Socialists have always historically believed that they were advancing the cause of human interests in society and the world at large by their policy of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots in an attempt to level the playing field. For this very reason the two most influential socialist engineers – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – created a publication by the name of “Vorwärts”, a German name that translates to English as “Forward”. It was a newspaper that encouraged people to “urge for progress”, and ever since the first issue of Vorwärts was published on October 1, 1876 the word has been used as a generic catch-phrase for avid socialists, communists and other left-wingers across the world. Below is a short list of examples all different language translations of the word forward or adaptations of it…

Avante!, of the Portuguese Communist Party
Avanti!, organ of the Italian Socialist Party
Eteenpäin, Finnish-language newspaper in the United States
Új Előre (‘New Forward’), a Hungarian-language newspaper in the United States
Forverts, commonly known as The Jewish Daily Forward
Vorwärts!, 19th century journal of the Communist League
Vorwärts, the central organ of the Social Democratic Party of Germany published daily in Berlin from 1891 to 1933
Adelante, a Communist-party organ in Cuba.

This list I have compiled as well as some of the information in my opener paragraph I got from a well-cited Wikipedia article entitled, “Forward (generic name of socialist publications)” that was viewable on Wikipedia until recently when the article was conveniently deleted. I first stumbled across the article when my fellow co-host of the Conservative Declaration Talk Show Program, Adam Holtzapple, sent me a link to it along with a picture of Obama’s 2012 campaign marketing slogan that simply reads: “Forward”, with his 2008 Presidential crest replacing the letter “o”. Just this week when Adam and I were preparing for our weekly talk show we went to Wikipedia to pull the original article up and discuss the content therein. Much to our dismay it was gone, and in its stead was a new link for a new article that was no there only days before that said ‘”Forward”, slogan of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012″. Shocked and perplexed Adam typed in the exact url address and loaded the page, what we found was a little pink box that said, “This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference… 15:09, 9 May 2012 Neutrality (talk | contribs) deleted page Forward (generic name of socialist publications) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: del following move to user space)”

Obviously the person who deleted this article either works for the Obama camp, or is one of Obama’s most passionate supporters. In fact, chances are better than not that the same person who posted the link to the ‘Forward, slogan for the Obama-Biden 2012′ Wikipedia article is the same person who took down the article about the generic name for socialist publications. This is because Obama has been trying for a long time to shake this whole socialist condensation that people associate with him and his policy. I swear, a week does not go by where I am not engaged in a discussion with an Obama supporter who tells me that Obama is not a socialist, that he’s a liberal or a progressive or any variety of labels that they happen to fancy (as if they don’t all mean the same thing anyway). I find all of this very ironic though that wile trying to get away from the Socialist mantra that they would pick the word Forward to define their 2012 campaign.

I also find it funny that they took the article down when they did, it makes it even more obvious that they are trying to hide something. If I were an undercover socialist conniving to take over the United States within the Democratic party and I decided to name my campaign after a historical socialist catch-phrase and didn’t want people to connect the dots, I am not going to make it look like I’m hiding something by removing information from the internet that will make it obvious that I am covering something up. Now the Obama campaign or this faithful follower who thought he was doing Obama a favor by eliminating the Wikipedia article probably figured that no one would notice it was missing. I mean honestly, what are the chances of someone finding a random Wikipedia article like this, remembering it and then looking it back up after they see Obama’s new campaign slogan and foiling his plot – slim to none. Never the less, hard at work digging as we always are at The Conservative Declaration, we have found it and exposed it. I bet now they wish they had left the article up and pretended that there was no connection, or that it was just a matter of mere coincidence.

Below are some screenshots of the Wikipedia article before, it was removed, now that it is removed and the new link to the Obama 2012 campaign page on Wikipedia. And we can all thank Google’s cache feture for getting a screen shot of the page before it was taken down.

Wikipedia key word search: “Forward” today

“Forward (generic name of socialist publications) Before deletion

After the page was deleted

Let’s explore these statements a little further:

In my estimation, many of his supporters did not do thorough research into all of the candidates running – many of them probably did not do thorough research on “their” candidate, Smith himself. I say this because I believe that if Republicans had seen past the haze of million dollar advertising campaigns and looked into stances on the issues and personal histories of the candidates, Tom Smith would have lost in a landslide.

Smith was a Democrat for 42 years (longer than Barack Obama) and only recently switched to a Republican so he could run in this race. He claims that while he was a Democrat, he was really a conservative ideologue. If one is truly a conservative, why be a member of the Democrat party? The Democrats are the antithesis of the Republicans. If he had been an Independent or even a member of the Libertarian party, his conservative declarations (pun intended) might be easier to buy, but no, he was a Democrat. What happened to the Republicans we always hear playing party politics? You know the type, anything the Republicans do is good, anything the Democrats do is bad – how did a Democrat win such a plurality in a Republican primary?

Voters last night stepped up to the plate and were quick to dismiss Steve Welch for his liberal history, even though he was endorsed by their beloved ‘conservative’ governor and state Republican party. I was pleased to see that people did not buy into the Welch lie, but let’s do a little compare and contrast. Steve Welch voted for Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008, then switched to the Republican party after a 5-year stint as a Democrat. That’s pretty rough, but Tom Smith was a Democrat for 42 years and donated millions of dollars to dozens of Democratic candidates. Who is really worse here? Answer: they are both horrible. I will predict right now that we will have at least 6 more years of Bob Casey. Tom Smith is a mumbling, bumbling, know-nothing who will be torn to pieces by the well-spoken, well-known socialist Bob Casey in November.

The power of advertising and the media is a strong one, and this election proves that if you have big bucks to blow you can purchase an election. Republicans went to the polls last night and supported a 42-year member of the Democrat party over a staunch fiscal and social conservative who has been a lifelong member of the Republican party and held elected office as a member of that party for 18 years. Is anyone else confused? Just when I think I’m beginning to understand the mentality of the mainstream Republican voter they throw me curve ball like this….I guess I’ll never understand what it’s like to have no principles.

But as a conservative who has become very familiar with the liberal media and their tainted view of reality, I can firmly state that declaring Romney the victor is a wee-bit premature. Even if Mitt Romney wins every one of the remaining primaries by a landslide, which the media believes he will, that alone will not give him the required delegates to secure the nomination. So long as there are at least two candidates still in the race come august, there will be a brokered convention where the nominee will have to be decided by the vote of the representative delegates who have been gathering signatures and planning their trip to Tampa for months. These representative delegates will be voted for on every election ballot across America and they will take their delegate signatures with them to Tampa paying out of pocket for airfare, taking time off work and away from their families to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice….and who is more likely to have followers and supporters who are willing to make such a sacrifice? Ron Paul.

Just a few months ago in one of the Republican debates, Mitt Romney said of all the candidates running he was most impressed with Ron Paul and his ability to inspire the most passionate followers who will stand outside in the freezing cold and in the pouring rain for hours waving their signs and chanting for Dr. Paul. For the last several months I have watched Republican voters jump from candidate to candidate that they seemed a little impressed with for a short while, and then picking another candidate after learning something new from their flavor of the month. I have yet to talk to a likely Republican voter who is passionate about voting for any of the candidates – with the exception of Ron Paul. With this all being said I would be very hard pressed to find a Newt or Romney fan who would be willing to make these grueling sacrifices and commitment in going to the convention and voting for their man. Ron Paul is going to sweep house in the brokered convention, the only question is will he be able to take the cake with his fewer electoral delegates combined with the overwhelming amount of convention delegates? Or will Romney’s electoral delegates be enough to make up for his lack of convention delegates to give him the support needed to actually secure the nomination?

This all being said Republican voters in the remaining states have a huge decision to make. If they think about it its really not that difficult a decision to make but none the less a very important decision. Love him or hate him, Newt Gingrich lacks the passionate supporters to show up to the convention and win. I suspect Newt is coming to that harsh reality now which is why I predict he will bow out sooner than later. This race is between two candidates, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. We have a choice between two men to run against Obama in November. See the side by side differences between Romney, Paul and Obama and decide for yourself why should be running against Obama in 2012…

Healthcare:
Obama = Obamacare
Romney = Romneycare
Paul = Never supported any form of government involvement in healthcare.

