How President Obama Can Be Elected a Third Time

President Obama can be elected a third time in one sense: if enough people who promote his deleterious agenda -- both his maintenance and expansion of the Keynesian status quo in economic policy and the Bush foreign policy -- are elected, then the current president will "in effect" be re-elected.

In other words, George W. Bush could be elected a fifth time if not much changes in the upcoming elections in this year and the years ahead.

But now that I think about it, this might actually be encouragement to the wrong people.

Picture: Relic from the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign

Definitely one of the most exciting campaigns in recent history -- a game-changer in terms of shifting public opinion towards a freedom-oriented philosophy. Two years passed and one thing is for sure: the Paulian influence on public policy is here to stay.

Click the picture to see one of the most brilliant economic plans in history for the United States of America from Dr. Ron Paul.

Senator Rand Paul has issued his own budget each year. Click here to see the latest one.

It is inferior to his father's plan on many levels (Ron's plan balances the budget in 3 years. Rand's plan balances the budget in 5 years. Ron eliminates and lowers taxes. Rand's introduces a new tax, the flat tax, a regressive tax that will raise taxes on the poor (bad) and lower taxes for the wealthier (good).

But since Ron's plan is politically irrelevant -- unless Rand will in the unlikely event ditches his own and embraces his father's -- there are many good things to say about the Rand Paul.

According to a FreedomWorks analysis of Rand's 2013 plan and a few others' plans, the public debt will be $12.0 trillion in ten years from the plans implementation, which almost takes us back to the Bush II years-size debt.

Best Explanation of Obama Re-Election Victory

From the incomparable Gary North:

Why did Obama win? Because he got more votes. But why? Because people stuck with the devil they knew

American Politics: Bipartisan Boondoggles || Gary North

My OTHER Big Idea for Presidential Debate Reform: Allow Third Party Candidates to Participate

Allow them to participate, regardless of polling.

But come to think of it: All this talk of reform isn't really libertarian at all. The "libertarian" view might more radically be repeal of the office of the presidency, and, with that the repeal of both houses of Congress, the cabinets, the Supreme Court, and the rest of government. Yes, even national defense.

This post was inspired by OverStock.com's CEO Patrick Byrne talking about both parties engaging in "tinkering." See below.

My Big Idea for Presidential Debate Reform

Ta-Dah!

Add presidential debates that are like congressional hearings. Of course, one or two town hall style debates should remain. And even the current format where opponents attack each other with one moderator should remain. But this new debate style should be included, and commence immediately, in September, after the national conventions. Twice a week, for three weeks, for at least three hours, on a different topic with an expert group of questioners, until October. There we can continue with the current debate format.

The more presidential candidates in the hearing/debate, the longer the hearing/debate should be. There should be:

A debate on: Taxes, Economy, and the Federal Reserve

A debate on: Civil Liberties and Prisons

A debate on: Foreign Policy

A debate on: Healthcare and Welfare

A debate on: Internet Regulation and Education Reform

A debate on: Immigration

At least those topic suggestions are a start.

Even in primary season, when the last two candidates not to have dropped out are left, put them through a debate - congressional-hearing style. So I guess I'm playing loose with the term "debate" here. I guess I want - and think the American people deserve - a hearing on all the positions of the people who want to "serve" us.

They can debate about those positions later.

If you want to retweet or favorite my tweets, click here for tweet one, tweet two, tweet three, tweet four.

P.S. Yes, I think the "World's Toughest Job Interview" should last three hours. I predict that the shorter debates in October would be more popular. This debate can be relegated to C-SPAN, and other networks that want to cover it.

I'm Disgusted With The Republican Party

In reaction to the news that the RNC sought a rules change to avoid a floor fight:

I am very slow to anger but I think what the Republican Party did to the Ron Paul people is just despicable and disgusting. It's absolutely deplorable that Paul supporters have been shut out of GOP state conventions, denied seats to duly elected delegates, arrested, and had the rules changed on them the week of the very convention they were sent to vote at.

This is a party that is all about squelching and silencing opposition, even at the cost of an election.

So I ask: What is wrong with a little internal dissent?And is clamping down on dissent really worth it when the cost is the very support you are trying to win over?

