Robbing America

Sarah Palin: When Success Can Be A Failure

2012-02-13T13:26:00.009-05:00

Free Previews (we will NOT

share/sell your email) HERE

Comments:
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Sarah Palin still attracts adoring crowds and devoted followers. She won her place in the conservative hearts by her dedication to espousing the social conservative agenda with passion, and a lot of charm.

And How Would You Do That,
Sarah?

America is ripe, and more than due, for that female political figure that can equal or surpass those giants of the political life's of Great Britain's Lady Thatcher, Israel's Golda Maier, Germany's Angela Merkel, and India's Indira Gandhi. Even Australia, with their new leader in Julia Gillard has gotten ahead of the US with a woman leader.

But Sarah Palin is stuck in first gear. Satisfying the conservative activist crowds at CPAC can only take you so far, and to reach that point is the easy part. To become a leader of a large multi-cultural and socially diverse nation as ours, one needs to talk not just into the hearts of the people but into their minds, as well as into their lifes. Those lifes that today are suffering from economic policies and social agendas that do not conform to the life of the nation in its previous 230 years.

Sarah Palin needs to talk to the apolitical American individual that is a hard working family man or woman which forms 60% of the voters of the nation. They are not conservative activists, but they are neither progressive liberals.

Her CPAC speech last week has been reported as receiving standing ovations. These ovations are misguiding Sarah and misguiding conservatives, and are influencing the Republican Party into leaning to the right without a clear knowledge of where is that important line that if transgressed loses you that 60% center. The speech was not listened by 99.9% of the population, or that 60% of the independent apolitical center, and if they had, a good quantity of them would have left with a queasy feeling and a blank expression; in the event that they did not reach for the remote control before the end. If that is the case, they would have missed the only positive advice that Sarah had to give, "For the sake of our party, we must stand united with whoever our nominee is."

The problem with Sarah Palin is not

that we don't agree with most of what
she says, but that she says so little.

Otherwise, Sarah's one-liners and talking points are red meat to that 0.1% of Americans in attendance or listening, but cold shower for the American public. A year or so ago we wrote suggesting that Palin should get a team of political strategists and economic gurus that would develop her knowledge into those problems that ail America. That she should learn to explain and promote solutions to our nation's problems in concrete and actionable macro-economic growth policies, tax reform initiatives, fiscal restraint solutions, and budgetary proposals. She should convince the nation that she is capable of governing, and not just campaigning. We have had enough of Campaigners in Chief.

It is obvious that she hasn't follow this course.

The barrage of clichés and platitudes that she keeps on delivering wherever she goes fail to address American problems with sensible solutions and fail to demonstrate to the American voter that Sarah also has the wherewithal to dominate the technical issues and find the solutions desperately needed in our times. She fails to earn the comparisons to the above mentioned female political leaders of other nations.

When she reminds us that "The conservative movement has never been stronger or brighter, yet the federal government has never cast a bigger shadow”, or that, “the American people have woken up to the dangers of big government', or even that "Our candidate must be someone who must instinctively turn right, it's too late in the game to teach it", she serves no narrative and develops no story. Unconnected sound bites do not travel well alone. Sarah gives the impression that after each phrase, she doesn't know what comes next, so she starts anew with a different thought. She fails to continue the values represented in these singular thoughts and separate phrases and convert them into a narrative that produces an achievable vision of hope and trust capable of captivating the American public.

So it is that Sarah Palin has wasted her enormous political capital built since her nomination in 2008. That capital could transform and influence the present process of choosing a Republican nominee. But she chose otherwise. She first refused to run for the nomination and present battle directly. But even more surprising, she has thrown away her possible role as a king-maker by adopting a half-hearted quasi-endorsement pretense of Newt Gingrich. First, she pushes her husband Todd to make the endorsement of her obvious favorite. Knowing that that is not enough, she tries to push the election of Newt Gingrich by declaring publicly that if she were a resident of North Carolina or Florida she would cast her vote in his favor. Strange, indeed.

Sarah should be more forthcoming and honest. declare her preference officially and join the battle for her choice openly and bravely. She should then use that platform to tell us why she is doing so with a narrative that includes policy options, as outlined above, and a clear choice of the risk we are facing if we choose any of the opponent's models. She should explain the perils of the road ahead without political absolutisms and simplistic one-liners.

We said in our recent piece "Sarah Palin - Lost In The Election Fog", that "to maintain the purity and credibility of her conservative principles and fundamentals that she claims to advocate, it is essential to stay above the fray,.....or to dive into it with full commitment", she has done neither.

The problem with Sarah Palin is not that we don't agree with most of what she says, but that she says so little.

We like Sarah, so we will repeat the only one liner that is worth repeating from her recent CPAC speech, "For the sake of our party, we must stand united with whoever our nominee is." But in the meantime, Sarah, stop doing your damndest to weaken that "whoever" when it doesn't happen to be Gingrich.

Comments:

Free Previews (we will NOT
share/sell your email) HERE

The ‘Occupy’ secrets of immortality

2012-02-11T11:33:00.003-05:00

Free Previews (we will NOT
share/sell your email) HERE

Comments:
By Frank J. Fleming of IMAO

Occupy Wall Street is easily the greatest, most successful political movement in American history — a national phenomenon involving white, affluent college students from all walks of life.

Yes, lately it has been a lot easier to ignore. Much like a bear, it went into hibernation for the winter. But also like a bear, it’s going to wake up come spring and start mauling its enemies. And stealing picnic baskets.

You certainly are!!!

What’s made OWS so successful? That’s easy to see when you look at less successful movements — like the civil-rights movement, which was huge in the 1960s but then lost momentum. Why did it falter? Because it had goals and met them.

Nothing ruins a political movement like achieving its goals. No one wants to keep yelling and waving signs after they get what they want.

OWS wisely avoided this pitfall. The Occupiers roared in with nonspecific anger — about such things as Wall Street, with its walls and its streets, and the rich, with their money they got somehow — but it never set any actual goals.

The Occupiers just came and set up camps near banks with absolutely no exit strategy. And then they started yelling, “We won’t leave until . . .” and sort of mumbled after that.

This brilliance is why OWS will be around forever, unlike lesser movements.

Actually, OWS does have one specific concern to address. In cities from New York to Oakland and even Washington, DC, officials have told the Occupiers that they can’t camp in public areas. But this gives OWS an issue that complements a never-ending political movement: camping rights.

Many in OWS weren’t even aware of this problem when they started their protests, but that’s what a good movement does — it organically finds problems no one even knew existed.

If you think about it, campers are one of the most oppressed groups out there, often forced to set up tents in the middle of nowhere where no one can see them.

But no more. OWS isn’t ashamed of camping and thus wants to camp out in public, to be seen by all, and in walking distance of a Starbucks. And with WiFi access.

So OWS has temporarily given up all those nonspecific concerns about greed to focus on the important right to camp in public. Because as long as the Occupiers can camp, they can keep this movement going forever.

I expect all this to have a huge effect on the November election. After all, whiny white college kids are a giant political force.

No, they may not have a lot of money to donate — they’ve spent most of that upgrading their Apple products — but they have huge enthusiasm for vague change. The same vague change Barack Obama promised in his 2008 campaign yet failed to deliver, instead bringing specific change that was wildly unpopular.

So, under OWS influence, expect the national debate to move from such misguided, concrete concerns as jobs and the national debt to the more important and ephemeral concerns of greed, fairness and rich people being too rich. Don’t be surprised if one of the presidential debates is replaced with a drum circle. No candidate will dare come out strongly against camping.

The Occupiers will continue to camp out to fight for their right to camp out. They will go to any lengths to defend camping rights. (Except they won’t wander too far from their tents, because if you leave those unattended, people will steal from them.)

It’s an important, serious cause, and perhaps when economic conditions force us to live in shanty towns, we’ll look to them as the new Founding Fathers. By then, I hope, they’ll have figured out how to deal with the rats.

Political satirist Frank J. Fleming’s e-book, “Obama: The Greatest President in the History of Everything,” is out from HarperCollins.

Comments:

Free Previews (we will NOT
share/sell your email) HERE

Redistributing the Housing Wealth.

2012-02-09T20:06:00.013-05:00

Free Previews (we will NOT
share/sell your email) HERE

Comments:
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Election Time - Another Bailout

This time it is the turn of the home owners to get their wealth redistributed; and the Financial Services industry and its customers, which means you, are the ones who will pay the cost.

The government Subsidizes the Voters that are Delinquent and Punishes the Voters that Are Responsible.

The government also punishes all American consumers that have a bank account or in any way use any financial service in the country. The redistribution of wealth does not come out from the taxpayers, it comes out from the consumers of financial services, all of which are also taxpayers. The banking and mortgage industries are not welfare institutions. The cost of doing business, which includes paying bribes to the government, like this $25 Billion bribe, comes out of the price that these same consumers will have to pay for their services.

The money doled out to the irresponsible home owners is also paid by the responsible home owners that met their obligations, but whose home price is being negatively affected by those that defaulted.

Along the way, and in order to make this blackmail possible, the government breaks another law, one more time - contract law.

What happened with America's Rule of Law and property and contract rights? They were obliterated by government omnipotence.

Comments:

Free Previews (we will NOT
share/sell your email) HERE

Time to Select a Vice-President for Mitt Romney

2012-02-08T10:45:00.001-05:00

Free Previews (we will NOT
share/sell your email) HERE

Comments:
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Who would make a vice-presidential candidate to Mitt Romney that woud increase the probability of the Republican ticket winning the election as well as make a stronger and more conservative executive?

The Media, the die-hards, the dreamers, the ostriches, and the Palin-NYT types, in involuntary partnership with the rabid-activists of the right, wishing for the self-destruction of the Republican Party, may still be pretending and promoting this ugly contest to go on, but we prefer to tell it like it is and take realistic and pragmatic positions based on the unromantic position of the facts.

Notwithstanding the none-binding caucuses - equivalent to straw polls - of yesterday, where Minnesota, a state that elected a wrestler for governor and a comedian for senator, has assembled a few activist jokers to tell us who should the rest of 320 million people elect for President, and by doing so, hoodwink the Republican Party into losing the general election. The Caucuses, with their un-pragmatic activists, are a form of perversity that bamboozles the media and the system into prolonging the inevitable. We prefer for the people, and the "center" who conforms that 40% of the voting population that actually win elections - to speak, and so far they have when the system gives them a chance.

So the fact remains: there is no question as to who is going to be the next Republican candidate for President of the United States.

But those with financial interests for a prolonged contest, as well as those that are behind in the race and are still dreaming, are pretending it isn't so. Witness their breathtaking and incisive assessment of the Republican race at present:

The New York Times title piece: "Nevada victory makes Romney look like a front-runner". Oh, really? "Look like"? Amazing power of analysis.
Our own Fox News John: "Mitt Romney is beginning to look like the nominee". Well, as long as it is just "beginning", those polling less than one quarter of the votes still have a chance. Right!
The Washington Post: "Romney wins again, what does it mean?" Geeeh! I don't know. Anybody know? That is a hard one. Could it be that he will be the Republican candidate for president? Or perhaps that there is a 52-4% chance that you will soon have to refer to him as President Romney? Nooooo, of course not!
New Gingrich, stealing a line from Ron Paul: - "Let me tell you something. This is a long process, it is not about winning, it is all about 'Delegates'".
- "But Mr. Speaker, just a short while ago you told us you were a winner."
- Gingrich, stealing a line from John Kerry: ["Well, that was before I was a loser"] *
* [brackets] mean: thoughts not spoken.

So why don't we stop playing the fools, which is a prerogative of the national press and our beloved politicians, and get to what really matters in the real world. Yes, that real ugly world full of imperfections - not least of which are imperfect candidates. And what really matters now - in the [unspoken thoughts] of the powers that be - is, who would make a vice-presidential candidate to Mitt Romney that increases the probability of the Republican ticket winning the election as well as making a stronger and more conservative executive. Sorry, here we go again, talking about "winning" (our apologies to the purists, the holier-than-thou crowd, and the Libertarians), but we hold dear to that old fashioned notion that winning is better than losing.

