Many people are lamenting the failure of the Congressional "Super Committee" to come up with an agreement on ways to reduce the runaway federal deficits. But you cannot judge success or failure without knowing what the goal was. If you think the goal was to solve the country's fiscal crisis, then obviously the Super Committee was a complete failure. But, if you think the goal was to improve the chances of the Obama administration being re-elected in 2012, it was a complete success.
The deck was heavily stacked against anti-establishment outlier and presidential candidate Ron Paul in the November 22 CNN debate, but the Texas Congressman and medical doctor was able to control the debate and slam his rivals on issues such as the Patriot Act, Supercommittee sequestration, and foreign aid. Paul, who has risen in the polls recently with an anti-war and personal liberty message, faced off in a crowded field of neoconservative opponents and a bevy of hostile questions from the neoconservative Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
The debate included questions by former Dick Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington (a Heritage Foundation vice president) as well as Bush administration-era Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (2001-2005), who helped push the United States into the Iraq War and is now a "visiting scholar" of the American Enterprise Institute. No skeptics of America's foreign wars were asked any questions for the entire duration of the debate.
Heritage Foundation official and former Attorney General Ed Meese led off the presumptive and biased questioning in the debate with this doozy: "At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn't we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?" The Patriot Act allows so-called "National Security Letters," which are warrantless searches in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This is the perfect time to view this video exposé of Newt Gingrich by John F. McManus.
When Johnnie and Clara Russell posted a small yard sign on their own North Texas property outside Ft. Worth several years ago, they did not expect that they would have to seek government permission first. The sign, which promoted an event called “Wake Up America” for conservative pundit Glenn Beck’s “9/12 Project,” provoked the ire of one of their neighbors, who complained to authorities.
Second only to Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann is the most consistent of the GOP presidential candidates when it comes to the subject of liberty. Her record is, for the most part, commendable. Beyond this, Bachmann strikes the unprejudiced and prejudiced observer alike as a woman of conviction, a woman with a keen intelligence, intestinal fortitude, and the ability to articulate her views with concision and clarity.
In a headline that comes as no surprise to constitutionalists, the venerable New York Times reports that: “Republicans and Obama Can Agree on Criticizing China’s Trade Practices.”
As China’s economic muscle expands, that of the United States contracts. The promissory notes that represent the American debt that is propelling our Republic into the Gomorrah of empire are held by the Asian superpower. The scope of the economic servitude is jaw-dropping. Witness this data published by prisonplanet.com:
During the Thanksgiving Family Forum (TFF) this past Saturday, moderator Frank Luntz asked the Republican candidates a very interesting Tenth Amendment question: “Do states have a right to do wrong?” In case you missed it, the TFF was another unusual event in what is proving to be a very unusual campaign season. Held in a church in Des Moines, Iowa, and with all the GOP contenders in attendance except for Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, it was not a debate as much as a discussion – and a rather intellectual one. The candidates were asked about their faith, trials and tribulations, and talked frankly about Jesus, family, and personal failure. And with social issues front and center, moderator Luntz posed the following question, initially addressing Herman Cain:
The California Supreme Court issued a ruling November 17 clearing the way for champions of traditional marriage to continue defending Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2008 that stipulates that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In August 2010 a district court overturned Prop 8, and when then-Governor Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to take up the law’s defense in federal court, the amendment’s official sponsor, ProtectMarriage.com, stepped in to do so.
As the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took the case in hand, it was soon faced with whether ProtectMarriage.com had legal standing to defend the amendment before the federal court. That was the question it put before the California Supreme Court, which answered in the affirmative.
GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is continuing to gain momentum in key states such as Iowa, where the Texas Congressman has found support in niche groups such as the Christian homeschoolers, a group said to have helped Mike Huckabee claim a surprising victory in 2008. Steve and Cindy Anders, leaders of the Iowa Christian homeschool group, have thrown their support behind Congressman Paul, endorsing his drive for a return to the drastically smaller constitutional form of government.
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain styles himself a Washington “outsider,” an “anti-politician,” and a businessman who is just what America needs at this critical moment in its history to turn itself around. Only someone of Cain’s peculiar background, he would have us believe, only someone uncorrupted by the insatiable hunger for power from which all career politicians suffer, can restore America’s greatness in the world.
Again, this is the self-image that Cain works inexhaustibly to project.
There is one question, though: is it true?
The first fact that must not be lost upon us is that while Cain is a reasonably successful businessman, and while he is not a professional politician, the notion that he is the “Mr. Smith” of our time who is about to take Washington by storm is a fiction of the first order.
Cain, you see, was at one time a Federal Reserve chairman. (He was deputy chairman of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1992 to 1994, and chairman from 1995 to 1996.)