Of course, it could be completely be the case that the Republicans know that they would have a hard time winning over the Paul people, and would have to make so many concessions on the platform ad infinitum that in their minds it is justified to prevent a floor fight.

It could completely be the case that they believe they can't win us over, so preventing a public relations mess would be timely right about now.

We're honest people and our rallies and organizations are the true grassroots. Our rallies are not funded by the Koch Brothers like Americans for Prosperity, just every day, hardworking -- and intelligent -- people.

And this is the kind of opposition they want squelched? Other grassroots that aren't too Ron Paul-friendly should be on our side, because it might be their turn one day to be on the receiving end of the GOP strong arm.

The Republican Party does not know how to handle the Ron Paul revolution. They think they can just pander to us and get our vote but they are dead wrong. It's going to take a lot more than just adding "Audit the Fed" to the GOP platform to win my vote.

I'm voting Ron Paul.

Related: How the GOP Establishment Stole the Nomination From Ron Paul || LewRockwell.com

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 13

Ex-Porn star Jenna Jameson tells the women of the Twitterverse that they're entitled to all the sex that they want, but that doesn't mean she should have to pay for their birth control, The Goins Report has the story.

U.S. Appeals court blocks FDA "graphic image" labels on cigarettes in the name of the First Amendment, the Associated Press (via Time Healthland).

Mitt Romney defends Massachusetts health law as better than Obama's, The Hill reports.

Yes, we passed the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and we are still finding out what's in it, including thirteen new taxes on top of the expiration of several tax cuts in 2013 that will affect the middle class and the rich alike, The New American magazines reports.

More and more doctors are suffering from burnout, and more than people in other professions, Reuters reports.

Health policy experts say that the Affordable Care Act will drive people to "concierge doctors" and increases demand for care while doing little to expand supply, CNSNews.com reports.

Flashback: HHS fully aware of doctor shortage, announces $250 million to strengthen the primary care workforce, CNSNews.com reported in 2010.

DOC: Physician shortages set to increase without increases in residency training.

Americans are having fewer children each year since the financial meltdown of 2008, Bloomberg reports.

Is Missouri Rep. Todd Akin (R) running for President? Nope. But that isn't stopping the Obama presidential campaign from sending out a mass e-mail to his supporters linking Akin's "legitimate rape" comments to the GOP platform. ABC News has learned in advance that Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who made politcal noise earlier this year for her statements before a House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, will be sending out the e-mail.

Update: VP Running Mate Paul Ryan (R) dodges the Akin-ization of the GOP campaign narrative as he refuses to explain the "forcible rape" language he used in a bill earlier in his congressional career, The Hill and ABC News' Jake Tapper reports.

My Question to Governor Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate

Am I the only one who thinks that Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson (N.M.), would not only have been a more effective Senator but would have been a shoe-in for the 2012 U.S. Senate race in New Mexico? I mean if the governor of his own state can't win a Senate race in his own state, that same governor should not be trying to convince us that he can win the presidency.

It's almost like after being governor the U.S. Senate is beneath him. And his run shows that despite the sentiments of this country, which show that people are upset with both parties, he misreads the politics of this country, and also extracts the wrong lesson from it, and that in itself shows how unwise the run has been. I think it's time for the Libertarian Party and all those third party folks (I still have my Constitution Party membership card, although I'm a registered Republican now) who think we can just give the American people a "third option," and any old third option at that, and think they'll go for it. No, please go away. Rethink your strategy. Put down the hubris hoagies and take a bite out of some humble pie.

Shouldn't we in the liberty movement be shooting for winnable, doable campaign victories and quit it with all this pie-in-the-sky-overly-optimistic crap. Gary Johnson isn't even a household name, and if he thinks he can just woo any old Ron Paul supporter he has another thing coming for him. Johnson should look forward to replacing the next Democrat to leave the U.S. Senate in his state so we can at least have someone in the U.S. Senate. He would also be another vote to repeal Obamacare. Think. Think. Think. Libertarian Party.

On that same note, the Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Virgil Goode needs to get of his pride horse as well. He's not going to win. He's better off going back to the Republican Party and mounting a U.S. Senate campaign.

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, announced his retirement in February 2011, more than enough time for you to mount a successful U.S. Senate campaign.