We propose that there are some basic tenets that not only balances the ticket and makes it into a more conservative one, but it also re-enforces it with the aim of capturing the states of most importance coming in the general election.

These tenets are:

A vice-presidential candidate that is considered more conservative than Mr. Romney without reaching the fringes that would repel the electoral center; one that can gather the support of the Tea Party and be considered a fiscal conservative with high regards for the guidance of the Constitution; one that comes from the South (the west coast is lost to Lenin-Marx) or Mid-West; one that can be accepted as possessor of "high character" and religious values (look for that catholic and evangelical vote); one that will not alienate the Hispanic vote, or even better, that will actually reverse the anti-Hispanic feeling that the Republican Party has so painstakingly worked to achieve.

Please Vote:

We welcome any contribution to the above basic requirements as to what makes a good vice-presidential candidate, always within the premise of Mitt Romney as top of the ticket in order to maintain the validity of the comparisons.

Please give it to us in your comments and we shall add an addendum with the best of them.

Comments:

Free Previews (we will NOT share/sell your email) HERE

America Must Fix Its Electoral Process....and Then Maybe,....

2012-02-06T14:21:00.004-05:00

........., Just Maybe, We Get Better Leaders.

Previews HERE

Comments:

By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

The Greatest Nation on Earth With The Worst Electoral Process in the Western World. It is time to scrutinize its anomalies.

A process that requires two years of campaigning in order to select a president that will work at governing for two years before he starts campaigning again, and all its decisions are made on light of what is best for re-election instead of for the good of the nation, is a system that may be called "crazy" by any new arrival into this earth with a miniscule amount of common sense. Well, that is exactly what we do in this great nation of ours.

And we are being kind because actually the president and congressional leaders also campaign during those so called "governing" years due to the mid-term congressional elections in which the president has to lend its support - which is 'campaigning' in practical terms - to his party's candidates. Double-crazy!!!

We must fix the process of how to elect our presidents.

I don't want to imitate Europe in their economic and social policies. However, they produce high quality and beautiful consumer goods, they enjoy great food, and they manage to elect their leaders in a smoother, cheaper, and more rational way.

Spain

just changed its government last December 20. They called for an election 3 months before. They allowed political campaigning for only 4 weeks prior to the election on November 20. There was a day of rest with no campaigning allowed on TV or any other kind of advertisement on the day previous to the voting day. There were only two public televised debates between the two top contenders (even though in their proportional representation system there were several other candidates). The winner took possession of the government on December 20, only 30 days after the election. Their elected leaders will spend all of their four years in office (with the exemption of 4 weeks of the next campaign) governing instead of campaigning.

A very similar process takes place in

Great Britain

Europeans are generally baffled by the reasons of why we have political campaigns lasting double two-years. They are also baffled by the reason why we allow 120,000 initial first time caucuses voters in a single relatively small state (out of fifty) decide who are the last 3 or so candidates that will be allowed to continue in their quest out of a country of 320 million (not even 0.04% of the total population). And this all takes place under local rules that change from state to state and that allows in many instances for the members of the opposition party to pre-select the candidates of the other party. Crazy!

This uncontrolled process is nothing else but an invitation to mischief and influence peddling. The preferential and unequal treatment that the process places in the citizens of some states as compared to others concedes great power to a minority as represented by the voters of those states. The heard element on people's makeup becomes unreliably influential in the election process by affecting in considerable manner how the voters of following states would vote next. It is a system fraught with traps, psychological push buttons, and unreliable voter heard instincts. The reasons for a secret vote in political elections, and the rules in effect that prevents the results from being announced ahead of the voting schedule of other locations, is precisely to avoid the psychological heard behavior among voters. They must vote according to what they believe as individuals, without the influence and pressure of knowing how other voters thought. However, the primary process in the

United States

engages on preferential treatment of some voters against others, and announces in weeks and months of television bombardment how their previous voters acted and thought. There goes individuality for you!

It is a system fraught with traps and unfairness, not to mention the sheer lack of practicality, cost, and effective results. Again, multiple "crazy"!!

United States

is the greatest country in the world with the worst election process in the world (not counting those that have fake elections, of course). We must fix it, if we dare!

Comments:

Previews HERE

Make Us Lose, So We Can Win.

2012-02-04T17:08:00.010-05:00

Previews HERE

Comments:
By John Galt, Robbing America Chronicle

- Why is it that Ultra-Conservatives and Libertarian-Purists never lose presidential general elections?

- Because they always lose the primaries first.

For Lease 2013-2016: please,
apply to the "Center".

The more things change, the more things remain the same. Reading conservative blogs (of all shades), attending Tea Party meetings, and crashing conservative cocktail parties - of the kind where they actually use glasses - you would surmise that there is no chance in hell that an establishment Republican, of the kind we have been electing to run for president for the last one hundred and fifty years, would ever be nominated this time around.

- "This time is different! Right!" You hear, among the blue-jeans crowd.

- "Sure!" Responds, the gray flannel suit with a martini in his hand in a paternalistic gesture.
- "Geeez! Don't you hate people that patronizes you?"

Fire sprouts from the mouths - and noses - of the true believers when the name of any recognized "true constitutionalist", "freedom fighter", and "anti-government-all-or-nothing" crusader, or even one or two foreign policy kooks that think Iran is harmless, is mentioned with reverence and passion. You are taken aback by the calls to war reverberating among them.

- "This time is war. We will destroy the Republican Party".

- "Yea, man! Let's do it, man!"

Watching it all, while staying close to the fire hose, one is convinced that this time, indeed, there is no chance in hell that the Republican pragmatics are going to get away with nominating again one of their safe moderate center-right candidates.

- "I rather not vote", keeps popping-up.

You run for the exit and eventually make it out of the blazing fires and war chants and reach home to safety. When you finally get rid of all those Ron Paul buttons, Rick Santorum 'Family First' hats, and Gingrich "I'm a Reaganite" flyers, and make sure that none of the war paint has been rubbed on your face, you turn on the TV and Fox News and face Carl Rove's and Brit Hume's commentary like a cold shower.

- "The numbers don't add up for Newt, Carl, either in campaign funds or Moon delegates who were not recognized by the RNC."

- "I believe so, Brit, but neither is the enthusiasm for Santorum. A good-guy image in sweater-vests with 20 kids is just not enough."
- "But Ron Paul needs to be given a place at the table."
- "Sure, we'll seat him next to Bernanke and record the conversation".
- "Ok.......that ends it up for us tonight"

It doesn't take long before you realize that that is exactly what is going to happen.......again. The right-right and their pals, the unpractical-dreamy-right, are about to lose the primaries again and a pragmatic-conservative is going to get the nomination.

The center rules and the center

is apolitical and disengaged.

Outside the gatherings of these fire storming warriors, and away from the blistering pages of their blogs, the average American (all 65 million of them) that hold that unequivocal and perennial 40% of the political center, wouldn't be caught dead in association with either end of the political spectrum as described above. When they feel sympathetic to the conservative side it is not because of any deep rooted philosophical concern for Freedom and Liberty in their fundamentalist interpretations, nor is it either due to their constitutional preoccupations and expertise. It is even less because of their understanding of the esoteric workings of the economic forces that make capitalism and the free market work better than the repetitive failures of previous socialistic models. They are more likely driven to feel a degree of acceptance for a conservative candidate because of the turn of the cycle that places an in-your-face failure of the latest leftist big government politician in power as the other choice.

One of the great contradictions of the Republican Politician is that he sees government as evil, he stands for less government, but as a professional politician he wants a job in government. He wants to govern. He wants to change and control the government. Funny, our conservative haters of government cannot exist without government. Liberal politicians have no such problem; after all, they openly admit that it is all about government, and the more the merrier. It is a wonder that conservative politicians stay sober - most of the time.

Politics is reactionary. Not the ideological meaning of the word, but the physical connotation. One reacts to the events. The practical about-your-business citizen distrusts the activists on either side. At the end, they do a favor to both sides. In the primaries they choose those that are also chosen by the likes of them - the apolitical center that prefers watching a ball game than a political debate - and who with them, form that overpowering 40% center. The center rules and the center is apolitical and disengaged.

At the end, the firebrand bloggers and activists go home disappointed but winners, in spite of themselves. The center didn't listen to them and thus made them winners, kicking and screaming, but winners. The none-activists selected a nominee that could actually win.

- I say, mate, that sucks! We won again!
But it doesn't suck as much as being a loser.

Welcome to the White House Mr. Romney, you are a true pragmatic conservative, and the firebrands will love to hate you; never mind that you save them from themselves - and from a far worst socialist fate. Now, if we were smart, a big if, we would elect a Congress that can actually know a minimum of economics.

Well, never mind! Unpractical dreaming is contagious and I'm catching it!

Comments:

Previews HERE

Sarah Palin and The New York Times Agree: Fling the Dirt

2012-02-01T10:48:00.004-05:00

Previews HERE

Comments:
By John Galt, Robbing America Chronicle

Hardly the ink was dry from our last front page piece, "Sarah Palin - Lost In The Election Fog", where we conveyed our dismay that Sarah was advocating the dreadful continuation of the Republican debates and the mud slinging between Republicans - that she calls with the euphemism "hardening of the steel" - than the prominent Democratic propaganda sheet of The New York Times publishes an editorial titled, "Don't Stop the Debates". They seem hard press to contain their glee about the bloodshed and ravages these are causing and they are all in for the continuation of the mud slinging that is going on among Republican candidates. They said, "The long series of debates are an open window onto the failed policies and dubious values of the Republican Party."

That Sarah Palin and the New York Times agree on something so strategically important for the coming election needs to be scrutinized and discerned. Sarah Palin is advocating the continuation of this destructive process for too obvious a reason. The horse that she is backing has fallen behind and its only chance of recovery is if these debates and acrimony continue - even if the "hardening of the steel" becomes the "burial by excrement". If in the process the Republican candidate - whomever it finally arrives to the election - becomes so weak that President Obama will get easily elected, she apparently doesn't care.

she should come clean, endorse Gingrich officially,

and campaign hard and openly without pretending

that she speaks for true conservatives in all issues

We are not condemning Sarah Palin for taking sides - it is obviously her prerogative - but we propose that she should come clean, endorse Gingrich officially, and campaign hard and openly without pretending that she speaks for true conservatives in all issues that Mr. Gingrich embraces. Sarah needs to free herself from pretending that capitalism, individualism, free enterprise, anti-establishment, and fiscal prudence, are her ultimate and unequivocal goals when these contravene Speaker Gingrich campaign actions. If in the future Mr. Gingrich deviates from conservative principles of free trade and free enterprise during the campaign, as he has done already in the Bain Capital case, Sarah would be under no obligation to defend capitalism, and her rationalizations of the issues would be understood for what they are - an obligation to defend her candidate. After all, it would still be his platform, not Sarah's. As it is, when Newt's worst instincts get the better of him - as they have and they will again - like accusing his opponent of being against "holocaust survivors", Sarah, in her independent commentator's role, has no option but to condemn. We are still waiting on this one!

At least the NYT is sincere about its motives

In her present double-agent role, Sarah claims to speak for the Tea Party's anti-establishment position, while rooting for the most establishment of all candidates - Newt Gingrich. If the former Speaker of the House, Congressman, and Washington K Street resident, does not qualify as establishment, we would await with trepidation Sarah's definition of it. We are not arguing against Sarah or against Gingrich. Newt has many qualities, not least of which are a promising tax reform proposal with a good potential to instill growth in the economy; an immigration policy that is quite realistic and pragmatic; and different proposals to attack and control the growth of entitlements, especially those of Medicare and Medicaid. There would be no shame if Sarah helps to propagate his positives without pretensions, or having to engage in the rationalization and defense of some of his candidate populist positions. After all, as we pointed out in "The Creation of the Conservative-Populist", Gingrich has discovered the strategic persona of the new populist Republican taken directly from the Democratic book of 'How to Win Elections'.

But it is time that Sarah Palin changes her pretension of 'unbiased' commentator at Fox News and join the official campaign of Newt Gingrich.

Comments:

Free Previews (we will NOT share/sell your email) HERE

Sarah Palin - Lost In The Election Fog

2012-01-30T09:37:00.008-05:00

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

Comments:
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

[Disclosure: We have been backers of Sarah Palin from the start of her nominating speech in the John McCain Republican ticket of 2008. We like her and support her - when she is right - and we want to help her.]

