Yankeemom introduced me to Mark Alerxander's writings....I'm so thankful she did!
Thursday, January 12, 2012·
"[T]ake care that the laws be faithfully executed ... support the Constitution ... faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." --Article II Section 1, 3, the Constitution of the United States
This is no "typical" election year, a point lost for the most part by Republican presidential candidates and obscured by the national media. This just accounts for the fact that a substantial majority of conservatives voters (both Republicans andIndependents) have yet to approve of anyone on the current slate, and consequently, tell pollsters they prefer "other."
What Beltway political advisers and pundits fail to grasp is that the 2012 federal electionswill have enormous ramifications upon the future of our Republic and upon prospects for sustaining Liberty through our current national government structure. That structure, now severely destabilized, is a mere shadow of what the Founding Fathers envisioned and enshrined in our Constitution.
Treating this election cycle as anything less than the critical historical tipping point it is thereby dishonors the enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure that generations of American Patriotshave sacrificed in support and defense of our Constitution.
Sadly, the Republican presidential contenders are still running plays out of an antiquated and self-destructive political attack playbook. They do so at great cost, both financially andto the ultimate objective of defeating Barack Hussein Obama.
The beneficiaries of this primary season's Republican rancor are, once again, the mainstream media, the plethora of pollsters and, of course, the Democrat Party. Meanwhile, Obama does not have a primary opponent (other than the economy), and thus is building an enormous political war chest for the upcoming general campaign.
While it will require many election cycles to undo the severe political injuries inflicted upon our Republic by generations of Leftists, the restorative process began in earnest with the 2010 midterm election of many "Tea Party" candidates -- those who rallied grassroots voters around restorative constitutional campaigns. We have a protracted and arduous fight to turn back the tides of Democratic Socialism -- and time is noton our side.
Though congressional elections are important, and conservatives are making significant headway in the Legislative Branch, it is election of the next Chief Executive that will most determine whether we restore Rule of Law, or our nation succumbs to the fatal cycle of democracy, further submitting to authoritarian government rule and plunging into the gaping abyss of socialism.
(Notably, the U.S. has dropped from 9th to 10th place in the just-released 2012 Index of Economic Freedom.)
Though The Patriot Post devotes substantial energy and resources to evaluate candidates, we do not endorse presidential candidates until the general election. However, given all we have learned about the current field of Republicans, there is one candidate we could endorse and fully support.
Unfortunately, that candidate exists only as a composite of the best attributes from each of the actual candidates.
This amalgamated profile is important because it encompasses the qualities that all Patriots seek in candidates for federal office. Thus, what follows is a collection of winning conservative attributes, which, in some measure each of the current GOP candidates possesses, with the exception of one.*
The best candidate for the job is devoted to Liberty as endowed by our Creator and enshrined in our Constitution. He (because the remaining candidates are male) is a man of strong faith, is devoted to his family and has served his nation in uniform with honor. He has a good record of executive leadership, both in the private sector and government. He is an effective advocate for free enterprise, limited government and tax reform. He is smart, articulate, charismatic, experienced and a great debater with a remarkable sense of history. He has an outstanding comprehension of complex domestic and foreign policy matters. He bases his positions on constructionist logic, not political expediency, and is bold in his vision for our nation. He is salt of the earth from an strong family. He has formative ties to the renaissance of American conservatism launched by Ronald Reagan.
Of course, it would also be instructive to develop a composite based upon all the negative attributes of the contenders, but the GOP circular firing squad is already doing a fine job of promoting their liabilities.
As our ideal presidential candidate is not among the current lot, we must all vote for the primary candidate who most closely embodies him. I would encourage every Patriot to ignore the meaningless Iowa caucus and more so, the New Hampshire primary, as that former conservative stronghold is now little more than a political suburb of Boston. (Oh, but that we would have all primaries on a single day, rather than defaulting to the victors of minuscule Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, neither of which are substantially representative of grassroots conservatives across the nation. But a national primary day would put the choice in the hands of the people, rather than the GOP establishment and the 24-hour news cycle talkingheads.)