My question to Governor Johnson is this:

Governor Johnson, why didn't you run for the U.S. Senate? Why didn't you help the GOP takeover the Senate? Isn't a presidential run a waste of not of only your time and resources but our time and resources as supporters?

Wouldn’t it have been better if you had the impact of a Rand Paul--who is introducing legislation and actually holding up the Senate and is creating alliances within the GOP members in the Senate?

Instead, you have an unlikely presidency, and if you lose, you now have to wait to be effective again in the Senate or the Presidency? All you will have after all of this is an e-mail list and no legislative impact.

Obama leads in donations from women; Romney donations from men

(GoinsReport.com) – President Barack Obama leads against Republican candidates former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the number of campaign donations given by women and the number of women that donated.

According to OpenSecrets.org, which uses the latest figures from the Federal Election Commission released May 21, President Obama received $39,733, 646 from 42,898 female donors in the 2012 election cycle.

In contrast, Mitt Romney received $24,787,174 from 15,546 female donors and Ron Paul received only $2,358,242 from 3,226 female donors.

More men donated than women in all three candidates’ campaigns, but as a percentage of who gave the most between Obama and Romney, the former Massachusetts governor leads with 69.3 percent of his funds coming from male donors; whereas 55.5 percent of Obama’s contributors were men.

If Paul is included, he exceeds both Obama and Romney in male donors as a percentage of campaign contributions accounting for 81.9 percent of his funds.

Most of the female donors that contributed to Obama’s campaign gave between the $200 and $499 range. That category, which consists of a little over 20,000 women, accounted for $5,257,560 of the $39.7 million total.

But the real money-maker for Obama was from the 4,608 female donors who gave in the $2,500+ category whose total donations equals $19,196,719; also, that category proved a bonanza for Obama as well with $28,201,786 coming from over 6,000 men.

Unlike Obama, who received most of his donations in the $200 and $499 range, Mitt Romney received most of his donations from 7,312 women giving in the $2500+ range, giving him $18,870,800 in that category alone.

Over 7,000 more men donated to Barack Obama’s campaign but donated less than Romney in total.

Obama received $49,568,913 from 45,154 male donors. Romney, in contrast, received $55,832,327 from 38,134 male donors.

Most male donors to Obama donated in the $200 to $499 range a total of $5,001,890. And most male donors to Mitt Romney donated in the $2,500+ range.

Obama received the most contributions in the $5,000+ category in comparison to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Obama received $31,456,467 in the $5,000+ category from 6,241 donors.

The number of donors that contributed in the $5,000+ category to Romney was only 619; and for Paul, 17. Paul received $10,692,020 total from 15,601 male donors.

All figures account for the 2012 cycle, which accounts for Jan 1st, 2011 to the latest disclosed information, which was April 30th, 2012. They do not include SuperPAC money.

Ron Paul says churches 'should be able to say anything they want'

Philadelphia (GoinsReport.com) – GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) confirmed with GoinsReport.com on Sunday, April 22 that a factor in wanting to eventually end the Internal Revenue Service is to also eliminate the conditions that come with churches having 501(c)(3) status.

A 501(c)(3) organization, often called a charitable organization, is prohibited from engaging in meaningful political activities such as political campaigns.

The ban came about in 1954 when Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson’s (D-Texas) amendment to prohibit 501 (c)(3) organizations from engaging in political campaign activity was approved by congress. In 1987, the ban was strengthened when Congress amended the language to prohibit charitable organizations from making statements opposing candidates.

After a campaign rally in Philadelphia, GoinsReport.com asked: “Would it be accurate to say that one of the reasons why you would eliminate the IRS is to eliminate the conditions that come with 501c3 status with churches so churches can speak out?”

Paul said: “Oh yea. That is absolutely right that is the case. I had a minister tell me the other day that he was being audited.”

He continued: “The church was being audited. And they informed him that they would be listening to what they were saying as well to make sure that they didn’t say anything political. They should be able to say anything they want other than slandering and that sort of thing.”

Paul invoked the first amendment and added that it should "apply to religious liberty or intellectual liberty, the whole works."

When asked by GoinsReport.com what he would do to spread religious liberty in the United States, Paul said that he had no program to “spread” religious liberty at home, but would protect religious liberty in his administration.

