Machine will absolutely roast Romney with Bain.

6) Mormonism. Hawkins thinks religious bigotry will play against Romney. Not sure about that, who knows? My opinion has always been that Romney is bad because he's a statist, not because he has a certain faith.

7) Flip-flopper. This also dovetails into 5) above, when voters face a choice between a fraud (flip-flopper) and the real socialist deal, they will likely choose the real deal. Mitt's flips and flops beg the question -- even from a political junkie like me -- what does he believe? What does he stand for? What's his core. Answer: nothing but the status quo. And we all know where the status quo is heading for in this country.

Read Hawkins' Townhall.com piece and debate it out in the comments.

Video - Rand Paul Responds To State Of The Union Address 1/24

2012-01-24T21:43:00.000-07:00

Future President?

Newt To Throw Temper Tantrum If Debate Crowds Can't Adore Him

2012-01-24T20:47:00.004-07:00

Newt's latest threat is akin to a petulant child holding their breath if they don't get their way.

Boo, hoo, hoo cries Newt; the debate audiences must be allowed to show their adulation for him because as we all know, he is the smartest man in the room.

It's patently absurd that the American people cannot cheer him, his Newtness believes, when he puts the smackdown on a debate host or fellow participant, like they would at a rasslin' match on Monday Night Raw.

What's next Newt, are you going to demand an intro with the house lights down and the spotlights rolling as you come out in one of "Nature Boy" Ric Flair's boa robes.

"Annndd now making his way to the podium... weighing in at 300 pounds and hailing from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania... the master of the truth, the heir to the Reagan legacy, the man solely responsible for the Republican Revolution... the silver haired, silver tongued devil himself... Neeewwwwt "Mr Speaker" Ginnnngriiiiich!!!!!!!!!!!"

Woooooooooooo!!

Seriously folks, these are debates to determine who the GOP is going to nominate to become the next President of the United States and while the mediots who moderate these are just as culpable for turning them into gotcha sessions with a circular firing squad, a little decorum is in order.

Besides, we all know the Newtster is doing this for the publicity it will bring. After all, without his debate "performances", Newt would be wallowing at the back of the pack because when you peel away the bluster and look at his record, he is an empty suit moderate who is all sizzle and no steak.

Sadly, the GOP sheeple fall for this hoping that Mr Speaker is the second coming of the "The Great Communicator" hisself. Hate to break it to you but Ronald Reagan ain't walking through that door.

These are important times, too important for theatrics, and the Newt's fifteen minutes need to be coming to an end. We need to have a serious debate among the remaining candidates on how they are going to unseat Barry and turn this Republic back on the path that the Founders laid out for us.

We are in dire need of a great statesman not a great showman to lead us. In the end, Newt Gingrich is the latter not the former.

I really wish he would just take his ball and go home, but unfortunately that's not going to happen.

Via Memeorandum

United Bases Of America

2012-01-23T22:00:00.006-07:00

Via LRC

The sun never sets on the American Empire.

To see the image full size click here then click image again.

TLP Quik Hits: Bruins Goalie Tim Thomas Declines White House Invite

2012-01-23T20:09:00.001-07:00

H/T Red State Eclectic

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

In this day and age it is refreshing to see a professional athlete who will stand on principle rather than bow to the pressure to be politically correct.

NHL.com

Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas released the following statement Monday evening regarding his absence from the Bruins' visit to the White House this afternoon:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"

Via Memeorandum

Video - Rand Paul Talks About His 1/23 TSA Incident With Judge Napolitano

2012-01-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

And it should come as no surprise that the White House backs the TSA.

Via Memeorandum

Patriots Beat Ravens 23-20 - Going To The Super Bowl

2012-01-22T16:22:00.002-07:00

The Pats didn't look all that good today and got lucky with the missed field goal by Billy Cundiff at the end, but a win is a win. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

Game recap and video of Cundiff miss.

Breaking: Video - Gabrielle Giffords To Retire

2012-01-22T12:20:00.004-07:00

ABC

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will step down from Congress this week, her staff said today, and not seek re-election when her current term expires this year.

“I have more work to do on my recovery and so to do what is best for Arizona I will step down this week,” Giffords said in a video posted online Sunday. “Thank you for your prayers and for giving me time to recover.”

Full statement from Giffords:

“Arizona is my home, always will be. A lot has happened over the past year. We need to not change that but I know on the issues we fought for we can change things for the better. We can do so much more by working together. I don’t remember much from that horrible day but I will never forget the trust you placed in be to be your voice. Thank you for your prayers and for giving me time to recover. I have more work to do on my recovery and so to do what is best for Arizona I will step down this week I’m getting better every day. My spirit is high. I will return and we will work together for Arizona and this great country.”

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Congress Can Force Keystone XL Approval

2012-01-22T11:29:00.001-07:00

Build, baby, build!

The Hill

Capitol Hill lawmakers probably have the Constitution at their back if they require a permit for the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline that President Obama rejected days ago, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Republicans are mulling bills that require approval of Keystone XL, which would bring oil sands crude from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries.

The Jan. 20 CRS legal analysis notes that while the executive branch has historically handled the approval of border-crossing facilities, it doesn’t have to be that way. “[I]f Congress chose to assert its authority in the area of border crossing facilities, this would likely be considered within its Constitutionally enumerated authority to regulate foreign commerce,” the analysis states.

Republicans are highly unlikely to have enough political support to win Senate passage of bills that require a permit, let alone Obama’s signature. But the CRS analysis may buoy Republicans rallying around the bills to attack Obama’s Jan. 18 denial of TransCanada Corp.’s permit application.

The four CRS attorneys write that their review “suggests that legislation related to cross-border facility permitting is unlikely to raise significant constitutional questions, despite the fact that such permits have traditionally been handled by the executive branch alone pursuant to its constitutional ‘foreign affairs’ authority.”

A House Energy and Commerce Committee panel will hold a hearing next Wednesday on Rep. Lee Terry’s (R-Neb.) bill that takes review of the pipeline away from the State Department and instead requires the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a permit.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who is planning a separate bill to put approval in the hands of Congress, requested the study.

“I think this confirms what we have been saying all along – Congress has the authority under the Constitution to approve the Keystone pipeline,” said Ryan Bernstein, Hoeven’s deputy chief of staff and legal counsel.  “It gives great weight to not only our bill but any bill Congress considers,” he added.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Peter Schiff - U.S. Is In Worse Shape Than Europe

2012-01-21T22:07:00.000-07:00

Remember, Peter Schiff was right about the 2008 collapse.

Video - Ron Paul On What The Future Holds For Campaign

2012-01-21T20:28:00.000-07:00

It's all about the delegate count.

Video - Why Gingrich And Santorum Can't Win GOP Nomination

2012-01-21T20:04:00.001-07:00

With Newt and the Rickster unable to get on the ballot in Virginia and other states, there are 564 delegates that will be spit solely between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

Coupled with the fact that Dr Paul and Mittens are the only GOP candidates that have been shown, in head-to-head polls, to be able to compete against Obama, the other two should step down and stop wasting our time.

What it comes down to America is you only have a choice between two men to face Barry in November. Do you want a milquetoast, flip-flopper who was the inspiration for Obamacare or do you want a man who's principles have remained unchanged and bases his entire Presidential campaign on to fidelity to the Constitution?

When you think about it like that, the choice should be obvious.

(VIDEO) Ron Paul South Carolina 2012 Primary Concession Speech

2012-01-21T19:09:00.004-07:00

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

"This is the beginning of a long, hard slog..."

"The evidence has become clear that the efforts by the government are failing and we can't depend on the government to take care of us from cradle to grave..."

Live Blogging The 2012 South Carolina GOP Primary Results

2012-01-21T16:02:00.032-07:00

South Carolina State Elections Commission

Polls close at 7PM ET, updates will be posted as they come in.

Be sure to check out Left Coast Rebel for more commentary on the results.

UPDATE 10:05 ET That's all folks. Thanks for making The Libertarian Patriot your place for getting the 2012 South Carolina Primary results.
99% Reporting

Gingrich 41%
Romney 27%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 9:22 ET Looks like this will be about the final margin within 1% or so.
82% Reporting

Gingrich 41%
Romney 27%
Santorum 18%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 9:06 ET
67% Reporting

Gingrich 41%
Romney 26%
Santorum 18%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:52 ET
63% Reporting

Gingrich 40%
Romney 27%
Santorum 18%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:40 ET Santorum at the podium about to blather on about himself
50% Reporting

Gingrich 40%
Romney 27%
Santorum 18%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:30 ET
42% Reporting

Gingrich 40%
Romney 26%
Santorum 18%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:17 ET Ron Paul at the podium - "The cause is so necessary"
24% Reporting

Gingrich 41%
Romney 26%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:13 ET Time to take a little break here. Be back when bigger numbers come in since it looks like Newt will win easily by double digits.
23% Reporting

Gingrich 41%
Romney 27%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:09 ET
18% Reporting

Gingrich 41%
Romney 27%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:05 ET This is starting to look like a trouncing by Newt
15% Reporting

Gingrich 40%
Romney 28%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 8:01 ET
13% Reporting

Gingrich 39%
Romney 29%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%

UPDATE 7:59 ET Mitt about to give concession speech
9% Reporting

Gingrich 38%
Romney 31%
Santorum 15%
Paul 12%

UPDATE 7:56 ET
8% Reporting

Gingrich 38%
Romney 32%
Santorum 15%
Paul 12%

UPDATE 7:55 ET
7% Reporting

Gingrich 37%
Romney 32%
Santorum 16%
Paul 12%

UPDATE 7:51 ET
4% Reporting

Gingrich 37%
Romney 32%
Santorum 16%
Paul 12%

UPDATE 7:48 ET
3% Reporting

Gingrich 37%
Romney 33%
Santorum 15%
Paul 11%

UPDATE 7:44 ET
2% Reporting

Romney 36%
Gingrich 36%
Santorum 13%
Paul 10%

UPDATE 7:41 ET
1% Reporting

Romney 38%
Gingrich 33%
Santorum 14%
Paul 10%

UPDATE 7:38 ET I'm going to stick with the FOX results for now since they are updating more frequently. Fox also just predicted Santorum third and Paul fourth
1% Reporting

Romney 40%
Gingrich 32%
Santorum 14%
Paul 10%

UPDATE 7:30 ET South Carolina State Elections Commission puts up it's first numbers 0% reporting.
Romney 48%
Gingrich 25%
Santorum 13%
Paul 9%

UPDATE 7:23 ET FOX has as an update with still 0% reporting
Romney 36%
Gingrich 35%
Santorum 13%
Paul 10%

UPDATE 7:16 ET first numbers coming in from FOX 0% reporting
Gingrich 37%
Romney 36%
Paul 11%
Santorum 9%

UPDATE 7:00 ET - no results yet but FOX call Newt the winner, Romney second.

TLP Quik Hits: Rick Santorum Rips Off Veterans

2012-01-21T12:51:00.000-07:00

Yet another reason that Sick Rantorum is not fit to be President of the United States.

Mother Jones

The Armed Forces Retirement Home, which is run by the Department of Defense, bills itself as "premier home for military retirees and veterans." The facility sprawls across 272 acres high on a hill in northern Washington, DC, near the Petworth neighborhood. The nearly 600 veterans who now live there enjoy panoramic views of the city—the Washington monument and US Capitol to the south, the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to the east. At its peak, more than 2,000 veterans of World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War lived at the Home.

But with the rise of the smaller all-volunteer military, the Home began to run into serious financial problems. It was clear that one of its primary sources of revenue—a 50-cent deduction from the paychecks of active-duty servicemembers—wasn't enough to keep the Home operating fully. In the 1990s, the Home scrambled to find ways to avoid insolvency, trimming its staff by 24 percent and reducing its vet population by 800. Still, the money problems began to show, with its older historic facilities slipping into disrepair and decay. To grapple with its worsening shortfall, officials running the Home eyed a valuable, 49-acre piece of land worth $49 million as a potential financial lifeline.

Under one scenario, by leasing the parcel of land and letting it be developed, the Home could pocket $105 million in income over 35 years for its trust fund, David Lacy, then-chairman of the Home's board of directors, told Congress in 1999. Lacy stressed that the Home wanted to keep the property, and not offload it to a buyer. "Once land is sold," he said, "it is lost forever as an asset."

Enter Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.). At the behest of the Roman Catholic Church, and unbeknownst to the Home, Santorum slipped an amendment into the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act handcuffing how the home could cash in on those 49 acres. The amendment forced the Home to sell—and not lease—the land to its next-door neighbor, the Catholic University of America. Ultimately, the Catholic Church bought 46 acres of the tract for $22 million. The Home lost the land for good, and by its own estimates, pocketed $27 million less than the land's value and $83 million less than what it could've made under the lease plan. Santorum's amendment sparked an outcry from veterans' groups and fellow US senators, who barraged his office with complaints.

Laurence Branch, then the executive director of the Home's board, says Santorum's amendment was "a travesty" and the Church's lobbying for the land a case of "coveting thy neighborhood's goods." To this day, Branch says he blames Santorum for the Home not receiving more money for the 49-acre parcel of land. "I'm convinced Sen. Santorum is no friend of veterans," Branch says. (A spokesman for Catholic University did not respond to a request for comment.)

TLP Quik Hits: Arizona Strikes Back On Fast And Furious

2012-01-21T12:29:00.000-07:00

We the people demand answers now.

Washington Times

Arizona's state legislature will open its own investigation into the Obama administration's disgraced gun-running program, known as "Fast and Furious," the speaker of the state House said Friday.

Speaker Andy Tobin created the committee, and charged it with looking at whether the program broke any state laws — raising the possibility of state penalties against those responsible for the operation.

