Oct
29
2011
Profiles in Countermoonbattery: Newt Gingrich?
If Newt would talk like this more often, he might eventually make us forget about his endorsement of the global warming hoax, socialized medicine, and Dede Scozzafava:
On a tip from IslandLifer.
Holy shit. After the squishy moderatism crap flying out of Newt’s mouth these past few years, I’m shocked to hear a talk like this come from Newt.
Why should we trust this recycled career politician?
He knows how to say exactly what people want to hear.
The fact that his mind was once capable of articulating support for socialist positions means hme is capable of brewing up big government when it is in the interests of himself and his backers.
The right words are meaningless if there is no honesty and integrity behind them.
Mittens McRomney is another. We can’t trust a single word from these lying crapweasels.
Oh my, oh my….this is why I am going to vote for Newt in the primary.
He may just be saying these things to get me to vote for him….and I don’t care. We need more people speaking these types of words.
Polite folks don’t talk about politics and religion. Maybe thats why our country is so wretched and desolate. We don’t have enough people speaking these rich words of wisdom.
Steve
Sorry…I can’t readily forgive his position on AGW. The AGW fraud is a statist’s wet dream.
Eoin says:
October 29, 2011 at 9:37 am
“Holy shit. After the squishy moderatism crap flying out of Newt’s mouth these past few years, I’m shocked to hear a talk like this come from Newt.”
Eoin… you really haven’t figured this essential political technique out yet in life? You must be quite niave.
It’s known as flip flopping… apparently republicans do it too. I have noticed other examples during the recent televised “Debate-O-Circuses” too.
“I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.” – Newt’s first wife Marianne.
“We had oral sex. He [Newt Gingrich] prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’” – Anne Manning, former campaign worker for married Gingrich. Manning was also married at the time. (Vanity Fair –Sep. 1995)
Gingrich also lived and slept with his present wife Callista while he was still married to Marianne. (NT Daily News – Aug 12, 1999)
They do. Republican flip-floppers should also be voted out, chief among them boo-hoo Boehner, whose unforgivable act of giving consent to runaway spending has put our economic future in jeopardy.
Two thirds of the American people supported cut, cap, and balance. The big spending statists, regardless of the letters after their names, are working against the will of the people and the prudent course to a prosperous future.
[...] via Moonbattery. [...]
Newt reminds me of Darth Vader in a way, he has a little good in him, but for the most part, not really.
We can’t trust any politician who runs for office in these times, the only way we can preserve our country, is to assert our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, and FORCE politicians to govern in a republican fashion
Right. Find some filth, Jay. Good thinking. proud of you man.
Seriously, in this critical time, conservatives have way too many thresholds for their candidates.
(Although I have to agree that a candidate’s indifference to the nuclear armament of Iran is not a trivial one.)
A loss of the general election or putting in a doppleganger for BO will guarantee decline into full-fledged liberal-muslim-fascism and certain #OWS-And-Turn-It-Into-Greece economic-style collapse.
The elevation in criteria are why conservatives are lining up behind Paper-thin Cain with his meager economic plan. This could be a (Mc)Cain-BO redux election.
And then..of all the candidates: Romney –who has competence but no principles. So out of 300 million people, conservatives pick the one guy who authored ObamaCare.
On the other hand, Newt comes in with a successful conservative track record in congress that I can’t understand, does not seem to carry more weight with respect to his bona fides, or at least enough to allow him a pass on his idiotic flirtations with liberalism.
I agree that Newt has made egregious errors sniffing around GW initiatives, HillaryCare and his endorsement of Scozzafava.
But if conservatives are unwilling to overlook these errors, we will almost certainly wind up with either Mittens and/or Cain – or possibly another 4 years of BO
- either way, outcomes that are certain to result in a deeper recession as we head further into liberalism and insolvency.
And BTW, Newt can give a riveting speech.
As with RReagan, that is what it will take to capture the national sentiment. And that translates to votes.
In contrast, over 2 minutes of any of the other candidates is enough to make the average American turn the TV back to sports talk or to watch cars driving in circles.
