Saturday, December 31, 2011

The Implicit Dangers of Libertarianism and Ron Paul

I must post this blog article, from the American Thinker, by Mr. Don Feder, as that's how important this article is, and it's substantive facts and truth, aka, the red flag danger warning signs, that are blasting and blaring off, sounding the warnings sirens everywhere, concerning Libertarianism and their leader, Rep. Dr. Ron Paul..

To Get Ron Paul's Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
By Don Feder, December 30, 2011


To "get" Ron Paul you have to understand libertarianism -- an ism every bit as delusional as Marxism. The National Libertarian Party, which first ran a presidential candidate in 1972, hasn't had many wins -- electing 4 state legislators in as many decades, as well as a planning commissioner here and an alderman there. Ron Paul is its greatest success.

The Texas congressman is far and away the most prominent proponent of what I like to call rightwing utopianism. Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism.

Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul), Libertarianism was an outgrowth of 1960s campus conservatism. Like ideologues of the left, libertarians of the day were on a never-ending quest for ideological purity and the foolish consistency Emerson derided. (They still are.) Unlike traditional conservatives, libertarians came to oppose the Vietnam War and what they called "prohibitionist" drug policies. You must be consistent, libertarians lectured us. If you support economic liberty, then you must support "personal liberty" (legalized abortion, freedom to use soul-destroying drugs) and the libertarian principle applied to foreign policy -- isolationism.

During the Cold War, economist Murray Rothbard (one of the foremost libertarian theorists) once observed that if we lost the rest of the world and the Soviets invaded America, we could always take to the hills and launch a guerrilla war, a la "Red Dawn." Libertarians have never been hampered by reality.

Some libertarians drifted into anarchy, others organized the National Libertarian Party. Ron Paul was the party's 1988 standard-bearer.
I understand libertarians because I was one, from roughly 1968 (when I read "Atlas Shrugged") to 1982. I was a vice chairman of the New York Libertarian Party in the early '70s.  When I lived in the Seattle-area, later in the decade, I ran a libertarian supper club, which brought in a young Texas congressman as a speaker. My road to recovery began with "The Conservative Mind" by the great Russell Kirk and Whittaker Chambers' "Witness."

Other than abortion, there is no particular on which Ron Paul differs with either libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Like them, he would legalize hard drugs and abolish age of consent laws, which violate the rights of 24-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds.
Like the average libertarian, Ron Paul is a dogmatic isolationist.
Rothbard believed our involvement in the Second World War was a tragedy:

"Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a
permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex...."

A former aide to the congressman, Eric Dondero says Paul told him the United States had no business being involved in World War II. "When pressed, he often brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand.

The 2010 platform of the National Libertarian Party sets forth a foreign policy difficult to distinguish from the lunacy of Michael Moore and Code
Pink: The former provides:

"Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We should end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."

In 1973, Rothbard observed:

"The libertarian position, generally, is to minimize State power as much as possible, down to zero, and isolationism is the full expression (of that doctrine) in foreign affairs."

Not only does Paul march in lockstep with Rothbard and the L.P., he even believes the United States should have no opinion on foreign developments. Thus, Dr. Paul was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against a 2005 resolution condemning Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map" and a 2009 resolution "expressing support" for Iranian pro-democracy demonstrators.

And yes, Ron Paul has intimated, on more than one occasion, that the United States is to blame for the 9/11 massacre.  He claims al-Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 U.S. civilians because America is "bombing them," because we have military bases in the sacred sand pit and because we support

Israel over the dear Palestinians.  Wonder who he blames for the Muslin conquest of Constantinople in 1453?   The CIA wasn't around then, was it?  Or for the Christmas bombings of Nigerian churches?

In a 2003 speech, Paul said we should pay attention to bin Laden, when he explained his grievances against America.:

"The U.S. defiles Islam with its bases ... its initiation of war against Iraq (notwithstanding Saddam's pacifism), with 12 years of persistent bombing, and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel's occupation expands."

As you'd expect, Paul is insouciant about nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's incinerate-the-Jews/establish-a-worldwide-caliphate regime . Why wouldn't they want nukes? "Internationally, they'd be given more respect." Besides, "they are surrounded." (If only Israel would stop threatening to push the Shiites into the sea.)  What's Tehran going to do with one or two nuclear weapons, Paul asks? Why Israel has dozens. Hint: The Iranians crazy enough to use them. A nuclear war would be just the thing to usher in the 12th imam.

On the Jewish state, Paul doesn't deviate one iota from L.P. party-line. Libertarians view Israel as the engine that drives what they call U.S. imperialism in the Middle East.  Israel is said to sap our resources, drag us into their wars and make the Muslims -- who are otherwise peace-loving and well-disposed to our way of life -- hate us.

In his essay, "War Guilt in the Middle East," Rothbard excoriated Israel's "aggression against Middle East Arabs," "confiscation of Arab lands" and its "refusal to let these refugees (Palestinians) return and return the property taken from them."  He had nothing to say about the equal number of Jews driven from Arab lands by pogroms at the time of Israel's founding.

Dondero says his ex-boss loathes Israel and "sides with the Palestinians and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs." While Dr. Paul hotly denies that he's anti-Israel (his campaign calls Dondero a "disgruntled" ex-aide) everything he's done or said about the Middle East seems to confirm the charge.

Ayn Rand, who unintentionally provided the impetus for the movement, disdained libertarians, calling them "right-wing hippies.' She was unequivocal in her support for Israel, which she explained this way in a 1974 appearance: "When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

Ron Paul may be delusional, but he is a consistent. Neither mass murder, terrorism, the advance of militant Islam, nor nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatical regimes will shake a libertarian's faith in his dogma: We have no foreign enemies. If certain states want to kill us, it's our fault. Nothing is worth fighting for -- unless it's abolishing the Federal Reserve System.

I'd like to follow Ron Paul around to Republican gatherings, pointing at him and shouting "stranger, danger" Stranger this you cannot get.


Friday, December 30, 2011

The GOP Establishment RINO Right's Crony Capitalism, is the Antithesis of Reaganism

The GOP Republican Party establishment RINO right, claims and pretends to be against the left, but just wants to play patsy with them, so they can compromise away every piece of our Constitutional Bill of Rights, for compromise sake, who gives away everything but the kitchen sink to the far left, just so they can claim being sensible Romney, Boehner,  McConnell moderates, just so they can appease the far left, and claim moderation, aka, weakneed gutless spineless betraying backstabbing parasitic leeches to America, the US Constitution, and the American people.  As far as I am concerned, they are worse than the far left, as at least you know where the far left stands as far as being your enemy, whereas the RINO establishment right, just stabs you in the back, as your fighting the far left..

Reaganism is all about standing firm to your principles of conservatism, free market capitalism, and the U.S. Constitution, and not compromising them, let alone abandoning them, for the sake of compromise, while implementing their insidious crony capitalism, just to claim moderate sensibility, to appease the radical far left liberals, like Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor have done..

Govt. interference, (other than standard regulations for safety, monopoly prevention measures, insider trading, etc,) are the causes of cronyism,  by Obama's bailing out and buying up of private sector companies, like GE and GM, which has created a quasi govt private sector company, which govt and politicians now have their hands in, and on, and can influence and manipulate things as they see fit, which is NOT what and how the Free Market enterprise system of Capitalism works.. Capitalism works when the govt. stays out of the private sector economy, and companies businesses, and lets the markets work on their own, via customer supply and demand..

That's exactly what Obama did, and what Romney did, and what Perry did..  Utilize crony capitalism manipulation,  within their govt. intervention.. They all allowed the govt, - State, or Federal, to hire people, and grow govt., which the question arises of who pay for it all, ie; the Tax Payers, because the govt does not create wealth and prosperity, it only takes it.. That's crony capitalism..   Instead of making the private sector economy more friendly to private investors and the markets as a whole, and allowing the free market capitalist enterprise system to work and create wealth and prosperity, from which then the govt, gets it's much needed revenues from..

