The Definition of Politics: Left Wing vs Right Wing

Politics is the process and method of decision-making for groups of human beings. It generally involves compromise, bluster, skill, luck and money. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, religious, work and even family. I say take a hike.

Which Political Wing Are You?

The Right Wing: In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the right, are terms which refer, with no particular precision, to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics. It is usually, but not always, associated with conservatism.

The phrase “right-wing” (and “left-wing”) comes from the seating arrangement of parliamentary partisans during the French Revolution. The monarchists who supported the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side of successive legislative assemblies. The more ardent proponents of radical revolutionary measures (including democracy and republicanism) were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the terms has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared.

As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the terms has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared, and the point of view of the speaker. The more ardent proponents of radical revolutionary measures (including democracy and republicanism) were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the terms has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared.

The Left Wing: In politics, left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision, but usually spoken with either pride or disdain) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the American sense of the word), or, more commonly, with opposition to right-wing politics.

Communism (and the Marxist philosophy) and anarchism are considered to be the “way-left” radical forms of left-wing politics. The terminology of left-right politics was originally based on the seating-arrangement of parliamentary partisans during the French Revolution.

The Center–Sixty Percent of the Voters Make None of the Decisions

Independents. Libertarians. Moderates. This represents the majority of the political spectrum, the “mushy middle” that the Left and Right wings pretend to cater to every two years. This is both good and bad news. Despite the pressure from both sides, the middle generally remains unfazed by the arguments from both sides of the aisle. The bad news is that every election cycle both sides of our political spectrum go further and further away from the middle in search of new recruits. This leads to an abrupt disconnect between the people who live in the United States, and the elected officials that make law and policy.

Your Tax Dollars– Would You Spend Money On This?

The government has two fundamental jobs–pass laws and regulations, and collect and disperse tax dollars. In a nutshell, these are the two jobs that our Federal Government is supposed to do. Most Americans are content with this, but on the outer wings of our political spectrum, there are radical and reactive ideas about how the government is supposed to do both of these things. Unfortunately, these are the people who get elected, and every two years or so we give the keys to the world’s biggest economy and regulatory body to scattershot idealogues and let them take it out for a test drive.

The Federal Government is bound by the Constitution of the United States to perform a specific set of tasks, and expressly forbidden to perform others. This distinction gets a bit blurry when it gets time to make laws and spend money, because there is the “letter of the law” and the “intent of the law,” which leaves quite a bit of grey area for interpretation.  For example, the Federal Government is charged with providing for the nation’s defense, and is not permitted to recognize a state religion. In 2009, $21 million was earmarked to construct 2 chapels of worship on 2 military bases. Given the fact that both bases reside within walking distance of several churches, there was no real reason to construct these chapels with tax dollars.

Some government spending is necessary, but a pretty significant chunk of it is politically-motivated idiocy. Sending our tax dollars to countries so they have a better impression of our values is a waste of our tax dollars. Giving money to profitable industrial enterprises that could be funded by the industries themselves (the government does not need to be in the oil business–why should we give the oil business more money?) is another waste of our Federal funds.  Spending money to enforce a tax code that is in place to collect taxes costs billions to take in millions.

“I am the Law!!”–Judge Dredd, as portrayed by Sylvester Stallone

The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document in that it does not require any lawmaker to submit to even a casual test of competency before taking office.

And, in fairness to one and all, here are important political links:

• Libertarian Party
• Democratic Party
• Republican Party
• Green Party
• Tea Bag Party

OK, back to our political story

RON PAUL COMING TO MISSOURI

Rats! Ron Paul is coming to Missouri and I’ll be stuck at work.

For those of you who can sneak away next Friday, Rep. Ron Paul will be appearing at the Uptown Theater in Kansas City on June 15th. There will be a reception at 4:30 p.m. and a rally starting at 5:30.

You can keep track of when Ron will be coming to a town near YOU by checking out Eventful.

Technorati Tags: presidential candidates, Republican, Ron Paul

Saturday, June 09, 2007 in Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Quick Takes On CNN’s Republican Debate

CNN pretended Ron Paul wasn’t there.

Rudy uses the “n” word–NATION BUILDING–as in we must start training our troops in nation building. Can we assume that a President Rudy would be invading lots more countries?

Arriana Huffington must have been huffing something because she thought John McClain looked like a winner tonight.

Romney, Brownback, and Thompson?  YAWN

Tancredo went too far by suggesting that we should stop LEGAL immigration.