“enough to make the average American turn the TV back to sports talk or to watch cars driving in circles.”
Ha! Well-put, I’ve said the same things
fibby says: Seriously, in this critical time, conservatives have way too many thresholds for their candidates.
As I recall a “threshold” is underneath a door. That’s a very, very low bar to have to get over.
But I guess that explains how come the Republicans have ended up with candidates like Santorum and Bachmann, and Cain, and Gingrich and Perry.
Honesty, integrity, spending restraint, and a commitment to end business as usual are too much to ask?
Anything short of that and we’re toast. We might as well go for broke with somebody whose policies will save the nation, even if he is a long shot of winning, rather than losing positions with a better chance of winning the election.
Newt is business as usual. He’ll be a perfect compliment to Boehner. One can lead the band and the other can rearrange the deck chairs.
Speak for yourself. Leftists nominated a narcissistic Marxist agitator with a phantom past and no leadership experience.
I’d still vote for Newt. Him or Perry
Imagine Newt cheating on his current wife with Nancy Pelosi.
America is Newt Gingrich’s cancer-riddled wife and he’s off banging The Pelosi when he thinks no one is looking.
He can run his mouth until the end of time, but he will not be able to rehabilitate his value system or integrity.
We could get really kinky and talk about “displaced thresholds”, but I’ll “hold short” of that…..HA…..HA…..HAHAHAH…
Newt needs to remember it’s RINO season.
A B O = anyonebutobama
Lao-Z,
Given the garbage liberals have either infected or almost infected the country with, you have no where to go criticizing Newt or any of the other republican candidates.
Any one of them would be immanently superior to your uh, uh, uh…. Fragile-X Kenyan.
Except that oh right, you wouldn’t have realized it until I pointed it out to you; hypocrisy being what it is to your nature.
He didn’t give a speech, he talked to us. Many of you commenting here need to learn the diference.
“Honesty, integrity, spending restraint, and a commitment to end business as usual are too much to ask?”
AC, did you listen to the clip? I don’t think one of these elements was missing in his speech.
“We might as well go for broke….”
And that’s exactly what Ronpaul and you guys will do if you go Third Party.
.
I know, I know…Newt is flawed. Fact is, bc someone is not perfect does not automatically make the alternative better. I think that even if Ronpaul became President -and there’s no chance of that- he would be ineffective against the intransigence, mediocrity and avarice of the democrats.
Remember, it was the democratic congress that got all heated up about the republicans simply reading the Constitution aloud. They don’t give a crap about the Constitution and for Ronpaul, there’s no other game in town. Ronpaul would not be able to negotiate his way around the congressional democrats.
In fact, it would not surprise me if once Ronpaul were in office, his idealism would provoke the extant liberal movement to continue with even greater fervor to dismantle the Constitution in favor of some socialist manifesto of the day.
Then we really did go for broke.
i’m with Zim. Newt or Perry. No Mittens. The others should have places on Newt’s cabinet or some high ranking place in the administration. I’m like Levin… I’d vote for an orange juice can over Zero.
Yes, I did, and I also listened to him when he was spouting his RINO talking points and endorsing big government moonbattery.
He’s all over the spectrum (Medicare Part D, global warming, health care mandates) that we can’t believe a word he says.
If he is sincere about supporting what he said here from 2013 on, it is because he is telling people what they want to hear; he is not saying it because he believes in it. So much in his past suggests this is not coming from the heart.
Take, for example, insurance mandates. He’s already proven that he does not see that issue as one of fundamental individual economic liberty, which means he fails on that issue, regardless of whether he can talk in sync with opinion polls. It is an affront to our liberty now, just as it was an affront to our liberty when he endorsed it.
I would disagree about the effectiveness. He can use the grossly excessive power of the Executive Branch, as delegated by Congress, to take a chainsaw to the bureaucracy and red tape currently standing in the way of recovery.