Wherever there is a free market enterprise economy of capitalism, that is allowed to work and flourish, unimpeded, there will always be innovations and new technology of the future, and the ways and means to utilize that technology..  People do not make goods and services for free, they do it for a profit, which is why they call it capitalism, so that everyone benefits in the long run and long term, by becoming wealthy and prosperous, for all in involved in the economic process..  This is how America's free market economy works, and how President Reagan unleashed this free market capitalist system of the private enterprise system, in the private sector economy, by lowering taxes across the board, capital gains taxes and rates for businesses, and reduced the amount of stifling suffocating, crippling, and debilitating, unneeded govt. over regulations, that which socialist-marxist govt's love to use and maintain, in their power and control over the process and people, which made the US Economy boom in the 1980's.

This is why the Reagan-Kemp Supply side economics system and plan, works so well, and which ultimately lasted for decades..   Until the liberals destroyed it all again..  And as always, we the conservatives, constantly have to fix, what they have destroyed, in this endless cycle of conservative building of wealth and prosperity via conservative free market economy capitalism, and liberals stealing and destruction of it, which always results in a massive recession and inflation, and now even worse, Obama's socialist-marxist communist manifesto of wealth redistribution, and the tearing down of the American US Constitutional laws, as well as the US Economy, thus the American way of life and dream, that has made America the greatest nation on earth..

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Congressional Politicians, The People, and The Republic

 Washington DC, ie; congressional politicians, has turned it into a congressional of house of political corruption, in our supposed representative democratic republic, where they, the Obamacratic anti-American secular progressive liberals, aka, socialist-marxist communists, along with their colluding buddies on the opposite side of the political aisle, the spineless weak kneed Republican Party RINO elitists, who rule as an indignant arrogant  aristocracy, also called the permanent political class, for which the Voters, aka, the ordinary American people, have little to no say in any matters for which they partake in, to satisfy their political agenda, personal monetary gain, and their greed and lust for power and influence..  And with the help and assist of the liberal MSM and press, they are a formidable force of self-destruction, of and to, our democratic free way of life, and to our individual freedom and liberty, along with the U.S. Constitution itself.

This is what and where we are now at with these people, and it is only the emergence of the Patriotic American Tea Party folks, that have been able to stop them in their tracks, temporarily..  At least until the 6 Nov. 2012 election, where we will either completely finish he job we started on 2 Nov. 2010, or we will forever lose everything that the Founding Fathers set up, in our Republic Nation called America.

People like Obama will be swept away in the 6 Nov. 2012 general election, but whom will we put in his place, is the key question..  And the other question is, if we can secure enough Tea Party Constitutional Conservatives in Congress, to refortify the already elected Tea Party conservative members, from 2 Nov. 2010 mid-term election, can we remove that spineless weak kneeded gutless Republican Party RINO John Boehner as Speaker, who has no qualms about giving away all of of our Rights and Freedoms, in the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Rights", one piece at a time, to these radical anti-American Obamacratic parasitic socialist-marxist leeches, for their beloved sake of compromise, in their collusion with them..  and place an actual constitutional Tea Party conservative in his place..  Let's hope so, for the very survival of America as a true Democratic Republic, in which it's elected officials, who are actually responsive to the Will of the Majority of the electorate, aka, the people, is at stake, and nothing less.. 

This is the place and time, where America and it's governing body, is either controlled by "We the People", as in the words of President Abraham Lincoln-  Govt. "Of the People, By the People, For the People", shall not perish from this earth", or is forever lost to political corruption, greed, graft, and perversion of the very ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty, as our Founding Father's had given us, and as so depicted in Plato's Republic. 

Ultimately, it is up to the people, and if the people let it die, then they deserve what they get, another form of dictatorship of tyranny and oppression,  where the people are plundered, looted, and raped of all of their Rights, Freedoms, Liberties, Wealth, and Property.. 

This is consequences of elections, that are the responsibility of the people, in a Democracy, when ultimately, if the people do not take their responsibility in their Democratic system of Representative Democracy seriously, this is what they can lose- everything, ie; their Freedom, which is everything..  for if they, or we, do not have Freedom and Liberty, we have nothing..  for if you do not have your Freedom, everything after that is meaningless.

Friday, December 23, 2011

The Truth about Romney

Romney is a pathetic weasel of a man, who couldn’t stand up and fight, to save his pathetic disgusting crony liberal Republican RINO hypocrite life.  He reminds me of these kids who afraid to fight, so they would throw rocks, call names from afar, then runaway when chased after..  That’s exactly how Romney behaves.. He’s spineless political coward, on top of being a crony capitalist liberal republican Party RINO lying hypocrite elitist, and should never be allowed to be the US President, period. 

Romney’s great character is standing on a fence, so he can turn on a dime, like a wind directional finder, whenever a position needs to be flip-flopped on, for political convenience. as well as his crony capitalism, in his claims of job creation, and especially his liberal forced mandated State Socialized Medicine healthcare system, aka, Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, as his e-mail records as Gov. of Mass., would have proven his guilt, until he had them all deleted.

Romney’s signature accomplishment is Romneycare, the forced mandated State Socialized Medicine healthcare system, that Obama used to set up Obamacare with, for which we now have to wait til the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down, or we have to completely repeal it legislatively, when the new Republican President takes over in Jan 2013. And thus is the question, how can, or would we trust Romney to repeal a system for which he set up in Mass, and refuses to say was bad, and is bankrupting the State, with State Tax payer govt subsidies to the healthcare providers, hospitals, insurance companies, and so on, all the while providing substandard and inferior healthcare, to it’s State residents because of it..

This on top of all the other corny capitalist gimmicks, that Romney screwed around with in Mass, which is why he had all of his Gov’s office e-mails deleted before he left office, as well as deny anyone access to his records.  And now of course, he refuses to release his tax returns records, what else is new with this weasel of a political coward / so called man..


by Benjamin Domenech Published: 7:12 PM 12/16/2011, The Daily Caller-Managing Editor, Health Care News


“Cronyism.” That word has been thrown around a great deal in the Republican primary battle. It’s bad when it’s done to lure companies to locate in a particular state, or to reward a political ally, but it’s worse when it’s used to increase government intrusion into people’s lives.

That’s what happened when former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney pressed to get support for his health care reform, the widely acknowledged model for Obamacare.

The back story here is little known, but very damning. According to a 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, at the time of Romneycare’s passage the two largest safety-net hospital systems in Massachusetts — Boston Medical Center (BMC) and Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA) — had “become dependent on direct subsidies” and were concerned that, even accounting for the significant rate increases allowed under the new law, a shift to Medicaid managed care would hurt their bottom lines.

So to get his signature health care law passed, Romney and his allies agreed to a host of annual payments — including “MCO supplemental payments,” “disproportionate share hospital” payments and special “hospital supplemental payments,” targeted exclusively for the two systems.

At the last minute, more than $540 million in so-called “Section 122 payments” were inserted into the law, designed to supply BMC and CHA with an even bigger financial cushion over the next three years. In practice, these funds — which included federal, state and local taxpayer money — served as direct subsidies for the two providers’ expansions.

According to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the designers of Romney’s law and one of the experts who consulted with the White House on Obamacare, “The federal government was essentially supplementing the expansion of these inner city hospitals.” When some lawmakers suggested cutting back on the amounts, provider officials complained about all the great programs they’d have to shut down — such as BMC’s “food pantry.”

The irony is that the corporate cronyism it took to get Romney’s law passed proved its financial undoing, at least in the short term. As it turned out, the cost of these subsidies made the difference for Romneycare’s dubious financial stability.

Facing higher than expected enrollment, the Section 122 payments forced Massachusetts to prioritize more money for the required earmarks to BMC and CHA — money that might otherwise have been used to cover costs of patient care. According to the Heritage Foundation, in 2008 “Section 122 payments come to $180 million, while Commonwealth Care overruns are $153 million. … In effect, the state was subsidizing institutions, not patients.”


The Truth about Newt

The Truth is Newt is a true conservative, regardless of what and how hard the liberal MSM tries to portray him otherwise, along with the so called conservative media pundits, like Ann Coulter, who is not a real conservative journalist, but a crony Republican Party establishment RINO hack jour-no-list, as well as so the called conservative politicians, who are not real conservatives, like Romney, but are just like Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, the Bush’s, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, and so on, - Crony Republican Party establishment RINO elitists, aka, fake conservatives..

