Ron Paul’s dangerous foreign policy Reply

By Tom Quiner

Europeans have been relentlessly killing each other throughout their history. At the conclusion of the

Ron Paul

second world war, something happened that brought stability to Wester Europe: the United States maintained a military presence.

Ron Paul says this is wrong and we should close down our bases and come home.

In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, precipitating a war that involved the United States. Fighting ended in 1953. The U.S. has maintained a military presence in South Korea which has lent stability to this volatile region.

North Korea is again in the midst of regime change. We know very little about the new leader.

Ron Paul says we should close up shop and come home and hope for the best.

Does anyone think Korea will remain stable if we were to withdraw?

Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made countless inflammatory comments about American ally, Israel. Here are a few nuggets:

[Israel] “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence.”

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

“There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world…the World without Zionism.”

“The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments very much mirror the sentiments of the late German Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler:

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

“….the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”

“The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit is the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time.”

Mr. Paul isn’t worried.

He doesn’t seem concerned that Iran is quickly developing a nuclear weapon, and, in fact, he seems to even discount that possibility.

A nuclear Iran seems to scare everyone outside of the Arab world except for one man: Ron Paul.

Do you really think Ron Paul’s desire for American isolationism is really going to make the world safer?

History says no.


The payroll tax cut is a double loser 1

By Tom Quiner

Liberal instincts seem to be consistently wrong when it comes to creating jobs.

Republicans have an uncanny ability to be suckered into supporting ill-conceived “job-creating” legislation. The payroll tax cut extension is a tour de force of bad economic policy.

The premise of the president and his party is that “putting money in people’s pockets” will stimulate the economy and create jobs.

So did the cut in the payroll tax last year result in economic growth and job creation? No, just the opposite. Why in the world would we double-down on an ineffective policy, especially when it accelerates the fiscal unsoundness of Social Security and Medicare?

And then we have to go through all the political wrangling again in just two months to renew this dog.

As much as I like tax cuts, this is the wrong way to cut taxes.

A beautiful Christmas message from Ronald Reagan Reply

By Tom Quiner

Let’s turn the clock back thirty years to hear the beautiful Christmas address of a president who loved Christ.

Ronald Reagan wasn’t afraid to call Jesus the Christ. He called a Christmas tree a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree. He gave no quarter to the politically correct Thought Police who want to expunge Christianity.

Mr. Reagan’s words grow in their impact with each passing year. It is refreshing to hear a president celebrate the single, most important event in history when God became Man.

Merry Christmas.

Gingrich vs. Obama: who is more trustworthy? 4

By Tom Quiner

This is part two of a discussion of Barack Obama’s trustworthiness compared to Newt Gingrich’s.

To my many liberal friends reading this, I’d like to explain my rationale for writing this post. As you know, I am a fan of Newt Gingrich. I think he would make a great president, and I plan to caucus for him on January 3rd.

I know you gently demur.

Newt Gingrich has been hammered in the press by liberals and conservatives alike this past month for his “baggage.” Fair enough. Goes with the territory when you run for president. But when one of my liberal friends said he couldn’t trust Newt Gingrich because he had been twice-divorced, I was prompted to post a blog earlier this week: “Do you really trust President Obama more than Newt Gingrich?”

I methodically revealed one broken promise after another from Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, that post was far from exhaustive. Since Mr. Obama did not receive the same scrutiny in the press as a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney, I am compelled to build on the president’s lack of integrity on a number of additional issues.

One of candidate Obama’s broken promises was his adamant support of public financing of presidential campaigns:

“I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

When it came time to honor this campaign promise, Mr. Obama reneged, even as the McCain campaign honored their commitment to stick with public financing. The McCain campaign also denied that the Obama camp tried to discuss or even negotiate on this issue.

This is but one of countless pledges on which he brazenly reneged, and as always, with little outrage from the Mainstream Media.

Once president, Americans became alarmed at the shocking expansion of government spending and national debt implemented by the president and his party. President Obama spoke soothingly of his budget …

“What my budget does is…that by the middle of this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt.”

And yet, despite Mr. Obama’s point-blank denial that his budget was adding to the national debt, the budget released by the White House totally contradicted him with these projected deficits over the next decade:

  • 2010: $1.293 trillion
  • 2011: $1.645 trillion
  • 2012: $1.101 trillion
  • 2013: $768 billion
  • 2014: $645 billion
  • 2015: $607 billion
  • 2016: $649 billion
  • 2017: $627 billion
  • 2018: $619 billion
  • 2019: $681 billion
  • 2020: $735 billion
When we look at the nation’s accumulated debt burden on Mr. Obama’s watch, the shocking numbers explain why the Tea Party was born:
  • 2010: $9.019 trillion
  • 2011: $10.856 trillion
  • 2012: $11.881 trillion
  • 2013: $12.784 trillion
  • 2014: $13.562 trillion
  • 2015: $14.301 trillion
  • 2016: $15.064 trillion
  • 2017: $15.795 trillion
  • 2018: $16.513 trillion
  • 2019: $17.284 trillion
  • 2020: $18.103 trillion

To recap this and my previous post, Barack Obama promised to:

1. Provide healthcare for all.  He didn’t.  22 million will remain uninsured under his watch.

2. Close Guantanamo. He didn’t. It’s still open. He stuck with the Bush approach.

3. End military tribunals. He didn’t. He stuck with the Bush approach.

4. Revise the Patriot Act. He didn’t. He stuck with the Bush approach.

5. End the Bush-era tax cuts for “the rich.” He didn’t. He stuck with the Bush approach.

6. Never sign a new piece of legislation, known as his “sunlight before signing” vow, until 5 days had passed. He’s broken this promise repeatedly, especially on mammoth pieces of legislation like Obamacare that required lots of sunlight time to be properly scrutinized.

7. Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses. He didn’t.

8. Never hire lobbyists in his administration. He broke the vow and hired lobbyists.

9. To stick with public campaign funding for his presidential bid in 2008. He didn’t honor his pledge. But John McCain did.

10. Not add to the national debt. He has, with a mind-boggling expansion of federal spending.

In fairness, not all campaign promises can be kept. Intentions are good, but politics get in the way. But most of the promises on which he reneged above were Mr. Obama’s choice.
It is these brazen betrayals that breed such cynicism amongst voters.
In light of Mr. Obama’s choice to consistently dishonor the moral underpinnings of his campaign, I respectfully suggest that Mr. Gingrich’s two divorces should be a minor consideration to independent voters.