Also, there are not enough Dems and RINOs to override his veto of any fiscally unsound budget. Enough honest conservatives will stand with him in demanding we stop the runaway spending and choke off the flow of funds to the bureaucracies standing in the way of recovery.
I don’t think he has to. Our government is actively trying to run our country into the ground so it can be replaced with social.ism. Turbocharging the level of gridlock probably won’t save us in time, but it will halt a lot of the destruction in the hopes that some Dems leave the sinking ship or get replaced in 2014. At any rate, gridlock is better than a RINO growing government.
They will certainly try, but if the spending is not corralled and the economy saved, then the agitators will have an even better shot amid economic chaos. If a RINO negotiates a 10 year plan to eventually cut the rate of spending increases, then we will go bankrupt and the Marxist agitators will bring people into the streets as is being done in Greece.
The Occupy movement is mainly a bunch of filthy hippies and bums, but it will expand to include much of the frustrated middle class if this economy continues to sink.
With a RINO, we end up broke.
I’m waiting for someone who will aggressively stop the runaway spending and who has the honesty and integrity to follow through with a campaign promise, rather than selling the American people out to the party’s elite and the swarms of buzzardly lobbyists.
No, no, NO!!! Please, not another warmed-over CFR hack. Have we learned nothing from his 1995 betrayal of the Contract With America platform?
Besides, there’s the ‘wife dumping’ history (or was that McCain? — either one makes Ted Kennedy look like the model of marital fidelity).
AC,
In hiring someone I look at his resume for accomplishments, expertise and depth of experience.
His blemishes are not nearly as good of a predictor of performance.
Newt was the legislative opposition to largest tax-hike in history at the time Bill Clinton. Under Newt’s tenure as Speaker, Congress passed welfare reform, a capital gains tax cut and enjoyed the first balanced budget since 1969. Newt initiated and held his part of the bargain in the Contract with America.
That track record should weigh in heavily were people not so intent on looking up his skirts.
As for being all over the place, listen to a extemporaneous Ronpaul diatribe sometime.
Admittedly, with the exception of Bachman and Ronpaul, in my view all these candidates have craggy veins of RINOism running through their thick heads.
A republican congress, and Zeus willing, a republican-controlled senate would minimize the usual pandering and wimpy “negotiating across the aisle” that firmly committed RINOs like McCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty would love to impose.
But once in power, as he did as Speaker, Newt would be an effective conservative. He has enough in his present platform that if he held to and if implemented, would turn the country around.
Who else has promised to go after the blight of liberal judges – a blight needless to say.
I see no other comparable track record for Ronpaul on which to rely. And if Ronpaul is unwilling to go after terrorists, turn Iran into glass, take the oil out of Iraq and defend Israel, then I don’t see that he is much good.
Newt is frustrating and has a list of contretemps, but here’s the ace in the hole for a Newt Presidency: he is a historian and has a tremendous ego. As such he will be concerned about his place in history as a great president.
And he is smart enough to see that the best way to do that would be next to or above Reagan on Mt. Rushmore; which he ain’t gettin’ with no liberal agenda.
Martijn:
Explain to me how my disbelief that a squishy moderate RINO such as Newt would make a speech like this makes me “niave[sic].”
I know Newt’s record. I know that he’s nothing BUT a big-government boob with a record of “reaching across the aisle” to score political points by stabbing conservatism in the balls. I’m almost as shocked hearing these kinds of words come out of Newt’s mouth as I would be hearing them come out of Pelosi’s mouth… because they’re both liberals.
No shit, huh?
Anyway, its a moot point about Ronpaul. He’s not going to be able to raise the big money.
Newt would be able to that.
The real problem and the real RINO is ObamaCare Romney.
Excellent. Newt accomplished a growth of government and laid none of the framework which could have limited government and prevented our problems today.
If you want to talk accomplishments and record, Paul has never voted for unbalanced deficit spending and has never voted for tax increases. Nobody else has a record that clean because nobody else walks the walk that consistently.
The contract was not even close to fulfilled nor was the budget ever honestly balanced. Entitlement reform was never a serious part of the picture.
