Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos

Posted on September 12, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Economics, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Newspapers, Nuclear Proliferation, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Trade Policiy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

 Story 1: Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos

History Documentary – World Trade Center attacks, Rise and Fall of the twin towers

911 Jumpers 9/11 in 18 min Plane Crashes Top World Trade Center Towers September 11 Terror Fact Vid

libertarians-say

reagan libertarian

libertarianwho-is-libertarian

russell kirk ten principlescslewismurray rothbardthomas sowell

Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles

The Republican Party Has Ceased To be Conservative

Mark Levin • John Boehner’s GOP is NOT a Conservative Party • Hannity • 1/7/15 •

Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty

Libertarianism: An Introduction

Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement

Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard

Kirzner on Rothbard & Libertarianism

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!

Capitalism Needs Regulation – Why Max Keiser is Correct and Libertarians are Mistaken!

Liberals and Conservatives Will Never Agree – A Conversation with William Gairdner

The History of Classical Liberalism

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) | Learn Liberty

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) | Learn Liberty

FOX NEWS Hates Conservatives And Are WHAT”S WRONG WITH THE GOP PARTY

Mark Levin Eviscerates Megyn Kelly Fox News

Donald Trump vs. Fox News | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!

McConnell on Iran Deal: ‘Obama Won Short-Term Battle, But We Won the Argument’

House Spars Over Iran Nuclear Agreement

Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse

tube.com/watch?v=Uj9qvBwOeMA]

Conservative Review

State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track

Conservatives and Libertarians

(A-C)

UTSen. Mike Lee R A 100% 4 2016

TXSen. Ted Cruz R A 96% 2 2018

KYSen. Rand Paul R A 93% 4 2016

SCSen. Tim Scott R B 85% 4 2016

NESen. Benjamin Sasse R B 80% 0 2020

GASen. David Perdue R B 80% 0 2020

ALSen. Jeff Sessions R B 80% 18 2020

FLSen. Marco Rubio R B 80% 4 2016

IDSen. Jim Risch R C 78% 6 2020

OKSen. Jim Inhofe R C 77% 28 2020

IDSen. Michael Crapo R C 76% 22 2016

IASen. Charles Grassley R C 72% 40 2016

LASen. David Vitter R C 71% 16 2016


Moderates and Progressives

(D-F)

WISen. Ron Johnson R D 67% 4 2016

ALSen. Richard Shelby R D 66% 36 2016

WYSen. Michael Enzi R D 64% 18 2020

PASen. Pat Toomey R D 63% 10 2016

KSSen. Jerry Moran R D 62% 18 2016

WYSen. John Barrasso R D 61% 8 2018

LASen. Bill Cassidy R D 60% 6 2020

AKSen. Dan Sullivan R D 60% 0 2020

OKSen. James Lankford R D 60% 4 2016

IASen. Joni Ernst R D 60% 0 2020

MTSen. Steve Daines R D 60% 2 2020

ARSen. Tom Cotton R D 60% 2 2020

TXSen. John Cornyn R F 59% 13 2020

NESen. Deb Fischer R F 56% 2 2018

KSSen. Pat Roberts R F 55% 34 2020

OHSen. Rob Portman R F 54% 16 2016

NVSen. Dean Heller R F 52% 8 2018

SDSen. John Thune R F 52% 16 2016

KYSen. Mitch McConnell R F 52% 30 2020

UTSen. Orrin Hatch R F 52% 38 2018

TNSen. Bob Corker R F 51% 8 2018

ARSen. John Boozman R F 50% 14 2016

NCSen. Richard Burr R F 49% 20 2016

INSen. Daniel Coats R F 48% 22 2016

SCSen. Lindsey Graham R F 47% 20 2020

AZSen. John McCain R F 43% 32 2016

NHSen. Kelly Ayotte R F 41% 4 2016

GASen. Johnny Isakson R F 40% 16 2016

NCSen. Thom Tillis R F 40% 0 2020

AZSen. Jeff Flake R F 38% 14 2018

MOSen. Roy Blunt R F 38% 18 2016

MSSen. Thad Cochran R F 33% 41 2020

MSSen. Roger Wicker R F 30% 19 2018

ILSen. Mark Kirk R F 28% 14 2016

NDSen. John Hoeven R F 26% 4 2016

TNSen. Lamar Alexander R F 24% 12 2020

COSen. Cory Gardner R F 20% 4 2020

AKSen. Lisa Murkowski R F 20% 12 2016

SDSen. Mike Rounds R F 20% 0 2020

WVSen. Shelley Capito R F 20% 14 2020

MESen. Susan Collins R F 16% 18 2020 –

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.9HLKmHG5.dpuf

State Name Score Years in DC Next Election Track
State Name Score Years in DC Next Election Track
VA-7 Rep. David Brat A 100% 0 2016
AL-6 Rep. Gary Palmer A 100% 0 2016
OK-1 Rep. Jim Bridenstine A 96% 2 2016
NC-11 Rep. Mark Meadows A 96% 2 2016
SC-3 Rep. Jeff Duncan A 95% 4 2016
MI-3 Rep. Justin Amash A 95% 4 2016
ID-1 Rep. Raul Labrador A 95% 4 2016
TX-1 Rep. Louie Gohmert A 94% 10 2016
SC-5 Rep. Mick Mulvaney A 93% 4 2016
AZ-6 Rep. David Schweikert A 92% 4 2016
OH-4 Rep. Jim Jordan A 92% 8 2016
KY-4 Rep. Thomas Massie A 92% 2 2016
FL-19 Rep. Curt Clawson A 90% 1 2016
KS-1 Rep. Tim Huelskamp A 90% 4 2016
CA-4 Rep. Tom McClintock A 90% 6 2016
NJ-5 Rep. Scott Garrett B 88% 12 2016
AZ-8 Rep. Trent Franks B 88% 12 2016
AZ-5 Rep. Matt Salmon B 87% 8 2016
FL-6 Rep. Ron DeSantis B 87% 2 2016
CO-4 Rep. Ken Buck B 86% 0 2016
SC-1 Rep. Mark Sanford B 86% 8 2016
IA-1 Rep. Rod Blum B 86% 0 2016
SC-4 Rep. Trey Gowdy B 85% 4 2016
TN-2 Rep. John Duncan Jr. B 84% 26 2016
CO-5 Rep. Doug Lamborn B 83% 8 2016
TX-14 Rep. Randy Weber B 83% 2 2016
WI-5 Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner B 82% 36 2016
LA-4 Rep. John Fleming B 82% 6 2016
IN-3 Rep. Marlin Stutzman B 81% 4 2016
TN-4 Rep. Scott DesJarlais B 81% 4 2016
CA-48 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher B 80% 26 2016
UT-3 Rep. Jason Chaffetz B 80% 6 2016
AL-5 Rep. Mo Brooks B 80% 4 2016
AZ-4 Rep. Paul Gosar B 80% 4 2016
TX-19 Rep. Randy Neugebauer B 80% 12 2016
OH-1 Rep. Steven Chabot B 80% 18 2016
TX-24 Rep. Kenny Marchant C 79% 10 2016
TX-26 Rep. Michael Burgess C 79% 12 2016
MD-1 Rep. Andy Harris C 78% 4 2016
GA-8 Rep. Austin Scott C 78% 4 2016
FL-8 Rep. Bill Posey C 78% 6 2016
WY-0 Rep. Cynthia Lummis C 78% 6 2016
GA-3 Rep. Lynn Westmoreland C 78% 10 2016
KS-4 Rep. Mike Pompeo C 78% 4 2016
TX-25 Rep. Roger Williams C 77% 2 2016
IA-4 Rep. Steve King C 77% 12 2016
GA-14 Rep. Tom Graves C 77% 5 2016
TX-3 Rep. Sam Johnson C 76% 24 2016
LA-1 Rep. Steve Scalise C 74% 7 2016
TX-2 Rep. Ted Poe C 74% 10 2016
IL-14 Rep. Randy Hultgren C 73% 4 2016
FL-11 Rep. Richard Nugent C 73% 4 2016
WV-2 Rep. Alex Mooney C 71% 0 2016
GA-11 Rep. Barry Loudermilk C 71% 0 2016
MI-2 Rep. Bill Huizenga C 71% 4 2016
FL-15 Rep. Dennis Ross C 71% 4 2016
WV-3 Rep. Evan Jenkins C 71% 0 2016
TX-5 Rep. Jeb Hensarling C 71% 12 2016
FL-1 Rep. Jeff Miller C 71% 13 2016
SC-2 Rep. Joe Wilson C 71% 13 2016
TX-4 Rep. John Ratcliffe C 71% 0 2016
NY-1 Rep. Lee Zeldin C 71% 0 2016
NM-2 Rep. Steve Pearce C 71% 10 2016
TN-7 Rep. Marsha Blackburn C 70% 12 2016
UT-1 Rep. Rob Bishop C 70% 12 2016
PA-4 Rep. Scott Perry C 70% 2 2016
FL-3 Rep. Ted Yoho C 70% 2 2016
GA-6 Rep. Tom Price C 70% 10 2016
NC-3 Rep. Walter Jones C 70% 20 2016
TX-6 Rep. Joe Barton D 69% 30 2016
TN-3 Rep. Chuck Fleischmann D 68% 4 2016
WI-8 Rep. Reid Ribble D 68% 4 2016
VA-5 Rep. Robert Hurt D 68% 4 2016
CA-50 Rep. Duncan Hunter D 67% 6 2016
NH-1 Rep. Frank Guinta D 67% 2 2016
TN-8 Rep. Stephen Fincher D 67% 4 2016
TX-17 Rep. Bill Flores D 66% 4 2016
TN-6 Rep. Diane Black D 66% 4 2016
VA-9 Rep. Morgan Griffith D 66% 4 2016
VA-6 Rep. Robert Goodlatte D 66% 22 2016
NC-5 Rep. Virginia Foxx D 66% 10 2016
MO-7 Rep. Billy Long D 65% 4 2016
GA-9 Rep. Doug Collins D 65% 2 2016
CA-1 Rep. Doug LaMalfa D 65% 2 2016
NC-13 Rep. George Holding D 65% 2 2016
OK-2 Rep. Markwayne Mullin D 65% 2 2016
AL-1 Rep. Bradley Byrne D 64% 1 2016
CA-39 Rep. Ed Royce D 64% 22 2016
CO-6 Rep. Mike Coffman D 64% 6 2016
TX-22 Rep. Pete Olson D 64% 6 2016
OH-5 Rep. Robert Latta D 64% 7 2016
TX-27 Rep. Blake Farenthold D 63% 4 2016
FL-10 Rep. Daniel Webster D 63% 4 2016
KS-3 Rep. Kevin Yoder D 63% 4 2016
NC-10 Rep. Patrick McHenry D 63% 10 2016
TX-32 Rep. Pete Sessions D 63% 18 2016
GA-7 Rep. Rob Woodall D 63% 4 2016
MI-7 Rep. Tim Walberg D 63% 6 2016
TX-8 Rep. Kevin Brady D 62% 18 2016
IN-4 Rep. Todd Rokita D 62% 4 2016
FL-17 Rep. Tom Rooney D 62% 6 2016
OH-2 Rep. Brad Wenstrup D 61% 2 2016
UT-2 Rep. Chris Stewart D 61% 2 2016
TX-7 Rep. John Culberson D 61% 14 2016
PA-12 Rep. Keith Rothfus D 61% 2 2016
TX-10 Rep. Michael McCaul D 61% 10 2016
SC-7 Rep. Tom Rice D 61% 2 2016
MO-8 Rep. Jason Smith D 60% 2 2016
FL-7 Rep. John Mica D 60% 22 2016
KS-2 Rep. Lynn Jenkins D 60% 6 2016
TX-13 Rep. Mac Thornberry D 60% 20 2016
VA-4 Rep. Randy Forbes D 60% 14 2016
CO-3 Rep. Scott Tipton D 60% 4 2016
NE-3 Rep. Adrian Smith F 58% 8 2016
TX-21 Rep. Lamar Smith F 58% 28 2016
WI-1 Rep. Paul Ryan F 58% 16 2016
VA-1 Rep. Robert Wittman F 58% 7 2016
NC-6 Rep. Mark Walker F 57% 0 2016
TX-36 Rep. Brian Babin F 57% 0 2016
AR-4 Rep. Bruce Westerman F 57% 0 2016
GA-1 Rep. Buddy Carter F 57% 0 2016
CA-49 Rep. Darrell Issa F 57% 14 2016
NC-7 Rep. David Rouzer F 57% 0 2016
IA-3 Rep. David Young F 57% 0 2016
AR-2 Rep. French Hill F 57% 0 2016
LA-6 Rep. Garret Graves F 57% 0 2016
WI-6 Rep. Glenn Grothman F 57% 0 2016
GA-10 Rep. Jody Hice F 57% 0 2016
UT-4 Rep. Mia Love F 57% 0 2016
LA-5 Rep. Ralph Abraham F 57% 0 2016
NC-8 Rep. Richard Hudson F 57% 2 2016
GA-12 Rep. Rick Allen F 57% 0 2016
OK-5 Rep. Steve Russell F 57% 0 2016
NJ-3 Rep. Tom MacArthur F 57% 0 2016
OH-6 Rep. Bill Johnson F 56% 4 2016
PA-16 Rep. Joe Pitts F 56% 18 2016
IL-6 Rep. Peter Roskam F 56% 8 2016
TN-1 Rep. Phil Roe F 56% 6 2016
LA-3 Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. F 55% 10 2016
TX-31 Rep. John Carter F 55% 12 2016
TX-11 Rep. Mike Conaway F 55% 10 2016
MN-3 Rep. Erik Paulsen F 54% 6 2016
OH-16 Rep. Jim Renacci F 54% 4 2016
MO-6 Rep. Sam Graves F 54% 14 2016
IN-9 Rep. Todd Young F 54% 4 2016
MO-4 Rep. Vicky Hartzler F 54% 4 2016
AL-4 Rep. Robert Aderholt F 53% 18 2016
MI-10 Rep. Candice Miller F 52% 12 2016
CA-22 Rep. Devin Nunes F 52% 12 2016
FL-12 Rep. Gus Bilirakis F 52% 8 2016
AL-3 Rep. Mike Rogers F 52% 12 2016
CA-8 Rep. Paul Cook F 52% 2 2016
NC-2 Rep. Renee Ellmers F 52% 4 2016
IN-8 Rep. Larry Bucshon F 51% 4 2016
OH-7 Rep. Bob Gibbs F 50% 4 2016
MN-2 Rep. John Kline F 50% 12 2016
AR-1 Rep. Rick Crawford F 50% 4 2016
WI-7 Rep. Sean Duffy F 50% 4 2016
NY-23 Rep. Tom Reed F 50% 4 2016
KY-2 Rep. Brett Guthrie F 49% 6 2016
WA-5 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers F 49% 10 2016
MI-1 Rep. Dan Benishek F 49% 4 2016
TX-12 Rep. Kay Granger F 49% 18 2016
VA-2 Rep. Scott Rigell F 49% 4 2016
MS-4 Rep. Steven Palazzo F 49% 4 2016
FL-16 Rep. Vern Buchanan F 49% 8 2016
MO-3 Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer F 48% 6 2016
IN-6 Rep. Luke Messer F 48% 2 2016
AL-2 Rep. Martha Roby F 48% 4 2016
OH-10 Rep. Michael Turner F 48% 12 2016
NC-9 Rep. Robert Pittenger F 48% 2 2016
PA-9 Rep. Bill Shuster F 47% 14 2016
MS-3 Rep. Gregg Harper F 47% 6 2016
WV-1 Rep. David McKinley F 46% 4 2016
OH-12 Rep. Pat Tiberi F 46% 14 2016
OK-4 Rep. Tom Cole F 46% 12 2016
PA-10 Rep. Tom Marino F 46% 4 2016
FL-13 Rep. David Jolly F 45% 1 2016
OK-3 Rep. Frank Lucas F 45% 21 2016
NE-1 Rep. Jeff Fortenberry F 45% 10 2016
CA-23 Rep. Kevin McCarthy F 45% 8 2016
PA-18 Rep. Tim Murphy F 45% 12 2016
NY-19 Rep. Chris Gibson F 44% 4 2016
OR-2 Rep. Greg Walden F 44% 16 2016
SD-0 Rep. Kristi Noem F 44% 4 2016
PA-3 Rep. Mike Kelly F 44% 4 2016
KY-6 Rep. Andy Barr F 43% 2 2016
MO-2 Rep. Ann Wagner F 43% 2 2016
VA-10 Rep. Barbara Comstock F 43% 0 2016
ME-2 Rep. Bruce Poliquin F 43% 0 2016
FL-26 Rep. Carlos Curbelo F 43% 0 2016
NV-4 Rep. Cresent Hardy F 43% 0 2016
WA-4 Rep. Dan Newhouse F 43% 0 2016
OH-14 Rep. Dave Joyce F 43% 2 2016
MI-11 Rep. Dave Trott F 43% 0 2016
KY-1 Rep. Edward Whitfield F 43% 20 2016
NY-21 Rep. Elise Stefanik F 43% 0 2016
IN-2 Rep. Jackie Walorski F 43% 2 2016
NY-24 Rep. John Katko F 43% 0 2016
MI-4 Rep. John Moolenaar F 43% 0 2016
AZ-2 Rep. Martha McSally F 43% 0 2016
MI-8 Rep. Mike Bishop F 43% 0 2016
IL-12 Rep. Mike Bost F 43% 0 2016
CA-45 Rep. Mimi Walters F 43% 0 2016
PA-6 Rep. Ryan Costello F 43% 0 2016
MT-0 Rep. Ryan Zinke F 43% 0 2016
CA-25 Rep. Steve Knight F 43% 0 2016
MN-6 Rep. Tom Emmer F 43% 0 2016
TX-23 Rep. Will Hurd F 43% 0 2016
MI-6 Rep. Fred Upton F 42% 28 2016
NJ-7 Rep. Leonard Lance F 42% 6 2016
PA-5 Rep. Glenn Thompson F 41% 6 2016
WA-3 Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler F 41% 4 2016
ID-2 Rep. Mike Simpson F 41% 16 2016
FL-4 Rep. Ander Crenshaw F 40% 14 2016
KY-5 Rep. Harold Rogers F 40% 34 2016
IL-16 Rep. Adam Kinzinger F 39% 4 2016
NJ-4 Rep. Christopher Smith F 39% 34 2016
AK-0 Rep. Don Young F 39% 42 2016
CA-10 Rep. Jeffrey Denham F 39% 4 2016
IL-15 Rep. John Shimkus F 39% 18 2016
NJ-11 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen F 39% 20 2016
AR-3 Rep. Steve Womack F 39% 4 2016
PA-11 Rep. Lou Barletta F 38% 4 2016
NV-2 Rep. Mark Amodei F 38% 3 2016
OH-15 Rep. Steve Stivers F 38% 4 2016
NV-3 Rep. Joe Heck F 37% 4 2016
CA-42 Rep. Ken Calvert F 37% 22 2016
PA-8 Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick F 37% 8 2016
IL-10 Rep. Bob Dold F 36% 2 2016
IL-13 Rep. Rodney Davis F 36% 2 2016
NY-27 Rep. Chris Collins F 35% 2 2016
WA-8 Rep. Dave Reichert F 35% 10 2016
OH-8 Rep. John Boehner F 35% 24 2016
ND-0 Rep. Kevin Cramer F 35% 2 2016
NY-2 Rep. Peter King F 35% 22 2016
IN-5 Rep. Susan Brooks F 35% 2 2016
PA-15 Rep. Charlie Dent F 34% 10 2016
NJ-2 Rep. Frank LoBiondo F 34% 20 2016
FL-25 Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart F 32% 12 2016
PA-7 Rep. Pat Meehan F 32% 4 2016
NY-22 Rep. Richard Hanna F 31% 4 2016
FL-27 Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen F 30% 26 2016
CA-21 Rep. David Valadao F 26% 2 2016

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.7BNr4KT7.dpuf

Party Affiliation

Trend: Party affiliation in U.S. plus leaners

NATIONAL REVIEW’S JONAH GOLDBERG: ‘COUNT ME OUT’ OF ANY CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT WITH DONALD TRUMP

By  BEN SHAPIRO

On Saturday, National Review senior editor Jonah Goldbergpenned a controversial column in which he rejected Donald Trump and his followers from the conservative movement. “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out,” Goldberg writes.

