I was at a GOP caucus planning meeting for my local BPOU yesterday evening, and we were taking the opportunity to discuss our Presidential candidates. We’ve got a Newt supporter, a Santorum supporter, some people who didn’t say a preference, and I’m a long time Paul supporter.

The Republican Party has a problem: While the frontrunner only has the support of the “establishment” moderate wing of the party (about 1/3 of the votes apparently), the vote of the party’s true believers, the conservatives, is split across several candidates.

The spectre of Mitt Romney gaining the nomination is looming before us. I call it a spectre because it is like the ghost of 2008. (How exactly DID we get McCain as our nominee, anyhow?) Does the Republican party really want to run another moderate? How would Romney have any credibility to run against Obama-care, the single biggest get-out-the-vote issue we have? I’m telling you now, if we run another moderate for President, we’ll end up losing to Obama again. We need to present a CLEAR CHOICE to the American people.

My friend (a Santorum supporter) was saying how while he doesn’t like Ron Paul’s foreign policy, he likes that Ron Paul is moving the debate to the right, and moving the other candidates to the right. Then I asked him… wouldn’t you rather have a candidate who cannot be moved?

You like Ron Paul on balancing the budget.

You like Ron Paul on limited government.

You like Ron Paul on taxes.

You like Ron Paul on Liberty and Freedom.

So, you like Ron Paul except on foreign policy?

Ron Paul has a solid core of supporters, and seems to be garnering about 1/5 of the vote. Once you go Paul, you never go back.

I speak to you as a one whose formative years were influenced by Ronald Reagan. I wept openly when he passed away.

I speak to you as one who spent days knocking on doors for W in 2004.

I speak to you as a Fred Thompson supporter in 2008. It wasn’t until Thompson dropped out that I switched to Ron Paul because of his limited government stand. Then I started actually listening to what he has to say about foreign policy. I urge you to really listen, because I’m telling you now, he’s RIGHT.

Ron Paul brings voters to our party, a coalition of the lovers of freedom.

An attempt to rally around any of the other candidates would lose many of Ron Paul’s freedom coalition voters.

If we get behind Ron Paul we can defeat Romney, and we can defeat Obama. Victory!

Not just victory on election night. With Ron Paul as President we won’t have to worry about how far left he’ll backslide now that he’s elected. We won’t have to worry about another Medicare part D.

Let me close with this: We RedStaters love and support the military. We support our troops. Our troops support Ron Paul.

What are you going to do?

So why in the world do so many Republicans turn a blind eye to socialized education?

Socialized education presents the following problems:

1) it is expensive.  Have you seen the temple to humanism they laughingly call your local high school building? Have you seen the benefits package provided for those who may, or may not, be good teachers? Anytime government money is spent on something it has the effect of driving up the cost of that thing. According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,  “School districts had total expenditures of approximately $596.6 billion in 2007–08″.  That works out to over $10,000 per pupil per year.

2) it is ineffective at its stated purpose. Any monopoly becomes inefficient over time, government funded monopolies doubly so. If the education of our young people in the Arts and Sciences is the goal, it is clear the government schools are failing. However, I suggest to you that education is NOT the goal; indoctrination IS, and with that understanding, it becomes clear the government schools are succeeding quite well.

3) it is evil. Besides the obvious indoctrination for the acceptance of statism and socialism, government schools teach humanism, evolution, “multiculturalism”, moral relativity, and the list goes on. God is not allowed in the classroom. And all this is done WITH OUR MONEY!

As parents, one of our most sacred duties is the education of our children:

“Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” Deuteronomy 11:18-19

Instead, most Republicans ship their children off to the local government indoctrination center and yet somehow expect them to turn out to be good Christians and conservatives. As long as our children are being educated indoctrinated by the government we should not be surprised that our civilization is in decline. A decline officiated by a socialist.

Public education IS socialism. Like all other instances of socialism in our society, it needs to be replaced with the free market.

   The United States Federal Government is now over $14 Trillion in debt, with more borrowing on the way. These treasuries you’ve been purchasing provide the funds to create one of the most bloated, wasteful, and intrusive governments the world has ever seen.

