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 )

Marco Rubio Neoconservative Posterboy Defends Mitt Romney–Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives-Coming Soon–Wars In Iran, Syria, Pakistan–American Greatness By Empire Building–Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace In An Era of Righteousness!–Videos

Posted on January 25, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Socialism and interventionism. Both have in common the goal of subordinating the individual unconditionally to the state.”

“Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.”

~Ludwig von Mises

“A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.”

~Russell Kirk

Mitt Romney’s Campaign Run by GOP Defector Charlie Crist’s Political Staff

“Mitt Romney is no Charlie Crist. Romney is a conservative. and he was one of the first national Republican leaders to endorse me. He came to Florida, campaigned hard for me, and made a real difference in my race.”

~Marco Rubio

Florida Senator Marco Rubio should have said that Mitt Romney is a progressive neoconservative, just like me.

Mitt Romney: “My Views Are Progressive” 

The REAL Mitt Romney: Flip-Flopper Extraordinaire

MittvMitt.com: The story of two men trapped in one body 

Rush Limbaugh – Romney Is Not Mr. Conservative

Bill O’Reilly interviews Marco Rubio

SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

SA@TAC – Israel and the Right

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Real Conservatives Must Rethink War

SA@TAC – A Conservative Foreign Policy Comeback? 

SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist

SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

Both libertarian conservatives and traditional conservatives will need to find a new political party should the Republican Party establishment dominated by progressive neoconservatives get their dream ticket of Romney and Rubio, the Republican’s R&R.

Such a ticket would leave no doubt that the right-wing progressives, formerly of the Democratic Party and now calling themselves neoconservatives, have won and destroyed the Republican Party.

Real conservatives, both libertarians and traditionalists, will form another political party and search for candidates that want neither a warfare or welfare state.

Both the progressive socialists of the welfare Democratic Party and progressive neoconservatives of the warfare Republican Party are statists and collectivists that want the American people to be dependent upon big government.

The American people will reject both the left-wing progressive socialists that offer welfare and right-wing progressive neoconservatives that offer warfare.

The American people will support libertarian and traditional conservatives that advocate limited government with balanced budgets and a peace and prosperity economy.

As both a libertarian and traditional conservative and tea party patriot, I for one will not vote for a progressive socialist ticket of Obama/Biden or a progressive neoconservative ticket of Romney/Rubio.

Progressives of either stripe are tickets to serfdom with out of control government spending and massive government deficits and debts requiring higher taxes and inflation.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Republican presidential candidates  Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are also big government progressive neoconservatives.

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

SA@TAC – Compassionate Conservative Rick Santorum 

Romney, Rubio, Gingrich and Santorum are all big government progressive neoconservatives that want a war with Iran.

Iran, Iran So Far Away 

Romney, Gingrich and Paul on A Nuclear Iran – CBS News & National Journal GOP Debate

Ron Paul destroys Rick Santorum on Iran During Ames Iowa Debate!

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! 

I will be voting for Ron Paul, the only libertarian and traditional conservative candidate for president.

Paul wants limited government, lower taxes, balanced budgets and a non-interventionist foreign policy with all wars being declared as required by the Constitution.

SA@TAC – The Return of the Real Right

SA@TAC – Rand Paul, Jim DeMint and the GOP

SA@TheDC – Conservatism’s Future: Young Americans for Liberty

“I like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”

“An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government.”

~Dr. Ron Paul

Background Articles and Videos

Gov. Romney Endorses Rubio In Tampa

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aNmQ3sw3ms]

Romney Campaign Run by Charlie Crist’s Political Aides

By Andrew Henry

“…As Mitt Romney puts the South Carolina primary in his rear-view mirror and hits the accelerator in a bid to win Florida, he may discover himself crashing headlong into the bitter legacy of Charlie Crist, the former Florida governor who defected from the GOP and was soundly defeated for the U.S. Senate by Marco Rubio.
Romney’s “Charlie Crist” problem is this: Romney’s chief campaign strategist and several of his most senior campaign staff were Crist’s top political advisers — the same ones who crafted Crist’s moderate, ignore-the-tea-party strategy epitomized in Crist’s famous “hug” of President Barack Obama. That strategy led Crist, once the most popular Republican governor in the nation, to defeat.

Crist’s erstwhile political team was led by controversial GOP strategist Stuart Stevens. Stevens and partner Russ Schriefer are the principals in the high-profile Stevens & Schriefer Group consultant firm and are playing the lead role in crafting Romney’s primary and national campaign strategy.

According to the Stevens & Schriefer website, the firm had a long history with Crist, serving as chief strategists for his bids for education commissioner, attorney general, governor, and later for the U.S. Senate.

Other senior Crist political aides from his failed Senate campaign now hold key posts in Romney’s campaign. Amanda Henneberg, who had served as  Crist’s press secretary, now is a spokeswoman with the Romney 2012 campaign. Likewise, Andrea Saul, who was Crist’s communications director, now is Romney’s press secretary. …”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romney-crist-rubio-gingrich/2012/01/23/id/425195

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Russell Kirk–The Traditional Conservative That Predicted 9/11–Videos

Posted on September 11, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

SA@TheDC – Russell Kirk and 9/11

SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TheDC – Does Attacking Neoconservatism Reflect Racism or Reality?

SA@TAC – A Conservative Foreign Policy Comeback?

SA@TAC- Who’s an ‘Isolationist?’

SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?

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/

Background Articles and Videos

Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Marco Rubio Is A Neoconservative–For That Reason Alone The American People Will Never Elect Him President–Rush Is Wrong–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

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

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

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 )

John Birch Society–Videos

Posted on May 1, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 John Birch Society – Overview of America – Part 1

John Birch Society – Overview of America – Part 2

John Birch Society – Overview of America – Part 3

John Birch Society – Overview of America – Part 4

Glenn Beck: John Birch Society Makes Sense. Interviewed JBS spokesman Sam Antonio

JBS Founder, Robert Welch Predicts the Destruction of America with Remarkable Accuracy!

The John Birch Society vs. The Communists

Robert Welch Explains Purpose of Vietnam War

Goldwater, the John Birch Society and Me

By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

“…In the early months of 1962, there was restiveness in certain political quarters of the right. The concern was primarily the growing strength of the Soviet Union, and the reiteration by its leaders of their designs on the free world. Some of the actors keenly concerned felt that Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona was a natural leader in the days ahead.

But it seemed inconceivable that an antiestablishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal–the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for president–was the John Birch Society.

The society had been founded in 1958 by an earnest and capable entrepreneur named Robert Welch, a candy man, who brought together little clusters of American conservatives, most of them businessmen. He demanded two undistracted days in exchange for his willingness to give his seminar on the Communist menace to the United States, which he believed was more thoroughgoing and far-reaching than anyone else in America could have conceived. His influence was near-hypnotic, and his ideas wild. He said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the government of the United States was “under operational control of the Communist party.” It was, he said in the summer of 1961, “50-70 percent” Communist-controlled. …”

“…Moving on, Baroody brought up the John Birch Society. It was quickly obvious that this was the subject Goldwater wished counsel on.

