Busted! Two Serial Liars Team Up! Ron Paul giving Romney a free pass in Virginia despite them Two being the only Ones on the Ballot

During the current GOP primary we have been “blessed” not with one but with two utter fraudsters who lie with an ease beaten only by Obama.

The first guy has lied on just about every issue and enumerating them would be far too numerous. Why, just during the last debate in Arizona he spouted numerous lies in response to almost every question. In the span of a short exchange about his record on social issues alone the number of lies he's said is mind boggling.

Romney replied to a question whether he required for religious institutions to provide contraception – something that's contradictory to their religious beliefs – that it was voluntary, yet his response had been exposed thereafter as a flat-out lie. Although Romney boasted a few short years ago that he wished his Romneycare would be implemented nationally, he's adopted a new tone during the campaign saying that Romneycare was perfectly constitutional under the tenth amendment. That too has been debunked since although it might not violate the federal constitution it has been discovered that it violated the MA constitution. Romney's lack of regard of the MA constitution is not a one-time incidence. He's done the same when same-sex legislation was on the table.

If all of this is not enough, here's the absolute kicker: Santorum informed the audience at the debate last Wednesday that he had scored amongst the top five Senators graded by the NTU and that he was the only one of the top five to hail from a blue state - the other four were from deeply conservatives states. Romney, desperate to prove his supposed conservatism and outdo Santorum, shot back that he had been pro-life as the governor from the blue state of MA.

His statement was shocking to anyone who is familiar with his record and had watched the previous debates. Up until this last debate Romney had admitted having been a pro choice governor but explained it away with the reply that he had a change of mind and became pro-life. Perhaps the temptation for a thunderous applause in conservative Arizona was too great and caused Mitt to cave in despite it eliminating the slightest suspicion that his replies are honest. Here's the Planned Parenthood questionnaire Romney had filled out in 2002 with responses that cannot be considered pro-life by any stretch of imagination.

One needs to provide even less of an explanation regarding the fraudulent nature of the other guy, Ron Paul. There is no way one can condone Paul's lies regarding his support for the truthers, his race-baiting and antisemitic newsletters, and his statement that he wouldn't have intervened during World War II despite the 50 million people who were killed with such brutality including millions of Jews and other ethnic groups who were targeted solely because of who they were.

These two obvious fraudsters are denying all talk of an inside deal between the two. It is very simple, however, to see past their false responses and whether there's any truth about an alliance between the two. Here's how:

If Ron Paul would truly desire to win at least a single state, the easiest state would be one with only him and Romney on the ballot, as is now the case in Virginia. How does one go about reaching a victory? Paul would have to support Romney's competitor in the primary in Michigan so that a weakened Romney with no momentum enters Virginia. Furthermore, the sensible act for Paul would now have been to spend his millions in ads against Romney in Virginia in order to bring him down.

This would be similar to Santorum's strategy prior to Missouri where only he and Romney were on the ballot. He invested lots more energy, time, and money in Missouri than in the other states because he wanted to prove his point that he could beat Romney when it's down to a two-man race.

The facts of the day: Instead of Paul shellacking Romney in Virginia or helping Santorum in Michigan, the contrary is true. Paul has pounded endlessly on Santorum, Romney's main rival in Michigan, and hasn't created a single ad to rip Romney in Virginia where it's a two-man race between the two of them. furthermore, a study has discovered that throughout 20 debates Paul had attacked Romney ZERO times yet attacked Romney's competitors 39 times with Santorum attacks totaling 22 out of the 39 attacks! Surely these are all “coincidences.”

The 2012 campaign has revealed that a double standard exists not only the mainstream media, but also in the center-right conservative media. Romney has been able to get away with repeated lies by debates on just about every topic and not one media outlet has found it newsworthy enough to report it, including Fox, Politico, Daily Caller, Hot Air, and Drudge. This free pass has also been extended to Romney's buddy, Ron Paul. Therefore, Mitt's false ethic complaints against Newt remained unchallenged. Similarly, Ron Paul's recycling of false quotes from a George Soros funded group against Santorum, that Santorum was the most corrupt member of congress, was either repeated or ignored by the media but not fact-checked.

It's therefore up to “we the people” to search for the truth, expose these phonies, and educate voters about the candidates' true records for otherwise no one will do it.

A Social and Fiscal Conservative Sends Shockwaves from the Heartland

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the "Gang of Seven" for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations - Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Ron Paul has Never Met an Evil He hasn’t Sympathized With

As a Jew and a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I had been horrified to discover an interview in which Ron Paul had stated that if he would’ve been president during the holocaust he wouldn't have intervened despite the tens of millions of men, women, and children the Nazis had slaughtered.

