Spending and more individual freedom are music to my ears."
Ron Paul is the biggest surprise of the 2008 Presidential race. He's also perhaps the biggest mystery and enigma in modern political history. Paul is a mystery to both mainstream voters/mainstream media who haven't heard of him and to his own supporters.
Mystery #1: Paul is a complete mystery to both the national media and mainstream voters. They can't understand why an almost unknown Texas Congressman and small-town baby doctor is generating so much intense support in the Presidential race. Doctor Paul is generating the most Internet 'heat' of any candidate, Republican or Democrat. He's inspiring people, young and old, across the country to get involved in the political process. Ron Paul is, at least on the Internet, the most hip and happening candidate on the planet.
Now mystery #2: Ron Paul's own loyal Libertarian supporters can't understand why he's polling at only 1-3% in national polls. They wonder how it's possible that a wonderful, genuine man with so many intense, committed supporters and such a powerful message could poll so poorly. On Libertarian blogs and web sites, conspiracy theories abound: "It's a conspiracy", "The right people aren't being polled", "The GOP has rigged the polls", "There's an undercurrent of support that doesn't show up in traditional polls"...
To Ron Paul's loyal fans and supporters it just doesn't seem possible that he's polling in the low single digits alongside anonymous long-shots such as Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Jim Gilmore (who just dropped out of the race). After all, none of those candidates has anything close to Ron Paul's level of support, volunteers, Internet buzz or fundraising success. Something appears amiss.
Well, I'm going to tell you, because it's easily explained. Let's start with the mainstream voters and the mainstream media who just can't figure Ron Paul out. "Why is he so popular?" they wonder. The answer is simple: FREEDOM. Freedom is a concept so powerful it convinced me, a lifelong Republican, to leave the GOP. And even more telling, to become a Life Member of the Libertarian Party. But as I've said on so many talk shows, I didn't leave the GOP. The Republican Party left me.
I admit it took me a few years to understand the seriousness of the attacks on our liberties and freedom. It took time to recognize the violation of our civil liberties; the obsession with morality and the invasion into the homes, bedrooms and computers of average Americans. I finally realized the damage rendered to our Constitution; how the GOP has abandoned of the principles of small government conservatism. And finally, the betrayal of everything my heroes Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan stood for.
Millions of American voters are now waking up to damage done by George W. Bush. Ironically many of the most vocal, are former Republican Libertarians and conservatives, angry at the biggest expansion of government in modern history. No doubt Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are rolling over in their graves.
The problems my hero Goldwater spoke of in the late 1950's when he wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative" still apply today:
* The federal government run amok and turned into Big Brother
* A runaway train called the Welfare State eating up more and more of our budget
* A majority of Americans beholden to government for jobs and entitlements
* Massive budget deficits brought on by wasteful government spending
* Tax cuts put into place without regard for spending cuts to offset
* The federal government violating the constitution by getting involved in states' rights issues - like education, abortion, assisted suicide, medical marijuana, gay marriage, stem cell research and online gaming.
These are only some reasons why so many Libertarians and Conservatives are disillusioned. And, why so many Republicans are abandoning the party in droves.
Note: Libertarian Party Membership is up 18%!
Enter a patriot named Ron Paul. Listening to Ron Paul for me, and for millions of freedom-loving, limited government, anti-tax Americans, is a dream come true.
I smile from ear to ear when Ron Paul talks.
His views are music to my ears.
That could be why Ron Paul has become the rock star of Presidential politics.
It's tough for me to find an issue where Ron Paul and I disagree. We're both fiscal conservatives. We're both for limited constitutional government. We both would cut the size and scope of the federal government. We both support States' Rights and would solve most issues on the state and local level.
We're both for dramatically reducing the tax burden on Americans. We both would dramatically cut government spending, even eliminating entire federal departments!
We would do these things, even if it meant voting NO to every single spending increase, tax increase or program not authorized by the Constitution. We both want to cut bureaucracy, mainly by reducing the number of federal employees and the size of future federal pensions. We both stand strongly against government-controlled universal healthcare as a looming economic disaster for America.
We want to end the Nanny State and overturn blatant violations of our civil liberties. We are against most warrantless wiretaps and most of The Patriot Act. We both distrust and dislike the United Nations. We both want to drastically cut foreign aid and corporate welfare. We both strongly support the second amendment. We both want the federal government out of education - where they have failed miserably. We both support more parental freedom, more school choice, and want to encourage more education competition. My wife and I home-school our three young children - with another baby Root on the way.