It's a turnaround from the rest of the immigration issue, where the federal government has sued to block the state's own set of laws.

A law requiring businesses to check new workers' legal status was upheld by the Supreme Court last year, and the court has agreed to hear the case of Arizona's crackdown law that makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and gives state and local police the power to enforce that law.

Fast and Furious was a straw-purchase program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The goal was to try to trace guns sold in Arizona shops and then trafficked across the Mexican border, where they landed in the hands of drug cartels.

As part of the operation, however, agents let the guns "walk" — meaning they lost track of them. At least two of the guns ended up at the scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a shootout with Mexican bandits along a smuggling corridor in Arizona.

Mr. Tobin will announce the committee's jurisdiction at a press conference in Phoenix on Monday. The committee is charged with looking into the facts about the program, what impact it had on Arizona and whether any of the state's laws were broken.

A report is due back by March 30.

Arizona's investigation into Fast and Furious comes on top of an investigation by Republicans in Congress.

On Friday the chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona told a House committee he will decline to answer their questions next week, citing his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The official's lawyer, in a letter to the committee, said his client is innocent but is "ensnared by the unfortunate circumstances in which he now stands between two branches of government."

Keystone Pipeline Demise, Cuba Drilling off Key West Represent Everything Wrong With America

2012-01-20T09:37:00.002-07:00

Their man listened. Photo credit: TarSandAction/Flickr

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

Mission accomplished, Barry:

(Washington Post) President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

Finally, Obama’s decision forgoes all the project’s jobs. There’s some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to “job years,” meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it’s in the thousands and thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States...

Read the rest.

Zero Hedge has the political-societal implications of Dear Leader's move:

But it is not only crude. Wonder why no jobs are being created? Wonder why despite record low mortgage rates there is no bottom in sight for housing? Simple - nobody can plan one month, let alone one year ahead for any US-based venture or business. The political risk is simply too great - whether it is contract law (see GM and Chrysler) or simple solvency (see record high levels of cash hoarded by companies), it is there, and as long as it is there, there will be no hiring, no capex spending, no growth, and no real improvement in the economy, the real economy, not that defined by where the Russell 2000 closes on any given day.

On a related note, as our nation languishes, guess who's taking advantage of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? If you guessed communist Cuba, you guessed right. It gets worse, though. Not only are the red-communist Cubans now drilling just miles (60-70) off of Key West, Florida, they are doing so from a Chinese-manufactured oil rig under the guidance of Repson, a Spanish oil firm. Plus, we are barred from buying the oil from the Cubans which are estimated to be sitting on several billion barrels of reserves (they say 20 billion, the U.S. government says it's closer to 5 billion).

Truly the only way to stop madness like this is to drastically scale back the power -- money -- of the Federal Leviathan. Starving the beast is the only way we will finally heal this nation and get us off this national suicide trajectory. And that doesn't mean slashing taxes while not cutting spending, Republicans.

Which presidential candidate today has the gravitas and track record to usher in such a scaling back?

Debt Ceiling Hypocrites Who Were For It Before They Were Against It

2012-01-19T21:57:00.000-07:00

Of course they could stand on principle when the vote was purely symbolic but when they actually had a chance to do something about Leviathan's out of control spending, they showed their true colors.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

List courtesy of Judge Andrew Napolitano

REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING IN AUGUST BUT TO "DISAPPROVE" OF THE PRESIDENT BORROWING MORE TODAY

Adams, S. (FL-24)
Aderholt, R. (AL-04)
Alexander, R. (LA-05)
Austria (OH-07)
Bachus, S. (AL-06)
Barletta (PA-11)
Barton, J. (TX-06)
Bass, C. (NH-02)
Benishek (MI-01)
Berg (ND-AL)
Biggert (IL-13)
Bilbray, B. (CA-50)
Bilirakis, G. (FL-09)
Black, D. (TN-06)
Blackburn, M. (TN-07)
Boehner (OH-08)
Bonner (AL-01)
Bono Mack, M. (CA-45)
Boustany (LA-07)
Brady, K. (TX-08)
Buchanan (FL-13)
Bucshon (IN-08)
Burgess (TX-26)
Calvert (CA-44)
Camp, D. (MI-04)
Canseco (TX-23)
Cantor (VA-07)
Capito (WV-02)
Carter (TX-31)
Cassidy (LA-06)
Chabot (OH-01)
Coble (NC-06)
Coffman (CO-06)
Cole (OK-04)
Conaway (TX-11)
Crawford (AR-01)
Crenshaw (FL-04)
Culberson (TX-07)
Denham (CA-19)
Dent (PA-15)
Diaz-Balart (FL-21)
Dold (IL-10)
Duffy (WI-07)
Duncan, John (TN-02)
Ellmers (NC-02)
Emerson, J. (MO-08)
Farenthold (TX-27)
Fincher (TN-08)
Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Flores (TX-17)
Fortenberry (NE-01)
Foxx (NC-05)
Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Gallegly (CA-24)
Gardner (CO-04)
Gerlach (PA-06)
Gibbs, B. (OH-18)
Gibson, C. (NY-20)
Goodlatte, R. (VA-06)
Gosar (AZ-01)
Granger (TX-12)
Graves, S. (MO-06)
Griffin (AR-02)
Grimm (NY-13)
Guinta (NH-01)
Guthrie (KY-02)
Hanna (NY-24)
Harper (MS-03)
Hastings, D. (WA-04)
Hayworth (NY-19)
Heck (NV-03)
Hensarling (TX-05)
Herger (CA-02)
Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
Huizenga (MI-02)
Hurt (VA-05)
Issa (CA-49)
Jenkins (KS-02)
Johnson, B. (OH-06)
Johnson, S. (TX-03)
Kelly (PA-03) .
King, P. (NY-03) .
Kinzinger (IL-11) .
Kline, J. (MN-02) .
Lance (NJ-07)
Lankford (OK-05)
LaTourette (OH-14)
Latta (OH-05)
Lewis, Jerry (CA-41)
LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Long (MO-07)
Lucas, F. (OK-03)
Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
Lummis (WY-AL)
Lungren (CA-03)
Manzullo (IL-16)
Marchant (TX-24)
McCarthy, K. (CA-22)
McCaul (TX-10)
McCotter (MI-11)
McHenry (NC-10)
McKeon (CA-25)
McKinley (WV-01)
McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Meehan (PA-07)
Mica (FL-07)
Miller, C. (MI-10)
Miller, Gary (CA-42)
Miller, J. (FL-01)
Murphy, T. (PA-18)
Myrick (NC-09)
Nugent (FL-05)
Nunnelee (MS-01)
Olson (TX-22)
Palazzo (MS-04)
Paulsen (MN-03)
Pence (IN-06)
Petri (WI-06)
Pitts (PA-16)
Platts (PA-19)
Pompeo (KS-04)
Price, T. (GA-06)
Reed, T. (NY-29)
Reichert (WA-08)
Renacci (OH-16)
Ribble (WI-08)
Rigell (VA-02)
Rivera (FL-25)
Roe (TN-01)
Rogers, H. (KY-05)
Rogers, Mike (MI-08)
Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03)
Rohrabacher (CA-46)
Rooney (FL-16)
Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
Roskam (IL-06)
Royce (CA-40)
Runyan (NJ-03)
Ryan, P. (WI-01)
Schilling (IL-17)
Schmidt (OH-02)
Schock (IL-18)
Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Sessions, P. (TX-32)
Shimkus (IL-19)
Shuster, Bill (PA-09)
Smith, Adrian (NE-03)
Smith, C. (NJ-04)
Smith, Lamar (TX-21)
Stivers (OH-15)
Sullivan (OK-01)
Terry (NE-02)
Thompson, G. (PA-05)
Thornberry (TX-13)
Tiberi (OH-12)
Upton (MI-06)
Walberg (MI-07)
Walden, G. (OR-02)
Webster (FL-08)
West, A. (FL-22)
Whitfield (KY-01)
Wittman (VA-01)
Wolf (VA-10)
Womack (AR-03)
Woodall (GA-07)
Young, C.W. (FL-10)
Young, D. (AK-AL)
Young, T. (IN-09)

TLP Quik Hits: Pentagon To Outsource War On Drugs

2012-01-19T21:38:00.000-07:00

We've seen this movie before; it ends badly.

RT

The US Department of Defense has transferred its armed efforts in Latin and Central America in the War on Drugs to Academi, the private military contractors formerly known as Blackwater, reports BBC Spanish. Before they altered their branding to be known as Xe, then most recently Academi, Blackwater underwent immense criticism for a series of scandals involving contract employees executing civilians throughout the Middle East.

That same company that trained contractors to mercilessly slay helpless Iraqis will now be ushering military contractors south of the border to help combat the War on Drugs there, the outlet reports. With the Constitution only legally allowing the Pentagon to get away with so much, the BBC reports that the transition of control to private contractors will allow them to get away with what “US military forces are not allowed or not encouraged to do.”

The company previously known as Blackwater is just one of several private contractors that have been awarded contracts out of the Department of Defense, reports BBC, and their specific deal will award them several million dollars towards “providing advice, training and conducting operations in drug producing countries and those with links to so-called ‘narco-terrorism’ including Latin America.”

What’s more, it is reported, that those contracts were no-bid agreements authorized by the Pentagon. Under such deals, the DoD forks over federal funds to private companies without ever seeking better offers from competitors.

“They surreptitiously want to reduce anti-drug budget by transferring it to private agencies,” Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs tells the BBC. “The drug war is unpopular and has no political weight except in an election year like this, so the Department of Defense wants to remove that spending from their accounts.”

TLP Quik Hits: Oops Biden Does It Again - Tells SF Crowd That Giants Are Headed To Super Bowl

2012-01-18T22:06:00.001-07:00

Just one problem Joe, the Giants that are playing in San Francisco this weekend for the NFC Championship are the NY Football Giants.

Wanna get away?

nbcbayarea

Biden, speaking at an event in San Francisco's Financial District in support of President Obama's re-election, told supporters that "the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl," according to reporters covering the event.

When the comment drew boos from the crowd, Biden quickly apologized, saying he was used to talking about the San Francisco Giants' baseball victories, then clarified that he meant to say "49ers."

The Libertarian Patriot Is Still Against SOPA & PIPA Rule 5

2012-01-18T20:43:00.000-07:00

But we do like this Pippa

Sometimes you just need to forget about politics, chill out and enjoy life.

The Libertarian Patriot Supports Internet Freedom - STOP SOPA & PIPA!

2012-01-17T22:32:00.001-07:00

On Jan 24th, Congress will vote to pass internet censorship in the Senate, even though the vast majority of Americans are opposed. We need to kill the bill - PIPA in the Senate and SOPA in the House - to protect our rights to free speech, privacy, and prosperity.

Let Congress Know You're Serious!

TLP Quik Hits: TSA Workers To Wear Radiation Monitors

2012-01-16T22:21:00.000-07:00

But they're completely safe.

Daily Mail

Airport security officers are to be monitored for exposure to dangerous levels of radiation from the controversial scanners which are used to screen passengers before flights.

The Transport Security Administration's decision to give radiation-measuring devices to security officers in 100 U.S. airports comes after years spent dismissing claims that the scanners pose any health threat.

Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing The World Into Dollars And Private Central Banking?

2012-01-16T22:03:00.000-07:00

Zero Hedge

The Middle Eastern and North African wars – planned 20 years ago – don’t necessarily have much to do with fighting terrorism. See this, this and this.

They are, in reality, about oil.

And protecting Israel (and read the section entitled “Securing the Realm” here).

But as AFP reports today, there is another major motivation for the expanding wars:
The latest round of American sanctions are aimed at shutting down Iran’s central bank, a senior US official said Thursday, spelling out that intention directly for the first time.

“We do need to close down the Central Bank of Iran (CBI),” the official told reporters on condition of anonymity, while adding that the United States is moving quickly to implement the sanctions, signed into law last month.

***

Foreign central banks that deal with the Iranian central bank on oil transactions could also face similar restrictions under the new law, which has sparked fears of damage to US ties with nations like Russia and China.

“If a correspondent bank of a US bank wants to do business with us and they’re doing business with CBI or other designated Iranian banks… then they’re going to get in trouble with us,” the US official said.
Why is the U.S. targeting Iran’s central bank?

Well, multi-billionaire Hugo Salinas Price told King World News:
What happened to Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.
As I noted in August:
Ellen Brown argues in the Asia Times that there were even deeper reasons for the war than gold, oil or middle eastern regime change.

Brown argues that Libya – like Iraq under Hussein – challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks:

Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

***

And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned … Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.
Alex Newman wrote in November:
According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause [of the Libyan war and killing of Gadhafi]. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

“Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power.”

According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.

“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”

Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.

“In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi’s (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”

But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.

“Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”

Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.

In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.

Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.

Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission. While most of the establishment press in America has been silent on the issue of Gadhafi’s gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity.

TLP Quik Hits: Is Gas More Expensive Or Is The Dollar Worth Less?

2012-01-16T21:22:00.000-07:00

An everyday example of how Leviathan picks your pocket without you even knowing it.

EPautos.com

I was researching some Now vs. Then costs for a story I did recently on car prices when I stumbled onto something interesting – and revealing.

And so, worth sharing.

Find an inflation calculator; for example the federal government’s Bureau of Labor statistics CPI (Consumer Price Index) calculator (click here) . Select 1980 as your starting year. Enter $1.25 – about what a gallon of gas cost in 1980. Select 2011 – the most recent year the calculator allows. Click “calculate” and prepare for a surprise – one that will also provide a heretical insight into the nature of our economy as well as debunk a politically correct piece of conventional wisdom.