Paul’s shocking remarks had not been an isolated incident complete with profuse apologies. They are one tiny chapter amongst countless similarly vile comments. Just a couple of days ago, in an interview conducted last Friday, Paul had announced that one must have empathy with … Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He then went on to “explain” that Ahmadinejad isn’t seeking a fight with the Western World, and that it’s merely a concoction by those who wish to engage him in war. Has he never heard Ahmadinejad blast America and the free western world, clearly stating his intentions to wipe out Israel and all infidels?

Many view Ron Paul as simply naïve or as nuts and dismiss him and his rhetoric in the manner one does to a buzzing fly. It must be clear that he is not simply naïve or nuts, but evil. He led racist and anti-Semitic newsletters for many years, with the intentions of his actions to be so. He has often told aides that he “wishes Israel didn’t exist.” Sounds like Ahmadinejad himself, no? No wonder he feels empathy for him!

Ron Paul’s warped sense of good and evil seems to manifest itself amongst his supporters who’ve adopted a weird line of attack against Rick Santorum. They warn voters in ominous comments that electing Santorum to the presidency is a guarantee for a World War III, while voting for Ron Paul will bring peace upon the world.

They appear utterly ignorant of the events which had caused World War II to have become the monster war that it was - having led to the deaths of over fifty million people. When Hitler rose to power and built a powerful army despite it having violated the Treaty of Versailles, the world, weary of war, pretended not to notice, hoping to avoid a confrontation.

Even after the Nazis intentions became clear after the annexation of Austria, the European leaders attempted appeasement via Sudetenland instead of halting them in their tracks. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, explained his avoidance of war saying that war results only in losers and in no winners, while the U.S. engaged in isolationism and turned a blind eye to Europe. Only after the Nazi beast has grown to monstrous proportions, gobbling up country after country, did Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. At that point though, the German army had already morphed into a strong and organized force which couldn’t be defeated so easily.

The U.S. continued to remain out of the war while watching the world turn upside-down until it came under direct attack by the Japanese, Germany’s ally. The Pearl Harbor bombings resulted in 21 Navy ships sunk or damaged, over 188 U.S. aircraft destroyed, over 2,400 Americans dead, and many more injured. This jerked the U.S. out of their isolationism, declaring war against an enemy whose size and power had vastly increased during the five years it faced zero or little opposition.

The U.S. had followed exactly the type of policy that Ron Paul promotes and promises to enforce, and that has led not only to the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor but to an extended and extremely difficult war to fight. Instead of defeating the German army in their homeland and having to liberate one or two countries they had invaded, battles were held across three continents, spanning most of Europe, chunks of Asia, and portions in Africa.

And Paul supporters say that precisely a Santorum presidency, who will not allow evil to mushroom out of control, will lead to a World War III?

Notable amongst the many indefensible remarks made by Ron Paul was his sharp rebuke to the military and Obama administration after news of Osama Bin Laden’s death was publicized and celebrated across the country. Instead of joining the jubilant masses, Paul bemoaned the successful operation and criticized the government in performing an act which didn’t respect the rule of the law according to Paul’s interpretations, asking whether we would’ve done the same had he been hiding in London.

Is there even hope to penetrate Paul’s skull that evil people are in existence very much like good people, and that evil needs to be handled differently than good? It doesn’t seem like it. Never mind that he hadn’t felt it necessary to express his condolences to the families of the 9/11 victims, save perhaps when he used them to condemn the U.S. government as responsible for the heinous actions of the terrorists. Ron Paul’s conscience, if he has one, was more disturbed over the death of Osama Bin Laden than that this evil monster’s life hadn’t been brought to an end a couple of decades earlier before he would’ve had a chance to inflict death and damage to thousands via 9/11 and other bombings across the world.

Ron Paul’s thinking is terribly wrong, for he considers those who sympathize with evil as unrelated to evil. The truth though, as Bush had outlined in his state of the union speech, is that one cannot be neutral in the fight against evil. One is either for evil or against it. If one’s sympathy for evil overrides the sympathy he feels for the victims, than that person is evil itself. Ron Paul has never decried acts of terror performed against ambassadors, children and innocent civilians who were riding busses, walking streets and minding their own business. Nor has he felt it necessary to condemn the Texas Fort Hood shooter or similar incidents. His behavior had been quite the contrary. Ron Paul has always taken the side of evil and terrorists, finding ridiculous excuses to explain away their horrific actions and for turning the villains into victims.

