Area417

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.

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.

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.   

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. 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.

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.

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

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."

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

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!)

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