Donald Hank
A true conservative candidate vs. a libertarian/ Part II
By Donald Hank
Does Ron Paul understand cultural Marxism?
Ron Paul's scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.
America has been victimized by cultural Marxism for decades. First it was the feminazis, who ushered in the "woman's right" to kill her unborn and discredited fatherhood, influencing the courts to separate men from their children, effectively separating families under welfare rules, and generally declaring men evil abusers.
Now it is the homosexual activists (not gays as a group) who are organizing to discredit candidates who oppose gay marriage. Ron is unfairly benefitting from this radical movement to gain ground with the gay agenda. It is cowardly and does him no credit.
And it is illegal aliens who are now demanding special rights, even as border guards sit in jail for essentially doing their jobs. The administration has contrived to make it look like it is protecting our borders, but that is a lie. They are in fact arresting and deporting fewer of them.
Paul's position on illegal immigration? A true Von Mises libertarian, Ron Paul has never been strong on the border and illegal immigration. In fact, NumbersUSA has given him an F on immigration. A very big red flag.
Is there anyone left?
Who has the best grade NumbersUSA grade on immigration?
Why that would be Michele Bachmann. And just what if people could be focused on illegal immigration again, and made to understand that it is costing jobs? Wouldn't that help her poll numbers? Of course, the GOP would have to stop catering to lawbreakers.
Further, regarding cultural Marxism (of which illegal immigration is a facet), Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in politics who understand what 100% of politicians should understand about cultural Marxism. For example, she recently set a feminazi straight on the Kinsey myths, ie, who Kinsey was, and what his agenda was. She probably could also have shown why he should have gone to jail instead of being hailed as a great researcher.
Anyone who still believes the Kinsey myths needs to check out the work of Dr. Judith Reisman at:
http://drjudithreisman.org/
I doubt any of the other candidates have a clue about this, and other, cultural Marxism issues.
But can Bachmann win against Obama?
The GOP wants you to think she can't and that only a leftwinger who is ideologically indistinguishable from Obama can beat Obama. So why not just clone Obama, give him another name (would that be a third?), and run him?
But they are forgetting a few things.
Here is what one poster commented on a blog regarding a recent PA poll:
One of the main reasons Bachmann is showing so poorly is that the GOP and RINOs in the MSM are either unfairly attacking her or ignoring her sterling conservative and fiscal merits. There are no real conservatives left in the GOP leadership, which is bringing the party dangerously close to irrelevance.
If they were suddenly to turn around and show how Reagan-like Bachmann is, for example, that would change everything. After all, who would not want to return to the boom times under Reagan? It would be Reagan-Carter all over again.
A lesson that the GOP learned the hard way — again — is that when you try to hype a candidate like Newt or Mitt, who in important ways are indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who have ethical and moral issues as well, the public will eventually focus on these blemishes. Not because conservatives point them out, but because the Democrat-leaning MSM won't let us forget.
Bachmann, to her credit, has no major skeletons, and all the criticism she has reaped so far looks like what it is: extreme nitpicking. For example, apparently one of her advisors fed her a false statement about an IEAE report showing that "Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months." I have read the latest IAEA report and although it does not say that, it actually shows that Iran has been weaponizing nuclear materials for a long time, and one can infer that it most likely will have a warhead in the near future. Ron Paul crucified her for the inaccuracy but ignored the relevant facts of that report.
At this point, the GOP has a worrisome dilemma: either choose Ron Paul, whose star is rising even as Newt's wanes, or choose squeaky clean candidate Michele Bachmann and give her that much needed, and much deserved, extreme PR makeover.
Now would be a good time to act, before Ron Paul takes the nomination.
Michele Bachmann is probably their — and our — only chance.
Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:
Romney is for illegal aliens:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071
Newt is for illegal aliens:
http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt
Ron Paul is for illegal aliens
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul
Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html
Further reading:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089
© Donald Hank
December 22, 2011
Does Ron Paul understand cultural Marxism?
Ron Paul's scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.