When Ron Paul preaches his anti-war rhetoric, he’s not simply against attacking other countries before they attack us. He promotes closing the CIA and FBI leaving a nation with no intelligence to gather information about possible attacks. That’s not defending liberty, despite his claims. Such action is irresponsible behavior which can result in the infringement of liberty and life of many U.S. civilians on American soil through acts of terror our intelligence regularly intercepts.

Simply put, Paul wants to shrink and weaken the entire U.S. defense, leaving the greatest bastion of liberty defenseless in the face of evil.

What Conservatives have Won Big Time in New Hampshire

One of the most important indicators when studying primaries and elections is whether the candidates have exceeded, met, or underperformed according to expectations.

Romney’s victory in New Hampshire was a given and his performance therefore met, yet did not exceed, expectations for a non-victory would’ve shocked the entire political world. His victory, although considerable, has not changed the script of how people assumed it would be from the start of this primary season.

Romney’s performance is contrary that of the New Hampshire primary in 2008 where expectations similarly originally expected for the then not-so-established Mitt Romney from the neighboring Massachusetts to win the primary. McCain, Romney’s opponent, had received several strong endorsements including that of Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman, The Boston Globe, and The New Hampshire Union Leader which swayed lots of Independents over to the McCain camp. Romney’s support slipped shortly before the primary, and he ended up coming in second behind the more established McCain. McCain’s victory was thus extremely significant since he exceeded expectations, and he ultimately ended up beating Romney as the Republican presidential candidate.

The script for the upcoming South Carolina election was very much that it’s up in the air. As a Southern and strongly Conservative state, it was assumed that the candidate who assumes the position of Not-Romney will probably be victorious. Since three candidates are still vying for that title thus splitting up the conservative vote, and because Romney won New Hampshire with a considerable margin, the dynamics have changed for South Carolina and it is now expected to go for Romney. The media and all political pundits have declared it so, and even Jim Demint, the Conservative Senator from South Carolina, had announced that he would be surprised if anyone but Romney wins the state next Saturday.

Romney is currently leading the pack in South Carolina with an RCP average of 29% while the two conservative contenders who can possibly create a change in the dynamics, Santorum and Gingrich, are both currently polling at the 20% range. Although the scene may appear bleak to conservatives, a Romney victory is not yet guaranteed.

The current high expectations for Romney in South Carolina will color anything less than a full-fledged Romney victory in a very negative light. These raised expectations are extremely beneficial for conservatives for with the new dynamics, if a conservative ends up beating Romney in South Carolina, their victory will carry far more weight than previously expected. It will be seen as a serious defeat of Romney and an incredible strength of the conservative, and will result in a greatly weakened Romney going forward.

In a sense, it can be compared to the Democratic primaries of 2008. Obama had all the momentum on his side prior to the primary in Pennsylvania after beating Hillary in a majority of the previous primaries. After Hillary’s surprise victory in Pennsylvania, though, Obama’s momentum had come to a halt and many questioned whether he would be able to regain the lead. Ultimately, since it was the end of April and a majority of the states had already held their primaries, there wasn’t enough leeway for Hillary to overcome the overwhelming majority of delegates Obama had already picked up prior to Pennsylvania and Obama became the nominee.

A South Carolina upset can similarly halt Romney in his tracks, and since it is only the third state, an unexpected Romney defeat can have a powerful enough effect to sway the ultimate outcome of the Republican primaries. If Romney isn’t dealt a significant blow early enough in the primary, it seems quite unlikely that the Republican nominee will be anyone but Romney.

Despite Romney’s lead in South Carolina, here are several factors to keep in mind, which can lead to contrary results.

Romney has sailed to victory Tuesday night in the purple New Hampshire, a state which identifies with his moderate positions, with 39% of the votes. If he hadn’t topped 40% in New Hampshire there is no way he can get too much more than 30% of the votes in the southern red state of South Carolina whose views are aligned further to the right than Romney’s. Thus, if a conservative can garner 40% or more of the South Carolinian vote, he will virtually be guaranteed to beat Romney.

In order for that to occur, the conservatives must unite under one candidate Unification will result in a combination of the twenty percent of support each of them are recipient of, and will total to a whopping forty percent.