Kirk, unimpeded by his little professorial stutter, greeted the subject with fervor. It was his opinion, he said emphatically, that Robert Welch was a man disconnected from reality. How could anyone reason, as Welch had done in “The Politician,” that President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists? This mischievous unreality was a great weight on the back of responsible conservative political thinking. The John Birch Society should be renounced by Goldwater and by everyone else–Kirk turned his eyes on me–with any influence on the conservative movement.

But that, Goldwater said, is the problem. Consider this, he exaggerated: “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society. Russell, I’m not talking about Commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks, I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs. Any of you know who Frank Cullen Brophy is?”

I raised my hand. “I spent a lot of time with him. He was going to contribute capital to help found National Review. He didn’t.” Brophy was a prominent Arizona banker. …”

“…Time was given to the John Birch Society lasting through lunch, and the subject came up again the next morning. We resolved that conservative leaders should do something about the John Birch Society. An allocation of responsibilities crystallized.

Goldwater would seek out an opportunity to dissociate himself from the “findings” of the Society’s leader, without, however, casting any aspersions on the Society itself. I, in National Review and in my other writing, would continue to expose Welch and his thinking to scorn and derision. “You know how to do that,” said Jay Hall.

I volunteered to go further. Unless Welch himself disowned his operative fallacy, National Review would oppose any support for the society.

“How would you define the Birch fallacy?” Jay Hall asked.

“The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”

“I like that,” Goldwater said.

What would Russell Kirk do? He was straightforward. “Me? I’ll just say, if anybody gets around to asking me, that the guy is loony and should be put away.”

“Put away in Alaska?” I asked, mock-seriously. The wisecrack traced to Robert Welch’s expressed conviction, a year or so earlier, that the state of Alaska was being prepared to house anyone who doubted his doctrine that fluoridated water was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120413132440097025.html

Stand up for Freedom – Part 5- Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 6 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 7 – Ezra Taft Benson

John Birch Society

“…The John Birch Society is a radical right-wing,[1][2] Americentric political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, and personal freedom.[3]

It was founded in 1958 by Robert W. Welch Jr. in Indianapolis, Indiana, and it was named after John Birch—a United States military intelligence officer and Baptist missionary in World War II—who was killed in 1945 by supporters of the Communist Party of China.[4] Birch’s parents joined the society as life members.[5] Currently headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin,[6] the society has local chapters in all 50 states. It owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the journal The New American.[7]

The society says it is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-socialist and anti-communist. It seeks to limit the powers of government and defends the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, which it sees as based on Christian principles. It opposes collectivism, including wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, socialism, communism, and fascism. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed president, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right (he defined New Right as “Viguerie and post-Viguerie”).[8]

The society opposed aspects of the civil rights movement in the 1960s because of its concerns that the movement had communists in important positions. The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society is against “one world government”, and has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. The society argues that there is a devaluing of the U.S. Constitution in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this trend is not an accident. It cites the existence of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.[9]

Values

The society upholds an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which it identifies with fundamentalist Christian principles, seeks to limit governmental powers, and opposes wealth redistribution, and economic interventionism. It not only opposes practices it terms collectivism, Totalitarianism, and communism, but socialism and fascism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating US governmental administration. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed president, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right.[9]

The society opposed aspects of the 1960s civil rights movement because it claimed the movement had communists in important positions. In the latter half of 1965, the JBS produced a flyer titled “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?,” which was used as a newspaper advertisement.[10][11] In the piece, one of the answers was: “For the civil rights movement in the United States, with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps towards the appearance of a civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than forty years.”[12] The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states’ rights to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society opposes “one world government”, and has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue the U.S. Constitution has been devalued to favor of political and economic globalization, and that such alleged trend is not accidental. It cites the existence of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.[13] Stuart A. Wright has said that their political racism however was no different from both Republicans and Democratic politicians of the time.[14]

Characterizations

It has been described as “ultraconservative”,[15] “far right”,[16] and “extremist”.[17] The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the society as a “‘Patriot’ Group”.[18] Other sources consider the society as part of the patriot movement.[19][20]

History

Origins

The society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana, on December 9, 1958, by a group of 12 led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. Welch named the new organization after John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and U.S. military intelligence officer who was killed by communist forces in China in August 1945, shortly after the conclusion of World War II. Welch claimed that Birch was an unknown but dedicated anti-communist,[6] and the first American casualty, Welch contended, of the Cold War.

One of the founding members[21][22][23] was Fred Koch,[24] founder of Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in America.[25] Another was Revilo P. Oliver, a University of Illinois professor who later severed his relationship with the society and helped found the National Alliance. A transcript of Welch’s two-day presentation at the founding meeting was published as The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, and became a cornerstone of its beliefs, with each new member receiving a copy.[9] According to Welch, “both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country’s sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, managed by a ‘one-world socialist government.'”[26][27] Welch saw collectivism as the main threat to Western Civilization, and liberals as “secret communist traitors” who provided cover for the gradual process of collectivism, with the ultimate goal of replacing the nations of western civilization with a one-world socialist government. “There are many stages of welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general,” he wrote, “but Communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction.”[27]

The society’s activities include distribution of literature, pamphlets, magazines, videos and other educational material while sponsoring a Speaker’s Bureau, which invites “speakers who are keenly aware of the motivations that drive political policy”.[28] One of the first public activities of the society was a “Get US Out!” (of membership in the UN) campaign, which claimed in 1959 that the “Real nature of [the] UN is to build a One World Government.”[29] In 1960, Welch advised JBS members to: “Join your local P.T.A. at the beginning of the school year, get your conservative friends to do likewise, and go to work to take it over.”[30] One Man’s Opinion, a magazine launched by Welch in 1956, was renamed American Opinion, and became the society’s official publication. The society publishes the biweekly journal The New American. [8]

1960s

By March 1961 the society had 60,000 to 100,000 members and, according to Welch, “a staff of 28 people in the Home Office; about 30 Coordinators (or Major Coordinators) in the field, who are fully paid as to salary and expenses; and about 100 Coordinators (or Section Leaders as they are called in some areas), who work on a volunteer basis as to all or part of their salary, or expenses, or both.” According to Political Research Associates (a progressive research group that investigates the far right), the society “pioneered grassroots lobbying, combining educational meetings, petition drives and letter-writing campaigns.[27] One early campaign against the second summit between the United States and the Soviet Union generated over 600,000 postcards and letters, according to the society. A June 1964 society campaign to oppose Xerox corporate sponsorship of TV programs favorable to the UN produced 51,279 letters from 12,785 individuals.”[27]

In the 1960s Welch insisted that the Johnson administration’s fight against communism in Vietnam was part of a communist plot aimed at taking over the United States. Welch demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam, thus aligning the Society with the far left.[31] The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called “mass medicine”[32] and saw as a communist plot to poison Americans.[33]

The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. Indeed, it was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch’s conspiracy theories. As Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, “I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism… I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today’s world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas.”[34][35]

Former Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson—a leading Mormon—spoke in favor of the John Birch Society, but in January 1963 the LDS church issued a statement distancing itself from the Society.[36] Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and various religious groups criticized the group’s acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas.[37][38][39] Welch rejected these accusations by his detractors: “All we are interested in here is opposing the advance of the Communists, and eventually destroying the whole Communist conspiracy, so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world in which to live.”[40]

In 1964 Welch favored Barry Goldwater over Richard Nixon for the Republican presidential nomination, but the membership split, with two-thirds supporting Goldwater and one-third supporting Nixon. A number of Birch members and their allies were Goldwater supporters in 1964[41] and some were delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention. The JBS played no known role in the fall election campaign.