Newt has some extreme idea’s in him, like Balancing the US Federal Budget, Fiscal and Financial accountability and responsibility to the tax payers, lower taxes across the board, and so on..  but in order for them to be implemented, the good ol’ Republican party establishment boys, must be pushed aside, as they do not like change, of any conservative agenda..  and are thus always misconstrued.. 

Republicans are not necessarily conservative, and conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, which is the reason why there are so many Republican Party RINO’s, who dislike, disdain, and have nothing but contempt for conservatives, especially the patriotic Tea Party Reagan constitutional conservatives..  They, the Republican Party establishment RINO elites, like GHW Bush, who in 1980 said of Ronald Reagan, quote-  his VooDoo economics would destroy the US Economy even further, and was unelectable.. unquote.. 

They disdained and despised Ronald Reagan back then, the same way they disdain and despise Newt today, as well as did then back in the 1990′s.

For the most part, Newt stays within, for, by his words and actions, of constitutional conservative tea party principles and values of limited govt, lower taxes across the board for all individuals and businesses, fiscal and financial responsibility to not spend and borrow more than we take in as a Nation, to not burden the people and future American generations with massive unsustainable and unpayable Debt,  making the elected officials, aka, elected govt. politicians, accountable and responsible, to the voters, aka, their constituency, aka, w the people.. as well as a strong US Military to protect and defend America and our allies, as well as protecting, defending, and adhering to, the U.S. Constitution..

Just to help me explain Newt a little better, here’s a great article about Newt, that will explain and shed light on what Newt has actually done, accomplished, and stands for, in his fight against, not just the liberal Washington DC politicians, and liberal media pundits and press, but the so called moderate conservative Washington DC politicians, and media pundits.. who are really not conservative, but are Republican Party establishment RINO elitist weak kneed spineless traitors, who would compromise and give away, each part and piece of our U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, just to get along with the radical liberal establishment.

Why the Establishment fears Newt Gingrich

by Robert S. Walker, Published: December 22,  The Washington Post

Robert S. Walker, executive chairman of the public policy firm Wexler & Walker, represented Pennsylvania’s 16th District in the U.S. House from 1977 to 1996. He is an unpaid adviser to the Gingrich campaign.


“After Newt Gingrich rose in the polls, criticism of the former House speaker began grabbing headlines. But Republican establishment attacks on Newt are not new. Newt’s political career has been devoted to mounting a conservative challenge to the establishment’s desire to play the Washington power game of go along to get along.

As a junior congressman, Newt founded the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a group of activist members of Congress whose goal was to challenge the liberal welfare state but whose first target was the Republican establishment in the House of Representatives. The “old bulls” who dominated the party in the House had become quite comfortable in their minority status and saw little chance they would ever become a majority. Newt and the COS knew that, to create a true conservative agenda, the party needed to focus on becoming a majority. We used the House floor and C-SPAN to promote our ideas. We attacked spending bills and efforts to expand government, some of which the establishment had endorsed. It reacted by telling newly elected members to stay away from those COS guys because they are trouble.

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich trims the Judicial branch.

Newt really stirred up establishment backlash by taking on then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) for ethics violations. The further Newt pushed his case against Wright, the more uncomfortable establishment leaders became. When Newt won, they leaned more toward agreeing with Wright’s characterization of the result as “cannibalism” rather than seeing it as a victory for Republicans against an increasingly corrupt majority.

In 1989 Newt scored a stunning victory over the establishment candidate to win the job of Republican whip. It was a hard-fought battle decided by one vote. But that victory meant that the party was moving toward a conservative activist profile, shedding its passive minority attitude.

Newt really upset the establishment when he refused to go along with the tax increases that had been engineered in negotiations between Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration. Party leaders put him on the negotiating team in an effort to neutralize him. Instead, Newt made it clear that he would not accept tax increases and his message to President Bush was that tax increases would destroy his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. When the negotiations produced new taxes, Newt refused to sign on and led the Republican opposition to the settlement in the House. To this day, establishment figures harbor a grudge against Newt for not joining their “revenue enhancement” conspiracy.

When the 1994 election seemed likely to produce significant Republican gains in the House and Senate, it was Newt who engineered the Contract With America. He saw the need for a conservative governing document because he believed we would become a majority with the power to change the course of policy toward conservative values. Many of those values were spelled out in the contract, which included the legislation we intended to pass. Much of the establishment opposed the contract, believing it was too specific and would subject us to criticism that might cost us victories. The real story was the angst from the establishment about the conservative reforms evident in the contract. Most eventually signed on, only because many of them still believed we would never get a majority and therefore would not have to act on the contract’s provisions.

When Newt became speaker, he was focused, disciplined and tough. He insisted on moving the Contract With America intact. He abolished committees and denied “old bulls” chairmanships. He insisted on using the majority to win conservative victories such as balancing budgets, achieving welfare reform and producing 11 million new jobs with tax cuts that spurred economic growth. He made some people unhappy when he pursued legislation that could win instead of pet bills that would have divided Republicans rather than uniting them. And he negotiated with a Democratic president to get the conservative legislation being passed signed into law. Some Republicans were left unhappy in the wake of all of that activity — some of them are still complaining today.

While Newt has been a part of the Washington scene for some time, he always has been the outsider challenging the establishment and insisting on reforms and transformation. He has been vilified, targeted with ethics complaints, subjected to lies and mythology. Millions of dollars have been spent on attacks against him. And he’s still standing, offering America the kind of ideas and leadership it needs in the 21st century.

It boils down to this: Newt Gingrich is a conservative; the establishment prefers moderates. Newt prefers to stand up and debate conservative ideas and ideals; the establishment prefers to keep people guessing. Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.”


And this factual, thus clearly defined truthful article-

By Peter Ferrara on 12.28.11 @ 6:08AM

How easily his great and solid conservative achievements are forgotten.

He led us to victory before. Spectacular, historic victory. The strategy and content of his 1994 Contract with America propelled the Republicans to a 54-seat gain in 1994 to win control of the House of Representatives, which had been held by the Republicans for only two out of the previous 62  years. Even the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s failed to achieve that.

Then, for all the caterwauling we have heard about how he handled the budget battles with Clinton, he led the House Republicans in 1996 to their first re-election as a majority since 1928, almost 70 years.

Moreover, once in power, Gingrich delivered on his promises, and maintained a solid conservative record. He carried out the

Contract with America in full, holding a vote on every item as promised, most of which did pass (which was not promised). His record was unswervingly pro-life, pro-gun and Second Amendment, and anti-tax. Indeed, he worked closely with the conservative activist groups on every one of these issues.

Gingrich's Balanced Budget: Succeeding Where Bush Failed

Contrary to the untouched by reality liberal/left talking points about how the 1993 Clinton tax increases led to balanced budgets, when the Gingrich majority took power in 1995, it was greeted by the 1996 Clinton budget still projecting $200 billion annual budget deficits as far as the eye could see, totaling $2.7 trillion over 10 years, confirmed by CBO. The House passed a budget bill providing for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, and that was almost 20 years ago when $1 trillion was still real money.

In the government shutdown budget battles with Clinton, Gingrich won the substance, as Gingrich demonstrated the only way to balance the budget, with Reagan's supply-side economics. That involved both cutting taxes, to get the economy booming, and cutting spending, resulting in the longest period of federal surpluses since the 1920s.

This is what the official government records show. You can dig deep into the records at yourself. Total federal discretionary spending, as well as the subcategory of non-defense discretionary spending, declined from 1995 to 1996 in actual nominal dollars. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the decline was 5.4 percent. By 2000, total federal discretionary spending was still about the same as it was in 1995 in constant dollars. As a percent of GDP, federal discretionary spending was slashed by 17.5 percent in just four years, from 1995 to 1999.