Although it may appear as an impossible suggestion since supporters of each candidate desire for the other side to join them, it can occur in either of two scenarios. The dream scenario would be if one of the candidates back out and endorse his rival conservative. It is also possible though for both candidates to remain in the race, with one candidate imploding badly enough for a majority of his supporters to choose on their own to unite around the other viable who will be able to serve as the “Anyone but Romney” candidate. The race will thus downsize to a two-man race and will enable the conservative to win over Romney in South Carolina, gain momentum, and hopefully emerge victorious first from the primaries and ultimately from the general election.

The (multi) million dollar question is, of course, who, if anyone, should be the one to back out of the race in order to stop Romney?

Of course neither can be demanded to pull out of the race since everyone has the right to stay in for as long as they wish. Both of them have garnered far more than zero percent in Iowa and New Hampshire and even Perry who had faced a stunning loss in Iowa, had come in with less than 1% in New Hampshire, and is polling extremely low in South Carolina, has the right to continue campaigning. Besides, a Perry retreat, although it would narrow the field a bit more, would probably not be enough to propel one of the others ahead of Romney.

There is one candidate though who is more likely to pull out, and to understand why, we’ve got to go back to our original explanation of expectations vs. performance in addition to some other details.

At an overall glance, it seems as though Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were recipients of equally not-too-great results last night in New Hampshire.

Santorum received 9.3 percent of the vote which landed him in fifth place and right behind Newt who received 9.4 percent – a little over two hundred votes more than Santorum. Neither of them received any delegates and both performed slightly worse than Huckabee in 2008, who had come in third with 11% of the votes and had been the recipient of one delegate. Their performances last night, though, are seen in very different lights since the expectations for their performances had been vastly different.

Expectations for Newt were sky high. In Iowa he had been crowned as the frontrunner and even in New Hampshire he was doing considerably well. Newt Gingrich had been the recipient of The New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement, the very same influential newspaper who had endorsed McCain and many other candidates who had then gone on to win the New Hampshire primary. End of November and December polls showed a surging Newt in New Hampshire who received the support of close to and often over twenty percent of those polled. Some speculated that Newt will eventually top Romney, while all expected him to land in the second seat.

Despite the massive anti-Bain and anti-Romney bombardment Newt engaged in as retaliation, he was unable to keep Romney from rising and himself from dropping. Newt ended up barely clinging to the fourth spot and his inability to meet expectations has painted him once again as a candidate in decline.

Newt’s lackluster New Hampshire results came at the heels of his embarrassing performance in Iowa, where he came in fourth despite having been the frontrunner with a considerable percentage only weeks before the caucuses. Newt blamed the overwhelming number of negative ads Romney had run against him as the cause for his drastic drop. Immediately after Iowa, Newt retaliated and bombarded New Hampshire with negative ads against Romney and his job in Bain. His efforts, though, proved to be inadequate in stopping Romney’s momentum. At the contrary, the attacks over Romney’s pink slips had backfired and resulted in Newt having come under heavy fire from many prominent conservatives including Rush.

Newt’s decision to remain in the campaign, first after his loss in Iowa and then after his weak performance in New Hampshire, despite it being almost impossible for him to win South Carolina with Santorum in the race indicate that his goal has changed. His expansion of attacks against Bain via the airing of a 28 minute anti-Romney commercial in South Carolina despite the considerable damage it has already caused to his campaign further hints at Newt’s revised end-point.

Why else would a candidate who still hopes to win an election increase an action which has proven in the past to cause greater damage to his own campaign than his opponent’s? It is clear that Newt is aware of his slimmer than slim chances in South Carolina specifically and in the rest of the primary. Since the presidential nomination appears out of Newt’s reach, he has undertaken a new goal; to stop Romney from being the nominee. Newt’s first attempt to accomplish this is has proven unsuccessful and too remain in the race and continue this path despite his attacks being ineffective, may result in a fuming Newt after Romney wins South Carolina, Florida, and eventually the Republican nomination.

Instead of continuing with plan number one, there is another path for Newt to take which will seriously impede the Romney campaign. Newt can endorse another candidate, which will unite the conservative vote and enable for that candidate to overcome Romney in South Carolina. Newt can continue with his attacks against Romney if he so desires, which will keep Romney on the offensive without pulling down the conservative candidate. Since Perry had imploded and is polling in the Huntsman range, Santorum would be logical choice, and for several reasons in addition to polling.

Santorum had exceeded expectations in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He had gone from the very bottom of the polls to a tied victory with Romney in Iowa. In New Hampshire he came pretty much tied with Newt at over 9% despite having polled at 1 -2% in November and 3-4% in December. Since Santorum’s performance had twice topped what was expected, his national support is in an upward climb and his coffers have begun to sport a bulge. Even if Santorum comes in second, behind Romney, it will be seen as an impressive act and he will have the opportunity to attempt another overtake in Florida.