Wait, I’ll save you the trouble. The amount that comes up is $3.43 – which is what the BLS calculator says is the buying power of $1.25 in 1980 money today.

What does it mean?

First, it means that gas prices today, in real terms, are about the same as they were in 1980. You may be paying more in terms of the number of dollars, but you’re really paying the same in terms of the value of your money.

The only thing that’s really happened is you need more paper dollars to buy the same thing. The value is the same, but the money is worth less. The increase in gas prices is a mirage, a fiction. The commodity itself has not increased much in actual cost despite the passage of 32 years, despite the much-ballyhooed uptick in global demand and in spite of the alleged and endlessly imminent bogeyman of “peak oil.”

Video - South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis Endorses Ron Paul

2012-01-15T22:40:00.001-07:00

Tom Davis is a well-known fiscal conservative who served as the Chief of Staff to former SC Governor Mark Sanford and is currently a South Carolina State Senator who is popular among Tea Party Republican in the Palmetto State.

His endorsement was much sought after by all the GOP hopefuls and in fact Rick Santorum, told The Hilton Head Island Packet, "To get an endorsement from someone like Tom Davis is a big deal. It would speak volumes to folks and make them take notice and give us a look."

In giving his endorsement to Ron Paul, Sen Davis stated,

Ron Paul’s record matches his rhetoric, his fiscal plan matches the fiscal challenges that our nation is facing and his movement represents the taxpayers whose interests have been ignored in the political process for far too long.

I’m also endorsing him because unlike what the pundits have led you to believe, he is the candidate who gives the Republican Party the best chance to beat Barack Obama in November.

Just how big is Tom Davis' endorsement? The Paul campaign calls it "game-changing" and there is also speculation that other fiscal conservative within the SC General Assembly will follow the lead of Sen Davis.

With Dr Paul moving up in SC polls, a recent American Research Group poll has him in 3rd at 20% behind Romney (29%) and Gingrich (25%), this endorsement could quite well propel him into 2nd and essentially turn the GOP nomination battle into a two man race in short order.

Canadian Prime Minister Looking To Sell Oil To China

2012-01-15T15:36:00.001-07:00

H/T Hot Air

I told you about this back in November and now Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has set up a meeting in China next month to discuss selling them the oil that Barry, at the urging of the Environazis, refused when he put the kibosh on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension from Canada to Texas.

As you know, Canada is oil rich because of the Alberta oil sands and wants to sell us their excess. This oil from Canada, along with America's own oil sands, the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and that in Alaska's ANWR would make the US almost entirely energy independent until other alternative forms of energy can be made more cost efficient. Unfortunately the Environazis are against all this, making us dependent on oil from the Middle East and elsewhere.

Barry is always yapping that we need more jobs; well here are thousands of shovel-ready, albeit temporary, jobs for the taking. Time to put his money where his mouth is.

This is just another prime example of why we need to rid ourselves of the progressive in the White House who has done nothing but pander to the environmental leftists who want to push us back to a time when we lived in communal mud huts and and ate a vegetarian diet.

The Ledger

Canada is now looking to Asian countries to market its abundance of oil, natural gas and minerals as plans to build the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have stalled with the U.S. administration.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will travel to China next month to discuss selling Canada's bounty to the rapidly growing nation.

The preferred initial plan was to build the $7 billion Keystone pipeline to deliver Alberta's oilsands crude to refineries in Texas on the Gulf of Mexico.

Harper reasoned that the U.S. government would prefer to deal with a friendly neighbor to help meet its energy needs while creating thousands of jobs.

With widespread opposition by U.S. environmentalists, the Obama administration has delayed its decision on whether to approve the project proposed by energy giant TransCanada Pipelines.

TLP Quik Hits: Ron Paul - America’s Last Chance

2012-01-15T11:43:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that supports the limited-government, pro-liberty ideals of the Founders.

Voting for him should be a no-brainer if you believe that the Constitution still matters.

Infowars

America has one last chance, and it is a very slim one. Americans can elect Ron Paul President, or they can descend into tyranny.

Why is Ron Paul America’s last chance?

Because he is the only candidate who is not owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military-security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.

All of the others, including President Obama, are owned by exactly the same interest groups. There are no differences between them. Every candidate except Ron Paul stands for war and a police state, and all have demonstrated their complete and total subservience to Israel. The fact that there is no difference between them is made perfectly clear by the absence of substantive issues in the campaigns of the Republican candidates.

More importantly, only Ron Paul respects the US Constitution and its protection of civil liberty. Only Ron Paul understands that if the Constitution cannot be resurrected from its public murder by Congress and the executive branch, then Americans are lost to tyranny.

If Ron Paul is not elected president in this year’s election, by 2016 American liberty will be in a forgotten grave in a forgotten grave yard.

Read the rest here

TLP Quik Hits: Bernanke Misread Signs Of 2008 Crash

2012-01-15T10:53:00.000-07:00

Maybe he should have listened to Peter Schiff

Daily Mail

Ben Bernanke believed that the U.S. economy would have a 'soft landing' in the wake of falling house prices in 2006.

Instead, the next year saw the start of a credit crunch, which became a financial crisis, which became the Great Recession.

The extraordinary delusion of those who ran the world's biggest economy, from the chairman of the Federal Reserve downwards, has been laid bare by the release of transcripts of Fed meetings from the year before the crash.

Mr Bernanke predicted that the end of the housing bubble would be 'at worst an orderly decline', rather than the widespread disaster it became.

'I agree with most of the commentary that the strong fundamentals support a relatively soft landing in housing,' he told his follow FOMC members at his first meeting as chairman in March [2006].

He also said: 'I think we are unlikely to see growth being derailed by the housing market, but I do want us to be prepared for some quarter-to-quarter fluctuations,'

At his second meeting as chairman in May, Mr Bernanke still seemed fairly confident. 'So far we are seeing, at worst, an orderly decline in the housing market; but there is still, I think, a lot to be seen as to whether the housing market will decline slowly or more quickly.'

TLP Quik Hits: 11 More Solyndras In Obama Energy Program

2012-01-14T14:04:00.000-07:00

Finally. It only took them four months, but the mediots are getting out the story of crony capitalism inside the Obama White House.

Via Memeorandum

Who's Anti-Israel Now?

2012-01-14T13:48:00.000-07:00

Certainly not Ron Paul.

Unlike the rest who want to tell them what they can and can't do, he's stands alone in supporting Israel's right to make it's own decisions on how to best defend itself and that the US should not dictate their foreign policy.

I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.

Of course, because of our interventionist foreign policy, the US feels the need to meddle in the foreign affairs of other nations and that we alone decide on the rules of engagement.

Not that I believe that Israel should attack Iran, but if they as a sovereign nation feel that it is in the best interest of their national security, it is their prerogative to do so. And they alone should bear the consequences of such an attack if Iran decides to retaliate.

WSJ

U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Rand Paul Returns $500K To Treasury

2012-01-12T21:28:00.002-07:00

It's a drop in the bucket but Rand is a man of principle just like his father.

Politico

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul is making good on his promise to cut federal spending. The Kentucky Republican and tea-party favorite said Thursday he’s returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury — money from his operating budget that his office never spent.

The half million dollars represents about 16 percent of Paul’s annual budget. He contended no senator had returned as much to taxpayers, though at least two senators disputed that claim. An aide to Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said his office returned $636,036 in unspent money to the Treasury in Fiscal Year 2010 and another $503,161 in 2011.

“I ran to stop the reckless spending. And I ran to end the damaging process of elected officials acting as errand boys, competing to see who could bring back the biggest check and the most amount of pork,” Paul said at a news conference in Louisville, where he presented taxpayers with a massive mock check for $500,000.

“I hope this sets an example for the rest of government — at all levels,” he added. “We can carry out our duties in a fiscally responsible way. Government can be both smart and efficient. We are proving that — and trying to convince the rest of Washington.”

Paul is the son of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul and co-founded the Senate tea party caucus. As the younger Paul stumped for his father in Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s been plenty of speculation that Rand Paul could launch a presidential bid of his own in 2016.

TLP Quik Hits: Bankrupt Solyndra Seeking To Pay Bonuses

2012-01-12T20:44:00.000-07:00

Seriously?

WaPo

A California solar panel manufacturer that received a half-billion dollar loan from the federal government before declaring bankruptcy is asking a Delaware judge to approve up to $500,000 in employee bonuses.

A hearing on the request by Solyndra LLC of Fremont, Calif., is set later this month.

Solyndra says the performance-based incentives will help it retain key employees whose work is critical to a successful reorganization and sale of the company’s assets.

The bonuses would be for up to nine equipment engineers, up to six general business and finance employees, up to four facilities workers and up to two information technology workers.

The bonuses would range from 8 percent to 38 percent of a worker’s base pay. The employees in question make between $72,000 and $206,000 a year.

TLP Quik Hits: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Still Blaming Tea Party For Giffords Shooting

2012-01-12T20:05:00.000-07:00

Facts be damned, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is still trying to shovel this load of crap a year later.

Jim DeMint on the Daily Show

2012-01-12T19:51:00.001-07:00

Senator Jim DeMint speaking in Iowa. DeMint image via Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Cross-posted the Left Coast Rebel

Over at Memeorandum, Think Progress thinks they have a juicy a-ha moment concerning Senator Jim DeMint. DeMint was on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and countered Stewart's argument for the goodness and federal-wonderfulness that is the fed education program Head Start.

Why doth the Think Progress troll protest so much against this:

The problem we have is from the federal level, it’s very hard to do things well. I mean, you don’t find too many federal programs that are working…When we politically manage the programs, the money is not distributed well and there’s no evidence — I mean we spent trillions trying to help poverty in America. But we don’t cure poverty, we subsidize it when we make people dependent on the government and make it harder for them to get up the ladder.

The clincher here -- and the truth -- is that the War on Poverty actually makes it harder for poor and lower-income Americans to move up the economic ladder. It takes away their drive, their spirit and eventually their life-meaning and humanity. How is that liberal? And, how is that compassionate, ~~conservatives~~ republicans?

Here's video of DeMint on the Daily Show:

LBJ's Great Society and "War on Poverty" are anything but over 40 years later. Always be eternally weary of politicians preaching a "war" on anything; as a rule anything the government declares war against -- the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" being two of the starkest examples -- actually exacerbate, accelerate and increase the problem they were created to solve. Government is not eloquence; it is forcing of unintended consequences.

For anyone that doubts this assertion, please read this report at the Cato Institute: "Nine Trillion Didn't End Poverty, What to do?"

Pass this along, too, from Dan Mitchell at Cato:

"My argument is simple: in the real world, social welfare programs create a perverse incentive structure and leave out the most important aspect of getting out of poverty which is economic freedom and opportunity."

More at Cato on the failure that is Head Start here and here.

Figures that lib Jon Stewart didn't get the memo that his example of Head Start as the crown jewel of the effectiveness of the Leviathan federal government -- the same government that federal supremacy folks like Stewart think that we (but not them) must all swear allegiance and eternal subservience to -- is an out-and-out failure.

Updated: Even that loathsome Joel Klein agrees with me. I guess even a busted clock is right twice a day:

According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution, who said, "I guess they were trying to rerun the data to see if they could come up with anything positive. They couldn't."

I wish we as tax-paying Americans could rerun the data (and turn back the clock) with our mulit-generational, multi-trillion experiment with the welfare state. If the entitlement-welfare state had never been created, we wouldn't be facing this down and we wouldn't have enslaved and broken the spirit of millions across this nation.

Aside from the mountains of debt created, the human toll is the most tragic unintended consequence of the welfare state.

TLP Quik Hits: Ron Paul - War Propaganda

2012-01-12T19:44:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul was right then and he is right now. Don't believe the Neocon lies.

TLP Quik Hits: Homeland Security Watches Twitter, Social Media

2012-01-11T20:50:00.000-07:00

Big Sis IS watching YOU!

Reuters

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news and gossip sites including the Huffington Post and Drudge Report, according to a government document.

A "privacy compliance review" issued by DHS last November says that since at least June 2010, its national operations center has been operating a "Social Networking/Media Capability" which involves regular monitoring of "publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards."

The purpose of the monitoring, says the government document, is to "collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture."

The document adds, using more plain language, that such monitoring is designed to help DHS and its numerous agencies, which include the U.S. Secret Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency, to manage government responses to such events as the 2010 earthquake and aftermath in Haiti and security and border control related to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia.

A DHS official familiar with the monitoring program said that it was intended purely to enable command center officials to keep in touch with various Internet-era media so that they were aware of major, developing events to which the Department or its agencies might have to respond.

Via Memeorandum

Ron Paul Wins In New Hampshire

2012-01-10T21:47:00.001-07:00

Well he didn't win in the traditional sense you might say, Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire Primary since he received the most votes.

That is true but remember, Mitt was supposed to win and win big. Every poll showed that he would win going away, but something happened on the way to the coronation, he didn't win by all that much.

Taking a look at the Real Clear Politics tracking of the New Hampshire polls, the former Massachusetts Governor was at +30 over the entire field as recently as October and even in the most recent polls had an easy 20 point lead.

So how did Ron Paul win you are probably asking? After all a win is a win whether it is by 8 votes or 40,000 votes and Mitt is 2 and 0.

Ron Paul won because he made it closer that was expected and only finished about 16% back with around 23% of the vote. The RCP average only had him at 17.5% in the last few days whereas Romney was polling at 37.5% and that's about where he'll finish.

Ron Paul also won because he will more than triple his vote total from the 2008 Granite State Primary where he finished fifth, with a little over 18K votes. With his victory, Mitt will only see a gain of about 25% over the 75,500 votes he received in his second place finish in 08.

