The Neointellectual

Chris Dodd,now head of MPAA laments that people ”can say whatever they want” about #SOPA #stopsopa #tcot #tlot #p2

.....”The developments were a setback for former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who has made fighting online piracy his No. 1 priority since becoming head of the Motion Picture Assn. of America last March. The Connecticut Democrat was selected in part for his political savvy and 30-year experience in Congress.

Dodd said Friday that the industry would now seek a compromise version of the legislation. He acknowledged that Hollywood lost the public relations battle and blamed his Silicon Valley counterparts.

"You've got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there's no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want," he said. "We need to engage in a far better education process. People need to know … that 98% of people who work in the entertainment industry make $55,000 a year. They're not moguls and they're not walking red carpets.".....

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-hollywood-post-sopa-20120121,0,300154.story

RRD:This is not the first time that statists have complained about the alleged lack of a "fact checker" on the internet,by which they presumably mean a "independent" fact checker,who works for the government,and polices the web for "lies" directed against government officials and laws.(fn1)Nor do I suspect it will be the last.Of course there is a "fact checker" built into the law:The First Amendment.Countless groups and individuals can and do fact check stories at Politifact,Factcheck,Snopes etc,(and some in turn fact check those sites' "facts")It was bloggers who used their ”unfactchecked” blogs,to check the facts of Dan Rather.

”Oh,Robert you're being unfair,he wasn't advocating censorship....”.Which universe are we living in?
The one where we should afford the benefit of the doubt to lying statist politicians(see below)?

If he wanted to criticize Facebook,Wikipedia,Google and Wordpress why not just say"They're wrong,here's why",why use this phrase: "You've got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there's no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want," without a fact-checker?What kind of "fact-checker"?From where?Who is the MPAA's "fact checker"?
Who is Dodd's?
And why is it outlandish for Facebook,Wikipedia,and Google to object to laws that they think will harm their businesses?
Don't they have a right to speak on their own website?
Or to shut it down if they wished?
Again why this phrase:" "You've got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there's no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,".
Dodd is the representative of a multi-billion industry,which has vast resources at its disposal to argue for their case night and day,and to lobby congress,and they do just that.I have not argued that the problem,or a problem,is that Dodd "can say whatever he wants",I've said that he's wrong.

The solution to(allegedly) false speech is more speech,not to bewail the fact that "people can say whatever they want",which is a vital right,and which is one of the key features of a free society that distinguishes it from a dictatorship.(And it cuts both ways,Dodd etal have the same right to say "whatever they want" though since Dodd and his collegues speak TRUTH and the rest of us who oppose him speak LIES,I suspect that he would argue that there is no comparison).

Chris Dodd is a former Senator,& advocate of Cap & Trade.

Chris Dodd: Dodd Touts Energy Plan At Biodiesel Plant, Kitchen Tables In Southeast Iowa | All American Patriots: Politics, economy, health, environment, energy and technology

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48722990_2008_presidential_election_chris_dodd_dodd_touts_energy_plan_biodiesel_plant_kitchen_tables

And a man who ruled out lobbying after he ended his Senate career:

Chris Dodd on life after the U.S. Senate - Capitol Watch

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2010/03/chris-dodd-on-life-after-the-u.html

Dodd said he will not lobby, but, like Hagel and Nunn, he may teach

Dodd forswears a lobbying career | The Connecticut Mirror

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7485/lawmakerlobbyists

...."No lobbying, no lobbying," Dodd said in a recent interview. That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington's "revolving door," using his policy and political expertise--and a thick Rolodex--to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise”...

Dodd to be Hollywood's top man in Washington - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/personnel-notes/146769-mpaa-names-former-sen-chris-dodd-chairman-a-ceo

....“Sen. Dodd is a battle-tested leader whose reputation as a strong leader on major issues facing this country has prepared him to serve as the ambassador for the movie business. I, along with my colleagues, agree that he was worth the wait,” said Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman Jim Gianopulos in a statement, joining his fellow studio bosses in cheering Dodd’s hiring.”...

RRD:But Robert why do you cite this?Are you saying that because a statist is one of those leading the charge for SOPA that that invalidates arguments for it?
Not at all.
Ron Wyden is one of SOPA's leading opponents and a longtime supporter of Socialized Medicine,it does not logically follow that all opponents of SOPA are either advocates of Socialized Medicine,or dupes of Wyden,any more than SOPA supporters are dupes of Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy
(e.g. now ex-SOPA/PIPA supporter Marsha Blackburn).
It is certainly true that some SOPA supporters are irrational,as are some SOPA opponents.That does not address the specific criticisms of the bill:that it is vague,violates due process,breaks or damages the internet by damaging the DNS system(which is a highly technical matter requiring technical expertise to evaluate,forcing layman to evaluate the arguments & credibility of various experts in the field.),Other arguments have been presented on those matters but saying,in effect,that:”Since some of SOPA's critics were irrational on some past issues,their arguments about SOPA breaking the net must be wrong”,is not a valid argument.There are many cases of otherwise rational people who make irrational arguments on some issues,and other cases where otherwise irrational people make rational arguments on some issues.
And there are cases where a rational person and a irrational person make the same argument, though for different motives.
(And this does not even take into account the cases of people,with flawless past records for rationality,simply making mistakes).
It is for precisely this reason that I look at the argument rather than the man.It is true,as I noted,that there are highly technical issues in which one is forced,to a degree,to trust in expert witnesses.But even in those cases,the matter is complicated by the fact that experts do not always agree,and also by cases where a good person,with a good philosophy,gets it wrong,and a person with a bad philosophy,happens to be simply better versed in a particular technical issue(science,medicine,engineering etc),and is right.
(And what does one do when the person with the most expertise in a field,has a bad philosophy?)
This is precisely why any law that affects the technology underlying the internet,or that may harm it,( in the opinion of some experts in the field),must be subject to the most intense scrutiny.
We have far too much evidence of the government smashing peoples lives to pieces and then saying "oops",(and in some cases not even that).The cases range all through all branches of government,from false imprisonment and accusations and wrongful executions,to banning life saving medications,to using "reason",and "science" to ban DDT at the cost of countless lives,to taking down a internet site under existing laws,and then,returning it a year later.(fn2),to accept the argument that ”abuses happen”.
It is precisely for that reason,that abuses can occur under any legal doctrine no matter how well crafted,that the law must be very carefully vetted,against anything that needlessly violates individual rights.(Or that can be misinterpreted).
Lord knows we have far too many cases of the courts,or the executive,or Congress,ignoring the plain meaning of existing laws without making the Statist's job easier for them.

Footnotes.

fn1.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/cass_sunsteins_despicable_idea.html

fn2

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/03385017020/ice-admits-to-returning-domain-while-riaa-threatens-dajaz1-with-more-legal-actions.shtml

(As I have noted before,posting a link does NOT imply agreement with everything said)

Obama is following you. #2012 #ocra #tcot #tlot

”Obama for America NC @OFA_NC is now following you (@reeddaly).

OFA_NC Obama for America NC Official Obama for America- North Carolina Account. Follow us for updates on 2012 campaign action, learn about events, and connect with other supporters. North Carolina”

RRD:I have blocked them and all related accounts.Should I disappear never to be heard from again,avenge me at the voting booth!(sarcasm).

Vint Cerf one of the ”fathers of the internet" explains why he believes that #SOPA will damage the internet infrastructure #stopsopa #tcot #tlot #p2 #teaparty

Vint Cerf: SOPA means 'unprecedented censorship' of the Web | Privacy Inc. - CNET

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57344028-281/vint-cerf-sopa-means-unprecedented-censorship-of-the-web/

"By way of background, I am a Vice President and the Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. I also serve as a Fellow of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and I am a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

I have held positions at MCI, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Stanford University, UCLA and IBM. Until 2007 I served as chairman of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and I was the founding president of the Internet Society.

As one of the "fathers of the Internet" and as a computer scientist I care deeply about issues relating to the Internet's infrastructure. In that spirit I wish to join the Internet and cybersecurity experts who have already expressed concern about the original version of SOPA's DNS provisions. Former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker, Sandia National Laboratories, small businesses such as OpenDNS, inter-industry groups such as the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), five leading DNS engineers (Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson, and Paul Vixie), and dozens of individual security experts have detailed these concerns in previous letters.

Unfortunately, the amendments to SOPA do not resolve the fundamental flaws in this legislation; the bill will still undermine cybersecurity including the robust implementation of DNS Security Extensions, known more commonly as DNSSEC.