Santorum has no incentive to get out of the race. He has exceeded expectations in the first two states and will be remembered with respect and admiration for his Iowa surprise further down the line even if he comes in second or third in South Carolina and Florida. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has been branded as the former frontrunner whose support had vanished and the longer he stays in and serves as a spoiler, the harsher people’s opinion will be of him down the line. And that Newt the historian wishes to be remembered fondly in history is a given.

Although a newly released Insider Advantage poll of South Carolina from this morning has Newt Gingrich at 21%, just two points behind Romney and 7 points ahead of Santorum, the current poll isn’t such great news and is actually a massive slide from the previous Insider Advantage poll from 12/18 where Newt polled far ahead of the rest having come in at 31%. The current Insider Advantage poll thus reflects a whopping 10 point drop for the former frontrunner while indicating a 4 point jump for Romney (from 19 to 23) and a surging 10 point gain for Santorum (from 4 to 14).

Newt tweeted the poll and his entire camp is touting the poll as proof that he can beat Romney, not realizing that he is once again setting himself up to extremely high expectations. A Newt victory in South Carolina will be seen as having finally met expectations. Anything below first spot though, won’t reflect too well for someone who had led the pack a month earlier with double digits and had failed to live up to expectations for the third time. A Santorum victory will cause a momentum many times stronger than his Iowa surprise had, and will propel him ahead across the country. Santorum coming in as a strong second or third will also reflect positively on him since he was never touted as the frontrunner and definite winner.

Another feather in the hat for Santorum is his being the only candidate who refused to attack Bain Capital for having engaged in free market principles such as firing unproductive employees. Newt, Perry, and Huntsman have attacked Romney for having lain off employees in companies Bain has managed, ignoring minor details such as that laying off unproductive workers benefits the business and that shrinking the staff of a failing business is often necessary in order for it to turn around and be able to generate a profit once again. Isn’t it better for a business and the economy for it to operate with fewer employees rather than it keeping the entire staff only to go bankrupt and close shop? Besides, how do these candidates who attack firing employees plan to shrink the size of government and close entire agencies, as they promise they will, without handing out pink slips?

The accusation that Bain’s actions were wrong because they had received a federal bailout is similarly flawed, and in two accounts. Firstly, although the government shouldn’t be bailing out companies, companies that have been bailed out should use the money to make a profit, as Bain did, even if it includes the firing of employees. They shouldn’t waste the bailout money by keeping employees employed for as long as the money lasts and not attempting any positive reform, only to shut the doors when the money runs out. Secondly, it turned out that the bailout accusations were false and that Bain Capital hasn’t even received a government bailout.

Newt’s general criticism of a business who profits from flipping other businesses appeared foolish and contradictory when voters discovered that he conveniently forgot to share the fact that he invested in and served on the advisory board of Fortsman Little, a competitor of Bain in the leveraged-buyout industry.

Santorum’s strong defense of the free market was and is a stark contrast to the others and especially from Newt who had adapted the role of Attacker in Chief. This resulted in many renowned conservatives who have never previously admonished Newt or shown true support for Santorum, to suddenly do so. Newt had come under nuclear fire from Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives for his left-wing socialist style against Romney, while Santorum was praised for standing up for basic conservative principles.

If Rick Santorum can continue to build his momentum by citing his pro-free market principles and unite the conservative base in South Carolina, he will beat Romney in South Carolina. A defeated Romney will continue forward, albeit with a greatly weakened image and no surety for victory.

No longer will he be able to walk away with a victory simply because the crowded primary resulted in the conservative vote having been split in three. He will have to tout a record and a plan to convince voters that he’s the right guy and unlike Santorum, Romney’s record is filled with inconsistencies and discrepancies. While Romney will be busy explaining his anti/pro conservative record and Paul will explain his anti/pro earmarks amongst many other inconsistent statements, Santorum will be able to tout a consistent and steady record.

Santorum has received above average ratings as a staunch conservative despite his having run in the blue-purple state of Pennsylvania. Whether on social issues such as pro-life and traditional marriage, economic issues such as his sponsorship of BBA, anti-tax increases and a line veto, or foreign policy issues, such as facing reality and calling evil by its name, Rick had always been consistent with is positions for he chose them because he felt they were right. Shifting along with the wind or prior to an upcoming reelection were never serious options for a person who believed in the correctness of his positions.

