Nancy Reagan said husband passed torch of conservatism to Newt

    We've had to put up with a lot of bull malarkey recently about how Newt Gingrich "insulted" Ronald Reagan.
    And make no mistake: There were times when Newt Gingrich was highly critical of Reagan and the Reagan administration. The same is true for Ron Paul. Newt's criticism was based on the fact that he thought Reagan was being too liberal. I admire both Gingrich and Paul for holding Reagan's feet to the fire.
    Now think about it. We're constantly being warned that we shouldn't vote for Gingrich because he's a closet liberal. Now we're being told that we shouldn't vote for Gingrich because he thought Reagan was too liberal.
    In the world of politics, we sometimes criticize those with whom we agree. Over the years, Gingrich was one of Reagan's biggest supporters, and was one of the biggest supporters of the conservative cause. He was a maverick before John McCain knew what that word meant. When the rest of the Republican party was mucking about trying not to make waves he was screaming bloody murder. And more than anyone, he deserves the credit for engineering the Republican takeover of 1994, the effects of which are still being felt to this very day.
    Here's a video made long after Gingrich had "insulted" and criticized Reagan, in which Nancy Reagan claims that Barry Goldwater passed on the conservative mantle to Ronald Reagan, who in turn passed it on to Newt Gingrich.
    I grew up idolizing Ronald Reagan, but that doesn't mean I wasn't sometimes irritated with him. Gingrich's criticism of his rare liberal meanderings makes Gingrich more qualified to be president, not less.
    Oh, and here's the Youtube video of Nancy Reagan claiming that Ronald Reagan passed on the conservative mantle to Newt.

You heard it hear first: Ron Paul to win Iowa

    You read it here first!
    On Nov. 11 I reported that Newt Gingrich was moving up in the polls and Ron Paul was holding his on. I predicted that Paul might pull a "surprise" in Iowa.

Ron Paul supporters are likely the most devoted out of all the candidates, and my personal opinion is that Paul could surprise everyone with his showing in Iowa. Iowa rewards commitment and effort and I think Paul just might win, although I'm not sure how that is going to lead him to victories in other states.

    Since that post Gingrich has moved up dramatically in the polls. He leads in most states except New Hampshire, and leads Mitt Romney nationally. Recently Paul has shed his fourth-place role and is now in third-place nationally. And in Iowa two recent polls puts him in a strong second place behind Gingrich.
    If the election were to be held tomorrow, I think Paul would take Iowa. It's the intensity factor. I'd give Paul supporters an intensity factor of 9, Gingrich supports a 6 and Romney supporters a 2. These Paul supporters are going to make it to the caucuses and they're going to make it out in big numbers. Gingrich, meanwhile, is still suffering from a poor organization on the ground.
    The real question is what happens after Iowa. Paul is running a very strong third in New Hampshire. My new longshot prediction is that Romney will drop like a stone in New Hampshire after a terrible showing in Iowa and Gingrich will take the state with Paul coming in second. Then comes South Carolina and Florida, where Paul doesn't stand a chance. The best Paul can hope for in these states is second, and that's pushing it. But if Paul can limp into the Nevada and Maine caucuses, who knows.
    Oh, and the man the press just loves? Jon Huntsman may yet have some life in him. His recent one-on-one debate with Newt Gingrich elevated him and revealed him to be not quite the liberal everyone feared. He could be the guy people turn to to get the Gingrich without the Gingrich.

No need to worry about Ron Paul's so-called 'extreme' views

    Sometimes people say they like Ron Paul, but some of his views are "too extreme."
    Indeed, Paul is essentially a libertarian. Most Americans have a libertarian streak, but don't take it quite so far as Paul.
    Here's the thing to remember. Paul is running on a platform in which he is seeking to actually weaken the presidency. I've compared it to Mississippi's John Ed Ainsworth's run for state land commissioner, where he pledged to abolish the office if elected. He was and he did. Supposedly he ran on a $10,000 bet claiming that he could get elected with virtually no campaigning simply because his name would be at the top of the ballot.
    People forget that the president's job is simply to carry out the laws and policies passed by Congress. Obama, unfortunately, has ignored the Congress and acted as if he is a legislature of one. For example, when Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, which would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, Obama instructed the INS to operate as if the law had been passed. That's the act of a dictator, not a president.
    Paul wants to weaken the presidency and to return our government to one governed by the Constitution. This means restoring power to the Congress and to the states. His role as president will be little more than a hired hand -- okay, an influential hired hand -- but one who obeys and enforces the laws passed by Congress.
    So no matter view Paul may have that you think is too extreme, you don't have to worry because it won't happen unless 51 senators and 218 House members agree with him. And if that happens, by definition it isn't out of the mainstream.
    One job that Paul takes seriously is that of commander in chief of the armed forces. He is morally bound not to go to war without Congressional authorization. Likewise, he wants to bring our troops home. No other candidate, in either party, supports peace. They all want more war, more death, and more money thrown down the toilet.
    If you don't like Paul, that's another matter; in that case don't vote for him. But if you do like him but have concerns, put those concerns to rest. His whole moral philosophy of governance is based on the duty of the executive to defer to the legislature and to respect the authority of the states. Isn't that what we all want?