TARP:
Obama = Voted for TARP
Romney = Supported TARP
Paul = Never supported TARP

Stimulus:
Obama = Voted for Stimulus
Romney = Supported Stimulus
Paul = Never Supported Stimulus

Believes Man-Made Global Warming Theory:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes, then No
Paul = No, never

Cap and Trade Carbon Tax:
Obama = Supports Carbon Tax
Romney = Supports Carbon Tax
Paul = Never Supported Carbon Tax

Luxury Tax:
Obama = Supports Luxury Taxes
Romney = Supports Luxury Taxes
Paul = Never Supported Luxury Taxes

Off Shore Drilling:
Obama = Against Off Shore Drilling
Romney = Against Off Shore Drilling
Paul = Allow Off Shore Drilling

Bail Outs:
Obama = Supported Bail Outs
Romney = Supported Bail Outs
Paul = Never Supported Bail Outs

Social Security:
Obama = Keep Social Security
Romney = Keep Social Security
Paul = Create Opt Out/Phase Out of Social Security

Foreign Aid:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

War:
Obama = Started More Wars
Romney = Wants to Start More Wars
Paul = Bring Troops Home to Defend America

Service to Country:
Obama = Never Served
Romney = Got a military deferment to be a Mormon missionary in France
Paul = Air Force Veteran

100% Pro-Life?:
Obama = No
Romney = No, then Yes
Paul = Yes

GOA Second Amendment Letter Grade:
Obama = F
Romney = D-
Paul = A+

Federal War on Drugs:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Federal Reserve:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Full Audit of Fed

IRS:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

TSA:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Patriot Act:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

NDAA:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Democrat:
Obama = Currently Democrat
Romney = Former Democrat
Paul = Never a Democrat

Increased Government Spending:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = Never Voted to Increase Spending

Voted To Increase Taxes:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = Never

Supported Reagan:
Obama = No
Romney = No
Paul = Yes – in 1976, before it was cool

Corporatism:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

Deficit Spending:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

IMF:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

NAFTA:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

Federal Department of Education:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

Real ID:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Major Campaign Backers:
Obama = Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup
Romney = Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup
Paul = Employees of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force

Need I go any further? In 2008 John McCain failed to beat Obama in the General Election because he failed to unite the conservative vote. Many Americans voted for the Libertarian Bob Barr, wrote in “Ron Paul” or never showed up to vote in the first place because of their disgust. Most of these voters voted for Ron Paul in 2008 GOP Primaries, the few that didn’t were not registered Republicans, and thus incapable of doing so, in four years time Ron Paul has over doubled and in some cases tripled or even quadrupled his support. This growing number of American conservatives will make the Republicans winning back the Presidency harder than ever before, especially when voters realize they are choosing between the Republican and Democratic Obama, there is not an lot of difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to substance. The only way Republicans are going to win the general election is if they can get the Ron Paul supporters to actually vote Republican. Most run-of-the-mill Republicans will vote straight Republican in the general, there are a small minority of them who won’t vote for Ron Paul should he win the nominee, probably a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Should Mitt Romney win there is a huge percentage of Republicans, and more importantly Independents, who will not vote Republican should Romney win. The only way Romney could get Paul supporters to vote for him would be to pick Paul as his running mate, but Paul would never stoop to that. The only way to guarantee Obama is a one term president is to elect Ron Paul as the GOP Nominee, and despite what the liberal media would have to believe he does stand a strong chance, and you can help, Paul does not need to win every primary from here on out, he simply needs to have good showings. If you want to defeat Obama in November and your state hasn’t voted yet, make sure you show up on election night and vote for Ron Paul, also be sure to find out who the Ron Paul Delegates are in your district and make sure to vote for them too. This will require some research because the ballot will not say who is a Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich supporter, it will simply say the delegate’s name. If worse comes to worse and you have no clue who they are when you go in to vote DO NOT GUESS! You would be better off not taking the chance of electing Romney delegates, and even though it may say that you can vote up to 4, that does NOT mean that you have to. ONLY vote for the delegates who you know for fact are pledged Ron Paul supporters. If conservatives do not unite together in the remaining primary elections they will surely be divided in November and that will guarantee another Obama victory.

So there’s a former Democrat running for the nomination so he can take on Sen. Bob Casey in November…so what? Unfortunately, this is not as uncommon as one might think. In fact, it would appear many of the Republicans in our state have been Democrats at one point in their life, and many still hold the liberal beliefs of the Democrat party, regardless of their GOP affiliation now.

What is surprising is the candidate leading this charge to ‘expose’ Smith. Why is it surprising that Steve Welch is behind this attack website? Because Steve Welch himself was a registered Democrat as recently as 2010, and had changed his registration five years earlier in 2005. In 2008, he voted for Barack Obama! (Source: Philadelphia Daily News) Don’t worry though, Welch has clearly stated that the only reason he changed parties was because he was tired of the Republicans not being fiscally conservative enough for him….so he became a Democrat? Does this make sense to anyone?

Another contender for the senatorial nomination, Marc Scaringi, hit the nail on the head in a previous debate when he quipped that, “apparently, I am one of the few Republicans running for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate.”

So, in order to make this race as transparent and fair as possible, I worked up this little graphic that clearly shows that liberal Steve Welch is no better than liberal Tom Smith. Do yourself a favor in two weeks and vote for Sam Rohrer or Marc Scaringi in the PA primary – they are the only sane choices for conservatives. Heck, they’re the only sane choice for run-of-the-mill Republicans!

The Results of the Truth are Liberating from The Conservative Declaration on Vimeo.

In this Tea Party speech, Griffin Voorhees of the Conservative Declaration, in association with the Sons of Liberty Radio Network, says it like it is regarding where our once great nation is headed. It is a frightening tale of failure and chaos, but Griffin spells out a clear blueprint out of the current economic mess that we are in after years of tax-and-spend, liberal progressive administrations, and representatives. Prepare to set your self free, and restore our Constitutional republic in 2012, but don’t forget that the truth is both liberating and offencive!

Just last week GOA sent out a newsletter to their Pennsylvania subscribers that in part said:

Dear Friend of the Second Amendment:

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse Pennsylvania’s Sam Rohrer for U.S. Senate.
In a time when politicians in Washington have abused and grossly exceeded their constitutional limits, voters are looking for fighters who are not afraid to rein in the federal government and place it back under the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

State Representative Sam Rohrer is a long-time leader in the battle against federal intrusion, especially when it concerns the right to keep and bear arms.
Representative Rohrer stood up for gun owners and states’ rights with legislation to repeal the 2005 Real ID Act, a law that would have compromised the privacy of gun owners…

Gun Owners of America is a proud supporter of Sam Rohrer for Senate, and encourages all Pennsylvania gun owners and sportsmen to vote for Sam Rohrer in the April 24 Republican primary.

Please visit http://www.samrohrer.org/ to learn more about this race.

Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman
Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by
any candidate or candidate™ committee. Gun Owners of America Political Victory
Fund is a project of Gun Owners of America.

This along with a recent endorsement by the former US Senate hopeful Peg Luksik who ran as a libertarian-leaning Republican against Pat Toomey in 2010 have helped Sam Rohrer maintain a steady lead in all of the recent polls. Just last night Sam picked up another big endorsement that very well may push him over the top in the actual election, the former 2012 Presidential Candidate Harman Cain sent out an e-mail to his supporters praising Rohrer and calling for them to, “take a look at [Rohrer’s] campaign and think about what you can do to boldly support it.”

Just before the news broke of the Herman Cain endorsement Adam and I were recording our weekly talk show where we commented on a news article from politicspa.com that claimed Sam had signed on to the former Peresidential candidates 9-9-9 tax plan that eliminated the current tax code and replaces it with a 9% personal sales tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% federal sales tax. Now it makes sense when Herman Cain, an avid critic of Ron Paul, endorses a candidate who shares many of Paul’s beliefs.