“We would guarantee it and protect it like the constitution [says],” Paul said. “Enforce the first amendment. Government should do nothing or say nothing about spreading liberty.”

Paul added that religious liberty and economic liberty are “one in the same.”

“It should be all one unit,” Paul said.

He clarified that if an individual's right to his life and liberty are protected, religious liberty would always be protected.

On March 28, Paul told GoinsReport.com after a campaign rally at the University of Maryland that he would do “very little” championing of religious freedom abroad other than trying to set an example in the United States.

“We frequently, you know, abuse civil liberties here and we don’t treat our people - we put people in prison and shouldn’t be - for political reasons and different things and then we go over and we preach to other countries,” Paul said.

“I don’t think that’s good. I would set the example here. And urge them. But I don’t feel like I have the authority to use funds or people’s lives here in this country to go and tell other people what to do,” he continued.

Paul said he thinks more is achieved through persuasion than by "forcing yourself on another country." 

Op-Ed: Why Ron Paul is not going away

From CNN:

All of this means the GOP can no longer ignore its libertarian "fringe." On the contrary, it will have to reach out to a new generation of activists who don't regard religious piety or continual warfare as sacred tenets of conservatism. Even Romney will have to take Sarah Palin's advice not to "marginalize" the Paulites if he is to emerge from the nominating convention with a united party.

Whatever happens in 2012, we are living through a significant moment in the history of conservatism. The age of Bush and Obama -- twin specters of lavish spending and imperial design -- have birthed anti-government movements of right (tea party) and left (Occupy). The one that will last longest and have the most impact is the one that has been the most pragmatic and politically savvy. The Ron Paul revolution won't stop here.

Why Ron Paul is not going away || Special to CNN

Obama's Forward: A Cartoon and Commentary

Commentary:

Forward With Obama || FrontPageMag.com

Ron Paul: Romney would be ‘marginally’ better than Obama, not ‘100 percent different’ - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) conceded Thursday that Mitt Romney would make a “marginally” better president than Obama.

“We can’t boil it down and say it’s Obama’s fault and Romney will be 100 percent different and it will all be better,” Paul told conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show.

Ron Paul: Romney would be ‘marginally’ better than Obama, not ‘100 percent different’ - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Is Ron Paul wrong on Jerusalem?

Yes, says this guy.

Snippets from Ron Paul's Vast Collection of Writings on Race

The Anti-Racist Presidential Candidate

Ron Paul: Federal Government Fails at Running D.C. School System | CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday the federal government has proven ineffective at running an educational system, as evidenced by the D.C. school system, which spends $18,000 a student and is among the worst in the country. Paul is advocating getting rid of the Department of Education.

Ron Paul: Federal Government Fails at Running D.C. School System | CNSNews.com

USA Today: 'Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas would keep the national debt in check as a percentage of the economy'

From the article:

Leading the way with the most expensive plan is former House speaker Newt Gingrich, followed by former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas would keep the national debt in check as a percentage of the economy, the group found, because he has proposed by far the largest spending cuts.

Budget watchdog: Most Republicans would increase debt || USA Today

Ron Paul Campaign Demands Newt Gingrich to Rectify Damage Done to Ron Paul Supporter

(GoinsReport.com) – For the second day in a row, the Ron Paul campaign has called on GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to rectify the damage caused by Gingrich’s campaign staff when they injured a Ron Paul supporter on Tuesday.

The incident happened Tuesday morning in Windermere, Florida.

Read about the incident here.

The press release can be read here.

Ron Paul Campaign Criticizes GOP Opponents on National Debt and Spending | CNSnews.com

Paul’s campaign notes that Gingrich, as a member of the House, voted to raise the debt ceiling in 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, twice in 1989 and twice in 1990.