In April 1966, a New York Times article on New Jersey and the society voiced—in part—a concern for “the increasing tempo of radical right attacks on local government, libraries, school boards, parent-teacher associations, mental health programs, the Republican Party and, most recently, the ecumenical movement.”[42] It then characterized the society as “by far the most successful and ‘respectable’ radical right organization in the country. It operates alone or in support of other extremist organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of the Birchers, is the internal Communist conspiracy in the United States.”

Eisenhower issue

Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, “Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes.” He went on. “With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.”[43]

The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.[44]

The sensationalism of Welch’s charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley’s circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as “paranoid and idiotic libels” and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.[45] From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.[46] In fact, Buckley’s biographer John B. Judis wrote that “Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted.”[46]

1970s

The society was at the center of an important free-speech law case in the 1970s, after American Opinion accused a Chicago lawyer representing the family of a young man killed by a police officer of being part of a Communist conspiracy to merge all police agencies in the country into one large force. The resulting libel suit, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that a state may allow a private figure such as Gertz to recover actual damages from a media defendant without proving malice, but that a public figure does have to prove actual malice, according to the standard laid out in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in order to recover presumed damages or punitive damages.[47] The court ordered a retrial in which Gertz prevailed.

Key society causes of the 1970s included opposition to both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and to the establishment of diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China. The society claimed in 1973 that the regime of Mao Zedong had murdered 64 million Chinese as of that year and that it was the primary supplier of illicit heroin into the United States. This led to bumper stickers showing a pair of scissors cutting a hypodermic needle in half accompanied by the slogan “Cut The Red China Connection.” According to the Voice of America, the society also was opposed to transferring control of the Panama Canal from American to Panamanian sovereignty.[48]

The society was organized into local chapters during this period. Ernest Brosang, a New Jersey regional coordinator, claimed that it was virtually impossible for opponents of the society to penetrate its policy-making levels, thereby protecting it from “anti-American” takeover attempts. Its activities included the distribution of literature critical of civil rights legislation, warnings over the influence of the United Nations, and the release of petitions to impeach U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. To spread their message, members held showings of documentary films and operated initiatives such as “Let Freedom Ring”, a nation-wide network of recorded telephone messages.

After Welch

By the time of Welch’s death in 1985, the society’s membership and influence had dramatically declined, but the UN’s role in the Gulf War and President George H.W. Bush’s call for a ‘New World Order’ appeared to many society members to validate their claims about a “One World Government” conspiracy.

The society continues to press for an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations. As evidence of the effectiveness of JBS efforts, the society points to the Utah State Legislature’s failed resolution calling for U.S. withdrawal, as well as the actions of several other states where the Society’s membership has been active. The society repeatedly opposed overseas war-making, although it is strongly supportive of the American military. It has issued calls to “Bring Our Troops Home” in every conflict since its founding, including Vietnam. The society also has a national speakers’ committee called American Opinion Speakers Bureau (AOSB) and an anti-tax committee called TRIM (Tax Reform IMmediately).[49]

The second head of the Society was Congressman Larry McDonald from Georgia, who was killed on September 1, 1983, when the Soviets shot down KAL 007. The only congressman killed by the Soviets during the Cold War, he was on the way to the 30th year commemoration of the U.S.-S. Korea Mutual Defense Treaty in Seoul.

2009–present

The Society has been active in supporting the auditing[50] of, and aims to eventually dismantle, the Federal Reserve System. The JBS believes that the U.S. Constitution gave only Congress the ability to coin money, and did not intend for it to delegate this power to a banking monopoly, or to transform it into a fiat currency not backed by gold or silver.

The JBS was a co-sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, ending its decades-long exile from the mainstream conservative movement.[citation needed] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

JBS Founder Robert Welch in 1974: Forerunner of Ron Paul?

 Robert Welch: The Truth in Time [Preview]

John Birch Society

http://www.jbs.org/

 John McManus(In-Studio)on Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Obama’s Dictatorial Agenda for America !!

John McManus(In-Studio)on Alex Jones Tv 2/5:Obama’s Dictatorial Agenda for America !!

John McManus(In-Studio)on Alex Jones Tv 3/5:Obama’s Dictatorial Agenda for America !!

John McManus(In-Studio)on Alex Jones Tv 4/5:Obama’s Dictatorial Agenda for America !!

John McManus(In-Studio)on Alex Jones Tv 4/5:Obama’s Dictatorial Agenda for America !!

Background Articles and Videos

Stand up for Freedom – Part 1 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 2 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 3 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 4 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 5- Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 6 – Ezra Taft Benson

Stand up for Freedom – Part 7 – Ezra Taft Benson

Socialized Healthcare, Evil, Freedom Destroying, by Ezra Taft Benson

Mormon History: LDS (Mormon) Prophet Ezra Taft Benson 1/2

Mormon History: LDS (Mormon) Prophet Ezra Taft Benson 2/2

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

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

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Posted on September 16, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Economics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Beatles – Revolution

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

~Thomas Jefferson et al,

The Declaration of Independence

UPDATED

The Truth About Neocons

Many movement conservatives deeply resent being called neoconservatives or neocons.

I consider myself to be a movement conservative that is comfortable in both the traditionalist and libertarian wings of the conservative movement represented by the works of the late Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friederick Hayek.

While I agree with neoconservatives on many occasions and issues, I part company when they advocate preemptive attacks on nations that have not attacked the United States, democracy nation-building, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, where I agree with Pat Buchanan. I part company with Mr. Buchanan’s views on free trade. I am a free trader.

Neoconservatives are first and foremost big government conservatives, which I regard as the problem, not the solution. I agree with the late President Ronald Reagan:

A Reminder from Ronald Reagan

Should Senator McCain be elected President, which I think he will, and should Senator McCain propose neoconservative policies and programs, I for one will advocate and support the formation of another political party.

I will follow the sage advice of Dick Armey and leave.

Dick Armey discusses big government conservatism

I am tired of being betrayed by Republicans who say one thing to get elected and turn around and do the exact opposite–Presidents George H. Bush and George W. Bush to name two, who I voted for with great expectations and now have very deep regrets for doing so.