Way back in November we published our prediction (no other source had said as much) that Sarah Palin will in all likelyhood endorse Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination (See "The Mother of all Conservative Endorsements: Sarah Palin's."). For all purposes we have been proven correct with the official endorsement of Gingrich by Todd Palin and by the campaigning and quasi-endorsement of Sarah urging voters to vote for Newt.

Nevertheless, Sarah's failure to openly declare a clear choice of sides, and specially her faltering support for the fundamentals of conservatism in this election season when they interfered with her personal choices, is a little befuddling. It is open to interpretations not likely to endear her to the Conservative voter due to her lack of honesty and sincere defense of conservative principles. When Speaker Gingrich deviated from the basic values of capitalism and free enterprise by attacking Romney for his role at Bain Capital, Sarah Palin was quick to forget those basic tenets of conservatism and excused Mr. Gingrich's motives. When Mr. Gingrich demanded that Romney provide his tax returns in order to bring attention to his apparent low rate of taxation, without clarifying the full and true scope of his contributions, he is making a populist appeal expected more from Senor Obama than from a Republican conservative. Sarah happily went along with this line of attack from Mr. Gingrich. Similarly equivocating has been her practice of defending Mr. Gingrich on the issues of Fannie and Freddie, immigration, the moon base, and countless other issues.

To maintain the purity and credibility of
her conservative principles and
fundamentals that she claims to advocate,
it is essential to stay above the fray

We believe, as well as many prominent Republicans do, that the gruesome primary process with its ad-nauseam number of debates, which are being manipulated by the press as to bring the worst from each contestant, is to the benefit of President Obama and to the detriment of whoever survives the onslaught. But Sarah Palin has been advocating the continuation of the process, in great part because it is the only hope for her by now not-so-secret favorite to catch up with Mr. Romney. She is willing to sacrifice the Party, and most likely the election, to her ends.

We ask of Sarah Palin - where do you stand - with conservatism or with your favorite horse?

If she didn't want to issue an official endorsement in order to stay free to promote and support the values of conservatism and Tea Party principles, this is a funny way of doing it. Sarah is lost in the foggy mush and unsavory role of backing her man regardless of the methods he uses to reach his ends.

To maintain the purity and credibility of her conservative principles and fundamentals that she claims to advocate, it is essential to stay above the fray without participating in it or trying to influence its outcome with off the cuff endorsements or directions of how voters should cast their vote.

You cannot have it both ways, Sarah!!!

Comments:

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

I Don't Want To Own No Damn Dairy Cow in 2012!

2012-01-29T10:23:00.004-05:00

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

Comments
By Sherman Broder for Robbing America Chronicle

According to “Mother Earth News” (Start a 1-Acre, Self-Sufficient Homestead), happiness is owning a single dairy cow.

Is this what life in America has come to?

I've lived over six decades in this great country. I grew up as a boy thinking I could be and do whatever I put my mind to. The United States was the land of opportunity. Every day was great because I knew tomorrow was going to be a bigger and greater day. I read soaring novels like Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." President Kennedy wanted to land an American on the moon. Nothing seemed too big or too impossible for an ambitious American to achieve.

I set my sights high too. I was the first in my family to attend college. I started a successful business. I saved for my retirement. I was set to enjoy my elder years reading, studying, and spending my time thinking, writing and blogging in places like this!

And now this damn country is losing its mind!

First, the house I had worked hard to pay off lost its value. Then, the stock market crash scrambled my nest egg. And now the money I’ve manage to save earns 37 cents a year in interest compounded daily!

The moron kids in the 60's started this stupid slide. I ought to know. I was one of them. We took to the streets because we thought our parents were too “square.” We grew our hair long, killed God and family and screwed everything that moved. (Well, I didn't do that. I wanted to, but my square parents wouldn't let me.)

Actually, I wouldn't let me because I believed the Ayn Rand stuff I was reading: values, living life as man qua man -- that stuff!
Now we've got a President and half the people in the country who believe in redistributing my wealth.
What the hell is that?

Weren’t relentless inflation, the Great Recession and the Giant Housing Bubble good enough for them? I guess not, because they figured out a more efficient and direct way to get my money: simply take it! After they tax it, they say they hand it out to the needy and more deserving.

Get real, Bubba! They’re giving it to their pals!
And in the mean time, how am I supposed to survive?
They tell me I'm supposed to take the crumbs they leave me and buy a self-sufficient farm so I won’t starve. I’m supposed to grow carrots, raise chickens, and own a damn dairy cow!

This is how I’m to spend my golden years?
Well, screw anyone who thinks this new hopey-changey, wealth redistribution country is better than the good old United States that I grew up in!

Americans! What the hell has happened to us?
We work hard our entire life and we’re supposed to measure success by the pint of milk we can squeeze out of a dairy cow's teat each sunrise and sunset?

Wake up! This is the 21st century! My great, great, great grandfather's idea of success was owning a subsistence farm and a single, damn dairy cow! That was a great dream for him because he came from the old country where success was being a serf on some lord's land raising a chicken or two. But owning an acre of land and a single cow isn't what he wanted for his son and his son's sons!

What made this country great was freedom and property, and the freedom to get more property. Our forefathers were traders. They built this great country on the principle of the division of labor. That means if you're smart enough to be a physicist or a computer geek or a tool and die maker, you become a physicist or a computer geek or a tool and die maker. You don’t exile yourself from prosperity as a damn hermit raising a single cow!

For the new generation out there, I'll explain it to you again in smaller words: You do what you do best. You aim high. You earn money! If you want carrots or beef or milk, you go to the store and trade for it with the money you earn! You build factories and stores and stock markets. That's the division of labor! That's prosperity! Success is making the future more prosperous than the past.

Owning a single damn cow is going backwards!
Owning a damn cow!
You can't be serious!!

Comments

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

The Hypocrisy of The Tax Debate: Romney's Real Tax Rate Is 55%.

2012-01-24T10:31:00.008-05:00

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

An example of how "Unfair" is our tax system to those that are paying taxes.

In The American Version:
The Ones At The
Bottom Pay No Taxes

Much is being made of the announced tax rate paid by Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The liberal attack, as well as the Republican populist attack of Newt Gingrich, is hypocritical to the extreme. First, they know very well that this rate of 15% cannot be compared to earned income rates simply because Mr. Romney had no earned income. This is a rate paid on investment income. Second, they know that this investment income already paid taxes when it was earned, and that the tax rate in the corporations that earned it was 35% (by the way, the highest in the world tied with Japan). Be aware that this capital is being taxed twice. Let us repeat it - all together Mr. Gingrich - "Mr. Romney's earned capital is being taxed two times". Yes, as in twice.

We calculate that the total taxation rate of Mr. Romney, including the original tax paid when the income was earned, plus the present taxation on investment income, plus his personal State income tax and sales tax, was a total of a little over 56%. And that is not counting myriad other hidden taxes along the route.

This kind of incomprehension about the American tax system and its manipulation for political purposes is the main obstacle standing on the way for creating economic growth. Now should be a great opportunity to shine the light of tax reform proposals, including specially those that suggest a simplified flat tax in replacement of the convoluted system we have now, and one that will allow more Americans to participate in paying taxes, regardless of how little they would pay. The real problem of the American tax system is not whether somebody like Mr. Romney paid enough taxes - even though he actually paid more than his "fair" share - but whether it is "fair" that 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all.

Now, watch President Obama suggest exactly the opposite in the State of the Union by using the concept of "fairness" backwards.

Comments:

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

The Creation Of The "Conservative-Populist"

2012-01-21T11:19:00.014-05:00

Free - News and Commentary Early Previews HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

The Press rivals Congress in unpopularity.

This pre-election season has had many twists and turns that will soon be forgotten, but what will stay and become the model and new alternative for Republican candidates for national office in the future is undoubtedly the creation - or discovery if you wish - of the new electoral tool - the Populist conservative candidate - that will allow them to reach a larger audience with a populist message right out of the Democratic electoral book - but with a conservative flavor.

Newt Gingrich, in this primary campaign, has brought to us the new model - a Conservative-Populist - that will promote conservative ideas with a twist of populism which for the typical party activist, perhaps won't sound so conservative at times, but which will go unnoticed by the public. Newt has discovered the formula for that populism - the anti-media, anti-press stand, sprinkled with a daring pre selected anti-capitalist deviations - as he has done in the Bain Capital issue. The later has already been tried by George W. Bush in his so called "compassionate Conservatism". Newt's new version is much more restricted and selective to those cases where he can make hash of the inevitable downside of the free market, and convert it into a populist appeal. Nevertheless, it is, ultimately, populism at the cost of capitalism. One has to thread carefully there.

But the core of Gingrich's new populism is now that old nemesis of the conservative politician - the press. Until now, Republican politicians have lived in constant fear but compliance of the so called "liberal press". They denounce it but they mostly play ball, afraid of turning their public power even more drastically against them. Gingrich has demonstrated that such fears were unnecessary and exaggerated. That is because Republican politicians forgot one simple fact all this time, how much the press is derided and hated and mistrusted by the American people. With polls indicating a severe unpopularity of the press with the American public where they score approval ratings competing with Congress in the low 20%, is safe to conclude that an anti-press candidate is a pro-public candidate.

For the same reasons that Mr. Obama has chosen to run his electoral campaign against Congress, a republican candidate can run his campaign against the Press. As the Press attempts to deliver the President's message against Congress it would be neutralized and turned against the President as the Republican candidate delivers its message against the Press - an institution that nobody believes what it says.

In short, if the press needed to get

elected, we would not have one.

Gingrich is the first conservative politician that has persistently exploited the unpopularity of the Press to win debates and increase his own following. He has become untouchable by scandals or negative exposure, or erroneous policy suggestions, no matter how true they are, by simply replying with skillful and powerful rhetorical attacks against the carriers of the message, the press. Instantly and by magic, the people forget who the target was, what the accusation consisted of, and side with Gingrich against the Press.

The beauty and great advantage of this new found strategy is that his Democratic opposition cannot do the same. Democrats don't get attacked by the press, and if they were to by some rogue member or rare conservative journalist, they will never dare turn against their most valuable political allies. They cannot; they are tied to the unpopularity of their hosts. They will never blame the messenger. This is a populist tool that is out of bounds for Democrats. The attack on the press is now an exclusive popular tool of the Conservative movement. Gingrich is our first Populist-Conservative. Enjoy it!! There should soon be more to follow him.

Comments

Get Connected With Our Members HERE

Only Career Politicians Should Be President.

2012-01-18T08:22:00.002-05:00

Get Connected With Our Members HERE

Comments
By Frank J. Fleming, IMAO.

[We dedicate this humble piece to our self-proclaimed (with exceptions) conservative Republican, Professor Newt Gingrich. Robbing America Chronicle]

People have started to learn some disturbing facts about likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: He once worked for Bain Capital — which is what’s known as a private-sector business. Harmless as the term sounds, it’s much scarier once you understand how such outfits operate.

A private-sector business doesn’t even pretend to make decisions based on how to best help people or what creates the most jobs or even on what will most equally distribute income. It makes decisions based only on what creates a profit.

Yes, it’s frightening to think that something so mercenary even exists — even worse that someone who worked for something like that could actually become president. Of course, the only people who should lead our country and manage our economy are those who remain unsullied by the private sector’s for-profit mentality: career politicians.

Isn’t there something just so reassuring about a career politician? He has never worried about “profit” or “efficiency” or “success”; his every job has involved only helping people.

Look at President Obama. His first job was “community organizer.” Do you think that job made a profit for anybody? No way. Did it provide goods or services a consumer might want to pay for? No.
The purpose of a community organizer is . . . well, I’m still kind of vague on the specifics, but I’m pretty sure it’s about helping people. People who live in a community — a disorganized one.

The point is, while Obama was doing this, Romney was rubbing his hands together like Gollum, exclaiming, “Precious, precious money!” And to get that money, he worked hard to trim costs and do whatever else he could to make a business successful. If elected president, he might look on the economy with cold, cynical eyes that judge everything by how profitable it is — as opposed to Obama, who looks at the economy and says, “Yay, look at all this money I can take to help people!”