   Americans by the millions are becoming aware of the situation and, like me, are exerting an ever-growing political influence. Our goal is to make the government smaller, less intrusive, and fiscally responsible. Perhaps you mean well by continuing to lend money to the US government. Perhaps you continue to lend in the mistaken belief it’s in your best interest. Regardless of your motivations, we consider your actions unwise and unhelpful. Ultimately, you are enabling a profiligate, irresponsible welfare state. YOU are part of the problem.

   Accordingly, I am requesting that you cease and desist from purchasing further US Treasury debt. You are hereby notified that if you continue your enabling actions I and millions of patriotic Americans like me will pursue every political and lawful option to ensure that you are NOT repaid.

Thank you for your consideration.

1) “NO DEAL”.  Representative Boehner and the Republicans in Congress hold a press conference and state the following:

“The debt ceiling was put in place for a reason. Instead of mindlessly increasing it, we are going to require ‘President’ Obama to do his job and prioritize remittances. The American people can decide whether he does a good job of it next November. In the meantime we will continue to pass budgets which both reflect the realities of current tax receipts and respect the need of the American people to be relieved from the burdens of a bloated and intrusive government. God Bless America.”

Government this big and this intrusive is not cheap. Tyranny is always expensive.

In 1980 we sent Ronald Reagan to Washington to reduce the size of government. Ultimately, though he “fought the good fight”, he failed.

In 1994 we sent a wave of Republicans to Congress to reduce the size of government. Ultimately, they failed.

In 2010 we sent another wave of Republicans to Congress, once again with the mission of reducing the size of government. RIGHT NOW they have the ability to eviscerate government spending, and there’s nothing the Democrats could do to stop them. RIGHT NOW they have the ability to de-fund tyranny.

Republicans MUST resist the call to raise the debt ceiling. Leaving the debt ceiling where it is will FORCE cuts. We may not like where the cuts are made at first, but that can be sorted out next fall.

If the current crop of Republicans want to be lauded by posterity for their courage and foresight, they will vote against any increase to the debt ceiling. Let the chips fall where they may.

Payments on the Federal Debt were $164 Billion in 2010. Federal revenue was $2.381 Trillion. 

So what is it they’re talking about defaulting on? Certainly they will have enough tax revenue to cover payments to our creditors.

Unless there’s malfeasance on the part of the Obama regime (which there is, of course), a default is not going to happen. Certainly not a default like Nixon had in 1971 when he stiffed all our creditors the gold we owed them.

So what if we did default, then what? Would tax revenues cease? Would the death panels execute grandma more quickly? Would the moon crash into the earth?  NO.

If we DID stiff our creditors, the only thing that would happen is that the US government would find it much more difficult to borrow money. Would that be so bad? It’s not like we’ve got a FUNDING problem. We’ve got a SPENDING problem. The federal government is about 10 times larger than it should be.

Folks, at this point I am in favor of ALMOST ANYTHING that forces our government to shrink in size.

Any congressman who votes for an increase in the federal debt ceiling should face a primary challenge. Hey hey, Ho ho, bloated government’s got to go!

Where’s Dog when you need him?

Remember, Big Sis says, “If you see something, say something!”

It has to do with semantics. Consider the three classes: lower/poor, middle, upper/rich. To get from one class to the other you have to have a considerable income. Income is what makes you upwardly mobile.

If you are middle class, in order to get to the upper class you need to have a significant income for a considerable amount of time. It is this income which the Democrats want to tax.

The ACTUAL upper class / rich have tax havens, loop holes, etc, to avoid the confiscatory taxation. Rich Democrats designed it that way, and take advantage.

To summarize:  A large income does not make you rich, it makes you upwardly mobile. Democrats don’t hate the rich; they hate the upwardly mobile. But they trick people into thinking that a large income equates to being rich, in order to maintain the class warfare cloak.

In conclusion, I suspect that these wealthy Democrats really want a two tiered social structure:  Lords and serfs. They lost control of their favored system back during the renaissance, and they want it back.

Let’s be honest. No patriotic American likes the idea of those responsible for our national security being incapable of keeping secrets. That being said, KT’s proposed strategy for dealing with the wikileaks trainwreck is remarkably nonsensical.

“Mr. Assange and his fellow hackers are terrorists and should be prosecuted as such.”