Total federal spending relative to GDP declined from 1995 to 2000 by an astounding 12.5 percent, a reduction in the federal government relative to the economy of about one-eighth in just five short years. This was accomplished not just by reducing discretionary spending, but through fundamental structural reforms of some programs, such as the old AFDC entitlement program. The Gingrich Congress succeeded in block granting that program back to the states, after two vetoes from Clinton. After 10 years, the taxpayers saved 50 percent on the costs of that program, while the poor formerly on the program gained by going to work, with poverty among them plummeting. That is a model for future entitlement reform.

As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Over four years, the national debt held by the public was reduced by a record $560 billion in surpluses. When Gingrich left office, instead of CBO projections of $2.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, CBO projected surpluses of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a positive turnaround in the budget of $5 trillion. This is exactly what we need today.

These spending cuts were accomplished not with a deal with the Democrats to raise taxes, but with pro-growth cuts in tax rates. Gingrich led enactment of a capital gains tax rate cut of nearly 30 percent in 1997, from 28 percent down to 20 percent, which was the largest capital gains cut in American history. Despite that cut, actual capital gains revenues soared $84 billion higher for 1997 to 2000 than projected before the rate cut. The Republican Congress also expanded IRAs, and adopted other tax cuts on capital.

Contrast that with the disastrous 1990 Bush/Darman/Sununu budget deal, trading permanent tax increases for supposed future spending cuts. The economy dropped into recession almost from the moment the deal was announced, with GDP declining 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990. That briefly ended the 92 straight months of economic growth of the Reagan recovery, almost 60 percent longer than any other peacetime expansion in U.S. history.

As a result, federal tax revenues declined rather than increased, despite the tax hikes engineered by Bush budget director
Richard Darman, intellectually dominated by the Washington Post and New York Times. Federal revenues had been running 18 to 18.4 percent of GDP before the budget deal, but they declined to 17.5 to 17.7 percent during 1991 to 1992. Pulitzer prize winning columnist Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal reported in January 1993, in a column entitled "Oops, Weren't We Going to Reduce the Deficit?" that the rich paid $6.5 billion less in taxes in 1991, after the tax rate hike, than they did in 1990 before rates went up.

While the Joint Tax Committee had estimated the 10 percent luxury tax on boats, airplanes, cars, jewelry and furs would raise $6 billion in 1991, the actual revenue increase was $53,000. The lost revenue from laid off workers previously building luxury boats and planes was far greater. In the first two years of the luxury tax, 9,400 non-rich boat makers lost their jobs.

At the same time, federal spending rose rather than fell, climbing from 21.2 percent of GDP in 1989 to 22.3 percent in 1991 and 22.1 percent in 1992. In 1991 and 1992 federal domestic spending exploded by 20 percent. "Notwithstanding all the budgeters' talk of pain," wrote Howard Gleckman of Business Week after the budget deal was consummated, "spending at home is in for a windfall." Everything from Head Start to NASA to Medicaid to highway spending enjoyed beefy budget increases in this new austere budget environment.

The deficit consequently soared from $152 billion in 1989, to $221 billion in 1990, $269 billion in 1991, and $290 billion in 1992, when the voters rightly booted Bush out for violating the no new taxes pledge that got him elected. As a Cato Institute report concluded: "The 1990 budget deal was not the deal of the century, but the crime of the century. It hurt the economy, reduced revenues, increased spending, and failed its ultimate test: it didn't reduce the budget deficit." But to this day, Washington budget experts want another grand bipartisan budget deal just like what happened in 1990.

Ironically, Gingrich is being savaged by the Bush crowd now for his role in leading House Republicans in 1990 to reject the Bush budget deal. Bush White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, Sr. is bitterly attacking Gingrich as unstable for opposing the Bush budget deal circus. Former President Bush has endorsed Romney because he is not "a bomb-thrower," in Bush's words, a reference to Gingrich's refusal to lead House Republicans off the cliff with him.

Gingrich's rebellion against Bush's 1990 betrayal of Reaganomics was his finest hour. That leadership is what led to the House Republican takeover in 1994. If conservatives and supply-siders do not rally around Gingrich now, and allow the Bush crowd to win with Romney, Reaganism will have been routed out of the Republican Party. Undoubtedly, John Sununu will pick Romney's budget director (remember his pick of Supreme Court Justice David Souter over the conservative alternative that would have given conservatives a firm majority on the Court). The first thing Romney will do if elected is exactly the reprise of the 1990 tax increase budget deal for which the Washington establishment that will run a Romney Administration is always pining. That will require another round of Democrats in the White House before conservatives can even get a chance at winning again, which
America cannot survive at this point.

Gingrich's Platform

Besides Gingrich's proven record of conservative leadership, he is running this year on the most visionary free market platform of any candidate ever.

It is all in writing at Gingrich is campaigning on the ultimate, supply-side, pro-growth, Jobs and Economic Recovery plan of cutting taxes and spending to balance the budget, just as he did in the 1990s. He is proposing the 15 percent optional flat tax plan of Steve Forbes and Steve Moore. He proposes corporate tax reform, closing loopholes in return for lowering the rate to 12.5 percent as Ireland did in 1988 to such great success.

He would eliminate the capital gains tax, the death tax, and the alternative minimum tax. He would allow immediate expensing for capital investment, like the deductions for all other business expenses, instead of dragging those deductions out over many years through arbitrary depreciation schedules.

These tax reforms are explicitly not designed to be revenue neutral. They are designed to be growth maximizing, resulting in the most jobs and the most rapidly rising wages and incomes. The professional score of these reforms will be released this week, showing how the budget can be balanced with economic growth and spending cuts. Those would involve returning most budget line items to pre-Obama levels, and then freezing them there until budget balance. It would also involve abolishing all corporate bailouts and corporate welfare, and terminating, breaking up, or privatizing stale, outdated programs, like NPR, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, AMTRAK, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It would include as well the most sweeping, long-term entitlement reforms ever proposed, which are also spelled out in comprehensive detail in writing at He would adopt and then expand an individual choice for personal savings, investment and insurance accounts for younger workers that would be expanded over time to finance all of the benefits financed by the payroll tax, as in Chile, ultimately displacing the payroll tax entirely. Gingrich would bring Jose Piñera from Chile to campaign for this idea across America, but especially among Hispanics, with the grassroots campaign targeted at younger workers and minorities that George W. Bush should have followed through with, but never did. Such personal accounts involve the biggest reduction in government spending in world history, as all that spending now financed by the personal accounts would ultimately be shifted to the private sector.

Gingrich also proposes to expand his enormously successful 1996 AFDC welfare reforms to the nearly 200 remaining federal means-tested welfare programs, sending all federal welfare back to the states. The projected federal and state spending on these programs over the next 10 years is $10 trillion. Based on the experience with the 1996 reforms, that spending can ultimately be cut in half or more through these reforms.

Gingrich would further slash taxes, spending and regulatory costs by trillions by repealing and replacing Obamacare with Patient Power. Those reforms would provide a health care safety net that would ensure access to essential health care for the uninsured at just a fraction of current costs, with no individual mandate and no employer mandate. You can just ask John Goodman at NCPA about that, who is personally advising Gingrich on health policy. I myself have been an unpaid close personal advisor to Gingrich for years.

Taken together, these entitlement reforms would over the long run cut federal spending in half from what it would be otherwise, completely solving America's entitlement and fiscal crisis. That estimate reflects my life's work on entitlement reform and budget policy at the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, NCPA, and now the Heartland Institute. The full discussion can be found in my book published last June by HarperCollins, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.

Pasted from <>

And finally this endorsement of Newt, by President Reagan's chief Economist, Mr Arthur Laffer

Economist Laffer Endorses Gingrich
Wednesday, 28 Dec 2011 12:29 PM
By Newsmax Wires

Arthur Laffer, the architect of Ronald Reagan’s economic plan, announced today that he is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.

"Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field,” said Laffer, the renowned economist who is the father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics.

“Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation. and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade,” Laffer declared. “Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.”

Laffer, who will join Gingrich in Storm Lake, Iowa, Thursday for a formal news conference announcing the endorsement, said, "Rebuilding the America we love requires returning to job creation and economic growth. We need big changes to fix the economy, and I am ready to stand up to Barack Obama’s class warfare rhetoric to make the case that letting the American people keep more of what they earn is the best way to create jobs.”