Goldberg goes on to suggest that the embrace of Trump perverts conservatism itself, broadening the definition of the movement in order to include Trump.

Goldberg, whom I consider a friend and a brilliant commentator, is right to label Trump insufficiently conservative. I have specifically argued that Trump ought not be the nominee thanks to his insufficient conservatism—so has Michelle Malkin, so have numerous other conservative commentators.

But here is the sad truth: Many of the same people appalled by Trump made Trump’s candidacy possible.

Trump is a product of a conservatism-less Republicanism, prepared for and championed by the intellectual elites who told us to ignore Mitt Romney’s creation of Romneycare and

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43% ’s campaign finance reform, who told conservatives to shut up and get in line, who explained that conservatives had to throw over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% and his government shutdowns in favor of
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 52% and his pathological inability to take a hard stand against President Obama using the tools at his disposal.

Over at National Review, even as Goldberg condemns Trump for his non-conservatism, another columnist simultaneously urges a ticket with Governor “God Told Me To Use Obamacare Money To Expand Medicaid” John Kasich (R-OH) and Sen. Marco “Immigration Gang of Eight” Rubio (R-FL). Goldberg himself championed Romney’s candidacy because he wasn’t a conservative, writing back in 2012:

Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you. A President Romney would be on a very short leash.

Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Trump?

And while Goldberg today raps Trump on the knuckles for his support of socialized medicine, going so far as to label opposition to such policy a “core tenet of American conservatism from Day One,” Goldberg used Romneycare as a point in favor of Romney in 2012: “He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to ‘fix’ health care in ways Massachusetts would like… He did it all. The man does his assignments.”

Goldberg today says that Trump doesn’t deserve to be a part of the conservative movement, and his followers have excised themselves from the conservative community. But in 2012, he warned that anyone saying the same of Mitt Romney threatened the possibility of conservative victory. In 2012, Goldberg explicitly opposed purges and purity tests:

That’s certainly reason enough to be mad at the establishment. But replacing the current leadership with even more ardent, passionate and uncompromising conservatives is far from a guaranteed formula for making the Republican Party more popular or powerful. To do that, the GOP needs to persuade voters to become a little more conservative, not to hector already-conservative politicians to become even more pure as they go snipe-hunting for the Rockefeller Republicans.

What requirements did Mitt Romney, and John Kasich, and John McCain, and Mitch McConnell fulfill that Trump does not? Goldberg is right that Trump has “no ideological guardrails whatsoever” when it comes to taxes and “knows less than most halfway-decent DC interns about foreign policy.” Goldberg could have added that Trump has made an enormous amount of money utilizing eminent domain, that he supports affirmative action, and that he opposes free trade, among other pernicious positions. There is a reason that this weekend full-fledged economic idiot Paul Krugman endorsed Trump’s economic policies.

The question is: Why are so many Republicans backing him? There are two answers: first, he’s tough on illegal immigration, the only issue many conservatives believe matters. The second answer is more telling, however: Trump has heavy support because Republicans rejected ideological purity a long time ago. And here’s the irony: Goldberg and others can’t call Tea Partiers to Jesus on Trump because, according to polls, Tea Partiers don’t support Trump in outsized numbers. The reality is that the same people who don’t like ideological litmus tests support Trump. Just a few weeks back, the Washington Post concluded that Trump’s fans “are more moderate than Tea Partiers were,” significantly more likely to call themselves Republicans than Tea Partiers were, far younger and less religious and blue collar than Tea Partiers.

As Sallah from Raiders of the Lost Ark would put it, “Jonah, you’re digging in the wrong place.”

If you want to target Trump supporters for failing to take conservatism seriously, try starting with those who don’t take conservatism seriously. Most of them were trained in the acceptability of “victory before conservatism” Republicanism by the some of the same folks now deriding the poll-leading Trump.

I’ve lived this story before: I’m from California. Trump is Arnold Schwarzenegger without the Austrian accent. He’s a know-nothing with a huge name and a Teflon personality, and people get behind him because he’s a celebrity and because victory matters more than principle. I know that’s so, because I made the same mistake with regard to Schwarzenegger, explicitly endorsing him in spite of his insufficient conservatism on the grounds that voters in California would get used to voting Republican.

That was a failure. Schwarzenegger was terrible, and what followed him was a shift to radical leftism unthinkable in the early days of his candidacy. I learned that lesson, and in January 2012, I said that the conservative embrace of Mitt Romney would pervert the movement itself, in the same way Goldberg now accuses Trump of perverting conservatism:

Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal — but that doesn’t justify redefining conservatism entirely…. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?

Like Goldberg, I fear the same from Trump: I fear that he’ll be a wild card with no governing principle, that even if he were to win, he’d irrevocably split conservatism. But I also recognize that Trump isn’t a departure for Republicans abandoning principle: he’s the political love child of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, a combination of the non-conservative “victory mentality” and the arrogance of a dictatorial left many conservatives want to see countered with fire.

In sum, I’m happy to welcome establishment Republicans who want to revivify conservative litmus tests to the party. But from now on, let’s be consistent: if we’re going to oust Trump based on his ideology, those requirements can’t be waived for others.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/07/national-reviews-jonah-goldberg-count-me-out-of-any-conservative-movement-with-donald-trump/

The Words Trump Doesn’t Use

by JIM GERAGHTY

Did you ever think you would see the day when the GOP front-runner rarely uttered the words “freedom” and “liberty”? Perhaps some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all.

Trump didn’t use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his announcement speech. He didn’t use those words in his Nashville speech on August 29, or his Nashville rally on August 21, or his appearance at the Iowa State Fair on August 15, or his rally and news conference in New Hampshire on August 14, or his news conference in Birch Run, Mich., or his press conference in Laredo, Texas, on July 23.

He didn’t use those words while discussing his signing of the Republican National Committee’s pledge last Thursday, or in his contentious interview with Hugh Hewitt the same day.

Trump did use the term “free-market” once during his Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd, in a defense of his qualified support for affirmative action: “Well, you know, you have to also go free market. You have to go capability. You have to do a lot of things. But I’m fine with affirmative action.” The word “liberty” didn’t even come up.

This is an unusual vocabulary for a Republican front-runner. It wasn’t that long ago that grass-roots conservatives showed up at Tea Party rallies with signs reading, “Liberty: All the Stimulus We Need.” The Tea Party named itself after an event organized by the Sons of Liberty. The GOP platform declares the party was “born in opposition to the denial of liberty.”

Trump’s lexicon is another indicator of the dramatic shift he would represent in moving the Republican party from a libertarian-leaning one to a populist one. During the Obama era, self-identified libertarians have asked whether the Tea Party and the GOP are truly dedicated to liberty and individual rights, or if their real objection to big government is that it’s controlled by Democrats. The embrace of Trump suggests their skepticism was well-founded.

It’s no accident that Trump has been labeled a populist by outlets across the political spectrum, from The American Interest to NPR. His speeches and off-the-cuff remarks make clear that he doesn’t see the world through the lens of free and unfree; he sees it through the lens of strength and weakness: For me, conservatism as it pertains to our country is fiscal. We have to be strong and secure and get rid of our debt. The military has to be powerful and not necessarily used but very powerful. I am on the sort of a little bit social side of conservative when it comes — I want people to be taken care of from a health-care standpoint. But to do that, we have to be strong. I want to save Social Security without cuts. I want a strong country. And to me, conservative means a strong country with very little debt.

The man whose slogan is “Make America Great Again” doesn’t seem particularly worried about a Leviathan state infringing upon its citizens’ liberties. He sees a disordered society whose people are threatened by violent criminals coming across the border, undermined by poor negotiation in foreign-trade and security agreements, and asked by free-riding allies to shoulder way too much of the burden in a dangerous world.

That philosophy is dramatically different from the liberty-focused message Republicans have become accustomed to since the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. And, at least for now, it has made Trump the front-runner by a wide margin.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423819/donald-trump-speeches-no-liberty-freedom?target=author&tid=814

Donald Trump on Abortion
Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

  • I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
  • Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
  • I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
  • I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
  • I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
  • Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
  • Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Budget & Economy
Click here for 6 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.

  • If debt reaches $24T, that’s the point of no return. (Jun 2015)
  • Prepare for upcoming crash, bigger than 1929. (Jul 2000)
  • Optimistic about future of Atlantic City. (Jul 1990)
  • Rent control only benefits a privileged minority. (Jul 1987)
  • One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999)
  • Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt. (Nov 1999)
Donald Trump on Civil Rights
Click here for 5 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.

  • Disinvited from RedState gathering for misogynistic comments. (Aug 2015)
  • Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem. (Aug 2015)
  • Same-sex marriage is a state issue. (Jun 2015)
  • No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits. (Mar 2011)
  • Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Corporations
Click here for 5 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.

  • I’ve used bankruptcy laws to do a great job for my companies. (Aug 2015)
  • 2002: Participated in development boom of Jersey City. (Apr 2012)
  • 0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs. (Dec 2011)
  • Fight crony capitalism with a level playing field. (Dec 2011)
  • Wealthy move assets around globally based on tax incentives. (Apr 2011)
Donald Trump on Crime
Click here for 4 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.

  • Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is. (Jul 2000)
  • Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray. (Jul 2000)
  • Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences. (Jul 2000)
  • For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Drugs
Click here for 4 full quotes on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

  • Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education. (Apr 2011)
  • Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs. (Feb 2011)
  • Fired Miss USA crown winner due to drug over-indulgence. (Dec 2006)
  • Never touched drugs, nor alcohol, tobacco, or coffee. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Education
Click here for 8 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education.

  • Common Core is a disaster. (Jun 2015)
  • Cut the Department of Education way, way down. (Jun 2015)
  • Founded Trump University to teach the art of deal-making. (Jun 2015)
  • Opposes Common Core. (Feb 2015)
  • Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”. (Jul 2000)
  • End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”. (Jul 2000)
  • Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls. (Jul 2000)
  • School choice will improve public schools. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Energy & Oil
Click here for 7 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.

  • Climate change is a hoax. (Jun 2015)
  • No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood. (Dec 2011)
  • Jobs will slump until our lifeblood–oil–is cheap again. (Dec 2011)
  • Enough natural gas in Marcellus Shale for 110 year supply. (Dec 2011)
  • Libya: No oil, no support; no exceptions. (Dec 2011)
  • It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil. (Mar 2011)
  • Oil is the lifeblood of all economies. (Apr 2010)
Donald Trump on Environment
Click here for 2 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment.

  • Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
  • FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US. ()
Donald Trump on Families & Children
Click here for the full quote on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.

  • Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life. (Jun 2015)
Donald Trump on Foreign Policy
Click here for 9 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.

  • More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel. (Jun 2015)
  • China is our enemy; they’re bilking us for billions. (Dec 2011)
  • When you love America, you protect it with no apologies. (Dec 2011)
  • By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy. (Dec 2011)
  • Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement. (Jul 2000)
  • Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker. (Jul 2000)
  • Support Russia, but with strings attached. (Jul 2000)
  • China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development. (Jul 2000)
  • Be tougher on China-we’re too eager to please. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Free Trade
Click here for 11 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.

  • We don’t beat China or Japan or Mexico in trade. (Aug 2015)
  • China and Japan are beating us; I can beat China. (Jun 2015)
  • 35% import tax on Mexican border. (Jun 2015)
  • Stupid people negotiate our trade bills, & trade won’t work. (Jun 2015)
  • 20% tax on all imported goods. (Dec 2011)
  • Fair trade instead of embarrassing deal with South Korea. (Dec 2011)
  • Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing. (Dec 2011)
  • Embrace globalization and international markets. (Jan 2008)
  • Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements. (Jul 2000)
  • President should be nation’s trade representative. (Dec 1999)
  • World views US trade officials as ‘saps’. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Government Reform
Click here for 6 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.

  • I give to politicians; and they give back: that’s broken!. (Aug 2015)
  • Two-term limit on NYC mayor is a terrible idea. (Sep 2010)
  • Government scrutiny is greatest threat to American Dream. (Jul 2000)
  • Ban soft money; but allow unlimited personal contributions. (Jul 2000)
  • Government should do public works & safety & little else. (Jul 2000)
  • Rebuilt Wollman Rink in 4 months; city failed for 6 years. (Jul 1987)
Donald Trump on Gun Control
Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

  • A very strong person on the Second Amendment. (Jun 2015)
  • I am against gun control. (Feb 2011)
  • Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns. (Jul 2000)
  • For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Health Care
Click here for 8 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care.

  • The insurance companies have total control over politicians. (Aug 2015)
  • ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced. (Jun 2015)
  • Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits. (Jun 2015)
  • ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless. (Jun 2015)
  • Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone. (Jan 2015)
  • Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight. (Dec 2011)
  • Increase insurance competition across state lines. (Dec 2011)
  • We must have universal health care. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Homeland Security
Click here for 8 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.

  • Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old. (Jun 2015)
  • Increased Veterans Day parade audience from 100 to 1 million. (Jun 2015)
  • Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists. (Jan 2015)
  • American interests come first; no apologies. (Dec 2011)
  • All freedoms flow from national security. (Dec 2011)
  • 3% of GNP for military is too low. (Jul 2000)
  • Missile defense is inappropriate; focus on terrorism. (Jul 2000)
  • Prepare for bio-terrorism attack. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Immigration
Click here for 14 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

  • We need wall on Mexican border, but ok to have a door in it. (Aug 2015)
  • Mexican government is sending criminals across the border. (Aug 2015)
  • OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. (Jul 2015)
  • Half of the undocumented residents in America are criminals. (Jun 2015)
  • Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015)
  • Build great wall on southern border; have Mexico pay for it. (Jun 2015)
  • We need strong borders; we need a wall. (Feb 2015)
  • Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. (Mar 2013)
  • 351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B. (Dec 2011)
  • Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. (Dec 2011)
  • Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. (Dec 2011)
  • Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011)
  • Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000)
  • Limit new immigration; focus on people already here. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Jobs
Click here for 4 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs.

  • Real unemployment rate is 20%; don’t believe 5.6%. (Jun 2015)
  • Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas. (Dec 2011)
  • Unions fight for pay; managers fight for less; consumers win. (Jul 2000)
  • Foreign companies are taking jobs from US. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Principles & Values
Click here for 26 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.

  • I want to win as a Republican, but might run as Independent. (Aug 2015)
  • In NYC almost everyone is Democrat, but I’m Republican. (Aug 2015)
  • Attended military academy & Wharton Business School. (Jun 2015)
  • Stoked Tea Party suspicions about Obama’s legitimacy. (Jan 2012)
  • No more morning in America; we’ll be mourning FOR America. (Dec 2011)
  • 5-point plan to return America to her former greatness. (Dec 2011)
  • USA is the greatest force for freedom world has ever known. (Dec 2011)
  • Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard. (Apr 2011)
  • One hour to produce my birth certificate; Obama should too. (Feb 2011)
  • If I run & win, our country will be great again. (Feb 2011)
  • Never give up; look at the solution, not the problem. (Jan 2008)
  • To negotiate well, prepare and know as much as possible. (Jan 2008)
  • In the best negotiations, everyone wins. (Jan 2008)
  • Failure is not permanent. (Jan 2008)
  • Tell people you’re successful or they won’t know it. (Mar 2004)
  • Good management requires hiring good people. (Mar 2004)
  • Lessons: stay focused on big picture. (Mar 2004)
  • Surround yourself with people you can trust. (Mar 2004)
  • 3 principles: One term, two-fisted policies, zero excuses. (Jul 2000)
  • Non-politicians are the wave of the future. (Jul 2000)
  • In business & politics, stands for getting things done. (Jul 2000)
  • Burned by press too often to be available any more. (Jul 1990)
  • Rules for surviving the perils of success. (Jul 1990)
  • Separated from Ivana after long less-than-perfect marriage. (Jul 1990)
  • Toughness is equally strength, intelligence, & self-respect. (Jul 1990)
  • Appealing to middle Americans leery of political elite. (Nov 1999)
Donald Trump on Social Security
Click here for 6 full quotes on Social Security OR other candidates on Social Security OR background on Social Security.

  • Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections. (Mar 2013)
  • Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal. (Dec 2011)
  • Disability Racket: $25B in fraudulent disability filings. (Dec 2011)
  • Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund. (Jul 2000)
  • Let people invest their own retirement funds. (Jul 2000)
  • No government investment of retirement funds. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Tax Reform
Click here for 10 full quotes on Tax Reform OR other candidates on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.

  • One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt. (Jun 2015)
  • 4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax. (Dec 2011)
  • Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic. (Dec 2011)
  • Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts. (Apr 2011)
  • Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax. (Jul 2000)
  • Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes. (Jul 2000)
  • Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much. (Jul 2000)
  • Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it. (Dec 1999)
  • One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999)
  • Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years. (Nov 1999)
Donald Trump on Technology
Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR other candidates on Technology OR background on Technology.

  • Rebuild our infrastructure on time & on budget. (Jun 2015)
  • Emmy award & Hollywood Walk of Fame for “The Apprentice”. (Jun 2015)
  • China threatens US with cyber warfare & industrial espionage. (Dec 2011)
Donald Trump on War & Peace
Click here for 12 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.

  • Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization. (Aug 2015)
  • Disgraceful deal gives Iran a lot & gets nothing for us. (Aug 2015)
  • Boots on the ground to fight ISIS. (Jun 2015)
  • I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East. (Jun 2015)
  • Hit ISIS hard and fast. (Feb 2015)
  • Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims. (Mar 2013)
  • Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation. (Dec 2011)
  • Stop Iran’s nuclear programs by any & all means necessary. (Dec 2011)
  • John McCain’s actions in Vietnam were not “heroic”. (Sep 2000)
  • Use force to stop North Korean nuke development. (Jul 2000)
  • Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier. (Jul 2000)
  • No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for 4 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR other candidates on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.

  • I don’t like firing people; work makes people better. (Dec 2011)
  • Food stamps should be temporary; not a decade on the dole. (Dec 2011)
  • Apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs. (Dec 2011)
  • Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance. (Jul 2000)
VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background)
Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
(-3 points on Social scale)
Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life: Opposes topic 1
I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice: Strongly Opposes topic 1
I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories: Opposes topic 1
I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding: Opposes topic 1
Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion: Favors topic 1
Favors abortion rights but respects opposition: Favors topic 1
Strongly Opposes topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard: Opposes topic 2
Opposes topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(-3 points on Social scale)
Same-sex marriage is a state issue: Opposes topic 3
No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays: Favors topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(-5 points on Social scale)
Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”: Favors topic 4
End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”: Favors topic 4
Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance: Strongly Favors topic 4
Opposes topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(+2 points on Economic scale)
ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits: Favors topic 5
ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone: Favors topic 5
Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Increase insurance competition across state lines: Strongly Opposes topic 5
We must have universal health care: Strongly Favors topic 5
Favors topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections: Opposes topic 6
Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal: Opposes topic 6
Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund: Opposes topic 6
Let people invest their own retirement funds: Strongly Favors topic 6
No government investment of retirement funds: Strongly Favors topic 6
Strongly Favors topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Common Core is a disaster: Strongly Favors topic 7
Opposes Common Core: Favors topic 7
Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls: Favors topic 7
School choice will improve public schools: Strongly Favors topic 7
Favors topic 8:
EPA regulations are too restrictive
(-3 points on Social scale)
Good development enhances the environment: Favors topic 8
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(-5 points on Social scale)
Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is: Strongly Favors topic 9
Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray: Favors topic 9
Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences: Favors topic 9
For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights: Favors topic 9
Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+2 points on Economic scale)
A very strong person on the Second Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 10
I am against gun control: Strongly Favors topic 10
Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns: Neutral on topic 10
For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check: Opposes topic 10
Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-3 points on Economic scale)
One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt: Strongly Favors topic 11
Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas: Strongly Opposes topic 11
4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax: Opposes topic 11
Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes: Opposes topic 11
Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much: Strongly Favors topic 11
Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it: Opposes topic 11
One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt: Strongly Favors topic 11
Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt: Favors topic 11
Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(-5 points on Social scale)
Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists: Strongly Opposes topic 12
We need strong borders; we need a wall: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission: Strongly Opposes topic 12
351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US: Favors topic 12
Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Limit new immigration; focus on people already here: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
35% import tax on Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 13
20% tax on all imported goods: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing: Opposes topic 13
Embrace globalization and international markets: Strongly Favors topic 13
Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements: Opposes topic 13
President should be nation’s trade representative: Favors topic 13
World views US trade officials as ‘saps’: Opposes topic 13
Foreign companies are taking jobs from US: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 14:
Support American Exceptionalism
(+5 points on Economic scale)
More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel: Favors topic 14
American interests come first; no apologies: Strongly Favors topic 14
Use force to stop North Korean nuke development: Strongly Favors topic 14
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the military
(-5 points on Social scale)
Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old: Strongly Favors topic 15
All freedoms flow from national security: Strongly Favors topic 15
3% of GNP for military is too low: Strongly Favors topic 15
No opinion on topic 16:
Make voter registration easier
(0 points on Social scale)
(No votes on which to base response)
Favors topic 17:
Avoid foreign entanglements
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization: Strongly Favors topic 17
I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East: Strongly Favors topic 17
Hit ISIS hard and fast: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists: Opposes topic 17
Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement: Favors topic 17
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker: Strongly Favors topic 17
Support Russia, but with strings attached: Favors topic 17
Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier: Strongly Favors topic 17
No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats: Opposes topic 17
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Climate change is a hoax: Strongly Opposes topic 18
No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood: Strongly Opposes topic 18
It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil: Strongly Opposes topic 18
No opinion on topic 19:
Marijuana is a gateway drug
(0 points on Social scale)
Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs: Favors topic 19
Fired Miss USA crown winner due to drug over-indulgence: Favors topic 19
Strongly Opposes topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(+5 points on Economic scale)
0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts: Strongly Opposes topic 20
One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt: Favors topic 20

Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

VoteMatch

Candidate’s Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions.  It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt!Social Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Candidate’s Score

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:

Social Score 25%
Economic Score 78%
 Where the Candidate Fits In

Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy.  Based on the above score, the candidate is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.

Political Map

 
Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles.
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government. 

Economic Score

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. 
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question:

  • We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table.
  • We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example.
  • We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2.
  • If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor.
  • If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor.
  • If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral.
  • If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose.
  • If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose.
  • When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage.
  • To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations.
  • The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other).
  • The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below.
Examples

The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy.  The candidate’s answers are on the left.

  • A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.
  • A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Social Issues The candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage
Question 8. Human needs over animal rights
Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
Question 17. Stay out of Iran
Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere
Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime
Question 15. Expand the military
Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds
Question 19. Never legalize marijuana

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Economic Issues The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 2. Legally require hiring women & minorities
Question 5. Expand ObamaCare
Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy
Question 18. Prioritize green energy
Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery
Question 6. Privatize Social Security
Question 7. Vouchers for school choice
Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership
Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade
Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN
The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Final Notes

To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions.

Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales.

Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.

Ted Cruz on Abortion
Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

  • Allow vote to end Planned Parenthood’s funding. (Aug 2015)
  • Prosecute Planned Parenthood for criminal violations. (Aug 2015)
  • Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion. (Mar 2015)
  • Companies can deny insuring birth control. (Apr 2012)
  • Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban. (Jul 2011)
  • Opposes public abortion funding. (Oct 2012)
  • Opposes churches providing birth control. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Budget & Economy
Click here for 11 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.

  • Top 1% under Obama got fat & happy while workers are hurting. (Feb 2015)
  • Lost Generation: Obama agenda hammers young people. (Mar 2014)
  • Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country. (Mar 2014)
  • Choice is more federal spending, or free markets & liberty. (Aug 2012)
  • FactCheck: Yes, gross federal debt now exceeds GDP. (Aug 2012)
  • Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
  • Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
  • Supports a constitutional BBA. (Oct 2012)
  • Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge. (Jan 2012)
  • Endorsed by the Club for Growth, for pro-growth stances. (Aug 2012)
  • Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans. (Feb 2013)
Ted Cruz on Civil Rights
Click here for 11 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.

  • Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (Apr 2015)
  • Liberals obsessed with mandatory gay marriage in 50 states. (Apr 2015)
  • Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty. (Apr 2015)
  • Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. (Mar 2015)
  • Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment. (Oct 2014)
  • Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage. (Feb 2012)
  • One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society. (Jul 2011)
  • Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway. (Jul 2011)
  • Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
  • Supports defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012)
  • Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014)
Ted Cruz on Corporations
Click here for 2 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.

  • Slash corporate tax rates to 15 percent. (Mar 2015)
  • Get senseless obstacles from Washington out of the way. (Jan 2015)
Ted Cruz on Crime
Click here for 4 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.

  • Convert regulatory crimes into civil offenses. (Apr 2015)
  • World Court should have no say in Texas executions. (Jul 2011)
  • Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice. (Jul 2011)
  • Supports the death penalty. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Drugs
Click here for the full quote on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

  • Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)
Ted Cruz on Education
Click here for 5 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education.

  • Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool. (Mar 2015)
  • We should thank parents who homeschool. (Mar 2015)
  • Local control of education instead of Common Core. (Mar 2015)
  • Education decisions best made at local level. (Jun 2012)
  • Denounce the Common Core State Standards. (Feb 2014)
Ted Cruz on Energy & Oil
Click here for 5 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.

  • Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration. (Jul 2011)
  • Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Aug 2012)
  • Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)
  • Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)
  • Let states lease energy rights on federal lands. (Jun 2013)
Ted Cruz on Environment
Click here for 2 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment.

  • Don’t pick winners & losers like RFS’ ethanol in gasoline. (Mar 2015)
  • Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
Ted Cruz on Families & Children
Click here for 2 full quotes on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.

  • Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism. (Apr 2015)
  • Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage. (Mar 2015)
Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy
Click here for 5 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.

  • Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize. (Oct 2014)
  • Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine. (Jul 2014)
  • America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership. (Jun 2014)
  • Sanctions on Putin for Ukraine: tyrants respond to weakness. (Mar 2014)
  • US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad. (Mar 2014)
Ted Cruz on Free Trade
Click here for 4 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.

  • End the Export-Import Bank. (Aug 2015)
  • The Export-Import bank is corporate welfare. (Mar 2015)
  • Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft. (May 2012)
  • Dewhurst lying about defending Chinese intellectual property. (May 2012)
Ted Cruz on Government Reform
Click here for 15 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.

  • If you like special interests, I ain’t your guy. (Aug 2015)
  • Executive actions override Congress & the Constitution. (Nov 2014)
  • Stop IRS from asking: ‘tell me the content of your prayers’. (Mar 2014)
  • Presidents should not pick & choose laws to enforce. (Mar 2014)
  • End Washington cronyism via Congressional term limits. (Mar 2014)
  • Obama dishonors Constitution by bypassing Congress. (Jan 2014)
  • Obama’s executive orders is open door for future lawlessness. (Jan 2014)
  • Debt ceiling limits “blank check” of federal spending. (Jan 2014)
  • Dems want to get as many Americans as possible dependent. (Oct 2012)
  • Head of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. (Jul 2011)
  • Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud. (Jul 2011)
  • Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (Jul 2010)
  • Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (Jul 2010)
  • Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)
  • Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups. (Feb 2014)
Ted Cruz on Gun Control
Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

  • Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions. (Jul 2011)
  • Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
  • Opposes restricting the Second Amendment. (Oct 2012)
  • Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. (Sep 2013)
Ted Cruz on Health Care
Click here for 16 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care.

  • Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty. (Feb 2015)
  • Support nuns’ battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare. (Jan 2015)
  • Government shutdown on ObamaCare worked: GOP won in 2014. (Nov 2014)
  • Suspend commercial air travel to Ebola-infected areas. (Oct 2014)
  • To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they’d lose by supporting it. (Mar 2014)
  • Obama changed ObamaCare mandate deadline by a blog post. (Jan 2014)
  • Obama asked companies to disobey ObamaCare rules for a year. (Jan 2014)
  • 5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare. (Jan 2014)
  • Vow to repeal ObamaCare. (Oct 2012)
  • Save Medicare by raising eligibility age. (Aug 2012)
  • Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare. (Apr 2012)
  • Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government. (Jul 2011)
  • Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market. (Jul 2010)
  • Repeal any federal health care takeover. (Aug 2012)
  • Supports repealing ObamaCare. (Oct 2012)
  • Supports market-based health insurance. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Homeland Security
Click here for 8 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.

  • Label the enemy that Obama won’t: radical Islamic terrorists. (Aug 2015)
  • Torture was rightly outlawed, but keep tactics classified. (Dec 2014)
  • Americans who join ISIS should be barred from coming home. (Sep 2014)
  • Vital role for deploying military force abroad. (Mar 2014)
  • Opposes TSA and National Defense Authorization Act. (Sep 2012)
  • Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military. (Jul 2011)
  • Supports banning military gay marriage. (Oct 2012)
  • Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (Mar 2013)
Ted Cruz on Immigration
Click here for 9 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

  • Support Kate’s Law: oppose our leaders who won’t enforce. (Aug 2015)
  • Path to citizenship is profoundly unfair to legal immigrants. (Feb 2015)
  • End Obama’s illegal amnesty via Congress’ checks & balances. (Nov 2014)
  • Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014)
  • No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012)
  • Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012)
  • Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012)
  • Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012)
  • Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)
Ted Cruz on Jobs
Click here for 3 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs.

  • Raising minimum wage by executive fiat opposes rule of law. (Jan 2014)
  • Lowest labor force participation in over three decades. (Jan 2014)
  • Extending unemployment benefits exacerbates joblessness. (Aug 2012)
Ted Cruz on Principles & Values
Click here for 9 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.

  • I’m a consistent conservative, not a campaign conservative. (Aug 2015)
  • I’m despised by GOP establishment, but so was Reagan. (Feb 2015)
  • We win elections by bold principles & a positive agenda. (Mar 2014)
  • Washington would be better with more farmers & fewer lawyers. (Mar 2014)
  • Great Awakening: response to mess from career politicians. (Aug 2012)
  • OpEd: His law firm donated $200,000 to Obama’s campaign. (Apr 2012)
  • Defend Ten Commandments and “under God” in the Pledge. (Jul 2011)
  • Endorsed Member of the Tea Party movement. (Aug 2012)
  • Rated 100% by the AU, indicating opposition to separation of church & state. (Jan 2013)
Ted Cruz on Social Security
Click here for 3 full quotes on Social Security OR other candidates on Social Security OR background on Social Security.

  • Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate. (Aug 2012)
  • Transition younger workers into personal savings system. (Jun 2012)
  • Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance. (Jan 2013)
Ted Cruz on Tax Reform
Click here for 7 full quotes on Tax Reform OR other candidates on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.

  • Abolish the IRS. (Feb 2015)
  • Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code. (Apr 2012)
  • Adopt a single-rate tax system. (Jul 2010)
  • Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax. (Jul 2010)
  • Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Aug 2012)
  • Opposes increasing tax rates. (Oct 2012)
  • Supports eliminating the inheritance tax. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Technology
Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR other candidates on Technology OR background on Technology.

  • Of course China & Russia have conducted cyberwarfare on US. (Aug 2015)
  • Net neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet. (Nov 2014)
  • Voted NO on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)
Ted Cruz on War & Peace
Click here for 12 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.

  • If you wage jihad on America, you sign your death warrant. (Aug 2015)
  • Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America. (Mar 2015)
  • Provide defensive weapons for Ukraine against Russia. (Feb 2015)
  • Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support. (Feb 2015)
  • Focused, direct military objective of destroying ISIS. (Feb 2015)
  • Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age. (Oct 2014)
  • Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS. (Oct 2014)
  • Don’t arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS. (Sep 2014)
  • Bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age, with Congress’ approval. (Sep 2014)
  • Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine. (Jun 2014)
  • Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long. (Jun 2012)
  • Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves. (May 2013)
Ted Cruz on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for the full quote on Welfare & Poverty OR other candidates on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.