All other candidate attributes notwithstanding, we should, first and foremost, demand that every candidate, and president, affirm Rule of Law in compliance with their Sacred Oathto Support and Defend our Constitution.
In the words of Justice Joseph Story, "No man can well doubt the propriety of placing a president of the United States under the most solemn obligations to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It is a suitable pledge of his fidelity and responsibility to his country; and creates upon his conscience a deep sense of duty, by an appeal, at once in the presence of God and man, to the most sacred and solemn sanctions, which can operate upon the human mind."
Our single focus must be to defeat Obama, and frankly, I would fully endorse a turnip in order to achieve that objective.
*Jon Huntsman's best attribute is that he is a superlative example of what notto support in a Republican candidate, as affirmed by his strong performance ahead of Gingrich, Santorum and Perry in the New Hampshire primary, where centrist Independents and Democrats outnumbered Republican voters.
In todays world of instant messaging, unlimited historical resources, and hyped media, we will NOT find the perfect candidate. Reality, sucks, but it is true. Instead of beating our heads against a wall, we need to look at who has been presented, find the one that most meets our requirements, discuss whatever shortcomings and then work to support him or her.
We have spend to much time, money, and energy on clamoring for "Mr. Right" without any baggage. Ain't gonna happen, get real, get up and support your candidate. Quit bad mouthing the others, as they too have made contributions to this process, give them their due, and then bid them a due. It is time to mount the charge and show solidarity.
Just my thoughts!!!
Anyone except obuma.
Ron Paul is about as perfect as we will ever see again.
I guess if lying is considered the perfect:
or if working with soros makes him the best:
It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros.
In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force “consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum” would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didn’t quite “span the ideological spectrum” — more like float under it.
The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartung’s main expertise was appearing in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.”
Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, it’s Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.
The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and is, for all intents and purposes, the think tank of the White House. All three are Soros funded.
But it doesn’t end there. Also on the panel was Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project (NPP). If you are wondering what the NPP is, it’s a think tank whose objective is to “influence national spending priorities.” And if you’re in the mood for a double, Miriam Pemberton is also on the board of the NPP. The man behind the curtain at NPP? None other than our favorite Hungarian James Bond villain.
Going further down the list there’s Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information (CDI). The CDI’s goal is to strengthen “national and international security through international cooperation [and] reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict.” CDI operates under the aegis of the World Security Institute, which is apparently the least creepy name they could think of. Wheeler is a Counterpunch contributor, a site which even Stalinists think goes a bit too far. CDI gets money from the Open Society Institute (OSI) where the stench of death and stale cabbage never goes away.
Then there’s Charles Knight and Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives, which appears to be a subset of the Commonwealth Institute. Of its board of directors, S.M. Miller is also the founder of United for a Fair Economy which enjoys generous support from a certain philanthropic chap who occasionally destroys economies for sport. Another member, Guy Molyneux, has also worked with OSI. A third board member, Richard Healey, was formerly director of the Institute for Policy Studies and is on the advisory board of the Center for Social Inclusion, founded by two OSI veterans.
If you think this can’t get any worse, meet Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action (PA). You might know PA better by its old name, the “Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy” or just “SANE,” a Communist front group investigated by none other than Senator Thomas Dodd. PA has the same attitude toward American defense that burglars have toward alarm systems in other people’s homes. They don’t like them very much. And they have a “five year strategic plan” for the job.
Paul Kawika Martin travels around fighting progress on board The Rainbow Warrior and is also involved with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Martin has also collaborated with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a front for the Iranian regime. I think you can guess by now who funds Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Also on the task force is Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The Center is actually a subset of the Council for a Livable World. Olson originally worked for Physicians for Social Responsibility.
continued from above:
Another task force member was Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network (NSN). The NSN’s goals are to “build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin.” Its founder was part of Obama’s transition team and resigned to work for Janet Napolitano. Soros’s OSI helped fund NSN, and its Special Counsel was on the NSN Policy Committee.
If you’re tired of reading through all this, then here’s the summary. Of the Paul-Frank Task Force, 9 out of 14 members were linked to Soros’s organs. Two were affiliated with the Cato Institute. One is indeterminate.
Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros-funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water; can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the driver’s seat on national defense?
The task force’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence; reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers; canceling the Joint Strike Fighter; “severely curtail missile defense” — and that is a direct quote from the report — retiring four Marine battalions; reducing the military by 200,000 personnel; cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years; and increasing health care fees for members of the military.
Not only did Paul join forces with Barney Frank to slash military preparedness, but he ended up putting the experts of a foreign billionaire with global ambitions in charge of the project. And that was what he did as a congressman. Can anyone imagine what he would do as president?
But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over America’s defense policy? There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didn’t know and didn’t bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job he’s running for. There’s another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didn’t care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the “American Empire” with Soros. But there’s also a third possibility.
During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups.
I’m not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of America’s defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.
All of what you said, reposted, and everything is all the more reason for us to regroup and share the positive aspects of whom we support. There is some baggage that can not be easily forgotten or forgiven and there is other stuff that just no longer matters. Out of the current group, we have two folks left who even come close to being able to represent our thoughts. Santorum and Newt. I watched Rick on GBTV the other night and felt a bit better, but to be honest...I don't think he has quite what it takes to overcome Obama. Newt seems like the only logical choice.
Just my thoughts!!!!
I'm just afraid if anything substantial will be dug up about Santorum now, even though he seems like a logical choice now. Newt I do believe, is the one who has the gumption, confidence, and intelligence, to beat Obama in a debate. The thing that concerns me, is his own admitted long time friendship with Alvin and Heidi Toffler, making one of their books required reading by members of the House, writing the forward for one of their books, and the John Birch Society coming out against him. Has the JBS gone wrong, or is there reason to be concerned?
The JBS has always been foursquare for the Constitution and individual liberty. People who dont think on their own but listen to the MSM with their propaganda and believe JBS is subversive when the reality of the JBS is limited government and Constitutional government, something we dont have now, living under a two party dictatorship!
Jack.........can you provide more data.........I'm not aware of Lyndon LaRouche being associated with John Birch Society???
I'm like you... I don't think Rick could beat Obama, so that leaves Newt, and I would rather NOT even consider Mitt.
Because Newt is a Professor of History, especially American history, he may have the most laser-like understanding of what's at stake with the upcoming election. He knows exactly what the founders had in mind and he can recite every known document that gave birth to this great nation. Plus, he can do something that most of the other candidates cannot... he can explain clearly what each document means and what limits it puts on our democratically elected leaders.
Here's another gold nugget being tossed around... The word is that Newt may ask Allen West to be his VP. In fact, some believe they have already had the talk. If he came out and said he would pick West as his VP he would instantly get my money and my full support.
I know that many in our country want a president that can fix the economy and that's the reason to vote for Mitt. I don't buy it. Newt or Rick both know that there are some very basic moves the government can make that would instantly give business owners confidence to plan for their companies financial future. You know the list... Slash ridiculous Govt regulations, Tax incentives, lower the Corporate tax rate, work towards a plan similar to Cains 999 plan, get Congress to stop spending like drunken sailors, REPEAL OBAMACARE, close down duplicate Govt agencies to save billions, stop funding stupidity, pay down our Debt, etc etc etc etc.
Our next President does not have to be a genius at business matters, he just has to be willing to do the things we know will work. Then once we have our economy back on the mend, we can then start a serious plan to DO SOMETHING about SS and Medicare because it is NOT sustainable and we all know it.
The important thing is... we keep the pressure on any candidate on our side that wins, to do the right things for the right reasons and according to our Constitution.
Ok, rant over!
OMG! David. I had not heard anything about the possibility of Newt asking Allen West to be his VP! If that gets to be known for a fact, there is no doubt who I would stand behind-Newt! I always thought a Palin/West or West/Palin ticket would be a perfect match. And I wholeheartedly see Newt being the one who could mop the floor with Obliar!
There's something left that bothers me though. The NAGR has been after all, except Paul, because he returned his, to return their stance on gun rights. Newts past voting history doesn't seem to pro-gun owners at all, even though he claims he is now. He needs to let his position be formally known by returning this simple piece of paper.