Huckabee gave a brilliant answer to the question on whether he believed in evolution, but later gave a broad hint that he would be a big, BIG spender when it comes to social issues (something you already knew if you’ve been paying attention to his record in Arkansas.)

The “top tier” was totally uninspiring tonight.

Technorati Tags: 2008, Giuliani, McClain, Republicans, Romney, Tancredo, Thompson

Tuesday, June 05, 2007 in Elections 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

From The Inbox: The RNC Writes Little Old Me

Snail mail from the Republican National Committee. It’s nice to know they’re thinking of me…

Dear Friend,

I’ve written you several times this year but our records show that you have not activated your Sustaining Membership in the Republican National Committee for 2007.

Didn’t you read the letter I wrote back, the one that said you guys didn’t do 95% of what you promised? Come on, not even the part where I told you to pound sand, that I was sending my money to Ron Paul’s campaign?  And exactly why are you writing me, anyway. I haven’t been a registered Republican in 25+ years.

Your dedication to our Republican principles of a strong national defense, lower taxes, limited government, and personal responsibility led to President Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004…

Yes, damnit. I voted for him—twice. I’m so ashamed

But some Republicans strayed from these values…

Strayed?! Is that what you call the biggest increase in non-defense spending ever? You greedy little fetal pigs.

Blah, blah, blah…The only things standing in the way of the Democrats’ bigger government, higher taxes agenda are President Bush’s veto pen, the RNC, and you.

All this time he had a veto pen? What, is it out of ink? Couldn’t he like send a Secret Service dude out to Staples for a refill or something?

Liberals..blah blah…stop the extremists…blah blah and more blah.

Thanks for keeping in touch. Since you haven’t been reading my letters, I won’t bother sending another one, with or without a check Maybe we need an auditor.

Technorati Tags: Bush, Democrats, Republicans, RNC

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 in Republicans | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Former CIA Chief Agrees With Ron Paul

For all those who were shrieking that Ron Paul is a traitor after the Paul/Giuliani exchange in the South Carolina debate (video here), here is what Michael F. Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Unit says:

…Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Mr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter. We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are “over there,” and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Mr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.

Do yourself a favor and read the rest at  Antiwar.com.

Technorati Tags: Giuliani, Osama bin Laden, Ron Paul, South Carolina debate, terrorism

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 in 9/11, Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

So Where Does McCaskill Stand On Immigration?

The Politico reports that Senator McCaskill has said that the immigration fiasco bill would need to “change a lot” in order to win her vote.  But what does that mean? That we aren’t giving away enough? That is isn’t tough enough? With Missouri’s junior senator, it’s difficult to say.

We do remember, however, what she said during her campaign:

* We are a sovereign nation and border security has to be a top priority, especially since 9/11. Additionally, it’s about American workers and the middle class.

* This new program would cost our taxpayers $54 billion over the next 10 years. I can’t see how we can ask taxpayers to pay this price in support of foreign workers we may not even need and put at risk programs that Missourians rely upon.

* Big corporations that exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor hurt the economy because they bring down wages and cost American jobs. I am also aware that once those illegal workers are removed, we have an entirely new set of labor force issues. I believe that we need to crack down on our illegal immigration problem first, enforce our laws evenly and fairly, and then put the labor needs of this state on the table to deal with that out in the open.

If you want to attempt to pin Senator McCaskill down on her position, here’s the contact information:

Washington Office: Phone:  (202) 224-6154   Fax: (202) 228-6326

 

Main District Office:Phone: (816) 421-1639   Fax: (816) 421-2562

While you’re at it, hold Senator Bond’s feet to the fire. He may be contacted at the following:

Washington Office: Phone:  (202) 224-5721   Fax: (202) 228-8149

Main District Office:Phone: (573) 624-2488    Fax: (573) 634-6005

 The rumor is that Senator Bond is considering retiring. While he may not care that you won’t vote for him again, he may  (unlike Bush) still care about the Republican Party enough to keep it from committing suicide, or talking about birth control.

Technorati Tags: Bush, Claire McCaskill, illegal immigration, Senator Bond

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 in Borders/Immigration, Claire McCaskill | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Ron Paul On C-Span Tonight

From Ron Paul 2008:

May 22, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will speak on foreign policy tonight on the U.S. House floor around 9:00 p.m. ET. Maybe he should discuss financial jobs. The schedule for special-order speeches can change with little notice, but the schedule now shows around 9:00 p.m. ET. Floor speeches are broadcast as part of C-SPAN’s regular coverage of the House floor.