But that's not all. We agree in many more ways.
We both support a secure border as the first solution to immigration reform. We both support the property rights of the individual. We both support a more tolerant stance on social issues such as gay rights and medical marijuana. We both support Internet freedom. When in doubt we side with the American people over the government- just as our Founding Fathers did.
I admit it - I love Ron Paul.
He's honest, genuine, fair - he says "no" equally to every spending bill, and a tightwad with taxpayers' money. Ron Paul is everything a politician should be, but they never are.
I admire his courage in standing up to big spending liberals, corporate interests, lobbyists and the liberal media. I love the way he's stood up to his own party.
Ron Paul is a hero.
Some think he's the last of a dying breed- the rugged individualist conservative Libertarian. But I beg to disagree. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Ron Paul is the inspiration for a whole new generation of Libertarians just like him.
I'm proud to be a young, 21st century devotee of Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul.
God Bless the ideals of liberty, democracy, capitalism and individual rights.
The answer to the media's confusion about the popularity of Ron Paul is quite clear.
He's a throwback to our Founding Fathers. He doesn't need music videos on YouTube to sell his case. Candidates like Barack Obama need sexy music videos to distract you from their lack of ideas, lack of substance, integrity, solutions or common sense.
Ron Paul is what America once was...
and what I hope and pray it will become once again.
Ron Paul is the real thing.
But what about mystery #2: Ron Paul's own passionate Libertarian supporters who wonder how it's possible that their hero is polling only 1% to 3% nationally?
That answer is also simple. Look at it from outside the insulated world of Ron Paul Inc. You see Ron Paul has one big flaw. He's just too nice for his own good. Some would even call him na‹ve. He sees the world with rose-colored glasses. That prevents him from seeing the evil and disaster aimed squarely at our country.
In the political world, a candidate is only as strong as his weakest link. Ron Paul's weak link is national security and the war on terrorists. Unfortunately for him, that's the issue at the top of almost every American voter's list. In the end, almost every parent in this country will put aside every other issue. They want a President who will keep their children safe at night. A President willing to fight and win the war on terror at all costs. They want a President who's strong enough to stand up to the most evil enemies of freedom since Adolph Hitler.
Ron Paul looks, and is, weak on this issue. I know he means well. But he's na‹ve about our enemy's intentions. And worse yet, weak in how he'd respond to them.
Doctor Paul sounds almost apologetic to our enemies. He sounds much like the blame America first crowd. It may not be his position that America is to blame for 9/11. Maybe his comments about 9/11 were misunderstood by the media and Rudy Guliani.
But Presidential politics is not a game of badminton. It's full contact tackle football- with no helmet or pads. Ron Paul seems weak on this issue and has handed his opposition some ammunition to attack him with. Even though Ron Paul is a "Perfect 10" on virtually every other issue, as long as he appears weak on the national security and the war on terror, he'll never rise above single digits.
Ron Paul does have some great points about foreign affairs. It is not our duty to nation build. It is not our duty to install democracy around the world. It is not our duty to risk our troops' lives and waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up foreign governments.
It is not our duty to give trillions of dollars in foreign aid to governments that vote against our interests at the United Nations. It is not our duty to support a United Nations that is a pathetic, corrupt joke and installs leaders of terrorist nations to head commissions on human rights. And yes the Iraq war is a disaster- and we must make plans to remove our troops as soon as possible. I agree with Ron Paul on all of those points.
But the war on terror is real. The enemy we face is the most brutal and barbaric since Adolph Hitler. Nothing we do...or Ron Paul does...or any President does...will end this struggle. No interference in their affairs is necessary to attract the hatred and murderous venom of Islamic extremists. If it's true that Islamic extremists are attacking our country because we "interfered" in Middle East affairs, then:
Why do Islamic terrorists and suicide bombers attack and murder thousands of their own people in Iraq?
Why have they killed 300+ people in Pakistan in just the past 2 weeks?
Why do they kill Arab women for not wearing veils?
Why did they murder a champion Iraqi tennis player for the sin of wearing shorts?
Why did they murder any entire Iraqi soccer team for being in the wrong place?
Why do they terrorize Arab parents for sending young girls to school?