Republican Jewish group bans Ron Paul from debate

    In the News of the Disgusting, the Republican Jewish Coalition is holding a debate and everyone is invited except for Ron Paul. The most recent national polls show Paul in third place nationally and in second place position for the kick-off of the all-important Iowa caucuses. Nationally he’s behind Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, and nobody really likes Mitt Romney. Paul’s support is stout.
    Because if the intensity of his support, I think Paul may win the Iowa caucus. He has more cross-party support than any candidate. Unlike many or most Paul supporters, I also like Newt Gingrich, but I really like Ron Paul and am pulling hard for him.
    But the Republican Jewish Coalition has banned Paul from its debate. They say his views are out of the mainstream of the Republican party, and that to invite him would be the same as inviting Barack Obama (If they really believe that they are smoking crack).     The explanation:

Paul was not invited to attend the RJC’s candidates forum because the organization – as it has stated numerous times in the past – “rejects his misguided and extreme views,” said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.

    What Matt Brooks is saying is that Paul is opposed to massive foreign aid to Israel and he is opposed to continuing to involve our nation in war after war after war. That’s not acceptable to the American Jewish lobby. It’s extreme to support peace.
    What’s funny is that while Paul may not be popular amongst American Jews, many Jews in Israel would probably support him wholeheartedly. Israeli Jews understand how important it is to achieve peace, and they know that a hawkish, hard line isn’t always the best way to achieve that end. In fact, if you read stories sometimes about the most militant Israeli Jews who are out in their settlements clubbing their Palestinian neighbors, what you will find is that most of them are American Jews or their progeny who have emigrated to Israel.
    So what we have is the Republican Jewish Coalition stating for the record that the only presidential candidate who supports peace is too far outside the mainstream to even be heard. What they are afraid of, of course, is that more people will want peace than will want to go on helping Israel to beat up on the Palestinians and other assorted Arabs. My view is that if Israel wants to beat up on some Arabs they ought to do it on their own. America as a whole is tired of fighting Israel’s proxy wars. I support the right of Israel to be secure in her borders, but what’s been happening for the past dozen years goes far beyond that.
    If the Republican Jewish Coalition wants to exclude Ron Paul that’s their right. But clearly all of us should attempt to divine what the Republican Jewish Coalition supports, and as Americans we should support the opposite.
Let’s face it, the mere fact that these people have banned Ron Paul is proof that they are working against America’s interests, not for them.

The video below is dedicated to the Republican Jewish Coalition:

Newt Gingrich moving up and Ron Paul holding his own; life is good

    On Oct. 20 I listed "My GOP Presidential Picks, From Best to Worst. I listed my favorite candidate as Ron Paul, with Newt Gingrich coming in a strong second.
    Of Gingrich I said, "The Republican field is weak, and he has just been there week after week, a steady, strong, and incredibly smart and informed candidate." Now with Rick Perry's "Duh" moments and Herman Cain's Bimbo eruptions, Newt is starting to come charging up in the polls -- all on a shoestring budget.
    The latest national poll by CBS still shows Herman Cain barely in the lead, with Gingrich and Romney tied for second with 15 percent each. It's a real improvement for Gingrich. In Ohio Gingrich is in second place behind Cain and in Mississippi Gingrich is currently the favorite among Republicans, leading Cain 28-25 percent, with Perry at 14% and Romney at 12%. With Cain and Perry sinking fast, Gingrich just might sweep the South.
    Ron Paul, meanwhile, comes in at about 10 percent nationally, and generally comes in fourth place in opinion polling. You wouldn't know it from his press coverage, though -- the press pretends he doesn't exist. Ron Paul supporters are likely the most devoted out of all the candidates, and my personal opinion is that Paul could surprise everyone with his showing in Iowa. Iowa rewards commitment and effort and I think Paul just might win, although I'm not sure how that is going to lead him to victories in other states.
    With Gingrich moving up strongly in the polls and Ron Paul holding his own, I'm feeling pretty good about the way things are headed. Oh, and Rick Perry seems to have gone down in flames. Now that makes me feel even better!

