I am very much looking forward to the GOP debate tonight.  The Florida primary has the possiblility to make footnotes out of frontrunners.  This is the last chance the candidates have to point up differences, strengths and weaknesses before the state holds it's primary next week.   It promises to be a good debate, and, no doubt, entertaining.

With the exit of Fred Thompson, the second Thompson to bow out of the GOP primary, the field is narrowed to 5 candidates running national campaigns.  2 of them, Huckabee and Giuliani, are reported to be out of money, asking aides to work for free.  A 3rd, McCain, has had money problems practically since his campaign began.  For McCain and Giuliani, Florida is a must win, for Huckabee, perhaps a swan song.

Romney keeps moving, buying votes as quickly as he can.  Florida probably wouldn't end his race, unless he comes in dead last with a zero by his percentage mark.  Even then, I feel he'd be willing to finance himself through the convention.

Paul, on the other hand, continues to rake in money from his supporters, to the tune of millions a day, whenever they decide he needs a boost.  He could probably be financed until November, no matter who gets the GOP nomination, should he choose to keep his name in the hat.  As far as buzz goes, Paul is the only candidate generating any new buzz for himself.  The four candidates dubbed 'front-runners' by the media have failed to build on their momentum, even after winning the traditional early primarys and caucuses.

With the near media blackout of Paul, time may be his biggest enemy. Super Tuesday is right around the corner and many die-hard Republican faithful still haven't heard his message.  Instead, they have had to rely on the media, who have failed to cover him, giving more time to his rivals. 

It will be very interesting to see what strategy the candidates employ, tonight.  Which candidate will atttack, on what basis, etc...  I'm very excited. 

I didn't watch the debate of the Fox News Channel last night.  I have been somewhat boycotting Fox ever since Chris Wallace almost admitted he takes his 'marching orders from al quaida'.  I did, however, watch the debates on ABC Saturday night.  It seemed as though none of the candidates were very knowledgable on economic issues, save, of course, Ron Paul. 

I read an article on CBS' website this morning that accused Huckabee of attempting to steal Ron Paul's economic platform during the Fox 'debate'.  I guess he realized where he was coming up short, and, in Dr. Paul's absence, figured he could steal a little piece for himself.  The problem with that is the fact he had never considered the economical implications of fiat money before Ron Paul came along.  I don't think I want a President who changes his rhetoric to match what's popular.  I want someone who is true to his principles, not just a Bible thumper... I want someone who understands the free market, capitalistic democracy that made America great is the most compassionate system. 

Ron Paul had to explain the fiat system to Fred Thompson Saturday night.  I most certainly don't want a President who has been in government, the Senate no less, and still doesn't understand how our monetary system works.  Thompson is far too lazy.  I get the impression that he would be slow to act in a national emergency.  Romney would probably call his lawyers to find out what to do.

Giuliani and McCain are dead in the water.  McCain may do well in New Hampshire, but I don't know of a single southerner who would even consider voting for McCain.  His alienation of the religious right has placed him in the un-electable category in the south.  Giuliani just has no appeal, other than his clamourous interjections of '9/11', and that's been growing old, of late. 

The most informed and electable candidate is Ron Paul.  He fared as well as Thompson and McCain in Iowa, and utterly destroyed Giuliani.  The chameleon characteristics of Huckabee, coached by former Clinton campaign staff, have garnered him the coveted victory in Iowa, but in this age of instant communication, he won't last much longer.  Romney has bought 2nd place in Iowa, and may do so in New Hampshire, but he will find that buying votes becomes much harder in the fiercely independent and religiously protestant south.  Paul understands our economy better.  He understand that all other planks in the platform are connected to the economy.  This, I believe, gives him the best shot at actually taking the nomination.