The cornerstone was a balanced budget amendment, which we don’t have. The tax system wasn’t reformed. Since then, bureaucracy has steadily grown. We don’t have term limits for these rotten scoundrels. In retrospect, they bragged about far more than they delivered.
Let’s see what Cato has to say:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4463
Boehner’s Pledge to America was also a joke.
I’m tired of being the sucker.
If the contract were fulfilled, we wouldn’t be in half the mess we are now.
And? I’m so damn sick and tired of being lied to and listening to poll-driven pompous windbags like Gingrich. I don’t care about their hair and I don’t care about their speech’s choreography.
Paul’s points might flow in a stream of consciousness, but they stay consistent from speech to speech. With Gingrich, we have no idea whether we’re dealing with the older conservative Gingrich, the intermediate liberal Gingrich, or the supposedly reborn conservative Gingrich. I can live with Paul’s faults because I know what they are going in, and I don’t have to speculate what they might be.
Gingrich’s first and foremost position is that he’d like to get elected, just like the former Democratic Al Gore campaign manager from Texas.
So the Republican establishment can force more men like Boehner on us? Promise to cap spending increases in future years, at the behest of the lobbyists who pay the party’s bills?
Boehner was part of the CoA leadership team. His failure then has been recycled into failure now.
The business as usual culture in Washington is bankrupting this country and driving us towards economic ruin. Both parties have been complicit in this. If the status quo of political elites being in power does not change then neither does our course.
Paul’s understanding of the Constitution is far closer to that of the founders than anyone else in the field. His approach to stopping liberal judges will be in appointing qualified judges who understand the Constitution as did our founders, not judges looking to rubber stamp central power at every turn.
Paul thinks Wickard is bad law, and that is enough to tell me he’s miles ahead of the rest of the field when it comes to nominating the right judges.
Newt may have a solution for liberal judges, but he’s willing to shred the Constitution in the process. Patriots should have nothing to do with his power-grabbing proposals, lest one day they be hoping for somebody to save them from a runaway liberal Congress, instead of just runaway liberal judges.
If you think our judges are bad, you should look at some populist/leftist European parliaments and see what they get away with. We at least have some hope against Obamacare because the judiciary can butt heads with Congress.
European constitutions are written with so many holes on the meat and potatoes issues, like scope of government, and free speech. Government there can basically do what it wants and the judges can’t really restrict the scope in many meaningful ways.
Are you willing to pay for it? That’s several trillion more our near bankrupt and already heavily indebted children cannot afford to bear. Working taxpayers can’t afford to pay any more.
We’ve spent several trillion on pointless foreign escapades. We’re not any safer, our rights have been shredded at home, our genitals will be groped in perpetuity, the TSA is metastasizing to highways and rail, and we don’t even have operational control of our own border.
Remind me, again, exactly why we should give a damn if the Israelis and Iranians want to have a war. That doesn’t really affect us a whole hell of a lot as long as the Saudi oil terminals on the Gulf keep pumping. This damn oil addiction is the only reason that part of the world has any relevance at all. Getting involved, on the other hand, increases our chances that the Iranians will lob one over here (the funds for missile defense were instead squandered trying to bring freedom to barbarians), or that the Saudis will shut off the supply of oil out of Islamic solidarity.
As much as Islam needs to be confronted, for the good of all mankind, it isn’t our burden as Americans to absorb the damage and win the Pyhrric victory on behalf of the rest of the world. We’ll be bankrupt. A lack of Islamic extremism in Scandinavia will not create jobs in Ohio.
The world is not a game of chess nor is foreign policy a game we are obliged to play. If we would have simply quietly paid for our oil all these years we could have avoided all this nonsense and expenditure. When we put ego and talking points before the enumerated powers of Congress our foreign relations became all screwed up. We literally can’t afford to double down on bad policy.
This Middle East insanity needs to stop. There is nothing positive which can be accomplished for the American people which justifies the cost.