Ron Paul's Hypocrisy about Liberty

I've had it with Ron Paul and his shameful rhetoric.

Paul pretends to fight for life and liberty above everything else. At every debate, appearance, and interview he repeats his alignment with liberty. Pretty noble sounding. However, if he is allowed to speak a little longer, his own words often reveal his hypocrisy. With equal passion he fights for the liberties of vicious terrorists and radical Muslims across the globe, and protests their death at the hands of freedom-fighting troops. He defends their liberties despite the fact that if they are granted liberty they have used it and continue to use it to snatch life and liberty from others.

At the debates Paul decries the deaths of the many innocent civilians killed by U.S. troops despite it being far from the case. In truth, far more innocent civilians have been terrorized and brutally murdered by terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere only because they have belonged to a different ethnicity, religion, or opinion. On the other hand, US troops focus solely on rooting out terrorists and civilian casualty are few and far apart.

Paul's defense of evil is not a new one. In an interview in 2009, Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro questioned Paul whether he would've been president during World War II, whether he would've intervened and stopped Germany from annihilating tens of millions of innocent. Paul's shocking response was “No!” he “wouldn’t have risked American lives to end the Holocaust.” Is he not aware that we had kept out of war and were rewarded for our isolationism with the Pearl Harbor bombing?

Ron Paul's response to the holocaust proves the man is a scumbag and evil monster who sides with evil over good. Nazi Germany killed tens of millions of innocent including elderly, infirm, men, women, and babies only because of their religion or ethnicity. Ron Paul, though has no issue with their actions o the actions of terrorists but with the actions taken against radical Islamists who promote violence? He then blames the terrorists' calculated schemes in which they seek to wreak the greatest number of casualties they can conjure of, on the action of those who try to protect themselves and protect others from being on the receiving end of their devilish plans?

How many times must history repeat itself for Paul and his supporters to realize that when evil arises it chooses to perform evil acts because of an inner desire to be evil? What will it take for Paul to realize that evil will fight to spread its evil icy fingers across the globe and can only be stopped through the use of the one language it understands; a tough hand?

Not surprisingly, Paul also takes the side of evil in the war of drugs, all in the name of liberty of course. He ignores the many lives it has ruined and ended including that of innocent non-druggist due to drug-related crimes, and instead expresses his sympathy for those poor drug addicts. Does he actually expect normal people to sniffle along with him?

It is no accident or error that Paul had led an antisemitic and racist newsletter, for Paul personifies evil, identifies with evil, and will not let an evil go by without it receiving his approval.

He's a poisonous snake who spreads his venom on those who fight evil, from those who fought Nazism to terrorism. Shame on you Ron Paul and shame on each and every individual who supports Ron Paul. 



 

From the Emboldening of a Serial Adulterer to the Bashing of Social Conservatives

In 2008 the conservative media, and with this I mean the conservative and not the mainstream or establishment media, has greatly emboldened and pedestaled Romney over McCain despite McCain having owned a more conservative record. They did have the justification, though, that Romney has years of executive experience under his belt, something McCain never had. However, four years later, after the power of the conservative media has diminished somewhat due to their own actions in ’08, the conservative media is once again doing what it seems to do best; destroy itself.

Instead of these conservatives proving themselves as the only ones who will stick to the truth no matter what, they choose to ignore all liberalisms which not only make up a large chunk of Newt’s record, but have been emboldened and become fact only because of Newt’s support and sly tongue. Where is their focus on his 2010 endorsements where he hadn’t endorsed a single conservative over a RINO during the primaries?

The conservative media, for whatever reason, despises Romney yet is okay with Newt despite the fact that Newt’s record is far more liberal than Romney’s AND Newt hailed from a conservative state so there was no reason to bend to the people’s will who elected him into office, unlike in Romney’s situation. They tout the words he currently spouts despite being aware that Newt never remains with his original positions, and he’s already flipped several times on the current campaign trail (which too gets ignored by these conservatives). I have made this comparison between Newt and Romney not because I support Romney since they are both at the lower end of my list, but in response to Erickson’s article from last week.

Erickson bashed the Iowans and social conservatives living in Iowa as responsible for the Santorum rise, blasted Santorum as a non-conservative, and listed the handful of big-government bills he’s voted for. That original article has been followed by about a dozen additional anti-Santorum articles. What Erickson failed to note in each of these articles, is that Newt too supported each of those expansions plus many many more.