Section 102(e)(2)(i) continues to require service providers to block access to sites. While that provision no longer mandates DNS blocking in order to accomplish that goal, it still permits falsifying IP addresses in response to domain name resolution requests. Any response that provides a false IP address triggers potential damage to the intent of DNSSEC.

If these changes were meant to dispel the concerns of the security community, then they fall far short of the mark. The Section 102(e)(2)(ii) "safe harbor" effectively singles out the manipulation of DNS as the preferred mechanism for blocking access to sites. A key presumption in the Internet design and architecture is the global consistency of DNS lookup responses.

I continue to have concerns regarding the efficacy and wisdom of this legislation. First, attempts to manipulate DNS will reduce the utility of DNS as our chief mechanism for locating sites, and encourage abusers to adopt alternative mechanisms, such as IP address lists. Second, clients of the infringing content can readily change their DNS settings to utilize offshore DNS resolvers. Third, sites dedicated to infringement have many options for evading these measures, such as registering multiple domain names with offshore registries in order to stay ahead of court orders. Fourth, falsifying responses to domain name resolution requests will compromise the "downgrade resistance" of next-generation improvements to DNSSEC, because systems that do not receive a signed answer from a resolver will fall back to accepting unsigned responses to resolve a domain name.

Thus, even with the proposed manager's amendment, SOPA's site-blocking provisions remain problematic. They would undermine the architecture of the Internet and obstruct the 15 year effort by the public and private sectors to improve cybersecurity through implementation of DNSSEC, a critical set of extensions designed to address security vulnerabilities in the DNS.

This collateral damage of SOPA would be particularly regrettable because site blocking or redirection mechanisms are unlikely to make a significant dent in the availability of infringing material and counterfeits online, given that DNS manipulation can be defeated by simply choosing an offshore DNS resolution provider, maintaining one's own local DNS cache or using direct IP address references.

The search engine remedy also suffers from the fact that it will not be effective in preventing users' access to illegal, offshore websites. A congressional "tech mandate" on search engines to delete a domain name from search results does not result in the website disappearing. Users can and do today find their way to these websites largely without the help of search engines. Relative to the questionable efficacy of this proposed remedy, requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented "censorship" of the Web.

Rather than continuing to promote ineffective and harmful "technical" solutions as those found in the managers' amendment to SOPA, I urge Congress to pursue a more tailored, effective approach, such as the "follow-the-money" tactic. Such an approach would cut off funding mechanisms to rogue foreign sites by withholding their ability to generate advertising revenue and their ability to have payments processed."

Sincerely,

Vint Cerf

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone” #sopa #stopsopa #tcot #tlot #p2

http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm

RRD:Recently a individual essentially told us to dismiss most criticism of SOPA.He asked us to look at their motives,& their past statements.I don't think that past hyperbolic statements by individuals,pro or con regarding IP laws invalidate future arguments.After all,circumstances may change.
But since this person does, I wonder why the past statements of Laurence Lessig etc,which did not pan out,invalidate oppostion to SOPA,but this beaut,from Valenti, doesn't invalidate the pro-SOPA arguments?

”I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone”

Software piracy charges said to be used against Kremlin critics #SOPA #censorship

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-pirate10.1.7425653.html

On Anonymous's hacking & IP Rights,& Prof.Mossoff. #SOPA #stopsopa #aynrand #objectivist #objectivism

In case anyone believes otherwise.(Which I doubt)I do believe in protecting Intellectual Property rights.I do not support,condone or excuse Anonymous's hacking.I condemn it.Full stop.And yes I still oppose SOPA & until I am persuaded otherwise to the satisfaction of MY MIND I will continue to oppose it.No,I am not persuaded by Prof.Mossoff's post.And no I do not have time to rebut it now.Like Prof.Mossoff my time is limited.I will respond at my discretion.If you think this marks me a a enemy of freedom MAKE THE MOST OF IT.

Sincerely

RRD

He's insane/Jewish newspaper owner suggests Israel consider 'hit' on Obama - #Israel News, Ynetnews #jcot #tcot

He's insane/Jewish newspaper owner suggests Israel consider 'hit' on Obama - Israel News, Ynetnews

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4178513,00.html

RRD:I have no patience for insanity from my enemies & even less from ”friends” such as this lunatic.

#CNNdebate transcript for #scprimary #Romney #Newt & #Santorum on #Obamacare

South Carolina GOP CNN debate, Jan. 19, 2012. Transcript - Lynn Sweet

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/south_carolina_gop_cnn_debate_.html

....”Number two,we have to go after a complete repeal. (Cheers, applause.) And that's going to have to have to happen -- that -- that's going to have to happen with -- with a House and a Senate, hopefully that are Republican. If we don't have a Republican majority, I think we're going to be able to convince some Democrats that when the American people stand up loud and clear and say, we do not want "Obamacare," we do not want the higher taxes, we do not want a $500 billion cut in Medicare to pay for "Obamacare," I think you're going to see the American people stand with our president and say, let's get rid of "Obamacare."

But we'll replace it. And I've -- and I've laid out what I'll replace it with. First, it's a bill that does care for people that have pre-existing conditions. If they've got a pre-existing condition and they've been previously insured, they won't be denied insurance going forward.

Secondly, I'll allow people to own their own insurance rather than just be able to get it from their employer. I want people to be able to take their insurance with them if they go from job to job. (Applause.) So -- so we'll make it work in the way that's designed to have health care act like a market, a consumer market, as opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the Post Office. That's what's at risk -- (applause) -- at stake here.

Do we -- we go back to this. Ours is the party of free enterprise, freedom, markets, consumer choice. Theirs is the party of government knowledge, government domination, where Barack Obama believes that he knows better for the American people what's best for them. He's wrong. We're right. That's why we're going to win. (Applause.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, you heard the skepticism. It's a Southern Republican voter. But he's skeptical, and he knows how Washington works.

MR. GINGRICH: Well, sure.

MR. KING: He's watched Washington work. He's asked: Can it be reversed in its entirety. You -- you were the speaker of the House. You understand how this works. How? How can it be repealed in this current political environment?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, if you've watched Washington and you're not skeptical, you haven't learned anything. (Laughter, applause.) I mean, this -- this system is a total mess right now.

Second, can you get it repealed in total? Sure. You have to elect a House, a Senate and a president committed to that. It has to be a major part of the fall campaign. And I think that, frankly, on our side with any of us, it's going to be a major part of the fall campaign. The American people are frightened of bureaucratic centralized medicine, they deeply distrust Washington, and the pressure will be to repeal it.

And a lot of what Governor Romney has said I think is actually pretty good, sound stuff for part of the replacement. I would always repeal all of it, because I so deeply distrust the congressional staffs that I would not want them to be able to pick and choose which things they kept.

But let me make one observation. You raised a good example. Why is President Obama for young people being allowed to stay on their parents' insurance until 26? Because he can't get any jobs for them to go out and buy their own insurance. (Cheers, applause.)

I mean, I -- I have an -- I have an offer -- I have an offer to the parents of America: Elect us, and your kids will be able to move out, because they'll have work. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: (Laughs.) Let's -- (inaudible) -- Senator Santorum, you heard Governor Romney and you heard Speaker Gingrich. Do you trust them, if one of them is the Republican Party's nominee, and potentially the next president of the United States, to repeal this law?

MR. SANTORUM: The biggest -- the biggest thing we have to do is elect a president. I think Newt's right. The problem is that two of the people up here would be very difficult to elect on, I think, the most important issue that this country is dealing with right now, which is the robbing of our freedom because of "Obamacare."

Governor Romney tells a very nice story about what his plan is now. It wasn't his plan when he was in a position to do a plan. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he put forth "Romneycare," which was not a bottom-up, free-market system. It was a government-run health care system that was the basis of "Obamacare." And it has been an abject failure, and he has stood by it.

He's stood by the fact that it's $8 billion more expensive -- (applause) -- than under the current law. He's stood by the fact that Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums of any state in the country; it is 27 percent more expensive than the average state in the country. Doctors -- if you're in the Massachusetts health care system, over 50 percent of the doctors now are not seeing new patients -- primary care doctors are not seeing new patients. Those who do get to see a patient are waiting 44 days, on average, for the care.

It is an abject disaster.

He's standing by it, and he's going to have to have to run against a president -- he's going to have to run against a president who's going to say, well, look, look at what you did for Massachusetts, and you're the one criticizing me for what I've done? I used your model for it.

