Saturday, November 12, 2011


Ron Paul’s speeches and voting record after about 21 years as a Congressman have been so consistent with what is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution that for someone to say they do not support Doctor Paul it is synonymous with saying, “I do not support the Constitution”.

Do you think that is hyperbole? If so, then I challenge you to tell me one political act or piece of legislation that you do or do not agree with, in which your position is in opposition to Congressman Paul’s view on the matter, and the Constitution explicitly supports your view rather than his. Go ahead. Just one.
~ Judge Yoey O’Dogherty
Superior Court Justice from the great State of Clarity

The August 22, 2011 edition of The New American magazine included a section titled “GOP Candidates’ Credentials” in which they examined each candidate’s political history and platform in some detail. [Also available online: GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials]

I have said it loud and proud . . . I support RON PAUL For President In 2012! I voted for him in 2008 and will surely vote for him again in the upcoming Republican primary.

I have copied and pasted below (in italicized red text) some snippets of information found in the aforementioned ‘New American’ profiles which illustrate points of contention I have with all of the candidates not named “Ron Paul” in the GOP presidential race.

Although these are not necessarily the ONLY reasons I would not vote for these candidates, these facts alone make voting for them an impossibility for me. To read the entire profile for each candidate, rather than just these few excerpts, click on the article link at the bottom of this blog bit.

[Be Forewarned: Although the information below I take very seriously, I am going to have a bit o’ sport with the accompanying photos. Please understand that I don’t mean to insult anyone. That is to say, I don’t mean to insult anyone other than these candidates and the people who will foolishly vote for them.]


[Michele Bachmann comes prepared to play
with the big boys!]

In January 2010, Michele Bachmann wrote an installment for the blog in which she argued against the effectiveness of “stimulus” money in turning around our economy. While I don’t have any issue with her stance on that subject, it’s her byline at that gives me the willies! Townhall is a NeoConservative media organ as evidenced by its constant praise and promotion from NeoCon guru Hugh Hewitt.

Like Sarah Palin, Bachmann is a genuine “social conservative” and I applaud her for that, but . . .

Her voting record on key issues scored in this magazine’s first “Freedom Index” for the new Congress shows her with a 90-percent ranking, having voted “right” on nine out of 10 issues, ranging from repealing ObamaCare to defunding Planned Parenthood to ending American military action in Libya.

The one exception was her vote to extend provisions of the PATRIOT Act that authorize federal authorities to listen to suspects’ telephone conversations without specifying what they’re looking for and to seize personal papers, records, and “any tangible thing” that may be relevant to an investigation. (Over her congressional career, her cumulative Freedom Index score is 81 percent.)

While she voted for the Libyan withdrawal, Bachmann has supported the ongoing war in Iraq, arguing in a debate over President Bush’s troop surge in 2007 that the “radical Islamists” can only defeat us “if they crumple the resolve of America to fight and to win this war.” In June of this year, Bachmann argued against the drawdown of the surge troops in Afghanistan, even though this year’s reduction would still leave more U.S. forces there than when Obama came into office.

Last November Bachmann spoke at a symposium hosted by Freedom Watch, a lobbying group that supported the Iraq War and now calls for “western intervention to remove this dangerous Islamic regime” in Iran. While Bachmann did not explicitly call for military action against Iran, she spoke of “the need to do more than the simple engagement strategy of talking.” In a guest blog on the Heritage Foundation website this year, Bachmann argued against any reductions in the overall defense budget.


[Herman "Munster" Cain]

Oops. Sorry. Wrong photo . . . although the mix-up was certainly understandable. Here’s the correct photo:

[Herman "Munster" Cain]

I’m not even going to address all these recent sexual harrassment allegations against Herman Munster because I don’t know what’s true and what’s not, and besides that, there are plenty enough political/economic reasons not to vote for Cain without even delving into questionable personal affairs.

Until recently, Herman Cain was a largely unknown businessman whose major claims to fame included a high-level appointment in the Federal Reserve System

On top of his advocacy on behalf of the Fed as an institution, Cain has also expressed opposition even to a congressional audit of the Fed that would allow Congress and the American people to find out what exactly is going on at the central bank. He suggested contacting one of the Fed’s “PR people” if Americans wanted answers. Making matters worse for supporters of the growing anti-Fed movement, Cain said an audit was “not necessary” and that calls for government oversight were simply the product of ignorance.