  • Government checks create dependency. (Aug 2012)
VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background)
Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
(-5 points on Social scale)
Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Companies can deny insuring birth control: Opposes topic 1
Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Opposes public abortion funding: Opposes topic 1
Opposes churches providing birth control: Opposes topic 1
No opinion on topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(0 points on Economic scale)
Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway: Favors topic 2
NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act: Opposes topic 2
Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(-5 points on Social scale)
Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Supports defining traditional marriage: Opposes topic 3
Supports banning military gay marriage: Opposes topic 3
Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(-5 points on Social scale)
Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism: Strongly Favors topic 4
Stop IRS from asking: ‘tell me the content of your prayers’: Strongly Favors topic 4
Government checks create dependency: Favors topic 4
Defend Ten Commandments and “under God” in the Pledge: Strongly Favors topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating opposition to separation of church & state: Strongly Favors topic 4
Strongly Opposes topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Support nuns’ battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare: Opposes topic 5
To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they’d lose by supporting it: Opposes topic 5
5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Vow to repeal ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Save Medicare by raising eligibility age: Favors topic 5
Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Repeal any federal health care takeover: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Supports repealing ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Supports market-based health insurance: Opposes topic 5
Strongly Favors topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate: Favors topic 6
Transition younger workers into personal savings system: Favors topic 6
Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance: Strongly Favors topic 6
Strongly Favors topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool: Strongly Favors topic 7
Education decisions best made at local level: Favors topic 7
Denounce the Common Core State Standards: Favors topic 7
Favors topic 8:
EPA regulations are too restrictive
(-3 points on Social scale)
NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems: Favors topic 8
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(-5 points on Social scale)
World Court should have no say in Texas executions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice: Favors topic 9
Supports the death penalty: Strongly Favors topic 9
Strongly Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 10
Opposes restricting the Second Amendment: Favors topic 10
NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets: Strongly Favors topic 10
Opposes topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Abolish the IRS: Strongly Favors topic 11
Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code: Opposes topic 11
Adopt a single-rate tax system: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Opposes increasing tax rates: Opposes topic 11
Supports eliminating the inheritance tax: Opposes topic 11
Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(-5 points on Social scale)
End Obama’s illegal amnesty via Congress’ checks & balances: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded: Strongly Opposes topic 12
No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Give police more power to ask about immigration status: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Boots on the ground, plus a wall: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Triple the size of the Border Patrol: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Strengthen border security and increase enforcement: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Strongly Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft: Strongly Favors topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 14:
Support American Exceptionalism
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize: Favors topic 14
America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership: Strongly Favors topic 14
US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad: Favors topic 14
Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty: Strongly Favors topic 14
Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty: Favors topic 14
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the military
(-5 points on Social scale)
Vital role for deploying military force abroad: Strongly Favors topic 15
Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military: Strongly Favors topic 15
No opinion on topic 16:
Make voter registration easier
(0 points on Social scale)
If you like special interests, I ain’t your guy: Favors topic 16
Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud: Opposes topic 16
Opposes topic 17:
Avoid foreign entanglements
(-3 points on Social scale)
Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support: Opposes topic 17
Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Don’t arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS: Favors topic 17
Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine: Opposes topic 17
Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine: Opposes topic 17
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long: Favors topic 17
Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves: Opposes topic 17
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low: Opposes topic 18
Let states lease energy rights on federal lands: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Marijuana is a gateway drug
(+2 points on Social scale)
Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs: Opposes topic 19
Strongly Opposes topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Debt ceiling limits “blank check” of federal spending: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge: Opposes topic 20
Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans: Opposes topic 20

Ted Cruz is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

VoteMatch

Candidate’s Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions.  It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt!Social Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Candidate’s Score

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:

Social Score 18%
Economic Score 93%
 Where the Candidate Fits In

Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy.  Based on the above score, the candidate is a Hard-Core Conservative.

Political Map

 
Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles.
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government. 

Economic Score

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. 
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question:

  • We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table.
  • We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example.
  • We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2.
  • If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor.
  • If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor.
  • If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral.
  • If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose.
  • If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose.
  • When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage.
  • To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations.
  • The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other).
  • The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below.
Examples

The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy.  The candidate’s answers are on the left.

  • A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.
  • A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Social Issues The candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage
Question 8. Human needs over animal rights
Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
Question 17. Stay out of Iran
Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere
Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime
Question 15. Expand the military
Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds
Question 19. Never legalize marijuana

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Economic Issues The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 2. Legally require hiring women & minorities
Question 5. Expand ObamaCare
Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy
Question 18. Prioritize green energy
Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery
Question 6. Privatize Social Security
Question 7. Vouchers for school choice
Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership
Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade
Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN
The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Final Notes

To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions.

Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales.

Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos

Posted on April 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Television, Transportation, Unions, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Margaret_Thatcher

“Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.”

~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975

Ceremonial funeral services with military honors for Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, known as Maggie to her friends and “the Iron Lady” to her opponents, will be held this Wednesday at St Paul’s Cathedral, according to Prime Minister David Cameron’s office.

Her legacy was to change her country’s dominant ideology from collectivist state socialism implemented in decades of Labour Party policies to an individualist market capitalism implemented in Conservative Party policies. In the process she returned the U.K. to eight years of economic growth and prosperity in the 1980s.

Thatcher supported President Ronald Reagan and the United States in defeating communism in the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War.

Thatcher had been in declining health for a number of years and died peacefully in her sleep the morning of April 8 following a stroke.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said of Thatcher, “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”

President Barack Obama said, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty and America has lost a true friend.” Obama said she had taught “our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”

John Boehner, speaker of the house, said, “The greatest peacetime prime minister in British history is dead. Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter, stared down elites, union bosses and communists to win three consecutive elections, establish conservative principles in Western Europe and bring down the Iron Curtain. There was no secret to her values – hard work and personal responsibility – and no nonsense in her leadership.”

Nancy Reagan, widow of former President Ronald Reagan said: “Ronnie and Margaret were political soul mates, committed to freedom and resolved to end Communism. As Prime Minister, Margaret had the clear vision and strong determination to stand up for her beliefs at a time when so many were afraid to ‘rock the boat.’ As a result, she helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of millions of people.”

In 1975 Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservative Party. She was subsequently elected prime minister of the United Kingdom on May 4, 1979. Thatcher served three terms from 1979 to 1990 becoming Britain’s longest-serving prime minister in over a century as well as the most dynamic, inspirational and controversial.

When Thatcher took office, the British economy was in shambles and in recession, inflation was rising and the government faced possible bankruptcy. This was a direct result of many years of Labour Party socialistic policies of out-of-control government spending, confiscatory taxation and the nationalization or state control of many industries including coal, steel, railways, gas, electricity, water, trucking, airlines and telecommunications.

The writings of Austrian economist and political philosopher, Friedrick A. Hayek, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, in particular his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, inspired and guided Thatcher’s economic policies.

Thatcher turned the economy around and made Britain governable again by taking on and taming the trade unions with labor reform legislation. No longer were the unions able to dictate the nation’s economic policies. Under Thatcher the British government pursued a policy of selling state assets with privatization of industry, thus reversing the Labour Party’s nationalization of industry.

When the Argentina government under the fascist junta invaded the British protectorate of the Falkland Islands in April 1982, she led the U.K. to victory. The Argentinians soon toppled the military junta.

In October 1984 there was an assassination attempt on her life when a hotel in Brighton where she and her husband and other members of her cabinet were staying was bombed by Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists.

Thatcher supported Reagan in opposing communism and confronting the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. She was instrumental in the introduction of cruise missiles in Britain to counter the Soviet military threat. She allied the United Kingdom with the United States against the communist expansion and subversion in the West and the winning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

A concise biography of her life can be found at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation web site http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp.  An excellent critical biography is Claire Berlinsky’s “There is No Alternative: Why Thatcher Matters” and related interview on YouTube video titled, “Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski.”

An excellent multi-part documentary about Thatcher produced in 2008 by the conservative paper, The Daily Telegraph, can be viewed on YouTube as well as an entertaining movie about her early political career titled, “Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk to Finchley.”

Her husband of more than 50 years, Denis Thatcher, died in June 2003. She is survived by her twin son, Mark, and daughter, Carol, born in 1953.

Thatcher remains a controversial figure in Britain. She was loved and revered by many as well as loathed and reviled by some. She will be remembered by all who value economic freedom and individual liberty.

“Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away. Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it. We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.”

~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975

David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full

Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)

Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Margaret Thatcher — Rest In Peace — Videos

Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos

Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Neoconservative Progressive Interventionists Attack Classical Liberals — Libertarians — What is new? — So Did Progressive Republican Roosevelt and Progressive Democrat Wilson — Videos

Posted on March 11, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

goldwater

young_at_heart

“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.”

— Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaking on the Senate floor, quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial attacking Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

McCainRand

neoconservatives_washington_post

I supported Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964 as a classical liberal or libertarian, as did Ronald Reagan.

Today I support Senator Rand Paul for President in 2016.

Senators McCain and Graham remind me of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, another progressive Republican.

Mike Huckabee: Thank you, Rand Paul

Rand Paul Fires Back At Filibuster Critics, Shocks Glenn Beck With Revelation

Shep Smith Offends John McCain W Interventionist Comment Grills Him Over Rand Paul

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist

SA@TAC – John McCain Supports Al-Qaeda

John McCain ATTACKS Rand Paul’s Filibuster

Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)

STAND WITH RAND

Rand Paul: Time To Bring Troops Home, Cut Foreign Aid, And Fix Entitlements – CNN 3/11/2013

“I Don’t Think We Should Go To War On ONE Person’s Authority” Rand Paul

What is classical liberalism?

Background Articles and Videos

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention

Barry Goldwater: On the Failed Liberal Agenda

“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

America’s Dilemma: Citizenship or Deportation?—President Barack Obama’s Speech On Illegal Immigration in Las Vegas–January 29, 2013–Videos

Posted on January 30, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Obama-Time-to-fix-immigration

President Obama Las Vegas speech on comprehensive immigration reform on Jan. 29

Credit: http://www.upi.com

reagan

FULL SPEECH – US President Obama Immigration Reform from LAS VEGAS 1/29/2013

1984 – Ronald Reagan on Amnesty

Sessions Warns Washington Elites Against Rush To Amnesty

Amnesty – Not the Solution: Talk Border

Immigration: The real Third Rail of politics on TalkBorder

Talk Border: Safe Borders, Not Racism

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts 

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

David Meir-Levi on Talk Border 

Martin Sieff on TalkBorder.com

Lou Barletta on Talk Border 

Michael Cutler, INS Special Agent

Charles Faddis, CIA (Ret), speaks with Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) on National Security and more in one part of a three-part interview for The United States of Common Sense, hosted by Charles Faddis..

Michael Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advisor to the 911 Families for a Secure America, and a consultant, retired in 2002 after a distinguished career with the INS of over 30 years, including 26 as a Special Agent. In 1991, he was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and worked with members of other federal and state law enforcement agencies as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries. The task force’s investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets and prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.

Mr. Cutler has testified as an expert witness at nine Congressional hearings on issues relating to the enforcement of immigration laws having been called by members of both political parties. Mr. Cutler also furnished testimony to the Presidential Commission on the Terrorist Attacks of September 11. Mr. Cutler has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including the OReilly Radio Factor, OReillys No Spin Zone, Fox News and the Lou Dobbs Tonight Program on CNN to discuss the enforcement of immigration laws and has participated in various public debates and panel discussions on issues involving the enforcement and administration of immigration laws. Among the areas of concern that he is able to speak about authoritatively are the nexus between immigration and national security, the impact of immigration on the criminal justice system, strategies to combat illegal immigration, and why amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong.

Roy talks about ICE lawsuit with FNC’s Neil Cavuto

The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration

Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty

Path to illegal citizenship: The high cost of Illegal and legal lImmigration for U.S. Citizens 

Why Oppose the DREAM Act?

 

The E-Verify Solution for Illegal Hiring 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts.  The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

America’s dilemma: citizenship or deportation?

By Raymond Thomas Pronk            

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

President Barack Obama flew to Las Vegas last week to give a speech at a local school outlining his views and principles for comprehensive immigration reform. “Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here,” Obama said.

Why are there more than 11 million illegal aliens in the United States? Simply, the federal government under both Democratic and Republican progressive presidents has refused to vigorously enforce existing immigration law as set forth in federal statutes and regulations and failed to control and secure U.S. borders against a massive invasion of illegal aliens. These presidents betrayed their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.

In a debate with Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale in 1984, President Ronald Reagan said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”

On Nov. 6, 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, to reform immigration law and control the number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Reagan signed the bill.

Under this law approximately three million illegal aliens who had continuously resided in the U.S. before Jan.1, 1982 were granted legal status and eventually citizenship — amnesty for illegal aliens.

Since then the federal government has failed to control and secure the borders and by so doing, the 1986 law by granting amnesty created a strong magnet or incentive for future illegal aliens. Both Reagan and the American people were double-crossed by progressive Democrats and Republicans in Congress who really wanted open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.

The American people are asking for immigration law enforcement and secure borders and not Obama’s comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. Americans favor limited controlled legal immigration but oppose open borders with unlimited illegal immigration. So-called “undocumented workers” or more accurately illegal aliens should, as required by federal law, be removed from their place of work and deported to their country of origin.

Why? First, aliens broke into the country illegally when they entered the U.S. without a valid visa or over stayed their visas and did not return to the country of origin. Second, aliens broke the law when they either stole identities of U.S. citizens or purchased fraudulent documents such as driver’s licenses and Social Security cards in order to obtain employment in the U.S. Third, aliens broke the law when they worked in the U.S. without having the legal status to do so. Fourth, many employers broke the law when they knowingly hired illegal aliens. You do not reward criminal behavior by granting a pathway to citizenship. The rule of law requires federal government enforcement of immigration law by deporting illegal aliens.

When you multiple these crimes by millions, you are dealing with a crime wave and mass invasion that has been sanctioned by the progressive ruling elites in Washington D.C. from both the Democratic and Republican parties who favor open borders and token enforcement of existing federal immigration law.

Why did these ruling elites ignore the will of the American people? The Democratic Party favors open borders and a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens because they believe the overwhelming majority of these illegal aliens will, when they become citizens, vote for Democratic candidates.

Progressive Republicans likewise favored open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens because many of the businesses that employ illegal aliens also contribute to the campaigns of Republican candidates.

Both political parties could care less that millions of American citizens are unemployed as a direct result of policies that encouraged massive illegal immigration. Staying in power, not the welfare of the American people, was and is the top priority of these politicians.

The 11 million illegal aliens and their dependents should be given the choice to either voluntarily return to their country of origin by a certain date or face deportation under existing federal immigration law. With over 25 million American citizens seeking permanent full time jobs, this would immediately reduce the number of unemployed citizens by millions.

Most Americans would agree with two of Obama’s principles of comprehensive immigration reform namely “to stay focused on enforcement” and “to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century.”  However, most Americans would not agree with Obama to first give the 11 million plus illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens before first controlling and securing the borders and enforcing existing immigration law.

There is a saying in Texas, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” — Abraham Lincoln

Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/

Background Articles and Videos

Opinion: Will Obama Poison Immigration Reform?

Reagan on immingration 2 

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2

E-Verify: Employment Verification 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 1 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts.  The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________
For Immediate Release                          January 29, 2013
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Del Sol High School
Las Vegas, Nevada

11:40 A.M. PST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you!  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  It is good to be back in Las Vegas!  (Applause.)  And it is good to be among so many good friends.

Let me start off by thanking everybody at Del Sol High School for hosting us.  (Applause.)  Go Dragons!  Let me especially thank your outstanding principal, Lisa Primas.  (Applause.)

There are all kinds of notable guests here, but I just want to mention a few.  First of all, our outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is here.  (Applause.)  Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar.  (Applause.)  Former Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.  (Applause.)  Two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from Nevada, Steve Horsford and Dina Titus.  (Applause.)  Your own mayor, Carolyn Goodman.  (Applause.)

But we also have some mayors that flew in because they know how important the issue we’re going to talk about today is.  Marie Lopez Rogers from Avondale, Arizona.  (Applause.)  Kasim Reed from Atlanta, Georgia.  (Applause.)  Greg Stanton from Phoenix, Arizona.  (Applause.)  And Ashley Swearengin from Fresno, California.  (Applause.)

And all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country.  And we are just so grateful.  Some outstanding business leaders are here as well.  And of course, we’ve got wonderful students here, so I could not be prouder of our students.  (Applause.)

Now, those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat.  I don’t mind.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you, Mr. President!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

Now, last week, I had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)  And during my inaugural address, I talked about how making progress on the defining challenges of our time doesn’t require us to settle every debate or ignore every difference that we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose.  It requires us to act.

I know that some issues will be harder to lift than others.  Some debates will be more contentious.  That’s to be expected.  But the reason I came here today is because of a challenge where the differences are dwindling; where a broad consensus is emerging; and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across America.  I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)  The time is now.  Now is the time.  Now is the time.  Now is the time.

AUDIENCE:  Sí se puede!  Sí se puede!

THE PRESIDENT:  Now is the time.

I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix a system that’s been broken for way too long.  I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity.  Now is the time to do this so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future.

Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants.  That’s who we are — in our bones.  The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths.  It keeps our workforce young.  It keeps our country on the cutting edge.  And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

After all, immigrants helped start businesses like Google and Yahoo!.  They created entire new industries that, in turn, created new jobs and new prosperity for our citizens.  In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America were founded by immigrants.  One in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in Nevada — folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other Americans.

But we all know that today, we have an immigration system that’s out of date and badly broken; a system that’s holding us back instead of helping us grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here.  Many of them have been here for years.  And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble.  They’re contributing members of the community.  They’re looking out for their families.  They’re looking out for their neighbors.  They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living.  Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay.  And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy.  Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer.   They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules.  And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules.  We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law.  That’s common sense.  And that’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)

There’s another economic reason why we need reform.  It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy.  It’s also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.

Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities.  They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science.  But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country.  Think about that.

Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here.  Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here.  Right now in one of those classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea — their Intel or Instagram — into a big business.  We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else?  That’s not how you grow new industries in America.  That’s how you give new industries to our competitors.   That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)

Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.

First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants.  We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history.  And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000.  (Applause.)

Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities.  And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever.  (Applause.)

And third, we took up the cause of the DREAMers — (applause) — the young people who were brought to this country as children, young people who have grown up here, built their lives here, have futures here.  We said that if you’re able to meet some basic criteria like pursuing an education, then we’ll consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here legally, so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong.

But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act.  We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now.  That’s what we need.  (Applause.)

Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together.  (Applause.)  Members of both parties, in both chambers, are actively working on a solution.  Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years.  So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that’s very encouraging.

But this time, action must follow.  (Applause.)  We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate.  We’ve been debating this a very long time.  So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done.  As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform.  And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush.  You don’t get that matchup very often.  (Laughter.)  So we know where the consensus should be.

Now, of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process.  But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place.  And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.  (Applause.)

So the principles are pretty straightforward.  There are a lot of details behind it.  We’re going to hand out a bunch of paper so that everybody will know exactly what we’re talking about.  But the principles are pretty straightforward.

First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement.  That means continuing to strengthen security at our borders.  It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers.  To be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not.  So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status.  And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties.

Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally.  We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship.  But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.  (Applause.)

We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally.  That’s only fair, right?  (Applause.)

So that means it won’t be a quick process but it will be a fair process.  And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship.  (Applause.)

And the third principle is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the realities of our time.  (Applause.)  For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America.  You shouldn’t have to wait years.  (Applause.)