Finally, Ron Paul wins because he gets to fight another day, spreading his message of liberty, rational fiscal policy and non-intervention that the mediots can no longer ignore.

When Ron Paul wins, America wins.

Viva the R3volution!

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Obama Keeps “Alice in Wonderland” Ball Under Wraps

2012-01-08T12:17:00.001-07:00

Progressive Tea Party?

Daily Mail

Right as the economy was going down the rabbit hole, the Obamas decided to host an Alice in Wonderland themed Halloween party, complete with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Tim Burton-arranged decorations.

They even talked to Star Wars director George Lucas and convinced him to lend them the original Chewbacca costume for the entertainment of their guests.

The extravagant fantasy world that they created, however, was kept very much under wraps because at the time of Halloween 2009, the economy was in the slumps and the national unemployment rate was still at a dismal 10 per cent.

The details about the lavish affair come from the pages of a new book about the relationship of the first couple during Mr Obama's presidency.

'White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,' recounts Jodi Kantor in her book, 'The Obamas'.

Via Memeorandum

About Obama's "Recess" Appointments

2012-01-08T10:46:00.000-07:00

Lost in all the news about the GOP contests in Iowa and New Hampshire it seems that the POTUS has once again deemed himself above the law by announcing the "recess" appointments of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau along with three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.

Now recess appointments are not uncommon, Presidents use them all the time especially in the cases of people like Cordray who were previously blocked by the Senate.

What makes these moves so appalling is that the Senate is not in recess, but rather holding pro forma sessions in order to "satisfy the Constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other".

Bottom line is that Barry's moves are in clear violation of Article II Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The rightful remedy for this power grab would be to file an injunction against these appointments in federal court to block the moves as they even go against the advice of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel regarding this matter. Unfortunately we have a lap dog in the name of Eric Holder as the top man at the DOJ who won't even fart without the President's say so.

Another remedy would be for the Senate to begin impeachment hearings over the issue, but that too is a nonstarter because another one of Obama's bitches, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, would never let that happen.

There is one more option however and that would be for the House to defund these departments. Sure the appointments would stand but without any funding, the departments would cease to exist. With the power of the purse, the House has the ability to send a message to this and future Presidents that usurpations of power will not be taken lightly.

The President is not a King and just because he refuses to take no for an answer, it does not give him the right to run roughshod over the Constitution. He must be held accountable for his actions.

Video: Ron Paul Slaps "Chickenhawk" Gingrich In ABC Debate

2012-01-07T21:16:00.002-07:00

The highlight of the otherwise boring ABC GOP Debate in NH undoubtedly came when Ron Paul put the smack down on Newt Gingrich for his draft deferrals.

Gingrich tried to defend his deferrals by noting that he was an Army brat whose father was serving in Vietnam at the time and that he was also married with a child.

"Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he’s referring to." Gingrich said.

He continued, "I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your father getting killed, and I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with."

Ron Paul then asked for a quick follow-up to respond to Newt's statement and replied, "When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went."

Nuf ced.

Rick Santorum Is Wrong On Nullification

2012-01-07T15:54:00.000-07:00

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum was asked if he believed in the concept if nullification, the rights of a State or States to nullify or invalidate an unconstitutional Federal law, and here was his response,

“We had a war about nullification. There was a war about nullification. The Civil War was about nullification, and I’m not sure I want to go there,” Santorum said. “If the state doesn’t like what the federal government is doing and they believe it’s unconstitutional, they can go to a federal court and they can take it up in a federal court. There is a process by which states can litigate.”

First off, the War of Northern Aggression was not about nullification, but rather the Federal Government's successful attempt to invalidate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; but that's a discussion for another day.

What's at issue here is Santorum's assertion that it is up to the Federal Courts to determine the outcome in disputes between the Federal Government and the sovereign States. This sounds all well and good and falls in line with what we have been brainwashed into believing about our system of checks and balances; that the three branches act as checks against each other, but any thinking person should realize the folly in this line of reasoning. This would be like letting your neighbor's family referee a dispute between the two of you; in such a case who do you think would win nine time out of ten?

Rather, there was one additional check put into the Constitution and that was the sovereignty of the people and the States granted by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It is beyond common sense to believe for one minute that the States willingly gave up their sovereignty to the Federal Government when they ratified the Constitution.

Granted, Santorum may have a valid argument if he is using Federalist 78 to bolster his claim but that is entirely contingent on the Federal Courts living up to their end of the bargain, as put forth by Alexander Hamilton,

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Somehow I don't think for a minute that Santorum is making this argument however. I also call into question his reasoning, based on his preface that the War of Northern Aggression settled this debate. If the Federal Government can declare war on a State or States, where do the courts fall into the discussion?

The major fallacy of Santorum's point is that the States do not need to petition the courts as the Tenth Amendment makes it clear "that powers not granted to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people." and James Madison even addressed this and the issue of States giving up their sovereignty in Federalist 14.

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.

Madison addresses this further in the Virginia Resolution of 1798,

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

And by Jefferson in the The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,

[T]he members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.

As you can see, Rick Santorum is completely wrong that the remedy for the States is to make their case to the Federal Courts.

It is well within the rights of the people and the States to simply ignore the Federal Government when they believe that a law being imposed on them is unconstitutional. Correction it WAS well within the rights of the States to do so until Lincoln used military force to usurp these rights from the States.

TLP Quik Hits: Oklahoma Mother Kills Scumbag Intruder

2012-01-05T19:56:00.000-07:00

Sarah Dawn McKinley chose option 2

Too bad that she didn't get them both.

CNN

Home alone with her 3-month-old son, [Sarah Dawn] McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, said she decided to make a stand when the two men tried to break into her home on New Year's Eve.

McKinley, who had been widowed less than a week before, placed a couch in front of one door and went to the bedroom and put a bottle in her baby's mouth before calling 911, she said on HLN's "Dr. Drew" on Wednesday.

A 911 operator calmly spoke with McKinley, who asked if it was permissible to shoot an intruder, officials said.

"I've got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?" asked McKinley, 18.

"Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself," dispatcher Diane Graham responded. "I can't tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."

In the end, McKinley fired a 12-gauge shotgun and killed Justin Shane Martin after he entered her home, according to a Blanchard Police Department affidavit filed in court Wednesday. Martin was armed with a knife, authorities said.

"You have to make a choice, you or him. I chose my son over him," McKinley said to CNN Oklahoma City affiliate KWTV.

Ron Paul Finishes 3rd In Iowa Caucuses

2012-01-03T22:31:00.001-07:00

Can't say I'm thrilled with Romney and Santorum finishing 1 and 2 but Ron Paul and his supporters fought the good fight, enough to garner 21% of the vote and get on the podium with a bronze.

So it's off to New Hampshire next Tuesday where the latest Suffolk poll has Ron Paul in 2nd at 17%, behind Romney's 43% and ahead of Huntsman who's at 9% and Gingrich at 8%.

If Dr Paul can pull out another 20% in the nation's first primary, I'll be ecstatic.

It's going to get interesting, Stay tuned.

Via Memeorandum

Santorum Surging And Why It Doesn't Matter

2012-01-02T17:17:00.002-07:00

So the interwebz are all aflutter with the sudden surge in the Iowa polls by media darling Rick Santorum.

I'm here to tell you it doesn't matter even if he pulls a Tebow-like miracle victory in Iowa.

First off, Santorum is just the next flavor of the month in line for the not Romney vote. Like his predecessors; Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, the Santorum surge will wither under the bright lights of scrutiny once they are focused on him. Like his predecessors, and Romney for that matter, he is just another big-government candidate.

Rick Santorum is anti-liberty. He fully supports the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs and would have also been on board for the recently signed NDAA I'm sure.

What's even worse is that he is a full blown Neocon who is in favor of our interventionist foreign policy and is completely ok with attacking Iran, as he was with Iran. Santorum has said he would not make any cuts to defense spending, all of which makes him a wet dream for the Military Industrial Complex.

Since he is fond of pointing to his record, a quick look shows that he not only voted for No Child Left Behind, $550M for AMTRAK and the prescription drug benefit, but voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate with prescription drug manufactures for better pricing. And that's just the low hanging fruit.

Santorum also earned the distinction as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in 2006 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and had been tied to the K Street Project with possible links to convicted felon Jack Abramoff. And while Newt has been through the ringer for his possible role as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, the Rickster has also done some work as a "consultant".

Let's not forget that he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004 and endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008 for his "conservative principles". He also lost his last Senate race by 18 points.

None of this makes Rick Santorum Presidential Timber by a long shot.

Who'll win the GOP nomination is anyone's guess but I'll tell you now that it won't be Rick Santorum.

One final thing to note is that if Gary Johnson was given the same air time and debate slots as Santorum, who he was polling ahead of back in August, he would undoubtedly have done much better in the GOP race and not have needed to jump to the Libertarian Party to continue his race for the White House.

Via Memeorandum

Down To The Wire In Iowa - Ron Paul Still Ahead In Latest PPP Poll

2012-01-01T21:46:00.001-07:00

The only poll that really matters is the final count on Tuesday night.

Paul 20
Romney 19
Santorum 18
Gingrich 14
Perry 10
Bachmann 8
Huntsman 4
Roemer 2

PPP

The Republican caucus in Iowa is headed for a photo finish, with the three leading contenders all within two points of each other. Ron Paul is at 20%, Mitt Romney at 19%, and Rick Santorum at 18%. Rounding out the field are Newt Gingrich at 14%, Rick Perry at 10%, Michele Bachmann at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Rick Santorum Pisses Off Iowa State Football Fans At Campaign Stop

2012-01-01T12:50:00.000-07:00

Not a smart move when every vote matters.

TLP Quik Hits: Mossad Chief Says Iranian Nukes No Threat To Israel

2011-12-31T17:59:00.002-07:00

But the lame stream mediots, warmongers in DC and GOP hopefuls, save Ron Paul, continue to deceive the American sheeple on the need to enter into another unconstitutional war with an attack on Iran based on the same flawed propaganda as was used to invade Iraq because of Sadaam's WMDs. Even the neocon American Enterprise Institute admits that any such invasion would be more to continue US control of the region rather than to prevent any hypothetical attack on Israel.

Washington Times

The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

“What is the significance of the term ‘existential?’” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”

The intelligence chief did not comment on an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which the Islamic republic has said is engaged only in peaceful research.

Mr. Pardo’s remarks contradict those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly has sought consensus among Israeli officials to attack Iran’s nuclear centers.

However, Mr. Pardo’s comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.

Mr. Dagan had vigorously opposed an attack and expressed his position publicly after retiring earlier this year. Gabi Ashkenazi, former armed forces chief of staff, also reportedly opposed an attack.

Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites.

Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.

Happy New Year And Thanks From The Libertarian Patriot!

2011-12-31T16:40:00.000-07:00

As 2011 comes to a close, I'd like to wish everyone a happy and safe New Year. It was certainly another bumpy ride for the US as our economy continues to sputter along and Leviathan increased it's stranglehold on the American people.

I'd also like to give a big thank you to all the readers of The Libertarian Patriot. 2011 was a big year here, with readership more than doubling from 2010. I am honored that you have all taken time out of your busy lives to visit and hope to continue to earn your support in 2012.

I do need to thank my fellow bloggers for their promotion of TLP too. Without their blogroll listings and direct links to posts, there is no way this blog could have grown the way it has in this past year. I salute you all.

Going forward in 2012 I hope to continue to grow TLP into one of the top libertarian blogs on the interwebz. Your support is important to me so feel free to let me know what I can do to make TLP even better.

2012 is shaping up to be one of the most important years in recent history, with the fate of our republic hanging in the balance. It will only be through our eternal vigilance that we will be able to stop Leviathan in it's tracks and reverse the trend in the growth of government and it's usurpation of our liberties and freedoms.

With the help of my fellow Patriots in 2012, we can protect our country from our government.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year Citizen - Obama Signs NDAA Despite "Reservations"

2011-12-31T14:54:00.001-07:00

Citizen, welcome to the Police State 2012.

Barry can issue all the signing statements he wants but, at the end of the day this is now law and is just another further usurpation of powers granted by the Constitution.

It's also interesting that he chose to sign it on New Years Eve when the American public is more concerned with how drunk they are going to get tonight rather than they are on the erosion of their liberties.

This law, along with the PATRIOT Act, makes all Americans subject to provisions that we deride other nations for using when we attempt to import our brand of democracy on them at the point of a gun.

"America, land of the free" is now nothing more than a not so funny joke.

Atlantic Wire

Despite having once threatened to veto the bill due to controversial language about the treatment of suspected terrorists, the president signed the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on Saturday. Barack Obama did not keep his lingering concerns about aspects of the bill law a secret, however. In justifying his decision to sign NDAA into law, Obama said in a statement, "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed." He continued, "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." (We've pasted the full statement at the bottom of this post.)

Of the controversial detention provisions, Obama concludes, "My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office."

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: An Israeli For Ron Paul

2011-12-31T13:56:00.000-07:00

Obviously Rafi Farber didn't get the memo that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite.

LRC

I first got interested in the whole freedom movement when I heard that Ron Paul wanted to end all foreign aid, including to my country, Israel. This seemed like a spectacular idea to me. I hate the idea of taking American tax payer money I don’t need. The only reason we take it, by the way, is not because we need it. It’s that we don’t want to feel alone, and Jews always feel a deep existential isolation and loneliness. “As I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights, this is a people that dwells alone, not counted among the Nations,” says Balaam of the People of Israel in Numbers 23:9. We still feel that loneliness. So we take the money. It’s shameful, it’s theft, it’s destructive, it’s morally wrong, and it makes people hate us for tying them into a conflict they have no business trying to solve. I wanted it to end and didn’t trust any Israeli leader to give it up on his own, so I looked up more about Ron Paul.

The essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that men are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to most men. This is because most men want to control others, to take away their freedom. This is usually referred to as the drive for power. The drive for power is antithetical to freedom because power means the ability to control others. There is only one legitimate thing that power can and should be used for, whether it be military, legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize freedom.

Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President to “give” me freedom. He doesn’t own my freedom and he didn’t give it to me. The only reason Ron Paul wants to be President is to stop punishing people for using their freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power. This is clear to anyone who listens to him speak.

American Jews! Wake up! Set your brothers in Israel free! We were the first nation ever to be set free by God, and we brought the concept of liberty to the world when we left Egypt over 3000 years ago. It’s about time we set the example we were chosen to set.

TLP Quik Hits: Jesse Venture Endorses Ron Paul

2011-12-29T20:19:00.000-07:00

Infowars

“Ron Paul has Governor Jesse Ventura’s endorsement without a doubt,” he said. “It’s not even close. Because I want a new president that is going to change the direction of this country. I want a new president that is going to follow the Constitution. I want a new president that is going to believe in states’ rights. I want somebody that will shock the status quo.”

Jesse said Ron Paul is the only candidate that will put an end to the establishment’s wars and foreign adventures.

“It’s a simple as this,” he said. “If people truly are looking for an attempt at change in this country – changing who are and what we will be in the future – then there is only one candidate, and that is congressman Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate that wants to audit the Federal Reserve… he is the only candidate that wants to talk rather than wage war, so I think this will truly be an agenda for the United States of America, an agenda to determine what we stand for. Do we stand for being the most aggressive, war-mongering country in the world who is all set to go to war with Iran, too, or are we going to be a country that stands for peace?”

Larry Winget's Ten ANTI-Resolutions For The New Year

2011-12-29T19:41:00.001-07:00

Larry Winget is my type of guy; straight shooting, no BS, tell it like it is.

Just a look at his book titles tells you he is not for people who are looking for touchy-feely advise; Shut Up, Stop Whining & Get A Life, People Are Idiots And I Can Prove It, You're Broke Because You Want To Be, Your Kids Are Your Own Fault and my favorite It's Called WORK For A Reason.

If you are looking to get yourself on track, Larry makes it clear that you are your own worst enemy and only you have the power to make changes.

Now if you are interested in improving yourself in the upcoming New Year, you can either take Larry's advice and be your own man (or woman) or you can make a bunch of meaningless resolutions that you'll have already given up on by January 3rd.

It's too bad that we don't have anyone like him in DC.

Ten ANTI-Resolutions For The New Year

1. Last year is OVER – let it go. No good comes from dwelling on the past.

2. Don’t whine about the bad in your life. Whining prolongs the problem and irritates the rest of us.

3. Keep your problems to yourself. The tolerant are your enemy, not your friend.

4. Keep your dreams to yourself. Naysayers can destroy your dreams by shaking your confidence.

5. Never make resolutions- they don’t work. They are task focused, not end-result focused.

6. Start with the end in mind. Know EXACTLY what you want your life to look like and make a plan.

7. Write things down. Problems get smaller when written down, goals become more real.

8. Expect derailment. You will experience setbacks. Big deal. Get over it and move on.

9. Don’t stop – unless you need to stop. Sometimes you discover it was a bad goal, or you need to rest, or you need to start over completely – otherwise, stay focused and keep the momentum going.

10. Celebrate. Not just at the end, but all along the way.

Latest PPP Poll - Ron Paul Still Leading In Iowa

2011-12-27T21:35:00.000-07:00

Up one point from the last poll on 12/18

Paul 24%
Romney 20%
Gingrich 13%
Bachmann 11%
Perry 10%
Santorum 10%
Huntsman 4%
Roemer 2%

PPP

The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.

Iowa looks like a 2 person race between Paul and Romney as the campaign enters its final week. If Paul can really change the electorate by turning out all these young people and independents who don't usually vote in Republican caucuses, he'll win. If turnout ends up looking a little bit more traditional, Romney will probably prevail. And given all the strange twists and turns to this point don't expect to see a surprise in the final week...and based on the innards of this poll the person best positioned to provide that surprise in the closing stretch is Santorum.

TLP Quik Hits: Judge Napolitano On The Fall Of The American Empire

2011-12-27T19:05:00.000-07:00

"Want to end the madness, just say no to more debt."

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Ron Paul Is Not Anti-Israel Says Former Aide

2011-12-27T13:21:00.000-07:00

Bibi Netanyahu agrees with Ron Paul too.

Haaretz

Speaking with Haaretz on Tuesday, [Dr Leon] Hadar discounted Paul's characterization as anti-Israel, saying: "He is against Israel as I am against January. He is just against foreign aid, and does not see any reason to grant an aid to the country that is a member of OECD."

"We should remember it's the primaries, and the Republican party establishment is not happy about his popularity, because on many issues his positions run contrary to the traditional party's agenda," Hadar added.

The former aide also indicated that Rep. Paul was in favor of "economic cooperation with Israel, he was interested in the economic reforms in Israel."

"He will be glad to see the conflict resolved and he said it's the right of Israel to attack Iran if it thinks that is necessary - but it shouldn't expect the U.S. to clean the mess," he said, adding that Paul is "very familiar with Israel's history. I didn't hear his conversations with his former aide, but I personally have never heard him say anything against Israel or the Jews."

Referring to claims according to which Paul was in favor of "handing Israel back" to the Arabs, Hadar said it was "absurd to say he is more supportive of Arabs or Iran than Israel - he just thinks the U.S. shouldn't meddle in other countries issues."

"I think it's quite pro-Israeli, because the U.S. won't stay in the Middle East forever, and Israel should figure out how to deal with its challenges," Hadar said, adding that there "is little doubt the current campaign against him and the attempts to paint him as anti-Israeli might cause him harm among the Evangelicals, whose support is more significant during the primaries than the Republican Jewish support."

Via Memeorandum

After A Brief Interruption,The Libertarian Patriot Is Back

2011-12-27T12:21:00.001-07:00

I apologize to readers of The Libertarian Patriot for being AWOL yesterday but unfortunately it was due to some circumstances beyond my control.

Being in opposition to any government control of the internet, I decided that I could not in good conscience do business with a company that supports the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and therefore moved my domains from Go Daddy to NameCheap.

Go Daddy, you see, initially supported SOPA and had even claimed that they consulted on the legislation (they even received an exemption from lawsuits in the act) but after an online backlash for supporting the measure, Go Daddy backtracked. Now the company says they no longer support the legislation but reserves the right to flip-flop again and "will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."

How comforting.

Now normally, the transfer of a domain is a fairly easy automated process but Go Daddy apparently made it more difficult than it had to be by blocking NameCheap from getting the info they needed to facilitate the transfers. I have 4 urls for TLP and the .us and .mobi ones went through quickly but .com and .net were held up. Because of this I had no service for most of the day.

Thanks Go Daddy.

SOPA, along with the Senate's version, PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), are both attempts to give Leviathan power over the internet and must be stopped. Companies like Go Daddy who choose to play both sides of the fence also need to be put on notice that their shenanigans will not be tolerated.

This is also a lesson on how the free market works when the government stays out of the way. People are free to choose who they use for a product or service and when a company does something that harms or is against the wishes of it's patron, they are free to go elsewhere.

The Christmas Truce Of 1914

2011-12-24T16:04:00.000-07:00

LRC

The Christmas Truce, which occurred primarily between the British and German soldiers along the Western Front in December 1914, is an event the official histories of the "Great War" leave out, and the Orwellian historians hide from the public. Stanley Weintraub has broken through this barrier of silence and written a moving account of this significant event by compiling letters sent home from the front, as well as diaries of the soldiers involved. His book is entitled Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce. The book contains many pictures of the actual events showing the opposing forces mixing and celebrating together that first Christmas of the war. This remarkable story begins to unfold, according to Weintraub, on the morning of December 19, 1914:
"Lieutenant Geoffrey Heinekey, new to the 2nd Queen’s Westminster Rifles, wrote to his mother, ‘A most extraordinary thing happened. . . Some Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also. The Germans then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily fine men . . . . It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after, there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours." (p. 5)
As night fell on Christmas Eve the British soldiers noticed the Germans putting up small Christmas trees along with candles at the top of their trenches and many began to shout in English "We no shoot if you no shoot."(p. 25). The firing stopped along the many miles of the trenches and the British began to notice that the Germans were coming out of the trenches toward the British who responded by coming out to meet them. They mixed and mingled in No Man’s Land and soon began to exchange chocolates for cigars and various newspaper accounts of the war which contained the propaganda from their respective homelands. Many of the officers on each side attempted to prevent the event from occurring but the soldiers ignored the risk of a court-martial or of being shot.

Some of the meetings reported in diaries were between Anglo-Saxons and German Saxons and the Germans joked that they should join together and fight the Prussians. The massive amount of fraternization, or maybe just the Christmas spirit, deterred the officers from taking action and many of them began to go out into No Man’s Land and exchange Christmas greetings with their opposing officers. Each side helped bury their dead and remove the wounded so that by Christmas morning there was a large open area about as wide as the size of two football fields separating the opposing trenches. The soldiers emerged again on Christmas morning and began singing Christmas carols, especially "Silent Night." They recited the 23rd Psalm together and played soccer and football. Again, Christmas gifts were exchanged and meals were prepared openly and attended by the opposing forces. Weintraub quotes one soldier’s observation of the event: "Never . . . was I so keenly aware of the insanity of war." (p. 33).

A Little Lite Christmas Music: Vince Guaraldi Trio

2011-12-24T14:57:00.000-07:00

Enjoy

The CNN Hit Job On Ron Paul

2011-12-24T14:33:00.001-07:00

This all makes for great theater and has generated some juicy headlines for those that don't want to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination but is this honest journalism by Gloria Borger and CNN?

For the record I think that this episode has been handled poorly by Ron Paul and that he really hasn't been consistent in his explanations over the years of what he did and didn't know.

Even in the full clip, Paul appears to contradict himself when Borger asks if he read them at the time they were published and he replied that he read them on occasion but later states that he had no knowledge of those comments until 10 years after they were written.

Sorry, but if Obama is going to get heat for attending Rev Wright's church for years but never heard any of the Reverend's inflammatory sermons, Ron Paul needs to be held to the same standard.

As we have seen time and time again, it's the coverup that kills politicians and Dr Paul should should just come clean and be saying is something like this,

I owned a newsletter and had hired several people to ghostwrite in my name. Unfortunately, some very racist, offensive and disparaging remarks were made in it that I do not approve of. I do apologize for my neglect of that newsletter and understand the pain those remarks can inflict on some people. I do want the American people to know that I will not tolerate things like that in my campaign, in my life, or in a Paul presidency.

That said, I also think that a lot of this has been blown out of proportion by anti-Paul people because, as Justin Raimondo wrote in 2008, some of the "offending" passages have also been taken out of context.

For example this excerpt seems pretty clear, right?

“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

Now read in the full context of the passage it means something entirely different.

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”

What the author seems to be saying is that white Americans, particularly the progressives, will refuse to see the folly of the welfare state and how it actually prevents blacks and other minorities from from rising out of poverty. The "racist" statement actually points out, correctly, that race is the first criteria used by many others in white America to identify the bad guys.

Here's another quote that has been used to point to "racism" in the newsletters,

“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions"

Now in it's full context,

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”

What the author is saying here is that only 5% of black agree with his or her position on limited government and the welfare state, which the author considers to be "sensible political opinions". Maybe a poor choice of words but is that racist? I guess in today's political climate it is, since it is a fairly standard claim by the left that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist regardless of why they oppose him.

This issue needs to be put to bed by the Paul campaign and that can only be done by taking full responsibility, regardless of the blowback.

Via Memeorandum

Bob Tate For Gun Owner Of The Year

2011-12-21T18:56:00.001-07:00

How's this for dedication?

My father-in-law had some trouble with his pacemaker last week so he went in to consult with his cardiologist today and the doctor decided that the pacemaker would be moved to near his right shoulder. When he asked Bob if he had any questions or concerns, Bob thought for a minute and only had one question; would it get in the way of him shooting his prized 1920's Parker Brothers shotgun.

Bob is 78, but still shoots traps with "Mr Parker" regularly and there's no way he'd give up the enjoyment it brings him. His cardiologist, after hearing the story, laughed and said "that's fantastic"; telling Bob he'd put the pacemaker somewhere else.

Bob goes in tomorrow for surgery and if all goes will will be home for Christmas.

I salute you Bob, here's to a speedy recovery.

TLP Quik Hits: Gary Johnson To Announce Jump To Libertarian Party on 12/28

2011-12-20T19:24:00.001-07:00

My preference is that he announces a run for Senate in New Mexico but he didn't ask my opinion.

Politico

Gary Johnson will quit the Republican primaries and seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead, POLITICO has learned.

The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.

The move has been expected for weeks — Johnson had run a New Hampshire-centric effort that never got him past a blip in the polls. He appeared at only two nationally televised debates, and only one in which other major candidates took part.

Johnson has announced the Dec. 28 event on his Facebook page. Campaign spokesman Joe Hunter said only that it would be “a significant announcement.”

Calling news of the switch “the worst kept secret,” Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle said the Santa Fe event will include a press conference at which Johnson will switch his voter registration to Libertarian.

Via Memeorandum

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura - 'Police State' - Full Episode

2011-12-19T22:59:00.000-07:00

Want to know what the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could mean to you?

This episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Venture called Police State uncovers the secrets behind FEMA Camps and Fusion Centers.

Hitler Reacts To Ron Paul's Rise In Polls

2011-12-18T22:44:00.000-07:00

H/T Right Coast Conservative

Ron Paul Leads Latest PPP Iowa Poll

2011-12-18T21:36:00.002-07:00

With less than two weeks before Iowans caucus, who's smiling now?

Paul 23%
Romney 20%
Gingrich 14%
Santorum 10%
Perry 10%
Bachmann 10%
Huntsman 4%
Johnson 2%

PPP

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest. Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Kim Jong No Longer Ill... He's Dead

2011-12-18T20:56:00.000-07:00

Hell is sure filling up this year.

BBC

Mr Kim, who has led the communist nation since the death of his father in 1994, died on a train while visiting an area outside the capital, the announcement said.

He suffered a stroke in 2008 and was absent from public view for months.

His designated successor is believed to be his third son, Kim Jong-un, who is thought to be in his late 20s.

The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Seoul says Mr Kim's death will cause huge shock waves across North Korea.

The announcement came in an emotional statement read out on national television.

The announcer, wearing black, said he had died of physical and mental over-work.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Eric Holder Plays The Race Card

2011-12-18T16:17:00.002-07:00

This is rich.

The outcry against the Attorney General has nothing to do with the DOJ enabling the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels and their subsequent use in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, the laundering cartel money, letting the New Black Panther Party skate on voter intimidation charges or a host of other screw ups. Rather it is because both he and Barry are black.

NYT

In the interview, Mr. Holder offered a glimpse of how he viewed the criticism. He said he thought some critics — like Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who favors allowing the military to handle terrorism suspects over the criminal justice system — are expressing “good faith” arguments about their policy disagreements.

But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Demonizing The Tenth

2011-12-18T12:38:00.001-07:00

Something to remember as the Bill of Rights celebrates it's 220th year.

Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Why do so many politicians and pundits condemn those who support invoking the Tenth Amendment to check federal power? Because they are invested in the benefits of big government, and the Tenth Amendment is designed to keep government small.

Invoking the Tenth is viewed by the mainstream media as a radical concept today, but it wasn’t considered radical when it was added to the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Constitution likely would not have been ratified if limits on federal authority had not been added to the document. The country’s founders sought to constrain the power of government because, having just fought a war for independence, they knew how oppressive a centralized government could be.

When the Alien and Sedition Acts infringed on constitutional liberties, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison responded with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These argued that states had the power under the Tenth Amendment to nullify federal laws they believed to be unconstitutional.

Northerners invoked the Tenth Amendment to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act, which forced citizens to help federal authorities to catch runaway slaves. Many outraged northerners refused to abide by this repugnant law. Wisconsin and Ohio officially nullified the act, citing both the Tenth Amendment and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as justification.

Today, the mechanisms that the founders had provided for the people to guard their own liberty have somehow become dangerous to invoke. We are routinely told by those in power that there is no recourse against federal power today, no matter how oppressive it may become.

Politicians naturally seek to centralize government because centralization enhances their power. They justify their actions and downplay the Tenth Amendment by using jargon like the federal government has “implied powers” to promote the “general welfare,” and after all, what they do helps the general welfare of the country.

This is why the federal government has seized control over citizens’ healthcare, education, auto industry, mortgage industry, energy, financial institutions, and personal lives through taxation. If the Tenth Amendment was properly applied, the federal government would never have been able to seize the power it has. The governing philosophy in our country today runs almost completely counter to the founders’ intent.

Those who support big government seek to minimize the Tenth Amendment because it’s the power check that forces federal politicians to behave within the constitutional framework. Without this power check, government grows and liberty shrinks.

The people must take their freedom back, regardless of what the big government benefactors may say. And the Tenth Amendment is the way to do it.

TLP Quik Hits: Gingrich Of Freddie Mac

2011-12-17T15:06:00.000-07:00

$1.6M is small potatoes, Newt's Center for Health Transformation took $37M to "consult" the Health-Care Industry.

Him likes his government big.

WSJ

Newt Gingrich's opponents aren't letting up in their criticism of his lucrative ties to the failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac after he resigned as House Speaker in the late 1990s. More damaging to his Presidential candidacy is that Mr. Gingrich doesn't seem to understand why anyone is offended.

In his first response after news broke that he'd made $300,000 working for Freddie, Mr. Gingrich claimed he had "offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do." As a "historian," he said during a November 9 debate, he had concluded last decade that "this is a bubble," and that Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae should stop making loans to people who have no credit history. He added that now they should be broken up.

A week later Bloomberg reported that Mr. Gingrich had made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in two separate contracts with Freddie between 1999 and 2008. The former Speaker stuck to his line that "I was approached to offer strategic advice" and had warned the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to stop lending to bad credit risks.

Then on December 2 our colleagues at the Journal reported that as late as April 2007 Mr. Gingrich had defended Fannie and Freddie as examples of conservative governance. "While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview at the time.

Mr. Gingrich added in that interview that there are times "when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development." He cited electricity and telephone network expansion. "It's not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism," he said, adding "I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today."

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Foreign Policy Blowback

2011-12-17T13:48:00.000-07:00

Michael Scheuer, former CIA Chief of the bin Laden Issue Station (96-99) and Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit (01-04), shares Ron Paul's opinion.

Gary Johnson For Senate

2011-12-17T13:23:00.000-07:00

With the former Governor of New Mexico being shut out of the GOP Presidential race by the mediots and pollsters, he is seriously weighing a run for the Libertarian Party nomination.

But is this the best course of action?

Gary Johnson's voice is too important to be silenced on the national level but due to factors, some of his own making, he has failed to gain traction with the national electorate. A run on the LP ticket is, in my opinion, a quixotic fantasy for Gov Johnson and while it may influence the Presidential race somewhat and give him an opportunity to be on the same stage as Obama and the GOP nominee during the debates, I don't see his chances of winning in the General Election any better than they were in the GOP primaries.

In the past, Gov Johnson has ruled out a run for retiring NM Senator Jeff Bingaman's seat (much in the same way he ruled out jumping to the LP, it should be mentioned) stating that he does not believe in a Senator's ability to make a difference.

That is all well and good but we have seen that a limited-government, pro-liberty Senator can make a difference and that man, Rand Paul, needs all the allies he can get.

Gary Johnson also has a chance to actually win the NM Senate seat. While the latest PPP poll shows that he would have some ground to make up against current GOP frontrunner and favorite Rep Heather Wilson who leads the former Governor by a 42-31% margin, remember that he is not even campaigning for the seat while Wilson is.

But that's the bad news. Looking deeper at the PPP numbers, Johnson has 45/39 favorable/unfavorable opinion by those polled while Wilson is almost the opposite at 37/46.

Better still, when compared to Democratic frontrunners Rep Martin Heinrich and State Auditor Hector Balderas (Heinrich leads Balderas 47-30), Gov Johnson is tied with Heinrich at 43% and beating Balderas 44-38. Meanwhile, Rep Wilson trails Heinrich 47-40 and is tied with Balderas at 43%.

As you can see, this race is Gary Johnson's for the taking. He's not even campaigning for the spot and is still well positioned to win.

Gov Johnson, I beg you, stop tilting at windmills and take what you are being given. Six years of Gary Johnson in the Senate is far better than nothing.

Ron Paul Doesn't Matter To 'Time'

2011-12-14T21:30:00.099-07:00

How ironic is it that in Time's Person of the Year issue honoring The Protester, the grandfather of the Tea Party doesn't get a mention in their People Who Mattered section?

Other GOP hopefuls such as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain, along with Newt and Mitt made the cut, but no Ron Paul.

[I'm actually surprised that mediot darling Rick Santorum didn't get a mention or that John Huntsman's daddy didn't buy him one, but that's a discussion for their handful of supports to have.]

To Time, it seems that the one man who stands out among the pretenders, the one man who understands what got us into this mess and how we can get out of it, the one man who predicted the meltdown and predicts the dire days ahead if we don't make drastic changes, is irrelevant. Never you mind that he has the best organization, is drawing the biggest crowds and is close to the top in Iowa polls, with a Tuesday PPP poll having him within one point of the lead and gaining ground in NH according to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll.

Maybe they're right, maybe Ron Paul doesn't matter now, but they'll be forced to take notice in a few short weeks when the good Doctor gives a shock treatment to the American political landscape.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Chinese Villagers Stand Up To Communist Party

2011-12-14T21:03:00.000-07:00

I fear for the people of Wukan because given the track record of the ChiComs, it is only a matter of time before this village goes down the memory hole.

Occupiers take note; this is real civil disobedience.

Telegraph UK

For the first time on record, the Chinese Communist party has lost all control, with the population of 20,000 in this southern fishing village now in open revolt.

The last of Wukan’s dozen party officials fled on Monday after thousands of people blocked armed police from retaking the village, standing firm against tear gas and water cannons.

Since then, the police have retreated to a roadblock, some three miles away, in order to prevent food and water from entering, and villagers from leaving. Wukan’s fishing fleet, its main source of income, has also been stopped from leaving harbour.

The plan appears to be to lay siege to Wukan and choke a rebellion which began three months ago when an angry mob, incensed at having the village’s land sold off, rampaged through the streets and overturned cars.

Although China suffers an estimated 180,000 “mass incidents” a year, it is unheard of for the Party to sound a retreat.

But on Tuesday The Daily Telegraph managed to gain access through a tight security cordon and witnessed the new reality in this coastal village.

Thousands of Wukan’s residents, incensed at the death of one of their leaders in police custody, gathered for a second day in front of a triple-roofed pagoda that serves as the village hall.

For five hours they sat on long benches, chanting, punching the air in unison and working themselves into a fury.

At the end of the day, a fifteen minute period of mourning for their fallen villager saw the crowd convulsed in sobs and wailing for revenge against the local government.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: What's Dumberer, A Box Of Rocks Or Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

2011-12-12T22:44:00.000-07:00

Hey Deb, I'll make this simple for ya ==>

She was great in Twisted Sister though.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

2011-12-12T22:13:00.000-07:00

Marco's been hanging around My Idiot Senator too long. Why else would he want to provoke another Cold War, if not a shooting war, with Russia?

Patrick J. Buchanan

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone’s short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia’s plan for membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.

Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann’s ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it — Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio’s effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

TLP Quik Hits: Why Americans No Longer Trust Washington

2011-12-11T16:24:00.000-07:00

Yet the Corruptocrats keep getting re-elected.

Washington Examiner

Survey after survey in recent months has shown an alarming decline in public confidence in the nation's chief federal institutions, as well as a deepening pessimism about America's future. Congressional approval is at an all-time low of 13 percent, according to the Gallup Poll, and three-quarters of the public wouldn't re-elect most members of Congress. There is cold comfort in the numbers for President Obama. Barely 41 percent of the public approves of his job performance, according to Gallup. Most worrisome is the fact that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, told pollster Scott Rasmussen this week that they believe the country's best days are behind it, the first time a majority has so responded.

Anybody puzzled by these trends, however, need look no further than the performance of some of our leaders in recent days. Obama gave a bitterly partisan address in Kansas, which featured, as The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone pointed out, a crude, straw-man caricature meant to portray Republicans falsely as believing "we are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules." The chief executive also claimed -- without evidence, his aides later conceded -- that "some billionaires have a tax rate as low as one percent." Such deceptions and inventions destroy a president's credibility.

Next, there is Attorney General Eric Holder, the man Obama appointed as the nation's chief law enforcement official. For months Holder has claimed, in the face of steadily mounting evidence to the contrary, that he knew nothing about Operation Fast and Furious until he read about it in the newspapers earlier this year. Fast and Furious is the Justice Department program in which officials allowed thousands of weapons to be sold by U.S. dealers to Mexican drug cartels. Just before Christmas, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of those weapons. Hundreds of Mexican citizens, including multiple government officials, have also been killed with Fast and Furious guns.

As Examiner legal affairs contributor Ken Klukowski pointed out Friday, a steady drip-drip of evidence has become public in recent months as Justice Department officials grudgingly released documents sought by Congress. Those documents make clear that many senior Justice Department officials knew about Fast and Furious from soon after its inception in 2009, as did high-ranking officials at the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the White House. Yet if Holder is to be believed, he was the last man in Washington to know about something happening right under his nose.

Then we learn from Examiner columnist Diana West in today's edition that National Archivist David Ferriero recently sealed for 20 years millions of documents from the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been hundreds of credible reports in recent years of outrageous waste and corruption in such spending, yet it will now be decades before we will learn all of the facts. Last year alone, according to the New York Times, federal officials sealed 77 million official documents. Something else was recently sealed -- the court records concerning Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's murder. Washington's solution is to bury potentially embarrassing documents. No wonder America no longer trusts Washington.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: ECB Research Shows That Government Spending Undermines Economic Performance

2011-12-11T14:57:00.000-07:00

Further proof that Keynesian Theory is a failure.

International Liberty

Europe is in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by too much government spending, yet many of the continent’s politicians want the European Central Bank to purchase the dodgy debt of reckless welfare states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in order to prop up these big government policies.

So it’s especially noteworthy that economists at the European Central Bank have just produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings.

…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries).
There are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. Unfortunately, too many supposedly conservative policy makers fail to grasp this key distinction and mistakenly focus on the symptom (deficits) rather than the underlying disease (big government).

The second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell’s Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this case, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending, and they’re now using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary monetary policy by the European Central Bank.