And then -- (cheers, applause) -- then we have Speaker Gingrich, who has been for an individual mandate, not back in the time that just was -- Heritage was floating around in the '90s, but as late as -- comments (since/in ?) 2008, just a few years ago, he stood up and said that we should have an individual mandate or post a $150,000 bond. How many $150,000 bondholders do we have here who can post a bond for their health insurance?

These are two folks who don't present the clear contrast that I do, who was the author of health savings accounts, which is the primary basis of every single -- (cheers, applause) -- conservative reform of health care. I was the author of it back in 1991 and '92, 20 years ago. I've been fighting for health reform, private-sector, bottom-up, the way America works best, for 20 years, while these two guys were playing footsies with the left. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: I want to bring Congressman Paul -- I'll bring him into the discussion in just a moment, but Senator Santorum directly challenged the governor and then the speaker. Governor, you first.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, so much of what the senator said was wrong. Let me mention a few of the things.

First of all, the system in my state is not a government-run system. Ninety-eight -- 92 percent of the people had their own insurance before the system was put in place, and nothing changed for them. They still had the same private insurance. And the 8 percent of the uninsured, they bought private insurance, not government insurance. And the people in the state still favor the plan three to one.

And it certainly doesn't work perfectly. Massachusetts, by the way, had the highest insurance costs before the plan was put in place and after, but fortunately, the rate of growth has slowed down a little less than the overall nation. And one of the things I was proud of is that individuals who wanted to buy their own insurance saw their rates --when they were not part of a big group -- saw their rates drop by some 40 percent with our plan.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But I do believe that having been there, having been on the front lines, showing that I have compassion for people that don't have insurance but that the Obama plan is a 2,700-page, massive tax increase, Medicare-cutting monster, I know how to cut it. I'll eliminate it. I will repeal is and I'll return the -- I'll return the power to the states, where the power for caring for the uninsured ought to reside constitutionally. Thank you.

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah, I'd like --

MR. KING: Senator Santorum, he says your facts are wrong.

MR. SANTORUM: Well, they're simply not wrong. The fact is that, yes, you're right, Governor Romney, 92 percent of people did have health insurance in Massachusetts, but that wasn't private-sector health insurance. A lot of those people were, as you know, on Medicare and Medicaid, so they're already on government insurance, and you just expanded it, in fact. Over half the people who came on the rolls since you put "Romneycare" into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts, and a lot of those are on the Medicaid program. So the idea that you have created this marketplace and -- and -- with this government-run health care system where you have very prescriptive programs about reimbursement rates, you have a very prescriptive program just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here, you're arguing for a plan -- you're defending a plan that is top-down. It is not a free-market health care system. It is not bottom-up. It is prescriptive in government. It was the basis for "Obamacare." And we do not draw a distinction that it's going to be effective for us just because it was the state level, not the federal level. (Applause.)

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.)

MR. KING: If you want, Governor, quickly.

MR. ROMNEY: Sure, absolutely.

First of all, as you probably know, Medicaid is not a state program. All right?

MR. SANTORUM: Of course it is. It's a state and federal program.

MR. ROMNEY: Medicaid is as demanded by the federal government, and it is -- it's -- it is a mandate --

MR. SANTORUM: (Off mic.)

MR. ROMNEY: -- it's a mandate by the federal government and it's shared 50/50 state and federal. The people of Massachusetts who are on Medicaid, I would like to end that program at the federal level, take the Medicaid dollars and return them to the states, and allow states -- states to craft their own plans.

That would make the plan we had in Massachusetts a heck of a lot better. My view is, get the federal government out of Medicaid, get it out of health care, return it to the states. And if you want to go be governor of Massachusetts, fine. But I want to be president, and let states take responsibility for their own plan. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it may seem like a while ago, Mr. Speaker, but Senator Santorum made the point, in his view, you don't have credibility on this.

MR. GINGRICH: No, what he -- what he said, which I found mildly amazing, was that he thought I would have a hard time debating Barack Obama over health care. Now, in fact, I -- as Republican whip, I led the charge against "Hillarycare" in the House. As speaker of the House, I helped preside over the conference which wrote into law his idea on health savings accounts. So I was delighted to help him get it to be law. (Applause.) And -- and the fact is, I helped found the Center for Health Transformation. I wrote a book called "Saving lives and Saving Money" in 2002. You can go to healthtransformation.net, and you will see hundreds of ideas -- none of which resemble Barack Obama's programs.

So I'd be quite happy to have a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Barack Obama. I'd let him use a teleprompter. I'll just rely on knowledge. We'll do fine. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Senator, you're -- I want to bring Congressman Paul in. You're shaking your head. Quickly.

MR. SANTORUM: The core of "Obamacare" is an individual mandate. It is what is being litigated in the Supreme Court right now. It is government top-down telling every business and every American what kind of health care that you will have. That is the problem with "Obamacare" at the core of it. And the speaker supported it repeatedly for a 10-year period. So when he goes and says, I can, you know, run rings around President Obama in a Lincoln-Douglas debate, you can't run rings around the fact, Newt, that you supported the primary core basis of what President Obama's put in place.

MR. GINGRICH: Look, just one -- one brief comment. One --

MR. KING: All right, quickly, Mr. Speaker. The Congressman is getting lonely down here. Let's go.

(Applause.)

MR. GINGRICH: Well, one -- just one brief comment. Of course you can. I can say, you know, I was wrong, and I figured it out; you were wrong, and you didn't. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. SANTORUM: You held that -- Newt -- Newt, you held that position for over 10 years. And, you know, it's not going to be the most attractive thing to go out there and say, you know, it took me 10 or 12 years to figure out I was wrong, when guys like Rick Santorum knew it was wrong from the beginning. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Congressman Paul, you have the floor. Do you trust these men to repeal "Obamacare"?

REP. PAUL: Thank you! (Laughter, applause.) I thought you were -- I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and a doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something. (Cheers, applause.)

No, I want to address the question. The gentleman asked whether he thinks we can repeal "Obamacare." Theoretically, we can. The likelihood isn't all that good. We can diminish some of the effect. But I'm more concerned about a bigger picture of what's happening, and that is government involvement in medicine.

I -- I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early '60s, before we had any government. It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and --and -- and it just expanded. But even when we had the chance to cut back on it, when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican president, we -- we gave them prescription drug programs. Senator Santorum supported it. (Laughs.) You know, that's expanding the government! (Cheers, applause.) So -- so it's endless.

And the -- and most of them are bankrupt. Prescription drugs, they -- they're not going to be financed; Medicare is not financeable; Medicaid's in trouble. But nobody talks about where the money's going to come from.

Now, even in my budget proposal -- which is very, very tough, because I'm going to cut a trillion dollars the first year -- but I try to really -- (cheers, applause) -- even though these programs should have never started that a lot of people are dependent on, I want to try to protect the people who are dependent on -- on medical care.

Now, where does the money come? My suggestion is, look at some of the overseas spending that we don't need to be doing. (Cheers, applause.) We have -- we have troops in Korea since -- since the Korean War, in Japan since World War II, in Germany since World War -- those are subsidies to these countries. And we keep fighting these wars that don't need to be fought, they're undeclared, they never end. Newt pointed out, you know, World War II was won in less than four years; Afghanistan, we're there for 10 years. Nobody says, where does the money come?We could work our way out of here and take care of these people on -- with these medical needs, but we can't do it with the current philosophy of the government taking care of everybody forever on medical care, cradle to grave, and being the policeman of the world.

We will get rid of all this government program, unfortunately because we're going bankrupt and you're going to have runaway inflation and our checks are going to bounce. And that's going to be a lot worse problem than we're facing tonight. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: All right. I'm going to ask all of our candidates to stand by, our audience as well. We have a couple breaks tonight. We're going to take one of them now.

One candidate on this stage suggested this week that two candidates should get out of the race. One of them listened. We'll get the reaction from the other coming up.

And also coming up, this is just in: While we've been on the air having this debate, Speaker Gingrich has released his tax returns. He's put them online. We'll ask him what's in them when we come back. (Cheers, applause.)....

Romney Exposed on #2ndAmendment ! RedState #teaparty #scprimary #teaparty #tpot

The Newt Show! Romney Exposed on 2nd Amendment! | RedState

http://www.redstate.com/dkolonia/2012/01/17/the-newt-show-romney-exposed-on-2nd-amendment/

...”Romney also gave an answer about gun control that left many 2nd Amendment supporters yelling at their TV screens. He said that while he did not support any ‘new’ gun laws we should actively enforce the ones on the books now. His big claim to showing his support of gun rights was a bill he championed as the Governor of MA which according to Mitt was a good compromise between guns rights advocates and people who oppose gun rights. He highlighted that the bill actually had a provision that “allowed hunters to cross roads with a rifle”. Wow! Really? That is his idea of supporting gun rights? Geez, he sounds like he supports the UN position on this subject.