If you’re a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here.  Because if you succeed, you’ll create American businesses and American jobs.  You’ll help us grow our economy.  You’ll help us strengthen our middle class.

So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like:  smarter enforcement; a pathway to earned citizenship; improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest all around the world.  It’s pretty straightforward.

The question now is simple:  Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us?  I believe that we do.  I believe that we do.  (Applause.)  I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp.

But I promise you this:  The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become.  Immigration has always been an issue that enflames passions.  That’s not surprising.  There are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home; who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States of America.  That’s a big deal.

When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of “us” versus “them.”  And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of “us” used to be “them.”  We forget that.  (Applause.)

It’s really important for us to remember our history.  Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else.  Somebody brought you.  (Applause.)

Ken Salazar, he’s of Mexican American descent, but he points that his family has been living where he lives for 400 years, so he didn’t immigrate anywhere.  (Laughter.)

The Irish who left behind a land of famine.  The Germans who fled persecution.  The Scandinavians who arrived eager to pioneer out west.  The Polish.  The Russians.  The Italians.  The Chinese.  The Japanese.  The West Indians.  The huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other.  (Applause.)  All those folks, before they were “us,” they were “them.”

And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here.  They faced hardship.  They faced racism.  They faced ridicule.  But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build a nation.

They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies.  But they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember, but whose actions helped make us who we are; who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick.  (Applause.)  They all came here knowing that what makes somebody an American is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles and the faith in the idea that anyone from anywhere can write the next great chapter of our story.

And that’s still true today.  Just ask Alan Aleman.  Alan is here this afternoon — where is Alan?  He’s around here — there he is right here.  (Applause.)  Alan was born in Mexico.  (Applause.)  He was brought to this country by his parents when he was a child.  Growing up, Alan went to an American school, pledged allegiance to the American flag, felt American in every way — and he was, except for one:  on paper.

In high school, Alan watched his friends come of age — driving around town with their new licenses, earning some extra cash from their summer jobs at the mall.  He knew he couldn’t do those things.  But it didn’t matter that much.  What mattered to Alan was earning an education so that he could live up to his God-given potential.

Last year, when Alan heard the news that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows — even if it’s just for two years at a time — he was one of the first to sign up.  And a few months ago he was one of the first people in Nevada to get approved.  (Applause.)  In that moment, Alan said, “I felt the fear vanish.  I felt accepted.”

So today, Alan is in his second year at the College of Southern Nevada.  (Applause.)  Alan is studying to become a doctor.  (Applause.)  He hopes to join the Air Force.  He’s working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family.  And all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better America.  (Applause.)

So in the coming weeks, as the idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated, and there are folks who are trying to pull this thing apart, remember Alan and all those who share the same hopes and the same dreams.  Remember that this is not just a debate about policy.  It’s about people.  It’s about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the American story.

Throughout our history, that has only made our nation stronger.  And it’s how we will make sure that this century is the same as the last:  an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it, and is willing to pledge that allegiance to our flag.

Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END                12:05 P.M. PST

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Conflict of Visions–Obama v. Reagan–Videos

Posted on January 22, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Cult, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Barack H. Obama

barack-obama-flag_close_up

Barack Obama 2013 Inauguration Speech

Inauguration 2013: Highlights From Obama’s Speech

Krauthammer: Obama Just Declared That The Era Of ‘Big Government Is Back’

Fox News Panel Reacts To Obama’s Inaugural Address: ‘Call To Arms For A Liberal

Fox Panel Discussion: Media Acting as Cheerleaders for Obama in Inaugural Coverage

Ronald Reagan

ronald_reagan_close_up

C-SPAN: President Reagan 1981 Inaugural Address

President Ronald Reagan – First Inaugural Address

Conflict of Visions

Which vision would you follow, Obama’s or Reagan’s?

Presidents of the United States in their Inaugural Addresses to the American people set forth their vision for the country.

In Thomas Sowell’s book, “The   Conflict of Visions,” there are two categories of visions, the unconstrained and the constrained. Those with an unconstrained vision believe in human reason and that important decisions should be made by the whole society and   government bureaucrats and experts. Those with a constrained vision believe in tradition and accumulated wisdom and decisions should be made by   individuals about what immediately concerns them such as their life and property.

President Barack H. Obama’s second Inaugural address illustrates the collectivist’s unconstrained vision while the late President Ronald Reagan first Inaugural address illustrates the   individualist’s constrained vision.

inaugural-swearing-in-obama

President Barack H. Obama’s second Inaugural, Jan. 21, 2013         Credit: http://www.latinopost.com

Obama’s unconstrained vision

Collective action

“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

Crisis and a world without boundaries

“This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together.”

Constantly changing government, tax code, schools, and citizens

“We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.”

Our journey

“It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

Reagan_1981

President Ronald Reagan’s first Inaugural, Jan. 20, 1981    Credit: http://www.inaugural.senate.gov

Reagan’s constrained vision

Government is the problem

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.” 

Crisis and limits

“These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people. ”

“You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today. “

Unemployment, the tax system and deficit spending

“Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.”

“But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.”

Administration’s objective

“Well, this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ‘new beginning,’ and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.”

Since my political philosophy is libertarianism, I naturally selected Reagan’s constrained vision.

The most famous vision for the future was given by Abraham Lincolns in his second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865 when he said just weeks before his assassination on April 14 and as the Civil War was winding down:

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/

Background Articles and Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

6 Collectivism & Individualism   G  Edward Griffin   FMNN eTV   Full Video

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4

G. Edward Griffin: Individualism & Capitalism vs. Collectivism & Monopolies

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Thomas Sowell – Obama Going Forward

Thomas Sowell – Our Intellectual-In-Chief

Uncommon Knowledge with Thomas Sowell

Transcript And Audio: Barack Obama’s Second Inaugural Address

The remarks of President Obama, as released by The White House and prepared for delivery:

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“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.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other — through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security — these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task — to make these words, these rights, these values — of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time — but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction — and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time — not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/21/169903155/transcript-barack-obamas-second-inaugural-address

Ronald Reagan
naugural Address
January 20, 1981

Senator Hatfield, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Bush, Vice President Mondale, Senator Baker, Speaker O’Neill, Reverend Moomaw, and my fellow citizens:

To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every 4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.

Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.

The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, “We the people,” this breed called Americans.

Well, this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this “new beginning,” and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work–work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we’re too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we’re in a time when there are not heroes, they just don’t know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter, and they’re on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They’re individuals and families whose taxes support the government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet, but deep. Their values sustain our national life.

Now, I have used the words “they” and “their” in speaking of these heroes. I could say “you” and “your,” because I’m addressing the heroes of whom I speak—you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God.

We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen; and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?

Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic “yes.” To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I’ve just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy.

In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow, measured in inches and feet, not miles, but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles there will be no compromise.

On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, president of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, “Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”

Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children, and our children’s children. And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.

To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.

Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.

I’m told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I’m deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inaugural Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer.

This is the first time in our history that this ceremony has been held, as you’ve been told, on this West Front of the Capitol. Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city’s special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man, George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then, beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

Beyond those monuments to heroism is the Potomac River, and on the far shore the sloping hills of Arlington National Cemetery, with its row upon row of simple white markers bearing crosses or Stars of David. They add up to only a tiny fraction of the price that has been paid for our freedom.

Each one of those markers is a monument to the kind of hero I spoke of earlier. Their lives ended in places called Belleau Wood, The Argonne, Omaha Beach, Salerno, and halfway around the world on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pork Chop Hill, the Chosin Reservoir, and in a hundred rice paddies and jungles of a place called Vietnam.

Under one such marker lies a young man, Martin Treptow, who left his job in a small town barbershop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire.

We’re told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, “My Pledge,” he had written these words: “America must win this war. Therefore I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.”

The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.
God bless you, and thank you.


Note: The President spoke at 12 noon from a platform erected at the West Front of the Capitol. Immediately before the address, the oath of office was administered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger.

In his opening remarks, the President referred to Rev. Donn D. Moomaw, senior pastor, Bel Air Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles, California.

The address was broadcast live on radio and television.

Obama’s Second Inaugural

By Yuval Levin
“…President Obama’s second inaugural address was an exceptionally coherent and deeply revealing speech. Its cogency was impressive: Recent inaugurals, and especially those of reelected presidents, have inclined toward the laundry list far more than this speech did. Obama made an argument, and one that holds together and advances a discernible worldview. It was in that sense a very successful speech, and while it may not be memorable in the sense of containing lines so eloquent or striking that they will always be associated with this moment and this president, it is a speech that will repay future re-reading because it lays out an important strand of American political thought rather clearly.But because it does so, it is also revealing of the shallowness, confusion, and error of that strand of American political thought — that is, of the progressive worldview in our politics.This speech was about as compact yet comprehensive an example of the contemporary progressive vision as we’re likely to get from a politician. It had all the usual elements. Its point of origin was a familiar distorted historical narrative of the founding — half of Jefferson and none of Madison — setting us off on a utopian “journey” in the course of which the founding vision is transformed into its opposite in response to changing circumstances, with life becoming choice, liberty becoming security, and the pursuit of happiness transmuted into a collective effort to guarantee that everyone has choice and security. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence are praised mostly for their flexibility in the face of their own anachronism, as their early embodiment in a political order (that is, the Constitution) proves inadequate to a changing world and must be gradually but thoroughly replaced by an open-ended commitment to meeting social objectives through state action.The only alternative to state action, in this vision of things, is the preposterously insufficient prospect of individual action. “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias,” the president said.

No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

The individual acting alone or the entire nation acting through its government, those are the only options we have. The space between the individual and the state is understood to be empty at best, and at worst to be filled with dreadful vestiges of intolerance and backwardness that must be cleared out to enable the pursuit of justice.

Our history is more or less a tale of an increasing public awareness of these facts. As we grew to understand that only common public action would suffice in an ever-changing world:

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

That modern economy and that free market are simply constants to be taken for granted — they will keep on humming, the only question is whether they will be placed under any restraints or direction. “Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character,” the president said, so we need not worry about how to sustain them but only about how to contain them.

And as we grew to understand the virtues of such common efforts of containment and direction of the modern economy, we also advanced the struggle against those vestiges of backwardness that have raised obstacles to inclusion, scoring victories for justice in “Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall.” Never mind the 50 million human beings deemed insignificant because they were unwanted and snuffed out over the last four decades in the cause of choice. Indeed, the freedom to remorselessly exterminate these innocents, rather than the struggle to protect the life and dignity of the weak who dared by their existence and their neediness to disrupt the plans of the strong, is somehow given a place of honor in the register of social progress.

Having been delivered along the arc of that progress to this point, we should have a pretty good idea of what we ought to do next: the same thing but more so. After all, the logic of the narrative carries its own direction — toward a series of utopian if sometimes nonetheless remarkably trivial near-term goals (“our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote”) and a longer-term ideal of permanent universal political activism striving for an ever-more-perfect balance of moral individualism and economic collectivism.

As it is both moved by a hunger for justice and embodied in the American story (as its champions understand it), this course is taken to plainly occupy the moral high ground, and opposition to it can really only be explained by bad faith, bad motives, or bad reasoning. Thus, even as the advocates of this way of thinking style themselves pragmatists, they deem their opponents worse than wicked.

The president probably didn’t even quite see that his second inaugural was almost certainly the most partisan inaugural address in American history — more partisan than one delivered on the brink of civil war, or in the midst of it, or after the most poisonous and bitterly contested election in our history. He accused his political opponents of rabid (even stupid) radical individualism, of desiring to throw the elderly and the poor onto the street, of wanting to leave the parents of disabled children with no options, of believing that freedom should be reserved for the lucky and happiness for the few, and of putting dogma and party above country. Because it has exceedingly high expectations of politics, this view treats the failure to achieve its own goals as evidence of misconduct by others and of the inadequacy of the system we have. As White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer put it to the Washington Post this week, “There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important. What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”

The first thing to say about this vision is that it is a serious set of ideas and in some important respects an appealing one. It seeks to put American politics on a modern idealistic foundation rather than the modern skeptical foundation on which our constitutional order has put it, and it understands the liberal society as a set of utopian objectives grounded in a set of rational ideals. That’s certainly one way to understand the liberal society, and it is a way with deep roots in American thought. I’ve always thought that describing the progressive worldview as some kind of German implant undersells it and distorts it. It is surely that in part, but it is also the working out of a strain of American liberalism that has been with us from the beginning. The progressives claim to a connection to Jefferson is not unfounded. But it is incomplete and ill-informed.

The progressives used to know this. Herbert Croly understood that his claim to be applying to economic power the logic of the limits and restraints that Jefferson applied to political power was at least a little preposterous. He was not wrong to say that Jeffersonianism is in some tension with the Constitution — Jefferson surely thought so himself. But he was wrong to say that it pointed toward the sort of philosophical collectivism that the modern left is after. He was using a version of American history to make his case for change more palatable. But today’s progressives simply believe their own history and their own self-portrait. They really believe that the case for equality, for greater inclusion and civil rights, and for some protection from risk in the face of our tumultuous economy can only be grounded in the progressive worldview. Indeed, they take that view to be pragmatic common sense in light of a changing world, rather than a utopian ideology, and they therefore don’t grasp the radical inadequacy of the vision they’re espousing.

By espousing that vision more clearly than usual, the president’s speech revealed that inadequacy. It did so first and foremost by showing that (quite ironically, given how it praises itself for keeping up with change) progressivism today is highly anachronistic. As David Brooks astutely noted today:

The Progressive Era, New Deal and Great Society laws were enacted when America was still a young and growing nation. They were enacted in a nation that was vibrant, raw, underinstitutionalized and needed taming.

We are no longer that nation. We are now a mature nation with an aging population. Far from being underinstitutionalized, we are bogged down with a bloated political system, a tangled tax code, a byzantine legal code and a crushing debt.

In fact, in my opinion the lumbering and bogged-down character of our economy is the chief threat to the very economic security (not to mention prosperity) that the progressives say they are after. But Obama’s speech expressed no grasp of our current situation.

It is for that reason that he relied so heavily on straw men and absurd caricatures of his opponents’ positions. At one point, almost despite himself, the president stumbled upon the kind of thinking those opponents now actually offer, though he quickly picked himself up and continued to march in the opposite direction. In the middle of a case about how inequality calls for common action, he said:

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

This is roughly the case for Paul Ryan’s budget. But the president opposes that approach, and in making this argument he pointed to some obvious objections to the rest of his speech without answering them. What programs are so inadequate that he is willing to see them reformed? Where is he willing to change the means to continue achieving the ends? What hard choices does he have in mind to reduce the deficit and the cost of health care? What does it mean to “reject the belief” that we are forced into a choice between the young and the old when we have massive government programs that compel exactly that choice and yet the president refuses to change them?

In fact, it is precisely the vision laid out in the rest of the president’s speech that has brought us to this difficult moment. Our foremost domestic challenges now almost all have to do with mitigating the enormous damage done to our economic dynamism, our social fabric, and our fiscal prospects by the public exertions most directly attributable to the sort of progressivism Obama laid out. This generation and the next one (at least) will spend their political energies trying to pick up the pieces of the Great Society and to construct alternatives to its foremost achievements that are better suited to the kind of country we are and want to be. And today’s progressives are very poorly suited to that task, because they do not see the problem, and they have a rather peculiar notion of the kind of country we are and want to be.

For conservatives to do better, it would be helpful to understand the left’s failings, and this speech is not a bad place to start. Look at the vision it lays out. It denies the relevance of our constitutional system, the value of civil society, the social achievement that is our culture of individual initiative and economic dynamism, the dignity of every life whether wanted by others or not, and the unsustainability of the liberal welfare state.

A coherent alternative would need to answer each of these errors and to put forward a political vision and program that champions the constitutional system and its underlying worldview, lifts up civil society as a key source of our strength, sustains the moral preconditions for democratic capitalism, protects every life, and transforms the institutions of the liberal welfare state into a robust safety net that guards the vulnerable and gives everyone a chance to benefit from and participate in our dynamic economy rather than shielding them from it. It is not hard to imagine such a combination of ideas because that combination, in its various forms, is what American conservatism stands for. It probably wouldn’t hurt to let the voting public know that. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338366/obama-s-second-inaugural-yuval-levin#

Morning Bell: Obama’s Second Inaugural Address, Translated

Amy Payne

“…Members of Congress—who are about to debate raising the debt ceiling tomorrow—should have paid attention yesterday. The President was very clear that he sees no urgency about reducing the debt and cutting the deficit. In fact, in his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama was honest about his intentions to grow government in order to remake our country along his progressive vision.

To sell his agenda, the President borrowed imagery and terminology from America’s first principles. But he twisted the American founding idea of “We the people” into the liberal “It takes a village.”

His rhetoric on the issues only thinly disguised his true meaning. Let’s translate some of his key points.

Obama on “we the people”: “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”

Translation: In case you didn’t hear me the first time, you didn’t build that.

He may have surrounded these words with lip service to the Constitution and America’s promise of freedom, but the President revisited his core message here: It takes a taxpayer-subsidized village to build things. According to his philosophy, entrepreneurs don’t create jobs—the government does.

Obama on the fiscal crisis: “We, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it….We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

Translation: I will continue to push for more tax increases instead of reforming Medicare and Social Security.

On this point, the President followed up his promise that he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling by digging in his heels on taxes and entitlement programs. The “hard choices” he refers to on health care and the deficit are more tax increases—because he “reject[s] the belief” that entitlements must be reformed if they are going to stay around for the next generation.

The debt limit showdown continues this week: The House will vote tomorrow on a plan that would extend the debt ceiling for three months while forcing Congress—specifically, the Senate—to pass a budget. If they do not pass a budget by April 15 under this plan, Members of Congress would stop getting paid. If House Republicans so much as blink, the President and his allies will steamroll them.

Obama on green energy: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition.”

Translation: I will continue to increase regulations on the energy sources we use and throw taxpayer money into “green” energy companies.

