Newt Is No RINO

A few years ago, conservatives disappointed with the statist brand of Republicanism that was becoming ever more prevalent in Washington, D.C., developed the term “RINO” and began branding big-spending, big-government Republicans with the term. It’s an acronym for Republican In Name Only.

The term was heard often during the 2008 Republican Presidential primary campaign and was used to describe John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and others. The term was also used to describe a number of House and Senate candidates targeted by the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm elections.

But the term is a fallacy that arises from a false premise: that the Republican Party is the party of small government. The fallacy developed during the Barry Goldwater years and picked up again with Ronald Reagan. Since Reagan, the party propaganda machine has done its job well, convincing the masses of something that is not and never has been so.

Goldwater, never a darling of the Republican establishment, fought the liberal (or Rockefeller) wing of the Republican Party and tried to drive it to the right. But in truth, the Republican establishment has always been about growing government, and that’s why neither Goldwater nor Reagan was embraced by the Party elites.

In other words, the Republican Party is and always has been a statist party. Now, Newt Gingrich is leading the Republican pack and trying to paint himself as a conservative. But Gingrich is a big-government, anti-gun insider who gamed the system for millions of dollars in lobbying fees by playing the corporatist game once he left Congress. In other words, Newt is no RINO. He’s Republican through and through, just like Romney, McCain, Giuliani, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, et al.

So Newt is no RINO. Nor is he conservative.

Lemon Juice With Meals

Lemon juice with meals will eliminate the symptoms of stomach acidity and indigestion.

Acid reflux or GERD (gastro-esophageal reflux disease) is rarely due to “too much” stomach acid. Yes, contrary to mass advertising, antacids are bad for you and actually lead to stomach cancer.

Proton pump inhibitors like the “purple pill” block the digestive process, i.e., the body’s production of stomach hydrochloric acid and pepsin.

Newt Stinks, But…, And Other Thoughts

A frightening scenario appears to be playing itself out as we march inexorably toward the time when real live voters begin casting meaningful votes to select the Republican candidate who will face President Barack Obama in 11 months: Newt Gingrich might win.

Many of our friends on the “right” seem OK with that. In fact, over the past two weeks in our own GOP Presidential poll, Gingrich has led Ron Paul. The latest results during that period:

 Candidate Votes In Poll
 Newt Gingrich 8,920
 Ron Paul 7,081
 Herman Cain 4,355
 Mitt Romney 2,004
 Rick Perry 1,280

Gingrich’s rise in the polls would make a fascinating psychological study. Here we have a man who cheated on (at least) two wives (once while excoriating President Bill Clinton for doing the same thing), who is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, who has attended the pagan ritual summit also known as Bohemian Grove, who slobbered all over Nancy Pelosi in a television commercial supporting Al Gore’s global warming claptrap, who lobbied (or gave history lessons) for Freddie Mac and earned himself $1.6 million, who has supported cap-and-trade legislation and individual healthcare mandates (just like Romney and Obama) and has proven himself to be a political chameleon and as big a corporatist as any who ever inhabited Washington, D.C. Despite all of those things, Gingrich is climbing to the top of the Republican beauty contest. And people who claim to be conservatives are hopping on his bus.

Article continued below…

Uncle Sam Has Been Lying to You

President Obama says the economy is improving—but take a look around. Unemployment is still at record highs… real estate is still at record lows… and banks are still failing across the country. What’s really going on?Don’t expect Uncle Sam to give you any answers. The government has been distorting—and in many cases deliberately covering up—the seriousness of the situation to protect its own interests.

To get the truth about the financial crisis—and discover the simple steps you need to take in order to survive it—click here now.

Gingrich should be anathema to conservatives. In fact, for all the reasons Romney hasn’t appealed to conservatives, Gingrich can go one (at least) better: flip-flops, crony capitalism, would have voted for TARP, supports ethanol subsidies and, as recently as this summer, said he supported Federal mandates on purchasing health insurance (which he first did while lobbying for the healthcare industry) and a lover of wars, wars and more wars — oh, yes, and he believes in stripping Americans of their citizenship if they oppose the government.

In reading comments posted to neocon-supporting websites, the message seems to be, “Newt stinks, but anything is better than Obama.”

Such a meme proves the left/right paradigm remains firmly locked in place. George W. Bush was bad, Democrats love to say, because of the wars, bailouts and budget deficits. Obama is bad, Republicans love to say, because of the wars, bailouts and budget deficits. Gingrich will be better than Obama, Republicans say, because even though Gingrich supports wars and bailouts and budget deficits, his name is followed by an “R” rather than a “D.”