Laffer is the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an economic research firm in Nashville, Tenn., focusing on interconnecting macroeconomics, political, and demographic changes affecting global financial markets.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Ron Paul and where the Tea Party stands on him

Ron Paul has great constitutional Domestic policies, but as far as his Foreign policy goes, he is an absolute nutjob, and should never be allowed to be the US President, period, at any time. When an appeasing isolationist demilitarist nutjob like Ron Paul, is trying to become the Republican US President, whom we would not normally care about, then that’s when the danger becomes reality.

The Tea Party Patriots want not just Constitutional Conservative, pro-American, pro-free market capitalist Domestic policies to be the norm, where the economy prospers, and Individual Freedom and Liberty are secured, but also a strong U.S. Military Defense, to secure America’s US National Security, and the rest of the Free World’s peace, especially that of Israel and the Jewish people, which Ron Paul seems to care less about.. 

Ronald Reagan would be appalled at Ron Paul’s appeasement of Iran’s nuclear threats to Israel, let alone America, and the rest of the Free World. Tea Party conservatives neither condone war, nor advocate war, for any reason, except self defense, and prevention of attack in the form of US National Security measures, as well as preventing another Holocaust to the Jewish people, and the State of Israel.

Just because Israel has nukes of it’s own, does not mean that they can withstand a nuclear attack in such a tight geographic locational area like Israel, Jerusalem, etc.. and not sustain enormous casualties.. which is why we, America, and especially us Tea Party Conservatives,  must do all we can to prevent this from ever occurring, as we can no longer appease those who wish death and destruction upon a whole nation, let alone another holocaust of a while race of human beings.

Ron Paul’s appeasement of Iran, in the attainment of a nuclear device, would allow them to destroy Israel and the Middle East, which would erupt in a ball of fire.

Ron Paul is the Neville Chamberlain of America, and  thus is dangerous to peace and security around the world.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

What Romney's Refusal to Debate Newt, says about Romney

What this says that the candidate Mr Romney, is that he hasn’t the personal confidence and courage, political or otherwise, to face his opponents, one on one..  as severely lacks the skill, knowledge, expertise, and intellect, to debate on Newt on any stage, one on one.. How can he be expected to lead the Nation as the US President, if he’s too afraid to face his primary opponents, to a political dialogue debate, one on one..
What it also says about Mr. Romney, besides being afraid, ie; a political coward, he has no integrity, and as a political coward, he thus allows, or encourages others like Chris Christie, and so on, to do his attacking for him,  aka, war by proxy.. 
Mr. Romney is absolutely not qualified to be the U.S. President, for especially this reason. No one wants an ill equipted, ill qualified political coward, as the U.S. President..  No one, that's who..  Especially not as a Republican.  We can ill afford another Obama in the White House.
Ronald Reagan was never afraid to take on any one, in any debate, let alone on a one on one exchange..
Mr. Romney makes a Patriotic Constitutional Conservative want to puke with disgust.. Can you imagine as a Romney supporter, besides having to swallow that issue of Romney’s implementation of his beloved forced mandated State Socialized Healthcare Medicine program, aka, Romneycare, which he refuses to admit was wrong in so many ways, then says he will repeal Obamacare if elected, even though Romneycare and Obamacare, are both the same thing.  You just gotta love his hypocrisy and lies, (sarcastically)..  as he thinks he’s cute, and no one will question him on it.  He couldn’t even take a few questions from Brett Baier, the Fox News Special Report Host the other day, and Brett was rather light on him..  And he still whined about it..
These are the facts, and the fact of the matter is, Romney is a political coward, and should never be elected to be the U.S. President.
Now, try swallowing that, as a Romney Republican Primary voter..

Time For The Newt Revolution

We had the Reagan Revolution, that saved America, from the catastrophic economic disaster of the Jimmy Carter govt., and gave us decades of economic prosperity, and US National Security, as well as won the Cold War against the USSR, and thus freed millions of people from bondage, torture, in the slave labor gulag camps, in the brutality of the old Stalinist Soviet Union, all throughout eastern Europe, behind the "Iron Curtain".

Now, we must have the Newt Revolution, to save America, once again, from not only the devastating and crippling financial and fiscal economic catastrophic disaster, of US Bankruptcy and Insolvency that looms over America today, via an unsustainable and unpayable 15 - 21 Trillion dollar U.S. National Debt, and a record 1.5 Trillion dollar annual fiscal deficit, which is now at 100% of the US National GDP, courtesy of the Obama Regime, but we face an even more serious problem, Liberal Fascism, aka, Secular Progressive Socialist-Marxism. This ideological social and political disease, is at the core, and the cause, of the internal destruction of America, as we know it, as this form of liberalism, is so much more radical and extreme and thus dangerous to all Americans, than their annoying liberal democrats, of the old Democratic Party.

It is now time for the Newt Revolution.!!

Newt Gingrich:
Impeach judges – Crush and Replace the Left – 2012 “Victory or Death!”

This is a must watch this video of Newt Gingrich, on his website,  or,  which he just absolutely blows you away with absolute Conservative Oratory, putting his vision and the facts of evidence, in an all out battle plan, against the forces of evil, aka, liberal fascism, in America- Liberal Fascism..  Which is secular reggressive socialist-marxism,  a political governing ideology of social and political cancer, that destroys a civilized democratic society from the inside out..  It permeates all throughout every area and aspect of American govt-the Justice Department, the Judicial system, aka, Liberal Judicial Activism, and especially in politics, as well as every other area in American life and culture..    I loved it !!

What happens when some liberal activist Judge somewhere, declares the US Constitution, unconstitutional..  I mean, somewhere along the lines, at some point, we the People, have got to get the Sanity in, and the Asinine Stupidity out, of American Politics, Govt. / Justice Dept., and more importantly, the American Judicial system. !!

If we are to save this great nation from the cancerous disease Liberal fascism, aka, Socialist-Marxism,  Newt Gingrich must be the next President of the United States of America, period.

The Republican RINO Party of Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, and Romney

The Republican Party, aka, the GOP, once stood for, yes- besides the Grand old Party, Values and Principles of Constitutional Conservatism, of honest and true Free Market Enterprise Capitalism, and adherence to the U.S. Constitution, all accomplished by President Ronald Reagan..  but is now, the Party of Crony Capitalism, and double talking BS by slick crony RINO salesmen, like Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor, along with Romney, whose collusion and cronyism, is the reason why the Republican Party is nothing but an opposition party joke, s they give away the store, day in and day out..  And is why the Republican Party has become nothing but a shell game, where  these people use the Bill of Rights, to barter away the Patriotic American peoples, Freedom, Liberty, and Independence, one piece at a time, for what ever moderate luke warm political compromise, they can get with the far leftwing liberal Obama radicals..  They are weak and insidiously corrupted, from the top down, and must be replace altogether, and is why we must start all over from scratch.  There must a permanent political Constitutional Conservative Tea Party established within the very near future, or the Nation will not survive as a US Constitutional Republic.

This is why Romney must not be the Republican Party Nominee for US President..

Romney is not a conservative, but is a career crony capitalist Republican Party RINO, who is a congenital liar, a flip-flopper, who does not understand why he is wrong in so many ways,  on so many issues..  He has not been, and will not be, vetted by the liberal MSM.. as well as challenged by the Republican Party establishment elites, even though he has already admitted he deleted all of his e-mails as Gov. of Mass.. which means he has much to hide.. and he already has admitted to denying access to his documents and files, as Gov. via, the FOI Act.. etc, and so on..

Romney is also clueless about the dangers of the world, especially that of Islam, and their fanatical religious nutjob clerics and ayatollahs, and their terrorists, that exploits intolerance and hatred of non-islamic muslims and especially of Jews..  Romney already stated he believed that the terrorists jihadists, were different from the religion of Islam..  How naive and clueless can he be..  So what he would do about Iran and the nuclear threat they pose to Israel, in the coming projected war  in the middle east..