Technorati Tags: foreign policy, presidential candidates, Ron Paul

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 in Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Left And Right Unite–Impeach Bush!

The cries to impeach President Bush are ramping up from an unexpected quarter–Free Republic! It seems  that many Freepers are as angry as I that Bush, with  the help of our corrupt Congress, is getting ready to sell out our country next week. Angry enough to call for his ouster because he will not defend out borders.

I’m all for it. Impeach Bush and then clean out about 90% of Congress while we’re at it.

Monday would be a good day to bury Congress in phone calls and faxes. Let your anger over the massive amnesty program they are ready to foist on us be known.

Technorati Tags: Bush, immigration, impeachment

Sunday, May 20, 2007 in Borders/Immigration | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Michigan GOP Chairman Thinks Party Is Too Large

There’s at least one Republican out there that believes the GOP hasn’t shrunk enough:

The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

And he’s apparently of the opinion that there’s been entirely too much debating going on during these, ah, “debates.”

I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.

Since all the top tier on the Democrat’s “debate” were beating the war drums, it sounds to me as if Ron Paul was just about the only Republican candidate who would have been out of place standing among the Democrats.

Link: Michigan GOP Leader Wants Paul Barred From Future Debates, Mlive.com

Technorati Tags: GOP, RNC, Ron Paul

Thursday, May 17, 2007 in Republicans, Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Blowback! The GOP South Carolina Debate

The talking heads (both TV and radio) are gleefully proclaiming the Ron Paul campaign officially dead after the Giuliani/Paul dust up last night. Below is a clip of the exchange.

The reaction from the internet has been interesting (I’ll post my own reaction later):

Vox Popoli: “I note that Giuliani didn’t stop the first 9/11. So I suggest that his opinion is the very last one that deserves to be consulted regarding how to stop the next one.”

Andrew Sullivan writes “…the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick.”

Ross Douthat, The Atlantic Online: “the attention that Paul’s getting isn’t, pace Andrew, a sign of the hidden strength of conservative opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy – it’s a sign of its weakness, and the vacuum that’s opened in what used to be the space between neoconservative interventionism and Paul-style isolationism.

Conservative Times: “… The fact that what Ron Paul said is an indisputable fact is of no consequence to these intellectual and emotional children. In the minds of the post-9/11 War on Terror cultists, some things, true or not, are just not supposed to be said.”

d-day: “…Rudy Giuliani got to pull his 9-11 card out by attacking Ron Paul for daring to suggest the concept of blowback which is well-known to anyone whose sense of history doesn’t perish the past with each passing day…I still say “none of the above” is out to a huge lead.”

wizbangblue: “There was a time when the Republican party was known as the one which believed in smaller government and avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements. Now the Pub’s mouthpiece is attacking the only Republican candidate who still believes in those things for not being intrusive and imperialist enough.”

Save The GOP: “There is only one thing I don’t completely agree with Paul on regarding last night’s comments.  Even if the U.S. hadn’t had a sustained presence in the Middle East over the last twenty something years, I am not certain that we still wouldn’t be feeling some of their aggression.  Islamic fundamentalism plays a large part in the role on exercising terror across the globe.”

The S Factor: “…the argument being made by Bushies/Giulianites is that we should disregard any consequences of our foreign policy that end up promoting terrorism, because doing so would be allowing the terrorists to dicate our foreign policy, since we would be taking their behavioral responses to our policies into account.”

Dean Barnett, blogging for Hugh Hewitt: “I was actually thinking of doing a serious post about Ron Paul. However briefly, I pondered preparing a scholarly inquiry into why it is that he’s the very definition of a crank.”

Mike The Actuary’s Musings: “Whether Dr. Paul is correct is an arguable point. Regardless of that, regardless of Ron’s intellect and his sincere belief in libertarian principles… the fact that he’d expose such a stance in a televised debate shows a certain cluelessness which should disqualify him from office.”

Technorati Tags: Giuliani, GOP, Republicans, Ron Paul, South Carolina debate

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 in Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate

Reposted by permission

by Chuck Baldwin
May 8, 2007

No less than ten Republican hopefuls in the 2008 White House race participated in the first national GOP debate last Thursday, May 3. Even before the 90-minute debate had concluded, media pundits were declaring that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had won.