Terrorists? Really? When’s the last time Mr. Assange attempted to detonate a bomb in a crowded shopping center or hijack a plane? Perhaps KT’s definition of “terrorist” is reduced to “someone who does something I don’t like.”

“The president needs to get on the phone with the Australians (who are eagerly awaiting our call) and ask them to pull WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s passport. Once he’s cornered and can no longer travel, they can find him and charge him with espionage. Then the president can ask the country he’s hiding in to extradite him to the United States and try him in a military tribunal.”

Exactly what has Mr. Assange done that the New York Times hasn’t done? Correct me if I’m wrong, but to my knowledge Julian Assange isn’t breaking into the Pentagon and stealing information. Like the New York Times, Mr. Assange is the receiptient of classified information, not a spy. Just because he has less loyalty to the United States than does the New York Times (you didn’t think that was possible, did you?) doesn’t mean he can be tried in a “military tribunal”.

Listen, KT. We’re not supposed to be a police state. There are better ways to deal with the wikileaks problem than engaging in intellectual dishonesty and thuggish tactics. Perhaps now would also be a good time to reflect on our foreign policy, and see whether our actions overseas are really serving our best interests. A government out of control on the home front is likely to be out of control in other areas as well.

The fraud attempted by Democrats this cycle wasn’t quite enough to prevent the recount.

SOS Mark Ritchie – aka Acorn Boy – has experience in jerry-rigging recounts from when he engineered the great senate heist for Al Franken, but we also know his MO, so anticipate fireworks in the coming months.

On the upside, MN had both chambers of the Legislature go Republican, so even if Ritchie manages to steal this election for Dayton, conservatives are still setting the agenda for Minnesota.

And last night’s coup-de-grace: Oberstar (MN-8) went down in FLAMES! That pork chef was first elected when I was in diapers! Madness!

For decades liberals have hounded us to “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” in an effort to get us to lower our standard of living. Not that any of those three Rs are bad, so long as they’re economically viable. In fact, I think it’s time we engage in a bit of Reducing, Reusing, and Recycling collectively, as in, apply them to *gasp* GOVERNMENT!

Reduce – Reduce the size and scope of government, at all levels. Government is inherently the most wasteful entity in existence. Reduce government to only what’s absolutely necessary for the maintenance of a free society.

Reuse – Government has oodles of overlapping agencies, mountains of paperwork, and redundant bureaucrats. The government remaining after the reduction must be fully utilized – we need value for our money. When the public servant attorney is finished with his law briefs for the day, set him out sweeping streets!

Recycle – This is the fate of elected officials who refuse to reduce the size and scope of government. November is coming! Recycle those wasteful, arrogant, busy-bodies back into the private sector where they can learn the meaning of hard work.

Is this the way they really want it?  A razor thin vote, with Demmunist support only?  They’re gonna own this one, big time!

Of course, this is a pretty big detail. Apparently the folks over at the hannity.com political map think that Michele Bachmann is a Democrat.

http://www.hannity.com/politicians/michele_bachmann/12345/

We’ve tried to alert them to the error, but to no avail. Mr. Hannity, I can assure you that Representative Bachmann is no Democrat.

“More people voted [in the Massachusetts Senate election] to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him,” Gibbs said.

I present you the following equation:

(The knowledge that people voted for Scott Brown + ______________) = imagined support for Obama.

Feel free to speculate on the answer. Given Obama’s admitted cocaine use during his younger years, I know one possible answer.

But seriously, the more they stay in denial, the more fun November will be.

Tom Emmer (my favorite), Marty Siefert, Pat Anderson, David Hann, etc, etc. Any of these fine Republicans would make a great Governor.

Over the holidays it appears most of the movers and shakers in the Republican party received a Christmas card from Norm Coleman (yes, the Norm Coleman who “lost” to Al Franken). Nothing specific, no announcements. Several people were also “polled” by Norm’s organization asking whether they might support him in a bid for the Governor’s office. Again, no announcement, but I think Norm’s intentions are clear. Norm might be banking on his name recognition, but after the last election that might not be so much of a benefit as he thinks.