He also told us about how he likes to hunt every now and then, but he is not an active hunter. So Mitt showed his hand on the 2nd Amendment with his words that gun rights are a ‘compromise’ and not a certainty. This was a huge moment if you are a gun rights supporter. Mitt sounds like he is one of those that say it is OK to have a rifle for hunting but not much else. The 2nd Amendment is not a comprise with gun rights opponents. It is black and white with no gray. American citizens have the right to bear arms and that cannot be infringed upon. Period. Romney raised taxes on guns in MA by a huge amount while Governor.”....

Mitt Romney: Leader of the Pale Pastel Wing of Party Redstate #scprimary #2012 #obamacare #twisters

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-leader-of-the-pale-pastel-wing-of-party/

....”It is true that Obamacare raises taxes, cuts Medicare, and has many other onerous provisions. But the most offensive part of Obamacare is that it permanently raises the cost of healthcare and health insurance on everyone in the country. It represents the motherload of all market-distorters in an industry that is already plagued by high costs, due to the lack of a free-market. As an aside, Obamacare dumps scores of people on Medicaid.

Unfortunately, Romney lacked the gumption to mention these two additional prominent vices of Obamacare. The reason?They represent the same problems that Massachusetts faces with Romneycare. The subtle implication of Romney’s case against Obamacare is that as long as the plan doesn’t raise taxes or cut Medicare it is a laudable proposal, more meritorious than free-market anti-third-party-payer solutions.

And no wonder. Despite Romney’s ad nauseum lie about 92% of Massachusetts residents remaining unaffected by Masscare, the market-distortions have spiked the cost of private insurance for everyone in the state to a higher level than any other state. Government mandates and third-party interventions – both state and federal – necessarily raise the cost of health insurance. Also, Masscare, much like Obamacare, has dumped thousands of people onto Medicaid – to be paid for by taxpayers from other states.

Moreover, it is nonsensical and dangerous to believe that statism is tolerable as long as it is promulgated by state government. Federalism allows different states to experiment with legitimate functions of government, such as transportation and infrastructure spending. Statism, on the other hand, is wrong on every level. In fact, when Thomas Jefferson warned about “elected despotism” in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison), he was explicitly discussing state government.”....

Is THIS COWARD ELECTABLE in #2012 ? # scprimary ROMNEY Cowers before Kennedy?

Romney on Reagan - YouTube

RRD:Obama will eat this weakling alive.

Romney in 2006 Backed Immigration Stance He Now Deems ‘Amnesty’ - Bloomberg #2012 #teaparty #tcot #tlot

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/romney-s-previous-position-on-immigration-mirrors-gingrich-he-criticizes.html

”In a 2006 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney backed the approach in legislation crafted by Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts that would have created a path to legal status for illegal immigrants. Then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, also championed the approach.

After Romney detected the potency of the issue in Iowa, he changed course and began criticizing McCain during the 2008 presidential primary for pressing such a plan, one strategist close to his campaign said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid publicly disputing the candidate.

Gross of Iowa, who was chairman of Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign in the state and is neutral this year, gave the same account. “Four years ago, you were coming right off the defeat of the Bush bill that people called amnesty, so a lot of the Republican base was red-hot over the issue -- it came up at every event here,” Gross said.

Romney’s decision to attack McCain on immigration, he added, “was in direct contrast to a lot of the statements he had made. He sensed the political implications of it, and that’s why he was doing it.”

Gross said he counseled Romney’s aides at the time against making a tough anti-immigration stance a central theme of his campaign. “I thought it would make him look like he was flip-flopping and sort of feed the narrative that he would do or say anything to get elected,” Gross said.

Gingrich revived that story line by taking to the social networking Web site Twitter last week to post a clip of a 2007 television interview in which Romney said illegal immigrants should be allowed to sign up for legal status.

Romney told Iowa voters during a Nov. 23 telephone call organized by his campaign that he has always believed that illegal immigrants should be sent back to their countries of origin to apply for such status. “I just don’t think that those who have come here illegally should be given a special pathway, a special deal,” Romney told a voter who questioned him on the issue.”....

Mccain seeks to remake the #GOP in his center-left image #2012 #tcot #teaparty #wethepeople

RRD:Yes it's old but quite relevant given his endorsement of Romney.

John McCain's mission: A GOP makeover - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27832.html

....”Fresh from a humbling loss in last year’s presidential election, Sen. John McCain is working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image.

McCain is recruiting candidates, raising money for them and hitting the campaign trail on their behalf. He’s taken sides in competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial primaries and introduced his preferred candidates to his top donors.

When the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy created a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts, McCain went so far as to solicit former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling to run for the seat.

It’s all part of an approach that is at odds with most other recent failed presidential nominees, whose immediate response to defeat was to retreat from the electoral arena. But those familiar with McCain’s thinking say he has expressed serious concern about the direction of the party and is actively seeking out and supporting candidates who can broaden the party’s reach.

In McCain’s case, that means backing conservative pragmatists and moderates.

“I think he’s endorsed people with center-right politics because he has an understanding that the party is in trouble with certain demographics and wants to have a tone that would allow us to grow,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is McCain’s closest friend and ally in the Senate.

“At a time when our party is struggling and has a lot of shrill voices and aggressive voices, he’s one that can expand our party,” said John Weaver, a longtime McCain friend and strategist.

“John remains the titular head of the Republican Party and he will be until there’s a new nominee,” he said. “Most of the people that ran and lost you never heard from again,” he said. “He’s not going to be like Ed Muskie or Hubert Humphrey.”...

....“I think it’s important, at this stage in my career, to try to support candidates that I think represent the next generation of leadership in the Republican Party,” the 73-year-old McCain said on his way to the Senate floor for a vote last week.”....

Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'

...”Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular—but one must take it because it's right. —Martin Luther King Jr.”...

Sen.Wyden ”pass #SOPA & study it later” not acceptable #tcot #tlot #p2 #tpot

http://presszoom.com/story_170930.html

....”Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the following statement in response to
Chairman Leahy’s announcement that the DNS provision of the Protect IP Act may be modified:
“It is welcome news that proponents of PIPA are finally
accepting that it contains major flaws. Unfortunately, this
announcement to study the DNS provision does not eliminate the clearly identified threat to net security contained within this bill. Beyond the DNS provisions, the
bill still establishes a censorship regime that threatens
speech, innovation, and the future of the American economy. I remain firm in my intent to block consideration of the PIPA bill until these issues are addressed and I am
committed to doing all I can to ensure that whatever legislative course is taken, that it is fully transparent, fully understood and fully considered by all those who value the Internet. ”...

#Iranian man faces imminent execution for designing software used by porn sites #humanrights #iranelections

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/18/iran-death-sentence-porn-programmer?cat=world&type=article

....”Iran's supreme court has upheld the death sentence for a web programmer who faces imminent execution after being found guilty of developing and promoting porn websites.

Saeed Malekpour was picked up by plainclothes officers in October 2008 and taken to Evin prison in Tehran, where he spent a year in solitary confinement without access to lawyers and without charge.

A year after his arrest, the 35-year-old appeared in a state television programme confessing to a series of crimes in connection with a porn website. On the basis of his TV confessions, he was convicted of designing and moderating adult materials online by a court in Tehran, which handed down death penalty.

Malekpour later retracted his confessions in a letter sent from prison, in which he said they had been made under duress.

According to Malekpour's family, he is a permanent resident of Canada and is a programmer who wrote photo-uploading software that was used by a porn website without his knowledge”...

It's (Not) The Economy, Stupid (it's the philosophy of #liberty )

It's (Not) The Economy, Stupid

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/michaelprell/2012/01/18/its_not_the_economy_stupid

....”What happens if the economy gets better?

If you are a Republican candidate, who has built a campaign around being a better manager of the economy, a better economy (without the benefit of your management) would spell the end of your campaign.”..

....”The philosophical heir to Jimmy Carter is in the White House now. It took a philosopher to beat Jimmy Carter. And it will take a philosopher to beat Barack Obama.

It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the philosophy.”....