We don’t need any more ego. We have way too much ego in politics already. We need humble civil servants with an America first attitude, not self-absorbed politicians who have to win global penis sizing contests. We need the sort of politicians who understand they work for us – we don’t work hard to produce so they can build their legacy. We need leaders who are going to put Americans back to work and clean up this debt mess, not kill jobs with more spending and drown our future in debt, all for a presidential legacy. Comrade Chairman is among the most narcissistic politicians I have ever seen. We do not need a repeat of that.
Correct.
Buy food, fuel, ammunition, gold, silver, and other hard assets.
The culture of Beltway business as usual is not likely to change in 2012. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
They’ll ask us to hold our nose for just one more election, then the politicians will ask us to deal with a deficit for just one more year. Same song, same dance, same result, each and every time it’s the last time.
AC:
I understand your support of Paul given his hard fiscal conservatism, but I find the guy completely disconnected from reality when it comes to dealing with the Islamic world. After having served in the War on Terrorism, I’ve seen the kind of blind, radical, uncompromising, irrational hatred that the Religion of Peace breeds.
Paul’s attitudes that we can somehow modify our policies to become non-involved in the Islamic world and then they will stop attacking civil targets is rather disconnected from reality in my opinion. Yes, running a war overseas is costly in blood and treasure, but I think Mr. Paul doesn’t quite understand that Islam only understands one thing: force.
From Verum Serum:
Video: Oakland Occupier Admits Protesters Were Throwing Rocks, Bottles at Police
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31747
I understand the threat of Islam, and the inability of reasonable people to negotiate with it, but we simply don’t have the money to continue policing the world, let alone fight WWIII.
I happen to share the opinion of Adm. Mike Mullen that debt has become the greatest threat to our national security.
If we go bankrupt or the currency hyperinflates then our national security position will quickly spiral downward as our enemies close in and we lack the resources to do much about it, other than send the missiles up and get civilization over with.
Even if we wanted to improve our security situation through trillions more in overseas defense spending, the instability created by the debt accumulation will far outweigh the vaporized (and easily replaced) jihadists. Despite our best efforts, they still multiply like roaches, very readily in the Islamic republics our taxpayer dollars established in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Jihadists are much less a worry right now than the possible emergence of roving domestic mobs of hungry, desperate people worked up into a frenzy, and stalking the streets looking for social justice.
On another level, why is the American taxpayer a beast of burden for the rest of the world, charged with providing them a free umbrella of security? Let them shoulder their own responsibilities. We can’t afford to, and even if we could, it isn’t the proper role of our government to loot working taxpayers for the benefit of foreigners in foreign lands.
Our national security policy needs to focus on border security and how to keep them out, because it has become impractically expensive to kick over every rock everywhere in the world looking for terrorist roaches hiding underneath. We are very fortunate to have the geography we do, and we must use it to our advantage. The troops in the Middle East could be brought home to secure the borders against illegal immigrants, drug cartels, and terrorists. In the grand scheme of things, more Americans are being killed by illegal immigrant criminals and the drug trade than have died from terrorism. It is a disgrace that we haven’t shown as principled of a response to border insecurity as Bush did against terrorism on 9/12.
And if Ronpaul is unwilling to go after terrorists, turn Iran into glass, take the oil out of Iraq and defend Israel, then I don’t see that he is much good. -Fiberal
“Are you willing to pay for it?” -AC
As I understand it, one of the Constitutionally-guaranteed roles of government is for the national defense.
I would think that you Ronpaulites would be the first to acknowledge that we have a legitimate reason to pay for defense.
Further, I don’t know any serious person advocating isolationism. (And BTW I certainly do not share your confidence in Ronpaul’s “stream of consciousness” nor in his ability to handle healthcare issues simply bc his is a “doctor”).
As much as you may not like it, for now at least, we are dependent on oil (not “addicted” –oil-based energy requirements are a matter of physics, not a recreational choice, like heroin).
The west developed the mid-east oil fields with western technology and dollars. Our interests have been nationalized (stolen). Moreover, we have invested a great deal in Iraq and that government should now recognize that exportation of oil by America would be both legitimate and profitable.