Even my friend, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough wrote, “During the debate I was flooded by e-mails from Republican activists and voters who told me Romney was dominating the debate.” Scarborough went on to say, “Among those Red State Republicans (who will elect their party’s next nominee), Mitt Romney won while McCain and Giuliani failed to meet expectations.”

As with most political pundits, the entire focus of the debate centered on only three contenders: Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Romney. In fact, in his post-debate summary, Scarborough’s only reference to anyone other than these three names was a fleeting mention of the “Sam Brownbacks of the world.”

Yet, when one looks at MSNBC’s own poll, a much different picture emerges. According to this poll, there was a clear winner alright, but his name was not McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. It was Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Consider the before and after polls, as they appear on MSNBC’s web site. See it at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

The after-debate poll numbers for six of the “lesser” contenders were almost identical to the before-debate numbers. Almost identical. I’m speaking of Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson. It is safe to say, that none of these men obtained any significant support as a result of their debate performance. However, the same is not true for Ron Paul.

Before the debate, Paul’s polling numbers had a negative rating of 47%. His neutral number was 44%, and his positive number was a paltry 9%.

Compare those numbers with those of the three media favorites, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.

John McCain’s pre-debate polling numbers included a negative rating of 40%. His neutral number was 29%, and his positive rating was 31%. Rudy Giuliani’s pre-debate poll numbers included a negative rating of 34%, a neutral rating of 25%, and a positive rating of 41%. Mitt Romney’s pre-debate negative number stood at 41%. His neutral number was 31%, and his positive number stood at 28%.

Obvious to just about anyone is that Rudy Giuliani took a commanding lead into the first GOP debate. His positive number eclipsed his closest rival by more than ten percentage points.

However, everything changed immediately following the debate. Giuliani’s positive number fell from 41% to a pitiful 24%. His negative number rose from 34% to 42%. And his neutral number rose from 25% to 34%. Clearly, Rudy Giuliani lost a lot of support in that first debate.

What about John McCain? Once again, his debate performance did not help his campaign. In this regard, Joe Scarborough has it right.

McCain’s positive rating fell from a pre-debate high of 31% to a post-debate low of 19%. His neutral rating jumped from 29% to 37%.

Remember, media pundits seem to agree that Mitt Romney was the big debate winner. So, how do his numbers stack up?

Romney’s post-debate positive rating DROPPED from a pre-debate high of 28% to 27%. His negative number also fell slightly from 41% to 37%. And Romney’s neutral number rose from 31% to 36%. I ask you, Do those numbers reflect victory? I think not.

Compare the numbers of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney to those of Ron Paul’s. Remember, before the debate, Paul scored a dismal 9% positive score. But after the debate, Paul’s positive score skyrocketed to an astounding 38%. In other words, Ron Paul’s positive number is eleven percentage points higher than his closest rival. Paul’s negative number went from a pre-debate high of 47% to a post-debate low of 26%. His neutral number also dropped significantly from 44% to 36%.

Without question or reservation, Ron Paul was the clear and obvious winner of the first GOP debate, at least according to the more than eighty-four thousand respondents (at the time of this writing) who took the MSNBC online poll.

Which leads to another question: Are the media elite watching the same debate that the rest of us are watching or are they looking at something else? I think they are looking at something else. And that something else is money.

They see only the GOP’s “Big Three” as having the potential to raise $50 million-plus for their respective presidential campaigns. That means, in their minds, all others are also-rans who have no chance to win and are therefore ignored. And let’s face it folks, when it comes to Washington politics, there are only three considerations that even register with big-media: money, money, and money.

However, make no mistake about it: Ron Paul clearly and convincingly won the first GOP debate. It would be nice if someone in the mainstream media would acknowledge that fact.

In addition, someone in the mainstream media should ask why Ron Paul did so well in post-debate polling, because I predict that Paul’s upcoming performance in South Carolina on May 15 will be equally spectacular. He may even emerge from that debate as a serious challenger for the nomination. I personally hope he does.

Ron Paul is the only candidate on the Republican ticket who would seriously challenge the status quo of the neocons currently running our country into the ground. He has a voting record unlike anyone in Congress.

As has been reported by many, Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal registration on gun ownership, has never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government. Furthermore, he voted against the Patriot Act and was one of only a handful of congressmen that voted against the Iraq War.