Time to Purge the #GOP #RINO #tcot #tlot #teaparty #tpot

Time to Purge the Republican Party Jan 18, 2012

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/01/18/time_to_purge_the_republican_party

...”Most Republicans protest that this isn't the right time for a purge. They hope that opposition to Obama will unite Republicans around a Paper Republican. The problem with this logic is that it always justifies a Paper Republican candidate, because the Democrats will invariably run somebody worse. And Paper Republicans don't help matters. The Republican Party has, for the last half-century, consolidated liberal gains and trimmed around the edges. The result has been an unstoppable juggernaut of government growth and the loss of traditional American freedoms. The Paper Republican experiment has been a dramatic failure for conservatives.

We are now at a crisis point. More Democratic rule is the highway to hell; more Paper Republican rule is the slow road to the same destination. It's time for the Republican Party to present a true conservative alternative. Anything else is suicide by inches.”...

Is it time for S.Carolina to go rogue & put the breaks on Romney campaign? #2012 #tcot #tlot #teaparty

RRD:I am not endorsing any of the current GOP candidates.
Absent a dark horse(John Mackey?John Allison?) ,I will skip the Presidential section of the general election ballot,(but I will vote in the Senate and Congressional elections).
I cannot,in good conscience,endorse any of the remaining candidates.
But I can endorse something else:slowing Romney down.
There are two reasons for this:

1.Unlikely as it is,there is a possibility of a dark horse emerging.
(Jindal has been floated fn1)

2.As Palin has noted(fn2);it provides us with time to vet the candidates more throughly.And who knows what might emerge?

So I would encourage the voters of South Carolina to put the breaks on the Romney express.Now.

Footnotes:

fn1.

Late entry dark horses: Bobby Jindal? | RedState

http://www.redstate.com/realquiet/2012/01/06/late-entry-dark-horses-bobby-jindal/

fn2.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/17/palin-if-i-had-to-vote-in-south-carolina-i-would-vote-for-newt/

Netanyahu's Post-Zionist Education Ministry #xcot #jcot #supportisrael

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/carolineglick/2012/01/17/netanyahus_postzionist_education_ministry

Dont Let It Go Unheard Live Talk Radio: Iran & Israel,Debt Ceiling #obamacare #aynrand

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2012/01/16/dont-let-it-go-unheard

”Topics planned for today's show: U.S. Warns Iran against striking Israel...Oh, wait. While credit rating downgrades spread across Europe like wildfire, the U.S. nears its own debt ceiling -- again! Flagging interest in repealing Obamacare, and why that's unacceptable. And more.”

Romney should not be attacked for being a Capitalist.He should be attacked for being a enemy of Freedom. #teaparty #tcot #tlot

RRD:Many Objectivists,Libertarians & Conservatives have defended Mitt Romney's actions at Bain Capitol against the attacks leveled against him by Gingrich & Perry.
I agree with many of their arguments.I do not believe Romney should be damned for his actions at Bain Capitol.The attacks on Romney's service at Bain Capitol are despicable attacks on Capitalism.But they are despicable because they are attacks on Capitalism & the free-market,not because they are attacks on Mitt Romney,who himself is a despicable enemy of Capitalism,Freedom,Liberty,Free-Market Health Care,& the American way of life.

Romney raped Massachusetts's health care system to death with Romneycare,paved the way for Obamacare by acting as the left's Window-dressing,and wants to make the ”the conservative case for the Individual Mandate.He also promotes the Global Warming hysteria.(see footnotes)The fact that he was a businessman makes him,(like Warren Buffett) A GREATER THREAT TO CAPITALISM THEN IF HE WERE A ALINSKITE LIKE OBAMA.The reason is that he helps to hide the true nature of socialism under a capitalist veneer.
The claim,made by some Romney supporters,that his business career is a ”good point” in his favor completely misses this crucial factor.
And they are not alone.
For some time I have known some individuals who see men like Gates,& Buffett & Steve Jobs as real life Hank Reardens.(See Atlas Shrugged)Either in ignorance of their politics,or because they are oblivious to them.
Some insist on seeing Hank Rearden in these men,when Rearden,for all his errors would never support the kinds of inexcusably statist positions they've taken.

For Buffett simply googling any of his obnoxious statements on taxes will do.Obama has invoked them often enough.For Gates the same.For Jobs see below:

Apple ditches U.S. Chamber - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27935.html

....”We strongly object to the Chamber’s recent comments [in] opposition the EPA’s effort to limit greenhouse gases,” wrote Catherine A. Novelli, the vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple. “Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort.”...

And in a similar,though less defensible, vein,I have seen some people speaking of Romney's career at Bain as if it something to be weighed in his favor.

They will speak as if ”on the one hand he was a businessman” & on the other:a statist criminal who destroyed Massachusetts's health care system,a man who did more than almost any other single Republican to aid & abet the passage of socialized medicine, a man who wishes to make ”the conservative case for the individual mandate”,& who promotes the Global Warming hysteria.

The former cannot excuse,defend,or justify the latter.The former,in light of the latter is utterly IRRELEVANT by contrast.
The two are not even close.

Ayn Rand never suffered from this kind of misguided generosity.

She wrote:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/businessmen.html

”As a group, businessmen have been withdrawing for decades from the ideological battlefield, disarmed by the deadly combination of altruism and Pragmatism.Their public policy has consisted in appeasing, compromising and apologizing: appeasing their crudest,loudest antagonists; compromising with any attack, any lie, any insult; apologizing for their own existence. Abandoning the field of ideas to their enemies, they have been relying on lobbying, i.e., on private manipulations, on pull, on seeking momentary favors from government officials. Today, the last group one can expect to fight for capitalism is the capitalists.”

“The Moratorium on Brains,” The Ayn Rand Letter.

But this is not true of all businessmen.It is not true of John Mackey for example:

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/the-whole-foods-alternative-to-obamacare/

This took tremendous courage given the current administration.

Nor is it true of the Koch brothers.

There is no excuse for Romney.

And there is no excuse for those who seek some kind of ”balance” between his achievements & his evil.
Most of those whom I know understand this,(particularly about Romney),but some do not(& it needs saying in any event.)

Don't damn Romney for being a Capitalist.
Damn him for betraying Capitalism.

Footnotes:

Romney on Romneycare: ‘I Am Not Going to Walk Away From That’ - By Katrina Trinko - The Primary Event - National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/283441/romney-romneycare-i-am-not-going-walk-away-katrina-trinko

“You have seen a lot of candidates look at their biggest vulnerability, call it a mistake, and ask for forgiveness,” Romney continued. “In my case that wouldn’t be honest.”
He affirmed that he believes the health-care program was the “right thing” for Massachusetts then, although he conceded that it hasn’t “worked perfectly.”

Romney doubles down on argument that state health mandate is 'conservative'

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative

The PJ Tatler » RomneyCare Mandate Nightmare

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/18/romneycare-mandate-nightmare/

We Stand FIRM: Interview With RomneyCare Author Jonathan Gruber

http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/03/interview-with-romneycare-author.html

Jonathan Gruber was the architect of Romneycare.

”It is equally true in Gruber's mind that without the Massachusetts example, Obama's individual mandate plan in all likelihood would not have passed. He says that as the federal health care plan emerged, the Massachusetts plan was "widely discussed." And he should know. He was first called in as an unpaid consultant to work on Obama's health care plan, then as a paid consultant to HHS to work on health care modeling, and then as a paid consultant working with Congress to develop the bill. ”

Gruber also said that Romney was indifferent to the argument that the individual mandate violated individual rights.

The failure of RomneyCare, doctor shortage edition | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/failure-romneycare-doctor-shortage-edition#ixzz1Lxs74s5B

We Stand FIRM: Lucidicus On RomneyCare

http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/04/lucidicus-on-romneycare.html

Is RomneyCare Different from ObamaCare? | John Goodman's Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/is-romneycare-different/

PJ Media » The Truth About RomneyCare

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-truth-about-romneycare/?singlepage=true

Study: RomneyCare Increased Health Premiums by 6 Percent | Cato @ Liberty

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/study-romneycare-increased-health-premiums-by-6-percent/

The world is getting warmer : Romney June 3 2011

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7525GM20110603?irpc=932

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.

Romney makes new shift in global warming position - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com 10-28-2011

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/romney-makes-new-shift-global-warming-position/aBMsQrPwV3bxnFZHLRNPwO/index.html

...“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” Romney said in the speech, a clip of which was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. “And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

He wrote in his 2010 book “No Apology,” “I believe that climate change is occurring…I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In New Hampshire, in August, he said: “I think the earth is getting warmer…I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”...