Iran is developing and exporting its nuclear technology and know-how to other mid-east countries. We have simply walked away from that country and it now threatens every country around it, including Iraq and Israel (of course) with the escalation and potential use of nuclear armaments.
Israel is an ally. And as much as you Ronpaulites argue that we have no national-security interest in Israel, we do. Israel provides necessary intelligence and provides for a military force against the Arabs. Inevitably, we have cultural and ethical interests in defending against jihad adventurism and the nuclear chaos the region foments. We have interests in oil. The problems are becoming ever more acute as we invite (and elect) muslims here in the U.S. Walking away from Israel would not just eventually condemn that country to an all-out war with the Arabs, but would continue to signal (as usual) to the rest of the world, that America cannot (will not) stand by its democratic principles. Arguably, U.S. weakness and an inability to stand by its principles pushes the rest of the world to fascism. Think Londonistan. Not a good thing by any measure.
There is no way that your man Ronpaul is going to acknowledge the legitimacy of our foreign interests in the mideast. And then problematically, yes, of course we need to get our own house in order. And there are indeed a lot of other reasonable things to go after and pull back from in the world (eg, I agree with Ronpaul about the excess and useless military bases in a lot of regions; we should not be paying off the Palestinians or any other Mideast country; viz Egypt). But as long as muslims have nuclear ambitions, export terrorism around the world and as long as we allow muslims in this country with their notions of jihad, fascism, Jew hatred, #OWS and a caliphate state, we have an interest in Arab countries.
With islam in this country and jihad around the world, taken with the constant threat to Israel, along with our interest in Mideast oil thank you very much, the Mideast is our business.
—Again, not that this says we should do business as usual.
But Ronpaul Isolationism is no more a solution than is BO Pandering.
AC says:
Buy food, fuel, ammunition, gold, silver, and other hard assets.
AND..position for a market rally when they duck-walk the Kenyan out of office in 2012!
HERE IS THE QUESTION YOU SHOULD BE ASKING YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS…
WHY HAS OUR GOVERNMENT ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGED ILLEGAL ALIENS TO PLUNDER OUR NATION AND STEAL JOBS AND LIMITED RESOURCES FROM OUR CITIZENS?
LEARN MORE HERE
http://www.thepostemail.com/category/business/
Fiberal, I couldn’t have said it better myself. AC, I’m on board with Ron Paul’s staunch fiscal conservatism, but not at the expense of victory on the battlefield. Yes, the War on Terrorism is costly to wage, but it has become far more costly to wage now that we have taken up a defensive posture that has congealed into us retreating from Iraq before a clear victory was established. We had plenty of severely damaging diplomatic weapons in our arsenal to threaten Iraq into letting us maintain our bases there, allowing a retaliatory force to stay in place against Iran, which is moving fast to make Iraq one of its proxies.
War is costly, but more costly is the degenerated rot of fearing victory and success on the battlefield, both in terms of morale and in dollars. Marines have two missions: making Marines, and winning battles. Due to cutbacks in the scale of our forces, guys like me are forced out due to lack of boatspace and promotion from a shrinking MOS field, and spots for new recruits shrinks dramatically. Secondly, turning the world’s premier strike force into a policing and occupation agency is also not key to victory. Our Commander-in-Chief needs to abandon the defensive, and retake the offensive, something we’ve not done in years in this war.
If it’s dollars and cents that matter, as Ron Paul points out, then why attack something constitutionally mandated as a government expense (the military), rather than unconstitutional expenses? I can’t count with all my fingers and toes the number of federal Departments that have very loose constitutional interpretation justification, that account for FAR more destructive fiscal expenditures than the military.
Isolationism only provides a vacuum for China, Islam, and Russia to divide amongst themselves.
I’ve read McCullough’s ’1776,’ and it is excellent. It’s works like this that serve to remind us from time to time just how narrowly our victory hung in the balance of the war for independence. Reading a truly detailed account of the shear logistical effort to haul the guns of Ticonderoga to Boston is one of those things that gives a great deal of insight into just how miraculous our victory really was.