Santorum, as a member of the Senate, voted to raise the debt ceiling in 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

Ron Paul Campaign Criticizes GOP Opponents on National Debt and Spending | CNSnews.com

An email to a friend on why I won't vote for Gingrich

What I wrote below is kind of long so read it when you have time. It's a little sporadic

:-)
----- Why I wouldn't vote for Gingrich (continuing our talk from last time) ----

In the meantime, I don't think Newt is electable outside of South Carolina. I think he is like Santorum and Hunstman who staked their claims in the earlier primary states and are now doing poorly out of those states. Money bags Mitt ( sorry I couldn't resist) and Ron Paul have the money and the following in all states and are the only two candidates on every ballot in all 50 states. Paul is the true conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

(Yea he's a libertarian but most if not all of his positions can be arrived at by a strict adherence to the constitution. I was a constitutionalist and paleo-conservative in 2008 before I became a libertarian in 2009ish and although I didn't vote Paul then, I would have had he not dropped out [I think that's what I was thinking then])

Even if Newt claims to be a Reagan conservative, he surely doesn't unite people like one. I think he alienates voters and says things that are offensive to really sensitive people. Like his Palestinian comment. He gives the liberal media too much ammo to fire back at him. His attitude and zingers are sometimes really insensitive and unhelpful even if there is some truth to it.

What does the liberal media have on ron paul? "Oh he wants people to die!!!"

As an African-American, as much as I don't like invoking race, I don't think he'd do very well with our group. African-American voters tend to be very conscious about laws that discriminate against African-Americans and Newt has no interest in decriminalizing drugs which, as Ron Paul rightly points out, disproportionately puts blacks in the slammer and breaks up black families.

I think Paul has some work to do in this respect, but people are coming around to him. Heck, my grandma told me she likes Ron Paul and she's a Barack supporter and hates the GOP congress.

Newt's solution has been "well, we need to encourage kids not to do drugs." His real words were: "I think the best thing is to get young people not to do drugs and then you won't be dealing with criminals that you just described."

That is not realistic and ignores too much. Drugs attract people precisely because its illegal and lucrative just like during the prohibition era with alcohol. There are no more Al Capone's of Alchohol. But drug kingpins abound.

Ron Paul has acknowledged many times about the injustices in the judicial system for many, many years. During the same time he was sending those "racist" newsletters, he also gave a speech on the racist origins of the drug war.

So despite whatever feeling he used to harbor about blacks, his policies scream "justice and anti-racism." He would also pardon all non-violent drug crimes no matter race a person is. That puts families back together. You could even say that decriminalizing drugs is a pro-family position. It also saves the prison systems, and thus the taxpayer, some cash.

Plus, Mr. Historian got his history wrong on drug decriminalization in Europe to support his stance.

I want you to take a look at Newt's response again. That response was in the exact same spirit as his response over the Patriot Act with Ron Paul. He said something to the effect of "if you don't like the Patriot Act, then don't conspire with terrorists." I think that's wrong. The Patriot Act sacrifices so many of our civil liberties over to the government. Newt's response to our grief and discomfort is "just stay in line, citizen!" -- at least thats how he comes off as: inflexible, imperious, callous.

There are still injustices in our country that are still going on and Newt's answers are quite callous, in some respects.

Other things:

~Fear mongering over an EMP attack
~His main argument seems to be he's not Obama. Yes, there are difference on taxes but his policies don't go far enough for me. He's not truly free-market.
~He comes off as a "soft technocrat," once again anti-free market.
~His recent attacks on Mitt Romney working at Bain Capital are left-wing anti-capitalistic attacks.
~He is erratic and proves Peggy Noonan's point about being a "human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, "Watch this!"
~His erraticism is also why I can forgive Ron Paul's waffling on some issues, but not Newt's. Newt does it too dang much!
~Wanting to take covert actions on Iran and kill Iranian scientists.
~Constitutional Questions with the Contract With America
~Day One Executive orders sets bad precedent for future Presidents
~He's a Reagan Conservative, yet he won't completely end the Department of Education like Reagan desired; Ron Paul will.
~He's overhauling the government by making it more efficient.
~I'm not sure if he's cutting anything. Where are the cuts in his plan?
~And his contract with America asks for too much from citizens. come up with ideas yourself Newt.
~On the same note, he needs to look at what he's asking for from the eyes of the other side i.e. people who aren't his supporters. I don't want to "help Newt" if I don't support him. He has to make me believe in his cause first.

Ron Paul can end an era with his policies. Gingrich's policies keep that era in place. Ron Paul strikes at the root. Gingrich hacks at the branches.