“Mitt Romney’s positions change, often dramatically, depending on the audience or location,” Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said in a statement. “Voters need to consider the fact that Romney, in one week, changed positions on manmade global warming, capping carbon emissions, and Ohio’s efforts to curb union powers.”...

Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, rejected the flip-flopping charge.

“This is ridiculous,” she said in a statement. “Governor Romney’s view on climate change has not changed. He believes it’s occurring, and that human activity contributes to it, but he doesn’t know to what extent. He opposes cap and trade, and he refused to sign such a plan when he was governor. Maybe the bigger threat is all the hot air coming from career politicians who are desperate to hold on to power.”

Romney has sometimes been hard to pin down on the issue.

He wrote in his 2010 book “No Apology,” “I believe that climate change is occurring…I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In New Hampshire, in August, he said: “I think the earth is getting warmer…I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”...

Romney touts himself as successful consenus builder

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-touts-himself-as-successful-consenus-builder/2011/12/06/gIQAquTVEP_story.html

Behold the 1099-Romney

http://ohpcenter.org/editorials.php?nav=20110211a

Rubin Reports » Friedman Cheers as Egyptians Are Enslaved

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/11/friedman-cheers-as-egyptians-are-enslaved/

Romney:I could ask for forgiveness for #Romneycare,but that wouldn't be honest #teaparty #wethepeople

Romney on Romneycare: ‘I Am Not Going to Walk Away From That’ - By Katrina Trinko - The Primary Event - National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/283441/romney-romneycare-i-am-not-going-walk-away-katrina-trinko

“You have seen a lot of candidates look at their biggest vulnerability, call it a mistake, and ask for forgiveness,” Romney continued. “In my case that wouldn’t be honest.”
He affirmed that he believes the health-careprogram was the “right thing” for Massachusetts then, although he conceded that it hasn’t “worked perfectly.”

Romney doubles down on argument that state health mandate is 'conservative'

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative

A Tale of Two Mitts #rino #teaparty #wethepeople

A Tale of Two Mitts #2012 #teaparty #wethepeople

A Tale of Two Mitts

RRD:Now remember children,just because Romney is Peter Keating(see The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand),doesn't mean he isn't telling us the truth now.

Romney on abortion & birth control & the U.S.Constitution #2012

RRD:This time I will let Romney speak for himself.I have quoted the whole thing in context.

2012 ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate (Transcript) - Election 2012 - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012-abcyahoowmur-new-hampshire-gop-primary-debate-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html

”STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled --

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ... or a -- or a legislature of a state -- I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sure Congressman Paul...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK, come on -- come on back...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?

ROMNEY: George, I -- I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no -- no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.

(APPLAUSE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on...

ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court -- has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.

ROMNEY: The -- I believe in the -- that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court -- and occasionally I do -- then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it’s -- it’s known as the amendment process.

And -- and where we have -- for instance, right now we’re having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My view is, we should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of -- of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.

ROMNEY: I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.

And by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it’s not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the Constitution. But this idea that justice...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But should that be done in this case?

ROMNEY: Pardon?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Should that be done in this case?

ROMNEY: Should this be done in the case -- this case to allow states to ban contraception?No. States don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?

With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE) STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?

ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn...

(SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE YELLING)

ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.”

Carter ”pleased” with Islamist victory. #jcot #tcot

Former President Carter praises Egypt elections - Boston.com

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2012/01/10/former_president_carter_praises_egypt_elections/

”Carter said his organization was "very pleased" with the conduct of the elections so far.

"There have been some problems in general, but the will of the people has been expressed accurately," Carter told reporters at polling station in a girls school in the Cairo neighborhood of Rod al-Farag.

Some voters in a run-off election for the third round to elect the lower house of parliament stopped to snap photos of the former president with their mobile phones.

Islamist parties have taken a solid majority in the parliament. The political party of the Muslim Brotherhood has won between 40 and 50 percent of the vote, and a coalition of ultraconservative Salafi Muslim parties received another 20 percent.

Responding to a reporter's question, Carter dismissed the idea that the U.S. should be concerned about the Islamist victory.

"I don't have any problem with that, and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either," he said. "We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed”

RRD:Replace Islamist,with Misogynistic,Anti-Semitic,Anti-Freedom,Anti-Christian & ask yourself what Carter's reaction would be if a Fascist party came to power in Europe?Then again he would probably be happy if the volk of Germany choose another Hitler,so long as it was the ”will of the people”

This is marathon,not a sprint,many on the left understand this,many on the right don't

Fred Shapiro's book The Yale Book of Quotations (2006):

"They [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide"

Not a parody:Romney Surrogate: Electability Should Trump 'Beliefs & Principles' #aynrand #2012

Romney Surrogate: Electability Should Trump 'Beliefs and Principles'

foxnews.com | Jan 7th 2012

...”State Sen. Gary Lambert said the most important thing is to nominate somebody who can defeat President Obama. 

"I don't get it. This is not about picking a favorite, it's not about picking someone you like," Lambert said. "It's not about picking someone even with your own beliefs and principles. This is about picking a person who can beat Barack Obama, period." 

Lambert spoke as part of a panel of candidate surrogates Thursday before the Nashua Republican City Committee. 

"I'd like to get right to the point. ... Look, we know how this movie is going to end. Mitt Romney's gonna be the nominee," Lambert said. "Forgive me and with all due respect to all my friends out there -- so that's gonna happen." 

He continued: "The way I look at it, the sooner we get it over, the better. We can save the money because in the end, guess who we're after? We're after Barack Obama." ....

RRD:No,I am not after Obama.I am for saving our freedoms.But doing that requires ”beliefs & principles”.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/07/romney-surrogate-electability-should-trump-beliefs-and-principles/

“Conservatives” — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html

”What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen.”

“Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,

Appeasement — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/appeasement.html

”The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.”

“Altruism as Appeasement,” The Objectivist, Jan. 1966

“Conservatives” — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html

”Today’s “conservatives” are futile, impotent and, culturally, dead. They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing. They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country’s uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship.”

“Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

“Conservatives” — Ayn Rand Lexicon #aynrand

“Conservatives” — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html

”Today’s “conservatives” are futile, impotent and, culturally, dead. They have nothing to offer and can achieve nothing. They can only help to destroy intellectual standards, to disintegrate thought, to discredit capitalism, and to accelerate this country’s uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship.”

“Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

. Today, the last group one can expect to fight for capitalism is the capitalists

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/businessmen.html

As a group, businessmen have been withdrawing for decades from the ideological battlefield, disarmed by the deadly combination of altruism and Pragmatism. Their public policy has consisted in appeasing, compromising and apologizing: appeasing their crudest, loudest antagonists; compromising with any attack, any lie, any insult; apologizing for their own existence. Abandoning the field of ideas to their enemies, they have been relying on lobbying, i.e., on private manipulations, on pull, on seeking momentary favors from government officials. Today, the last group one can expect to fight for capitalism is the capitalists.

“The Moratorium on Brains,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 3, 2

”If the “conservatives” do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html

”If the “conservatives” do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.

“Conservatism: An Obituary,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 194

We Stand FIRM: Interview With RomneyCare Author Jonathan Gruber #tcot #tlot #teaparty #2012

We Stand FIRM: Interview With RomneyCare Author Jonathan Gruber

http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/03/interview-with-romneycare-author.html

Jonathan Gruber was the architect of Romneycare.

”It is equally true in Gruber's mind that without the Massachusetts example, Obama's individual mandate plan in all likelihood would not have passed. He says that as the federal health care plan emerged, the Massachusetts plan was "widely discussed." And he should know. He was first called in as an unpaid consultant to work on Obama's health care plan, then as a paid consultant to HHS to work on health care modeling, and then as a paid consultant working with Congress to develop the bill. ”

Gruber also said that Romney was indifferent to the argument that the individual mandate violated individual rights.

A open letter to the Romney Campaign on Twitter. #2012

RRD:I see two of your branches Hawaii4romney, & Idaho4romney are following me on Twitter.Presumably either to ”fact check”,/ rebut my posts,or to find out if I am some sort of secret agent working for (take your pick)Gingrich,Santorum or Perry.
As to the former:don't @me,or send me direct messages to ”correct me”.If you wish to publish your critiques on your own stream that's your business,but I do not engage in debates on twitter.If you send me unsolicited messages I will block you.As to the second:I do not support any of the current candidates:Santorum,Paul,Perry,Gingrich etc.If Romney gets the nomination I will encourage people to vote for their local GOP Congressmen & Senators,but to either not vote in the Presidential race,or to vote for a third party candidate,such as Gary Johnson.I would do this because your candidate's support for the Individual Mandate & Anthropogenic Global Warming makes him a ideological fifth columnist.Again if you are following me to rebut my statements on your own streams that's fine.But if this turns into some weird form of Cyber-stalking,or some form of harassment I will publicize your actions & contact my attorney to see what my legal options are.