On our show last night we were critical of Rohrer’s support for the 9-9-9 plan because we believe that it is a danger to freedom lovers across the country, giving the Federal Government an additional federal tax power. On its surface it sounds like a better policy than the current tax code, but regretfully there is no way anyone can guarantee that future administrations won’t raise the personal income taxes back to current levels and then screw us with twice the taxation. There is also no way to guarantee that future administrations won’t raise the 9-9-9 into a 12-12-12, or 15-15-15. In the words of former President Ronald Reagan, “government doesn’t tax to get the money it needs, government always needs the money it gets.” Believing with you that the power to tax is the power to destroy, giving the government the power to tax another aspect of our economy only gives them more power to destroy.

On our show last night Adam said he didn’t expect Sam to push very hard for the 9-9-9 plan and that he believed it would never pass. He also said he believed Rohrer primarily said he supported it to get the support of former Cain Supporters across the Commonwealth and to expand his base. After reading Rohrer’s comments on the 9-9-9 plan I am lead to believe that is exactly what he was doing and he has succeeded now that Cain has made an endorsement.

Sam had this to say, “I am grateful for Herman Cain’s support in this campaign and stand with him in his fight for tax reform,” he also added, “Federal and state governments have for too long remained locked into tax policies that are often antiquated, inefficient and ultimately destructive to the free-enterprise system and economic growth. I support the major components of the Cain plan such as lowering rates; reducing the credits and deductions and moving toward a flat tax.” But the comment Rohrer made that most eased my concerns was when he said, “I support the concepts of moving away from the payroll tax, particularly Medicare and shifting toward a consumption tax, and will aggressively work for them if elected to the US Senate.”

Although on principal I am opposed to a federal income tax, it is constitutional so long as it is apportioned, the only way I personally can support a federal sales (consumption) tax is if the income tax is eliminated. Based on what I am hearing from Rohrer, it sounds as though he wouldn’t actually support 9-9-9 as Herman Cain presented it, but rather as a phase out program to eliminate the income tax and the ruthless IRS.

Although I am not 100% behind his decision to publicly sign on to the 9-9-9 plan, it probably was a good political move, I just don’t particularly care for it. Sam’s recent enforcement by Cain, along with GOA, should give him a considerable boost in the polls that he was already leading and he shouldn’t have any trouble getting the endorsement of Michele Bachmann who endorsed his campaign for governor and credits Rohrer for inspiring her to run for Congress in the first place. This may very well be the push he needs to carry him the rest of the way through the primary and beat the establishment hand-picked, Steve Welch who is quite possibly the most dangerous candidate running.

This pick was largely influenced by the GOP’s hand-picked Governor Tom Corbett who said that Welch would bring a certain ‘geographic balance’ to the table along with an ‘incredible ability to build the party.’ Note that neither the Party nor the Governor made this selection based on the substance of his platform. If they did you should be very concerned, but I digress…

Not long before the endorsement process took place it was made public knowledge that in 2008 Steve Welch voted for Barack Obama in the general election against John McCain. Welch initially justified his vote by saying he couldn’t bring himself to vote for a moderate wishey-washey Republican like John McCain.

Recently, when asked on two separate occasions, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett said that Welch had switched parties to become a Democrat in 2008 only to vote for Obama in the primary election. He added, “My understanding, the explanation from him and from his campaign team is, in ‘Operation Chaos’ four years ago, I think it was Rush who was encouraging everybody, go switch your party and go and vote for Obama in order to beat Hillary…”

However there are three major problems with this claim, and that is that the truth gets in the way. First of all, Steve Welch has already said that he did vote for Obama in the general. Secondly, Welch didn’t register as a Democrat in 2008, he jumped ship in 2005, three years before Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to switch parties to vote for Obama in the Democrat primary.

And the last inerrant fact is that Rush Limbaugh did not encourage his listeners to register as Democrats and vote for Obama in the primaries. Nor did Hannity, Levin or Savage as far as I know. This I know well because in 2008, I listened to Rush Limbaugh on a very regular basis. I’m not sure I missed a show on the EIB Network in the 2008 election cycle, in fact I was a Rush 24/7 subscriber at that time and I myself participated in “Operation Chaos.” Rush said that since there weren’t any conservative Republicans worth voting for and since McCain had already secured the election, that the Republican voters in the remaining states should register as a Democrat and vote for Hillary Clinton. He did this for several reasons. First, because Rush viewed Obama as far more extreme than Clinton in his left-wing policies. Another reason is that Obama was ahead in the polls and with this extra push it could help the lesser of two evils (Clinton) over the top.

Now the goal was not so much to help Clinton win, but to do exactly what the name of the mission claimed, it was to cause chaos by giving Clinton enough support to stay in the election longer and make the political mudslinging thicker, tearing both candidates down so when one of them won they would have a lot of baggage to answer for. Obviously, it didn’t work to the extent Limbaugh had hoped, but the shortcomings of Operation Chaos is not the intent of this article. It is to highlight the lie that Corbett, Welch and the PA GOP are spewing.

Welch became a Democrat in 2005 because something appealed to him about the party, and in 2008 he voted for Obama and it had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Operation Chaos. They are dishonest people and there is something you can always trust dishonest people to be and that is to be dishonest. Welch is a double-minded man, unstable in all of his ways. I only hope you will not take the advice of the corrupt Pennsylvania Republican Party under the leadership of Rob Gleason, and vote with your conscious for one of the few (two to be exact) true Conservatives running.

Choosing presidential candidates is sort of like dating. When you first meet someone they can seem wildly attractive, but the more you get to know them the more you start to find things you don’t like.

No self-respecting conservative is attracted to Mitt Romney. In the search for an anti-Romney, Republican voters once thought Newt Gingrich was hot, until they learned the very things they didn’t like about Romney—government run healthcare, TARP—were also supported by Gingrich. Similarly, some Republicans seem to think Rick Santorum has it going on, but the more his glaring big government record is brought up—No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D—the more the Senator loses his sizzle.

There has been much criticism of Republicans throughout this election for jumping from candidate to candidate and not being able to make up their minds. But Republicans actually deserve praise for this. If in past elections GOP voters were willing to settle more quickly for horrible candidates, today’s confusion stems from a GOP that refuses to settle. In rejecting Romney, conservative Republicans simply see nowhere to go—so they’ve gone everywhere.

The Tea Party is no doubt responsible for creating the current more consciously conservative Republican Party, and the movement was founded on one simple unifying principle: Stop Spending. No single leader or individual group controls the Tea Party but most Tea Partiers would agree that balancing the budget and reducing the debt is their top priority. The question today is, ‘For which presidential candidate is this a top priority?’

A recent study indicates there is only one. After examining each candidate’s economic proposals, last week the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reported that Newt Gingrich’s plan would add $7 trillion to the national debt, Santorum’s would add $4.5 trillion and Romney’s would add $250 billion.

But Ron Paul would actually cut our debt to the tune of $2.2 trillion.

But many conservative Republicans say they aren’t necessarily comfortable with Paul on every issue. This doesn’t change the fact that Paul is the only one who’s right on what has always been the Tea Party’s primary issue. It doesn’t change the fact that Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all fail miserably on what has always been the Tea Party’s primary issue.

The entire purpose of our Constitution was to limit the federal government, including its power to spend recklessly. Paul’s purist constitutional approach is nothing less than hitting the reset button on the republic of the Founders. As the Daily Caller’s Max Borders has observed:

One of the cleverest things Justin Timberlake ever did was bring sexy back. After all, sexy never really went away. But once the song came out, it didn’t matter. People welcomed sexy back with open arms. Now there’s nothing particularly sexy about the Ron Paul campaign. But just as Justin Timberlake brought sexy back, Ron Paul is bringing the Constitution back even though it never went away…

Dating can be annoying and difficult. Even when you find the right partner there will still be things you don’t like about them. The same is true of political candidates. No one will ever be perfect.

But voters should reasonably be able to expect that their candidate will be with them on the issues that matter most. A majority of conservative Republicans now agree that addressing our crushing debt is what matters most.

Republicans will likely continue to fall in and out of love with all of the candidates in this election. But when it comes to real fiscal conservatism, Ron Paul remains the sexiest candidate in this race.