Read the rest here

Response To A Jewish Opponent Of Ron Paul by Walter Block

2011-12-11T12:46:00.000-07:00

Reprinted from LewRockwell.com

Response to a Jewish Opponent of Ron Paul
by Walter Block

Aaron Biterman posted his list of "Top 25 Reasons to Oppose RON PAUL's 2012 Campaign." I repeat his list below, exactly as it appeared on the web site Jewish Libertarians on 12/7/11, interspersed with my commentary (<<) on each of his objections. I have no idea whether his first or 25^th reason is the most important, but I follow the order of these reasons that Mr. Biterman set out in his missive.

25) Jon Huntsman

<< It is greatly to his credit that Huntsman turned down the invitation to debate from "moderator" Donald Trump. And, of course, Ron Paul did so too. Heck, even "Mr. Principled" Mitt Romney turned up his nose at this "debate." However, Huntsman is a weather socialist, and has supported the poisonous individual healthcare mandate, along with his spiritual and moral counterparts, Romney, Gingrich and Obama, all unlike Ron Paul. ‘Nuff said. No, I’ll say more: Huntsman does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath, at least from a libertarian perspective, as Ron Paul. That Biterman would place him above the congressman from Texas indicates that his own libertarian credentials are hanging by a thread.

24) Gary Johnson

<< Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is not all bad. I go further: he is an excellent candidate. On a scale of libertarianism, I would award him a passing grade of 65 (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry all clock in at less than 5 out of 100. Ron, in my view, hits the 95 level.) When asked, at one of the few debates he joined, who he would pick as his Vice President, Gary Johnson chose Ron Paul. No one can be all bad who articulates such a thought. Indeed, in my own publications about who Ron should pick as his Veep, Gary Johnson was prominently mentioned; see here and here. This is what my co-author and I said about him then, and I stand by it now: "Gary Johnson. It is too bad that the former governor of New Mexico as of the time of this writing has not been able to enter into the debates. If he did so, then there would be not one but two libertarians on stage at these important events. On the other hand, we know Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul. He is more of a ‘beltway’ or Reason Magazine libertarian than a real one. He is better than the neocons on foreign policy, but does not call for a purely defensive stance for our military. He wants to legalize drugs, but only some of them; he did not pardon any victimless criminals when he could have. He favors the legalization of prostitution, but not based on a matter of rights; merely utilitarianism. He urges reform of the Fed, not abolition. Go down the entire list: he is pretty good on most issues from a libertarian point of view, but doesn’t hit the bull’s eye on any of them."

23) The Libertarian Party

<<I am a fan of the Libertarian Party. I ran for office under its auspices in 1972. I have been an active member of it (well, except for the debacle of Bob Barr in 2008 when I quit in protest) for its entire existence. I have spoken often at its conventions. I am a card carrying member of the LP. My expectation is that if Ron wants to make a third party run, which he now denies, 99% of the Libertarian Party members would vote to nominate him. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination for president, I have no doubt that the LP will support him as their standard bearer too, and do everything they can to see him beat Obama. But, the Libertarian Party usually polls some 1-3% of the electorate, and is brutally ignored by the mainstream media.

How does that compare with the inroads Ron Paul is now making into the consciousness of the American electorate? To ask this is to answer it. Ron, even though all too often ignored by the mainstream media, is still burning up the airwaves and dominating the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines. Anyone who refuses to support Ron Paul on the ground that the Libertarian Party exists is surely smoking some controlled substances. Lots of them. Is this point really worthy of sober comment? No. But, I am determined to refute each and every one of these 25 points, and this is one of them.

22) Paul claims to support free trade, but the truth is otherwise (find Paul's Cato ratings).

<< Ron Paul subscribes to the Murray Rothbard–Milton Friedman–Hong Kong–Singapore view of free trade; inaugurate a policy of full free trade, no barriers, with all countries of the world. He opposes "fair trade," "managed trade," customs unions, and treaties such as Nafta, Cafta, etc. He wants a unilateral declaration of free trade with all nations, whether or not they reciprocate. Would that the Cato Institute adopt such a strong principled viewpoint. When an inside the beltway "libertarian" organization such as the Cato Institute is proposed as the rating agency for Ron Paul, we are all in trouble.

21) Paul endorsed the Constitution Party nominee for president in 2008; have you read the Constitution Party platform?

<< The Libertarian Party platform, although egregiously watered down from the days that Murray Rothbard was active in this organization, is still far superior to that of the Constitution Party. Here, I agree with Biterman. However, a case can be made out that Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s nominee that year was more libertarian than was Bob Barr. So, Ron is to be blamed for supporting the man, and not the party platform? That seems to be more than just a bit harsh.

20) Paul's campaign team consists of folks who have spent considerable time working for Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and various other unsavory causes.

<< It is time for an economics joke. Economist A asks economist B, "How is your wife?" Comes the reply from B: "Compared to what?" Yes, the two men mentioned, and the two organizations, each have "unsavory" (e.g., non libertarian elements). But compared to what? In 2008 the Libertarian Party, favored by Biterman, nominated Bob Barr as president, and Wayne Allyn Root as vice president. Root is a war monger and Barr is a drug warrior. Neither was much of a libertarian. I would place Barr and Root in roughly the same political economic category as Buchanan and Robertson, and rate the LP for nominating these two non libertarians in 2008, in a similar manner to the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. No, worse. At least these latter two did not claim to be libertarians, and thus did not engage in outright fraud.

But suppose Biterman manages to evade these comparisons. Let us stipulate, arguendo, that Buchanan and Robertson, the CC and the FRC, are horrid people and organizations. Just because someone worked for them in the past does not mean they were infected by these non libertarians. I know Ron Paul, and I know he would not knowingly associate with non libertarians in his campaign. I fully expect that when Dr. Paul is sworn in to office in January 2013, he will bring to Washington with him people who will eliminate unnecessary departments, end the Fed, help him bring home the troops, shut down U.S. military bases in foreign lands, etc. Does Biterman really doubt this? No. Course not. These are precisely the reasons that "libertarian" opposes Ron Paul.

19) Where is the campaign money being spent? Who is benefiting from the donations? Who is getting rich? These questions remain unanswered.

<< What is the source of Biterman’s income? How does he spend his money? Who benefits from Biterman’s largesse? These questions remain unanswered. Biterman, ever hear of privacy? Why is this information any of Biterman’s business? It is not. However, of course, the Paul campaign complies with all sorts of intrusive questions such as these because it is required to do so by law.

18) Paul was the economic advisor of Pat Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign

<<So was Murray N. Rothbard, for a time, until he could no longer abide Buchanan’s protectionism. Is Pat Buchanan some sort of boogy-man, the mere mention of whose name is supposed to send us running for the hills? Buchanan had some libertarian elements in his philosophy, and, many, unfortunately, which were not. Biterman champions the Libertarian Party (see point 23 above) but Barr and Root are no more libertarian than Buchanan.

17) Paul says Gaza is filled with "Concentration Camps."

<< There are concentration camps, and then there are concentration camps. The meaning that most people ascribe to this phrase is, of course, Nazi concentration camps, where millions of people perished. But never in a million years did Dr. Paul mean to refer to Gaza in any such context. What, then, are the other meanings of this phrase? One such definition is "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment." Under this definition concentration camps were used by the British in South Africa and the Spanish in Cuba, long before Hitler. And, they were used, too, during the Hitler period, by, of all countries, the U.S., for Japanese-Americans. None of these other "concentration camps" are to be mentioned in the same breath as the one organized by the Nazis.

I regard this of all Biterman’s 25 points as the one that rankles the most within the Jewish community, particularly amongst Israelis. But, I contend, when these people hear of this statement by Congressman Paul, they think, only and solely of Nazi concentration camps, for which there is absolutely no comparison. But how does Gaza stack up against the U.S. internment camps (concentration camps) utilized against Japanese Americans during World War II? I maintain that while of course there are differences, the two are in the same or at least similar "ball parks." Also, it is possible that Congressman Paul misspoke, had a slip of the tongue (which of us can say that this never occurred to us?).

Do I regret that my friend Ron Paul used this particular phrase in that interview? I do. Well, at least without mentioning that he had more in mind the U.S.-Japanese-American internment camp rather than anything even resembling the Nazi case. But distinctions of this sort are difficult to make in 3 minute interviews.

Nor must we lose sight of the fact that in this short interview Dr. Paul made the following very important points: He would change our Mideast policy with the goal of preventing these problems in the first place. He assigns blame to both parties. He says that Washington should mind its own business; that people in Gaza know that our weapons are used against them and blame us as well as Israel. And, we can’t afford to intervene any longer.

But, stipulate that Congressman Paul erred in this regard. No one should oppose any candidate for one single mistake. We all have slips of the tongue, and bad days (Barack Obama once mis-counted the number of states in our union; for more of his bumbles, see here). For a much more indicative view of Dr. Paul’s views on Israel, one where he indicates he is a friend of that country, go here. For the claim that Ron Paul is really a Zionist, go here and here.

16) Paul's "We the People Act" would forbid federal courts from adjudicating "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion", i.e., it would remove all federal remedies for allegations of state violations of religious freedom.

<<Ron Paul is a federalist, like many of our founding fathers. He sees the major enemy of our freedom as an out-of-control federal government. He believes that placing greater reliance on the 50 states will better ensure our liberty. So, of course, he wants to trim the sails of the federal government, and give the states more control. His reasoning is that if one state violates rights, it is far easier to deal with than when the federales do so. This is a reason to oppose his candidacy? Does not Biterman take cognizance of the concept of "voting with the feet?" Does he not realize that it is far easier to move from one locality to another, than from one country to another?

15) Paul says church-state separation has no constitutional basis.

<< Does Biterman point out the constitutional basis for church separation? He does not. He merely mentions this as a reason to oppose the Paul candidacy as if it is obvious. Is Biterman a member of the mainstream media? Isn’t there a rule that only members of the MSM are allowed to do this? I am an economist, not a constitutional scholar, so I really can’t delve deeply into this question. However, it appears to me, as an outsider, that the burden of proof rests with this author, and he has not only fulfilled it, he does not realize that it is incumbent upon him to do so.

14) Paul would be age 78 at the start of his first term.

<< True. But Dr. Paul was a national class track athlete when he was in college. He is a young 76, right now. I have no doubt that with any athletic competition between the Republican candidates (running, swimming, biking, etc.), the Congressman from Texas would acquit himself very well. Hey, Biterman opposes Paul. This should be an argument for his candidacy. For if Paul has a short life expectancy, Biterman ought to rejoice in this, not complain about it. If Paul wins, according to this "logic," he will soon be gone in any case.

13) Anyone (including you) can vote "no" on legislation in Congress

<< Frankly, I don’t understand this objection.

12) Paul has no executive experience: how will he perform?

<<Obama had no executive experience before becoming president either. So what? In any case, I know exactly how President Paul will perform, and so does everyone else who has not been Rip Van Winkling it through this campaign. He will cut taxes and pull the troops home to a defensive (not offensive) position; he will cut spending by one trillion dollars in his first year. He will end, not mend, the Fed. He will rescue the U.S. dollar with a gold standard. He will no longer allow the federal government to run roughshod over state decisions to allow (medical) marijuana.

11) Paul is the choice of various notable conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, and anti-Semites – and refuses to distance himself from these endorsements

<< They support him; he doesn’t support them. He "distances" himself from them all right: by saying he doesn’t agree with them. By the way, are all conspiracy theories false? Is not a one of them true? That seems to be the underlying premise of this objection, but, as usual, it is not spelled out, certainly not defended.

10) Paul posed for a photo with KKK Grand Wizard Don Black after refusing to return $500 from Black in 2008

<< Dr. Paul takes pictures with tens of thousands of people. No, make that hundreds of thousands. At the end of every speech he gives, people line up by the hundreds for a quick picture with him. Does anyone really think that Ron Paul can recognize everyone who asks to have a five second audience with him for a picture-taking? As for giving money back, under which conditions will justice better be served: The Congressman is plus $500, and the anti-Semite at zero; or, the Congressman ends up with zero funds from this episode, and the anti-Semite has the $500? Does Biterman favor enriching anti-Semites?

9) Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a sodomy law for DC in 1981, and voted against adoptions for gays in DC in 1999

<<Ron Paul’s votes on this matter have more to do with his espousal of federalism than with this particular substantive issue. Ronald Reagan was once so incensed at the rent controls of New York City that he thought seriously of using the weight of the federal government to right this obvious local wrong. Ron Paul is more of a federalist than that, and Reagan was too, in the event. This, too, is a contentious issue amongst libertarians, and, as far as I am concerned, politicians get a bye when the libertarian community is unsettled on a given law or public policy.

8) Paul supports the repeal of birthright citizenship, part of his platform of "common sense" immigration reforms

<< I disagree with Ron Paul on immigration; see here, here, here and here. However, there are leading libertarians (Murray N. Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe) who espouse the Paul position on immigration. When there are leading libertarian theoreticians on both sides of an issue, it is a bit much to make such an issue a litmus test for politicians. This issue, as far as I am concerned, is part of the 5% where Ron Paul diverges from libertarianism. Go, sue him. No one is perfect. And for this we libertarians are supposed to jettison Ron Paul? And for whom? Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich? It is to laugh.

7) Paul signed a pro-life pledge from the Susan B. Anthony List, which involves the federal government in the issue of abortion, contrary to his rhetoric.

<< The weasel word, here, is "involves." Of course this pledge "involves" the federal government. Congressman Paul’s "rhetoric" is to enable each of the states to determine these issues. Now, who is it do you think that will do this "allowing"? Why, the federal government of course; nowadays, it does most of the allowing and disallowing in our society. So, Dr. Paul’s signing of this pledge is not at all incompatible with his States' rights rhetoric. It is rather disingenuous of Biterman to make this charge. Did he not think that any Ron Paul supporter would look into it?