In his latest editorial rant on World Net Daily, Joseph Farah once again makes me wonder what type of beverages he imbibes before sitting down to the keyboard. First, he takes a swipe at Ron Paul's supporters (also known as Americans) before lambasting Ron Paul for voting AGAINST legislation that would increase taxes. Farah is spinning so fast he must have sustained brain damage if he thinks, for a second, that any common sense American will fall for this venomous blather. Being intellectually dishonest is still dishonest, Mr. Farah. Being dishonest is lying, and lying will earn you a place in the hottest hot-tub of all time. You'd think an alleged Christian would know this.

I've read WND on a nearly daily basis for several years, but in the last year I've started to see through Farah's veneer. Vox Day is the only thing worth reading over there, anymore. I find myself not even visiting the site for weeks. Farah used to seem so down to earth, as did many other former conservates who are jumping aboard the neo-con bandwagon. These guys who made the conservative movement so strong in the '90s have become too arrogant and conceited to be taken seriously.

Still, that doesn't explain why a former conservative like Farah would attack a fellow conservative like Paul by making such a Clintonian-type argument. Could it be he's afraid Chuck Norris will put him in a submission hold if he doesn't spin for Huckabee? Honestly, I don't know, or care, who Farah supports in the election. He's made his bias against Ron Paul so well-known I doubt I'll ever read what he writes again without rolling my eyes.

I've been meaning to blog this for a while, I just haven't gotten around to scanning it...

I rec'd the New Republican Agenda survey from Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate GOP Leader, a few weeks back, and was really appalled by the questions it asks. Firstly, it asks "Should we continue taking the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR to the terrorists, capturing their leaders and freezing their financial assets wherever possible?" Then it gives a Y, N or U (for undecided) bubble space. I believe the emphasis was in the wrong place. It should have read, "Should we START taking the global war on terror to the terrorists..." I would have selected Y, if it were worded that way. I still hear of Bin Laden tapes, and threats from time to time. It seems as though we haven't taken the fight to him much at all, after Afghanistan.

The second question asks about dismantling North Korea and Iran's nuclear weapons programs. Well, this one is pretty much moot, now that we've discovered North Korea has stopped theirs, and Iran hasn't had one for over 4 years.

The third one was a resounding yes, for me, as it asked about supporting the troops.

The fourth question seemed too vague to answer.

The fifth was, again, too vague, as it didn't define what a 'known terrorist' is. If the government gets to decide who is a terrorist without letting us know what criteria they used, I give this an unequivical N for NO.

The sixth question is unneccessary. We already HAVE legislation in place that would protect our border, congress just isn't ACTING on it. If they're going to act as expediently with 'further' measures as they have with the present ones, what's the friggin' point?

Seven is where I started getting mad. Why is McConnell asking ME how to enforce the law? He's a LAWMAKER! When something is ILLEGAL, you treat it as a crime. The punishment for the crime of illegal immigration is deportation. If congress hadn't been sitting on it's sizable patoot, twiddling it's fingers while our border security became overwhelmed, ignoring the CAUSES for illegal immigration, and, instead, REWARDING the criminals, we wouldn't even have this question to answer at all!

As many times as I've heard GOP candidates complain about having to answer Y or N questions in debates, I'm really surprised at the idiocy of this so-called survey. Sorry Mitch, I'm not going to return this. The Republicans in my voting precinct are insulted by it.

Who paid for this thing? I certainly hope it wasn't the taxpayers!

Below are scans of the inside pages of the 'survey':



Click links below for a closer look! You'll really enjoy it.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_EeDFQLYBJy0/R2g4uYAvKNI/AAAAAAAAANc/eiaN9XeY700/s1600-h/NEWGOPAGENDA1.jpg

http://bp1.blogger.com/_EeDFQLYBJy0/R2g4nIAvKMI/AAAAAAAAANU/D0S9_HQk3Wk/s1600-h/NEWGOPAGENDA2.jpg

Yesterday was historic.  Ron Paul, the 'old-school' Republican from Texas' 14th congressional district, has inspired another record-breaking fundraising drive.  In remembrance of the Boston Tea Party, Paul supporters managed to raise over $6 million in 24 hours, pushing total fundraising for the 4th quarter over the $18 million mark.  That's unbelievable for a candidate most media outlets still call 'fringe' or 'long-shot'.