The problem with Rick Santorum is not that he doesn’t stand for faith, life and traditional marriage. The problem is he thinks he can get a nation of 300 million people to stand with him. On the issue of gay marriage, Santorum recently told CNN: “I’ve just said I think this is a national issue, we can’t have 50 different marriage laws, and we have to have a consistency in what marriage is, and family is something. And we need to have a national discussion about it and develop a national policy.”

But we already do have 50 different marriage laws, concerning what age you can get married, what defines common law marriage, and so on. Unless Santorum can find where in the Constitution the federal government is delegated the authority to regulate marriage, his proposal is unconstitutional.

It is also impractical. As the Founders intended and the 10th amendment makes clear, marriage is a state issue. Before Roe vs. Wade, so was abortion. Before the 1960’s, so was school prayer. Any powers not delegated to the federal government by the states are reserved to the states and the people. This is called federalism and it was the basis for our original form of government.

A return to a truly federal system, in which some states have gay marriage and some don’t; some states ban abortion and others don’t; and even where some states openly allow public prayer and religious expression that other states don’t—this constitutional approach is one that could potentially yield victories for social conservatives.

If it was the federal government that took these cultural decisions away from the states, Santorum now looks to the federal government to restore social conservatism. Santorum seeks a national consensus on issues like gay marriage and abortion that simply do not exist and likely never will.

The best thing about Rick Santorum is that unlike many of the Republican presidential candidates, he actually stands for something. The problem is he is typically the worst enemy of what he is supposed to stand for.

Santorum’s argument is this—that he eventually will convince liberal states like Vermont and Massachusetts to agree with him on social issues. Well, good luck, Rick. The more sensible approach is the constitutional argument, which is this—that the states will never agree on these divisive issues and each state should be allowed to go its own way culturally.

It might be politically impossible to ban abortion nationwide, but it could be possible to save unborn children in Alabama. It might be unrealistic to ban gay marriage in every state, but it is possible to prevent the federal government from forcing gay marriage on every state. The same powers Santorum wants to give the federal government to implement legislation he favors, could easily be turned around on social conservatives depending on who controls Washington, DC. In fact, the federal government has been an enemy to social conservatives for the last half century, whether Republicans have been in power or not.

Social conservatism can win where there still exists a socially conservative consensus in this country. Santorum sees the culture wars as an all-or-nothing battle, where America will either be returned to 1950 or social conservatives will never win anything at all.

If social conservatives want to take their country back, they can. But they must first stop following Rick Santorum.

Senator Jim DeMint gave one of the most rousing speeches at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, warning Republicans that there can be no compromise with the Democrats. As usual, Sen. DeMint is right. Republicans cannot afford to compromise, quite literally, with any party or anyone who honestly believes that our government can spend one more cent or borrow one more dollar for one more minute.

But this also goes for Republicans.

We’ve heard a lot this week about the “Santorum surge” as the former Pennsylvania Senator rises in the polls to become the latest Republican to pose a serious challenge to Mitt Romney. Romney’s big government offenses are numerous and well known, which is why conservatives remain reluctant to support him. But Santorum’s big government offenses are just as numerous and equally as offensive. Writes The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney:

As a member of Senate leadership, Santorum literally was an agent of the GOP establishment during passage of No Child Left Behind, the expansion of Medicare, and the overspending of the Bush era.

Red State’s Erick Erickson is even more explicit:

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

The unavoidable dilemma concerning both Romney and Santorum is that neither man has ever been conservative in the same way that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan defined that term—believing that government isn’t the solution to our problems, but the problem. Reagan believed that conservatism proper was like a three-legged stool, consisting of social, national security and economic/libertarian conservatives. Both Romney and Santorum have never had much use for the fiscally responsible leg of that stool. Both candidates reveal this plainly in their attacks on each other—whether Santorum’s insistence that Romney is a TARP-supporting liberal who gave the Democrats the blueprint for ObamaCare, or Romney’s insistence that Santorum represents, as Carney put it, “an agent of the GOP establishment during… the overspending of the Bush era.”

Unfortunately for the GOP, both candidates are absolutely right in their indictments of each other. Romney and Santorum are essentially George W. Bush Republicans competing in a Tea Party-tinged election where conservatives do not necessarily want to go back to the big spending Bush era. Bush’s GOP was completely void of the economic/libertarian philosophy Reagan believed essential in promoting an effective conservatism, and the absence of any tangible limited government philosophy is what allowed Bush Republicans to rack up debt even worse than Bill Clinton Democrats. Said Sen. DeMint of the Bush era: “You could accuse Republicans of a lot of things, but you could never convict us of being too conservative!”

Sen. DeMint wants Reagan’s three-legged stool restored, advising the GOP that “The debate in the Republican Party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives… There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.”

Some Republicans now look to Romney, though most of his career he has grown government. Some Republicans now look to Santorum, though most of his career he has grown government. When President Obama promises to cut spending in every State of the Union address he’s delivered, conservatives instinctively know he’s lying. Why? Because Obama’s actual record of cutting spending is non-existent. The same is true of Romney and Santorum. To the extent that Republicans realize this, they’ve been reluctant to support either candidate. To the extent that Republicans have been willing to ignore it, they compromise conservative principles in the very way Sen. DeMint has warned them not to.

If DeMint wants the conversation in the GOP to be between libertarians and conservatives, Santorum says: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” This is true. Santorum has fought against small government conservatism his entire career.

Sen. DeMint is right that Republicans can no longer afford to compromise with the Democrats. The remaining question is: Can conservatives afford to compromise with Republicans who grow government and spend money just like liberal Democrats?

1) ‘He’s tough on terrorism and…’

2) ‘He doesn’t, and hasn’t ever supported socialism…’

Before I address their claims, lets look at the definition of the word socialism. Dictionary.com defines Socialism as “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Now allow me to sum that up for you, it is an economic system or policy that eliminates private ownership of cash flow, goods and services, and forcibly transfers the rights to a collective body.

ObamaCare is often referred to as socialism because it is socialist in its nature. The premise is to take property or income from some and redistribute it to others in form of a service – in this case the service is that of healthcare. But socialism is not limited to healthcare services, it can be any sort of good or service that was handed out to a recipient that did not pay for it.

Now very briefly speaking here, illegal immigrants who hop the border and take advantage of American social programs such as public education, health care, social security, etc. are recipients of socialism. The outcry from political right is that these illegals did not pay a dime into the system that they are milking dry. Rick Santorum has said on many occasions that we need to defend Israel, in fact, on his issues page under the ’10 Steps to Promote Our Interests Around the World’ page, Rick Santorum says “we must stand by Israel, especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. The recent dislocation of the old order in the Middle East will usher in a new one, and anti-Israeli elements are working overtime to take advantage of the opportunity.” And under the issue of “Response To Iran” it says that Rick Santorum was the “author of the Syria Accountability Act to combat the threat Syria posed to Israel…”

At no point on any of these pages does Rick Santorum say that he wants to tax Israel for these services, instead he wants to borrow, print and tax us to pay for their defense. How far would a Republican candidate get if he said he wanted to borrow, print and tax us to pay for healthcare for Mexican citizens in the form of illegal immigrants? Even if they sold it to the Republican voters under the geyser of keeping Mexico safe, no Republican with half a brain would support them. Rick Santorum is doing this very thing and the GOP voters are eating it right up. He is trying to further make Israel dependents of the US taxpayers which is, by definition, a form of socialism. He gets away with it because of the threat of the bomb. He claims that intelligence sources say that Iran is building a nuke. The same intelligence sources that told us Iraq was building a nuke (weapons of mass destruction), now thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars later we have still yet to find any traces of nuclear weapons there.

But for those of you who are Isreali protectionists who still aren’t sold on why Santorum is a socialist, let’s take into consideration that in 2008 Santorum campaigned for a socialist. He said, “if you’re a conservative, if you’re a Republican, there is only one place to go, and that’s Mitt Romney.” So if Santorum tells Republicans they should look to the grandfather of ObamaCare as a conservative leader, it kind of makes you wonder what he means when he calls himself a conservative.