Both Presidents increased taxes– the first directly and the second indirectly by massive deficit spending and open borders resulting in dramatic increases in local and state taxes to provide for education, services, medical care, welfare, jails, and prisons for illegal aliens. Not a single Federal department was eliminated such as Education, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, and Commerce for starters. Few spending bills were vetoed, a sheer mockery of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Bush Has Doubled National Debt with Deficits

You can say I am a conservative, libertarian, or classical liberal, but please not a neoconservative, and if things are not changed or reformed in Washington, I will not be voting Republican much longer.

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

The Pentagons New Map – Thomas Barnett lecture

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025

Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.[1][2]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had “moved to the right”.[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about.”[1]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, an American Jew from an orthodox Jewish family[6], and father of William Kristol who became the founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol had been an active supporter of Trotskyism, but wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[3] Kristol’s ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[7]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[8][9] The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence and considered central to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, shortly before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. Neoconservative influence on American foreign policy later became central with the Bush Doctrine.

Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neocons aiding ’08 Republicans

“Most Americans disapprove of the Iraq war and of exporting democracy by force, yet neoconservative proponents of those policies advise the leading Republican presidential hopefuls.

“There is an overwhelming presence of neoconservatives and absence of traditional conservatives that I don’t know what to make of,” said Richard V. Allen, former Reagan White House national security adviser.

Advisers to Sen. John McCain of Arizona include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), while former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s policy team includes Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neoconservative movement, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gets advice from Dan Senor, who counseled L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator in Iraq.

Critics say neoconservatism casts American foreign policy as a new and benevolent form of imperialism, and conflicts with the traditional conservative, who prefers U.S. military power be reserved for defending against direct threats to America‘s vital interests. …”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/06/neocons-aiding-08-republicans/

The Neocons’ Palin Project

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“…In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.” …”

http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/09/16/the_neocons_palin_project?page=2

American Enterprise Institute

“The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943. According to the institute its mission is “to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.”[1] AEI is an independent, non-profit organization. It is supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is located in Washington, D.C.

AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.[3] Former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar, and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is a senior fellow.[4]

AEI is often cited as a right-leaning counterpart to the left-leaning Brookings Institution.[5][6] In 1998, AEI and Brookings established the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.[7] In 2006, the two organizations jointly launched the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project.[8]

AEI has connections with the neoconservative movement in American politics.[9] Irving Kristol, widely regarded as the movement’s founder, is a Senior Fellow at AEI. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Project for the New American Century

“The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as “a non-profit educational organization” by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.”[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4] ….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Flight of the Neocons
From liberal hawks to “National Greatness” conservatives
Michael C. Moynihan | May 2008 Print Edition

“…To Heilbrunn, the legacy of neoconservatism is one of long-term disaster for the Republican Party, an ideological digression that “quite possibly not only destroyed conservatism as a political force for years to come but also created an Iraq syndrome that tarnishes the idea of intervention for several decades.” This sounds right. The surge has undeniably mitigated the violence in Iraq, but it seems likely that—barring a continued military presence in Iraq for “100 years,” as John McCain posited—the neocons’ nation-building project will be a millstone around the movement’s neck. The Iraq fiasco will also obscure the fact that many of their Cold War–era arguments with the left were prescient. They were right about the ineffectiveness of Great Society welfare programs and about the colossal evil of the communist bloc.

But the failures of the neoconservative approach to both foreign and domestic policy are recognized even by consummate neocon David Frum, partial author of the infamous “axis of evil” State of the Union speech. In his recently released book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, Frum concedes Heilbrunn’s point that a conservative regeneration is needed after the Bush administration’s big spending and disastrous foreign policy. While Frum is upbeat about conservatism’s prospects, Heilbrunn ends They Knew They Were Right on an ominous note: “These reckless minds…aren’t going away. Quite the contrary.”

Perhaps. But unless Iraq becomes an Arab version of Switzerland in the next decade, I wouldn’t bet on it. …”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125472.html

John McCain, Neoconservative

“…The neoconservatives, who believe, or pretend to believe, that supposed foes abroad always represent new Hitlers and that wimpy liberals are about to recapitulate the appeasement that English liberals espoused in the 1930s, are constantly searching for a new Churchill. They see Churchill as the last great representative of the Victorian era in contrast to the weaklings that surrounded him. (George W. Bush himself keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.) For the neocons, McCain, a military hero who has written a number of books and become a politician, eerily resembles Churchill himself. McCain himself has made his admiration for Churchill abundantly apparent in his most recent book, Hard Call, in which he hails the great man’s prescience in warning of Germany’s aggressive intentions in the run-up to both World War I and World War II. But more to the point, McCain represents for the neocons the ultimate synthesis of war hero and politician. And McCain, in turn, has been increasingly drawn to the neocons’ militaristic vision of the U.S. as an empire that can set wrong aright around the globe.The neocons became close to McCain in the 1990s, when they supported American intervention in the Balkans. According to the New Republic’s John Judis, the first sign of neocon influence on McCain came in 1999. McCain delivered a speech at Kansas State University in which he touted “national greatness conservatism,” arguing: “The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history.” He went on to state that the U.S. should have “every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.”

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-mccain-neoconservative.html

The Open-Borders Conspiracy
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com

“If I could choose to have my readers learn one and only one thing from what I write, it would be that America’s problems are not the result of blind, much less inevitable, forces, but are the consequences of deliberate political action by motivated individuals and groups. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of our ongoing immigration crisis. Let’s trace the lines of influence in the open-borders conspiracy, a word I use despite its connotations of grassy knollology because in this case it is factually appropriate. Given who has been pushing mass immigration in America and how open they have been about why they are doing it, it boggles my mind that anyone who considers himself conservative can still support this policy. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850953/posts

Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never “got the message”
By Michelle Malkin

“…And, now, straight from the campaign trail with Arnold “Move Left” Schwarzenegger, McCain has shed every last pretense that he “got the message” from grass-roots immigration enforcement proponents and is back to his full, open-borders shamnesty push. No surprise to any of you. But his complete regression back to the “comprehensive immigration reform” euphemism is a notable milestone.

Also, you don’t need to guess anymore how he would have voted on the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amnesty: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/shamnesty-john-mccain-is-back-in-full-force-no-he-never-got-the-message/

Translation: McCain’s suck up to La Raza

By Michelle Malkin

The other half of the La Raza twins is set to speak today at 12:45 Pacific time. While John McCain’s lips move this afternoon during his speech to the Race’s open-borders lovefest, let me serve as your interpreter:

MCCAIN: My friends, you are right. Those people who killed my shamnesty bill have ill intentions. They are bigots, just like my friend Lindsay Graham told you they were when he spoke before you two years ago. …”

My friends, I don’t want to talk about securing the border any more than you do. But trust me, when the “border” is “secure” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), then we’ll do what we all want to do: Formalize our Sanctuary Nation. Rejoice that illegal aliens are serving in the military. And sanctimoniously demonize and marginalize all those pesky bigots who keep obsessing about immigration enforcement and national security. I’m as committed to peddling sob-story platitudes and whitewashing your ethnic nationalism as you are! (What was that about the 15 things about The Race you should know? Shhhhhhhhhhh!)