In recent years and months, a great deal of secret information about the Fed has become public. The institution was, for example, clandestinely bailing out foreign banks — including one owned by the Libyan dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi — with trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, it was manipulating the markets for stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, and more.

In addition to central monetary planning, Cain has also been an ardent supporter of various bailouts, especially the so-called “banker bailout” of 2008, officially known as TARP. An opinion column he wrote during the height of the debate blasted “free market purists” for opposing the $700 billion program.

Cain has actually donated to a broad array of political campaigns. Democrat U.S. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Danny Tarkanian, Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle’s primary opponent, have both benefited from his largesse. So have many others.


[Newt . . . after he "got better".]

Prior to the 1994 elections, Gingrich and his Republican associates unveiled a list of agenda items that they pledged to act upon, should they win majorities in the House and Senate. Called the “Contract With America,” the plan received an enormous amount of media coverage at the time.

Although widely credited with propelling the Republicans to their takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994 (the storied “Republican Revolution”), few of the agenda items in the contract were ever implemented, with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 probably being the most significant outcome. In the end, business as usual prevailed over electoral promises.

Lost in the hubbub of policy debate was the fairly obvious point that a “contract with America” — between the federal government and the American people — already existed in the form of the U.S. Constitution; were its limits on government power and spending observed faithfully, no further electoral gimmickry and grandstanding would be necessary.

Following the Republican takeover of the House, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House in recognition of his leadership in bringing the Republicans back to power on Capitol Hill. He became Bill Clinton’s most vocal adversary, leading the effort to impeach Clinton on sundry charges of corruption and malfeasance.

Although the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the defining event of his presidency, it fell short of holding him accountable for crimes more significant than his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Under Gingrich’s leadership, charges of giving military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions were dropped from the letters of impeachment, and Clinton was able to defend himself successfully against what were portrayed as minor charges arising from a personal sex scandal.

Gingrich, the “social conservative,” has been married three times, most recently to Callista Bisek, a former House of Representatives staffer with whom he carried on an extramarital affair during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [see link at blog bit's end], the country’s premier organization promoting world government, it is not surprising that Gingrich has supported many pet programs of the CFR globalist elites, including expanded powers and more money for the UN and World Trade Organization, and more money for foreign aid.

He was for many years an alarmist on global warming and even starred in a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi warning of the imminent dangers of climate change. He ardently supported mandatory cap-and-trade legislation and ethanol subsidies, but now that the alleged science behind global warming is being thoroughly exposed and discredited, he has flip-flopped on climate change and some energy issues.

Newt Gingrich’s guiding philosophy, like that of many “conservatives” of his political generation, is that big government is better tamed and reformed than abolished - that Leviathan, subject to virtuous leadership, can be turned to virtuous ends.


[Huntsman’s hunt is petering out.]

During his time as Governor of Utah, Huntsman was also responsible for the state’s “Alliance for Prosperity” with the Mexican government. Among other schemes, the alliance sought to create pressure for “immigration reform” and “mobility of the work force.” Apparently then-Mexican President Vicente Fox, who met directly with Huntsman, was very pleased with the Governor and with Utah’s adoption of “driving-privilege” cards for illegal immigrants.

In addition to negotiating the unconstitutional interstate “climate” compact with foreign authorities, Huntsman has an impressive “globalist” record on other issues too. For example, he was a longtime member of the powerful world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations [see link at blog bit's end]. He even served as a founding director of the Pacific Council on International Policy, established in 1995 in partnership with the CFR.

Even worse for Huntsman’s candidacy is a leaked handwritten note he sent to Obama. “You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote in August of 2009, even underlining “remarkable” for added emphasis. “It has been a great honor getting to know you.” In another leaked letter, Huntsman praised former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary.

The “establishment” press has generally been kind to Huntsman. More than a few media outlets have even tried to distort the facts — for example, by ignoring Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson and claiming that Huntsman was the first or most well-known GOP contender to call for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. And while Huntsman has garnered public support from the likes of Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, conservative pundits of all stripes have ridiculed and attacked his campaign. Some even suggested he was running in the wrong party.