Why do they murder their daughters and sisters for refusing arranged marriages?
The truth is that Islamic extremists don't need much of an excuse to kill. They believe the Koran demands they murder anyone who doesn't believe in their extreme religious views.
If America had never interfered in the affairs of any Arab country the Islamic extremists would still be trying to destroy us.
They hate us because we're not Islamic.
They hate us because we're a Democracy.
They hate us because we allow dissent.
They hate us because we treat our women like human beings and equals.
They hate us because we let young girls go to school.
They hate us because we believe in progress.
They hate us because we celebrate music, art, dance, literature, and sexuality.
They hate us because we believe in equality of races.
They hate us desperately because we actually allow Jews to survive and thrive in our society.
They hate us because we don't murder gays in the street for the 'crime' of being gay.
There is no room for questions or dissent in Islamic extremism. There is only belief in one religion and one set of rules. Any minor departure from this is enough to incite death, torture and destruction.
Islamic extremists hate us and will continue to try to kill Americans and our children until we defeat them. To Islamic extremists we aren't humans or Jews or Christians or Americans. To them, we're all infidels. The penalty for disagreement is death. The penalty for not converting to Islam is death. The penalty for writing books (ask moderate Muslim Salman Rushdie) or even cartoons that question Islam or Mohammed is death. Not a lot of choice there. Whether we "interfere" or not in their affairs is meaningless.
Did Hitler leave alone any country that played nice with him? Bullies always see those who don't fight back as weak. Islamic extremists hate anyone that doesn't believe as they do. They want to cut our heads off, mutilate our bodies, and then set our corpses on fire in the streets. They hate us whether we interfere or not. They hate us for interfering, and they hate and laugh at us for appearing weak because we didn't interfere. On this topic Ron Paul is just plain wrong. They hate us and will continue to try to kill Americans and our children until we defeat them. They leave us no choice.
These are not easy times. These are not easy questions. But one thing is easy to see- Americans side with me on the issue of the war on terror. Americans understand if Islamic extremists destroy Israel and murder millions of innocents:
They'll come for America next.
Americans want to see strength and confidence in their President - Not apologies.
We're a nation of courageous, tough-talking winners that have always stood up to bullies. Now is not the time to back off from defeating the most dangerous group of fanatics in history. These fanatics want desperately to destroy America, cripple the American economy, and bomb us back to the stone ages.
The war on terror is real and will hit close to home again. There will be another 9/11.
There will almost certainly be attempts at a nuclear attack on American soil. I'm certain we'll see car bombs in shopping centers and other public places. There will be more attempts to bomb planes and trains. It's coming. Our enemies are plotting and planning high-profile attacks at this very moment. If you don't believe me, ask the Brits.
This war on terror has only just begun. Have we made mistakes in the past, as Ron Paul says? Yes. Should we analyze them and learn from them? Absolutely.
But it is the future that matters most; how we prepare to fight back, how we prevent future attacks, how we retaliate in self-defense and how we win this war.
Ron Paul is polling at 1% to 3% for only one reason: he is not seen as the leader best
able to defend America by 97% to 99% of the American public. That's a fact. That's why Ron Paul is polling in the single digits.
Ron Paul is my hero on most every fiscal and freedom issue that matters. But he looks naive and weak on the one issue that matters to most Americans- national security and the war on terror. Americans have no interest in apologizing to suicide bombers and mass murderers. Americans crave a leader that is fiscally conservative, socially tolerant and a strong proponent of the war on terror.
This is the unvarnished truth. Whether they like it or not, Libertarians need to hear it.
The key to winning national elections is simple - expand beyond your core supporters.
Libertarians must understand this concept if we are to ever to win major national elections. Our fiscal message is a popular one. A majority of Americans want smaller government, reduced spending, drastic cuts in entitlements, lower taxes and more individual freedom. But they'll never convert to the Libertarian brand as long as it involves being na‹ve and weak on the war on terror. We need to remain tough, strong, vigilant and unapologetic about defending our ideals, freedoms, country and friends.
Just so I'm not misquoted or misunderstood, let me repeat what I said earlier.
It is not our duty to nation build.
It is not our duty to install democracy around the world.
It is not our duty to risk our troops' lives and waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up foreign governments.
It is, however, our duty to fight and defeat terrorism and brutal bullies who want to take away our FREEDOM, wherever they may be. Sometimes we must be willing to fight and die for our freedom.