Just work with me here, ok? Brother Obama may have marched with you at the Chicago May Day illegal alien parade. But I have a lifetime commitment to Hispandering! And you have showered with me with honors for my open-borders work.

Remember?

They don’t call me La Raza’s voice in Washington for nothing.

Just ask my friend, Juan Hernandez.

My friends.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/translation-mccains-suck-up-to-la-raza/

Mexico–United States border

“The international border between Mexico and the United States runs from San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. It traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to inhospitable deserts. From the Gulf of Mexico it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert, the Colorado River Delta, westward to the binational conurbation of San Diego and Tijuana before reaching the Pacific Ocean.

The border’s total length is 3,169 km (1,969 miles), according to figures given by the International Boundary and Water Commission.[1] It is the most frequently crossed international border in the world, with about 250 million legal crossings every year.[2]

The nearly 2000 mile (3,138 km or 1,950 miles) international border follows the middle of the Rio Grande — according to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the two nations, “along the deepest channel” — from its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico a distance of 2,019 km (1,254 miles) to a point just upstream of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. It then follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 858 km (533 miles) to the Colorado River, during which it reaches its highest elevation at the intersection with the Continental Divide. Thence it follows the middle of that river northward a distance of 38 km (24 miles), and then it again follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 226 km (141 miles) to the Pacific Ocean.

The region along the boundary is characterised by deserts, rugged mountains, abundant sunshine and by two major rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) — which provide life-giving waters to the largely arid but fertile lands along the rivers in both countries.

The U.S. states along the border, from west to east, are:

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

The Mexican states are:

Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.

In the United States, Texas has the longest stretch of the border of any State, while California has the shortest. In Mexico, Chihuahua has the longest border, while Nuevo León has the shortest. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border

Us-mexico-border.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us-mexico-border.jpg

Re: John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Who Is Juan Hernandez?

John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Lou Dobbs – These Candidates Would Say ANYTHING

The Dangers of the “North American Union” by Jerome Corsi

Why Bill Kristol thinks Ron Paul is a “Crackpot”

Charlie Rose – WOLFOWITZ / HOLMES

Paul Wolfowitz speaks at Hudson Institute

Countdown – No Iranian Nukes and Wolfowitz is Back

Paul Wolfowitz speech June 6 2001

 Iraq War Mastermind Speaks Out

Charlie Rose – Sen. Dick Durbin / Douglas Feith / Sen. Ron Wyden

Book TV: Douglas Feith, author of “War and Decision”

Riz Khan – Richard Perle – 18 Mar 08

Charlie Rose – PERL & FRUM

Who is Randy Scheunemann?

Bill Kristol Anthology

Neo-cons War Lobbying To Bomb Iran

NeoConservative Charles Krauthammer discusses U.S. options against Russia

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 1

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 2

Krauthammer: What will Obama give to Iran?

Next President 1

Next President 2

Why I love Charles Krauthammer

Bolton and Krauthammer on Russian Expansion past Georgia

Fred Kagan on Jim Lehrer

Fred Kagan Debates Nir Rosen on Iraq Surge (Part 1)

Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer

Conversations With History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt

the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

 the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

John Bolton – Does Iran Need a “Regime Change?”

Neocon John Bolton Pushes War Against Iran

Norman Podhoretz on Iran

Norman Podhoretz on His New Book

Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran- 10 Dec 07

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (1 of 2), 2008

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (2 of 2), 2008

Charlie Rose: March 4, 2003 with Ron Brownstein and Robert Kagan

Why CIA Veterans Are Scared of McCain

“…These critics point especially to the McCain campaign’s top national security adviser Randy Scheunemann—who ran a front group promoting war with Iraq and the fabrications of controversial Iraqi exile politician Ahmad Chalabi, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and who has lobbied for aggressive NATO expansion. Scheunemann’s record, they argue, encapsulates everything wrong with the past eight years of Bush leadership on intelligence issues, from a penchant for foreign policy freelancing and secret contacts with unreliable fabricators, to neoconservatives’ disdain for the perceived bureaucratic timidity of the CIA and State Department, to their avowed hostility for diplomacy with adversaries. If McCain wins, “the military has won,” says one former senior CIA officer. “We will no longer have a civilian intelligence arm. Yes, we will have analysts. But we won’t have any real civilian intelligence capability.”

“McCain would be an absolute disaster,” says a second recently retired senior US intelligence operations officer. “He is prejudiced against the CIA. The day after the 2004 election when Bush won, McCain came on TV and gave an interview in which he said something to the effect of, ‘The CIA tried to sabotage this election. They’ve made their bed and now they have to lay in it.’ I used to like McCain, but he is inconsistent.” Columnist Robert Novak quoted McCain in November 2004 as saying, “With CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.”

McCain is influenced by a circle of hardline Republican legislators and congressional staff as well as disgruntled former Agency officials “who all had these long-standing grudges against people in the Agency,” the former senior intelligence officer said. “They think the CIA is a hotbed of liberals. Right-wing, nutty paranoia stuff. They all love the military and hate the CIA. Because the CIA tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.” …”

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/08/why-cia-veterans-are-scared-of-mccain.html

McCain’s ACU Ratings
By Randall Hoven

“…What this means is that McCain’s ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona’s other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

Not much the cheer about here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html

Whose War?      PDF

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan accuses ‘McCain’s neocon warmonger’ of treason Stephen C. Webster
“…According to conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Sen. John McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann is a ‘dual loyalist,’ ‘neocon warmonger’ involved in activities that ‘none dare call treason.’

Scheunemann’s former employer, Orion Strategies, is a lobbying firm with strong ties to Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration in Georgia.

Since Georgia attempted to retake South Ossetia by force, triggering a sharp, violent rebuke by Russian forces, Sen. McCain has been by far the most strident advocate of US support for the former Soviet state. And his top adviser, says Buchanan, may well be the next Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man,” he wrote. …”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buchanan_accuses_McCains_neocon_warmonger_of_0822.html

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

Among the Neocons      PDF

A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates

By Scott McConnell

“…Two new issues broke apart the 1980s Reaganite conservative consensus. The first was immigration. By the late 1980s, the impact of the 1965 immigration law had begun greatly to accelerate the pace of immigration. Younger readers may not recall the vital role National Review began to play in analyzing that law and the social, environmental, and political consequences it brought about. The battle was joined when John O’Sullivan (NR’s editor since 1988) published in 1992 Peter Brimelow’s explosive “Time to Rethink Immigration,” which quickly became the most debated conservative magazine article of the year. The piece forced the immigration debate into the open within the conservative movement, where it fused with the populist revolt breaking out in California over Proposition 187, an anti-illegal-alien measure. For the next five years, the magazine put what it called “The National Question” in the spotlight, publishing cover stories by Brimelow, Fred Iklé, O’Sullivan, and eventually (as I was won over to the magazine’s position) one by me.