If you are truly a conservative, then Newt stinks — that is true — and so does Romney. But how does placing an “R” after a candidate’s name make the stink any more tolerable than the one we’re getting from the current “D” stinker? The only difference will be which group of corporatists get richer over the next four years. Fascism and tyranny will continue unabated, and government will continue to grow.

More Proof The System Is Stacked Against You

Last week, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that in July 2008, as market fears were mounting and the U.S. economy teetered on the brink of the precipice, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned hedge fund managers and other Wall Street executives, many of them, like Paulson, former Goldman Sachs executives, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in serious trouble and government seizure was eminent. From the article:

The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information — to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information.

There’s no evidence that they did so after the meeting; tracking firm-specific short stock sales isn’t possible using public documents.

The elites in the criminal enterprise called government conspired with their buddies on Wall Street to do all they could to protect and enrich one another to the detriment of millions of Americans whose retirement and savings were tied up in stocks and mutual funds.

Something very similar is coming to light in the collapse of MF Global, the brokerage fund that died as the economy in Europe tanked. According to The New York Times:

What is clear to investigators is that MF Global improperly used customer funds for its own needs during its final chaotic days, according to people with knowledge of the inquiries. That move essentially breached a fundamental Wall Street rule: customer money must remain separate from company cash… About $200 million in customer money that disappeared from MF Global surfaced at one point at JPMorgan in Britain during that last week, the people with knowledge of the inquiries have said. That discovery could prove to be a major breakthrough in the weeks-long search for the missing funds, though hundreds of millions of dollars in customer money remains unaccounted for. MF Global sent the $200 million to JPMorgan, some people close to the investigations believe, after it overdrew an account at the bank. JPMorgan raised questions about the money, but it never received assurances from MF Global. It is possible that JPMorgan no longer holds the money, having served only as a middleman between MF Global and several trading partners.

Now, it turns out that a number of MF Global customers are out as much as $1.2 billion, including noted trends forecaster Gerald Celente, who told Lew Rockwell the gold options he held through the firm were stolen from him in what was a concerted effort to attack futures traders.

But that’s not all. Bloomberg also reported last week that banks made billions of dollars on secret bailouts from the Fed at a time when they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. This is money the banks received in addition to the acknowledged TARP funds.

In my book, Robbed Blind! Who’s Really to Blame for America’s Economic Crisis?, I went into great detail about how the Fed, Congress, Wall Street and the U.S. judicial system conspired to steal the wealth of Joe and Jane Mainstreet, enrich the elites and punish anyone who complained.

That would seem to be the type of issue that should unite the Tea Party and the OWS crowd against the Federal Reserve and the kleptocrats.

They’re Moving Piles Of Monopoly Money Around Again… Investors React With Glee!

Last week, with the collapse of the Eurozone only days away, global bigwigs and central banks moved piles of fiat money (aka Monopoly® money) around and the Eurozone was declared saved.

It must be true. The U.S. stock market had its biggest day of the year on Nov. 30, right after the latest European bailout was announced. Meanwhile, inflation continues unabated and more Americans are unemployed, losing their homes and going on the public dole.

The ride gets more interesting by the day. I trust you’ve prepared with food, water, guns and gold, as we have been warning you for years.

What Is Normal?

“I like Ron Paul’s ideas on the economy, but I can’t vote for him because he’s an isolationist on foreign policy. He’s a kook (or naïve, or nuts or insert your own word) on foreign affairs.” That’s a common theme heard in discussions about the Republican Presidential aspirants.

What that means is that pushing Middle Eastern countries around and imposing our will on them is more important to so-called conservatives than getting our financial house in order. They — they being so-called conservatives — have decided that our national security can be served only by bullying smaller countries and installing dictators “friendly” to the United States. And it’s perfectly normal to believe this way, they think.

Americans are being terrorized by their own government. How? The constant drumbeat about Iran’s nuclear efforts. The same people who so vehemently declared that Iraq was close to having “the Bomb” — the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations, the CIA, Israel, etc. — are telling us the same thing about Iran. The GOP beauty contestants — save one — are promising one of or a combination of regime change, sanctions, the freezing of assets and/or no-fly zones for Iran should they be elected. These are all acts of war or preludes to war.

When the Hosni Mubarak regime began cracking down on anti-government protesters in Egypt, Americans expressed outrage. Mubarak, who was friendly to Israel and the U.S. and had benefited from billions of U.S. dollars, was suddenly persona non grata. President Barack Obama told him it was time to step down. Mubarak was tossed aside like a used table napkin.

A military government took over. Protesters are again occupying Egypt’s Tahrir Square.

When protesters — who we now know were members of al-Qaida — began protesting in Libya, Obama joined with NATO to quash President Moammar Gadhafi’s military and throw him out of office. A similar thing is about to happen in Syria.

