While there are many analysts who think that Trump and Jeb Bush were the big winners in last Thursday night's FoxNews debate, to anyone who viewed this two-hour farce, it is plain to see that the stand out and stand up presidential hopeful was Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). From the very start, Paul challenged Trump's integrity and it was downhill for the Donald from there. Forget the Megyn Kelly issue because she is not running for office. If Trump thinks she was tough on him, then he better drop out now because that was still minor league compared to what lies ahead.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were both articulate and calm n their performances as was Dr. Ben Carson, who seemed a bit apprehensive at first but settled in and gave some very good answers and a few good humorous lines that grabbed the audience momentarily. For me it was Rand Paul who stood out among the losers and the wannabe newbies. His lambasting of Christie was a classic in a patriotic display of what liberty and freedom is what this nation was founded upon. Christie so much as called the founders' Bill of Rights ridiculous, lending to his stance in favor of unconstitutional infringements on Individual Rights for the sake of national security. Rand shouted out louder than Christie, "Get a warrant!" and that tipped the scales on the FoxNews approval meter.
By the time the "post-game analysts" began their assessment, the media had already lashed out against Fox for they treated poor rich boy Donald Trump, totally ignoring the fact that they gave him twice the air time of any other candidate on the dais. Charles Krauthammer wasted no time in making Rand Paul a nonissue, and for me, that is the telling of how FoxNews operates. Certainly not the fair and balanced network they project themselves to be. They are establishment lackeys, same as the rest of the privately-owned major media.
The real winner of this debate is the American People. They were able to witness how the media manipulates opinion to produce a desired outcome, in this case, making Trump a victim while ignoring the command performance given by Senator Paul.
Rand Paul demonstrated why he must be the next American President. He was the only one who was ready to present a plan to reduce taxes, balance the budget, and audit the Federal Reserve. It will be that latter issue that will be the reason opposition will rise and use any despicable means to attempt to destry his character.
Fox News will host a GOP candidate debate this Thursday, August 6, 2015. The hype is no less than that of a heavy weight boxing match on pay-per-view. According to the spin, Donald Trump leads the field of contenders. Why? Is he that 'refreshing' that the public sees him as a serious Presidential hopeful? Allow me to elaborate why he cannot win.
In all of the polls it seems that most Republicans favor Trump over the rest of the field. Well the Republican voter will not decide the vote against the Democratic candidate. That was demonstrated in 2008 and again in 2012. It will be the Independent Voter who will decide the next President.
In the early part of the year, the talking heads were saying that the GOP nominee should be a governor, because a governor has 'executive' experience. Then it was military experience that was needed to combat the terrorism threat against Americans.
For me the choice comes down to one thing: The Constitution. Freedom from government intervention in every aspect of my life. Adhering to the First Amendment and not forcing the will of government on religious beliefs. Obeying the Second Amendment instead of making excuses as to why the government must pass 'common sense' gun control laws. The latter is an oxymoron and only a moron uses that lame excuse to attempt to take rights of the People.
The (un) Affordable Care Act demonstrates how inept government involvement is. Most candidates want to 'fix' it, but that is not really possible. The real push is for complete control by the government. Donald Trump has been for 'universal health care' for decades, believes that abortion is about women's choice, and thinks that bully tactics against China will somehow fix the economic issues we face today.
Karl Rove (who should have been charged with high crimes and misdemeanors) said it best when he stated that this 'debate' is more like a campaign speech limited to about 8 minutes per candidate.
The panel of 'inquisitors' from Fox News will ask questions, some of which will be questions submitted by viewers. So far, none of the questions ask how they will accomplish anything, only what they will do if elected. Each will thump about Iran, immigration, abortion, blah, blah, blah.
The exceptions are the senators, Cruz, Paul, and Rubio. Each of them have voted for or against these issues, so we know where they stand. Each has demonstrated by their voting record where they stand. In the blog post Last Stand: Freedom or Serfdom I pointed out how only Rand Paul has voted along constitutional lines even when the majority succumbed to popular opinion. There really isn't more than can be said. America stands to lose its sovereignty unless we elect a President who will follow the Constitution. Rand Paul does just that, always.
The way I see it, the immigration 'problem' can be handled quite simply and it will save tax dollars. First, you must remove the incentives that attract foreigners from coming into the U.S. illegally. You do that by removing ALL federal benefits for education, food, health care, and shelter. If you arrive here from anywhere else with proper documentation, you are free to come to America to find a job or start a business. Or if you have promise of employment a work visa may be obtained expeditiously when proper background checks are made to both the employer's and the government's satisfaction regarding that clean record in one's background. That person will pay taxes at a rate slightly higher than a U.S. citizen since a job here means that an American is not employed.