Also, Romney had to answer to investors — people who expected a return on their money. This made him very hesitant to spend money. That’s a completely different perspective from that of a career politician, who’s only ever spent the money of taxpayers — people who long ago learned never to expect any sort of return on their investment.

What if Romney brought that corrupt perspective to Washington and, instead of just helping people with tax money, worried about whether we could actually afford things?

No, we need to keep this for-profit mentality out of Washington. We need the government to be run by pure career politicians like Obama.

While others were managing businesses to create profit, Obama worked as a legislator, voting “yes,” “no” and, especially, “present,” which never profited anyone.
In fact, if Obama were put in charge of a business and pressured to make it profitable, he’d just stare back at us in confusion. He might even start crying. That’s how horrific he’d find that scenario. And it’s that innocence — that complete lack of basic economic knowledge — that he brings to leading our nation.

If we allowed Romney to bring his business sense to office, it would be horrific. He’d start slashing the government until it was lean and efficient and everything fit within the budget. What a cold and heartless way to look at government.

That won’t happen with Obama. There’s no chance he’ll let budgets or math be more important than helping people, because he’s never been corrupted by the knowledge of those concepts. He knows only two things: helping people and spending tax dollars. Any other knowledge would just slow him down.

Political satirist Frank J. Fleming’s e-book, “Obama: The Greatest President in the History of Everything,” is out from HarperCollins.

Comments

Get Connected With Our Members HERE

Ron Paul Wants 0% Tax Rate.

2012-01-17T13:58:00.004-05:00

Get Connected With Our Members HERE

Comments

By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

What!!!

Don't we all?

A definitive moment for Ron Paul; he either is elected King for Life, or he is taken to a resting residence in a white jacket.

Ron Paul Lies:

Ron Paul Openly Lied in National TV about the Killing of Bin Laden. He denied having said that he would not have ordered the raid that killed Bin Laden.

Bret: You said you were against the operation that killed Bin Laden"

Paul: "Obviously not, I did not say that".

The following transcript from an interview with Simon Conway of The Blaze proves that Paul said exactly that:

Simon: "So President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could have only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation?"

Paul: "I don't think it was necessary, no."

Simon, again: "So President Ron Paul would not have ordered the kill of Bin Laden , to take place, as it took place in

Pakistan

Paul: "No the way it took place, no."

The Republican "nominating process from hell" is almost over, at least as far as the debates are concerned. Yes. my fellow Americans, freedom from debates has finally arrived.

Let us just give you the final judgment of our panel of experts which is a lot smarter than the Juan Williams' of the Fox world:

The Second Best of the Debate: "Gotch-you" questions at a minimum.

The most Cantankerous: Ron Paul - who else?
The more Sustentative: Romney, Gingrich.
The most Trustworthy: Romney, Perry.
The less Trustworthy: Ron Paul (Huntsman was absent)
The most Evasive: Ron Paul - he made a pretzel out of the Osama killing.
The most Convoluted Double-Talk: Santorum (on the "Right to Work" vote)
The Hypocrite per-excellence: Gingrich (on the Bain Capital issue).
The best Values: Perry, Romney
The worst question: Juan Williams (Why is he at Fox?)
The worst Intentions: Juan Williams.
The biggest Applause: Romney and Gingrich.
The best Laugh: Romney.
The most Missed: George W. Bush..
The most Wished: Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley.
The best Economic plan: Gingrich, Romney.
The more stupid suggestion: Ron Paul (0% Tax)
The best Debater: Gingrich, Romney.
The best practical Vision: Romney.

The winner: Gingrich, Romney (Surprise!)
The Loser: Ron Paul.

Comments:

Get Connected With Our Members HERE

Europe Is Warning The US - Are We Listening?

2012-01-14T10:53:00.115-05:00

Get Connected With Our Members HERE

Comments

By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

France

Downgraded - Europe and The Euro Coming Apart.

Watch Out 2012!!! The consequences for the US and the Obama Administration.

We predicted accurately on both dénouements last November and December. With the Euro trading then at 1.38-1.42 per dollar we suggested that the real price of the Euro should be 0.90 to 1.10 per dollar due to an "overpriced Euro for the Southern economies", a "coming recession in Europe", and "significant withdrawals of retail Euro deposits...from the Eurozone banks" [See "The Euro - Tick, Tick, Tick, . . . . Boooooom!"]. The Euro traded today at 1.26 per dollar on its probable un-merry way to our predicted level. Further, we asserted two weeks later, in the piece "Who Will Defeat Obama In2012? Greece", that "Even if a miracle occurs and the unemployment rate in the US drops below 8%, the Greeks are still coming to spoil the President's wishes". The Downgrades of France and Italy today, the largest holders of Greek debt, will imperil the arm twisting presently in place to make the bank holders of Greek debt to accept less than 50% face value on their debt - becoming obvious that even that hair cut of Greek creditors wasn't going to be enough to save it.

This is the entitlement debt mess that the Obama Administration wants to import to America.

Consequences for the United States.

We again like to point out that the American economy will be affected by a rise on the Dollar, the Eurozone recession, and the downgrade of the Euro debt of American banks.

(Billions)

Country Gross Debt GDP Debt/GDP

USA

(2011) 15,200 15,100 102.6%

France

(2010) 82.4%

Italy

(2010) 119.0%

Greece

(2010) 142.7%

Spain

(2010) 60.0%

Germany

(2010) 83.4%

With the US 15.2 Trillion dollars in debt and rising - representing a higher ratio of debt to GDP than France, Spain, Portugal and Germany - and the fiscal deficit growing to the tune of 1.2 trillion dollars a year, representing a growth in the US Deficit of 8% per year against a GDP growth of 2.0% (2012), which corresponds to a ratio of indebtedness four time faster than our economic growth, it is easy to deduct that S&P will take full notice of the American economic situation.

At Robbing America Chronicle we are estimating that by the end of a second Obama term in 2016, the US will have 22.3 Trillion in debt with a GDP of 16.7 Trillion, which represents a debt to GDP ratio of 133.5%, just where Greece is about now. Today we are between Italy and France, in just four years we will be like Greece, a country in technical bankruptcy being held alive by the good wishes of Germany.

It is easy to conclude that another

USA

downgrade in the near future cannot be ruled out.

All neatly packaged and delivered by November 2012!

Comments

Free previews and membership HERE

WOW! Sarah Palin going Rogue! To the leftist side.

2012-01-12T22:55:00.010-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America

We have just witness a political suicide and nobody noticed - except Rush Limbaugh, of course.

Palin Joins Newt and Perry in the Hara-Kiri political act of this election season.

We have been supporters of Sarah Palin since her arrival at the national scene. So it is a painful shock to us, as it must be to all those conservatives that are slowly becoming aware that Sarah Palin actually came in support of Rick Perry on his absurd anti-Republican claim that Bain Capital are not "Venture Capitalists" but "Vulture Capitalists".

When asked weather she approved of the "vulture" characterization of Bain Capital by Perry, she answered: "I don't believe that is at the heart of Gov. Perry criticism of Bain..." Really, Sarah?

It is not like she came to FOX prime time for an interview with the Gingrich-Perry Bain attack on Romney going full blown and she did not expect to be asked about it. It was a well thought out choice: do I abandon Gingrich and Perry and take the higher road, that of our Party's philosophy and principles, or I try to wiggle Perry out - and in doing so, Gingrich - to keep alive the hope that they will beat Romney? Tough choice? Not really, for we would go without hesitation with our Party and the principles it represents and which we claim to support.

Was she actually protecting Gingrich and her intentions of endorsing him? Forget it Sarah, you just committed political suicide with the Republican Party and with many conservatives. Don't expect Romney to ask her to the VP job. Of course, Gingrich won't ask either, because he won't be the nominee, now less than ever.

Comments:

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Newt Gingrich Desperado

2012-01-10T14:38:00.008-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Making Romney look like a true Conservative.

Newt Gingrich is a very smart man, but he is playing a campaign strategy born of emotion rather than brains. He is reacting to what the other contestants do rather than what his long term planned strategy tells him - that is assuming that he has an strategy. We believe he did. It was simple and high minded - stay positive, stay on the issues, and apply the Reagan rule to never criticize a fellow Republican. He repeatedly said during the Debates that the main cause of all present candidates was to defeat President Obama. He also has an excellent economic plan for growth that is superior to Romney's. That was an splendid message; one that took him from low single digits in the polls to a rousing 35%.

What Happened?

He went Gingrich. He abandoned his strategic plan under the pressure - and hurt - of the unmitigated, and often unfair, attacks by several fellow Republicans. Actually only one Republican - Romney. Ron Paul is not a fellow Republican, he is a stowaway. Gingrich showed that he lacks the thick skin necessary to survive the grueling path to the presidency.

Attacking capitalism and free enterprise is crazy-crazy.

Gingrich's new strategy of attacking Romney on what constitutes the basic principles of the conservative movement - free trade, free enterprise and capitalism without government restraints - is as mistaken in principle as in strategy. Blaming Romney for his free enterprise ups and downs is something that one could see coming from the socialist policies of the present administration, and not from a conservative candidate for the Republican nomination.

It is a fundamental mistake and it won't succeed. If it has any effect at all it would be to reinvigorate the claims by Romney that he is really a conservative.

It will also benefit Romney in preparing him for what would constitute one of the main fronts of attack of President Obama come November. Actually, what Gingrich has done is to steal that issue of attack from Obama. There will be time after November for Romney to thank Newt for it.

Are you ready to vote for Romney in November? We are, because we are not dreamers but practical observers of the political scene.

We are not children either, and won't put on a tantrum with some god-forsaken third party candidate just because our man was not selected.

But by November we are ready for 2% of the population to act like morons and another 2% to act like children.

Comments:

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Ron Paul Is An Early Symptom of a Deepening Malady in the American Democracy.

2012-01-08T17:49:00.004-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

We blame the politicians of why our government governs badly, forgetting that we are the ones that hire them and place them in the government. It is my estimate that the source of the problem is us, the people, the ones doing the hiring.

Ron Paul's ability to fool both the Right and the Left is being wildly underestimated. He is opportunistically taking advantage of a democratic system where naïveté, pervasive ignorance, and political immaturity pervade, and is helped by the modern mistaken emphasis in quantity and unearned equality, rather than responsibility and qualified participation in the democratic process. The poll numbers of a Ron Paul type candidate are symptoms of an inefficient democratic electorate that it is not up to the job of conducting the affairs of a modern society to a happy ending. The lowering of the voting age is but one of the many recent developments in our electoral laws that allows candidates of the suspicious quality and intentions of a Ron Paul to advance in the process.

That Ron Paul is running as a Republican is only a product of the circumstances of this electoral season - the Democratic candidacy is not available - but it also responds to the fact that under any other circumstance Ron Paul cannot run as a Democrat because the Democratic Party is all about getting elected and not about giving elections away. All populist parties are good at getting elected, that is precisely why they are populist. Don't be fool either by the fact that he is a Representative from Texas as a Republican. That is the color of the district. If he could get elected easier as a Martian Party candidate in a Martian district, a Martian Party candidate he would be.

That doesn't preclude the fact that Ron Paul's political philosophy and policy advocacies round the circle from right to left more than any other candidate. In several issue he would receive feverish support from the left and Soros-type socialists - anti-war, anti-free trade agreements, isolationist, pro pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti wall street, anti-banks, anti-Israel, pro-OWS, pro free drugs, and more. Ralph Nader sees now a closer relationship of Libertarians and Liberals in what he calls as a “foundational convergence”.

It is therefore not surprising that Ron Paul is being supported in the primaries by a large liberal and progressive cadre; and the polls bear this out splendidly. Ron Paul is the product of a deeply flawed electorate.

Ron Paul's Favorability Ratings (Public Policy Polling):

Republicans, 49%
Democrats, 70%

It is highly likely that of those 12% that favor Ron Paul in the national polls, 8% are Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives, with spots of Socialists and outright Communists.

If the voter is confused - who can blame him! What we can surely blame it on are the laws and system under which we practice our Democracy.