Rather than listening to political rhetoRick, lets look at his record as a Senator…
In 2003, Santorum voted in favor of Medicare Part D which was the largest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ’s “Great Society” that was modeled after FDR’s “New Deal.” And what do the Medicare Part D, the New Deal and the Great Society have in common? One major thing…socialism! LBJ was the president responsible for passing Medicare in the first place. The premise of it was to guarantee that Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities would have access to health insurance. Takeaway the stipulation of age or disability and Medicare is just as socialist and unconstitutional as ObamaCare – and Santorum voted to expand it. He voted to expand, or spread socialism further than it already was across the United States! A Senator, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a socialist, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. And for this reason I can not muster any ounce of support for the man regardless if he wins the Republican nomination or not.

Lastly you may have noticed that when you’re on a website reading an article there are typically advertisements on the website that relate to the topic your reading about. For instance, there is an article on this very site entitled “Don’t Tread on Me”, and you can bet that almost every time you click this link you can find ‘ad choices’ for websites that sell Gadsen flags and apparel. These links are typically strategically placed there to rope people in who are interested in specific topics and trying to get them to buy products that relate to said topics. Is it any coincidence that when on dictionary.com searching the word socialism today that two advertisements popped up on the left and right hand sides of the screen and that they were both links to socialist campaigns? Below is a screen shot of the dictionary.com definition of socialism and the ‘ad choices’ links… enjoy!

Congratulations you “small government, conservative Republicans” – you bought the line of crap the Party bosses sold you in April of 2010 and voted for Tom Corbett over Sam Rohrer in the primary, setting the stage for this Corbett governorship we are now under. Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

I now ask you: will you kowtow to the Party bigwigs again this primary season by voting for Tom Corbett’s hand-picked candidate Steve Welch (who happened to vote for Obama in 2008)? Or will you stand up and vote for a Senatorial candidate that will actually be a Constitutional conservative?

Stop listening to the Party bosses. Stop reading their propaganda you receive in the mail. Stop listening to the media who tells us the only way to beat the Democrat is by picking a nominee who runs a centrist campaign. Start thinking for yourself conservatives!

That said, when Bill Clinton was conservatives’ main target, the most vicious criticisms focused on the president’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky. My problems with Clinton were primarily the same problems I would later have with George W. Bush and Barack Obama — big government, big spending, porous borders and unnecessary wars. But for virtually all conservatives and especially social conservatives, Clinton’s sex scandals were a rallying point during the late 1990s.

President George H.W. Bush’s drug czar, Bill Bennett, constantly hammered the notion that America was “defining deviancy down” by being too accepting of Clinton’s shenanigans, or as he wrote in 1998:

It is said that private character has virtually no impact on governing character; that what matters above all is a healthy economy; that moral authority is defined solely by how well a president deals with public policy matters; that America needs to become more European (read: more “sophisticated”) in its attitude toward sex; that lies about sex, even under oath, don’t really matter; that we shouldn’t be judgmental …

Bennett concluded:

If these arguments take root in American soil, if they become the coin of the public realm, we will have validated them, and we will come to rue the day we did. These arguments define us down; they assume a lower common denominator of behavior and leadership … we will have committed an unthinking act of moral and intellectual disarmament. In the realm of American ideals and the great tradition of public debate, the high ground will have been lost … In that sense, then, the arguments invoked by Bill Clinton and his defenders represent an assault on American ideals …

As noted, I’ve made a small career out of pointing out supposed conservative Republicans’ political deficiencies. This is often a thankless task. I’ve learned that if voters like a candidate’s personality or speaking ability — or really dislike the alternative candidate — they’re generally willing to forgive just about anything. For example, in 2009 and 2010 the tea party’s prime issues were opposing TARP and Obamacare. Now, most polling shows the tea party’s support is split primarily between two Republican presidential candidates who supported TARP and a government healthcare plan that Obama considers the blueprint for his own. In their zeal to defeat Obama, many Republicans don’t seem to mind electing a GOP version of him. Personality trumps policy; partisanship trumps principle.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new.

But what is new is what social conservatives are now willing to accept in their determination to defeat Obama. When a thrice-married Newt Gingrich, already an admitted adulterer, is accused by his second wife of asking for an open marriage — and this becomes a positive electoral advantage — the right has entered new and unchartered territory. Social conservatives were always the first to declare Clinton the “philanderer-in-chief.” Many of them now strongly support a known philanderer.

The tea party originally stood for one simple but important message: Stop spending. For tea partiers, the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” or TARP was the litmus test and any Republican who supported it faced the wrath of the movement. Explained Utah tea party leader David Kirkham in May 2010:

I think it’s a matter of fiscal or financial responsibility … What the tea party people are about and the vote for TARP and the vote for the bailout was, in our opinion, pretty fiscally irresponsible, and that’s what’s raised the ire of most people.

At the time, Kirkham’s group was working to unseat Republican Senator Bob Bennett, who had voted for TARP. Kirkham’s efforts would eventually help elect tea party champion Sen. Mike Lee. When asked if the TARP-supporting incumbent deserved to lose his seat over just one vote, Kirkham replied:

That one vote was pretty toxic. That one vote affected a lot of things, changed the rules of the game. President Bush said that where we have to abandon free market principles to save the free market, and fundamentally, we just don’t agree. There’s just no way.

Tea Party support for Newt Gingrich in South Carolina and elsewhere marks a new point — a low point — for the movement. When John McCain suspended his campaign in 2008 to go to Washington to support TARP, Gingrich said, “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying ‘I will go to Korea.’”

The tea party believed that TARP represented Washington at its most irresponsible. Gingrich believed the exact opposite. In fact, if you were to make a list of every big-government issue most tea partiers stand against — bank bailouts, healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, you name it — Gingrich has been, or still is, on the opposite side.

Grassroots conservatives want a Republican nominee who will fight President Obama on issues like bailouts and healthcare mandates. Saturday, grassroots conservatives in South Carolina championed a Republican presidential candidate who has agreed with Obama on both of those issues. In the debates, Obama could even say that Newt was for forcing Americans to purchase health insurance before he was against it. And the president will be right.

When Gingrich called McCain’s support for TARP “the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate,” this was classic Newt-speak — Gingrich is a great talker and often speaks in bold and indeed “grandiose” terms. Newt sounds good. People like that. They respond to it. It inspires them. Ask Barack Obama.

But the tea party was supposed to be better than this. The tea party was supposed to stand for something more substantive.

My good friend, Bernard Von Nothaus has been convicted of counterfeiting in what I perceive to be one of the most blatant examples of fraud this world has ever known. An Alice in Wonderland event where up is down, and nothing is real. Bernard is the genius behind the Liberty Dollar, a private, silver-backed alternative currency to the worthless fiat paper printed by the Federal Reserve. The trial was a white wash of a corrupt economic system, and the jurors were almost certainly bribed or intimidated into presenting a guilty verdict. Bernard is now waiting for sentencing. I’ve included his eMail request for written letters to the sentencing judge, followed by my own letter to Judge Richard Voorhees.

Superman is a work of fiction, which means we can’t rely on him for our truth and justice. Therefore we have to fight for “truth, justice, and the American way” ourselves. Please take the time to write a letter to Judge Voorhees on Bernard’s behalf. If you do, please leave a comment here to show your support for a real American hero.

Alert of January 18, 2012

Please Write to Judge Voorhees

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters!

Now that I am simply waiting for my sentencing date, the time has come for your direct participation in the legal process that will help define your seized property, the future of the Liberty Dollar and possibly the rest of my life.

I know you have been wronged and suffered in many ways due to the government raid and court actions. I know you have been damaged emotionally and economically because of your stand for value and because you have been alienated from your seized property. And I know you have suffered politically over the loss that the Liberty Dollar could have provided to our great country.

Now is the time for you to speak up with a personal letter addressed to: The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees who was my trial judge and the judge who will sentence me very shortly. It is my opinion that the jury erred and the judge was fair and impartial so please address Judge Voorhees respectfully.

Your letter need not be long. Please simply mention that you know me, heard me speak at an event, was a supporter, an associate, RCO or merchant or simply a part of the Liberty Dollar organization, used Liberty Dollars or supported the moral cause for a honest value based currency. And then explain why I should not go to prison because the Liberty Dollar was good for you and our country or that you don’t know of any victims or that I am a good person or that you know I had no criminal intent.