Ron Paul is the closest thing we have to our Founding Fathers. He's dead-on with over 90% of the issues. But he's weak on the war on terror. And if he's not weak, he certainly appears weak. Whether he changes his view, or finds a new way to explain it, he has to make drastic changes on that one issue or face a humbling defeat.
That's so sad to me, because the media will undoubtedly paint that defeat as a blow against Libertarian thinking. They will portray it as a defeat for those who support smaller government and lower taxes. They will say it was a defeat for those who support an end to the Nanny State. They will call it a defeat for Libertarians everywhere.
If changes are not made, Ron Paul will squander tremendous momentum and the freedom movement will lose a golden opportunity.
Ron Paul is a great man. I hope he reads this commentary. I'm speaking from the heart. I'm here if he wants to talk. God Bless America and the Libertarian movement.
Wayne Allyn Root is a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination.
www.RootForAmerica.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 963 )As the best-selling author of "Millionaire Republican," many fans and friends of mine were surprised to hear that I'd decided to run for President of the United States as a Libertarian. "Why would a lifelong Republican switch sides," I have been asked again and again. My answer is simple- because a party built by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to reduce the size and scope of government, has sadly become the very embodiment of Big Brother. A party that tries to interfere in the last moments of Terri Schiavo's life; that tries to ban stem cell research; that makes the banning of gay marriage a top priority; that bans online gaming; that tries to force all 6th grade girls in Texas to get a cervical cancer vaccine; that supports warrantless wiretaps; is no longer the party of Goldwater or Reagan. Worse, it's no longer my party. For me, the party is over. The only job of government in my opinion is to give power to the people, keep spending under control, cut our taxes, protect our property and our rights, stay out of our bedrooms, and out of our way. That my friends is my definition of good government.
The Republican Party has truly lost its way when they become the party of the Nanny State- forever telling others how to live their lives. I resent government telling me what I can do in my own bedroom, in my own home, on my own computer or TV, with my own money. I resent government telling me what I can or cannot choose for entertainment. My hero Barry Goldwater would say that government's job is protecting us only from others looking to do us harm, NOT to protect us from ourselves. And then there's that little document called "The Constitution." According to the constitution, issues such as abortion, gay marraige, online gaming, assisted suicide, medicinal marijuana (the list goes on and on) are not the responsibility of the federal government. These are states' rights issues, better left to American citizens and voters on the local level.
Yet Republican politicians at every level of government (but especially those based in D.C.) have decided they are America's Nanny- with the intellectual standing, moral superiority, power, and right to tell individuals what they can do, when and where they can do it, and how they should live their lives. And of course, all the laws and police state to back it up. That my friends is not the Party of limited government and freedom for the individual. That is not the philosophy of Barry Goldwater.
Barry felt the definition of Conservative was to be fiscally conservative, but socially tolerant. The GOP has abandoned that philosophy to embrace "big government conservatism." That means more rules, more laws, bigger government, more spending, enforced morality, less freedom. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan must be rolling over in their graves.
A news headline this week proves my point on so many levels. United States Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) confessed to cavorting with prostitutes both in D.C. and New Orleans (only after numerous prostitutes stepped forward). All in the same week by the way, that John McCain's Florida Campaign Co-Chairman was caught in a gay sex scandal. Will wonders never cease? Senator Vitter is a good example of the fact that the very politicians trying to police our behavior, are so often the biggest hypocrites. Vitter proves the folly of letting anyone (politician, priest, minister) define morality for us, tell us what to do, deciding (under penalty of law) what is right or wrong in our private lives and bedrooms. The list of morally uptight political hypocrites is so long, I couldn't begin to list them all in this column. But it is safe to say that it seems every time a politician or religious figure preaches "holier than thou" rhetoric, they themselves believe that the same rules do not apply to them. Here is the short list: Senator Vitter, Congressman Livingston (the man that Vitter replaced), Congressman Mark Foley, Dick Morris (conservative political strategist), and countless ministers from Jim Bakker to Jimmy Swaggert to Ted Haggard.