The neoconservatives, to my complete surprise, were not pleased.

In the summer of 1995, Neal Kozodoy gave me a copy of a letter. Written by Irwin Steltzer to the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, it was making its way around the upper echelons of the neocon magazines and think tanks. Steltzer is a Bronx-born economist and Weekly Standard editor who lives part-time in London. While a gifted economic essayist, his most important function is surely as the ideological gendarme for Rupert Murdoch’s American media properties.

Steltzer wrote to Kristol (and the wider world) that he was canceling his subscription to National Review because of its “increasingly offensive positions on such topics as immigration.” He went on then to complain about a piece by Richard Neuhaus on anti-Semitism, which, Steltzer charged, was itself anti-Semitic. He added, apropos of a quote of Kristol’s that appeared in Neuhaus’s article, that he was “always suspicious” of Father Neuhaus’s excerpting, “particularly in an article which contains cunningly placed little adjectives and descriptions.” He concluded with a more general comment about John O’Sullivan’s National Review: “Add to this NR’s applause for the immigration statutes of the 1920’s, designed to keep eastern European Jews out, and you have a not-very-subtle form of anti-Semitism, dressed up as an attack on liberalism.”

Bill Buckley stood by his editor initially, but not for long. Within two years, O’Sullivan was eased out, replaced by the youthful Rich Lowry, who immediately upon assuming his new post fired Peter Brimelow.

In the very early years of the neocon-paleocon skirmish, Russell Kirk, the somewhat fogeyish father of postwar American intellectual conservatism, gave a speech about the neocons at the Heritage Foundation. He generally praised them but added some words of caution. Quoting from a friend’s letter, Kirk said, “It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant from a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation the conservative is a fascist.” I, of course, had heard of neocon campaigns against other conservatives, but the targets were not men I knew or agreed with. But I did know O’Sullivan and Neuhaus, and the Russell Kirk remark that had once seemed overheated became a good deal less so. …”

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00007/

Idealism and Its Discontents
Thinking on the neoconservative slur.

Victor Davis Hanson

“…Third, Iraq is not the sole touchstone of neoconservative thought. Many traditional conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who favor balanced budgets, an end to illegal immigration, and more sober judgment on entitlements, came to the conclusion after September 11 that the many lives of Saddam Hussein had run out. Indeed, one of the ironies of this war is the spectacle of many who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in the late 1990s now turning on the war, while many who would have never supported such preemption before 9/11 insist on giving the administration full support in the midst of the present fighting.

Fourth, traditional conservatives especially distrust neoconservatives because, well, they are not entirely conservative and confuse the public about the virtues of the hallowed native reluctance to spend blood and treasure abroad for dubiously idealistic purposes. In contrast, progressives dislike them because their promotion of democracy can complicate liberalism, as if it were a fine and noble thing to insist on elections in the former Third World, even if need be through force. And every ideology saves its greatest venom for the perceived apostate: Thus Zell Miller infuriates liberals in the way John McCain or Chuck Hagel does conservatives.

Fifth, the battlefield adjudicates perceptions. Before the Iraqi invasion, neoconservatives took a beating in the acrimonious lead-up to the war about which scenarios were proffered about millions of refugees and thousands of American dead. Yet after the three-week victory, even television hosts were boasting, “We are all neoconservatives now.” Then the messy post-bellum Iraqi reconstruction brought back disdain, while successful elections and a consensual government could well win admiration. For most, ideology or belief matters not nearly as much as impressions of being judged as smart, successful, and “cutting-edge” — a constantly changing and amorphous image that in Washington is predicated on the 24-hour news cycle.

Finally, radical foreign-policy changes always upset the status quo and beg for conspiratorial exegesis. After 1948, the Cold Warriors were felt to have appropriated the Democratic party from the Henry Wallace wing, and they suffered abuse both from the naïve Left who saw them as veritable McCarthyites, and from the isolationist Right who did not want to continue the sacrifices of internationalism endlessly on into the postwar peace. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200501210758.asp

The Neoconservative Cabal

Joshua Muravchik

“…Who makes up this potent faction? Within the administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is usually identified as the key actor, together with Richard Perle, a member and until recently the chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. A handful of other high-level Bush appointees are often named as adherents of the neocon faith, including Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, National Security Council staff member Elliott Abrams, and Vice Presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI, where I work), the Weekly Standard magazine, and William Kristol’s Project for a New American Century–all three rent offices in the same building–are often described as constituting the movement’s Washington command center. And then, of course, there is this magazine, crucible of so much neoconservative thought.

The history of neoconservatism is less sensational than its current usage implies. The term came into currency in the mid-1970’s as an anathema–pronounced, by upholders of leftist orthodoxy, against a group of intellectuals, centered mostly in Commentary and the quarterly Public Interest, who then still thought of themselves as liberals but were at odds with the dominant thinking of the Left. One part of this group consisted of writers about domestic policy–Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, James Q. Wilson, Nathan Glazer–who had developed misgivings about the programs of the New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The other main contingent focused on foreign policy, and especially on the decline of America’s position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the wake of the Vietnam war. The names here included, among others, Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Eugene V. Rostow. Although, at first, most of these people resisted the label neoconservative, eventually almost all of them acquiesced in it. …”

“…On September 11, we learned in the most dreadful way that terrorists would not be appeased by our diffidence; quite the contrary. We saw–they themselves told us–that they intended to go on murdering us in ever larger numbers as long as they could. A sharp change of course was required, and the neoconservatives, who had been warning for years that terror must not be appeased, stood vindicated–much as, more grandly, Churchill was vindicated by Hitler’s depredations after Munich.

Not only did the neocons have an analysis of what had gone wrong in American policy, they also stood ready with proposals for what to do now: to wage war on the terror groups and to seek to end or transform governments that supported them, especially those possessing the means to furnish terrorists with the wherewithal to kill even more Americans than on September 11. Neocons also offered a long-term strategy for making the Middle East less of a hotbed of terrorism: implanting democracy in the region and thereby helping to foment a less violent approach to politics.

No neoconservative was elevated in office after September 11, as Churchill had been to prime minister after the collapse of the Munich agreement, but policies espoused by neoconservatives were embraced by the Bush administration. Was this because Bush learned them from the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle? Or did he and his top advisers–none of them known as a neocon–reach similar conclusions on their own? We may have to await the President’s memoirs to learn the answer to that narrow question, but every American has reason to be grateful for the result.

If these policies should fail, for whatever reason–including a recurrence of national faint-heartedness–then neoconservative ideas will no doubt be discredited. But this matters hardly at all compared with what we will have lost. For, if they fail, either we will then be at the mercy of ever more murderous terrorism or we will have to seek alternative methods of coping with it–methods that are likely to involve a much more painful and frightening course of action than the admittedly daunting one that still lies before us.