6) Paul is among the most vocal opponents of equal protection under the law in Congress

<<Why no link to any support for this charge? As it stands, it is a criticism without any foundation at all. Or is it Biterman’s view that Dr. Paul must prove himself innocent, rather than this critic demonstrating his flaw, thus turning on its head the usual, civilized assumption of innocent until proven guilty? What does it mean to oppose equal protection of all citizens? Does it mean that a politician wants to violate the rights of the downtrodden? If so, the very opposite is the case. The war on drugs disproportionately and negatively impacts the black community. Dr. Paul has bitterly opposed it, thus helping to better protect this segment of our populace. But, it is difficult to defend the next President of the U.S. on this point, since our critic is so unclear

5) Paul is among the most vocal opponents of Israel in Congress

<< Nonsense. No: nonsense on stilts. Dr. Paul is the best friend that Israel has in the entire Congress. He is among the few that favors Israeli independence. He speaks out in favor of the sovereignty of this country. U.S. foreign "aid" to Israel’s enemies is a multiple of what that country receives. Ending that program thus redounds to the benefit of Israel. See on this here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

4) Paul is among the most vocal defenders of earmarks in Congress

<<Earmarked funds are thus already consigned for expenditure. Ron Paul violates no libertarian axiom in attempting to divert some of them to his constituents who have paid for them through taxes. Earmarks also increase government transparency, surely a goal to be desired by libertarians. By the phrase "among the most" is a rather improper way of quantifying anything. Biterman should do his homework, if he wants to make these charges stick. He has not done so. For Ron Paul on this earmark charge, see here, here, here, and here.

3) Paul has the arrogance to want to redefine human life itself.

<< Yes, what "arrogance" on the part of an Ob-Gyn who has delivered some 4,000 babies. Who is Dr. Paul to define life as beginning at conception? Why, everyone knows, they just know, that life really begins at birth. Therefore, such horrors as partial birth abortion are entirely justified. I mean, the effrontery of the man! Here, I must agree with Biterman; Ron Paul is an arrogant would-be dictator, wanting to save the "lives" of mere bits of protoplasm, of no more moral importance than a cyst.

On a more serious note, this is part and parcel of what it means to be pro life. It is entirely legitimate for a libertarian to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. The libertarian community, as in the case of the population at large, is greatly divided on this issue. Thus, to make this into some sort of litmus test for libertarians is improper.

As it happens, I disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. I am neither pro life nor pro choice. I adopt a third alternative, the evictionist position. See on this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. But, do I oppose Congressman Paul’s campaign since he does not agree with me on this stupendously complicated issue, about which the greatest minds in libertarianism can come to no consensus? Of course not. I’m no Biterman.

Let me end this depressing section on a lighter note. Question: Do you know when the fetus is viable in the Jewish tradition? Answer: When it graduates from medical school.

2) His mean-spirited cult of supporters

<<Well, I suppose I’m one of them. I worship the very ground upon which Ron Paul treads. (Where’s the Kool Aid?) I’m meaner than a rattlesnake. Every other supporter of this Congressman from Texas is just like me in this regard. Nasty as the day is long.
Hey, a silly objection deserves a silly response

1) The racist Ron Paul newsletters, which Paul admitted writing in his 1996 Congressional campaign (see: Dallas Morning News, May 1996)

<< This old charge has been answered, and answered and answered once again. Only a mean-spirited cultist would bring it up once again at this late date.

Walter Block thanks the following people for valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article: Thomas Nash, Lew Rockwell. All remaining errors are of course his own responsibility.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Video: ABC This Week - Ron Paul Can Win In Iowa

2011-12-11T11:57:00.000-07:00

I thought Ron Paul did great in the debate last night and one observation I had was that he seemed to be more deliberate in his answers.

It's Us Against Them And Them Is Winning

2011-12-10T20:52:00.000-07:00

In the last few years we've seen two large movements by the American people; on the one side you have the limited-government, pro-liberty Tea Party and on the other there is the big government, pro-socialist Occupy Movement. Now the Tea Party has basically become a wholly owned subsidiary of GOP Inc and the Occupy Movement, which had a socialist bent to begin with, has been overrun by the unions, anarchists (the bad kind) and other assorted nitwits.

Both of these movements had little in common on the face, but in reality they were fighting for the same thing, the end of the corporately controlled Leviathan in DC, just from different perspectives. Both have also failed for the most part however, because the power elite was adept at using their subservient mediot drones to define both in such a way that would turn them into fringe movements, taking away much of their mainstream support.

So what do We the People need to do to put an end to the power elite's stranglehold on our Republic? Unfortunately, short of the complete collapse of our government, there is no simple answer to that question.

I wish I had an answer but issues are so polarized that there is no way that those on the left and the right can find common ground and with the current one party/two faction system we currently have inhabiting DC, along with the mediot lapdogs, both of whom are firmly in the back pocket of the power elite.

Until we wake up to reality, we will continued to be played against each other while the power elite stay out of the fray as they drag us and our nation down.

Video: Ron Paul In Iowa Talking To Fox News

2011-12-10T14:55:00.000-07:00

They can't ignore him much longer.

Just what will the GOP establishment do if Ron Paul comes in 1st or a close 2nd in Iowa? Scare the base into thinking he will cost the GOP the election of course.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Russians Protest Election Fraud

2011-12-10T13:27:00.000-07:00

The Russian Tea Party?

The Age

Up to 50,000 people have turned out in Moscow for a protest against disputed polls that have sparked a rare national show of defiance against Vladimir Putin's 12-year rule.

Hundreds of security trucks blocked off central squares while helicopters patrolled the skies as Moscow authorities deployed more than 50,000 riot police and troops on the biggest day of protest to hit Russia since the turbulent 1990s.

Protesters braved a whipping snow storm on Saturday to snake their way through tight police cordons and across the Moscow River to a secluded square not far from the Kremlin, assigned by the authorities for the "For Fair Elections" protest.

The demonstrations were the biggest to hit Moscow in more than a decade and rang what some saw as the first warning bell for ex-foreign agent Putin and his secretive inner circle of security chiefs.

Putin's party - bruised by corruption allegations and comparisons to the Soviet-era Communist Party - lost its tight grip on parliament while keeping a slim majority that its foes claim was exaggerated by a corrupt vote count.

Their complaints were supported by a flood of video footage shot by ordinary Russians and posted on the internet appearing to show ballot stuffing and other widespread manipulation.

TLP Quik Hits: Feds Demand Customer Lists From LDS Cannery

2011-12-09T21:21:00.000-07:00

First they'll take your guns, then they'll take your food and then they'll have your freedom.

Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers has learned that federal agents recently visited a Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church food storage cannery in Tennessee, demanding customer lists, wanting to know the identity of Americans who are purchasing food storage from the Mormons.

This incident was confirmed, in person, by Oath Keepers Tennessee Chapter President, Rand Cardwell. Here is Rand’s report:

“A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility relayed to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash-and-carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information. I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information.

This event points to a new level of federal government encroachment on the basic freedoms of the American people. Likewise, it points to a confused policy within federal agencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in their “Are You Ready?” guide to “In Depth Citizen Preparedness” recommends that citizens store emergency supplies, including bulk food, in the event of a natural disaster or man-made event (the new politically correct term applied to a terrorist attack). The FEMA guidance is spot-on as it allows individuals and families to be self-sufficient during an emergency situation.

TLP Quik Hits: ATF Used Fast & Furious To Promote Gun Control

2011-12-07T22:57:00.000-07:00

That is Leviathan's way after all; create the problem for them to later solve.

CBS News

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

Via Memeorandum

Infowars Exclusive: Government Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S.

2011-12-07T22:36:00.001-07:00

If you think I completely lost all sense of reality with last night's post about the Army looking for Internment/Resettlement Specialists and the connection to the Senate's passage of the McCain-Levin Amendment to the NDAA that allows for the indefinite detention of US citzens, you might want to read this before you pass me off as delusional.

Infowars.com

Infowars.com has received a document originating from Halliburton subsidiary KBR that provides details on a push to outfit FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled “Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements,” the document describes services KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. The document was passed on to us by a state government employee who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.

Internment Camp Services Bid Arrives After NDAA

KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrives soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.

Elements of the Police State Coming Together

The KBR document is more evidence that the federal government has established internment camps and plans to fill them with dissidents and anti-government activists that have been demonized consistently by the establishment media.

The NDAA was crafted precisely to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up activists it conflates with al-Qaeda terrorists. The plan was initially envisioned by Rex 84 and in particular Operation Garden Plot, an operational plan to use the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. in direct support of civil disturbance control operations. It has since added numerous elements under the rubric of Continuity of Government, the overall war on terror, civil disturbance and emergency response.

The government has patiently put into place the crucial elements of its police state grid and overarching plan for the internment of political enemies.

We are quite literally one terror event away from the plan going live. As the DHS and the establishment media keep telling us, the next terror event will be on American soil and not the work of al-Qaeda but domestic patriot political groups. The FBI has specialized in creating domestic terrorists – or rather patsies – and shifting the blame over to their political enemies.

Read the rest here

TLP Quik Hits: The Twelve Days Of Fascism

2011-12-07T21:24:00.000-07:00

Sing along Citizen; with feeling.

The Twelve Days of Fascism
by Robert Hawes

On the first day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
The status of detainee.

On the second day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the third day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the fourth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the fifth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the sixth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the seventh day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the eighth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the ninth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the tenth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Ten healthcare mandates,
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

On the eleventh day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Eleven tasers tasing,
Ten healthcare mandates,
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee..

On the twelfth day of fascism,
Obama gave to me:
Twelve markets crashing,
Eleven tasers tasing,
Ten healthcare mandates,
Nine endless wars,
Eight secret courts,
Seven TSA gropings,
Six FEMA coffins,
Five waterboards,
Four no-fly lists,
Three raw milk raids,
Two sneak-peek searches,
And the status of detainee.

Help Wanted - Internment / Resettlement Specialist

2011-12-06T23:26:00.000-07:00

H/T BBCW

So the Senate passes a bill to allow for the indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial and the Army is looking for Internment/Resettlement Specialists who will "Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility".

Now this could be just me, and a whole lot of other folks, being paranoid, but when you see other strange coincidences like the attempt to memory hole Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory episode entitled Police State that dealt with FEMA Camps and Fusion Centers, the RAND Corporation study A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Creating U.S. Capabilities that outlines the creation of a Stability Police Force (SPF) in the US for use "in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control" and all the Forth Amendment shenanigans of the last year, it make you really wonder if is just paranoia.

Things are bad and the power elite know it. Why else would they be throwing barrels of money to keep the European economy, that is on the brink of disaster, afloat? They will do anything they can to keep the dam from bursting and wiping out their hegemony. Now it could be argued that this is really part of the scheme to extract every nickle they can by intentionally creating the crises and bringing the house of cards down. Regardless, they are going to come out on top.

So I come back to the strange coincidence of a bill that indefinitely detains Americans, the Army's need for Internment Specialists and the RAND report; is there more than meets the eye here?

By now you're probably thinking that I've seen V For Vendetta and Nineteen Eighty-Four one too many times, and I probably have, but it also reminds me of that classic line from Goldfinger "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

TLP Quik Hits: Ron Paul - Big Dog

2011-12-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

Great new Ron Paul ad.

TLP Quik Hits: Herman Cain Supporters Flock To Ron Paul

2011-12-05T22:13:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the R3volution.

PRWEB

An online community created in support of Herman Cain for president has now shifted its allegiance to Congressman Ron Paul, notes Revolution PAC. The administrator of HermanCainForums.com, a website with more than 18,000 registered members, publicly endorsed Rep. Paul Saturday following news that Cain dropped from the Republican primary race.

“I had always liked a lot of what Ron Paul advocates. I don't agree with him on everything but probably 90 percent,” the administrator, identified by the screen name 'Constitution,' said in a post Saturday. “I am going to encourage all Ron Paul supporters to come here and openly support Ron Paul … He is now my new official candidate for president.”

The HermanCainForums.com founder says he is backing Rep. Paul despite calls to throw his support behind Newt Gingrich. In the same Saturday post, the individual refuses support to Gingrich because he is said to favor individual mandates, support the Patriot Act, have taken millions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while touting the companies’ stability, have taken more than $35 million via his think tank from health care industry lobbies that supported individual mandates, have supported the bailout and support global warming/climate change.

TLP Quik Hits: Issa Expands Fast & Furious Probe To Include Alleged Money Laundering

2011-12-05T20:25:00.000-07:00

The Libertarian Patriot was one of the first to bring you this story yesterday.

From the NYT story you can see just how effective this operation has been.

Last year, the D.E.A. seized about $1 billion in cash and drug assets, while Mexico seized an estimated $26 million in money laundering investigations, a tiny fraction of the estimated $18 billion to $39 billion in drug money that flows between the countries each year.

If Eric Holder still has a job by the end of the week, I'll be very surprised.

The Hill

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has requested a briefing with the Justice Department over a news report that U.S. law enforcement officials helped Mexican drug cartels launder millions of dollars into the country.

The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee made the request in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he questioned DOJ head’s ability to lead the agency.

Issa has been investigating the DOJ’s authorization of a botched gun-tracking operation for most of the year and has increasingly criticized Holder, who is set to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

“The existence of such a program again calls your leadership into question,” said Issa in his letter. “The managerial structure you have implemented lacks appropriate operational safeguards to prevent the implementation of such dangerous schemes. The consequences have been disastrous.”

According to an article published in the New York Times on Sunday, undercover agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) helped transport millions of dollars in cash across the U.S.-Mexico border in an effort to study and dismantle the trafficking routes of drug cartels.

Via Memeorandum