The fact is, Ron Paul is NOT a fringe candidate, and neither is he a long-shot.  He registers higher than some of the so-called 'top-tier' candidates in polls.  This fundraiser was huge.  If the media continues to virtually ignore Paul, the distrust for those media outlets will continue to rise, and probably proportionate to the money he raises. 

The new (psuedo) conservatives should be afraid.  Very afraid.  They've ventured too far from the ideals their party was founded upon and the people are letting them know what they think about it.  You see it in the new rhetoric from these neo-conservative Presidential candidates.  These formerly social and fiscal liberals are now trying to sound like Ron Paul, calling for the elimination of the IRS, reducing entitlements, and respecting the 2nd amendment.  They might fool some with this flip-flop, but not all.  Certainly not those who sent their hard-earned money to fund the campaign of the true patriot, Ron Paul. 

Whenever you hear the name Ron Paul in the media, it's qualified with the terms 'dark-horse', 'fringe', 'long-shot' or some other derogatory adjective.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there has been a bias against Paul since he announced his candidacy.  Even when Huckabee was trailing Paul in the polls, which only recently changed, the former Arkansas governor was rarely given these negative monikers.  Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, who barely show up in the polls, have rarely been given these epithets, either.  Why?

Is it Ron Paul's stance against the continued military presence in Iraq?  But that doesn't make him fringe, it makes him the only GOP candidate holding firm to the Republican party platform.  Non-interventionism is a long-held Republican policy.  You go to war when it's necessary, and come home when it's over.  The Democrats are the ones who want a global US presence, overextending and overspending until we can't sustain our own economy.

 

So if it's not Iraq, what makes him 'fringe'?  He is for dramtically smaller government by doing away with all the acronym agencies.  Many still remember Ronald Reagan's speech during the 1964 GOP convention when he railed against these exact same bureaucratic departments, calling for their abolition.  That certainly doesn't make Paul in the fringe.  If anything, it puts him at the forefront of conservative thought.

 

Is it his hard-money arguments?  With the rapid drop in the value of the dollar, many see a precious metals standard as the only viable alternative.  Even Alan Greenspan, former FED chairman and often target of Paul's economic criticism now seems to agree with the congressman, indicating that a dual-currency system would be a very good option.  This most assuredly doesn't make him a 'fringe' candidate.

I can't find a reason to call Ron Paul 'fringe'.  Why, then, do the media outlets continue to perpetrate the myth that this is the case?  Are they in possession of some information that would make this apparent?  Or maybe it's because he doesn't cow to the media conglomerates.  The vitriol heard in the voices of the personality-pundits as they emphasize the word 'fringe' certainly does make one suspicious.

I argue that the new conservatives, or neo-conservatives, as they call themselves, are the 'fringe'.  They're the ones who've hijacked the GOP, making it a left-leaning, neo-fascist party.  They even go as far as to accuse those who are traditional conservatives of being radical outsiders.  These 'neo-cons' who pay lip-service to traditional values, while doing their best to destroy them are the real 'fringe'. 

Found this list today. It's a terrifying list of one-time Clinton friends who have passed away.  If accurate, one would certainly hope this is only a tragic coincidence. 

1-James McDougal - Clinton's convicted White water partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement.
He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

2 -Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown . The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3- Vince Foster - Former White House counselor and colleague of Hillary
Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4- Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the air Traffic controller committed suicide.

5- C. Victor Raiser II- Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992

6-Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock , September 1992. Described by Clinton as a 'dear friend and trusted advisor'.

7-Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8-Jerry Parks -Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock . Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9-James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a 'Black Book' of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas .

10-James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent
hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

11-Kathy Ferguson- Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head.
It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

12-Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiance of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruli ng of his fiance, he was found dead in June,
1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiance.

13-Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

14- Florence Martin - Accountant & subcontractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mean Airportdrug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.

15- Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

16-Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

17-Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18- Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 'October Surprise' was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington , DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

19-Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from hisArlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

20-Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

21-Charles Meissner -Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

22- Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane&nbs p;crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and brother.