I can't wait to invite Ron Paul and his crowd to my next constitutional cocktail party where we are going to promote the abolition of the 17th and 26th Amendments!

Comments

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

The Libertarian Party Is A Puzzle - Here, A couple of Pieces.

2012-01-05T20:02:00.007-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

The Libertarian Party is one unusual and atypical party, to say the least and to be kind.

The Libertarian Party departs from the natural mold of what a political party must be - an organization that aims to compete in the political process of the country with the goal of participating in its governance. To this aim political parties want to succeed in the election exercise and gain access to the halls of power.

Not the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party wants to participate in the process only with the aim of making and taking philosophical positions that are of such uncompromising nature that cannot attract the majority of the citizenry, and cannot, consequently, ever reach positions of power. The Party is happy in that role. It knows that to win in the electorate process they must own up to ideas that resonate among the public - you know, those folks that elect politicians. To the Party, that means sacrificing the sharp edge and more marginal ideas that they hold dear. They refuse. They call it, "standing for principles" - the oldie but goodie that means, "that is my excuse". The party's spokesmen do not go around acknowledging this nature of their mindset, but their actions more than confirm this description.

We like our Libertarian friends. We honestly believe that they are a bunch of well meaning and principled blocks with but just a smidge, mind you, of stubbornness and doggedness which only makes them more endearing; a characteristic that allows them to hold tight to their positions without compromise.

The party, as they call it, is perhaps not a Party, but a promotional organization, a political foundation, a think tank on public policy (the CATO institute should change its name or vice-versa), whose main aspiration is to promote and advance a structure of governance and principles by which eventually the political parties in power will abide by (don't hold your breath). They still depend on these political parties to get their disciples elected in their name. Without a single member of Congress elected under the umbrella of the Libertarian Party, they know that it is not realistic to field a presidential candidate with any pretension of getting him elected. Of course, they know! It is all an exercise on promoting their ideas and principles as an activist organization or a lobbyist would do.

Perhaps, the few that don't realize any of this are their foot soldiers, sweating in the trenches or writing blogs, dreaming on..........and contributing.

So for all of those conservative fellows that are thinking of joining the Libertarian Party not knowing this; and those that are already part of its management and operations who know it and are the guardians of this framework, we have a couple of tips.

To Those that Want to Join it -

To become a member of the Libertarian Party one must pass a test by answering one single question:

In case of an irreconcilable problem, would you support the solution that makes you a.........
(1) Martyr
(2) Compromiser
Those that give (1) as an answer are instantly accepted in the Party.

To Those that Are Its Strategists -

We don't dare to pretend and advice the deep thinkers at the high command of the Libertarian Party - nor pretend that they would listen. But if we could get the opportunity to wedge even sideways with a quick opinion on how to advance the relevance of the Party, we would tell them the following:

Start by sacrificing some of your unwavering principles by taking some positions that resonate with the American center (you know, all those folks that constitute 44% of the American voting center and that actually elect the politicians regardless of their principles).

Hold your noses while you are at it and until you get some real power in Congress and eventually the dream - the White House. This requires that you may have to "lose by winning" for a couple of campaigns - just like you keep telling your followers that the Republicans do (they get elected but they lose their soul). Then once you are at the top and you cannot take it anymore due to all that "losing by winning", you should then suddenly revert to your true beliefs of "winning by losing" (lose elections but remain true to your "principles") and execute the greatest and most unforgettable political act of all time that will provide for the eternal purity of your soul.

Under the powerful glimmer and attention that the control of the White House and both Houses of Congress will give you - declare that - all Acts, Bills, past and present legislation, ministries and administrative agencies and departments of government, plus all executive orders - to be unconstitutional unless, and until, proven Constitutional. That's right, close down the government until proven Constitutional.

You will go down in a trail of glory. The ultimate "Martyrdom" for the Party. The ultimate "winning by losing".

Comments

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Ron Paul Is No Titan Saturn - No Third Party Run.

2012-01-02T10:01:00.005-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America

There has been much speculation that Ron Paul could run for President as an Independent in a third party ticket. And the conventional wisdom is that it will give the election to President Obama.

We agree with both premises, sort of. The second premise is absolutely undeniable; if Ron Paul runs in a third party ticket there would be more conservative and Libertarian votes siphoned off from the Republican candidate than from the Democratic candidate.

However, this second premise is conditioned upon the realization of the first one; that Ron Paul actually declares a run in a third party. This is the condition that we agree with in only a sort of partial way, and here is where the core of the enigma rests.

In Spite of a natural resemblance, Ron

Paul is no Goya's Saturn Devouring

His Son, c. 1819-1823.

Ron Paul has all the psychological make-up of a politician that if he doesn't get his way in a certain organization, he would have no qualms or vestiges of fidelity and trust that would stop him from bolting to another format that will serve his purposes. Ron Paul is running as a Republican, not because he feels any union with the Republican Party, but because for now it serves his purposes. It gives him the national stage to expose his views. He knows very well that the likelihood of being the Republican nominee is scant. But where else would he have gotten the exposure of all those debates and now of all those primaries? Ron Paul is using - in the worst meaning of the term - the Republican organization and the Republican voters.

This makes Ron Paul a natural scheming politician-type candidate that would leave the party that did not choose him. He will easily run on a different platform. This will allow him to prolong his exposure in a national stage, knowing very well that his chances of becoming president are next to zero. We must understand that Ron Paul is not running for president because he thinks that he can become one. Ron Paul is running for president because it is the best and grandest stage of the nation where he can rant and rave to his heart's content. He knows very well that some of his ideas are completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. However, he repeats them time and time again. Why? Because he is not running for president, he is running for Ron Paul, that "visionary genius" that in the future will come back and bombard us with "I-told-you-so's" by the bunch. Well, at least, that's what he thinks!

But there is a glitch in his plan. This glitch is an essential part of our reservations from completely endorsing the first premise - that Ron Paul will go ahead with his plan of prolonging his national stage by running for president in a third party. And that glitch has one name: Rand Paul.

Ron Paul is not a patriot as his followers make him out to be. A man that is a Patriot, and who knows the destructive powers of the Obama presidency, will never in his heart serve up a second term to that same man on a silver platter. No, Ron Paul is not an American Patriot, he is a Ron Paul "patriot" (in minuscule's). A man one-third scheming-politician, one-third dreamer, one-third on the margins of reason.

Can Rand Paul be Jupiter

and thwart Titan Saturn?

But what Ron Paul is - he's a father. And there is not a single more destructive act that Ron Paul can do to ruin the political future of Senator Rand Paul in the Republican Party - and with it any possible chances to another Paul presidential run of the future - than to selfishly and unpatriotically give Obama a second term. To do that, Ron Paul would have to be not only a lousy patriot but be a monster father and become another Titan Saturn and eat his own son. We don't trust Ron Paul, and we believe we see through him even better than the already unfriendly media, but we do not believe that the man is such a monster totally devoid of family love as to eat his own son.

No, Ron Paul is no Titan Saturn, he will not run for president in a third party.

Comments

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

To Iran: Go Ahead, Make Our Day.

2011-12-29T11:59:00.009-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

That should be the US message to Iran's threat of closing the Straits of Hormuz.

"Go ahead, make my day"

Using the famous response of Clint Eastwood playing Dirty Harry, the tough law enforcement cop that knows exactly what to do if they resist arrest and warns them, "go ahead, make my day", as he points his big gun at their face ready to blow it away at the slightest resistance. This is how we feel about the threat of Iran to close the straits of Hormuz from shipping and strangle the flow of oil; "Go ahead, make our day".

By doing so it would give a sensible American Administration not only the opportunity to blow Iran's navy out of the water but to hit all those nuclear facilities at the same time. An initiation of a military conflagration by Iran, and not by Israel, would constitute the ideal opportunity to achieve a nuclear free Iran. A nuclear free Iran is the surest way to avoid an infinitely more costly war later, or its substitute, the establishment of Persian hegemony in the Middle-East by Iran. It hasn't been long since we wrote in our piece, "The Obama Retreat From Iraq is the Strategic Mistake of the Century", and we have already seen the consequences of such a retreat in internal convulsion in Iraq and the growing challenges in the region coming from Iran. We "made Iran's Day" by our precipitous abandonment of

Iraq

Unfortunately, the bluster of Iran is just

that, bluster. It won't "make our day".

It would be well to remind all those weird Ron Paul followers that this, of course, would not be possible under a Ron Paul Administration who would probably defend the rights of Iran to close international waters and blackmail the Western world with a rise in oil prices, or be totally unprepared to do anything about it militarily. But, fortunately, we don't have such a crank as our President yet, and not even the social-democratic administration of President Obama is foolish enough to follow the line of candidate Paul. (Wow! We never thought we would find anything good to say about the Obama Administration, but we must recognize that the favorite candidate of the political fringes in America - Ron Paul - is a challenging comparison and makes even Obama, who has sensibly followed Bush's foreign and domestic security apparatus, look good)

Unfortunately, the bluster of Iran is just that, bluster. It won't "make our day". We, however, should use it to tighten even further the banking restrictions that are to be imposed soon by the US and the European governments on Iran. Prove to Iran that military threats from their part have consequences even if they are not followed through. By tightening the banking measures further the western nations know that finally they are hitting the Iranian regime where it hurts. It also encourages the democratic opposition inside Iran. It is a message that carries weight and the only hope - even though small - of slowing down the nuclear program of Iran......before we make them "make our day"; for eventually, and as soon as the American electorate changes the present Washington residents, we will have to "make our own day" in the Iranian nuclear threat.

Comments

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

The Mother Trove that Keeps on Giving - Ron Paul: "Tyranny" and "Totalitarianism".

2011-12-26T14:20:00.007-05:00

FREE Previews by Joining - HERE

Comment
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

We support Ron Paul: We are clueless and inexperienced; don't have a job and get almost everything for free; we are foreign to the concept of 'responsibility'; and are probably the most likely danger to the stability of our society via the too-young-too-dumb-to-vote electoral process.

The Defense Spending Bill that just passed Congress in the normal yearly exercise of funding our military has this time roused the worst instincts of our resident want-to-be-president witch-hunter in-chief, Ron Paul.

This time he sees shadows, ghosts, and devils springing out of this normal annual ritual. Being an election season, he needs all these unseemly creatures to exercise the worst instincts of his bizarre following. So he fed it to them by claiming that the Defense Act pushes us closer "into tyranny" and virtually assures our precipitous "descent into totalitarianism".

We think that we are in as much danger that such "totalitarianism" will be in the form of the half witted followers of Ron Paul than from the government's defense appropriations bills full of pork and earmarks. The clueless class that are too young to know anything, but not young enough to do some damage to our democracy through the electoral process. This clueless class actually constitute the most likely danger to our society - the tyranny of the unfit.

Comment

Members Only Preview - HERE

8 Ways How Ron Paul Will Make Sure Romney Beats Obama.

2011-12-22T10:18:00.029-05:00

Members Only Preview - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

By Running as a third party candidate.

"Dr 9/11 Is Our Fault" anxious
for the welfare of the Mullahs

We have learned of a top secret hush-hush explosive information that will secure the election of Mitt Romney in 2012.

A secret weapon that will ensure that large chunks of the Democratic liberal entitlement-antiwar-anti-Israeli-pro-food-stamps base of the progressives in America will abandon Obama and vote in large hordes for a third party candidate. That candidate and that weapon of mass liberal electoral destruction is .............yes, sireee,......Ron Paul.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that Dr. Paul intends to screw-up the election chances of Republican Mitt Romney, he is actually plotting to ensure his election under the promise that he will be named Secretary of State, where he can simply advance American national security by denying every day that he remains in office the existence of atomic weapons in Iran and solicit the cooperation of all our allies in praising the undeniable peaceful intentions of the alluring and sympathetic Mullahs, not least blaming America for the attacks on 9/11 and making sure that we'll never behave in such unfair manner to those poor Al Queida fellows.

The Plan.

Changing his Vote from
Obama to Paul - nobody will
dare ask him for ID.