In 1860 in the United States, South Carolina seceded from the Union. Six States soon followed. After the Battle of Fort Sumter, four more joined the Confederacy. President Abraham Lincoln attacked the Southern States to force them back into subjection. Most Americans see Lincoln’s actions as just and necessary. But they have a dichotomy. While they support Lincoln’s actions to “preserve” America, they oppose the actions of foreign rulers to keep their governments in power.

In Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is running for Russian President. What if he said he was advocating regime change in a former Soviet state: Georgia for instance? What would be the reaction of Americans? We know that Russian actions there in the South Ossetia war were highly condemned in 2008 by neocon hawks like Senator John McCain.

What if China suddenly acted on its designs toward Taiwan? What would be the reaction of Americans?

For most Americans, it was good and just for the American government to use military action to quash a rebellion 151 years ago, but other governments can’t do that today. And for most Republicans, America’s foreign policy should remain that we push around Middle Eastern, African and Persian countries — or anyone else, for that matter — and install our chosen dictators because we have some moral obligation to “spread democracy.”  But other countries should not be allowed to spread their preferred form of government or install their own preferred dictators.

Republican voters believe this way and see this as a normal policy. What about this is normal?

Ron Paul wants to end foreign entanglements, maintain a strong national defense and get our financial house in order; but Republicans believe him to be the kook.

Which is the more rational, less kooky policy? What is normal?

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire by H.W. Crocker III

[pl_amazon_book_order src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=perslibedige-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1596986298&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr"]Empires and colonialism, particularly the British Empire, get a bum rap from historians according to the cover of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the British Empire by H.W. Crocker III. Well, maybe, maybe not. Depends on the empire. The Roman Empire accomplished some very impressive achievements that no one can deny. On the other hand, the empire established by the marauding conquests of Attila the Hun, not so much.

If you’re looking to find out how beneficial or evil the British Empire was, you won’t get much help from this book despite the remonstrations on its jacket. Crocker presents a loosely organized collection of entertaining stories about the Brits as they madly travel around the world (mostly by boat) conquering, looting and “civilizing” continent after continent, but the author doesn’t offer much in the way of philosophizing about the results of these adventures. There’s the occasional quote that asserts British superiority. But the reader mostly just gets the adventures that resulted from imperialism and not many clear looks at its alleged improvements.

Mutinous Relationships

Oh, sure there are quotes here and there from Mohandas Gandhi about the benefits India enjoyed during British rule. Still, I had to wonder, does Crocker really want to be quoting Gandhi, a key player in the defeat of England’s imperial rule of India? Over and over, Crocker admits that “Gandhi… continued to fan the flames of mutiny and rebellion.”

Ironically, the one chapter that seems to offer the most in the way of justifying British colonialism is one that covers the exploits of Sir Charles Napier, a jolly old chap who seemed to specialize in going to trouble spots around the globe, pulling together remarkable military campaigns to quell revolts and then making friends with the locals as soon as he had finished killing their soldiers.

When Napier was in charge of a colony, the natives were treated well and conditions often did improve. But what was Napier’s overall view of how the British treated the rest of the world? Crocker notes that when Napier was stationed on the Indian-Afghanistan border, the old soldier observed that the overthrown emirs “(were)… tyrants, and so are we, but the poor will have a fairer play under our scepter than theirs…“ But, in general, Crocker considered himself better than the average British viceroy. When he came into town, he said, “the usual Anglo-Saxon method of planting civilization by robbery, oppression, murder and extermination of natives should not take place.” Hardly a ringing endorsement of British colonialism.

Avert Your Eyes

Of course, no one will mistake this entertaining book for a serious historical treatment of the British Empire. But when it lists “Films about British India That Anti-Colonialists Don’t Want You to See,” you know that its explorations of history smack more of marketing than intellectual honesty. I suppose that the attempt at calling out anti-colonialists is supposed to be humorous. (At least, I hope this is an attempt at humor.) But the fight between colonialists and anti-colonialists ended so many news cycles ago, I don’t think many people will get the joke. Though I guess somewhere there might be a doddering communard who is still worried that old black-and-white movies like Gunga Din with Cary Grant or The Charge of the Light Brigade starring Errol Flynn could make you think that English-speaking actors running around with sabers really are going to save the world from extras who don’t get any dialogue.

That’s Entertainment

Crocker’s book is fun to read and offers many exciting stories about how a small island off the coast of France somehow became the dominant sea power of the globe. At the end of the last chapter as he sums up the life of Winston Churchill, Crocker does make a brief argument for the good works accomplished by the British Empire. But although he quotes Gen. Charles George Gordon to the effect that “If you would rule over native people, you must love them,” nowhere in the book do we really find out how native people felt about the British generals, who so often loved them to death.