Despite the ever-growing Green Graveyard of companies like Solyndra that took taxpayer money only to go bankrupt, the President clings to this unworkable and expensive policy. And his linking of climate change to “more powerful storms” points to a renewed push for policies like a carbon tax to punish people for using energy—a policy that would harm the economy and produce no tangible environmental benefits.

Obama on foreign policy: “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war….We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully. Not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

Translation: The terrorists are on the run, and I still think we can negotiate with nuclear bullies like Iran.

Even as Obama pulls troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the hostage crisis in Algeria shows that al-Qaeda is alive and well. Though Iran continues to rebuff international inspectors and basically do whatever it wants, Obama seems perpetually optimistic that more talks with this hostile regime—and others like it—could make them change their behavior.

The President said yesterday that “fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges.” Though the plans he laid out are not new, they definitely require a response if we are to preserve the founding principles we cherish, including our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Congress has been warned, and by the President no less, that he is in no mood to compromise. If they give in, a liberal agenda like we’ve never known before will be implemented, while needed reforms to our entitlement programs will not take place. Holding the line is more important now than ever. …”

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/22/obama-second-inaugural-address-translated/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama Grades Fixing The Economy As Incomplete–American People Grade F for Failure–We Are Definitely Worse Off Than Four Years Ago–Videos

Posted on September 4, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Inflation, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Regulations, Video, Water, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Reagan 1980 Are you better off than you were four years ago? 

GOP Pushes ‘Are You Better Off Now?’: Dems on Defense 

Obama admits ‘You are not better off than four years ago.’ 

“Defining Moment” Ad  from 2008

 

Obama Gives Himself An Incomplete Grade On Fixing The Economy After Four Years 

Government Parties While America Burns…

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ryan Nails Obama–Videos

Posted on August 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Paul Ryan RNC Convention Speech: This is Ryan’s entire 2012 speech

Paul Ryan, the Republican Party’s Vice President candidate, attacked President Barack Obama’s record of 43 months of unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent with over 23 million Americans seeking a full-time job, Obamacare and adding over $5 trillion to the national debt, in his acceptance speech before the GOP National Convention in Tampa, Florida, late Wednesday evening, Aug. 29.

Ryan said, “Here we were, faced with a massive job crisis–so deep, that if everyone out of work stood in single file, that unemployment line would stretch the length of the entire American continent. You would think that any president, whatever his party, would make job creation, and nothing else, his first order of economic business. But this president didn’t do that.”

Ryan broadened and pressed his attack on the Obama record on job creation and Obamacare. Ryan said, “Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care. Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.”

Ryan body slammed Obama for raiding Medicare funding to pay for Obamacare.

Ryan said, “And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn’t have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billion more. So, they just took it all from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.”

Ryan nailed Obama by pointing out that “back in 2008, candidate Obama called a $10 trillion national debt “unpatriotic”.” Ryan said, “Yet by his own decisions, President Obama had added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments in Europe combined. One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.”

Ryan finished off Obama’s debt record with these words:

    “So here we are, $16 trillion in debt and he still does nothing. In Europe, massive debts have put entire governments at risk of collapse, and still he does nothing. And all we have heard from this president and his team are attacks on anyone who dares to point out the obvious.”
Ryan spoke to the many millions of unemployed college graduates when he said:
    “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. Everyone who feels stuck in the Obama economy is right to focus on the here and now. …You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.”
Ryan asked the key question early in his speech when he remarked, “Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?”
This reminds me of the single debate between President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in late Oct. 1980. Ronald Reagan asked the American people to answer this question when they went to vote for the next president: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” This one crucial question turned a very tight presidential race with the incumbent President Carter with a slight lead in the polls to a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan.

Ryan nailed Obama’s record. On election day in November, the American people will answer both Ryan’s and Reagan’s question.

Background Articles and Videos

Full Text: Paul Ryan’s Speech at the Republican National Convention

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/full-text-paul-ryan-s-speech-at-the-republican-national-convention-20120829?page=1

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan–Videos

Posted on August 7, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

“…When he left the White House in 1989, Ronald Reagan was one of the most popular presidents of the century. A former Hollywood star and seemingly simple man, Reagan was consistently underestimated by his opponents. One by one, he overcame them all. Incorporating interviews with key political insiders, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and members of the Reagan family, “Reagan” explores the man who saw America as a “shining city on a hill” and himself as its heroic defender. …”

Reagan {1 of 2}

Reagan {2 of 2}

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Ronald Reagan–The Presidential Years–Videos

Posted on July 28, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Ronald Reagan – The Presidential Years Part 1 of 4

Ronald Reagan – The Presidential Years Part 2 of 4

Ronald Reagan – The Presidential Years Part 3 of 4

Ronald Reagan – The Presidential Years Part 4 of 4

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–Ronald Reagan on Communism in Hollywood–Glenn Beck on Communism in the White House–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Economics, Federal Government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Ronald Reagan on Communism in Hollywood

Communism in America 

Barack Obama: The Marxist Communist in the White House

Why did the Liberal Media ignore Obama’s Marxist upbringing?

OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!! – CommieTunes – Episode 11 – Marxist / Socialist US President

Glenn Beck-McCarthy and the Venona papers

Dr John Drew Speaks on Young Marxist Obama – Part 1

Dr John Drew Speaks on Young Marxist Obama – Part 2

Dr. John Drew’s Speech on Young Barak Obama

Mark Levin: Obama is a Marxist

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt1

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt2

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt3

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt4

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt5

Obama’s Marxist Attack on America pt6

]

 

Background Articles and Videos

Committee On Un-American Activities

Are you a commie, or a citizen?

Red Nightmare – 1962 – Communist takeover of America

The Hollywood Ten (1950)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A Repeat of Ronald Reagan’s 1976 Convention Speech–Which Speech Will Ron Paul Give At the Republican Convention? –Bridge Over Troubled Waters–The Dream Is Still With Us–Videos

Posted on April 11, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Reagan’s Impromptu Speech at 1976 GOP Convention

Ron Paul greatest speech

Simon & Garfunkel, Bridge Over Troubled Water, Central Park

When you’re weary

 Feeling small

 When tears are in your eyes

 I will dry them all

I’m on your side

When times get rough

 And friends just can’t be found

Like a bridge over troubled water

I will lay me down

 Like a bridge over troubled water

 I will lay me down

When you’re down and out

 When you’re on the street

When evening falls so hard

 I will comfort you

 I’ll take your part

When darkness comes

And pain is all around

Like a bridge over troubled water

I will lay me down

 Like a bridge over troubled water

 I will lay me down
Sail on Silver Girl, Sail on by

Your time has come to shine

All your dreams are on their way

See how they shine

If you need a friend

I’m sailing right behind

Like a bridge over troubled water

I will ease your mind

Like a bridge over troubled water

 I will ease your mind

Background Articles and Videos

Ronald Reagan Convention Speech 1976 Election

Ron Paul: What If… Amazing Speech 2-12-09

The Last Nail – Floor Speech May 25 2011

Ron Paul ”Imagine For A Moment” Speech

Simon and Garfunkel – Bridge Over Troubled Water Original Version

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Paul’s Jolt: Peace and Prosperity Full Employment Economy with Balanced Budgets vs. Obama’s Volt: Welfare and Warfare Economy With High Unemployment and Rising Debts and Prices–Videos

Posted on March 29, 2012. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables Budget of the U.S. Government

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

Department of Treasury, Monthly Treasury Statement

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

Reality Check: Ron Paul’s Budget Plan

CNN: Ron Paul is the JOLT America needs 

Ron Paul Plan to Balance Budget and End Government Overspending

Ron Paul Ad – Plan 

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Ronald Reagan Talks About Balancing the Budget on “The Tonight

President Obama: When I leave the White House, I’m buying a Volt

The President’s Budget in 62 Seconds 

Obama’s Budget compared to Bush’s Last One

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

In Four Years Barack Obama Bankrupts American People With $5 Trillion In Budget Deficits and Increased Debt–Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Dead On Arrival–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan Democrats For Ron Paul–Vote For Ron Paul and Restore The Constitution and The Republic!–A Time For Choosing–Videos

Posted on March 6, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of it’s attainment. And the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity.”

 ~George Washington

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

~James Madison

President Eisenhower – Farewell Warning

John F. Kennedy’s most memorable speech’s highlights+transcript/subtitles

Reagan – A Time For Choosing 

Ron Paul Incredible Video Twice Removed  YouTube

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

~George Washington

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

~Abraham Lincoln

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

~John F. Kennedy

Background Articles and Videos

Eisenhower Farewell Address (Full) 

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address

delivered 17 January 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other — Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling — on my part — of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations — past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament — of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that — in that — in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources — scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

The Entire John F Kennedy ‘Secret Society’ Speech Uncut with Subtitles and Transcript

John F. Kennedy

Address to the American Newspaper Publishers

delivered 27 April 1961, Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and a article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of five dollars per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution, and the Cold War.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had — had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I — I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal from a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as a title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called “one party press.” On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20 million Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent, and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm. On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one — of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask — But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared, and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery, or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible, and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said — and your newspapers have constantly said — that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of national security?” And I hope that every group in America — unions and businessmen and public officials at every level — will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation — an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people — to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well — the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support an Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error doesn’t not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.

It was early in the 17th Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder, and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfknewspaperpublishers.htm

“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan 

Ronald Reagan

A Time for Choosing (aka “The Speech”)

Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA

Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming — that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how — who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now — so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things — we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees — federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died — because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men — that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy — and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm

Ron Paul Highlights at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (Family Leader Debate)

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama Beats 62 Year Record Held By Reagan: Unemployment Rate Over 8% For 32 Months and Over 9% For 27 Months!–Average Weeks Unemployed Hits All Time High of 40.5 Weeks!–Videos

Posted on October 7, 2011. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Security, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

The Unemployment Game Show: Are You *Really* Unemployed? from Mint.com 

CNBC – Bottom Line – Hiring Uptick Not Enough To Ease Recession Fears 10-7-2011

IHS’s Gault Says U.S. Jobless Rate Could Reach 9.4%

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Warns Of Slow US Recovery CCTV News

Ben Bernanke: ‘OccupyWallstreet and Usury’

Dealing with Long-term Unemployment

President Obama made history in September when he finally beat out President Reagan’s record for worst U.S. economy in terms of unemployment since the Great Depression. The first Friday of every month at 8:30 (EDT), the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), publishes its Employment Situation Report, as it did on Oct. 7. The BLS  reported that the unemployment rate in September remained unchanged at 9.1 percent with 14 million Americans unemployed.

Since 1948 the BLS has been publishing the unemployment rate statistics known to economists as U-3 or the headline unemployment rate.

U.S. Unemployment Rate Percent, 1948 to Present

For this 62 year period Reagan held the record for worst U.S. economy in terms of  the duration of high unemployment rates in the post World War II period:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

Obama has clearly surpassed Reagan’s unemployment record. The unemployment rate is expected to remain over 8 percent for the next twelve months, if not longer.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2009 7.8 8.2  8.6   8.9  9.4  9.5  9.5  9.7  9.8  10.1  9.9   9.9  
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.1

While the U-3 headline unemployment rate number gets the attention of most journalists, among economists and investment analysts the U-6 total unemployment rate gets more attention because it includes people who want to work full time but have been unable to find work. The U-6 unemployment rate increased from 16.2 percent in August to 16.5 percent in September.

 The U-6 unemployment rate includes marginal attached workers including discouraged workers and individuals that are working part time but looking for full time employment. The BLS defines a marginally attached workers as “persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the
end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in  the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

A discouraged workers are “persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify”, according to the BLS.

What is even worse for those searching for a job is the average weeks unemployed has more than doubled from 19.9 weeks in January 2009 to 40.5 weeks in September 2011, according to the BLS. During the Reagan years the average weeks unemployed in January 1981 was 14.3 weeks and peaked at 21.2 weeks in July 1983 and fell to 7.3 weeks in January 1985.

Only 103,000 new jobs were created in September according to the BLS’s Establishment Survey Data. For the last six months an average of 72,000 new jobs were created compared with 161,000 for the seven months prior to April 2011. The U.S. economy needs to create between 250,000 to 300,000 jobs each month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1 percent.

Every month high school and college students, graduates and dropouts enter the labor force for the first time as new entrants.  In order to keep the unemployment rate unchanged the U.S. economy needs to create a minimum of 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs each month to absorb new entrants into the labor market.  The September unemployment rate among teenagers was 24.6 percent.

The U.S. econonmy is on the brink of another recession with the growth of real Gross Domestic Product approaching zero. For the next 6 to 9 months many economists are predicting the unemployment rate to rise from 9.1 percent to over 10 percent before gradually falling back down to under 9 percent in the following 12 months. This does not bode well for Obama’s chances of being re-elected for a second term.

All statistics are from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistic, October, 2011

Unemployment Rate (U-3)

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1948 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.0
1949 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.6 7.9 6.4 6.6
1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3
1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1
1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5
1954 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0
1955 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
1956 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2
1957 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2
1958 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.2
1959 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.3
1960 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.6
1961 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.0
1962 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.5
1963 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.5
1964 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.0
1965 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0
1966 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
1967 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8
1968 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
1969 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5
1970 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.9 6.1
1971 5.9 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0
1972 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.2
1973 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.9
1974 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.9 6.0 6.6 7.2
1975 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.8 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2
1976 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4
1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.1

Average Weeks Unemployed

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1948 8.9 8.4 8.7 8.5 9.1 8.8 8.6 8.8 8.5 9.5 7.8 8.1
1949 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.8 9.1 10.0 10.8 11.0 11.7 10.9 11.6 11.8
1950 11.3 11.8 12.4 12.6 12.7 13.1 12.5 12.2 12.2 12.3 10.7 10.7
1951 10.6 10.8 10.1 10.6 9.9 8.7 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.9 9.7 9.3
1952 9.3 8.8 8.4 9.0 7.8 7.3 7.5 7.6 8.1 9.1 9.5 8.8
1953 9.3 8.4 8.5 7.8 7.9 8.2 7.9 8.0 7.1 7.2 7.9 8.0
1954 8.7 9.5 10.6 10.9 11.6 12.3 12.5 12.8 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.4
1955 13.4 14.2 13.4 14.3 14.4 13.4 13.8 12.3 11.7 11.5 11.3 12.0
1956 11.7 12.5 11.6 11.0 10.4 10.1 10.5 12.0 11.8 11.6 10.9 11.4
1957 10.4 10.7 10.8 10.6 10.4 10.2 10.1 10.5 9.8 11.1 10.4 10.4
1958 10.5 11.0 11.2 12.1 13.1 14.4 14.6 15.7 16.5 16.5 16.4 15.7
1959 16.3 15.5 15.3 14.9 14.7 14.9 14.3 13.7 13.7 12.9 13.1 13.1
1960 13.5 13.1 13.0 12.6 11.9 11.9 12.6 12.2 12.9 13.5 13.9 12.4
1961 13.7 13.6 14.1 15.5 15.6 16.2 17.3 17.0 16.1 15.9 17.0 15.8
1962 15.3 16.0 15.0 14.9 15.5 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.1 14.1 13.3 13.6
1963 13.8 14.1 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.0 14.0 13.9 14.2 13.9 13.3 13.3
1964 13.5 13.2 13.5 12.4 13.6 13.6 14.7 13.0 12.7 12.6 14.0 12.7
1965 12.2 12.6 12.0 11.4 11.1 11.6 11.6 11.9 11.9 12.1 11.7 11.4
1966 11.9 11.2 11.1 10.8 10.2 9.7 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.3 9.7 9.5
1967 9.3 9.2 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.3 8.3 8.9 8.4 8.7 8.9 8.6
1968 9.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.2 7.9 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.1 8.2
1969 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 7.6 8.0 8.0
1970 7.9 8.0 8.3 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.8 8.9 8.7 9.3 9.8
1971 10.5 10.4 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.6 11.5 11.5 11.9 12.6 12.0 11.5
1972 12.1 12.4 12.3 12.4 12.3 12.4 11.8 11.8 12.1 11.7 11.4 11.4
1973 11.0 10.5 10.6 10.0 10.1 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4 10.2 9.9 9.5
1974 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.7 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.9 9.6 10.1
1975 10.7 11.7 11.8 12.9 13.4 15.3 15.0 15.6 16.1 15.4 16.6 16.5
1976 16.6 16.3 16.5 15.9 15.0 16.9 15.7 15.6 15.2 15.2 15.3 15.1
1977 15.2 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.9 14.4 14.3 13.9 14.0 13.7 13.6 13.6
1978 12.9 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.1 12.1 12.0 11.4 11.4 11.7 11.1 10.6
1979 11.1 11.2 11.7 11.0 11.1 10.4 10.3 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.8
1980 10.4 10.6 11.0 11.4 10.9 11.3 11.8 12.4 12.9 13.1 13.6 13.7
1981 14.3 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.6 13.7 13.8 14.4 13.6 13.5 13.1 13.1
1982 13.4 14.1 14.1 14.5 14.9 15.7 15.4 16.2 16.6 17.2 17.1 18.1
1983 19.4 19.2 19.4 19.5 20.5 20.8 21.2 20.0 20.2 20.2 19.7 19.2
1984 20.4 19.0 19.1 18.9 18.8 18.1 18.0 17.3 17.0 16.7 17.0 16.8
1985 15.9 15.9 16.1 16.4 15.3 15.5 15.5 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.7 15.1
1986 14.8 15.2 14.6 14.7 14.7 15.2 15.2 15.5 15.4 15.2 15.0 15.0
1987 14.9 14.7 14.9 14.8 14.9 14.9 14.2 14.4 14.2 14.0 14.0 14.2
1988 14.2 14.4 13.7 13.3 13.8 13.1 13.4 13.6 13.6 13.4 12.6 12.9
1989 12.6 12.4 12.3 12.5 12.0 11.1 11.8 11.4 11.5 11.9 11.7 11.6
1990 11.8 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.4 12.2 12.4 12.5
1991 12.2 12.7 12.9 13.5 12.9 13.7 13.8 13.9 14.0 14.4 14.8 15.4
1992 16.1 16.7 17.1 17.4 17.8 18.2 18.1 18.0 18.1 18.9 17.9 19.0
1993 18.3 18.2 17.6 17.6 17.5 17.8 17.7 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.6 18.3
1994 18.6 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.5 18.8 19.0 18.8 18.7 19.3 18.0 17.8
1995 17.1 17.0 17.3 17.6 17.0 15.9 16.5 16.2 16.2 16.0 16.4 16.3
1996 16.1 16.4 17.3 17.6 17.0 17.6 16.7 17.3 16.8 16.3 15.9 15.6
1997 16.0 15.8 15.5 15.6 15.4 15.5 16.4 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.4 15.9
1998 15.6 15.4 14.5 14.7 14.7 14.1 14.1 13.7 14.4 14.1 14.5 14.0
1999 13.4 13.8 13.4 13.3 13.4 14.3 13.6 13.1 13.1 13.3 12.9 12.9
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 17.0 16.7 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.2 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.7 17.2 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.8 19.8
2009 19.9 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.6 24.1 25.2 25.3 26.6 27.3 28.8 29.3
2010 30.5 29.8 31.7 33.1 34.3 34.8 33.9 33.5 33.4 33.9 33.9 34.2
2011 36.9 37.1 39.0 38.3 39.7 39.9 40.4 40.3 40.5