FYI: The sheer number of letters speaks much louder than the size of any one letter. So please share this request with your family and friends. I need individual letters from as many people as possible.

Please send your brief letter ASAP to:
The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees
U.S. District Judge
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.
401 West Trade Street
Charlotte NC 28202
And add: PLEASE FREE BVNH to the bottom left hand corner of your envelope.

After sentencing, the case regarding the seized material will begin the long process that will ultimately conclude with the return of your wrongfully seized property.

Many, many thanks for your kind support and assistance during these trying times. Your efforts and donations to return American to an honest monetary system of just weights and measures will not be long forgotten and hopefully will lead the way towards those goals that we share in common. It is towards that end that I hope and pray.

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
Liberty Dollar
Editor@LibertyDollar.org

Here is my letter to Judge Voorhees

January 18, 2012

The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees
U.S. District Judge
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.
401 West Trade Street
Charlotte NC 28202 Dear Judge Voorhees,

My name is Michael Badnarik. I was a Boy Scout for twelve years, and a Scoutmaster for ten years after that. I was the 2004 Libertarian nominee for President of the United States, a 2006 Libertarian nominee for Congress, and I was elected President of the Continental Congress in 2009. I am also well known for teaching an eight-hour class on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I dedicated my life to the cause of Liberty at a very early age, and my opinion is highly regarded on subjects related to the Constitution.

If I am not holding an apple in my hand, logic and the laws of physics make it impossible for me to hand it to you. I cannot give you what I do not have myself. It is equally impossible for Congress to transfer a power that the people never delegated to them in the first place. The Constitution says that Congress may COIN money. James Madison’s notes from the convention explicitly show that the delegates were strongly opposed to printed money, which always leads to the type of runaway inflation our country is currently experiencing. Paper money unbacked by a tangible commodity (such as silver and gold) is the definition of counterfeit. The Constitution also gives Congress the responsibility of preventing and punishing counterfeit currency and securities, a task which they have failed miserably.

Bernard Von Nothaus is my personal friend, and a hero to millions of patriots across the country. We are grateful to Bernard for offering us an alternative currency that is immune to the ravages of inflation. We are unhappy with the recent conclusion of his trial, and we are hoping that you will suspend his sentence, or significantly reduce it. It is preposterous to think that Bernard is a new type of domestic terrorist as suggested by the prosecution. Your decision will demonstrate whether justice still prevails in the United States, and many of us await it with uncertain trepidation.

Yours in Liberty,

Michael Badnarik
4144 Henry Avenue
Hammond, Indiana 46327

Make no mistake, the 2012 presidential election is huge but I am afraid it is overshadowing many other races that are going on at this time that are equally as important, if not more so. All across the country there are US senators and congressmen whose seats are up for grabs. Most people are not giving their elections the time of day because they are focusing all of their energy and attention on the race for the White House. This however should not be the case. After all it is these representatives in both chambers of the legislature that will be writing, introducing and passing the very bills that will make it to the White House, regardless of who is sitting in the oval office. And with US Senate seats being six year terms I would say their elections are in many respects more important than the President.

My home state of Pennsylvania is one of the states this year that has the opportunity to toss a liberal incumbent (Robert Casey) and replace him with a fiscally-sound Constitutionalist. I am also pleased to report to you that there is a large number of candidates running creating a great deal of competition and thought-provoking debate.

The Republican candidates for US Senate in PA are as follows:
Tim Burns, businessman and unsuccessful candidate for the 12th district in the 2010 special and general elections
David Christian, businessman and war veteran
Laureen Cummings, Tea Party activist
John Kensinger, pharmacist
Sam Rohrer, former state representative
Marc Scaringi, attorney and former legislative aide to Rick Santorum
Tom Smith, farmer and businessman
John Vernon, retired Army colonel
Steve Welch, businessman and unsuccessful candidate for the 6th district in the 2010 election
Robert Allen Mansfield, retired U.S. Army Sergeant

Last night I had the privilege of attending a debate/forum (held by the York 9/12 Patriots) where these candidates were given an opportunity to present their cases for the future of America. The candidates in attendance were John Kensinger, Sam Rohrer, Marc Scaringi, Tom Smith and Steve Welch. There was also a conservative-leaning Democrat named Joe Vodvarka who was in attendance who I must give credit for having the courage to show up to an event with a primarily Republican audience to discuss the issues. Ted Waga who is running for U.S. Congress against incumbent Todd Platts was also present at the debate.

Now I must confess I was a little leery going in. As many of you know it’s no secret that I have for a long time been a big fan of Sam Rohrer. Sam is a friend of The Conservative Declaration and a frequent guest on our talk show program. However I have been a little disappointed to the vagueness and generality of his issues page found on his website. To me it seems a little like the cut taxes, cut spending, scouts honor cliche that Adam and I were critical of Tom Corbett for when he ran for Governor. However Sam lived up to and surpassed all of my expectations in the forum. I must confess I had the slightest fear that he had been softened by his loss to Corbett and that in order to become more mainstream he would peddle harder to the party line. This was not the case at all. I was unbelievably impressed with his passion and conviction for Constitutional principles.

I also came into the debate not expecting to be very impressed with Marc Scaringi, after all, the only thing I knew about him going in was that he was a former aide to Rick Santorum when he was in the Senate. As a man who has no stomach for Santorum and his brand of big government so-called conservatism, I had very little expectations of Scaringi. These suspicions were also wrong. Scaringi too presented a very strong case for limited government and maximum liberty. He also didn’t hold back in the least bit in expressing differences in ideology between himself and Rick Santorum which was refreshing to hear.

All in all I am very pleased with the appeal of these two men and their message. I am happy to report that neither of my fears came to fruition. Rohrer maintained my passion and Scaringi impressed the socks off of me! Stay tuned to The Conservative Declaration Talk Show Program this coming week as we will be discussing further the substance and general vibe of the US Senatorial debate that took place in York last night.

2012 Federal Candidate Straw Poll
Here are the results for the straw poll taken after the Federal Candidates Forum at the January 12, 2012 912 Patriots Meeting.

U.S. Senate Candidates
Candidate Votes %
Sam Rohrer 75 46%
Marc Scaringi 30 19%
Tom Smith 25 15%
Steve Welch 25 15%
Joe Vadvarka 3 2%
John Kensinger 2 1%
Tim Burns 1 1%
Dave Christian 0 0%
Laureen Cummings 0 0%
Brian Kelly 0 0%
Robert Mansfield 0 0%
Total Votes 162

U.S. Congressional Candidates
Candidate Votes %
Ted Waga 139 92%
Todd Platts 12 8%
Total Votes 151

Do you support either party endorsing candidates before the primary?
Votes %
No 139 95%
Yes 8 5%
Total Votes 162

Who do you support as the Republican Presidential Candidate?
Candidate Votes %
Rick Santorum 15 30%
Ron Paul 11 22%
Mitt Romney 10 20%
Newt Gingrich 8 16%
Sarah Palin 2 4%
Michele Bachmann 1 2%
Hermain Cain 1 2%
Jon Huntsman 1 2%
Rick Perry 1 2%
Total Votes 50

During the ABC News debate on January 7, 2012, the moderator brought up a statement Ron Paul had recently made regarding “chickenhawks,” or politicians who are hawkish about going to war but personally shirked the opportunity and dodged the draft and/or chose not to enlist to serve in the U.S. military.

When asked if he would recant this statement, Dr. Paul stood his ground and said, “I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments have no right to send our kids off to war,” in a clear reference to Gingrich.

Gingrich responded: “I was married with a child.”

To which Paul shot back: “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

Paul finished his sentence with pursed lips and a steely gaze. The crowd was silent for a moment, then broke out in applause.