Newt Gingrich had voted for the creation of the Department of Education, has greatly expanded its size during his speakership, and continues to support its growth. Unlike Santorum, Newt supported individual mandates, co-sponsored environmentalist bills, supported Bush’s amnesty plan, and said he would’ve voted for TARP if he were in Congress. The list can go on and on with examples of Newt’s liberalism in contrast to Santorum’s conservatism.

In addition to Newt’s terrible record, he’s also a serial adulterer (!) yet Erickson can’t understand why someone would support Santorum over Newt?

The entire conservative movement has united to impeach Bill Clinton because of his immoral behavior and his cover-up lies. Hasn’t Newt behaved cheated on two separate wives? As for lies, his leaked divorce records have proven he’s an adept liar as well. How can a conservative support Newt? How will a conservative currently supporting Newt ever be able to stand up for his values down the road if they had defended a serial adulterer in the past?

My fellow conservatives, you can argue whether Santorum is or isn’t a conservative and to which degree, but when Erickson only quotes the few negatives mentioned in Club for Growth, while totally ignoring his above average conservative ratings he’s received from them, totally ignoring his conservative aspects, totally ignoring the reasonable explanations for many of his not-so-conservative votes, and most important of all – totally ignoring similar and worse action from Newt, this leads to some serious questions. Where is Erickson’s article lauding Santorum for his positive aspects such as his having stood up as a freshman Congressman and fought corruption amongst fellow Congressmen, in what was later dubbed as the Gang of Seven?

More importantly, if the conservative media can’t distinguish themselves from the mainstream and establishment media guys in sticking strictly to the truth, what will make them any more credible than the rest? Why will anyone except for their own small base pay any attention to them in 2016 if say, Newt wins the primary yet loses the elections? The only reason they support Newt is because of his supposed electability, despite all this electability talk having been proven wrong in so many past elections. I don’t know whether Newt can make it to the White House if he wins the primary since it is something no one knows two years in advance, although some pretend to. One things that is clear, however, is that in all of American history, serial adulterers haven’t received too many votes from women, which happen to make a considerable percentage of the swing voters.

Erickson’s and the others who cry foul play over Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter in ’04, are absolutely wrong in their assessment since they ignored the complete picture. Which junior Senator from a state has failed to endorse the senior Senator if the senior was a member of his own party? Don’t forget that the Specter of ’04 hadn’t yet voted for Obama’s stimulus package, nor was imagined to switch parties in the future. On top of the junior/senior explanation, Santorum served as chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such,was expected to support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign.

When questioning one’s endorsement one must also remember to look at the broader picture. ’04 was prior to the Tea Party and a time when anti-Bush and Anti-Republican sentiments were pretty strong. A Toomey victory in purple Pennsylvania was quite questionable while a Specter victory was basically guaranteed. Specter’s victory gave the Republicans the 60th vote they needed in Senate to prevent Democratic filibuster. Specter’s vote thus enabled President Bush to appoint TWO CONSERVATIVE JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT; Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. No additional explanation necessary.

Besides, how about listing the conservatives Newt had endorsed over the establishment candidates during the primaries of 2010? When you find none, how about taking him to task for it?

Similarly, Santorum’s reeelection loss in ’06 is given greater credence than necessary. Those who focus on it, stress that he lost his own state yet fail to mention that Newt had been thrown head-first from his leadership position in the House by his fellow Republican colleagues! Santorum has won two state-wide elections in the purple-blue state of Pennsylvania before facing defeat. Newt served in a red state and has never won a state-wide election, period. One of Santorum’s victories occurred at the same time that Bush lost the state of Pennsylvania. Santorum is the only current Republican candidate who won reelection in a blue state-wide election. (Gary Johnson did too lol)

It’s a shame to watch Conservatives embracing a big-government guy like Newt who belongs behind Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and yes, even Romney. Only nuts like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are less conservative than him. Iowans will let us know tomorrow who they support, and just as no one would’ve predicted two months ago that Santorum has gotten a chance in winning Iowa, no one can definitely declare that an Iowan victory won’t be sufficient to continue and grow the Santorum surge onward to other states and throughout the entire election.

Instead of being pessimistic and attempting (uselessly) to prevent his surge, how about doing everything in your power to help the surge from changing directions? 

As per the current GOP Field, it is possible for Rick Santorum to become the new Frontrunner?

This is neither an expression of support for Santorum nor a prediction as to who will win the nomination. It is simply an overview of the GOP presidential field in advance of the eighth debate which will take place tonight.