The plan is diabolically simple. A Ron Paul candidacy for President in a third party will steal large amounts of voters from the support base of President Obama and the Democratic Party. This Democratic voting base that will be lured away from Obama and vote for "9/11-was-our-fault" is composed of the following lovely people:

1 - All Arabs, Muslims, and pro-Palestinians living in the

USA

; including legal's and illegal's, since we are so much against checking on the legality of people that want to vote, and who love the hands-off pro-Palestinian stand of Dr. No.

2 - All rabid anti-Semitics that see eye-to-eye about those 'nasty Jews' and can think of no reason why we should keep Israel as a Middle-East ally.

3 - Goes without saying that all Iranians in America would be thrilled to vote for somebody that supports their ambition to blow Israel from the surface of the earth.

4 - All union members that are anxious to keep out any products made in Canada and Mexico so they can produce them in the US at twice the price. Mr. Paul is for a funny type of free trade that does not extend to free-trade agreements like NAFTA or any other.

5 - All the moochers of state's legislators that love earmarks without getting blame for voting for them. "Earmark-Ron" will show them how is done.

6 - The Russian mafia - as well as the Ukranian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Serbian mafias - the fastest growing minority in

America

, who also hate Jews.

7 - All those half-witted liberals - and that is a fair amount of them - that will be too confused of who to vote for after being indoctrinated endlessly in Dr. Paul's notion that there is "not much difference between Romney and Obama - voting for one is the same as voting for the other". They only have to decide which one will give them more free stuff. Romney looks like he has more stuff to give away. Like the lady said during the stimulus giveaways when they asked her where did it come from, 'it comes from Obama's stash', she replied assuredly. They think that his 'stash' is pretty much spent. They have no idea the 'stash' is printed.

8 - And last but not least, are all those bleeding heart liberals that think that getting rid of the Federal Reserve means freeing the native American Indians from their reservations. Such a nice thing to do, don't you think? Of course, the "native Americans" are against being "freed" from their casinos or their subsidized hamburgers (food stamps).

This is quite a lovely crowd that "Dr. No" is attracting. A landslide in the making for Mitt Romney all thanks to our political weapon of liberal mass destruction, Ron '9/11-Was-Our-Fault' Paul.

Comments

Members Only Preview - HERE

Republican Primaries for Dummies:

2011-12-16T12:57:00.013-05:00

Members Only Preview - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

How to vote - a guide for Dummies.

A final scoring of all Republican debates and issues as exposed publicly for each candidate.

Confusion reigns. After 12 Republican debates where the MSM won the upper hand in re-directing the flavor and emphasis of the issues on the candidates, we have concluded that from the point of view of the electorate, confusion and misunderstandings reigns.

Practically all of the problems that societies face is due to the poor choice that electorates exercise when selecting their representatives in government. So we are proposing a simple guide that will serve to help the citizens to select their representatives in a manner that will minimize misconceptions and propaganda.

We are grading every candidate in a simple scale that goes from +3, as the best, to -1, as the worst, on the top 6 issues of our day. The selection of issues is based on those that we believe are the most influential for the progress and growth of

America

, and for the well being of its citizens.

Candidates are listed from 1 to 7 (including President Obama as a comparison) according to their total scores:

Issues:

Economy: it is graded as the top (weighted at X3) and most important issue. It includes macro-economic, taxes, government debt, and employment policies.

Foreign Policy: Second most important issue (weighted at X2). It includes our military power and policy and geo-political power interests.

Immigration: Possibly the most difficult problem to position without political sacrifices. (Weighted at 1).

Electability and communication skills: The ability to explain and debate the issues with clarity and intelligent understanding. It includes the important ability to beat Obama in a debate. (Weighted at 2).

Honesty and Character Values: Possessing a high standard of character and values that is required for the highest office. (Weighted at 1).

Abortion: Believing in the sanctity of life. (Weighted at 1).

(Grading: Best=+3, Worst=-1)
(Note on Scoring: The methodology had heavy emphasis on what it was considered to be the accepted view of the political "center" - 44% of voters - in the country. Classic positions of "Right" and "Left" were disregarded)

Total Economy Foreign Immig Electability Honesty Abortion

              Score                        Policy      ration    Commun.      Charact.
               ____ __(x3)_    _(x2)_    ____   __(x2)__    ____    _____

1 - Romney       27        3(x3)=9   3(x2)=6        1           3(x2)=6           3               2

2 - Gingrich 26 3(x3)=9 3(x2)=6 3 2(x2)=4 2 2

3 - Perry 22 3(x3)=9 2(x2)=4 3 0 3 3

4 - Bachmann 17 2(x3)=6 1(x2)=2 1 1(x2)=2 3 3

5 - Santorum 16 1(x3)=3 2(x2)=4 1 1(x2)=2 3 3

6 - Huntsman 15 2(x3)=6 2(x2)=4 0 1(x2)=2 2 1

7 - Paul 06 2(x3)=6 -1(x2)= -2 1 -1(x2)= -2 1 2

Democrats (for comparison purposes only):

X - Obama -07 -1(x3)= -9 -1(x2)= -4 1 3(x2)=6 -1 0

Happy voting!

(NOTE: Leave your different scoring in our comments page and if a strong consensus emerges with different results we will publish an alternate table as the primaries approach).

We will publish the WINNER after the first 3 primaries in January (who ever comes closer to the order of candidates from 1 to 7).

Comments

Members Only Preview - HERE

Gingrich Under Attack - Parries and Ripostes; No Better Way to Know a Man.

2011-12-12T09:59:00.006-05:00

Members Only Preview - HERE

Comments
Bt John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

There is no better way to find out what a man is made of when they reach the top than to have them be assailed by friends and foes alike.

That is exactly what is happening to Newt Gingrich, and is all for the best; for the best of the electorate, and for the best of the country. The attacks of those fellow Republican candidates are skillful and often have the element of surprise. There is no time for a teleprompter preparation or even a few minutes of reflection. Either you know the facts and, even more importantly, know how to communicate these facts immediately, or you will fail.

The latest attacks on Newt Gingrich have giving us a valuable inside of a man, that if he were to become president, would encounter multiple times to exercise these skills in the domestic as in the international scene. By that time, they would be for the benefit, or the loss, of America.

We portray the Attacks, Parries, and ripostes, in four important issues of the campaign, and how Gingrich performed:

- On the Palestinian Issue.

Attack: Romney claimed that as Commander-In-Chief he would not speak so off handedly as Mr. Gingrich when he just recently stated that the Palestinians were "an invented" people.

Parry: Gingrich answered, "I'm a Reaganite. I'm proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it's at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid".
Riposte: And he added, "Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. ....somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth".
(Note: Yes, It is factually correct. Yes, it is historically true)

- On character.

Attack: Perry called into question the character of a person due to infidelity and weather that is a question to be considered in running for president. He added that, "If you will cheat on your wife, if you will cheat on your spouse, then why wouldn't you cheat on your business partner?"

Tough!
Parry and Riposte: Gingrich simply said, "yes, it is a real issue.......I've made mistakes at times and I've had to go to God for forgiveness".
Touché: (Note: If God has forgiving him, is there anybody that will repudiate that forgiveness?)
Brilliant, touché!

- On Immigration.

Attack: Base on a previous position by Gingrich for conceding that he would not seek the expulsion of 11 million illegal's presently living in the

United States

, Romney described it as "a sort of Amnesty".

Parry: Gingrich said, "I do not believe the people of the United States are going to send the police in to rip that kind of person out and ship them out of this country".
Riposte: it came from a recent poll in which 66% of the American people do not believe in forceful deportation of families living illegally but settled for a long time.

- On the Environment.

Attack: practically every opponent of Gingrich has already assailed him on his famous "couch scene" where he sat with Nancy Pelosi and advocated for finding solutions for the environmental pollution.

Parry and Riposte: Gingrich simply repeated what has constituted one of the freshest admissions in modern political life, "this is probably one of the dumbest things I have done in my life". Period. (Note: Mr. Gingrich did not blame it on Bush).
It cannot get any better than that in an age where our president does not admit to a single mistake, ever.

Let this factual tale of combat allow you to foresee if the man is ready to fight for

America

Comments

Tell Us what you think - HERE

Heroic Britain's 'NO'! . . . While Europe Moves Towards Dictatorship

2011-12-10T09:25:00.026-05:00

Tell Us what you think - HERE

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Britain

said "no" to Merkel-Sarkozy's new Brussels Bureaucratic-Dictatorship and to the rest of the collaborators with their hands out. It is again WWII line-up and play story.

Some things in Europe never change - they just acquire new shapes and colors.

How dare he say 'NO'
to all the losers.

When Britain declared war on Germany in September of 1939 the

United states

was also one year away from a definitive election that would free it to engage in its support. Today, Britain is again alone until November of 2012 when an election will free the United States to come to her support. Britain is now declaring war on Germany, who with the 'collaboration' of France, is stealing the sovereignty of the continent in exchange for bailout Euros, and imposing a centralized regime in Brussels.

Germany

and France have squeezed an agreement from 26 of the 27 EU members under threat of penalties, and bribes of loans, to comply with stringent fiscal and budgetary new rules that change the treaty of Lisbon governing the EU. Britain was the only 'no". Merkel said they will go ahead without Britain. Is that possible? Is that illegal? Most likely yes to both.

It is spelled out clearly that changes to the EU treaty must be unanimous. And that includes changes within the smaller Eurozone 17 countries. The monetary Union of 17 countries that adopted the Euro as it's monetary unit exists within the constrains and legal framework of the Lisbon Treaty of the EU.

Doubters of the legality of changing the EU treaty without the consent of all 27 states have given rise to the speculation of the possibility that this new power grab by

Germany

can come into existence as a "political declaration of intent". The problem remains that such declaration could be easily broken by individual nations unable, or unwilling, to meet the stringent fiscal demands of the 'declaration". In short, it has no teeth of enforcement, and therefore it is less than worthless.

We already made clear the urgency that motivates Germany and France to get further powers to enforce new rules of fiscal and monetary policies on the rest of the member states in our piece, "Bondage for Bonds - The Euro Way", and in "The Euro: Tick, Tick, Tick.......Boooooom", where we concluded that it would be an economic catastrophe for Germany to have the Euro break-up; and it would be a political catastrophe for France to have the EU collapse.

But what is not really understood yet is the motivation of the rest of the European nations for such meek compliance to the desires of Germany and France. But it should be obvious; they have all built large and fat entitlement states where government largesse maintains the standards of living of their populations well above their earning capacity and productivity. It is not possible to take it all down without creating political upheaval and social unrest. To survive they desperately need the loans that only the acquiescence of

Germany, through

the ECB and the EU Commission (Brussels), can provide. They must play ball with Germany or the game is over. It is indeed a trade off - "Bondage for Bonds". The loss of national sovereignty is not as grave as the loss of their heads when the rabble comes calling.They cannot feed them cakes, baklava, pizza, or paella; they got used to holidays in the Spanish Riviera.

But this newly bought dictatorship by Germany cannot solve the problem for good. That can only be solved if the debt ridden states of Europe can manage drastically higher economic growth ratios than their annual budget deficits. And there is the conundrum. By selling their sovereignty for new loans with promises of fiscal restraint, they are making sure that those growth ratios won't come. In fact, the fiscal rules imposed by Germany, without adjustments in individual nation's monetary policy and rates of exchange, will only make certain that the Continent of Europe will enter a recession in 2012 and a long period of slow economic growth. And a recession will only exacerbate the fiscal problem even further. If it looks like a vicious circle is because is one.

Everybody is a loser, except Germany, in the short run, and the Brits, who wisely are not buying into it and have no intentions of selling their sovereignty. In the long run Germany will also lose this war (by 1945 or 2016) when the dream of 3% ceiling on budget deficits fails to be met, and/or growth ratios remain well below that 3%, which they surely will, adding perennially to the growing debt. The Euro will eventually break and Germany's conquered markets will disappear.

Free Advances - Get Them HERE

Obama Is a Great President; We're Just a Lousy Country.

2011-12-08T11:04:00.005-05:00

Tell Us How You See It - Join Us

Comments

By Frank Fleming of IMAO

President Obama has always been able to open up better when speaking in foreign nations, because they … get … him.

It is not what Obama can do for you,
it is what you can do for Obama;
. . . . and you are failing him.