If, however, the policies succeed, then the world will have been delivered from an awful scourge, and there will be credit enough to go around–some of it, one trusts, even for the lately much demonized neoconservatives. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991206/posts

Notice: U.S. WMD Retaliation Doctrine Has Changed

By Michelle Malkin

“…There’s a very important catch in the Weekly Standard by spy-dude Elbridge Colby, who notes a crucial change in our plans to respond to terrorist use of WMD’s. We’ve long held that states which assist in WMD terror would be held accountable. But February 8, we expanded our potential retribution schedule:

Instead of merely threatening that states that support terror attacks will be held responsible–already a staple of U.S. policy–Hadley goes further, threatening non-state actors who “enabl[e]” terrorists to strike with WMD. This careful choice of words would seem to expand our retaliatory standard to encompass complicity and perhaps even negligence. Not only states, but groups and individuals as well, should now be on notice that they will be held accountable for participation in, support for, complicity in, or even negligence in the face of WMD strikes against the United States or its allies. This strategy makes a great deal of sense; catastrophic terrorism is a threat that both justifies and requires a more exacting standard of behavior.

Individuals? Whoever could they mean?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/10/notice-us-wmd-retaliation-doctrine-has-changed/

Charlie Rose – Georgia/Russia Conflict

Power Play

The nature of nations, like people, never changes. Today’s political realists say economics rather than military might has become the guiding principle of countries, but the conflict in Georgia shows otherwise, argues Robert Kagan.

By ROBERT KAGAN

“…Where are the realists? When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it ought to have been their moment. Here was Vladimir Putin, a cold-eyed realist if ever there was one, taking advantage of a favorable opportunity to shift the European balance of power in his favor — a 21st century Frederick the Great or Bismarck, launching a small but decisive war on a weaker neighbor while a surprised and dumbfounded world looked on helplessly. Here was a man and a nation pursuing “interest defined as power,” to use the famous phrase of Hans Morgenthau, acting in obedience to what Mr. Morgenthau called the “objective law” of international power politics. Yet where are Mr. Morgenthau’s disciples to remind us that Russia’s latest military action is neither extraordinary nor unexpected nor aberrant but entirely normal and natural, that it is but a harbinger of what is yet to come because the behavior of nations, like human nature, is unchanging?

Today’s “realists,” who we’re told are locked in some titanic struggle with “neoconservatives” on issues ranging from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East to China and North Korea, would be almost unrecognizable to their forebears. Rather than talk about power, they talk about the United Nations, world opinion and international law. They propose vast new international conferences, a la Woodrow Wilson, to solve intractable, decades-old problems. They argue that the United States should negotiate with adversaries not because America is strong but because it is weak. Power is no answer to the vast majority of the challenges we face, they insist, and, indeed, is counterproductive because it undermines the possibility of international consensus. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005366593885103.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Neoconservative Persuasion

Irving Kristol

“…Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the “have-nots” and the “haves” engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy–because it seems to be in the nature of human nature–that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on “the road to serfdom.” Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives–though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government’s attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following “theses” (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141481/posts

The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species

by Kirk, Russell

“…Selfish and Uninstructed. I offer you two specimens of the rejection of the Neoconservatives that I encounter nowadays in many quarters. My first extract is from a letter recently received from a very distinguished historian in Pennsylvania. “I have burned my bridges with most (not all) of the Konservatives, and especially with the neo- conservatives, who are selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson,” he writes to me. “A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has.”

My second instance of the spreading distaste for Neoconservatives comes from a well-known literary scholar. “I would not be at all surprised to see the Neo-Cons jump ship if Dukakis is elected; they would be perfectly capable of making an accommodation with the socialist wing of the Democratic Party,” he tells me …… It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant to a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation that the conservative is a fascist…. I believe that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-Conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes.”

Simple Old Label. Now the strictures of the gentlemen I have quoted cannot well apply to some of the better known people called Neoconservatives; for there are among that group high-minded men and women of principle. Our difficulty here is very like that I encountered when I lectured, a few months ago, on the Libertarians: the appellation Neoconservative, like the appellation Libertarian, is so widely employed, and so variously, as to seem to include people of radically opposed views. What is a Neoconservative, really? Is he, as Harrington and Steinfels saw him, a liberal who opportunistically has turned his coat? Is he primarily a seeker after power and the main chance? Or is he a man who has new ideas about the defense of the Permanent Things? For my part, I wish that certain so-called Neoconservatives whose views and lives I approve, like certain libertarians for whom I have a fellow feeling, would content themselves, as do I, with the simple old label Conservative.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL178.cfm

A Concord of Visions

How the neoconservative right adopted the worst errors of the left

None of this is to say that all good flows from the politics of the constrained vision and all ills from the unconstrained view. For my taste—and that of most libertarians, I suspect—Sowell’s constrained vision in its purer forms is probably a shade too constrained, too ready to assume that old customs continue to serve their traditional functions under changed circumstances. But it is the worst features of the unconstrained vision—its hubris, its pretense to omnicompetence—that have taken hold of the right. And if there is wisdom in each of the two perspectives, it should be worrying that, for all the other differences between the major parties, between progressives and conservatives, in this one fundamental way the political landscape increasingly offers only half the picture—different refractions of the same unconstrained vision. With the waning of the constrained perspective’s tempering influence, we’re left with a political vision that’s dangerously double.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117049.html

No moderate, no realist, McCain the neocon

Ron Paul revolution against empire and draft

Pat Buchanan vs Neo-Cons

Pat Buchanan on John McCain’s warmongering nature

Pat Buchanan:”McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi”

Anne Norton Defines Neocons

Israel, Iran and the New Neocons

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 1 of 2

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 2 of 2

1. The Neocons – Ideology and Fantasy (Part 1 of 14)

2. The Neocons – Rumsfeld’s Imaginary War (2/14)

3. The Neocons – Birth of Islamic Extremists

4. The Neocons – Recruiting Christians / Concept of Terror

5. The Neocons – CIA’s $1Billion Backs Future Terrorists

6. The Neocons – Ignored Warning of Terrorists

7. Then Neocons – Destruction of the Republican Party

8. The Neocons – Clinton’s Blowjob / Extremist Rampage

9. The Neocons – “There’s No Al-Qaeda Organization”

10. The Neocons – “We’re Gonna Find Those Evil Doers”

11. The Neocons – Hunt for Osama / The Disney Terrorists

12. The Neocons – Godzilla was a Terrorist Mentor

13. The Neocons – Dirty Bomb / Precautionary Principle

14. The Neocons – Fear is the Only Agenda

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of neoconservatism in the United States. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol (born January 22, 1920, Brooklyn, New York City, New York) is considered the founder of American neoconservatism. He is married to conservative author and emerita professor Gertrude Himmelfarb and is the father of William Kristol.