23-Barry Seal -Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas , death was no accident.

24- Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25- Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

27-Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as 'The boys on the track' case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

28-Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

29- Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

30-Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31-Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.

33-James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to 'natural causes'.

34-Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

35-Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:

36 -Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37-Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38-Sgt. Brian Hanley
39-Sgt. Tim Sabel
40-Major General William Robertson
41-Col. William Densberger
42-Col. Robert Kelly&nb sp;
43-Spec. Gar y Rhodes
44-Steve Willis
45-Robert Williams
46-Conway LeBleu
47-Todd McKeehan

I went to a meeting of the Tri-County Ron Paul meetup group, Saturday night. The meeting was great, with good food and fellowship. I met some very intelligent, thoughtful people and had a great time.

Aside from the group members, there was another young man in attendance from the state of Hawaii, Michael Maresco. How did he get to Pintlala, AL? By bicycle!

His journey began as a walk for Ron Paul, canvassing one of the islands of Hawaii on foot, campaigning and handing out fliers. It took him 5 days, during which he covered 150 miles. His intent was to generate enthusiasm for his local meetup group, and inspire action among Ron Paul supporters. It worked.

After his walk, support was strong for some sort of similar activity on the mainland. After weighing their options, Michael and another young man decided to bicycle across the country. Although qualified for sea faring, having logged thousands of miles in fishing vessels, etc... Michael flew to Los Angeles to begin his journey across the country to Washington D.C. Last night, he pedaled into Hope Hull, Alabama.

I don't know of any other presidential campaign, EVER, that had this type of enthusiasm. Paul has a blimp, a record-breaking fundraising day, sign-makers everywhere, people willing to travel hundreds of miles just to attend a Ron Paul rally. And he has people willing to give up months of their lives to travel cross-country on a bike to promote Ron Paul. That's amazing.

You can find the website and blog for the Ron Paul Riders HERE.

http://www.ronpaulriders.com/

I don't really understand how they can still call these things debates.  They're more like candidate Q&A sessions.  The only debate I've seen in ANY of the GOP 'debates' is between Ron Paul and whoever wanted to be his victim for the night.  Arguing over who had the best/worst record isn't really a productive debate, as I've aruged before. 

Here's my take on their performances, graded on an A-F scale.  What I'm grading is overall performance, not emotion.  I'll leave that to the dems.

Let's do it alphabetically:

Giuliani:  D-  His attack on Romney very early could have been very promising, had he not completely dropped the ball, let Romney pick it up and run 30 yards into Giuliani territory.  His other points seemed to be defensive, and he seemed to lose any momentum.

Huckabee:  B-  He kept himself mostly clear of obstacles, stumbling only when he tried to rebut the video clip of him begging the Arkansas legislature to raise taxes.  He didn't really contribute to the debate relative to the time he was given, though, and his psuedo Joel Osteen delivery is a little over-the-top for some tastes.

Hunter:  C+  He was there, but didn't really pull his weight.  His attempt to teach firearm safety to a Youtube questioner seemed only funny to him.  He really seemed to waste his time. He had far more to offer than his performance last night indicated.

McCain:  D-  His attack on Ron Paul somewhat backfired.  I would think his ammunition would have been better spent on Giuliani, Romney or Thompson.  He also fired blanks when he admitted he didn't own a gun.  That's liberal talk to most 2nd Amendment Americans.  He came across as uncertain of what point he wanted to make.

Paul:  A-  He wasn't given much time, but did very well in the short time allotted.  He finished well, and I think that probably helped him more than anything.  He also successfully deflected an attack from John McCain on Iraq when he pointed out that more military had contributed to his campaign than any other.

Romney:  D  He held his own against Giuliani, but it wasn't enough.  The core conservative issues continued to dog him throughout the evening.  He failed to articulate well enough on a few attacks that seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Tancredo:  C-  Big smile.  Not enough red meat.  He has so much to offer, but failed to take advantage of the time he was allowed, albeit a very short time it was.  Had he more time, he probably could have improved, although he may have slid even more if he didn't get back on message.