I think we Americans have always been a little standoffish with him, as we just don’t relate to him very well, so you can understand his being more comfortable in an international setting. So while speaking to CEOs at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings, he said that American businesses have “been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades.” And this isn’t the first time he’s criticized American businesses, as last September he said that our country “had gotten a little soft” over the last couple of decades.

Now, I know the typical reaction here is to get all angry and point your chubby finger back at him and say that while he’s calling us lazy it seems like he’s on the golf course half the time, but that’s just kneejerk and stupid. If we were smart, we’d consider this criticism instead of continuing to blame Obama for what’s wrong with our economy. Maybe it’s time for us to really take a look at ourselves and ask: Is Obama actually a great president, and we’re just a lousy country?

It’s not really that radical a question. I mean, look at him: He’s a bright, Harvard-educated man who’s not only been to other countries but has actually lived in them — he knows cultures and viewpoints beyond the narrow ones we have here. And he surrounds himself with the greatest minds on earth. And who are we, compared to him? We’re a bunch of slobs, really. Kind of ignorant. Maybe a little racist. And we surround ourselves with bowls of flavored corn chips. But the country’s problems are supposed to be his fault? Does that make sense?

Look at what Obama did to try and get our economy going. He had this big, hundreds of billions of dollars stimulus that was designed by all the great economists who work in his administration — the top minds. It should have worked. The economy should be roaring right now and unemployment a thing of the past. America should be a utopia. So what was missing from the equation? That the people the stimulus was used on are a bunch of lazy dimwits. Obama did everything he possibly could, but apparently Americans just aren’t very good at running businesses and creating jobs. Obama has given us so many advantages that even chimpanzees should have been able to create jobs, but we just sit there like useless blobs while our companies crumble around us. We’re failing the country. We’re failing him.

And that’s not the only time we let Obama down. Remember when he passed ObamaCare? There was Obama, making sure we’d all finally get health coverage and be taken care of when our morbid obesity caught up with us instead of letting us die in the streets like we probably deserve. But what did we do? We ran whining to the Supreme Court, “That mean man is trying to force us to buy health insurance!” He tried to help us — tried to preserve our very lives — and we’re taking him to court because we just don’t like having to do stuff.

So let’s face it: We suck. And while we’re so worried about how the miserable state of the country affects us, none of us ever worries about what it’s doing to Obama. Our horrible economy is making him look like an idiot. Foreign leaders have to be snickering at him behind his back at how badly America is doing, but it’s not his fault. He’s actually done a great job, but we’re the ones who are constantly failing him. Is that fair? It’s like if Tom Landry were saddled with a bunch of out of shape, unmotivated slobs and expected to make them a winning football team. People would make fun of Landry for coaching such terrible players, he’d constantly be yelling at the useless lumps he’s fruitlessly trying to turn into a winning team, and it would be frustrating and pointless for everyone involved.

Is that what we want for ourselves and Obama? Though Obama has slipped and insinuated it a few times, he’s just too concerned about our feelings to come out and say what’s now quite obvious: We’re a waste of his time. Plus I know I can’t take it anymore seeing the disappointment in his eyes every time he looks at us after the new jobs numbers come out. It’s unfair to keep him as our president only to make him watch us fail while tarnishing him in the process. In 2012, we really should just go with some dumb “me want cut taxes” Republican — we deserve no better — and let Obama go on to bigger and better things.

Comments

Free Advances - Join Us

US Election 2012 Moves to Europe

2011-12-06T13:57:00.008-05:00

Free Advances - Join Us

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Can Europe Elect Our Next President?

Timothy Geithner, the US Secretary of the Treasury, is in Europe; but not for what you read and hear, but to offer your money to save Obama's presidency.

'Trinken auf' Obama's
bailout money and re-election

Once again, the main stream press, fails to read deeper than the appearances. As reported, the Secretary of the Treasury asserts to European leaders the support of the United States in finding a quick and final solution to the European debt crisis (bromide - pass the coffee). But the press analysis of the role of the United States conjures no more than a moral support, as if the Obama Administration did not see a direct link of the Euro crisis to financial and political events in America.

The fact is that in both cases, the analysis of the press is wrong. America has a direct interest in solving the Euro crisis because in both cases, financially and politically, has a lot riding in it, and the Obama Administration knows it. However, being intimately linked, Geithner's visit to Europe is mostly concerned with the political implications of a blow out of the crisis. They know that in that event, the re-election of Obama in 2012 would be directly affected. In our previous piece, "Who Will Defeat Obama In 2012?. . . Greece", we said, "even if a miracle occurs and the unemployment rate in the US drops below 8%, the Greeks are still coming to spoil the President's wishes. Just like all Republican' candidates in 2008 were inevitably tied to Lehmann Brothers and the following financial crisis, . . . , any Democratic candidate chances in 2012 - including the President's - is tied to Greece - the Lehman trigger of 2012". Today we can amplify the situation by substituting "Greece" for the "Eurozone" as the Lehman event of 2012. The Obama Administration has suddenly realized that the presidential campaign of 2012 starts, and perhaps ends, in Europe. Mr. Geithner goes to Europe!

But how can the Obama Administration help the Eurozone out of their debt crisis? What can Secretary Geithner offer them? Easy, your money. Or rather, your assets as collateral for Chinese money, plus new minted money, that you will eventually pay with higher taxes "for the rich" (the "rich" is you even if you don't know it). And the conduit is the IMF. Geithner is in Europe to offer Sarkozy and Merkel the backing of the share (17%) of American contributions to the IMF if they can concoct an expansion of the IMF contributions to the EFSF (European Financial Stability Fund). Expect a new expansion of the IMF by as much as 600-1000 billion dollars.

The campaign of 2012 for Obama is the "shovel ready" bailout of Europe.

Comments

Free Advances - Join Us

Bondage for Bonds: the Euro Way.

2011-12-01T14:41:00.009-05:00

Free Advances - Join Us

By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle
Comments

Euro bonds: Germany opposes it, and Germany denies it,... for now, but Germany is actively planning for it.

Germany

will use the Euro crisis to save itself and obtain what it has long wanted - a fully integrated politically united Europe. It will be done through the ECB, Euro Bonds, and the imposition - without consultation - of a Fiscal Union in the Eurozone. And eventually, together with French collaboration, a full political union of Europe.

The Unelected new government
of "Achtung" Europe.

We are now in the diversion stage of the attack.

To achieve their goals, Germany and France are now in full denial of their real purpose and using all the tricks in the book to buy time. The recent high profile announcement by the American Fed and other nation's central banks of larger support for liquidity is such diversion and buy-time strategy that cannot change the inevitable path that Germany has embarked upon.

The Central Bank's aim to provide more availability of funds to the financial system of Europe has three parts to the story. The first is the obvious message that a highly publicize move like this is telling the markets - 'we are getting too close to final break-up of the Eurozone and the financial structure dependent on the Euro, so we must take emergency measures'. The emergency character of the central's banks move is based in the fact that the last time they took such measures was in the height of the 2008 financial crisis. That is an unintended negative message.

The second aspect is the reaction from the stock markets. They were at a point of such heightened fear that even a temporary window dressing measure like this could release a rush of buying in the stock markets. But the stock markets are the wrong judges of the crisis, and they would be right only if it meant avoiding a recession. They are wrong on both counts. That judgment should be left to the bond markets as measured by the levels of rates demanded for Euro debt. That judgment remains pending. Italian and Spanish sovereign debt rates remained at high levels of 6-7%.

But perhaps the more lasting and powerful judgment of the central bank's liquidity play should be left to the levels of inter-bank lending going forward. The availability of funds to the European banks is essential to maintain their financial viability and avoid certain bankruptcies. It is not at all certain that inter-banking lending will improve significantly yet.

Regardless of the results of the liquidity issues and this recent move of the central banks, the debt crisis remains unchanged and its path of deterioration unresolved. All heavily indebted European nations will continue to increase their levels of debt for the foreseeable future without fiscal restrain and economic growth. This is an economic fact that no central bank can change. It also delineates with clarity the catch 22, or downward spiral, in which the economies of Europe find themselves. A situation that is of their own making, of course. But it is also the conundrum facing Germany.

The New "Maginot" Line.

If Germany somehow gets away with imposing a political dictatorship in the Eurozone, and mandates - without popular consultation to the people's of the nations of Europe - new rules of fiscal controls from Brussels (read Berlin) on the Southern Europeans, these nations growth prospects will sink and most likely enter in a prolonged recession. Diminished growth ratios could increase - not decrease - the budgetary deficits, and therefore increasing the debt levels. Politically, a lost of sovereignty will exacerbate the social discontent and civil unrest in the zone. Civil unrest brings political instability and a danger that electorates will decide that the economic price to pay to be a member of the Union is too high. Germany's imposition will foster - contrary to her intentions - the probabilities of the Eurozone breakup. To avoid such, fiscal responsibility would have to be accompanied by growth policies that will escape economic recession. These economic growth policies would, in most cases, have to be imposed, further increasing the power of Brussels. It is a sovereignty struggle whose outcome is at this point unpredictable.

From the point of view of Germany this is a gamble that needs to be taken. The imposition of political power to change the sovereign fiscal control of European nations in the Eurozone is an absolute requirement to Germany for the approval of the creation of Eurobonds and the change of mandate for the ECB to purchase these bonds as required to the debt necessities of the Southern economies. Without the creation of the Eurobonds and the expanding authority of the ECB to purchase these bonds and print money, the debt mountain will come crashing down on the European Union. That is what Germany won't allow.

Regardless of what Germans and French declare today, this is a given. They will take away fiscal sovereignty from the Eurozone member nations and will create the Eurobond market.

A European recession is in the making - and that is something that the central banks cannot change regardless of the amount of printing they do. If in doubt, please ask the American Fed.

Comments

Free Advances - Join Us

The Mother of all Conservative Endorsements: Sarah Palin's.

2011-11-27T16:22:00.007-05:00

Free Advances - Join Us

Comments

By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

If there is an endorsement that is worth a what-ever-it-takes effort for the Republican nominee's is indisputably Sarah Palin's endorsement. We advance that this valuable endorsement must come before the first primary in Iowa. Its great value is at the primary stage where republican activists are most influential. Sarah Palin is the unofficial leader of the strongest of these groups - The Tea Party.

So it's only natural that much speculation has been flowing as to who would be the recipient of this highly sought-after presidential nominee endorsement. Her position as an unofficial leader of the Tea Party and the large throng of devoted followers that she commands would propel the winner of her endorsement to an automatic leader or runner-up of the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

By the manner in which Palin has expressed personal admiration of the way that Newt Gingrich has conducted his campaign, strictly staying positive and avoiding the ugly internecine in-fighting between Republican candidates, we predict that her endorsement will go to Newt. She has also expressed her opinion, as we have before on these lines, that Gingrich would debastate President Obama on a mano-a-mano debate.

The second runner up for Palin's endorsement is Mitt Romney. She is also of the sensible belief that the future of America hangs in the ability of Republicans to defeat Obama in 2012. She will not endorse a loser regardless of his/her conservative right-right credentials.

We concur with Sarah Palin! May the best man win Sarah - Gingrich or Romney.

Comments

Free Advances - Join Us

The Euro - Tick, Tick, Tick, . . . . Boooooom!

2011-11-23T13:36:00.011-05:00

Free Advances - Join Us

Comments

Is the Euro a macro-economic weapon of mass destruction?

The 64 Trillion Dollar question is: why is the Euro trading at an inflated rate of exchange? Inflated to the Dollar and under valued to the German economy.
Sssshhhhh, don't you know that we are not supposed to talk about it. Ask the question in the bureaucratic halls of Brussels, or at the European Commission, or at the Finance Ministry of Germany, and what do you get? An escort out.

Tick, Tick, Tick,......Booooooom!

Most economists would conclude that the debt crisis and coming recession in Europe would stampede Euro asset holders out and into the Dollar denominated assets. The Euro should be trading more like 1.10 or even .90 to the dollar. Even though there have already been significant withdrawals of retail Euro deposits and hedge funds from the Eurozone banks, specially Greece, Portugal, Italy and

Spain, there are institutional forces holding up in hope.