The GOP presidential scene has been a constant seesaw of action. Potential voters watched as Bachmann rose to the top only to lose her momentum after winning the Iowa Straw Poll because of Perry’s entrance onto the scene, her lack of executive experience, and her debate gaffes which she chose to repeat and stand by. Her appointment of Ed Rollins as campaign manager only caused her trouble, first causing many in the Palin camp to oppose her, and now having Rollins badmouth her and shrugging off all blame for her campaign’s failures while placing it squarely on her shoulders.

Perry too experienced the frontrunner experience immediately after the launch of his campaign, although it fizzled out just as quickly. His diminished status is largely due to his awful performance at the debates and also because of the big blotches on his record such as Gardasil, immigration, and crony capitalism.

Despite the downs the Perry and Bachmann campaigns have recently experienced no candidate should be ruled out, as the McCain campaign has taught us in 2008. Both Bachmann and Perry can still experience a comeback via a victory in one of the first states such as Iowa or South Carolina. Since there’s still over two months until the Iowa Caucus, there’s still ample time for the candidates to take turns in playing the frontrunner role.

Gingrich carries personal baggage and suffered a strong hit when he called Paul Ryan’s plan “right wing engineering.” However, with Perry and Bachmann performing so poorly in general and especially at the debates, Gingrich’s excellent performances have caused his earlier comments to be forgiven or forgotten by many. The last few weeks showed a continuous rise in Gingrich’s poll figures, and he has recently overtaken Perry for the spot in third seat. If Cain takes a hit, Gingrich may possibly be the one to benefit.

Romney is the only candidate who’s been amongst the frontrunners since the start of his campaign without losing his spot, thanks to the establishment’s complete backing. It’s important to note though that which Michael Barone pointed out; that Romney’s poll figures topped 25% in only three out of eighty polls taken this year, thanks to tea party conservatives’ staunch opposition against the flip flopper. However, his presidential demeanor, loads of money, and many endorsements continue to make him a serious player with strong chances of winning the nomination. As it appears right now, one will have to wait for the actual primaries in order to determine whether the establishment will once again have their way.

Paul’s foreign policy which is equal to or worse than Obama’s will keep him from winning the nomination especially in such turbulent times despite his economic talk.

This leads us to Herman Cain, the current frontrunner. Cain is a successful business executive who talks the talk in regard to conservatism. On the flip side, he has proven to be hasty in judging events and others such as at the Perry rock incident, and more importantly, has no record to prove he could walk the walk. True he was extremely successful in the private sector, but the private and public sector although interrelated are very different, and many former businessmen became terrible or corrupted politicians. Many are therefore wary of handing the presidency to someone who hasn’t yet held any political office where one is tested whether they are truly loyal to the ideals they spouted during the campaign or whether corruption and cronyism can affect or overtake them.

Now that Cain is in the spotlight, his ideas, proposals, and comments are being placed under careful scrutiny and thorough questioning. He will probably be grilled tonight over his joke/non-joke regarding an electrified fence at the border, and about the details surrounding his 999 plan. Time will tell whether he will be able to remain in the lead or share a similar fate as those before him.

This brings us to the final candidate in this discussion, Rick Santorum. Santorum is the only conservative who hasn’t had yet a turn in being frontrunner. Although Santorum is not an option for many conservatives because of his endorsements of moderates such as Spector in 2004 and a host of other RINO’s in 2010, His record is quite conservative. He doesn’t seem to have any serious baggage, though perhaps because it has never been dug up or brought to center-stage since he’s never been the frontrunner or anywhere close to such a position. Santorum is quite articulate and has had some good moments during the brief time-slots he was allotted at the debates such as when he took on Ron Paul for his comments on Iran’s nuclear programs and his entire approach to foreign policy.

So far, the process of the current primary has been; have someone shoot to the top, dissect him or her, and then throw them down to the dogs. Bachmann’s campaign is seriously derailed with Ed Rollins, her former campaign manager, badmouthing her as is typical in the political world (think Steve Schmidt.) Meanwhile, Perry’s numbers hit an unbelievable low with him polling at three percent in Florida and in the single digits in Iowa. Not surprisingly, a Perry Iowa Operative jumped ship and thrown his support behind Santorum. It therefore seems as though Santorum’s chance has arrived to take a stand in the limelight and have the focus turned to him. The right ad, campaign message, plan, reaction, or debate performance can all be the catalyst of a sudden Santorum surge. Similarly, a Cain collapse could result in voters looking around and taking a look at the candidate standing in the side. If a Santorum surge indeed occurs one would then watch to see whether he will remain standing, or fall like his predecessors.

Now we’ve got to let tonight’s debate take place and see how each candidate performs.