Earlier in the exchange, Gingrich tried to use the excuse that he was an “Army brat”, as though his step-father’s service in the military somehow was equal to actually serving himself. Then he tried to explain how being a politician serving on committees and boards related to military make him as good as a veteran. He also tried to blow off the charge that he got deferments, even though it is a well-documented fact that he did. Check out the article from the PBS program Frontline from 1989 entitled “Good Newt, Bad Newt.” A snippet from the article:

His singular determination was perhaps best seen in his first successful romance, a schoolboy crush he developed on his high-school math teacher. Lots of boys get romantic notions about pretty young teachers, but Newt Gingrich didn’t let go of his. After graduation, when she moved to Atlanta, he went to Atlanta too, enrolling at Emory University. Gingrich pursued his former math teacher, seven years his senior, until Jackie agreed to become his wife. They were married at the end of his freshman year, and soon they had their first child, Kathy. Gingrich then entered that hazy passage through ambiguity experienced by the majority of young American men during the 1960s. Like most of his generation, Gingrich was moderately anti-Establishment (he tried pot, and participated in a campus protest at Tulane University) and chose not to go to Vietnam, opting for deferments available to him as a father and a student. But unlike most young men his age, Gingrich would be haunted by his decision.

So in the early 1960′s Newt was pursuing his bachelor’s degree from Emory University, raising his newborn daughter with his first (of three) wife (his former teacher), experimenting with marijuana and participating in hippy protests on campus. Meanwhile, Ron Paul was married with two kids and working on completing his medical degree and he did not take a deferment – he chose to serve his country in the Air Force when drafted, even though he was a father and a student like Newt.

Early 1960′s photograph of Ron Paul and a young Rand Paul:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Does anything more need to be said? This is a probably a staggering punch in the stomach for Rick Santorum supporters who thought they were backing a freedom-loving, small government, hardcore conservative – and it should be. Luckily, for everyone except Iowans, there is time to get behind a different candidate. Perhaps a candidate who has a stellar, decades long record of voting in unison with the US Constitution. Someone who always supported individuals over government, bottom-up over top-down, and freedom over tyranny.

After seeing this quote directly from Rick Santorum’s mouth, some of his liberal votes in congress begin to make more sense. Santorum has voted to:
set gun lock requirements,
voted for Campaign Finance Reform in 2001,
voted to double the size of the Dept. of Education by supporting No Child Left Behind,
voted for the 1996 minimum wage increase,
voted to increase the debt limit 8 times,
and to establish the big brother Dept. of Homeland Security.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Ideologically and in his voting record, Santorum proves to be a big spending neoconservative who says one thing while doing another.

Below is the written endorsement in its entirety. It is excellently written and Mr. Scheuer hits numerous nails on the head. For all those who like Ron Paul on economics but are leery about his foreign policy views, this is a must read. One of the foremost experts on middle eastern terrorism explains why Ron Paul’s foreign policy would be the best thing for America.

Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines
by Michael Scheuer | Website

Two recent experiences underlined for me what Iowans will vote for next week in the field of foreign policy if they do not vote for Dr. Ron Paul. On Christmas day, I heard Chris Wallace’s program on FOX. He had a guest — Mr. Charles Lane — who made the false and scurrilous claim that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy was the same as that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s America-hating policy, a doctrine that appealed to Barack Obama for more than twenty years and which the president and his party are now implementing. Following this imbecilic assertion of Mr. Lane to its logical conclusion, U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines also must be ardent devotees of Rev Wright’s anti-Americanism as they donate many times more money to Dr. Paul than to all the other Republican candidates combined.

Then on 26 December, I visited Mount Vernon’s new and extraordinary multi-media museum documenting the life of George Washington. At the end of the exhibition there is video of U.S. Senators reading Washington’s Farewell Address into the record, something they appear to do every year. When I arrived in front of the video Senator John McCain was reading Washington’s clear warnings about the dangers of foreign intervention and the fatal impact of mindlessly favoring one country over another. To hear this from McCain’s interventionist, war-mongering, and Israel-is-always-right mouth was sound evidence of his hypocrisy and deceitfulness, as well as his and his senatorial colleagues’ ignorance of Washington’s ideas and U.S. history generally.

Based on these two experiences, let us look at what Iowans not voting for Ron Paul will help to inflict on an America already terribly wounded by the Republican and Democratic interventionism in the Muslim world.

1.) A foreign policy that will complete U.S. bankruptcy. While there is a lot of talk about cutting domestic spending to bring the federal debt under control, it is obvious that neither party is willing to make substantial cuts in that area. Indeed, both are counting on drastic cuts in defense spending to help reduce the federal debt. While they may agree on and even make defense-spending cuts, any such reductions will be short-lived and then restored to much more than current levels. Obama and any Republican save Dr. Paul will continue to intervene in the Muslim world and so will motivate more Muslims to fight us. A third-grader could tell you that you cannot cut defense spending when Washington’s unrelenting interventionism is cultivating new enemies who are intent on attacking U.S. citizens and interests. If you are being attacked, our third grader would patiently explain, you have to spend whatever it takes to defend yourself. And there is no doubt that we and our vital interests are going to keep being attacked by Islamists as long as we continue to intervene in their world.

2.) Obama’s return or the election of any Republican but Dr. Paul means the continuation of the State Department’s not-so-secret computer/Facebook/Twitter proselytizing campaign to incite people to overthrow their governments in places like Iran, Russia, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. [NB: Three offices of Mrs. Clinton’s elitist democracy/feminism crusade in Cairo were raided and shut by Egyptian authorities on 28 December 2011 for intervening in Egypt’s domestic affairs.] This mindless promotion of anarchy alienates the governments targeted and will motivate them to harm the United States in some manner. Of no concern to Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Senators McCain and Graham, of course, are the thousands of young and naive people who will die at the hands of the regimes they are instigated to overthrow by the democracy-pushing federal bureaucrats and their elitist political masters, all of whom are safe and secure here in North America. Dr. Paul’s non-interventionist policy will allow foreigners to work out their political destiny in their own way and at their own pace; prevent unnecessary additions to America’s growing list of enemies; and save countless young lives.

3.) All the Republican contenders and the Obama administration are whole-hearted believers that the Arab Spring will bring the installation of secular democracy across that region. This has been and still is a nonsense that only adolescent idealists — or deliberate liars — could believe, and one that has been proven fatuous by the fact that Islamists have won every election held since the start of the Arab Spring. Neither the Obamaites nor the Republicans will admit they are wrong on this issue and they will pump billions of dollars in foreign aid into the Arab-Spring countries in a feckless, Muslim-alienating effort to build secular democracies and install the crazed feminism of Mrs. Clinton. Such aid not only will be wasted, but it surely will cause more Muslims take up arms against America. Indeed, the continuation of this bipartisan cultural/feminist war on Islam is likely to start the clash of civilizations Professor Huntington predicted.

4.) Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States. Any other Republican candidate or a reelected Obama will keep lying to Americans by claiming that we are being attacked because of our liberties, gender-equality laws, and elections rather than because of Washington’s constant intervention in the Islamic world. This now two-decade-old lie — which is abetted by most of the media — has hidden from Americans the fact that all of the would-be Islamist attackers who have been captured in this country were motivated by the invasion of Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, or some other U.S. government action in the Muslim world. As Dr. Paul has explained, our Islamist enemies are motivated by Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy, and as long as that foreign policy does not change the number of young, U.S.-citizen Muslim males willing to attack their fellow citizens will keep increasing. For those who doubt this reality, a quick look at the recently adopted Defense Appropriations Act will clear their eyes. That Act’s authorization for the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens in the United States is clear evidence that the leaders of both parties know that their foreign policy is going to bring war to America’s streets and towns and that the U.S. military will be called on to fight Islamists militants here at home.