[Rick "W" Perry having a "Bush-Brain" moment.]

I previously chronicled some of my issues with Rick Perry in a series of videos posted on ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’. It was titled ‘Just Say “NO” To Rick Perry!’ [You can visit it by clicking HERE.]

As if all that and his proposal to reward illegal immigrants with work visas weren’t enough, I have to agree with the person who posted a YouTube video of Rick Perry’s mental collapse at the November 9, 2011 GOP Debate under the title of “Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes”.

On NeoCon Hugh Hewitt’s deceptive talk radio program the following day, that non-Constitutionalist, warmongering phony was attempting to do damage control for his George W. Bush-alike hero Rick Perry, but I think it’s of no use. If there’s even half an ounce of brains left in the Republican wing of the United States of the Americonned electorate, then practically speaking Rick Perry’s presidential bid came to an end the other night.

Watch this brief video and see what happens when a phony “conservative” fake “Constitutionalist” tries to emulate Congressman Ron Paul and co-opt that man’s honest platform and sincere talking points. If Rick Perry truly meant what was coming out of his mouth - if his words really represented what was genuinely in his heart – then his mind wouldn’t have shut completely down like it did.

Sure, we’ve all had those “blank brain” moments, but do they happen when we’re speaking of something we are totally committed to and passionate about? NO!

And it’s almost hysterically funny when Rick W. Perry looks over to Doctor Ron Paul beside him and Perry’s body language just pleads – BEGS! – Ron Paul to save him. This is an absolutely “must-see” video! Anybody who would vote to put Rick W. Perry in charge of this nation after this display of falsehood and ineptitude should be put away in the Cuckoo County booby hatch for their own protection.

Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes



[Miracle Mitt – Let’s give him "the third degree!"]

Mitt Romney’s candidacy is something of a miracle. “Miracle Mitt” continues to claim — falsely — that he didn’t seek to raise taxes as Governor of Massachusetts. And he appears to be getting away with it, as enough Republican voters remain ignorant of his record for Mitt to retain his “frontrunner” status in the 2012 Republican presidential primary race.

The Cato Institute reported of Romney’s 2003 proposals as Massachusetts Governor:

He scared some conservatives when he said that he was opposed to tax increases but he couldn’t rule them out. His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix.

However, the “fees” were really taxes — i.e., they had nothing to do with actual costs incurred by government services they provided. Romney’s claim of not raising taxes is based upon a simple deception: He called his tax increases “fees.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC’s Meet the Press host, the late Tim Russert, exploded Romney’s claim that he hadn’t proposed tax increases as Governor:

Mr. Russert: The AP says it this way: “When Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay. In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees,” [and] “increasing 57 others.” The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was “Fee-Fee”; that you just raised fee after fee after fee. That’s a tax.... A fee’s not a tax?

Gov. Romney: A fee — well, a fee — if it were a tax, it’d be called — it’d be called a tax. But…

Mr. Russert: Governor, that’s, that’s gimmick.

Gov. Romney: No, it’s, it’s reality. It is. But — and I have no — I’m not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees. We raised fees $240 million.

Romney argued with Russert: “But a fee is different than a tax in that it’s for a particular service.”

Of course, Romney increased fees upon gun owners (gun permits) and for people who needed duplicate licenses. Neither of these is a “service” that the government provides; they are simply licenses needed to comply with government-established mandates.

The independent noted that “the Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance says that fee increases during Romney’s tenure added up to $260 million per year, with another $174 million raised from closing some corporate tax ‘loopholes.’ The independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the revenue total of fee hikes and tax loophole-closings at between $740 and $750 million a year.”

The RomneyCare championed by the Massachusetts Governor in 2006 is nearly identical to national legislation enacted in 2010, mandating all of the major provisions that are present in ObamaCare:

• Mandating individual healthcare (and a fine for not purchasing insurance);

• Mandating employer healthcare for employees (and a fine for non-compliance);

• Banning insurers from exempting “pre-existing conditions” from policies;

• Mandating that young adults may stay on their parents’ plan until age 26;

• Creating government regulated “insurance exchanges”; and

• Instituting heavy subsidies for the poor to purchase insurance.