My GOP presidential picks, from best to worst

    I’m not sure anyone cares where I stand on the Republican presidential race, but on the off chance someone does I’ll share my views.
    Here’s my ranking of the candidates from favorite to least favorite, as well as my general comments.
    1. Ron Paul: Okay, he’s a bit goofy, and I don’t always agree with him, but he is one of the few people I am willing to actually change my opinion for; that is, if Dr. Paul says it, I’m willing to reconsider. Most importantly, he is the only candidate, and I do mean the only candidate, who supports peace. Obama ran supporting peace and started two new wars. All of the other candidates are admitted warmongers. Unlike most presidents, Paul actually wants to weaken the office of the presidency and return power to the Congress and to the states. I guess he’s the next best thing to John Ed Ainsworth, who ran for Mississippi’s State Land Commission on a platform of seeking to abolish the office. This man could change America, and for the better.

    2. Newt Gingrich: When most of Newt’s campaign staff quit him six months ago everyone thought he was finished. I thought he knew exactly what he was doing. The Republican field is weak, and he has just been there week after week, a steady, strong, and incredibly smart and informed candidate. Make no mistake, Newt can be full of himself, but intellectually he makes Nancy Pelosi look like a birdbrain.
    Everyone talks about Newt’s personal life. He’s on his third wife. Wife number one was his math teacher and reportedly started dating him when he was 16. In most states such teacher-student relationships would be a crime akin to rape, but apparently not in Georgia. But certainly he can’t be held responsible if such a relationship ended in divorce. By the way, his daughter says the story of him going to the hospital while his wife was sick to ask for a divorce is absolutely false; she says her mother had already asked for a divorce and Newt was merely taking her to visit her mother.
    His second wife, Marianne Gingrich, apparently abandoned Newt for six years after he was elected to Congress. They got back together, but I think she refused to move to Washington. Eventually he had an affair, which is certainly to be expected when he’s living in Washington and she’s living in Georgia. He asked for a divorce. Suddenly she was hurt to the quick. It was all fine and good for her to leave him for six years, but let him decide he wants a divorce and suddenly she is the woman scorned full of bitter and hateful things to say about him. What a horrid woman.
    Admittedly he has shown bad taste in women a couple of times, but presumably the third time will be a charm. And quite frankly, when I hear him talk about public and foreign policy, I don’t care if he’s been married a hundred times. The man is a genius.

    3. Mitt Romney: Okay, Romney was a liberal Republican when he was governor of the most liberal state in the union. He supported universal health care in a very wealthy state, where more people were already insured than the rest of the nation. But I think politicians listen to the people who elect them. It’s not always a “flip-flop” to change one’s position when running for office representing two completely different constituencies.
    I do think Romney’s Mormon religion is going to be a problem in the South. Four years ago my brother was talking to two influential Republicans who were raving over Romney after hearing him speak. They suggested they might be supporting him in the upcoming primaries. My brother asked whether they thought his being a Mormon would hurt his chances in the South.
Both of them said something along the lines of, “He’s a Mormon? Oh, Well then he won’t have my vote.”
    I don’t have a problem voting for a Mormon; I think they tend to be more moral than the rest of us and that we might learn a lot from them. Furthermore, they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected. As such they are Christians as that’s all it takes. The fact that they also believe some rather outlandish things about spaceships, Christ visiting with the Indians, golden plates, and such is of no consequence. They believe all that matters, and the persecution by small-minded people just needs to stop.
    At any rate, I like Romney. If he gets the nomination I will support him with gusto. By the time the Mississippi primary comes around he might well be my first choice.

    4. Herman Cain: Every decent person likes Herman Cain. He’s a true-blue conservative. A lot of people say his 9-9-9 tax plan is too regressive, but if it is, modify it a little to make it fairer, maybe by adding a point-nine percent annual tax on estates exceeding $9 million. Right now we have high corporate taxes and all the corporations are sending their profits to Ireland, then to another Irish Company, then to the Netherlands, then to the Bahamas, and thus paying no tax. Tax them at a low rate and the money stays here at home, putting money in the treasury and creating jobs for Americans. I do think it says something for the changes that have taken place in the South that Herman Cain is the favorite Republican in most Southern states, where mostly whites vote in Republican primaries. Of course, desperate liberals say that whites who support Cain are “racist.” You’ve got to love it!
    The only reason I don’t rate Cain higher is that he just doesn’t seem ready for prime time. He keeps saying some pretty wacky things that he has to take back, and I think he has an incredibly poor knowledge of foreign policy.