5.) Obama and any Republican candidate, except for Dr. Paul, will slavishly obey the U.S.-citizen-dominated, pro-Israel lobby that bribes and suborns them by getting into a war with Iran. Indeed, Washington, Tel Aviv, and London are already conducting a lethal, covert-action war inside Iran which is killing Iranian nuclear scientists and destroying nuclear-related facilities, as well as trying to goad Tehran into reacting with violence and thereby give the West a casus belli. Such a war would be a financial and military disaster for the United States, and would be watched with glee by Russian and Chinese leaders who — while their countries would lose some trade with Iran during a war — would applaud another U.S. self-inflicted would that further erodes the already failing economy that is the base of American power. Moreover, if U.S. political leaders would not permit the U.S. military to defeat Afghan and Iraqi mujahedin armed with Korean War-vintage weapons, they surely will not allow the military to defeat a much better armed nation-state like Iran. Thus we would have yet another politically imposed defeat for the U.S. military. More painful for Americans will be the Iran-sponsored attacks that will occur in the United States if Washington and/or Israel launch a first strike on Iran. The only serious threat Iran poses to the United States is the result of more than 35 years of near-criminal bipartisan negligence by the U.S. executive and legislative branches in the fields of border control and domestic security. Both Iran’s military and intelligence services and their Lebanese Hizballah surrogate have created clandestine entry points along our southern border, as well as a large clandestine infrastructure in the continental United States, one which works with similar networks in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Iran is too smart and fearful of U.S. military power to use this apparatus to strike first in North America, but the network clearly is meant to allow Tehran to respond violently here if Iran is attacked by America and/or Israel.

6.) While all of the Republican candidates and Obama talk about their plans to make America energy self-sufficient to the greatest extent possible, there is no reason to believe any of them. In the past 40 years, the two parties have made virtually no progress toward this goal, unless you count moving up Daylight Savings Time by three weeks as a major gain. Both parties have taken the easy and profitable route: dependence on oil-rich Arab tyrants, a policy that mandates that the U.S. military spends billions each year to defend the Arab Peninsula’s fundamentally anti-U.S. police states. Only Dr. Paul could be counted on to allow the unfettered development of all domestic energy resources to promote energy self-sufficiency and allow the gradual abandonment of our mujahedin- motivating exploitation of Muslim oil. But even Dr. Paul cannot prevent the United States from fighting an oil war that the Republicans and Democrats have fixed on the national agenda, one that America will wage in the Niger Delta region — from which we will soon get 20-25 percent of our crude — because of the Islamist insurgency that is gathering steam in Nigeria and threatening the oil-rich Delta region’s stability.

Notwithstanding the damnable lies about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy constantly proclaimed by his fellow Republican candidates, leading pro-Israel/pro-intervention U.S.-citizens and their journalist friends, and most of the media, only the gentleman from Texas speaks for the Founder’s non-interventionist vision of America’s role in world affairs and for plain common sense. In the Founders’ non-interventionist design for U.S. foreign policy that is championed by Dr. Paul, Iowans will find a proven road to the maintenance of America’s sovereignty, independence, peace, and prosperity. In the realm of common sense, Dr. Paul beats his fellow candidates, the Obamaites, and the media hands down. Dr. Paul challenges the interventionists in both parties on their plans for spreading secular democracy — and causing wars thereby — on historical grounds that are irrefutable because they are just good commonsense. We, the British, the Australians, and the Canadians have been building our republics/democracies since Magna Charta in 1215 — that is for nearly 800 years — and we are not yet quite perfect. If Iowans and all Americans truly think about what Dr. Paul is saying — and not what the interventionists say he is saying — they would respond favorably to the Texan’s logical conclusion that what we have not fully accomplished in eight centuries cannot possibly be attained in Egypt, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the Muslim world in 6 weeks, 6 months, or six years, not least because none of those places separate church from state. Dr. Paul’s precise use of history and commonsense exposes the exorbitantly costly effort to build democracies in the Islamic world for what it is; namely, Washington throwing money down the drain for a cause that is impossibly lost from the start and one that will involve us in wars where we have no interests.

In the words of Dr. Paul’s Republican opponents, the Obamaites, and most of the media, on the other hand, Iowans ought to easily be able to hear the elitist, racist, and war-causing Wilsonian doctrine of intervening abroad to impose democracy and secular social beliefs on foreigners at the point of bayonets. Indeed, the national-security policy advocated by Dr. Paul’s opponents and critics boils down to the clear and absurd argument that: America needs more and more wars — and the dead/maimed military personnel attendant thereto — that are motivated by Washington’s intervention abroad if Americans are to be safe and secure at home.

For Iowans and Americans as a whole, then, the best choice for their children, grandchildren, and country clearly lies in the Founder’s foreign-policy wisdom and Dr. Paul’s sturdy advocacy and promised application thereof.

But I would like to take a minute to analyze the results of this primary and how it truly has a slim chance of making a huge impact on the winner of the GOP Presidential Nomination. There are only two repeat candidates from 2008 – Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. In 2008 Mitt Romney took second place, winning this year you might be led to believe he is better off than before, but when you look that the facts you will find that Romney took in 30,015 votes in 2012 and in 2008 he took in 30,021. This year Romney took in six votes less than he did four years ago. He is actually losing support. Now sure its only six measly votes and I am sure hundreds of people who voted for him in 2008 died in the last four years and hundreds more became eligible to vote creating a bit of a fluctuation, but let’s look at the other side of the token considering the same variation. In 2008 Ron Paul finished in 5th place with only 11,841 votes, this year he took third with 26,219 votes. So while Romney lost votes, Ron Paul’s support has more than doubled in just four years time.

To me this is a huge sign that the American people are beginning to wake up. The RINO’s in the party are maintaining approximately the same amount of support, but the authentic conservative movement of small government, free markets and individual liberty is growing by leaps and bounds. Iowa is a very important state because it is the first and most Americans look to Iowa and wait until the final vote is tallied before they even start looking at the candidates. But just because Santorum and Romney took first and second does not give them any sort of speakable edge over Paul. Moreover, Paul’s third place finish does not put him out of the running. I would remind you that John McCain finished fourth in Iowa in 2008 with just 15,536 votes and he went on to win the nomination. Most people didn’t expect him to go anywhere but he maintained top three and top five finishes in most of the primary elections and it was that steady support that put him over the top in the end. This year Paul earned more votes than the 2008 GOP nominee did in Iowa and that’s enough hope for me. This race is far from finished. Paul was one of three candidates on the ballot come the Pennsylvania Primary in 2008, and I predict he will be one of two this election cycle.

The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows. And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.
Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

The evidence is clear… he has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians.

What has changed is the American people’s concern about their individual rights. We’ve seen nothing but assault after assault on liberty since that fateful day in 2001. The Patriot Act, passed shortly after the terrorist attack, was the first nail in the coffin that allowed warrant-less wiretapping and confiscation of private documents in an abolition of our 4th Amendment right to privacy.

Then there was the creation of a new, bureaucratic, big government department called the Department of Homeland Security, which among other things oversaw the new TSA at the airports. The TSA is a government bureaucracy that uses “techniques” for our “safety” that, if done by you or I, would be considered sexual assault.

Lest we not forget the expanding war front to fight the jihadists, groups housed within numerous middle eastern countries. The vast military and nation-building spending the government does each year plunges us further and further in to debt to China. Not only is it destroying our economy and trashing our already worthless currency, it is racking up a debt that will seriously effect our children and grandchildren and all future generations to come. It is careless, reckless, irresponsible and selfish.

There has been a new precedent set by the Obama administration that the executive branch seemingly has the power to assassinate American citizens. Sure they were born and raised in America, but they are bad guys we are told, they are terrorists. An American jury would be too stupid to find America hating-terrorists who want to do us harm guilty and sentence them to death, so instead, our omnipotent and wise President did what needed to be done. Don’t worry though, he’ll only assassinate terrorists – disregard that packet from the DHS from 2009 that said that ‘extreme right-wingers’ who are pro-life, supporters of states rights and fans of candidate Ron Paul can be defined as terrorists.

The newest ‘change’ we are getting as a result of 9/11 (which took place more than 10 years ago now) is tucked away in a defense appropriation bill, which guarantees a Congressmen will be branded anti-troop if he votes against it. This measure will allow the president to detain American citizens at Guantanamo Bay detention camp indefinitely, without a trial or even a notification of the charges. Yes, the interrogation facility where terrorists go to be water-boarded could be your next stop if you are deemed an ‘enemy of the state’. The whole idea of this facility is unconstitutional and “extrajudicial”, meaning that individuals can be detained there without charges being brought against them. Since this mindset and practice goes against our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers fought for, it was realized the camp would have to be put in a foreign land so they wouldn’t be out-rightly violating the rule of law – Cuba it is!

It seems that both parties have completely thrown out the mindset of Benjamin Franklin, who said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Instead, they have adopted the mantra of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”