Then there's Romney's indecision on the issue of what to do about illegal aliens already here in the country, which in comparison to Newt, who has already stated his position on what, and how to handle it.. whether you liked it or not..  Newt was at least decisive, and took a decisive position, which makes Newt look like a Presidential leader with answers, compared to Romney, who looks like a wishy washy, slick, crony politician. And yet the liberal MSM press, says nothing..  Let alone the conservative media press..

Romney lies almost as much as Obama does, and has about as much trustworthiness, as Obama, and is basically an Obama facsimile..  In fact, Romney is the exact political replica of Obama, except for his race, and an “R” next to his name on the ballot.  I would not vote for Romney if he were the last lying crony capitalist republican party RINO on earth, period. As I would never vote for Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell, as well, but make sure they are all thrown out of office and power, just like Obama will be.

Newt, Romney, and the Battle of the Republican Factions

This is the current political synopsis, between Newt and Romney, and the political left and right, and the media, of the issue of vetting, or not vetting, in the strategic and tactical political attacks, to who, by who, and for what motives, of the 2012 Republican Primary election campaign..

First of all, there is no perfect candidate, let alone another Patriotic Constitutional Conservative Ronald Reagan, in the current field of candidates.. So, with that being said, Newt, with his warts and all, has all of his 38 years of political career baggage, and or laundry, all out there in the open, for all to see.. His accomplishments, and his mistakes and flaws.. So, the people can decide whether or not, they want and like Newt, over the other candidates, at America's helm, as the next US President. Especially with major economic, political, social, and international world affair issues at stake, and on the table, the next President will have his or her hands full.. which Newt is more than qualified to handle..

But, the same cannot be said of Romney, which in fact, the opposite is true.  Romney is almost like Obama in may respects, as he hides everything controversial and negative, and them lies about them when asked.. He is so much like Obama is many regards, character and political tactics, it's often hard to tell the difference..  and the MSM, refuses to vett Romney, like they refused with Obama..  why, because if there is one thing the liberals like more than a Democrat in power, it's 2 Democrats in power..  In other words, when the candidate on either side of the political race, is of the same stripes, and agenda, then it's a win win situation either way for the liberal agenda..  That's why they hate Constitutional Conservatives, like Ronald Reagan, who could not be bought or corrupted.

So, this also why there is a split in the Republican party, the standard bearing Republican Party establishment of Bush, Rove, Romney, Christie, etc..  and the Tea party Constitutional Conservatives like Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, etc..  This is where the line has been drawn in these 2 factions of the Republican Party.  But the Tea Party represents the faction, that represents the Will of the People, not the Will of the crony politicians, which is main the difference..  and that is why the far right crony capitalists like Romney and Christie, are backed by the establishment Republican Party..  But the question is, is Newt part of the Republican Party establishment, or the Constitutional Conservative Tea Party faction..  It would seem he is now Part of the Tea Party, that represents the people, which is why he is now, the frontrunner, compared to Romney, who is backed by the liberal establishment, and is why Romney is not being vetted, and is why Newt is being attacked and vetted, and the target of the Democratic attack machinery, as well as the Republican Right attack machinery, ie; both sides.

This is the truth, as the people have been the targeted enemy since Obama's election as US President, then reinforced by Pelosi and Reid of the 111th Congress, then made even more evident after the 2010 mid-term elections, from both sides of the political aisle. So, it is no surprise that they, the Obama left and the RINO right, have teamed up to coordinated a media attack against Newt.

We Are All Now Conservative Jews

This article exposes the insidious and insipid disease called Liberalism, that is infecting even Jewish people and organizations, that are supposed to stand up for, and protect Israel and the Jewish People, but which has to be fought against, on top of the already publically stated Enemies of Israel and the Jewish People, in the Middle East, as well as Europe and America..

By Robert M. Goldberg 10/27/2011
The American Spectator


"With their "unity"pledge, prominent Jewish leaders are trying to save Obama from the consequences of his Israel policy."

"The President of the United States was being attacked for withholding aid to Israel in an effort to pressure it to stop housing construction in communities established on land Israel won during the Six Day War in 1967.

Jews openly criticized the president's effort to tie aid to Israel to a freeze on settlements. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) leader Abraham Foxman called the linkage "an untenable position" and declared "the question of Israeli settlement activity is an issue to be resolved at the Arab-Israeli negotiating table." Indeed, these groups were equally angered and confused by the president's proposal to use the 1967 "borders" as a starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians.  

In an unprecedented move, Israel's prime minister publicly criticized the president for this policy, claiming Israel would be returned to the "borders of Auschwitz" if it went back to its pre-1967 frontiers. "The United States really wants to return us to the 1967 borders with minor border adjustments," he told the newspaper Haaretz.

The American Jewish Congress declared that "this is a regrettable and unwarranted conditioning of humanitarian aid on compliance with an extraneous political goal.… This policy of the United States now compels Israel to choose between aid which everyone believes essential to its absorption needs and a settlement policy which some, at least, believe is essential to its security needs."

The political fallout of major Jewish organizations criticizing the president and his policies was evident. "There is a great deal of anger among Jews in America about how the Administration is handling things," said Carol Nelkin, a Houston lawyer active in local Jewish causes. "It seems to me that whether or not you are in favor of settlements or stopping them," she said, "the tone of the Administration is one that seems hostile to Israel, beyond what is necessary, and that is something I take personally."
To be sure, the president sought to win back support in the Jewish community. But "there is anger and dismay in Jewish communities over Administration policy that is increasingly perceived as one-sided and unfair against Israel," said Jess Hordes, Washington director of the Anti-Defamation League. "I imagine it will be translated into an unwillingness to vote for this Administration or contribute funds." 

Candidates opposing his re-election claimed before a major Jewish organization that the president has "all but destroyed the historic relation between America and Israel." Their campaigns had the air of a pro-Israel crusade, with community activists determined to unseat the president at all costs in retribution for his perceived hostility toward Israel. They openly encouraged the crusade atmosphere, regularly attacking the president’s Middle East record and promising a new era in U.S.-Israel ties.

What I've described is how American Jews and Jewish organizations responded to President George H.W. Bush's policies and treatment of Israel. As part of this reaction, Jewish groups and individual voters shifted their support to Bill Clinton. They did so publicly and with a pronounced sense of anger.

So when President Obama pursues policies similar to Bush and evokes the same disappointment from Jewish voters, why are "leading" Jewish organizations rushing to get other Jewish groups to sign a "unity" pledge not to raise the same objections in the same way they were raised in 1992? 

ADL and other groups attacked Bush nearly 20 years ago. But such criticism has been tossed down the memory hole by the ADL and its pledge co-sponsor, the American Jewish Committee. Their pledge reads in part: "The Jewish community has had a strong interest in ensuring that American support for Israel is one of the critical strategic issues that unites rather than divides parties and officials. U.S.-Israel friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue."

Who really has a strong interest in stifling debate? Abe Foxman clears things up: "We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents' pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel."

Are we to believe that criticism of President Bush and support of Bill Clinton -- including that of Foxman -- undermined American and Israel interests and that shutting up about Obama's policies advances them? It is more likely that Jewish groups behind the unity pledge have convinced themselves that being hypocritical cogs in the Obama election machine will strengthen support for Israel. Rabbi Hillel the Elder told his students and fellow sages: "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man." Would that the ADL and other groups took their inspiration from him. Instead they were seduced into a pact to silence Jews from speaking out. A shanda fur die Yiddin."


And especially this article on the radical leftist Jewish organization, called the JFJ, funded by George Soros -

by Jeff Dunetz Feb 3rd 2011 at 9:00 am in Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism

"Rabbis organized by a socialist Jewish organization called Jewish Funds for Justice (JFJ), with strong ties to financier George Soros (the full ad is embedded at the bottom of this page).  As discussed the day the ad came out,the rabbis efforts brought shame upon themselves, their holy profession and the entire Jewish people, and even worse have committed a Chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s name). A conversation with one of the signers, Rabbi Steven Wernick , the day after my initial post raised more questions (which as of this moment the Rabbi still hasn’t answered).
That however, is the not the end of the story.  Over the past few days, three of the groups used to corroborate the false charges raised by Jewish Funds For Justice have repudiated the letter arraigned by the George Soros proxy. All three weren’t contacted prior to the use of their names, disagreed with the thrust of the letter and were not happy that they were included. A fourth came out and said the letter was too one sided.  Not surprisingly  the only group/person not raising some objection to the letter has an association with George Soros.