Furthermore, it was Ron Paul who introduced the Sanctity of Human Life bill in Congress, which, had it passed, would have granted federal protection to every unborn child and would have nullified Roe v Wade. In addition, Ron Paul is one of the biggest opponents to Bush’s push to integrate the United States into a trilateral North American Community. Ron Paul also supports ending the Income Tax and dismantling the Internal Revenue Service. In short, Ron Paul is big-government’s worst nightmare.

All of the above became obvious to voters during the six-plus minutes that Ron Paul had the national spotlight. That is why his poll numbers surged following the debate. Imagine what could happen if Paul is given more time to articulate his constitutionalist agenda. He could win more than the debate–he could win the election.

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070508.html

Technorati Tags: debates, Giuliani, GOP, Republicans, Romney, Ron Paul

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 in Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

About That MSNBC Republican Debate…

While the the mainstream media blathered on about Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, Ron Paul is the only candidate who got a huge boost in the MSNBC poll after the debate. He is, in fact, the LEADER in the poll.

Having watched the debate live, and then again several times on MSNBC’s website, I have a few thoughts:

• Chris Matthews is a smarmy little asshat.
• Does anyone really care whether a candidate believes in evolution or not? Is this the burning issue of the day? Wherever you stand on the issue, I say give a high five to the three men who, when asked who didn’t believe, raised their hands, knowing that they’d get a lot of flak for it. Here’s to Tancredo, Brownback, and Huckabee!
• Speaking of evolution, when did Brownback suddenly become Mr. Control-Our-Borders?
• Am I the only one who would’ve liked to have seen Tancredo, after being cut short one too many times, knock Matthews on his ass? Just askingJ
• WTF is up with McCain? How can a man launch into a full rant about following bin Laden “to the gates of hell” and then punctuate it with a big, shit-eating grin? A very scary man.

Please, let’s have no more putrid little people as moderators, no more Politico operatives stalking about the stage a la Al Gore, and no more dumbass questions.

Notice how Keith Whats-His-Face just can’t believe that one of the media-approved candidates isn’t winning their poll.

Here’s Ron Paul in the debate. (Listen to the endorsements beforehand!)

Technorati Tags: Brownback, Giuliani, Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tancredo

Sunday, May 06, 2007 in Elections 2008, Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Former V.P. Candidate Asks Christians to “Wake Up!”

Dear Fellow Christians, Please Wake Up!
by Chuck Baldwin
May 4, 2007

I suppose there was a time in American politics when there was a significant difference between conservatives and liberals, between Republicans and Democrats, and between Christians and unbelievers. However, with only limited exceptions, that time has largely gone. When it comes to the salient issues that are currently waging war against America’s future survival, it is extremely difficult to distinguish those differences.

If one removes the issues of abortion and gay rights from the debate, there is precious little that distinguishes the modern Christian conservative from his liberal counterpart.

Federal spending sure doesn’t apply. President George W. Bush and his fellow “conservative” Republicans have the dubious distinction of outspending practically every administration and Congress during the entire 20th century. Only the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations compare to the insatiable spending habits of the current administration.

Then there is the illegal alien invasion currently taking place in America. What was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago and only a minor nuisance before Bush was elected President has now become a full-fledged assault that threatens our country’s very survival. And remember, the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government during the six years that the bulk of this invasion was taking place. And, except for a few conservative congressmen (mostly in the House of Representatives), not only did they do nothing to stop it, they sat back and watched as President Bush actively encouraged and facilitated it, something he is doing to this very day.

Then there is the obsequious manner in which our national Christian leaders treat “big-name” Republican presidential contenders. This is especially disconcerting when one considers that many of these contenders are people with very dubious track records: either bitterly betraying conservative principles or, in some cases, openly subscribing to positions that are downright antithetical to those principles.

For example, conservatism does not have a worse Judas turncoat than Newt Gingrich. His track record as Speaker of the House is more than dismal. Just talk to any of the members of the House freshman class of 1995. Ask Joe Scarborough. Ask Steve Largent. Ask Bob Barr. Ask them if Newt Gingrich is a conservative.

They would, no doubt, remind you that it was Newt Gingrich who used the power of the Speaker’s office to rush GATT and the WTO through a lame-duck session of Congress before the more conservative ’95 freshman class arrived on Capitol Hill, because he knew they would derail passage of these two draconian pieces of legislation.

I’m sure they would also remind you that one of the first things Gingrich did after being elected to Congress in 1978 was support the creation of the Department of Education, and Most Favored Nation trade status for Red China. They would also remind you that Newt Gingrich voted for taxpayer dollars to be used to facilitate rade with the communist Chinese.