America has been victimized by cultural Marxism for decades. First it was the feminazis, who ushered in the "woman's right" to kill her unborn and discredited fatherhood, influencing the courts to separate men from their children, effectively separating families under welfare rules, and generally declaring men evil abusers.
Now it is the homosexual activists (not gays as a group) who are organizing to discredit candidates who oppose gay marriage. Ron is unfairly benefitting from this radical movement to gain ground with the gay agenda. It is cowardly and does him no credit.
And it is illegal aliens who are now demanding special rights, even as border guards sit in jail for essentially doing their jobs. The administration has contrived to make it look like it is protecting our borders, but that is a lie. They are in fact arresting and deporting fewer of them.
Paul's position on illegal immigration? A true Von Mises libertarian, Ron Paul has never been strong on the border and illegal immigration. In fact, NumbersUSA has given him an F on immigration. A very big red flag.
Is there anyone left?
Who has the best grade NumbersUSA grade on immigration?
Why that would be Michele Bachmann. And just what if people could be focused on illegal immigration again, and made to understand that it is costing jobs? Wouldn't that help her poll numbers? Of course, the GOP would have to stop catering to lawbreakers.
Further, regarding cultural Marxism (of which illegal immigration is a facet), Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in politics who understand what 100% of politicians should understand about cultural Marxism. For example, she recently set a feminazi straight on the Kinsey myths, ie, who Kinsey was, and what his agenda was. She probably could also have shown why he should have gone to jail instead of being hailed as a great researcher.
Anyone who still believes the Kinsey myths needs to check out the work of Dr. Judith Reisman at:
http://drjudithreisman.org/
I doubt any of the other candidates have a clue about this, and other, cultural Marxism issues.
But can Bachmann win against Obama?
The GOP wants you to think she can't and that only a leftwinger who is ideologically indistinguishable from Obama can beat Obama. So why not just clone Obama, give him another name (would that be a third?), and run him?
But they are forgetting a few things.
Here is what one poster commented on a blog regarding a recent PA poll:
-
And now for a little course in Political Science 101: This poll is not of 'likely' voters. It included a sample of 500 Pennsylvanians. It was done by PPP which is a democratic polling group. It is notoriously flawed because in past polls PPP has been poorly predictive when identifying Republicans and Republican leaning Independents for the sample. It is also flawed because of its proximity to the general election in November of 2012. Polls taken long before elections are inherently non-predictive of the actual election results.
One of the main reasons Bachmann is showing so poorly is that the GOP and RINOs in the MSM are either unfairly attacking her or ignoring her sterling conservative and fiscal merits. There are no real conservatives left in the GOP leadership, which is bringing the party dangerously close to irrelevance.
If they were suddenly to turn around and show how Reagan-like Bachmann is, for example, that would change everything. After all, who would not want to return to the boom times under Reagan? It would be Reagan-Carter all over again.
A lesson that the GOP learned the hard way — again — is that when you try to hype a candidate like Newt or Mitt, who in important ways are indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who have ethical and moral issues as well, the public will eventually focus on these blemishes. Not because conservatives point them out, but because the Democrat-leaning MSM won't let us forget.
Bachmann, to her credit, has no major skeletons, and all the criticism she has reaped so far looks like what it is: extreme nitpicking. For example, apparently one of her advisors fed her a false statement about an IEAE report showing that "Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months." I have read the latest IAEA report and although it does not say that, it actually shows that Iran has been weaponizing nuclear materials for a long time, and one can infer that it most likely will have a warhead in the near future. Ron Paul crucified her for the inaccuracy but ignored the relevant facts of that report.
At this point, the GOP has a worrisome dilemma: either choose Ron Paul, whose star is rising even as Newt's wanes, or choose squeaky clean candidate Michele Bachmann and give her that much needed, and much deserved, extreme PR makeover.
Now would be a good time to act, before Ron Paul takes the nomination.
Michele Bachmann is probably their — and our — only chance.
Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:
Romney is for illegal aliens:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071
Newt is for illegal aliens:
http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt
Ron Paul is for illegal aliens
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul
Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html
Further reading:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)