Wouldn't you think they'd learn? Humans are humans. We all have flaws. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Or as I'd put it after 45 years of experience on this earth, show me an uptight moral preacher, and I'll show you (in many cases) a suppressed pervert. That is the whole problem with today's Republican Party. The foundation is no longer fiscal conservatism, but rather the extreme religious right morality police. That is what destroyed a golden opportunity to dominate American politics for many years to come. Americans are human. We all have indulged in sin. We have all made mistakes. And if we've made certain personal and private choices, most of us agree they should stay private. They are not the business of government, politicians or the morality police. Unless of course our goal is to imprison a majority of the American population. NOTE: That idea probably sounds great to the morality police, until we realize someone will have to pay for all those prisoners and jails.
As a Libertarian who is socially tolerant, I think Vitter's scandal brings up a whole host of critical questions. First and foremost, why is Vitter's personal weakness any of our business? Here is a guy whose fiscal politics I agree with most of the time. Like me, he supports smaller government, lower taxes, reduced spending, and secure borders. He was instrumental in defeating the terribly flawed immigration bill known as Kennedy-McCain that would have opened our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants; dramatically increased entitlements and social programs; dramatically increased government spending and therefore taxes; and granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (law breakers) already here. A more toxic bill on the federal level has never existed. We owe Senator Vitter a debt of gratitude for defeating it.
Yet despite all that, once again we find a socially-conservative, religious, pro-marriage, pro-family politician caught with his pants down. What's my point? Yes, Vitter is a hypocrite. But other than that, his personal life is none of our business. I don't care what Vitter does in his spare time. I couldn't care less what anyone does in their personal lives. Consenting adults have a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. It's called freedom. Why is that our business? What does Mr. Vitter's personal sex life have to do with me or you? How does a sex act between two consenting adults affect your life in any way? How does it hurt his constituents? How does it affect his ability to do a good job as a U.S. Senator? How does it affect the Iraq war? I care (and you should care) about his views on crucial issues to America's future such as taxes, the size of government, government spending, the line item veto, school choice, online gaming, immigration, gun control, under-funded pension liabilities for public employee unions, and of course, the ten-ton guerilla in the room known as the Iraq War. Those are the things I care about. Not what form of entertainment that Senator Vitter chooses to enjoy in his spare time, or who he chooses to spend it with. What he does in his spare time is between the Senator, his wife and God. The rest of us have no right to judge.
But here's the more important point that I see in the Vitter scandal. Vitter is not the biggest problem in the United States Senate. The real whores are not the politicians cavorting with hookers. That doesn't hurt the taxpayers (as long as they're not using taxpayer funds or doing it on taxpayer time). The real whores are the politicians collecting big government salaries who don't even bother to show up for work. Who might that be? Try our Presidential candidates: Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. Unlike Senator Vitter whose scandal involves personal decisions made in his spare time, here are United States Senators being paid $165,000 a year (and gigantic lifelong pensions), who spend a majority of their professional time running for President. Now that's a real scandal.
Why shouldn't a Senator that chooses to run for higher office, be forced to resign his or her U.S. Senate seat? Why don't the voters of those states deserve a full-time representative? Please tell me how Senator Clinton and all the other U.S. Senators running for President could possibly be earning their big paychecks, while globetrotting around the USA trying to upgrade to a better job? How is it possible that taxpayers are getting their monies worth if their U.S. Senators are off running a campaign for President? How many hours in each day are Hillary Clinton and her colleagues absent from the U.S. Senate? Why aren't they being docked for missed days and missed votes? How often during their Presidential campaign are they doing the business of their constituents? How often do these Presidential candidates actually step foot in the U.S. Senate? The answer is not much. Yet they are collecting a full salary from the taxpayers for a job they no longer bother to show up for. If they want the Presidency so badly, they should all be forced to give up their current day job (and paycheck) in the U.S. Senate. Or campaign only in their spare time (nights, weekends, holidays).
These politicians are the real whores, thieves and criminals- they are ripping off taxpayers for jobs they are no longer interested in performing. They could teach prostitutes a thing or two about scamming the system. Meanwhile, Senator Vitter is only guilty of poor judgment during his spare and personal time. His choices have not cost the American taxpayers a dime. Who are the real whores here? Which scandal affects taxpayers more? I believe the real scandal of "Senators Gone Wild" is not found in D.C. and New Orleans whorehouses; it is found on the Presidential campaign trail.