Sincerely
RRD

When the #TeaParty Died Townhall #tcot #tlot #tpot

When the Tea Party Died

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2012/01/08/when_the_tea_party_died

....”In 2010 even Ann Coulter was making speeches at CPAC warning that if we chose the candidate who had authored Obamacare to become the nominee, then President Obama would be easily re-elected. She was right of course.

But somewhere along the line instead of being bold, defiant, grassroots, and in control, someone started feeding voters the meme that the man who saw to it that $50 state-subsidized abortions were included in his vision of mandated government health care, was the best of poor choices.

Even Ann Coulter 2.0 drank the kool-aid.

Worse yet the choices that are left in the race are establishment folks who ate earmarks for a living in Pennsylvania, embraced government involvement in the biggest hoax of our time--man made Global Warming, and who could forget the man that as Governor of Massachusetts raised taxes on everything from gasoline to "certificates of blindness." (No it's real... Look it up.)

Your humble correspondant has detailed the easy path that Obama's forces will take to not merely defeat a Romney GOP candidacy, but to pummel him into tapioca.”...

....”That first tea party in DC took place exactly three days after President Obama's joint session, where he had instructed his supporters on Obamacare to go "get in people's faces" if they disagreed with the policy. He told his critics that he was calling them out.

I remember bringing that little point to the attention of the close to 1.2 million gathered on the mall that afternoon. The chants of "Here we are, Here we are, Here we are" rang in my ears for days.

Sadly now I wonder, "Where'd we go?" ...

Heritage: Obama Defense Cuts Will End US Safety #tcot #gwot

Heritage: Obama Defense Cuts Will End US Safety

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Heritage-defense-cuts-carafano/2012/01/05/id/423176

Coulter believes people who oppose Romney are not ”normal”

RRD:Continuing to shill for Romney Coulter now adds insult to injury.
According to Coulter,those who oppose Romney do so because they are :

....”determined to change the meaning of "conservative"
from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues,determined to punish the country for its impurities."...

She goes on:

...” Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth
certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus
state like Iowa. ”....

RRD:Who does Coulter think she is addressing?Does she think that the readership of Townhall is stupid enough to believe this BS?Coulter knows perfectly well why Romney was,and is,opposed.He is opposed because of ROMNEYCARE,he is opposed for his acceptance of a fraud--the man made Global Warming hysteria--that I,Coulter,and countless Libertarians,Objectivists,and Conservatives have struggled to combat,against a hostile media that compares us to holocaust deniers.He is opposed because he has made "the conservative case for the individual mandate"(fn1).He is opposed because HE IS A IDEOLOGICAL MENANCE.Just as Bob Bennett,and the Heritage Foundation,AND MITT ROMNEY,with their craven appeasement of socialized medicine,aided in the passage of Obamacare(by providing the Democrats with cover to claim that their policies were ”mainstream”),so too will Romney's support for the global warming dogma pave the way for Cap and Trade.In Romney's case his CURRENT SUPPOR T for the Global Warming dogma is even more revealing(and alarming)than Mccain's was in 2008(fn2).In 2008 Mccain did not have to willfully evade Climategate.

Romney does,& has.

Nor can politics explain Romney's stance:polls show the majority of the American people have rejected this dogma.
Romney's position can only be explained by one of two things:

1.He believes in it.In which case he is ignoring reality to follow fashionable delusions which will finish off what's left of our freedoms.

Or

2.He's pandering to the LEFTIST MINORITY FOR WHOM THIS IS A ISSUE.

Either of these would make him--not only unfit for public office--they would make him a threat to the Tea Party & Libertarians,& Conservatives,since he would give the Left a ideological victory that they could never achieve on their own.
It is true that Romney is not to the left of Obama.
But he can do something Obama cannot do:make Cap & Trade & Obamacare,defacto bi-partisan platforms.He is more dangerous than Obama in this respect,much as a high-ranking traitor like Benedict Arnold is more dangerous than a open enemy is;because the traitor can lead his country's army into a trap.(And yes this is a metaphor, & no Romney is not a Democratic spy)

Coulter's ”method” ,to the extent she has one,is that of the sophist;or in todays jargon,a bulls***er.
Previously she baldly asserted that if Romney was elected he WOULD REPEAL OBAMACARE.Not that he MIGHT repeal it,he WOULD repeal it.She then asserted that if
Romney was not the nominee
then Obamacare would NEVER be repealed.
Anyone reading Coulter's columns, who was awake,and of at least normal intelligence,would ask these questions:

*Why would a Rockefeller Republican who boasted that he did not want to "return to Reagan-Bush"(fn3),a man who believes in compelling people to buy health insurance,and a man who believes in man made global warming(at a time when the majority have rejected both)in short,a man to THE LEFT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON THESE ISSUES,defy the news media,the GOP establishment,the whole Washington establishment,& his whole past,to repeal Obamacare?

But he needs to do so to be reelected?
Why?If they ”just don't have the votes to break a Democrat filibuster”,we couldn't blame Romney for that could we?
Why the solution would be ”to send even more Republicans to Washington”.And when we have done that & have RINOs defecting?Then ”we must work ten times as hard”....ad infinitum.
Unless we have a committed Republican,one who is willing to go to war with both the Democrats,& most Republicans,(most of whom are cowards),then Obamacare will not be repealed.
Bachmann--whatever else may be said about her--would move heaven & earth to repeal it.So would Sarah Palin,Gary Johnson,Herman Cain & yes,my loathing of him for his foreign policy notwithstanding,so would Ron Paul.
Gingrich is erratic,he supported the individual mandate,& cut a ad with Pelosi on Global Warming.
Perry is a unknown on this issue.
Huntsman is essentially Romney without the organization.
Santorum might repeal it,or not,but in any case he is a avowed enemy of the core value of this country:
The ”libertarian” notion that you should be free to be left alone so long as you do not violate the rights of another person.He has even attacked the right to the pursuit of happiness.(fn4)

There are no good GOP candidates who are likely to get the nomination.Politico & Pajamas Media made sure that Cain was destroyed.(Though that does not excuse his adultery).

But back to Coulter.Coulter had one last slap at our face at the end.

....”Newt Gingrich is not electable for many reasons”....

Such as:

...”he cut a global warming
commercial with Nancy Pelosi”...

So believing in Global Warming makes you unelectable if your name is Newt Gingrich,but not if it is Mitt Romney?Sure.

So far this is turning out to be a banner year.I will close with a link from a champion of individual rights,a Objectivist & scholar.
And one whose article is disturbingly prophetic.

“Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp

....”Whereas Bush’s image as a free-market capitalist was a mirage, Obama’s image as a radical leftist is accurate. Obama’s great vulnerability is that a silent majority of American voters will see this, and will recognize that he does not share either their values or their vision of what America was and should be”.....
...”This is the clarity that Obama has brought to the American political scene. To see a president’s clear and principled commitment to an ideology—any ideology—is precisely what America has needed for decades. This sight has helped many people understand the issues at a more fundamental level than they ever have. Obama and his congressional allies have unwittingly launched a grass-roots movement that is actively questioning the role of government in our lives. Although a large portion of the protesters remains confused about the principles at stake, an increasing number are gaining clarity. They are coming to see the Democratic proposals for health-care “reform,” for instance, not as a matter of new programs backed by good intentions, but as an attack on individual rights and an effort to impose a dictatorship—as signs at tea parties attest. And many are beginning to see that the Republicans as well have been guilty of such attacks.

Clarity is the first step toward understanding, and understanding is the prerequisite to rational evaluation. For three generations now, America has needed a blunt confrontation with the policies that have been leading the nation toward dictatorship and into bankruptcy. Such confrontations were stillborn in 1940, 1964, and 1980 because in each case Republicans failed to stand up, on principle, for capitalism, liberty, and individual rights. Republicans repeatedly collapsed into the quicksand of compromise and accepted the welfare state principles of their opponents while arguing about the “proper” amount of government coercion they would enact. The trend toward statism continued, because the incremental steps accepted by Republicans obscured the stark difference between America’s founding vision and its statist future.