Yet the costs of Massachusetts’ RomneyCare are out of control. An April 2011 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation Report on Massachusetts healthcare reform says that Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the nation, and those costs are expected to nearly double by 2020.

Romney supported the TARP bank bailout in 2008, a bailout that sparked the Tea Party movement’s ire at the use of taxpayers’ money to bail out a few super-rich banks that lost risky gambles on a real estate market bubble. Romney continues to say that the TARP bailout was a good deal today, but has tried to modify his stance by saying that Obama implemented the law poorly. In essence, Romney has defended the principle of corporatism — bailout of super-rich banks with the tips of waitresses and cab drivers — while condemning those who managed the corporatism.

On the political Left, former Democratic National Committee staffer Matt Ortega has put up the particularly clever website, which quotes Romney on both sides of more than a dozen issues.

Front and center in “Multiple Choice Mitt” is Romney’s rhetoric on the abortion issue. During his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s position on abortion was identical to Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberal Democrats in the state: “Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said during the 2002 gubernatorial debates with Democratic candidate Shannon O’Brien. Since going on the campaign trail for President in 2008, Romney has claimed a conversion to the pro-life side of the issue.


[Rick Sanatorium, attempting to "get better"
. . . like Newt did.]

A strong supporter of the Iraq War — which was initiated without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war against a country that had never attacked the United States…

Santorum had this to say, in the same manifesto: “We need to embrace the challenge to dedicate a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid,…

Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the presidency on June 6, 2011. Measured by a “conservative” yardstick, Santorum’s voting record in the Senate frequently belied any conservative rhetoric. In the second half of 2005 alone, for example, Santorum voted for $31.8 billion in foreign aid appropriations, for $7.7 billion for the EPA, and for $100.7 billion for the Agriculture Department and the FDA,…

And now you know why ONLY Ron Paul deserves my vote in 2012 !

[Ron Paul gets behind one of his sincere slogans.]


RON PAUL’s ‘New American’ Magazine Credentials Profile

The New American Magazine: “GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials”

What Is The 'Council On Foreign Relations' (CFR)?

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.


  1. You (and RP) already had me convinced that he is the only Constitutionalist running, and the only one deserving of my vote.

    I think he really could win... if everyone in the country had a chance to actually hear him. But the media will continue to shut him out, and I am afraid he is almost certain to lose.

    Then we are faced with the Hobson's choice of how to feel best about our vote. We either write him in knowing the vote will not result in a victory, or vote for whoever we feel is most likely to defeat the Marxist-in-Chief in the oval office, or stay home because anyone other than RP will still be heading over the cliff. Just at a different speed.

    Yes, I think Ron Paul could win too, if he really had the time to explain in detail to the Americonned people how we got into this mess and how we can get out of it. But...

    He doesn't have that time, and even in the short answering period of a debate or the soundbite period of a brief political ad on TV or radio he can't separate himself as much as possible from the other candidates because many of them say the same things, temporarily borrowing the talking points that Ron Paul REALLY MEANS!

    Of course, the Americonned people could learn what he stands for anyway if they'd turn off their TVs long enough to read a book or two, but who am I kidding there?

    And then again, I must frankly admit that perhaps most Americans STILL wouldn't "get it" even if they DID read some books because... perhaps it's time to acknowledge that as a society we have been SO DUMBED-DOWN we are like sheep. And perhaps that remark is an insult to sheep, because they might even exhibit more independent thinking than Americans do in 2011.

    I am firmly convinced that if it was just Paul Vs. Obama - the true Constitutionalist Vs. One Marxist - he would win the election. But when he's fighting against all these Republican Socialists in Conservatives' clothing it's harder for him to separate himself from the field. But if we could only get him the Republican nomination, THEN I think we'd see some "real" change.

    >>...or stay home because anyone other than RP will still be heading over the cliff. Just at a different speed.

    That reminds me of one of my all-time favorite quotes, courtesy of Br'er Marc. He posted it on a long exchange we had with some other blokes on one of my old McCarthy related reviews at

    "Changing political parties obviously won't change anything. Only changing political direction will change anything! When will people understand they’re the same party? Socialist extreme and Socialist light. Do you want filtered or non-filtered cigarettes, sir? Either way they’re both going to kill you."

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.