Total Unemployment Rate (U-6)

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 11.8 11.4 11.4 11.2 10.8 10.9 10.7 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0
1995 10.2 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.0
1996 9.8 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.5
1997 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.3 8.4
1998 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.6
1999 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.1
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.8
2008 9.1 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.9 11.2 11.9 12.7 13.6
2009 14.1 15.0 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.6 16.5 16.8 17.0 17.4 17.1 17.2
2010 16.5 16.8 16.8 17.0 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.7 17.1 17.0 17.0 16.7
2011 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.5

Labor Force Participation Rate

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1948 58.6 58.9 58.5 59.0 58.3 59.2 59.3 58.9 58.9 58.7 58.7 59.1
1949 58.7 59.0 58.9 58.8 59.0 58.6 58.9 59.2 59.1 59.6 59.4 59.2
1950 58.9 58.9 58.8 59.2 59.1 59.4 59.1 59.5 59.2 59.4 59.3 59.2
1951 59.1 59.1 59.8 59.1 59.4 59.0 59.4 59.2 59.1 59.4 59.2 59.6
1952 59.5 59.5 58.9 58.8 59.1 59.1 58.9 58.7 59.2 58.7 59.1 59.2
1953 59.5 59.5 59.6 59.1 58.6 58.9 58.9 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.3
1954 58.6 59.3 59.1 59.2 58.9 58.5 58.4 58.7 59.2 58.8 58.6 58.1
1955 58.6 58.4 58.5 59.0 58.8 58.8 59.3 59.7 59.7 59.8 59.9 60.2
1956 60.2 59.9 59.8 59.9 60.2 60.1 60.1 60.0 60.0 59.8 59.8 59.8
1957 59.5 59.9 59.8 59.5 59.5 59.8 60.0 59.3 59.6 59.5 59.5 59.6
1958 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.6 59.8 59.5 59.6 59.8 59.7 59.6 59.2 59.2
1959 59.3 59.0 59.3 59.4 59.2 59.2 59.4 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.1 59.5
1960 59.1 59.1 58.5 59.5 59.5 59.7 59.5 59.5 59.7 59.4 59.8 59.7
1961 59.6 59.6 59.7 59.3 59.4 59.7 59.3 59.3 59.0 59.1 59.1 58.8
1962 58.8 59.0 58.9 58.7 58.9 58.8 58.5 59.0 59.0 58.7 58.5 58.4
1963 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.8 58.8 58.5 58.7 58.5 58.7 58.8 58.8 58.5
1964 58.6 58.8 58.7 59.1 59.1 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.6
1965 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.8 59.0 58.8 59.1 58.9 58.7 58.9 58.8 59.0
1966 59.0 58.8 58.8 59.0 59.0 59.1 59.1 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.6 59.5
1967 59.5 59.3 59.1 59.4 59.3 59.6 59.6 59.7 59.7 59.9 59.8 59.9
1968 59.2 59.6 59.6 59.5 59.9 60.0 59.8 59.6 59.5 59.5 59.6 59.7
1969 59.6 60.0 59.9 60.0 59.8 60.1 60.1 60.3 60.3 60.4 60.2 60.2
1970 60.4 60.4 60.6 60.6 60.3 60.2 60.4 60.3 60.2 60.4 60.4 60.4
1971 60.4 60.1 60.0 60.1 60.2 59.8 60.1 60.2 60.1 60.1 60.4 60.4
1972 60.2 60.2 60.5 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.6 60.4 60.3 60.3 60.5
1973 60.0 60.5 60.8 60.8 60.6 60.9 60.9 60.7 60.8 60.9 61.2 61.2
1974 61.3 61.4 61.3 61.1 61.2 61.2 61.4 61.2 61.4 61.3 61.3 61.2
1975 61.4 61.0 61.2 61.3 61.5 61.2 61.3 61.3 61.2 61.2 61.1 61.1
1976 61.3 61.3 61.3 61.6 61.5 61.5 61.8 61.8 61.6 61.6 61.9 61.8
1977 61.6 61.9 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.4 62.1 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.8 62.7
1978 62.8 62.7 62.8 63.0 63.1 63.3 63.2 63.2 63.3 63.3 63.5 63.6
1979 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.5 63.3 63.5 63.6 63.6 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.9
1980 64.0 64.0 63.7 63.8 63.9 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.6 63.7 63.8 63.6
1981 63.9 63.9 64.1 64.2 64.3 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.5 63.8 63.9 63.6
1982 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.9 64.2 63.9 64.0 64.1 64.1 64.1 64.2 64.1
1983 63.9 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.7 64.3 64.1 64.3 64.3 64.0 64.1 64.1
1984 63.9 64.1 64.1 64.3 64.5 64.6 64.6 64.4 64.4 64.4 64.5 64.6
1985 64.7 64.7 64.9 64.9 64.8 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.9 65.0 64.9 65.0
1986 64.9 65.0 65.1 65.1 65.2 65.4 65.4 65.3 65.4 65.4 65.4 65.3
1987 65.4 65.5 65.5 65.4 65.7 65.5 65.6 65.7 65.5 65.7 65.7 65.7
1988 65.8 65.9 65.7 65.8 65.7 65.8 65.9 66.1 65.9 66.0 66.2 66.1
1989 66.5 66.3 66.3 66.4 66.3 66.5 66.5 66.5 66.4 66.5 66.6 66.5
1990 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.6 66.4 66.5 66.5 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4
1991 66.2 66.2 66.3 66.4 66.2 66.2 66.1 66.0 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0
1992 66.3 66.2 66.4 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.2 66.3 66.3
1993 66.2 66.2 66.2 66.1 66.4 66.5 66.4 66.4 66.2 66.3 66.3 66.4
1994 66.6 66.6 66.5 66.5 66.6 66.4 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.7
1995 66.8 66.8 66.7 66.9 66.5 66.5 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.5 66.4
1996 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.9 66.7 66.9 67.0 67.0 67.0
1997 67.0 66.9 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2
1998 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.2
1999 67.2 67.2 67.0 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.1 67.1
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.7 65.6 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.1 65.0 64.7
2010 64.8 64.8 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.7 64.6 64.7 64.7 64.5 64.5 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 63.9 64.0 64.2

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed                   USDL-11-1441
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 7, 2011

Technical information:
 Household data:       (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:   (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

                       THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2011

Nonfarm payroll employment edged up by 103,000 in September, and the unemployment
rate held at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The
increase in employment partially reflected the return to payrolls of about 45,000
telecommunications workers who had been on strike in August. In September, job gains
occurred in professional and business services, health care, and construction.
Government employment continued to trend down.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons, at 14.0 million, was essentially unchanged in
September, and the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. Since April, the rate has held
in a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 percent. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.8 percent),
adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (24.6 percent), whites (8.0 percent), blacks
(16.0 percent), and Hispanics (11.3 percent) showed little or no change in September.
The jobless rate for Asians was 7.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was 6.2
million in September. These individuals accounted for 44.6 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)

Both the labor force and employment increased in September. However, the civilian
labor force participation rate, at 64.2 percent, and the employment-population ratio,
at 58.3 percent, were little changed. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) rose to 9.3 million in September. These individuals
were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were
unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In September, about 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
about the same as a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had
looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed
because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table
A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.0 million discouraged workers in September,
down by 172,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in September had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table
A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up by 103,000 in September. Since April, payroll
employment has increased by an average of 72,000 per month, compared with an average
of 161,000 for the prior 7 months. In September, job gains occurred in professional
and business services, health care, and construction. Government employment continued
to trend down. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services increased by 48,000 over the month and
has grown by 897,000 since a recent low in September 2009. Employment in temporary help
services edged up in September; this industry has added 53,000 jobs over the past 3
months. In September, employment growth continued in computer systems design and in
management and technical consulting services.

Health care employment continued to expand in September, with an increase of 44,000.
Within the industry, job gains occurred in ambulatory health care services (+26,000)
and in hospitals (+13,000).

Construction employment increased by 26,000 over the month, after showing little
movement since February. The over-the-month gain was due to employment increases in the
nonresidential construction industries, which includes heavy and civil construction.
Mining employment continued to trend up in September.

Employment in information was up by 34,000 over the month due to the return of about
45,000 telecommunications workers to payrolls after an August strike.

Manufacturing employment changed little in September (-13,000) and has been essentially
flat for the past 2 months.

Within retail trade, employment declined in electronic and appliance stores (-9,000)
in September. Employment in wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial
activities, and leisure and hospitality changed little.

Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-34,000). The U.S.
Postal Service continued to lose jobs (-5,000). Local government employment declined
by 35,000 and has fallen by 535,000 since September 2008.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1
hour over the month to 34.3 hours following a decrease of 0.1 hour in August. The
manufacturing workweek edged down by 0.1 hour in September to 40.2 hours. Factory
overtime increased by 0.1 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours
in September. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
increased by 4 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $23.12. This increase followed a decline of
4 cents in August. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by
1.9 percent. In September, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees increased by 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $19.52. (See tables
B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +85,000 to
+127,000, and the change for August was revised from 0 to +57,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday, November 4,
2011, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

Background Articles and Videos

Unemployment Rate Primer

Economist John Williams on Real Unemployment Rate

Celente: American unemployment rates really around 20%

Obama to Axe Small Business Programs: Lloyd Chapman Reports

Elementary Economics: Is Obama smarter than a 2nd Grader?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos

Posted on August 26, 2011. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Crime, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“… If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. …”

~ Ronald Reagan

Inside Ronald Reagan, A Reason Interview, Manuel Klausner from the July 1975 issue

Woods, Gutzman and Church correct TAS columnist Jeffrey Lord’s many misstatements of truth aimed at Ron Paul and The Founders.

The Southern Avenger – Mark Levin Doesn’t Like the Southern Avenger

SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul

American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Mark Levin’s Constitution

SA@TAC – Was Reagan the Ultimate Hawk?

The Legacy of Ronald Reagan by the Southern Avenger

A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – Is Ron Paul Weird?

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America

SA@TAC – Just Kidding Conservatism

SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?

SA@TAC – Government Intervention, Left and Right

WI-CFL 2011 Annual Conference – Jack Hunter

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 1

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 2

Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 3

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

While I listen to and like Mark Levin’s radio show, I thought he made a fool of himself by relying on the Jeffrey Lord article to attack Ron Paul and his supporters.

Please do your homework Levin, you are only embarrassing yourself.

I have been a conservative since Barry Goldwater ran for President against Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

I have been in both the traditionalist wing of the conservative movement as exemplified by Russell Kirk and the classical liberal or libertarian wing of the conservative movement as exemplified by Ludwig von Mises, Fredrich A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman.

I would describe my own political philosophy as a traditional classical liberal or traditional libertarian.

I am currently part of the tea party movement and support those who want to replace the progressive radical socialists of the Republican establishment who talk like conservatives but walk like progressives–moderate Republicans or RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) or in the past Rockefeller Republicans.

I have also on occasion been called a neoconservative by progressive radical socialists.

I consider the label neoconservative as insulting for I do not consider neoconservatives to be either new or conservative.

They are collectivists or to use Levin’s label, statists, with an interventionist foreign policy. The neoconservatives are the “boat people” of the Democratic Party that sought a new home when George McGovern and the progressive radical socialist took over the Democratic Party. The neoconservatives should get back in their boats and find another home for they are largely responsible for the decline of the Republican Party.

My problem with many of the former Reagan administration civil servants that are now radio talk show hosts including Bill Bennett and Mark Levin is that  they self-identify themselves as conservative and/or classical liberal, but when it comes to foreign policy they are closet neoconservatives that support an active or energetic interventionist foreign policy with it never-ending war on terrorism similiar to the never-ending wars on poverty and drugs.

Under Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic Party become the warfare and welfare party with its wars in Korea and Vietnam to stop communism abroad and the war on poverty at home. Under George W. Bush the Republican party assumed the mantle of the warfare party largely under the influence of the neoconservatives that lead to the war in Iraq.

Like Ron Paul, I believe in a strong national defense but oppose an interventionist foreign policy that includes nation building, policing the world, and preemptive war. When the United States is attacked, Congress should declare war and fight the attackers  until they are utterly and completely defeated. Instead Congress repeatedly allows the President, whether Republican or Democrat, to take the United States into undeclared wars that cost tens of thousands of American lives and wounded and 1,000s of billions of dollars.

It never ceases to amaze me that while radio show hosts like Bennett, Limbaugh, and Levin will go on a rant about government intervention in the economy at home, which I also always agree with, and then they will usually will support a government interventionist foreign policy when a Republican is in the White House and oppose it when a Democrat is in the White House.

While many in their audience will fall for their hypocrisy and failure to connect the dots, I do not.

More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that most wars are a racket and want our troops to be brought home.

The American people want to replace the current warfare and welfare economy and a collectivist state with a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutionalist republic.

The American people want Federal government spending to be dramatically reduced–to live within our means.

The American people want balanced and surplus budgets to be common place and deficit budgets to be a rarity and not a recurring habit of the big spending Democratic and Republican political establishments in Washington D.C.

The United States is financially  bankrupt with a national debt approaching over $15,000 billion and unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid of over $100,000 billion and total public and private assets of about $60,000 billion–this is insolvency!

The United States can no longer afford the warfare and welfare economy.

The United States needs to return to its conservative and libertarian principles of a fiscal responsible Federal government with balanced or surplus budgets and a Federal government that is limited in size and scope.

For decades Ron Paul has been the one consistent and principled conservative/libertarian in the House of Representatives who has been the defender of a constitutional republic.

 Once I too said “I like Ron Paul except for his foreign policy.”, now I fully supportRon Paul especially his non-interventionist foreign policy.

War, Ron Paul, and Conservatism

While I will continue to listen, enjoy and even admire the Bennett, Limbaugh, and Levin talk radio shows, I imagine some day they too will eventually see the wisdom of Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy.

Ron Paul – Imagine – Kinetic Typography

May I suggest they start by reading or rereading Jacob Huebert’s  Libertarianism Today, Bastiat’s The Law, and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind,

Is There Hope for Liberty in Our Lifetime? | Jacob Huebert

David Hart on Frederic Bastiat

Read Bastiat’s ‘The Law’ in PDF for FREE! Compliments of the Foundation for Economic Education.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf

Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles

Ten Conservative Principles

By Russell Kirk

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

“One must bear in mind that the expansion of federal activity is a form of eating for politicians.”

~William F. Buckley, Jr.

Background Articles and Videos

 Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 1 of 4

 Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 2 of 4

 Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 3 of 4

 Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 4 of 4

 

Jack Hunter responds to American Spectator smears: Ron Paul and Conservatism

“…In a recent column, Jeffrey Lord warned that Ron Paul’s presidential bid was secretly a “Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign.” Writes Lord: “the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign — a serious campaign — to re-educate the American people…” For Lord, Paul’s alleged reeducation mission means passing off liberal ideas as conservative. This is amusing — because this is precisely what self-described conservatives of Lord’s ilk have been doing for years.

Imagine that there never was a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left the White House he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama carried out the exact same agenda as Bush — Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — the whole works. Would conservatives have generally supported Obama as they did Bush — or would they have rightly criticized the most big government president in our history at that time?

Despite his glaringly statist record, did Lord ever consider Bush a “neo-liberal”? …”

http://www.dailypaul.com/176098/jack-hunters-responds-to-american-spectator-smears-ron-paul-and-conservatism-an-exchange

Ron Paul and Conservatism: An Exchange

“…Arguably the loudest conservative critic of Bush was Ron Paul, and this was certainly true during the 2008 election. Yet, as we head toward 2012, many presidential candidates are sounding a lot like Paul. Would Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich be attacking the Federal Reserve if running in 2008? Would Michele Bachmann be questioning the Libyan intervention if carried out by Bush? Would Mitt Romney now be saying it is not the United States military’s role to fight for the independence of other nations — the exact opposite of what he said about our role in Iraq in 2008?

Which brings us to Lord’s main beef with Paul: foreign policy.

Woodrow Wilson is the president most associated with early 20th century liberalism, second only to Franklin Roosevelt. During the Bush years, every self-described conservative who believed, as Wilson did, that it was America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy” spoke the language, however unknowingly, of an earlier left-wing liberalism. William F. Buckley and George Will explained in a 2005 interview:

WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?

BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative…

In 2006, The American Spectator‘s Neal Freeman also described the Bush administration’s post 9/11 liberalism: “the Bush administration began to rumble about ‘regime change’ and ‘going it alone,’ and ‘building a democratic Iraq.’ Call this 9/12 approach whatever you will — utopian, neoconservative, Wilsonian — it could not fairly be characterized as ‘conservative.”