Obama has given active-minded Americans a close-up view of this future. His vision—a government bureaucracy to administer medicine, an environmental agency to shackle industry, and the institutional mechanisms for bringing the government into the most intimate details of our lives—is where we have been headed for decades. But until now this destination has been hidden by the smoke and mirrors of rhetorical obfuscation. Obama’s strident efforts to impose this agenda are enabling people to see that future with clarity.”...

...”The protests and the polls are clear: Americans have, by and large, rejected the radical leftist agenda. But the issue is not yet closed. The Democrats have one last resource—one secret weapon—with which they can save their plans while avoiding political suicide in the next election. That weapon is the Republicans.

If the Republicans compromise—if they accept federally-mandated health insurance in the guise of a “co-op” or the like, or a cap-and-trade bill that is marginally less draconian than the Democratic version—they will have once again capitulated to their opponents, abandoned liberty, and ruined the opportunity to redirect this nation toward its founding moral principle: individual rights, protected under a constitution in a free republic.”...

RRD:Dr.Lewis lost his battle with cancer recently.If after spending the past 3 years fighting Obamacare we nominate someone who is created the Republican equivalent of Obamacare,then we will help to destroy this country,not save it.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Coulter's column:

Iowa shows Republicans determined to beat Obama:

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/01/04/iowa_shows_republicans_determined_to_beat_obama

Footnotes:

fn1

Romney doubles down on argument that state health mandate is 'conservative'

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative

Say Anything Mitt Romney Says He’s “Not Going To Walk Away” From #Romneycare #teaparty #2012 - fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/say-anything-mitt-romney-says-hes-not-going-t

fn2

The world is getting warmer : Romney

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7525GM20110603?irpc=932

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.

fn3

Romney 1994:I don't want to return to Reagan-Bush policies #2012 #tcot #rino #teaparty #tlot - fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/romney-1994i-dont-want-to-return-to-reagan-bu

fn4.

Why Santorum Must Be Defeated - fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated

Muslim Brotherhood vows not to recognize Israel

Muslim Brotherhood vows not to recognize Israel

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=251732

Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel, defends Hamas - YouTube

Ron Paul is officially insane/ Ron Paul: Iran Would be Justified in Closing Strategic Waterway in Response to Sanctions CNSnews.com #tcot #teaparty

Ron Paul: Iran Would be Justified in Closing Strategic Waterway in Response to Sanctions | CNSnews.com

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-iran-would-be-justified-closing-strategic-waterway-response-sanctions?utm_source=CNSNews&utm_medium=twitter

RRD:There is a name for someone who blames the U.S. government for everything done by belligerent,genocidal,foreign governments:a ”blame-america-firster”.
I have lost all patience with Paul supporters.This is beyond ”isolationism”.It is beyond ”naive”.It is willful,deliberate,self-hatred.
And put into practice it would be treasonous.I have no interest in arguing with Paul supporters.If they believe that the only reason the IRI hates the U.S. is due to our overthrow of Iran's government & the installation of the Shah,then they know nothing about the IRI,it's Mullahs,or the history of U.S.Iranian relations.The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic,Islamist,dictatorship.It is not governed by rational human beings.
It is governed by Mullahs.Ignoring the actual public statements,& actions of this regime in favor of a ”blame-America-first” religion would be catastrophic for the United States.
It would likely lead to deaths of hundreds of thousands of American civilians.
Were Paul to receive the nomination,we would be left with the obscene spectacle of a election in which the Democrat has a greater grasp of the threat posed to the U.S. by Tehran,then does the Republican.

José Rizal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Rizal

See the full gallery on Posterous

Gary Johnson encourages supporters to vote for Ron Paul in #GOP primaries #2012

Gary Johnson encourages supporters to vote for Ron Paul in GOP primaries

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/gary-johnson-encourages-supporters-to-vote-for-ron-paul-in-gop-primaries/

Fighting debt-limit hike futile, conservatives concede

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/fighting-debt-limit-hike-futile-conservatives-concede-2064186.html

Defender of Paul,quite fittingly,defends anti-semite & racist Pat Buchanan #tcot #teaparty

RRD:I say ”quite fittingly”,not because I believe all Ron Paul supporters are anti-semitic or racist,but because Paul has all kinds of crackpots amonst his supporters,& seems quite tolerant of Neo-confederates.
It is interesting how all the racist & anti-semitic little rats are coming out of the woodwork.Carney claims Patrick Buchanan is not a racist & anti-semite?Try Googling ”Pat Buchanan racist”.

It's interesting how revealing this election season has been(to me at any rate,others may have more knowledge of these individuals.).
We see Coulter show her true--pragmatist--colors.We see Pajamas Media shill for Romney & attack Herman Cain.And now Timothy Carney argues that Buchanan is not a racist,& dismisses Paul's newsletters as a ”error”.
And no I really am not part of ”The establishment”,nor am I a ”Neo-conservative” --a term which refers to a actual,particular group of Wilsonian republicans,influenced by Irving Kristol,but which is often used indiscriminately towards anyone who does not agree with their views on foreign policy by many Ron Paul supporters.
(Much in the same way,I should note,that many Neo-Conservatives use the word ”Isolationist” for anyone who disagrees with their ”New American Century” projects)

GOP will take off the gloves if Ron Paul wins Iowa

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-will-take-gloves-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa/264111

Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia Mckinney & Ralph Nader?

Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/21/ron_paul_hates_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/

Coulter's latest imbecility:Only Romney can save us from #Obamacare & Illegal #Immigration #tcot #tlot #teaparty

RRD:Romney is the republican most responsible for giving Obama the cover for passing Obamacare.He instituted socialized medicine in Massachusetts.
Yet according to Coulter he is our
Obi-Wan Kenobi.
He is also a Rockefeller Republican,so of course he will fight efforts of the GOP establishment to offer Amnesty to illegal immigrants,(rolls eyes).(fn1)
I know of some people--people whom I respect--who admire this woman.
Why,I don't know.

If Romney is elected we will not only NOT repeal Obamacare,but we will enable the Democrats to win two victories:one on the Individual Mandate,(Romney believes it to be ”conservative”),& the other on the increasingly discredited Global Warming Hysteria.(fn2)

But don't worry about tomorrow.

Focus on ”beating Obama”.
Then,when Romney is defeated in 2016,the Democrats can pass Cap & Trade using the same:”It can't be socialism if Romney supports it” trick.
My goal is saving the United States.
Not having Republicans destroy it, instead of Democrats.
If you get Romney the nomination,goodbye & good luck.
I'll not be a party to this farce.

”But you'll be responsible for Obama's reelection”.

I used to argue with such people;telling them ”No,those who got Romney the nomination will be responsible...”.
But I'll bite.
I take full responsibility for Obama getting in.
Now what?
What's your next argument?
Frankly if this country is going down the tubes,then we should at least have its killers clearly identify what their ideology is.
We should NOT provide a ”conservative” face for statism.
This is a philosophical,moral,& political battle.
It cannot be won by electing Republican versions of our opponents.
It would be better to lose,(& rebuild ultimately),then have the collapse blamed on ”conservatism”.

Romney is capable of doing something Obama can't:He can make Obamacare,& belief in global warming appear bipartisan.
And that would marginalize us,after we have basically won the public opinion battle.
His nomination would be a unmitigated disaster.

One Candidate Is Right on The Two Most Important Issues - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2011/12/28/only_one_candidate_is_right_on_the_two_most_important_issues/page/full/

fn1.

I am not taking a position on the various immigration proposals at this time.But since Coulter brought it up,I felt the need to point out the absurdity of her claim.

fn2
See:

Will the #Teaparty return to it's vomit,& choose Romney? #tcot #2012 - fightingstatism

http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/will-the-teaparty-return-to-its-vomit-choose

Romney doubles down on argument that state health mandate is 'conservative' - The Hill's Healthwatch

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative

Gary Johnson sets third-party pot bubbling as he quits #GOP race - CSMonitor.com #2012

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1228/Gary-Johnson-sets-third-party-pot-bubbling-as-he-quits-GOP-race

Gingrich Applauded Romney's Health Plan - WSJ.com #tcot #tlot #2012

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204296804577123043147395330.html

RRD:Neither of these fools are acceptable.

Articles: Bachmann vs. the 'Fact-Checkers': Did Iran Threaten Nuclear Attack on U.S.?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/bachmann_vs_the_fact-checkers_did_iran_threaten_nuclear_attack_on_us.html