The text of letter/advertisement in the Wall Street Journal offers quotations from outside sources as support of their case against the Fox commentator:

Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, a child survivor of the Holocaust, described Beck’s attack on George Soros as “not only offensive, but horrific, over-the-top, and out-of-line.” Commentary magazine said that “Beck’s denunciation of him [Soros] is marred by ignorance and offensive innuendo.” Elan Steinberg, vice president of The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, called Mr. Beck’s accusations “monstrous.” Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, called them “beyond repugnant.” And Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust Studies at Emory University, says Beck is using traditional anti-Semitic imagery.

The first one to weigh in was Jeffrey Tobin of Commentary who saw the letter as an overt attempt to silence someone with home they disagree politically:

In the body of their ad is a quote from a COMMENTARY Web Exclusive article written by me about Beck’s willingness to raise questions about George Soros’s behavior during the Holocaust. In it I made it clear that while we consider Soros’s political stands abhorrent, his alleged activities as a 14-year-old boy during the Nazi occupation of his native Hungary ought to be out of bounds for his critics. As the Jewish Funds for Justice ad states, the piece said Beck’s attack on Soros on this point was marred by ignorance and innuendo, and I stand by that characterization….

The difference between COMMENTARY and the rabbis who speak in the name of the Jewish Funds for Justice couldn’t be clearer. We agree that Holocaust imagery and related topics ought not to be abused for partisan political purposes, though we have to say in passing that Beck’s idiotic attack on Soros is nowhere near as great an offense as Rep. Cohen’s calling his Republican opponents Nazis on the floor of the House of Representatives. But unlike those rabbis, we do not do so only when the offenders are people we disagree with on other issues. Had these rabbis sought to denounce both right-wing and left-wing figures that have called their foes Nazis or made specious comparisons to Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels, they might have done so with some credibility. But since they have invoked their status as spiritual leaders as well as the prestige of the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements solely to silence a conservative political speaker whom they dislike, they have none.

Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal there were two letters published from organizations named in the JFJ open letter:
Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld Vice President American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors wrote:

I suppose that I am to rest easy now that these rabbis and the individuals they quote in their advertisement find Glenn Beck and Roger Ailes… represent a greater threat to the welfare of the Jews than George Soros. I have no position on Mr. Beck, but I am frankly puzzled as to how he merits so great an expenditure by this group. What a waste of communal resources this represents when there are so many needy people, Holocaust survivors and others.

This absurdity and the fact that these rabbis have never seen fit to comment on Mr. Soros’s support for entities that have harmed Israel and Jewish interests (and in my view, Western interests generally), force me to speak out. [my emphasis]

Elan Steinberg is quoted in the advertisement in his capacity as vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors. He has no more right than I do to speak in the name of the survivors on this topic. I know this because I, too, am vice president of the American Gathering. I also know that in my 30 years of participation in large-scale annual commemorations I have yet to meet a survivor who expressed support for Mr. Soros.

Most surprising was the second letter which was from Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, who has often used his organization as an arm of the progressive movement. Foxman defended Beck and Fox News as friends of Israel :

I was surprised to see my name and statements attributed to me used in the advertisement from Jewish Funds for Justice calling on Rupert Murdoch to “sanction” Glenn Beck for his repeated use of Holocaust and Nazi images on his Fox News program.

I want to make it clear, for the record, that I do not support this misguided campaign against Fox News, even though my name was used.
While we have said many times that Nazi comparisons are offensive and inappropriate when used for political attacks, in my view it is wrongheaded to single out only Fox News on this issue, when both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, can share equal guilt in making trivializing comparisons to the Holocaust.

Furthermore, the open letter signed by hundreds of rabbis is a trivialization in itself—bizarrely timed for release on United Nations’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. At a time when Holocaust denial is rampant in much of the Arab world, where anti-Semitism remains a serious concern, and where the Iranian leader has openly declared his desire to “wipe Israel off the map,” surely there are greater enemies and threats to the Jewish people than the pro-Israel stalwarts Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck.

A fourth person sited in the letter Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust Studies at Emory University, said that she didn’t disagree with the thrust of the letter but felt it was distorted because of it was one-sided:

I don’t disagree with the thrust of JFSJ’s ad. That said, I do worry that it is a distortion to focus solely on the conservative end of the political spectrum.
During his term in office, President George W. Bush was frequently compared to Hitler. A 2006 New York Times ad from a group called the World Can’t Wait, signed by a number of prominent leftists (as well as five Democratic members of Congress), cited a litany of complaints about the Bush administration’s policies and concluded: “People look at all this and think of Hitler — and rightly so.” British playwright and Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, who signed onto the ad, went to so far as to call the Bush administration “more dangerous than Nazi Germany.” (Emphasis added.)

Similarly, references to Israelis as “Nazis” and claims that Israel is committing genocide abound in left-wing discourse. Because of their ubiquity, we have almost become inured to the horror of such comparisons.

One need not minimize the danger of Beck’s rhetoric in order to wonder why JFSJ — which has significant credibility among progressives — has not mounted an equally passionate critique of misbegotten analogies on the left. Is this about principle, or is it about politics? Is this about anti-Semitism, or about Rupert Murdoch? (Of course, there are also some conservatives who have no trouble spotting anti-Semitic innuendo except when it is appearing on Fox.)

Rev. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance has not commented on the JFJ effort, perhaps because he is so busy. After all the Reverend is also on the Faith Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations an organization tied into George Soros on many levels (Soros is a former board member, his Corporation is a sponsor and one of the council’s resident experts, Morton Halprin is also an adviser to Soros’ Open Society Foundation).

Despite its best attempts to attack Fox News’ Glenn Beck, the vast majority people/organizations cited by the Jewish Funds for Justice as corroboration for their slander have labeled their open letter for what it is, a hypocritical effort on their part and by the 400 rabbis, to exploit the Holocaust for political purposes. I said it before and I will say it again, each and every one of those Rabbis should feel ashamed for their attempt to libel Glenn Beck and Fox News."


And this article by Ms. Caroline Glick, a columnist and writer for the Jerselum Post, along with other web sites ,and papers.

Liberal American Jewish Suckers
posted by Caroline Glick Jun 25th 2011 at 07:45


"This week we have been witness to two transparent attempts to sell liberal American Jews a bill of goods. And from the looks of things, both were successful.

The first instance of liberal American Jewish credulity this week unfolded Monday night in Washington. At a five-star hotel, eighty Jewish donors shelled out between $25,000- 35,800 to attend a fundraiser with US President Barack Obama.
As has become his habit, Obama opened his remarks by talking about his commitment to Israel’s security. And as has become his habit, Obama went on to say that it is his job to force Israelis to bow to his demands because he knows what is best for Israel.

Speaking of his ongoing efforts to force Israel to concede its right to defensible borders before entering into negotiations with the Hamas-Fatah unity government, Obama said, “There are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements
[between the US and Israel] in terms of how we approach these difficult problems.”

Obama went on to say that he expects his American Jewish supporters to take his side in his attacks on Israel.

As he put it, the quest for peace between Israel and the Hamas-Fatah government is, “going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it’s also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure…that you’re helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges.”

And how did the Jewish donors respond to Obama’s presentation? They loved it. They were, in the words of Obama donor Marilyn Victor, “reassured.”

Speaking with Politico, New York businessman Jack Bendheim said, “I think he nailed and renailed his commitment to the security of the State of Israel.” Other attendees interviewed in the article echoed his sentiments.

Imagine how they would have swooned if Obama had confessed a secret love for bagels and lox.

What does Obama have to do for these liberal American Jews to accept that he is no friend of Israel’s?