The only answer is that Germany, France, and the ECB are doing the arm wrestling and the heavy lifting to keep the Euro up. There are multiple reasons for wanting the Euro to maintain its over-valued rate. The French banks that hold a great amount of Euro debt and assets, together with Germany who has been a preferred lender to southern Europe in order to facilitate its exports, need to keep the value of its assets in order to strengthen the balance sheets of their banks. All hell will break loose if French and German banks need to revalue their balance sheets with a mark-to-market valuation of their Euro assets at 1.10 or worse. The banks of France and Germany will be downgraded by S&P and Moody's faster than we can say Waterloo to Angela "Napoleon" Merkel.

Another factor propping up the Euro is the perceived weakness of the US economy and the possibility that the Fed will yield to political pressure - again - to increase the electoral chances of President Obama and declare a new QE3 program, monetizing the American debt even further.

Not less important is the fact that Germany's export success is based in the duopoly of a strong overvalued Euro against their important buyers of their exports in Southern and Eastern Europe. The capacity for imports of these economies would collapse under a weaker Euro. In short, with an overpriced Euro, only Germany's economy can remain competitive.

There lies their strong opposition to the ECB monetizing the debt of the PIIGS - Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. It could be that

Germany

is fighting a losing battle and that the ECB would have to become the lender of last resort, a-la-American-Fed, in which case the dykes on the Euro will inevitably break.

But, perhaps, the strongest motivation for defending the Euro at an overpriced rate is the ultimate goal of Germany and France to push the Eurozone into a political federation that would impose all economic decisions to its members from the centralized European government in Brussels - neatly controlled by Germany. We have already seen the first moves toward such political control by imposing unelected European officials on Italy and Greece. In "Drip, Drip, Drip, Into Insolvency - Don't Get Caught In the Slow Motion", we asserted more than a month ago that "they cannot see how they can save those nations that are savable, in one hand, and restructure those that are realistically insolvent, in the other, without endangering their dream of a unified Europe, with a unified currency, and a unified political centralized class."

It is highly unlikely that Germany and

France

can ultimately get their way. When this becomes obvious or the bond markets make it obvious, the Euro will collapse to 1.10 or lower.

A situation for a new George Soros in the making. Tick, tick, tick,.............Booooom!

Comments

Free Subscription - Join Us

Fleming On Fleming: Obama, The Greatest President in the History of Everything.

2011-11-21T13:29:00.006-05:00

Free Advances - Join Us

Comments
By Frank J. Fleming
(This piece appeared at PJMedia previously)

Note: This is a piece in the format of a review of his own book - Frank J. fleming, "Obama: The Greatest President in the History of Everything".

Frank J. Fleming is one of the most brilliant writers in existence. Some call him the defining conservative voice of our generation. Others call him the defining conservative voice of all time. Still others get angry at him, as they’re easily confused by satire. Whatever you say about him, you have to agree that his unique columns and witty blogging are the pinnacle of man’s ability to put words together in sentences and are probably what will be used to define our civilization when the remains of it are dug up by aliens or ape-men. It’s really hard for me to be objective when writing about Fleming because he’s just so awesome. Women want him, men want to be him, dogs want to be pet by him, cats… well, they hiss at him. You can’t trust those creatures.

So there was probably no one more excited than I was when I learned he was going to have an ebook published by HarperCollins. But then I saw the title: Obama: The Greatest President in the History of Everything. Was Fleming really going to argue for President Obama? What kind of cruel joke was this? My world was shattered.

But then I got a hold of myself and said, “Remember, we’re talking about Frank Fleming… and not just any Frank Fleming — Frank J. Fleming. Obviously, he knows what he’s doing.” And then it became apparent to me why he wrote this book. Fleming could easily have written a book called Obama: Not Very Good at This Whole President Thing. In it he’d go on about how Barack Obama is an arrogant idiot with no useful skills who is completely in over his head and should probably write a big letter of apology to the whole country, resign, and exile himself to the far north regions of Canada, never to be heard from again. It would be rather predictable. Still, because Fleming wrote it, it would undoubtedly be one of the greatest books in the English language and well worth your money, but it wouldn’t be the best book he could write.

For Fleming to do his best, he needs a challenge, and what greater challenge could there be than to argue that Obama is the greatest president ever in the history of everything? Think of the book as a “What If…” scenario. What if all the overenthusiastic people so convinced in 2008 that Obama would be the best president ever were in fact right, and the only thing keeping us from recognizing Obama as the savior of

America

is our limited intelligence and perception? This is the scenario Fleming runs with; you might dismiss it as “science fiction,” but he makes it believable.

After an intro that takes us back to the mindset of unlimited hope and wonder that Obama gave our country when he first entered the political scene, Fleming chronicles the rise of Obama from obscurity to power. He quickly establishes that we can’t look upon Obama like we would a normal man, because he’s obviously something more.

Many believe that Barack [middle name omitted because it's racist to draw attention to] Obama is just a regular person who puts his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us, but this is fallacy. In fact, were you to witness the miraculous way in which Obama puts on his pants, your brain would hemorrhage trying to comprehend it, and you’d die.

After showing how we came to be blessed with the Obama presidency, Fleming then begins his airtight argument that proves Obama has in fact been the best president ever. He does this by going through all the issues Obama has confronted — the economy, spending, energy, foreign affairs — and explains how Obama has done as well as any person possibly could — or even better. And Fleming is careful to assuage any fears and show us how the failures of our own intelligence keep us from understanding Obama’s methods.

Obama is operating on a whole other level here where we can’t even follow his logic, and that can be scary at times. It’s like if some sort of primitive person — a West Virginian, perhaps — saw a surgeon doing an operation. He’d think the surgeon was harming the sleeping man by cutting in to him, when in fact the surgeon was helping that man. And that’s who Obama is — a smiling man with a knife that we’re a little bit scared of. But don’t worry; he knows what he’s doing.

Not satisfied with merely proving that Obama has expertly handled all the issues in front of him, Fleming then compares Obama to every previous president to show how he bests each one. Fleming also takes on some of the common objections to Obama and expertly defeats them. And he ends the book with a look to the future, showing exactly how “when the future that we will win becomes the present that was won” we will have reached a land of infinite wonder, thanks to Obama.

This is a great ebook — if not the greatest book ever in either print or digital format — and I now feel like Judas times Benedict Arnold plus Jane Fonda for ever having doubted Frank J. Fleming or Barack Obama. Out of five stars, I give this book an eighty-three. And at $1.99, there is no excuse not to buy it. I’ve heard of places in the world where people live on two dollars a day, so worst case scenario is that you don’t eat for a day so you can save up to get it — and it’s worth that. Anyone capable of learning the English language should absolutely read this book. So should all humans and some chimpanzees and gorillas. Then together we can realize what a great leader Obama is and stop worrying so much and perhaps stop all this nonsense of trying to find a Republican replacement for him, which really has gotten rather irritating.

Thank you, Frank J. Fleming, for writing this book. I don’t know what I’d do without you.

Comments

Free Advances - Join Us

Europe Ditching its Socialist Governments

2011-11-19T14:39:00.024-05:00

Become a Proud Member of Our

Conservative community - Join Us

By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle
Would the USA Do the Same?

Monday

Spain

Will Wake Up Conservative.
(Posted Saturday, November 19th)

For the last eight years Spain has been governed by a socialist government that managed to impose collectivist policies that grew their debt to 80% of GDP and their annual deficit to 8% of GDP (more or less equal to what the socialist government in America has managed in only 3 years - 90% debt to GDP and 9% annual deficit to GDP). Together with the socialist government of Greece they manage to be at the forefront of the presently raging Eurozone crisis.

Well, by next Monday morning it will all come to an end. That is, the beginning of the end. It will be clear by then that the people of

Spain

have booted out the socialist Party (PSOE - Which means - Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol) and elected as their new govenment the Conservative Party (PP - Partido Popular).

Not soon enough! Even the Europeans now know their mistakes.

Could we learn from Spain?

The unique way in which some European nations handle their elections may have a lesson for America. Voting for the general election will be tomorrow, Sunday. The campaign was allowed to start 3 weeks ago. Yes, only 3 weeks of official campaign speeches, TV ads, or any other activity related to promoting a candidate. Today, Saturday, one day before the election, campaigning is not allowed anymore. It is an official day free of TV ads, speeches or any other activity of the campaign. It allows the voter to be free of last minute pressures and it give him time to re-evaluate the candidates with calm.

With such a limited time for the official campaign the Spanish save millions of Euros wasted in protracted campaigns as in

America

. It also allows the government to function in governing instead of campaigning.

Does this problem sounds familiar? Can Spain be a better Democracy than America at least in how they elect their representatives.

Become a Proud Member of Our

Conservative community - Join Us

Comments

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

2011-11-16T23:21:00.004-05:00

Become a Proud Member of Our

Conservative community - Join Us

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Fraulein Bonaparte vision of Europe

What does Rahm Emanuel, the past political adviser to President Obama, have in common with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor? To never let a crisis go to waste.

Angela Merkel is now trying to use the present Euro crisis to accomplish what it seems to be a long shot during normal times, a "political Union". It means enhancing the political and economic power of the European Union to the extent that most if not all national sovereignty would be wrenched away from the democratically elected nations of Europe. Who will gain this power? Naturally, the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and the one nation that controls those bureaucrats -

Germany

. So far, she has made an excellent start. Merkel, via Brussels, have appointed two unelected Euro-technocrats to heads of state in two European national governments, Greece and Italy.

Germany, as we pointed out in our piece "Germany Still Wants to Conquer Europe", is also the nation most to benefit by the economic controls of fiscal powers to Brussels and by keeping control of the European Union currency, the Euro. “It is time for a breakthrough to a new Europe,” she recently asserted, "that does not mean less Europe, it means more Europe.” Indeed it does.

Good bye Democracy, welcome Fraulein Bonaparte.

Go for it Angela, we shall see how many suckers you can recruit. But do not put it to a referendum to the people's of the European nations, that will be a loser.

Become a Proud Member of Our

Conservative community - Join Us

Comments

S.O.S.! HELP! STOP! No More Media Staged Republican Debates.

2011-11-14T10:21:00.001-05:00

Become a Proud Member of Our

Conservative community - Join Us

Comments
By John Galt for Robbing America Chronicle

Like in the army, when they ask to volunteer for a mission by taking a step forward, make sure you take a step back or you would be left , with a few other slow wit rookies, in the front line of "volunteers".

A Republican Debate at the Media Circus.

In the present insufferably long election campaign front line lead by the Press and their now ubiquitous plague of Republican debates, if they ask who wants to participate in the next full debate conducted by a MSM broadcaster, who cannot conjure decent ratings on a daily basis otherwise, please Republicans, take a step back, or you will end being the pawn to the most repetitive effort by the MSM to influence the outcome of the next Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012.

STOP IT! Please, No More Debates!

No more debates with those candidates that have an irrelevant 1-5% support in the polls barely two months before the first primary. No more Bartiromo's 30 seconds to explain how to fix the Healthcare system. No more Mike Wallace's asking a lady candidate "if she is a flake". No more 'gotch-you questions'.

Change the debates to the successful format of the Cain-Gingrich debate. Do not let the media ask the questions. Conduct a conversation on 4-5 issues of relevance and significant survival of our nation. Let them ask questions from each other. Amplify the format to a three or (maximum) 4-way participants that are polling the highest at this late stage. The almost-invisible moderator can be a non-media neutral party.

We are not the only ones that are pleading for this change. Roger Simon, of PJMedia, recently wrote,

"After what feels like the 938th Republican presidential debate, it's a high time to do the obvious and end this tedious road show now. It only benefits one person — Barack Obama."

We have expressed our concerns before in the piece"The Dangers of the Republican Debates" where we wrote,

" Prodded by the press, and worried that they will be accused of lack of combativeness, they are attacking each other on issues on which they mostly agree or in which the differences are so inconsequential that the general electorate would not remember them for more than a few more weeks, let alone to November of 2012."

The Republican process to select a candidate that can beat Obama is being played for a sucker by the Media. We make a second plea:

STOP IT!

Comments

Become a Proud Member of Our

Conservative community - Join Us