Kristol was born into an orthodox Jewish family. However, he maintains that belief had nothing to do with his family’s observance.[1] He earned his B.A. in History from the City College of New York in 1940, where he was an active Trotskyist. Before graduating, he met Gertrude Himmelfarb at a Trotskyist meeting, and they married on January 18, 1942.[2] He wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940.[3] From 1941 to 1944, he served as staff sergeant in the armored infantry in Europe in World War II. After the war, he was stationed in Marseilles for a year.[4]

He was the managing editor of Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952, co-founder of the British-based Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958 when he handed over the reins to his friend and City College classmate Melvin J. Lasky[5], editor of the Reporter from 1959 to 1960, executive vice-president of Basic Books from 1961 to 1969, and professor of social thought at the New York University Graduate School of Business from 1969 to 1988. Since 1988, he has been John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has used these positions and publications to animate the neo-conservative movement, arguing for low taxes, a well-funded and internationally active military, conservative social policy, and a minimalist interpretation of First Amendment rights. For example, he once stated that “I don’t think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does.”[6]

Kristol is the founder of the politics and culture journal The Public Interest and the foreign affairs journal The National Interest. He was co-editor of The Public Interest (first with Daniel Bell, then with Nathan Glazer) from its founding in 1965 until 2002 and publisher of The National Interest from its founding in 1985 until 2001.

He is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 1988, a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1972, a member of the Wall Street Journal Board of Contributors since 1972, and president of National Affairs, Inc.

Kristol suggests of himself, “Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo-that’s all, neo dash nothing.”[7]

In July 2002, President George W. Bush awarded Kristol the Presidential Medal of Freedom. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk

“Russell Kirk (19 October 1918 – 29 April 1994) was an American political theorist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. …”

“…The Conservative Mind

The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana[3], the published version of Kirk’s doctoral dissertation, contributed materially to the 20th century Burke revival. It also drew attention to:

  • Conservative statesmen such as John Adams, George Canning, John C. Calhoun, Joseph de Maistre, Benjamin Disraeli, and Arthur Balfour;
  • The conservative implications of writings by well-known authors such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Walter Scott, James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, James Russell Lowell, George Gissing, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot;
  • British and American authors such as Fisher Ames, John Randolph of Roanoke, Orestes Brownson, John Henry Newman, Walter Bagehot, Henry James Sumner Maine, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, Edwin Lawrence Godkin, William Hurrell Mallock, Leslie Stephen, Albert Venn Dicey, Paul Elmer More, and Irving Babbitt.

The Portable Conservative Reader (1982), which Kirk edited, contains sample writings by most of the above.

Not everyone agreed with Kirk’s reading of the conservative heritage and tradition. For example, Harry Jaffa (a student of Leo Strauss) wrote: “Kirk was a poor Burke scholar. Burke’s attack on metaphysical reasoning related only to modern philosophy’s attempt to eliminate skeptical doubt from its premises and hence from its conclusions.”[4]

Russello (2004) argues that Kirk adapted what 19th century American Catholic thinker Orestes Brownson called “territorial democracy” to articulate a version of federalism that was based on premises that differ in part from those of the Founders and other conservatives. Kirk further believed that territorial democracy could reconcile the tension between treating the states as mere provinces of the central government, and as autonomous political units independent of Washington. Finally, territorial democracy allowed Kirk to set out a theory of individual rights grounded in the particular historical circumstances of the United States, while rejecting a universal conception of such rights.

Principles

Kirk developed six “canons” of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:

  1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  2. An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
  3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions;
  4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
  6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are “unimaginable apart from one another.” [5] and that “all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief.” [6] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

Milton Friedman

“…Milton Friedman (born July 31, 1912 – died November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1] A global public followed his restatement of a libertarian political philosophy that insisted on minimizing the role of government in favor of the private sector. As a leader of the Chicago School of economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had a widespread influence in shaping the research agenda of the entire profession. Friedman’s many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics in microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues. The Economist hailed him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it”.[2]

Originally a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes, in the 1950s his reinterpretation of the Keynesian consumption function challenged the basic keynesian model. In the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy called monetarism. He theorized there existed a “natural rate of unemployment” and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and shift their behavior to neutralize the impact of policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies would cause “stagflation” (high unemployment and low growth). He argued that a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and warned against efforts by the treasury or central bank to do otherwise.

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of all sorts, as well as public schooling. Friedman’s political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. His books and essays were widely read and even circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain.[3][4]

Friedman’s methodological innovations were widely accepted by economists, but his policy prescriptions were highly controversial. Most economists in the 1960s rejected them, but since then they had a growing international influence (especially in the U.S. and Britain), and in the 21st century have gained wide acceptance among many economists. He thus lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream,[5] especially during the 1980s. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., Brian Mulroney in Canada, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and (after 1989) in Eastern Europe. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Ludwig von Mises

Mises in his library

Mises in his library

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (pronounced [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]) (September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian Economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

Because of his Jewish origin and his opinions, he had to emigrate to Switzerland and then settled in the USA.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is named after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

http://mises.org/

Friedrich Hayek

“Friedrich August von Hayek, CH (May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defence of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.[1] One of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, he also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”[2] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.[3] He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century back to towards classical liberalism after the 1980s. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein

The Power of Choice – Milton Friedman

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 13, 1976

by MILTON FRIEDMAN

The University of Chicago, Illinois, USA

“…One of my great teachers, Wesley C. Mitchell, impressed on me the basic

reason why scholars have every incentive to pursue a value-free science, whatever

their values and however strongly they may wish to spread and promote

them. In order to recommend a course of action to achieve an objective, we

must first know whether that course of action will in fact promote the objective.

Positive scientific knowledge that enables us to predict the consequences of a

possible course of action is clearly a prerequisite for the normative judgment

whether that course of action is desirable. The Road to Hell is paved with

good intentions, precisely because of the neglect of this rather obvious point.

This point is particularly important in economics. Many countries around

the world are today experiencing socially destructive inflation, abnormally

high unemployment, misuse of economic resources, and, in some cases, the

suppression of human freedom not because evil men deliberately sought to

achieve these results, nor because of differences in values among their citizens,

but because of erroneous judgments about the consequences of government

measures: errors that at least in principle are capable of being corrected by

the progress of positive economic science. …”

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-lecture.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American Elites

The American People: Start Drilling and Control The Border. When? Now!

Open Borders — The Unintended Consequences — Mexicans Invade USA, Russians Invade Georgia

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)–The Ultimate Iranian Terrorist Weapon

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

Solzhenitsyn On Writers and Lying–May He Rest In Peace

Clear, Hold, Build– Strategy for Victory In Iraq–Now Ready for Prime Time in America– Operation Criminal Alien Removal (CAR)!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Obama and McCain–Socialism and Appeasement!

The Big Lie–935 Lies of The Center for Public Integrity

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Alan Keyes on Immigration

US Immigration Videos

The New American Century–Video

Hijacking Catastrophe–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...