Reflecting a more conventional Republican view likely in line with Lord’s, talk host Sean Hannity said in 2009: “You can’t deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues.” Well, at varying times, Bill Buckley, George Will, Robert Novak, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, Paul Weyrich and many other conservatives did indeed deny that Bush’s foreign policy was conservative.

So did Ron Paul.

So did some of the most prominent figures in the history of American conservatism — and that’s even leaving out the libertarians. Traditionalists such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet were some of the heaviest intellectual hitters at early National Review and each held foreign policy views far closer to what Paul believes than what today’s Republican hawks try to portray as conservatism.

Ronald Reagan even won the Cold War with a foreign policy marginally closer to Paul’s cautious approach than what Bush represented, or as former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: “Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”

No, one can’t imagine it. In fact, if using the definition of 2008 Republican presidential nominee and hardline neoconservative John McCain — Reagan would be considered an “isolationist.”

Ah, but Lord thinks anyone who uses the term “neoconservative” must be anti-Semitic. Is David Keene anti-Semitic? When Ann Coulter asks “Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war” is she being anti-Semitic? Is George Will anti-Semitic for writing that the “most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”…”

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/24/ron-paul-and-conservative-reed#

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

By on 8.23.11 @ 6:09AM

“…Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.

This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.”

The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.

There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)

The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.

From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.

But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day.

Specifically this included the following prominent leaders of the non-interventionist/isolationist camp:

• Liberal Republican William Borah, the Senator from Idaho
• Liberal Republican George Norris, the Congressman and Senator from Nebraska
• Liberal Republican Gerald Nye, the Senator from North Dakota
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Sr., the Senator from Wisconsin
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Jr., the Senator from Wisconsin

To go back and re-read the arguments of these prominent GOP liberals as to why America should not intervene in World War I or World War II, striking dated references, and one would think one were reading the latest Ron Paul press release. George Norris and LaFollette Sr. were both vocal opponents of World War I, for instance, blaming “greed” (LaFollette) and “munition” makers, the early 20th century version of Paul’s attacks on “neoconservatives” or the military-industrial complex. …”

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama Or Romney–Southern Baptist Convention Problem With Mormons Remains High–What Would Ronald Reagan Do?–Video

Posted on July 5, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Richard Land on Mitt Romney and Mormonism

 

 

In U.S., 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012

“…Though the vast majority of Americans say they would vote for their party’s nominee for president in 2012 if that person happens to be a Mormon, 22% say they would not, a figure largely unchanged since 1967. …”

 

 

“…Bottom Line

Americans’ reluctance to support a Mormon for president has held close to the 20% level since Gallup first measured this in 1967, and long after historical biases against voting for blacks, Catholics, Jews, and women have dwindled.

Currently, 18% of Republicans say they would not vote for their party’s nominee if that person happened to be Mormon. This may be less troubling for Romney in the GOP primaries, where the vote could be highly fractured anyway, than in the general election, where — should he win the Republican nomination — he would need nearly complete support from Republicans to be competitive with President Obama. However, Kennedy’s success in overcoming a similar challenge in 1960 relating to his Catholic faith may give hope to Romney and his supporters about his electability in 2012. …”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

A Mormon’s Ultimate Doorbell

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

“…From the start of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in upstate New York 180 years ago, missionaries have been spreading the message that Christianity lost its way and Mormonism restores the Christian church to its rightful path. The first prophet of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, essentially threw down the gauntlet to the other churches. He was killed at the hands of a mob.

But the prophet begat apostles, and their converts begat converts — energetic, courageous types who ventured as far as Hawaii, England, Brazil and Tonga to evangelize. Today, the church counts more than 12 million members, of whom about 5.5 million are Americans. Internationally, about 70 percent of Mormons are converts.

Mormons are still but a drop in the bucket of 2.1 billion Christians worldwide (Mormons say they are Christians, a point of contention for their Christian critics). Nevertheless there are some Christians who foresee a Mormon tidal wave, and they picture Mr. Romney riding its crest — even though he has repeatedly said he would not use his office to advance his faith.

“His candidacy alone has been a long infomercial for the Mormon cult,” said Bill Keller, an evangelist in Florida who runs an Internet prayer network. “As president he’s going to carry the influence of that office, not just here but worldwide, and there’s no denying it’s going to lead people to check out that religion, which according to biblical Christianity, will lead them ultimately to hell.”

Mike Licona, the director of apologetics and interfaith evangelism at the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, is publishing a three-part series on what he sees as errors in Mormon teachings. The most troubling, he said in an interview, is the Mormon concept of multiple gods, and the belief that men can become gods of their own worlds.

The church has walked a fine line for years between emphasizing what it has in common with traditional Christianity and not shying away from its distinctions. (The church’s own explanations of its beliefs, of course, differ from those of its detractors.) Realizing that having a Mormon run for president would raise questions, the headquarters in Salt Lake City posted explanations of church history and doctrine on its Web site. The church does not endorse candidates.

The rhetoric of those like Mr. Keller is extreme, and his use of the term “cult” naturally offends Mormons and others. But he is voicing feelings shared by Christians in other denominations who fret that a Mormon presidency could attract converts to a faith they perceive as a heretical rival.

One in four Americans tell pollsters they have qualms about voting for a Mormon. Among evangelical Christians, it is one in three — a factor that could have an impact in Republican primaries in states like Iowa and South Carolina. Of course, anti-Mormon sentiment is not exclusive to evangelicals, since Mormon theology is a challenge to all Christian denominations. But evangelicals, as active proselytizers and missionaries themselves, appear to be leading the charge. …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09goodstein.html?ref=southernbaptistconvention

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

5 of top 25 churches are growing

From Ecumenical News International:

“…While overall membership may be increasing, only five of the top 25 churches in the nation are growing, according to the Yearbook.

The 10 largest Christian bodies remain unchanged from last year’s list, with one exception. The Assemblies of God moved up a notch, to the No. 9 spot, switching places with the Presbyterian Church (USA), which now finishes last on the Top 10 list.
The 10 largest Christian bodies reported in the 2010 yearbook are:
   1. The Catholic Church: 68.1 million, up 1.49 percent.
   2. Southern Baptist Convention: 16.2 million, down 0.24 percent.
   3. The United Methodist Church: 7.8 million (U.S.), down 0.98 percent.
   4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 5.9 million (U.S.), up 1.71 percent.
   5. The Church of God in Christ: 5.5 million, no change.
   6. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc: 5 million, no change.
   7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: 4.6 million, down 1.62 percent.
   8. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.: 3.5 million, no change.
   9. Assemblies of God: 2.9 million, up 1.27 percent.
 10. Presbyterian Church (USA); 2.8 million, down 3.28 percent. …” 

What Is Mormonism? A Baptist Answer

By David Van Biema

“…The Mormons regard themselves as Christians, and Jesus figures prominently on the covers of LDS publications. They believe that after the death of Christ’s apostles his church became confused, a period that ended only with the restoration of the Gospel by the presentation of another book of scripture by an angel to LDS founder Joseph Smith.

Most Christian theologians, however, disagree, not just because they disbelieve the angel story and the Book of Mormon that resulted, but by pointing to Mormon concepts including the ability of humans to become godlike entities after death. Most perturbed have been conservative Evangelicals like the Southern Baptists, who share many of the Mormons’ conservatiave social values yet have a very strict view of what is and what is not scripture, and find themselves in competition with the LDS for congregants.

Yet the question of what exactly Mormons are, if they aren’t Christian, has taken on increasing urgency as Romney has gained support among values voters (coming in first, for instance, in a straw poll taken by the Family Research Council last Saturday, narrowly edging out Arkansas Govenor Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor). Neither the theological nor the political issue is settled in the Baptist heart. EthicsDaily.com reports that the pastor of the largest Baptist church in Spartanburg, S.C., first endorsed Romney and recently retracted the endorsement, calling it a “personal mistake,” while a prominent colleague in Texas is quoted as saying, “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he is not a Christian… Mormonism is a cult.”

EthicsDaily.com implies that the Texan’s position may be out of date, since SBC documents that had previously listed the faith under a “cults and sects” section have moved it to a “newly developed religions” page.

But Land’s comment seems to go a step further. A cult, he said on the Bloomberg show, “is a form of faith which does not comply with the essential teachings of the Christian faith but claims to be within the Christian faith or to be the true expression of the Christian faith, as opposed to being another religion like Judaism.” Land explained that he would look at Mormonism “as another faith in the same sense that I would look upon Islam as another faith. I think the fairest and most charitable way to define Mormonism would be to call it the fourth Abrahamic religion — Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third, and Mormonism being the fourth. And Joseph Smith would play the same character in Mormonism that Muhammad plays in Islam.” …”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1675308,00.html#ixzz1RFkIC068

 

Russ East on The Biggest Differences Between Mormonism Compared To Christianity

 

Shawn McCraney on The Biggest Differences Between Mormonism Compared To Christianity

Bill McKeever on The Biggest Differences Between Mormonism Compared To Christianity

 

Eric Johnson on The Biggest Differences Between Mormonism Compared To Christianity

 

Steve Kay on The Biggest Problem With Mormonism

 

What’s The Problem With Mormons

 

What’s The Problem With Mormons Part-2

 

What’s The Problem With Mormons Part-3 (Meet Elder Davis).

 

A Black Mormon Talks

Red State Update: Mormon President? Obama Not Black?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ronald Reagan Kicks Off His Presidential Campagin At Liberty State Park On Labor Day, September 1, 1980–Videos

Posted on June 21, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ronald Reagan – Liberty State Park [Pt. 1] –Videos

President Ronald Reagan kicks off his presidential campaign with a Labor Day speech at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey. Delivered 1 September 1980.

 

Ronald Reagan – Liberty State Park [Pt. 2]

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul Is Running For President of The United States In 2012!–The Third Time Is The Charm–A Man Of Integrity–A Candidate For Peace and Prosperity–Neither A Big Government Warfare Republican Nor A Massive Government Welfare Democrat–A Man Of And For The American People–A Tea Party Patriot–Ron Paul–Videos

Posted on April 26, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 28:May 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 27:May 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 26:May 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-28

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

 

Four Years Ago

Ron Paul Releases Presidential Exploratory Committee

Barry Goldwater, Jr. Endorses Ron Paul

 

Now

Ron Paul Why I Want To Be President

 

Ron Paul for President

 

Ron Paul 2012: “Freedom Is Popular” – 6 Year Old Homeschooler Knows What Liberty Means

 

Ron Paul To Form Presidential Exploratory Committee

 

Ron Paul interviewed by Stephen Colbert 4/25/2011


Ron Paul to Announce 2012 Bid

 

Ron Paul on The View 04/25/11

 

American’s Takeoff To Peace And Prosperity vs. America’s Road To Serfdom

Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama for President – Rasmussen Poll 1% Difference

CNN Downplays Ron Paul’s Electability… This Is So 2008

Thomas Woods interviews Ron Paul on Peter Schiff Show 4/20/11

My political philosophy is classical liberalism.

In America a classical liberal is commonly identified as a libertarian and occasionally a conservative.

Classical liberals or libertarians favor a government that is limited in both size and scope and takes the form of a constitutional republic.

I became a classical liberal when Senator Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 when I read his book, the Conscience of A Conservative.

Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater

 

Barry Goldwater, A True Conservative

The Conscience Of A Conservative

Freedom is the Only Solution

Ever since I have considered myself a member of the conservative movement and a traditional libertarian.

Today I am an independent and support the tea party movement and their candidates for public office. 

Senator Barry Goldwater lost to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 for the office of President of The United States.

President Johnson was largely responsible for America’s war in Vietnam, the war on poverty and socialized medicine, namely Medicare.

The Democrats lost both the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty.

Socialized medicine in the form of Medicare while still popular is running massive deficits that will only become larger as the baby boom generation turn age 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare starting in 2011.

Today Medicare is actually costing more than ten times the estimated cost when it was originally passed in 1965.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed and controlled and owned by the individual and not by the Federal Government.

Otherwise Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will become insolvent and the promises made to the American people broken.

I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections

The Real Fiscal Cancer that will Bankrupt the United States

 

I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole

 

Baby boomers and Medicare spell rationing


 

Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan opposed socialized medicine and warned of its cost in 1964.

 

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

The Very Best of Ronald Reagan

The only Presidential candidate that I trust to do the right thing in addressing the above issues is Ron Paul.

The only Presidential candidate that has consistently supported a constitutional republic is Ron Paul.

The only Presidential candidate that has consistently voted for limited government in both size and scope is Ron Paul.

The only Presidential candidate that has consistently opposed government interventionism in the economy at home and nation building abroad is Ron Paul.

If you want to return the United States of America to a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutional republic, support and vote for Ron Paul.

If you want the continuation of the United States of America’s warfare and welfare economy with a collectivist tyrannical state, you will have many choices from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

I plan to support and vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

I hope and pray he gets the Republican nomination as their candidate for President of the United States of America.

I hope and pray that Ron Paul and the Republican Party choose Michele Backmann as his running mate for Vice-President of the United States.

Ron Paul / Michele Bachmann Student Town Hall @ UofMN – Sponsored by YAL – 2 of 9

The third time is the charm.

Obama and Congress to Murder More American Soldiers and Tax You for the Wars

Message for Democrats and Republicans from the Late Senator Barry Goldwater

Government is Oppression

Barry Goldwater Jr. Introduces Ron Paul

Join the second American Revolution and campaign for liberty.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”

~George Washington

 

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 1/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 2/6)

 

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 3/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 4/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 5/6)

Ron Paul : The Drug War Has Killed More People Than The Drugs! (Part 6/6)

 

Ron Paul Will Rock You

Money Bomb May 5, 2011

 

Ron Paul Launches Presidential Campaign

“…Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he’s going to try a third time.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHqqfkcreFA

2012 Presidential bid: Third time could be the charm for Ron Paul

“…Republican Congressman Ron Paul is expected to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on Tuesday, a key step in any bid for the White House and a third attempt for the White House from the congressman.

They say the third time is the charm, and one likely does not need to tell that to Republican congressman Ron Paul. However, on Tuesday Mr. Paul intends to announce the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, according to a National Journalreport.

Congressman Paul, active in his twelfth term as a House legislator and known for his decidedly Libertarian views, will make a third run for the White House in what appears to be shaping up to be a considerably crowded Republican presidential contest.

“Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote,” Cameron Joseph reported for the National Journal. “After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his ‘money bomb’ fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.”

Mr. Paul has been an influential voice for a new generation of Republicans in Congress, and many of his positions have been attributed to Tea Party sentiments that have managed to make their way into mainstream Republican discourse and have posed a considerable challenge to the Obama administration and the remaining Democratic majority in the Senate following the 2010 mid-term elections this past November.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305997#ixzz1KdjFuwyy

Medicare

“…Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. Medicare operates similarly to a single-payer health care system.[1]

The program also funds residency training programs for the vast majority of physicians in the United States.

The Social Security Act of 1965 was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to existing Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony, Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card, and Truman’s wife Bess, the second.[2] …”

“…Costs and funding challenges

The costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[47] According to the 2004 “Green Book” of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion.

Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007 or 16% of all federal spending and grew to $599 billion in 2008 which was 20% of federal spending.[48] The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare’s financing over the long-term may well require significant changes.[49]

According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.[49][50][51][52] Shortly after the release of the report, the Chief Actuary testified that the insolvency of the system could be pushed back by 18 months if Medicare Advantage plans that provide more health care services than traditional Medicare and pass savings onto beneficiaries were paid at the same rate as the traditional fee-for-service program. He also testified that the 10-year cost of Medicare drug benefit is 37% lower than originally projected in 2003, and 17% percent lower than last year’s projections.[53] The New York Times wrote in January 2009 that Social Security and Medicare “have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run.”[54]

Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. While the same demographic trends that affect Social Security also affect Medicare, rapidly rising medical prices appear a more important cause of projected spending increases. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that: “Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy.” Further, the CBO also projects that “total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population.”[55]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

The Conscience of a Conservative

“…The Conscience of a Conservative is a book published under the name of Arizona Senator and 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1960. The book reignited the American conservative movement and made Barry Goldwater a political star. The book has influenced countless conservatives in the United States, helping to lay the foundation for the Reagan Revolution in 1980.[1]

The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law of William F. Buckley.[1] Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team. They had co-authored the controversial book, McCarthy and His Enemies, in 1955. Bozell had been Goldwater’s speechwriter in the 1950s, and was familiar with many of his ideals. The first edition, 1960, is 123 pages in length and was published in the United States. The book covers such topics as education, labor unions and policies, civil rights, agricultural policy and farm subsidies, social welfare programs, and income taxation. The book is considered to be a significant statement of politically and economically American conservative ideas which were to gain influence during the following decades.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Conservative

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos

Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos

Ron Paul Tells The Truth–The Political Elites Are Not Serious About Cutting The Budget–The Coming Collapse Of The Dollar And Inflation–Videos

The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos

Prescient Congressman Ron Paul On Government Interventionism–July 10, 2003 On Floor Of The House of Representatives–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( Comments Off on Ron Paul Is Running For President of The United States In 2012!–The Third Time Is The Charm–A Man Of Integrity–A Candidate For Peace and Prosperity–Neither A Big Government Warfare Republican Nor A Massive Government Welfare Democrat–A Man Of And For The American People–A Tea Party Patriot–Ron Paul–Videos )

Will Ron Paul Run For President In 2012?–Expect An Announcement On July 4, 2011–He Will Get My Vote!–Videos

Posted on February 17, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Monetary Policy, Money | Tags: , , , , , , , |


 

Ron Paul: Congress Won’t Stop Spending until the Dollar Fails

 

Ron Paul: Message of Liberty – Big question is are The People ready for it?

 

Ron Paul CPAC 2011 Speech

 

Breaking: Ron Paul 2012 Grassroots Petition Attracts 15,000 Signatures!

 

Ron Paul 2012? Sign the Petition – Spread the Message!

 

Banned Ron Paul video

 

 

YouTube BANNED incredible Ron Paul Video

 

National Right to Life Convention

 

Ron Paul for John Paul

 

Ron Paul: A New Hope