Furthermore, does anyone need to be reminded that Newt Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is nothing more than a cabal of elitists dedicated to the promotion of global government?

Gingrich proved himself to be such a Judas that he had to resign or face ouster by the very conservatives he professed to lead. And if one wants further testimony regarding Gingrich’s infidelity, ask his first two wives.

Yet, Newt Gingrich is being lauded and cheered as a “true American statesman,” to quote one national Christian leader. That leader also said, “Mr. Gingrich is certainly one of the brightest men I know in public life today, and he is becoming one of our great ambassadors for reawakening the spirit of our Founders.”

Then there is Rudy Giuliani. The same Christian leader who lavished praise upon Newt Gingrich recently wrote this about Rudy Giuliani: “I personally have great respect for Mr. Giuliani in terms of his leadership in law and order and national defense issues. In these areas, I believe he would be a potentially great president.”

This seems to suggest that if Giuliani could just convince us that he is now genuinely “pro-life” and “pro-family,” we Christian conservatives should support him. But is that really all there is that qualifies a candidate for President? Would Giuliani truly be a “potentially great president” when it comes to “law and order” issues?

Are we supposed to forget that Rudy Giuliani has been one of the most outspoken proponents of gun control in the entire country? Does it not matter that for years Giuliani used the power of his office to disarm honest American citizens and trample the Second Amendment?

For example, Gun Owners of America has this to say about Rudy Giuliani’s track record on gun control: “[T]he record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation.

“In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn’t go far enough.

“The President, largely crediting Giuliani for the idea, enthusiastically sent Attorney General Janet Reno off to develop a gun licensing and registration system . . . .

“In May of 1994, as the battle over the ban on certain semi-automatic firearms reached its height, Giuliani threw his support behind the ban. On the eve of the final vote, he noted that so-called assault weapons ‘have no legitimate purpose.’

“When the ban passed, Giuliani commented that, ‘This is an important step towards curtailing the indiscriminate proliferation of guns across the nation.’”

Is this the kind of “law and order” that Christian conservatives expect from their elected leaders today? If so, they should throw away the Bill of Rights and embrace the Communist Manifesto, because the latter more closely mirrors Giuliani’s brand of law and order.

Dear fellow Christians, please wake up! Gun control is not a secondary issue. Runaway, out-of-control federal spending is not a secondary issue. The invasion of America by millions of illegal aliens is not a secondary issue. The creation of a North American Community, which integrates the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, is not a secondary issue. The NAFTA superhighway currently being constructed is not a secondary issue. The abuse of our Bill of Rights under the Patriot Act is not a secondary issue. The blatant disregard for constitutional government by our elected leaders is not a secondary issue.

There is more to a candidate’s qualification for public office than his or her opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Are we really so shallow and undiscerning that we cannot see what our political and corporate leaders are doing to our country? Do we not recognize evil when we see it? Do we really think that we can ignore these issues and not pay the consequences?

We are in desperate need of leaders who will distinguish themselves as standing foursquare on the fundamental principles upon which America was founded. We need leaders who will respect the U.S. Constitution and who will aggressively stop the invasion taking place across our southern border. We need leaders who will rein in federal spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. We need leaders who will refuse to allow the United States to be integrated into a North American Community of any kind.

And most of all, we need Christian conservatives to wake up to what is going on in this country, and to stop trying to grovel before the neocons in the Republican Party, and to start acting like real conservatives again.

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070504.html

Technorati Tags: conservatives, Newt Gingrich, presidential candidates

Friday, May 04, 2007 in Presidential Candidates | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Ron Paul WILL Be Invited to S. Carolina Debate

There are rumors going around the net that Ron Paul is being excluded from the GOP debate in South Carolina. According to SC’s own site, this simply is not true:

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Ten candidates to participate in historic First-in-the-South Presidential Candidates Debate

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Excitement surrounding presidential politics in South Carolina continues to grow as South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson today announced that invitations will be extended to ten Republican presidential candidates to participate in the 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate.
Dawson said, “We would like to extend a warm South Carolina welcome to ten White House hopefuls who are seeking the Republican nomination to be the next President of the United States.”

“The participants in our debate ensure South Carolina voters and Republicans visiting Columbia from across the country get a chance to hear candidates for President candidly discuss important issues facing our future. We are extremely proud to host the first truly national presidential candidates debate,” Dawson added.