Hearing Newt’s account of burlap-wrapped feet leaving a trail of blood is another of those details that should not be forgotten in the pages of history.
Hearing Newt’s account of burlap-wrapped feet leaving a trail of blood is another of those details that should not be forgotten in the pages of history.
Eoin,
Yes. Their military goal was victory. Ours is equality for gays.
I believe that our inability to pursue military victory against adversaries around the world has severely weakened our resolve to put thug countries in their place and to fight to secure our financial interests around the world.
This weakness in my view has led to artificial solutions for some, like the Ronpaulites, to tout isolationism as rational and and justifiable by the Constitution.
Moreover, to jump on international defense as primary brittle plank in our economy is to both miss and divert the point that our money is needlessly wasted in all kinds of give-away programs around the world. We do pretty good keeping despots in mansions.
America is best and we should export capitalism and democracy and allow for the enrichment of independent American businesses in doing so.
Personally, I would support two amendments to the Constitution: 1) to disallow the vote to non-taxpaying citizens, and 2) to insure that the sun never sets on the American Empire. The latter might even encourage Britain to re-grow a pair.
Thankfully, and as AC agrees, Ronpaul cannot raise the big bucks and will eventually become irrelevant in the quest to duckwalk the Kenyan.
The Constitutional mandate is for our defense, for the interests of the American people. Struggling middle class families are not made safer nor are they put back to work through a huge military burden used to get involved in somebody else’s fight.
He’s not advocating isolationism, either. The proper term is non-interventionism. It means we mind our business and put the advancement of American interests first.
Dependent, addicted, whatever. We rely on foreign oil, we can’t abruptly withdraw from its use, and we cannot produce enough here at home (at prices which the economy can bear) to fully replace foreign oil. We need oil which is cheap and plentiful; our nonconventional petroleum resources are plentiful but not cheap enough for a diseased economy.
Yes, we made investments overseas, and they were stolen. The thieves won’t give them back, nor can we practically take those resources back, for the cost of recovery would exceed what was stolen.
That’s a problem for the Middle East. If the Saudis and Israelis want to live under the shield of the security we provide, then I damn well expect them to pay for it (not working American families), just as the South Koreans and Japanese should be covering our costs in keeping crazed communists at bay in North Korea.
Israel is an ally, but they are also a wealthy nation. They neither need state welfare, nor does our Constitution empower Congress to tax Americans for it, nor would the benefits exceed the costs.
We’re not supposed to be paying through the nose to try and spread democracy, which doesn’t even work so well given the Islamic republic hellholes we created in Afghanistan and Iraq.
American taxes are justified for enumerated items in the common interest of Americans.
It sucks that the Muslims want to go to war with the Jews, but if they do, then Israel can deter them with nuclear weapons.
It isn’t our fight, and as an American taxpayer, it is not my cross to bear.
When we’re on the verge of bankruptcy we can’t be spending over a trillion a year on foreign idealism. Sorry, the money simply isn’t there, and wishing it to be won’t make it so.
Our “allies” won’t be rushing to our aid when our economy collapses into economic hell under the crushing burden of the debt we created.
Let Israel borrow from the Communist Chinese. Don’t force our children to do so.
I will stand by the principles of freedom here at home, which are currently imperiled by the cost of trying to spread it overseas. Our budget is busted and malignant entities like the TSA have been empowered to violate our rights in response to threats arising from our foreign policy.
Israel may be a friend, but it should not be the reason I can’t get on an airplane without being molested by a goon.
Paul is not singling out Israel. His budget cuts ALL of the foreign aid broke Americans can no longer afford.
The foreign interest is oil. They’ll continue taking hundreds of billions of dollars a year in oil payments because they’re just as dependent on western money to keep their subjects content as we are on the oil they provide.
If Paul is able to neutralize the odious obstructionism of the EPA then we can empower American energy producers to put Americans back to work providing American energy to our economy. We drill here, drill now to produce all we can, while simultaneously taking a long-term approach to dirt cheap electricity through next generation nuclear.