Thompson:  B+  Slowly but surely, he trudged out his answers, each followed by a cough or an extended 'UH'.  He stayed on message, though, and never offended.  I think he was the only person to not draw groans or boos.  He made successful attacks that exposed holes.  Had he been less mumbly and more direct, he could have made a shot for the top spot.  He was too lethargic, though, to hit the needed pace.

I don't know if I've ever heard so many so-called Republicans spout off liberal ideologies as if they were mainstream.  In all, I think the 2 hours of watching 7 of them waste time talking about who was the least liberal was worth the :30 second Ron Paul commercial.  I think it really summed up what most traditional Republicans are starting to feel: Revolutionary.

The top story on Drudge right now has a headline reading, "Bin Laden to air message to Europeans".  That angers me to no end.  Over 6 years have passed since the attacks on 911.  We're fighting a war on two fronts, yet Bin Laden is still blabbering, and, no doubt, plotting his next move.  When are we going to get this worthless scumbag?  Why are we spending so much time, effort and money on Iraq, when Bin Laden is in Pakistan?  I don't understand it.  Someone, please, explain it to me.

Why are we sending so much money to these countries that are KNOWN to support terrorists?  Why aren't we giving Pakistan the same ultimatum we gave Afghanistan?  Truth be told, we probably shouldn't have given either one the time to let Bin Laden escape.  We should have let our expert private military groups go in and do what they do best.  Instead, we're using our private, search-and-destroy military contractors for SECURITY!  What kind of sense does that make?  Instead of spending the billions upon billions to invade countries that had no terrorists, why didn't we just make a reward of billions upon billions for the capture of Bin Laden and his ilk? 

No longer feeling any pressure to 'build a case' against a perceived enemy, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is quoted as saying, "I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon."

Here's the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/powell_iran_1

This vindicates many who have long argued the case that Iran is an emerging nation far too underdeveloped to pose a threat to the United States. 

In my teens, my church had a pastor, James Katsinas, who was a very intelligent man.  I admired and somewhat emulated him, to a degree.  He was up on current and world events like no one I've known before or since.  Our church sustained a massive revival with him as pastor. 

Pastor Katsinas never turned the pulpit into a political arena, but he wasn't afraid to speak his mind in a thoughtful, informative manner.   Aside from his first task of preaching the Gospel, he wasn't afraid to speak about current politics.  He  warned of the New World Order President H. W. Bush was promoting, but hailed Bush's pro-life stance.  He strongly advocated evangelism, but urged respect of others' beliefs. He promoted faith and logic and the 'Word rightly divided', as the motto goes.

Back then, pastors like Katsinas were a lot more common.  There was a lot less knee-jerking and more thoughtful meditation.  People respected a person like that.  Christianity prospered, and a lot of charitable work was done in the name of Christian ethics.

It seems modern pastors want to make you feel good, or say what seems popular, but don't want to teach you anything useful.  I can remember Bro. Katsinas talking about all kinds of subjects.  He never used conjecture or relayed unproven facts.  If someone talked about something they heard through the grapevine, he would exhort everyone to remember that it wasn't proven, and that facts should base our beliefs, not hearsay.

Recently, I was talking to some of my friends about politics.  One, who is a pentecostal, said that he would support Bush to the end because a preacher told him that 'someone' heard Bush speaking in tongues in the oval office.  I asked who that 'someone' was, and when this 'tongues' incident happened.  He couldn't tell me.  It sounded like gossip, to me... and, anyway, whether or not Bush is pentecostal seems inconsequential to how his performance as President should be evaluated.

This is becoming a problem in the church.  Our conservative leaders are promoting hearsay, instead of the Truth.  If Bush is a fundamentalist Christian, good for him... but I certainly don't see that as a reason to blindly follow him.  You hear preachers admonishing their congregations to support Bush, simply because he's our President.  I say PRAY for Bush, but, if he's wrong, you shouldn't just blindly support him.