Apparently the answer is that there is nothing Obama can do that will convince his many American Jewish supporters that he is not Israel’s friend. They will never believe such a thing because doing so will require them to choose between two unacceptable options. The first option is to admit to themselves that in voting for Obama, they are voting against Israel.

The self-righteousness shared by many of Obama’s Jewish supporters makes this option unacceptable. These are people who demonstrate their goodness by embracing every politically correct liberal cause as their own. From abortion to socialized medicine to free passes for illegal immigrants, to opposition to the Iraq war, liberal American Jews are ready to go out on a limb for every cause the liberal media supports.

But ask them to support anything that in any way compromises their self-image as do gooders and liberals and they will shut you out. Consider their willingness to turn a blind eye to Obama’s twenty-year association with his anti-Semitic preacher Jeremiah Wright. Just this week Wright was back in the news when he delighted a crowd of thousands of African

American worshippers in Baltimore by libeling Israel saying, “The State of Israel is an illegal, genocidal … place. To equate Judaism with the State of Israel is to equate Christianity with [rapper] Flavor Flav.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign liberal American Jews attacked critics of Obama’s long-standing devotion to his Jew hating preacher as McCarthyites who were spreading allegations of guilt by association.

And now, when Obama has made supporting Israel a socially costly thing for his supporters to do, rather than pay the price, his self-righteous American Jewish supporters refuse to admit that Obama is not pro-Israel. They attack as a liar anyone who points out that his policies are deeply hostile to Israel.

For instance, Monday National Jewish Democratic Council Chairman Marc Stanley told reporters, “Key donors are much more savvy than Republicans would have you believe and have taken a much more critical eye towards Republican attempts to lie about the President’s record.”

ASIDE FROM being morally inconvenient, the other problem with admitting that Obama is anti-Israel is that it requires his Jewish supporters who are unwilling to consciously abandon Israel to contemplate the unattractive option of voting for the Republican nominee for president. And this is something that their liberal conceit cannot abide.

The inability of many liberal American Jews to abide by the notion of supporting someone who isn’t part of their fancy liberal clique was on display in their responses to another event that occurred this week.

Just hours before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale University engaged in a similarly transparent
bid to romance its willfully gullible Jewish supporters.

Yale University’s announcement two weeks ago that it was shutting down the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA), unleashed a storm of protest. Students, faculty, alumni and major Jewish organizations all expressed anger and disappointment with Yale’s surprise move.

Yale justified its decision on the basis of two falsehoods. First it claimed that YIISA had failed to undertake sufficient top quality scholarship. Yet in the wake of the announcement dozens of leading scholars of anti-Semitism co-signed a letter authored by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld who directs Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism praising the YIISA as “a pioneer in advancing research on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.”

The second reason that Yale claimed it was closing YIISA was because there was insufficient faculty and student interest in its programs. This falsehood was ridiculous on its face since several dozen Yale faculty members served on YIISA’s various academic committees and boards of advisors. And in the wake of the university’s announcement that it was shuttering YIISA, several faculty members and students protested the move angrily.

The main suspicion provoked by Yale’s decision to close YIISA was that it was doing so to appease Islamic critics. YIISA’s Director Prof. Charles Small focused its attention on contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Since the most dangerous form of contemporary anti-Semitism is Islamic anti-Semitism, Small made Islamic anti-Semitism a focus of YIISA’s research activities. The concern arose that Yale closed YIISA in order to end campus research and discourse on the topic.

Monday Yale tried to quell the controversy surrounding its decision to close YIISA by announcing that it was forming a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Yale announced that its tenured professor Maurice

Samuels will serve as director of the program. Samuels is a scholar of French literature.

In his acceptance announcement Samuels addressed Yale’s critics promising that “YPSA will discuss both contemporary anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism.”

He also said that in the coming year YPSA will hold a major conference on the topic of French anti-Semitism.

Samuels’ statement is notable for two reasons. First, if it is true, then the only difference between YPSA and YIISA is the director. And the only thing Yale was really interested in doing was firing Small. The question is why would they want to fire him?

The answer to that question appears to be found in the second notable aspect of Samuels’ announcement: his planned conference. At a time when millions in post-Mubarak Egypt assembled in Tahrir Square and cheered as the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi called for the invasion of Jerusalem, and with Iran’s President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on the brink of nuclear weapons, why would YPSA want to place its focus on France?

Following Yale’s announcement that it is launching YPSA, Small released a statement in which he said, among other things, “It appears that Yale, unlike YIISA, is not willing to engage in a comprehensive examination of the current crisis facing living Jews, but instead is comfortable with reexamining the plight of Jews who perished at the hands of anti-Semites.  The role of a true scholar and intellectual is to shed light where there is darkness, which is why we at YIISA, are committed to critical engaged scholarship with a broader approach to the complex, and at times controversial context of contemporary global anti-Semitism.”

As Small hints, it appears that by forming YPSA, Yale proved its critics right. It closed YIISA because it found Small’s concentration on Muslim Jew hatred ideologically problematic. And it opened YPSA because Yale’s administrators’ trust Samuels to keep researchers and students focused on historic forms of anti-Semitism.

To offset criticism of its transparent move, Yale has been waging a whispering campaign against Small. Yale administrators have been insinuating that because the university did not hire him as a regular member of the Yale faculty that Small is not an academic, or somehow not good enough for Yale.

This campaign brought Holocaust scholar Prof Deborah Lipstadt from Emory University to pen a column in the Forward attacking Small. As she put it, “Part of Yale’s discomfort might have come from the fact that a Yale-based scholarly entity was administered by an individual who, while a successful institution builder, was not a Yale faculty member and who had no official position at the university.”

But Small was in fact on the Yale faculty. He was a lecturer in the Political Science department and ran one of Yale’s post-doctorate and graduate studies fellowship programs. Despite his intensive work building YIISA, Small taught a heavy course load.

Yet while its actions vindicate its critics’ greatest concerns, just as Obama was able to win over his Jewish supporters with empty platitudes, so Yale’s decision to open YPSA has satisfied its most powerful critics. The ADL released a statement applauding the move. Yale’s Rabbi James Ponet e-mailed his colleagues and friends and urged them to e-mail Yale’s President and Provost, expressing their support for the move.

THEIR WILLINGNESS to support Yale’s bid to curtail research and discussion of Islamic Jew hatred and allow Yale to scapegoat Small, demonstrates an affliction common to liberal American Jews today. It is the same affliction that makes them unable to countenance voting for a Republican. That affliction is class snobbery. By insinuating that Small is not up to Yale’s academic standards, Yale was able to rally the Jewish members of its larger community by appealing to their snobbery. The fact that Yale didn’t mind Small serving as a dissertation advisor to its doctoral candidates, is immaterial.

The facts be damned.

The same Ivy League snobbery that makes it socially unacceptable to vote for a Republican – and certainly not for a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, despite their deep-seated and consistent support for Israel – is what allowed Yale to get away with ending its study of Islamic anti-Semitism, by besmirching Small’s academic achievements and good name. Remove him from the club, and you end opposition to his academically unjustifiable firing.

The great circus master P.T. Barnum said famously that there is a sucker born every minute. Liberal American Jews aren’t born suckers. They become suckers out of their own free will."


My final thoughts-
This kind of ideological political anti-semitic rhetoric zealotry, by radical hard left Jewish organizations, Rabbi's, and important and prominent people like the Tzipi Livni, along with the other radical hard organizations like JFJ, J-Street, the even some in the ADL,  along with the radical hard left anti-semitic liberals in America,-  are like Jews campaigning covertly, to re-elect Hitler..  if he had a re-election.. This is how dangerous their games are.. but like with all useful idiots, they neither see what they are doing, or could care less, which makes them dangerous to the survival, existence, and Freedom of the Jewish people, and the State of Israel.

This kind of betrayal, is the worst kind. At least your enemies make it known, that they are your enemies, and you can take the appropriate necessary actions, to defend yourself, but with these backstabbing people, and organizations, they mind as well convert to Islam, and say they are enemies of the Jewish people, and the State of Israel.. Coward gutless, parasitic bottom feeding blood sucking leeches, is all they are, and should, no must be exposed for exactly that..