Next, you must seal the border. With joint cooperation between the state and federal governments, a plan that serves the best interests and capabilities of each border can be implemented. If funding is required to build fences or walls, depending on the necessity of the local terrain, it can be found in the savings from ending funding to foreign nations, starting with the ones that are most hostile toward the United States. Troops can be redeployed from around the world to provide temporary security until the border crossings are in place and the entire length is secure in the manner that serves the requirements of the local terrain. No additional taxes or borrowing will be necessary to fund the endeavor.
These fine members of our armed services will no doubt make excellent law enforcement officers if they so desire, in both state and local governments, protecting their family, friends, and community.In fact, they still will be serving to protect the nation as deputy sheriffs and police officers. A secure border is not about keeping illegal immigrants out, rather it deters foreign enemies from coming to the United States as spies and saboteurs. They can now cross the border as easily as a good man seeking work and liberty for himself and his family. Many politicians will try to convince us that we cannot forget that many of these illegal and undocumented workers must have a path to legal status and citizenship. Well they do! If they are here illegally, the path will lead back to their country of origin. There they will make application just as so many other foreigners have and do. We cannot reward them for breaking the law by moving them ahead of those who are waiting in line with legal application documentation.They broke the law so they get deported. When Americans break laws they go to prison so I don't see a problem here. Many will also tell us that children who were born or brought here guiltless victims if their parents are deported. Really? And how about all the homeless American citizens with children that can benefit from the aid given to foreigners illegal or legal? How can you possibly justify so many Americans in need when foreigners are given so much? Simply a case of a shortage of common sense and logic when the government is put in charge of solving a problem that they (the government) created in the first place!
With all of the hype in the media lately regarding abortions, guns, health care, and immigration, Americans as a whole are being duped by the people we trusted to protect our rights and our borders. First, abortion is not a choice. Having sex is a choice and doing so with responsibility is what needs to be taught and not legislated. As a teenager, my parents spoke with me at length about sex and how it will be my responsibility to take care of a child that I father. Neighbors with daughters also taught them that having sex was not just about feeling good, as it is a reproductive process that will produce a child. Abortion was never considered as an option to carelessness and disregard for the sex act itself.
Second, regarding all of the media propaganda and the power grab by government to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, it is the duty and the right of We the People to oppose this tyranny. It is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment. It was written to insure that a government duly elected as representatives of the citizens, could not use force in order to take our rights from us. The safety of our persons and of our family is not the responsibility of government; it is our responsibility to protect our person and property. Law enforcement was never meant to replace personal responsibility rather it was to enhance it. Contrary to popular social ideology, health care is not a human right or a right of an American citizen. Medicine as it is practiced today is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry, and it does nothing to further cures or to maintain good health. Sure, diet and exercise are both stressed as important factors in health care today, but it is drugs that are relied upon to accommodate those with unhealthy lifestyles. And now with the unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Patient Protection Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, the decisions regarding your own health are being handled through government bureaucrats who will decide whether or not you are worth the treatments you require. In other words, even your doctor has little to say in regards to your personal health. Finally, we are now faced with proposed new legislation to make it easy for immigrants to gain legal status and a path toward citizenship, even though they have been breaking the laws of immigration for many years. While I am writing this, I am also listening to the President speaking about this issue. He wants to make new laws when he and his administration has refused to enforce the laws already there. He wants us Americans to believe that we will benefit from immigration laws being changed. Obama wants to punish businesses that take advantage of illegal workers by having them work long hours and with less that minimum wage pay. Most of these workers are supposedly doing labor that Americans will not perform for these low wages. But if these businesses were able to afford to hire American workers at living wages, don’t you think more Americans would take those jobs? Perhaps the underlying problem is the value of our money and not greedy employers. It’s greed of the banking cartel that must be addressed, and by We the People not just by the politicians we elected to protect us from them. When my ancestors arrived here from Europe, they did not receive benefits. They worked and saved, educated their children to strive for a better life here. Many succeeded in businesses and professional careers, paid their taxes and contributed to charity to benefit their community. They did not have any government programs that entitled them to benefits from taxpayers. They themselves were taxpayers. And whatever laws on immigration and naturalization there were at the time were obeyed and eventually they became citizens. Why do we need to change a system that worked so well? What is needed is enforcement of the laws currently in place. There is always the cry for being humanitarian and allow these illegal immigrants to stay here. But look at other nations around the world and you will see that we are the most lenient on the planet when it comes to illegal immigration. We cannot continue to subsidize those who break our laws and reform the laws so that they will go unpunished for their crimes.
“So will there be some [programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
— Mitt Romney
“I actually have a[n immigration] plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. ”
— Mitt Romney
“Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues…”
— Tax Policy Center
WASHINGTON, DC – Admittedly afraid of how voters will react to his ideas, Mitt Romney has a bad habit of teasing his policy proposals before refusing to show voters the details. First, Romney told told the Washington Examiner that he had an immigration plan that he hadn’t unveiled — that was over 100 days ago. Next, he gave a highly publicized “major” policy address at Ford Field in Detroit to unveil his new tax plan, but he failed to actually release the details of the plan in question. And finally, while speaking with the Weekly Standard, Romney flat-out admitted he was keeping secrets from voters because he was afraid his ideas would be unpopular. The Standard wrote: “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.”
“Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his plans before the election shows he’s fully aware that his ideas are out of touch with American values. The only thing more cynical than Romney’s outdated policies that make the rich richer is his willingness to keep the details secret from voters."
— Rodell Mollineau, American Bridge president
Americans expect presidential campaigns to be worthy of the office they’re seeking — for candidates to offer competing visions for the future, instead of defaulting on the promises that got them there. Romney has yet to prove to anyone he has what it takes. In fact, in the sixty months since Mitt Romney began his quest for the White House, the most noteworthy thing he’s done is outspend Rick Santorum in a couple of states. He has failed to realize it’ll take more than that to reach the White House.
Romney promised to eliminate cabinet agencies and government programs, but refused to specify which, out of a fear of the plans being politically unpopular. According to The Weekly Standard, “Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is ‘the critical thing’ that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America.' ‘Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,’ he revealed in a 30-minute interview on March 21. It’s a smart answer in that it actually says nothing and is a deeply politically correct one.
Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to be specific about any programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’
[The Weekly Standard, 04/02/12]
December 7, 2011: Romney admits he had an illegal immigration plan, but refused to unveil it.
In a Washington Examiner editorial board meeting, Romney was asked, “Have you not said enough to encourage that… simply by saying, ‘Well, once we’ve secured the border, we can do something?’" Romney responded, “I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me. I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And then number three, how to secure the border. And every piece of advice I've received from people who talk about this topic say get the first job done first, because if you talk about the other jobs you get highly confused with whether you are going to create incentives for people to come here illegally to take advantage of whatever program you might describe.”
[The Washington Examiner Editorial Board, 12/7/11]
Romney promised to eliminate tax deductions to pay for his tax plan, but did not specify which deductions, making it impossible to accurately evaluate his proposal. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. …
The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now… Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.”
[Tax Policy Center]
Mitt Romney Platform:
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney's 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?
Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy platform is contrasted below with the platform Mitt Romney maintained before and during his governorship of Massachusetts, and the previous article. Why is Mitt Romney running for President on a platform that has been so drastically altered?
Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.
Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage:
1994: "As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]."
2011: "I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Mitt Romney on Abortion:
1994: "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
2002: "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose."
2011: "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."
Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:
1994: "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."
2007: "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."
Mitt Romney on Health Care:
2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."
Mitt Romney on Immigration:
2006: "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."
2008: "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's not appropriate."
Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:
1994: "I would like to have campaign spending limits."
2007: "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."
Platform 2012?
Abortion: pro-life
Capital punishment: against
Censorship: against the Fairness Doctrine
Child protection: "would propose a "One-Strike, You're Ours" law for child sex offenders convicted of using the Internet to prey on children."
Education: supports No Child Left Behind
Abstinence education: supports this in public schools
Prayer in schools: He was against this in 1994, but in 2007 said, "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."
Gas crisis: Wishes to become independent of foreign oil by using alternative fuels as well as domestic reserves of petroleum.
Environment\Global warming: Pro-environment; regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary measures.
Family life: Mitt Romney has said, "That strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America."
Gun control: Romney has "flip-flopped" on this issue, once stating that he supported, "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." and at another date saying he supported gun control and a ban on assault weapons.
Health Care: supports the right of states to form their own health care plans for their respective state citizens.
Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions: Romney has avidly supported same-sex marriage in the past, saying, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." However, in his 2008 campaign, Romney stated that, "I oppose same-sex marriage and I also oppose civil unions."
Medical Marijuana: Stated, "I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana."
Stem Cell Research: Believes it is ethical, but opposes research involving cloned embryos and opposes federal funding for it.
Free Trade: Supports
Minimum Wage: Supports predictable, steady "changes" in the minimum wage. Up or down... Who knows?
Taxation: Has pledged to not produce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes; advocated for the elimination of the estate tax.
Immigration: Supports legal immigration and decreased illegal immigration. Opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, but supports a path to citizenship for them, without any special treatment over legal immigrants, as well as the requirement to pay taxes and register with the government.
Iran: Believes the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if the latter country threatens to use nuclear weapons is an option.
Iraq War: Romney has stated, "So long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population." Is willing to withdraw from Iraq if the surge proves unsuccessful, which Romney believes is too early to tell.
Pakistan: Wishes to aid this country in military, informational, and governmental ways through the Special Partnership Force."
What... if anything does the previous information actually mean? You could corner Willard Mittington Romney in a closed room and sweat it out of him... but he might not know.