We can be secure if we worked to secure our borders and keep Islam from colonizing this country and radicalizing currently secular youth of Muslim heritage. Instead, we’re being spent into oblivion by bleeding heart conservatives who tear up at the thought of Iraqis casting a ballot for which Islamist extremist they want in the Iraqi Parliament.
The MENA revolutions should have proved this point. Stable dictators are being replaced by hard-line Islamist populists. Western style freedom and peace through prosperity are not an option for the Muslim hordes.
All we need is the oil to keep flowing, which it will as long as we stop trying to play peacemaker. The continuity of the oil supplies are threatened by our foreign policy. The Arab rulers see us as a necessary evil, not a detached foreign trading partner.
The world’s largest oil exporter is Russia, not Saudi Arabia. We receive much of our supplies from Canada and Mexico. If we develop our own oil and maintain friendly relations with friendly exporters then we can begin to deal with the real threat of reducing use of Islamist oil while we work on alternatives.
The debt and unfunded liabilities won’t be going away overnight, nor will the deficits go away with a RINO president.
We’re now in a very bad position. If the government pays a market interest rate on its debt, the budget is crushed. If the Fed holds interest rates in an affordable range for the government, then inflation and malinvestment corrode the economy.
I’m still with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; debt is the number one national security issue right now.
You think Al-Qaeda is a threat now? Wait until our budget is busted, and ACORN stirs up all the socialized idiots, meanwhile cartel killers stream across what would be an almost totally open border, turning our southwest into the killing fields of the failed states in Northern Mexico.
We may be on the verge of a power grab by Marxist goons. We may be on the verge of watching our entire Constitution flushed down the toilet in economic chaos….and I’m supposed to care about the security situation in Jerusalem?
Screw that, I’m more concerned with the security situation in my home town, and where my rights will be in four years. I really don’t have the peace of mind necessary to care about rights in Iraq.
The budget situation is so grim we could cut 100% of the discretionary non-defense spending and 100% of the unconstitutional bureaucracy and the budget still won’t be balanced.
The budget can’t stand the entitlements alone, which must be reformed. It definitely can’t stand a trillion dollars a year in defense and GWOT spending.
Even if we reform entitlements they will still be a drain on the economy because general fund revenues must be used to honor promises to seniors made from an negative equity Ponzi scheme. Tax revenues must bail that out.
I wish there were another option. There isn’t. If defense cuts aren’t on the table then the budget can’t be balanced without the use of dishonest math.
If we weren’t almost at 100% debt to GDP then we’d have more breathing room. That ship has sailed.
We don’t have the money to continue pursuing victory. This isn’t a matter of resolve. We can’t afford all of our obligations at home.
The more we borrow to pursue foreign objectives the more our economy becomes destabilized and the more power Communist China wields over our economy through the money they loan us.
If the world wants to be free of thug countries then the world needs to pay for it. I’m tired of watching Eurotrash get a free ride on my hard work. I paid way too much in the top tax bracket for assholes like Gunther to sit around sipping lattes, cursing me because of my hard work, cursing me because of my nationality, then cursing me for my nation providing the security which keeps their collectivist experiment afloat. If they want to curse America, then let them deal with the Russians instead. Maybe one day they’ll finally realize that George Bush was a much better friend that Vladimir Putin. Let’s see how much they like it when Gazprom puts its boot on the throat of their economy and winter comfort level.
AC:
I wholeheartedly disagree with you when you say it’s not a matter of resolve. When I was leaving the wire and being ordered (albeit with a wink and nod from my SNCOIC) to leave the weapon in Condition 3 (magazine in weapon, bolt home on an empty chamber), there was NO other explanation other than political posturing of showing the enemy a softer, kindler, gentler Marine Corps.
It costs just as much money to put warriors in harm’s way with aggressive objectives, chambered weapons, and sensible rules of engagement (as in see the enemy, shoot the enemy). When you try to win hearts and minds by taking up political rules of engagement, it neither wins hearts and minds, nor does it allow for victory.