    5. Michelle Bachmann: I was impressed enough with Bachmann a few months back to “like” her on Facebook. I’m just not so impressed anymore. I do still like her, but I like her just where she is.

    6. Buddy Roemer: Not sure what he’s for, but he’s from Louisiana and against the big corporations. Every man a king!

    7. Rick Santorum: We’re going to have to burn all the gay people at the stake, which is going to use a lot of natural resources in gathering firewood. But he’s a good Catholic; if you don’t believe it, ask him.

    8. Gary Johnson: I don’t know who this man is, but I prefer him to Rick Perry.

    9. Rick Perry: The slime of the earth. Ended the investigation into a man’s execution because the commission was to report that the executed man was probably innocent. Accused Mitt Romney of hiring illegal aliens because a lawn care company he paid to mow his yard employed one. LIAR! And when Mitt tried to set the record straight he broke the rules and refused to let Mitt speak. He supports totally open borders, which is totally destroying this country. In short the only person worse than this terrible man is Barack Obama. So if he gets the nomination I will support him – reluctantly.

Ron Paul put his trust in Reagan; Perry put his in Gore

    You've got to love the new Ron Paul commercial. Early in his political career, Ron Paul was one of only four congressmen to support Ronald Reagan for president.
    Rick Perry, while still a political babe, was out supporting Al Gore for president. Al Gore! Mr. Ozone Himself.
    If there's one thing we know for sure about Rick Perry, it's that he can be trusted to float with the political winds. But he can't be trusted to lead our nation.

Children teach your parents well; Ron Paul leads among young voters

    Rick Perry (gag) is now the favorite among Republicans for that party's nomination, according to an August 24 Gallup Poll. He has the support of 29 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Mitt Romney, once the invinceable man, now has 17 percent. Ron Paul, the man the media loves to ignore, comes in third at 13 percent.
    The same poll shows Ron Paul with a strong lead in the 18-29 age group. Paul leads Perry and Romney 29-21-11. That's a strong lead that shouldn't be ignored, but the media ignore it. See the John Stewart video I posted recently, Ron Paul is the invisible man.
    I like Michelle Bachmann, but I worry that her religious views might get in the way of governance. I like Sarah Palin a lot, but she is damaged goods. The media managed to smear her, and she wasn't strong enough or smart enough to beat them. I like Mitt Romney, but we all know he's a slightly liberal establishment Republican whose support has been wide but thin. I absolutely love Chris Christie, but he won't run.
    As for Rick Perry, he's just not for me. I'll leave it at that, because if he gets the nomination I will nevertheless support him.
    I suspect there are a lot of reasons that young voters like Ron Paul. He's plain spoken. He's consistent. And he's for peace.
    Let's repeat that. He's for peace. He is the only candidate of either party who supports peace.
    Four years ago Paul stood up to all of his fellow Republicans who were trumpeting the greatness of war. Paul said he was opposed to any military action that wasn't authorized by Congress. In other words, he was the only candidate to support the Constitution. Check out the video I found on Youtube and see for yourself.
    Everyone thought Barrack Obama was going to bring peace, but instead he's brought us more war, including a humdinger of a civil war in Libya, where he attacked one of our allies in the war against Al Qaeda. What an idiot!
    When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, most people in England supported him. They found his initial demands reasonable. The royal family favored Hitler. Most elected officials supported him. One lone nut in Parliament kept lecturing his peers about the danger that Hitler's Germany posed to England. He was generally treated as an outcast and an object of ridicule.
    That man's name was Winston Churchill. He was eventually proven right and England realized he was the leader it needed.
    Ron Paul is America's Churchill. He has consistently preached the same message for years and often been derided as a kook. Yet he's been right.
    I don't agree with every position that Ron Paul takes. I'm not required to. Our nation needs more liberty, not more government. We need peace, not war. So far Ron Paul is the only candidate for people who want less government and more peace. The election is a long ways off and my mind can always be changed, but for now Ron Paul has my support.

Ron Paul is the Invisible Man

    Jon Stewart tells it like it is when it comes to the media and Ron Paul. Michelle Bachman barely edges him out in the Iowa Straw poll and the media declares it a three-candidate race between Bachman, Perry and Romney.
    Paul is apparently the only candidate from either party who is in favor of peace. Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for some strange reason and then started a war that is going to fester for decades. All the Republicans want war. Paul supports peace.
    The man may or may not have what it takes to win the nomination, but to simply ignore him while continuing to mention candidates like Jon Huntsman is an outrage.