The following candidates will be receiving formal invitations from the South Carolina Republican Party to the 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate (in alphabetical order):

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback – Kansas
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani – New York City
Former Governor Jim Gilmore – Virginia
Former Governor Mike Huckabee – Arkansas
U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter – California
U.S. Senator John McCain – Arizona
U.S. Congressman Ron Paul – Texas
Former Governor Mitt Romney – Massachusetts
U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo – Colorado
Former Governor Tommy Thompson – Wisconsin
The 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate will be televised live by FOX News Channel at 9:00 PM from the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. FOX News Channel Washington Managing Editor Brit Hume will moderate the debate and FOX News Sunday Anchor Chris Wallace and White House Correspondent Wendell Goler will ask questions of the candidates.

While I understand just how boring the debate would be if we had to listen to just Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, you need to get a grip folks!

Link to South Carolina Republican Party :: News Item

Technorati Tags: Ron Paul, South Carolina debate

Wednesday, May 02, 2007 in Elections 2008, Republicans, Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

New Pledge For Ron Paul

If you save $25/week until the deadline, you can meet this pledge! Help Ron get elected by going PledgeBank and making your pledge!

“I will pledge 200 dollars to Ron Paul for President 2008 but only if 199 other people will pledge 200 Dollars.”

— Nathan L McDonald, Concerned American

Deadline to sign up by: 21^st June 2007

Technorati Tags: campaign finances, PledgeBank, presidential candidates, Ron Paul

Monday, April 30, 2007 in Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Viguerie Not Impressed With Giuliani, McCain, Romney

Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed, doesn’t believe conservative voters should support Giuliani, Romney, or McCain. He does, however, have good things to say about Ron Paul.

Technorati Tags: conservatives, Giuliani, McCain, presidential candidates, Romney, Ron Paul

Sunday, April 29, 2007 in Elections 2008, Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul, YouTube | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Welcome Home Our Marines!

Update: I (finally) got my homecoming pictures uploaded. You can find them by clicking the “Photo Albums” link at the top of the page.

From KSGF’s site:

Join KSGF For A Welcome Home Celebration

News Talk KSGF encourages you to join Vincent David Jericho in welcoming home 34 Marines and Sailors from Weapons Company, Third Battalion, 24th Marines, returning from Fallujah, Saturday, April 28th.

Jericho will start broadcasting from the reserve center on Pythian behind Evangel University in Springfield at 4:30 pm. He will be talking with family members and the citizens who turn out for the rally.

Somewhere between 6 and 7pm the Marines and Sailors will arrive by motorcade. We encourage everyone to come out and be a part of this homecoming. Flags and uplifting banners will be appreciated!

Parking is available in the Evangel University parking lot off of Glenstone. When the motorcade is ½ hour out Jericho will ask people to line Pythian and Glenstone with signs and flags and encourage everyone to cheer the faces off as the soldiers go by.
Click here for a map of the rally location.

Technorati Tags: KSGF, Marines, troops

Saturday, April 28, 2007 in Military | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Snarky Journalism: Washington Post’s Dana Milbank

I’m not a Kucinich fan, but I’m annoyed by Dana Milbank’s article, Kucinich’s Battle Against Cheney Not So (Im)Peachy Keen, in today’s Washington Post.

Rather than an intelligent discussion on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Kucinich’s drive to impeach Vice President Cheney, Milbank used the article as an occasion to make sly digs at a presidential candidate for whom he obviously has no respect.

There were the inevitable snarks about Kucinich’s appearance:

[...] Standing perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes, he wore a solemn face as he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level. He beckoned to aides, who handed out thick binders detailing the case.”

Kucinich read at length from his articles of impeachment,undeterred by rush-hour traffic noise on Independence Avenue (“I’ll wait till the truck goes by here,” he said at one point) and wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem.

Milbank made sure readers knew that other Democrats weren’t taking this seriously:

[...] A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. “But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere,” she pointed out.

And this:

[...]

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive — “Dennis can do what he wants; I’m not going to support it” — but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: “This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel.”

While we can surmise this is a ploy by Kucinich to grab some attention, I’m wondering what tone Milbank (or Rahm Emanuel for that matter) would have taken if Clinton or Obama had been the one to call this news conference.

Not that that is likely to happen; it would ruin Clinton’s new centrism, and Obama couldn’t find a way to wax poetic on the subject.