Norm Coleman is a good example of what has gone wrong with the Republican Party. Big government , go along to get along, the consumate moderate. This state needs Republicans like Tom Emmer who actually stand for something other than Democrat Lite. We need our governor to be a conservative who will fight tooth and nail to reduce the size of government and restore our liberties. Norm Coleman is NOT that man. Minnesota conservatives are planning to resist any move by Norm to jump into the Governor’s race. We’re committed to giving Minnesotans a clear choice, a real conservative!

This could get very interesting.

First of all, I would HIGHLY encourage Officer Crowley to back out. Right. Now. Apparently they’re going to be out of view of the media, violating safety rule #5: “Never hang out with a radical narcissistic liberal unless you’re in a public area in full view of lots of witnesses.”

Be that as it may, I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that if you’re going to have a summit beer, you might as well drink Summit Beer. I mean, it would be poetic. It’s good too.

Full disclosure: I have no financial interest in Summit Beer. I do like it though.

While cows graze contentedly in the verdant pastures, not a one of them worries about her health care. A cow doesn’t have to be concerned about whether she’ll be able to afford to have treatment for mastitis or whether she’ll get immunizations for her newborn calf. A cow doesn’t have to go to all the trouble of choosing a good doctor. A cow is content and happy, for the farmer takes care of all her health care and welfare.

The farmer, no matter how kind he may be, is bound by financial constraints. If the cost for a treatment will outweigh the potential profit from the cow, the treatment will be withheld and the cow will be put down. Some cows may be lucky, particularly if they’re good tempered and a favorite pet, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

The thought that our government would want to treat us like a bunch of cows makes me crazy! We are better than cattle. We are citizens, and our government should be our servant, not our master. Yes freedom is sometimes difficult, and sometimes scary, but it’s what makes us human.

If you want to see single payer healthcare in action, go visit a farm.

Here in Minnesota we’re watching the judicial lawlessness in Iowa with a nervous eye. Our Senate Democrats have managed to keep the “Marriage Amendment” off the ballot, so we are just as vulnerable to a lawless court as Iowa was.

So what are Iowa’s options at this point? A Constitutional amendment is not possible until 2010 at the earliest, and their Democrats have made it clear they will block any effort in that direction.

The governor COULD stand up for the people of Iowa by “tak[ing] care that the laws are faithfully executed.” Iowa Constitution Sec. 9, and declaring null and void the lawless ruling from the activist court. He’s a Democrat though, so don’t expect miracles.

There is one more option, the people’s option:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” – Declaration of Independence

1) Ditch the “Legal Tender” laws and let people choose what to use as a currency. History indicates most will revert to silver or gold (or even copper for small change). Get government out of the money printing business altogether! They’ve shown they can’t be trusted. Mines and private mints will pick up the slack with bullion.

2) Banks will only be warehouses for whichever currency people choose to use. People will have deposit accounts and will be able to transfer bullion electronically to other people’s accounts for payment. Much like online “bill pay”.

3) Banks will facilitate private party loans, sort of like a “financial e-harmony”, but will be required to have 100% of all deposits on hand at all times. Due to the history of fraud at financial institutions, this must be subject to frequent surprise audits.

4) Interest rates on private party loans will naturally respond by market forces to the general level of savings and the robustness of the economy, but must be set only by the agreement between the saver and the borrower. More savings available will mean lower interest rates. More competition to borrow those savings means higher interest rates. Riskier borrowers will have to promise higher rates of return. The market will manage itself better than any government or central bank ever could.

5) Government will calculate tax in silver AND gold, but leave the form of payment up to the taxpayer, who will pay in whichever seems less valuable to him. Government must NOT be allowed to fix an exchange ratio between the metals.

A free people require a free monetary system.

And not just that…  he’s one of the few members of congress who actually takes his Constitutional duties seriously.

If you actually take time to watch the 5 minute video referenced by bs in the above link, you’ll see what I mean.

It’s sort of odd, in a way…  when did our conservative Republican Party buy into the Keynesian economic theory? How is it that someone who rejects Keynes is thought of as fringe by the party?

So to answer the question, yes. Ron Paul is a Fiscal Conservative. Also a Social Conservative. Also, yes, a Military Conservative, in the classical sense.

Hope this helps, bs.