Wayne Allyn Root is a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. His web site can be found at: www.ROOT4America.com.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 891 )For years I've talked about the nonstop exaggerations and biased observations of the American news media. In a recent commentary, I pointed to the media's obsession with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a prime example. Promoting Bloomberg as a viable third party Presidential candidate creates controversy, excitement and headlines- thereby raising news ratings and profits (even if, in fact, Bloomberg is as boring as watching paint dry, and he has little chance of winning the Presidency). That's my media! They never fail to let me down- and they never let facts or professional objectivity get in the way of a good story.
But this past week featured perhaps the most exaggerated and ridiculous media headline yet. Did you notice the nonstop headlines about the weather in Vegas, Phoenix and the Southwest USA? It was hard to miss. Day and night they were featured in every national newspaper and news broadcast. The headlines literally screamed: "It's Excessively Hot in Vegas and Phoenix!" The media droned on and on for days about the record-setting heat. Can you imagine? Heat in the summertime in Vegas and Phoenix? It boggles the imagination! How could it be so hot in the desert in the summer? Hard to believe, huh? A real tragedy in the making. Oh my God- it must be global warming destroying the world.
Now why would hot weather in Vegas be such a big deal for the national media? Could it be because it was a slow news week, and the greedy hypocritical liberal media had to find something to put in the headlines to raise ratings? Remember, slow news days equal lower ratings, which add up to lower profits. So it's important (and profitable) for the media to manufacture a sensational headline to get you fearful, shocked, and agitated.
If possible, outright panic is even better. Scary negative headlines about life and death struggles add up to higher ratings (as viewers huddle in fear at the edge of their sofa watching the "latest breaking news exclusive").
The media desperately needs something...anything...to force their viewers to feel negative, stressed out, and helpless about the latest and greatest earth-shattering life and death crisis coming to your world. After all, negativity and controversy sells like nothing else. A man rescuing a puppy from a fire is occasionally worth a few viewing points...but an axe murderer-rapist terrorizing your town is worth a whole bunch of rating points...while a celebrity in a sex or drug scandal is like hitting the news ratings lottery (see Paris Hilton). And a dead celebrity in a sex scandal cooked to death by record-setting heat induced by global warming- WOW, it just doesn't get any better than that!
But wait, there's more to exaggerated media headlines than just ratings and profits- the liberal media desperately wants to brainwash the public into fearing the dreaded "Global Warming" (Just as they tried to do in the 1970's with headlines about "Global Cooling"). Because tthere is one thing that the biased liberal media puts above profits- trying to influence elections to get their liberal Democrat friends elected. The threat of global warming is a perfect excuse to induce viewers to vote for liberal politicians with schemes to raise taxes and spending in dramatic fashion, create new rules and laws to control our lives like "Big Brother," damage big business, and vastly increase the size and scope of big government. "Global warming" destroying the planet is a bleeding heart liberal's dream-come-true! Nothing slams home the point and motivates record amounts of fear more powerfully than headlines reporting on record setting heat- wrecking lives, wreaking havoc, inducing misery, and literally killing Americans! Even if that "record heat" happens to be taking place in Vegas and Phoenix- heck the media will take whatever they can get during a slow news week.
Keep in mind that this Libertarian Presidential candidate lives in Las Vegas. I think I know a thing or two about the place I call home. I've got a newsflash for the media- It's hot in the summer in Vegas! REAL HOT. So hot you can boil eggs on the sidewalk. So hot that you only go outside to swim in your pool, or get into your air conditioned car to drive to your air conditioned office. Have you heard of air conditioning? That's why almost two million people now live in Vegas- that amazing modern invention called air conditioning actually gets us Las Vegans through those hot summer days. Can you imagine that? I guess the geniuses of the liberal news media have never heard of this newfangled invention called air conditioning. Perhaps they were distracted all these years since air conditioning was invented because they were so busy making up nonstop exaggerated news headlines.
In the 20 years I've been doing business in Vegas, and the almost 6 years I've lived there, I've noticed a fact of living here - it's always hotter than hell in the summer. It's been that way since the beginning of time (or at least since the last Ice Age). That's why virtually no one lived here in Vegas until the invention of air conditioning. But with air conditioning, even 115 degrees is no big deal. Thanks to the miracle of air conditioning, it's always a perfect 72 degrees in my home. Imagine that.
