gucci outlet . Writes ConservativeHQs Richard Viguerie:Ron Paul has been proven right again by the unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve Bank. This week the Feds latest intervention in the global economy made it cheaper for Europe to borrow dollars, thereby propping-up Europes tottering banks and left-wing economies such as Greece but at the cost of further inflating the dollar and depressing interest rates for American savers.Unsurprisingly, the stock market surged almost 500 points on the news that it would be cheaper for Europeans to borrow dollars, but how this helps American taxpayers and the average citizen on Main Street is getting harder and harder to figure outEstablishment politicians, like Mitt Romney, dismiss Ron Pauls crusade to open-up and potentially abolish the current American central bank system, but every time the unelected bureaucrats at the Fed take secret action that creates untold profits for Wall Street, and props-up tottering left wing governments in Europe, at the expense of American savers, investors and taxpayers the libertarian Texan gains more support.
This video has already gone viral and demonstrates well the deep political flaws and untrustworthy record of Newt Gingrich. austin homes for sale . If Gingrich represents what it means to be a conservative these days, the movement stands for little to nothing.
Via Real Clear Politics:
Opining on the Republican field, Ron Paul says they all “just represent the status quo.”
“Yeah, I think it’s because it’s more of the status quo. I think all the other Republican candidates just represent the status quo,” Paul told CNBC. “More of the same. No change in the foreign policy. No change in the federal reserve. No cut in spending. I’m the one that’s offering a trillion dollars in cuts because I believe the government is so big and so out of control that you have to have real cuts. But all this other talk about cuts, whether it’s Romney or anybody else, the cuts in proposed increases, that’s why the American people don’t believe that they have a solution.”
“We just keep doing exactly what we’ve been doing for the 40 years. Spending excessively, running up debt, printing up money, and manipulating interest rates. And we’re up against the wall now, it doesn’t work anymore. wilson tennis rackets . Lowering interest rates is essentially impossible. That’s what they’re desperately trying to do today. But, you know, when our interest rates to the banks are down to zero, What are they going to do? Used to be that Congress would just spend more money and that would help. How can they spend more money when there’s no more money in the Treasury. So, no, Romney and the rest aren’t offering anything new,” he said.
Newt Gingrich’s chronic flip-flopping almost makesthe ever-malleable Mitt Romney look consistent. Here’sacompilationfrom MSNBC and please note, this is just the tip of the iceberg:
Flip: Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it. — June 2007
Flop: I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional. — May 16, 2011
Flip: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support. — February 2, 2007
Flop: A carbon cap and trade system … would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy. — April 21, 2008
Flip: “I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.” — April 10, 2007
Flop: “I actually don’t know whether global warming is occurring.” — November 8, 2011
Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan:
Flip: “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering [Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal] is too big a jump.” — May 15, 2011
Flop: “I made a mistake — May 17, 2011
Flip: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening … Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] … All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes. — March 7, 2011
Flop: I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi … I would not have used American and European forces. — March 23, 2011
Criminal Court Trials for Suspected Terrorists:
Flip: Well, I think if [members of the Bush administration] believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be — would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They’re not wearing a uniform. richard maize . They’re not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people. — November 22, 2005
Flop: Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit … Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights? — January 4, 2010
My latest at The Daily Caller:
These days, virtually all Republicans call themselves conservatives and claim to be dedicated to cutting spending, balancing budgets, reducing debts and limiting government. Most of them are liars. The failure of the super committee this week was but the latest reminder.
The super committee was supposed to figure out how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it failed, the result was supposed to be $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts over the next decade, with about $600 billion of that coming from the defense budget. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said any such cuts would be devastating to our military. Many prominent Republicans agreed with Panetta. Mitt Romney said: We cannot put Americas safety in jeopardy by virtue of the failure of this committee. Michele Bachmann echoed that sentiment: We cant do that to our brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.
When conservative Republicans say they want to cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or anything else, liberal Democrats shriek that Republicans will devastate education, energy and any other part of our government that does not remain 100% intact. Conservatives rightly recognize this as a liberal scare tactic designed to prevent anyone from downsizing a federal government that so desperately needs downsizing. What separates liberals from conservatives is that whereas liberals love big government and will tell any lie to protect it, conservatives hate big government and will cut it at every opportunity they get or at least this has long been perceived as the divide in American politics.
I stress the word perceived, because when it comes to Pentagon spending, too many Republicans still behave exactly like liberal Democrats.