Technorati Tags: 2008, Hillary Clinton, Kucinich, Obama, presidential candidates, Washington Post

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 in Democrats, Elections 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Video: Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs

Ron Paul recently appeared with Lou Dobbs on a segment called 2008: Time for Answers.

Listen to Rep. Paul discuss Free Trade, NAFTA, the North American Union, WTO, and illegal immigration.

Related writings from Ron Paul: Bowing and Scraping for the WTO; Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies; “Buy American,” Unless…; True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers; The World Trade Organization; International Protectionism

Technorati Tags: 2008, Free Trade, illegal immigration, presidential candidates, Ron Paul

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 in Presidential Candidates, Ron Paul, YouTube | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

On Earmarks, Social Security, and B.S.

$300,00 for mapping the catfish genome? $2.5 million for a virtual spray paint simulator system?

ABC news recently did a spot on Americans For Prosperity’s crusade to end such dubious earmarks. You can see the video here.

***

Speaking of earmarks, the Democrat overlords refused to let real earmark reform come to a vote.

Senator DeMint‘s bill, S. Res. 123 would expose those guilty of saddling the public with their pork projects by posting the bill, with the requester’s (and recipient’s) name attached, on the internet at least 48 hours prior to consideration.

Such a system would go a long way toward helping voters identify which Senators are wasting our money.

Our own Senator McCaskill was one of five cosponsors of DeMint’s bill, so kudos to Claire! I’ve had harsh words for her in the past, but I must give credit when credit is due.

Pat Toomey, president of The Club for Growth, had this to say:

The Democratic leadership passed earmark reform unanimously when the issue was hot, but now that the appropriation process is under way and its special-interest cronies are knocking at its doors, it is all too eager to sweep the issue under the rug,” Mr. Toomey continued. “Democratic leaders want to tell taxpayers they voted for earmark reform out of one side of their mouths, but brag about their pork-filled goody bags out of the other side. American taxpayers will see through this hypocritical charade.

***

McCaskill was the only Dem who voted for S.Amdt 489, which would have protected Social Security funds from unrelated spending by established a reserve. (Republicans should heap scorn on Olympia Snowe (ME) and Senator Smith of Oregon for voting against this amendment.)

I hope voters remember that Democrats, known for their demagoguery of  Social Security, voted against this amendment.

Looks like the Dems just exposed their real motives for rejecting privatizing Social Security and it has nothing to do with your retirement.

Technorati Tags: Claire McCaskill, Democrats, earmarks, Republicans, Social Security

Saturday, April 21, 2007 in Claire McCaskill, Democrats, Government Spending | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld–Barely

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban that was signed into law by President Bush.

Ginsburg the Disgusting responded thusly:

A sharply written dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the court’s decision “deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.”

Ginsburg, joined by the three other liberal justices, said the court’s “hostility” to the abortion right guaranteed by Roe was “not concealed.” (Link: ABC News)

This is how a registered nurse, who was pro-choice, describes the procedure murder of a baby via partial-birth abortion:

I stood at the doctor’s side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.”

One has to wonder what age you have to be before that putrid bitch (Ginsburg) thinks it isn’t O.K. to have scissors rammed into your head.

More reading: Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle; AbortionFacts.com;

Technorati Tags: abortion, Ginsburg, Supreme Court

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 in News | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Veteran Loan Center

• Visit the top VA Lending site for Veterans.

Visit Missouri!

• Search Hotel Ninja for the most complete listing of hotels, motels, and campgrounds.

How to Help

1. Contribute Financially

Contribute to the Campaign2. Register Your Support

Recent Posts

• RON PAUL COMING TO MISSOURI
• Quick Takes On CNN’s Republican Debate
• From The Inbox: The RNC Writes Little Old Me
• Former CIA Chief Agrees With Ron Paul
• So Where Does McCaskill Stand On Immigration?

Recent Comments

• Holly on Holly Ashcraft Strikes Again?
• mollie on Holly Ashcraft Strikes Again?
• Ken on Feb. 10 Update: Holly Ashcraft
• A Reader on The Left And Right Unite–Impeach Bush!
• Rob on The Left And Right Unite–Impeach Bush!

Political Reading

• John R. Lott Jr.: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws
• Barbara Olson: Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton
  Anyone contemplating voting for Hillary needs to read this first. (****)
• Neal Boortz: Somebody’s Gotta Say It
  (****)
• Neal Boortz: The Fair Tax Book : Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
  New edition! Support the Fair Tax and buy several!