The truth is that we dont need to spend as much on defense as were spending now. Were spending more on defense than at any time since World War II and almost as much as every other nation combined. Senator Tom Coburn has suggested that if we are going to start cutting, the Pentagon is the most logical place to start precisely because it is the most wasteful. sfeerhaard . But even more importantly, these devastating automatic cuts that are supposed to happen arent really cuts. As Senator Rand Paul explained on CNN the day the super committee failed:
This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because were only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%.
The problem is theres simply no way to actually do what every Republican loves to talk about limiting government, balancing budgets, cutting waste without reducing defense spending. After entitlement spending, defense spending is the second largest part of our budget. You could feasibly gut the entire entitlement system and not touch Pentagon spending, but what politician is going to tell Americas seniors they must do without so Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and God-knows-where-else can have more?
Read the entire column
Here’s what a few various pundits had to say about Ron Paul and Mitt Romney’s disagreement during last night’s debate concerning whether there are any actual “cuts” to military spending in the wake of the failure of the Deficit Supercommittee:
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Romney looked a little piqued at Ron Paul on the budget. I think Ron knows what he’s talking about.”
Red State’s Erick Erickson: “Ron Paul actually gets a great comeback at Mitt Romney and actually shows he knows more about the budget than Romney on this point. Wow.”
Talk radio host Neal Boortz: “Go get ‘em Ron Paul! They aren’t cutting anything out of anything. Base-line budgeting. So right.”
CNN’s Roland Martin: “Rep. Ron Paul just schooled Mitt Romney on what’s happening on Capitol Hill. Paul is there. Mitt isn’t. Who do you trust?”
Washington Examiner/American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “Ron Paul smart to turn military cuts question into general rant about how Congress never actually cuts spending.”
MSNBC’s Howard Fineman: “Ron Paul is dominating this debate! ‘They are not cutting anything out of anything.’ He’s right, of course.”
Said Rush Limbaugh on his program Monday, commenting on the Supercommittee failure:
“There will be no spending cuts. There are no spending cuts in sequestration or anything else. You know how the current services baseline budget works. The current services baseline budget projects an increase of let’s say 23%, just to pick a number, okay? Well, it is, it’s the same thing every year. When’s the last time the budget went down in anything? It doesn’t happen… So if something’s supposed to go up, spending go up 23%, and it’s only gonna go up 16%, they wail and moan about a 7% cut.”
Added Limbaugh: “But defense spending is going up even with sequestration… You understand the current services baseline budgeting, and even you are shocked to realize now that there is no real cut from a baseline of zero in defense spending. And there will not be a cut in Medicaid or Medicare spending. There will be a reduction in how much it was supposed to be increased.”
With the arguable exception of Jon Hunstman, Ron Paul is the only candidate on that stage tonight that is saying what the American people are saying: Bring the troops home.
More importantly, Ron Paul is the only frontrunner who is saying it.
The notion that any possible threat to the United States requires extra-constitutional and anti-constitutional government measures like the Patriot Act is to explicitly reject Benjamin Franklins maxim that when we give up liberty for security we will get neither.
Without question, a post-9/11 America is susceptible to possible new threats that are in many ways without precedent. But so is giving up liberty to the degree that we have with the Patriot Act. Fotografia . To give up our liberties out of fear is another minor victory for the terrorists and another monumental loss of Americans historic freedoms.
As Sen. Rand Paul noted yesterday and Rush Limbaugh just reiterated on his program, the supposed “crippling” defense “cuts” by the Debt Supercommittee would mean Pentagon spending increases go up only 16% instead of 23%. Sorry, but increasing spending is not a “cut.” When you hear some Republicans–including those running for President–complaining about these supposed “drastic” defense “cuts” they are simply playing the Democrats’ tired old big spending game.
Or as Sen. Paul put it yesterday on CNN (Source: The Washington Times):
“With the congressional supercommittee debt-reduction talks on the brink of failure, Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday the “automatic cuts” scheduled to kick in aren’t nearly as Draconian as some have suggested.
“I think we need to be honest about it,” the Kentucky Republican said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“The interesting thing is there will be no cuts in military spending. This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23 percent over 10 years,” he told host Candy Crowley. “If we sequester the money, it will still go up 16 percent. So spending is still rising under any of these plans. In fact, if you look at both alternatives, spending is still going up. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta sent a letter last week to Congress describing the potential cuts as “devastating,” warning the cuts would undermine national security.
Mr. Paul was skeptical: “That’s an interpretation. Defense spending will go up $100 billion over 10 years even if we sequester $600 billion, because the curve of spending in our country is going up at about 7.5 percent a year. All spending goes up.”