I clearly remember doing a photo shoot for a TV show I was starring in about 15 years ago. It was 108 degrees at 9 PM on the Vegas Strip. Yes, I said 108 degrees at 9 o'clock at night! But there was no "boogie man" known as global warming back then. There were no headlines about the excessive heat in Vegas. It was just business (or weather) as usual. We all knew that it was hot in the summer in Vegas. We just called it "hotter than hell." Imagine that- it didn't make news headlines...it didn't scare us...there was no panic in the streets. We just sweated a lot. We expected it to be hot in the desert in the middle of the summer. It as no big deal.
For those of you who live in New York or Boston or Philly and have never been to Vegas in the summer...it's 100 degrees or more virtually every day from mid-June through late September. EVERY DAY. Most summer days are well above 100 degrees. My memory (which is like an elephant) tells me that 105 to 108 degrees is pretty much a typical summer day in Vegas. On most summer days it reads somewhere around 110 to 118 degrees on my car's thermometer by late afternoon (the hottest point of the day in Vegas). So why the "breaking news flash" last week for excessive heat in Vegas. Vegas weather is always excessive 90+ days a year in the summer. Was global warming to blame for each of those excessive days, 90+ times a summer, for the past 100 years of record-keeping?
Phoenix weather (which is usually 5 degrees or more warmer than Vegas) is also always excessive in summer. I just read a book about Arizona during the days of the Wild West- the book's author casually mentioned that in the summer it was common for settlers to see 120 degree days. Was global warming to blame in 1870 too? Did 120 degree heat in Arizona make the headlines across the country in those days? I think not. It was expected- Phoenix last I checked is located in the middle of the Sonoran Desert! BREAKING NEWS FLASH: If you don't like heat, you shouldn't move to Vegas or Phoenix.
Trust me- I've felt 106 degrees (an average daily temperature in July in Vegas), and I've felt the occasional 113, 114 and 115 degree day. News flash- there's little or no difference! Anything over 105 feels the same. A 115 degree day in the desert Southwest does not deserve national headlines. Yes, we tied "record highs" in Vegas and Phoenix last week. But do you know what tying "record highs" actually means? It means we tied or broke records set in prior years- when there was no "global warming." So what was the excuse back then? Weather happens. Records change all the time. Records are made to be broken- just like in Baseball. It gets hot. It gets cold. That's the point of weather- it changes.
Is "global warming" happening? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. But neither are liberal Democrat politicians or their liberal journalist lackeys. The fact is that even scientists don't know. Some think it is happening. Some don't. But scientists are like economists, doctors and weathermen. Weathermen can't seem to accurately predict what is going to happen in the next few hours without screwing up (constantly). Economists are rarely right about either the economy, or the direction of interest rates. And as far as doctors, ask 5 MD's about a patient and you'll often get 5 different opinions (guesses). These are the respected, exalted "experts" of the world with fancy degrees and big incomes. Yet their predictions are often wrong, and their opinions (guesses) often contradict one another. Global warming might be happening...or not. And if it is, it may be man's fault, or not. For millions of years, the earth has experienced periods of warming up and cooling down (ever hear of the Ice Age?). If global warming is in fact upon us (which by the way, I think it probably is), can we do anything about it? The earth itself is so powerful that our efforts to reduce pollutions and carbon emissions could in fact be futile- after all, humans have only a miniscule effect on Mother Nature. All the pollution and gases released by America, China and India combined are like a needle in a haystack when compared with what is naturally produced by nature.
Is global warming a threat we should be paying attention to? Of course it is. Do I sleep better at night knowing that scientific minds far more brilliant than mine are studying it? Of course I do. Should we be looking for reasonable ways to reduce pollution and carbon emissions? Of course we should. My point in all of this however is to understand that it isn't cut and dried. The facts are not all in yet. Let's not agree too quickly to radical environmental changes that could damage our economy, destroy our high quality of living, and put millions of Americans out of work. All in the name of something that is not yet fully understood. And let's be careful when basing our opinions or snap judgements on stories we read or watch in the news media. Understand that the news media has an agenda. It isn't all the news that is fit to print or broadcast...but rather: All the news they think (based on their bias) that you should hear. Oh, by the way-have you heard? It's HOT in Vegas today. Really hot.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 659 )The latest survey is out and the Top 11 "growing real estate markets" in the USA (according to the National Association of Realtors) are primarily low tax red states (meaning states that voted Republican in the last Presidential election). 8 of the 11 are in red states, while one of the 3 blue states is a state with no state income tax (Washington). So it could be argued that 9 of the top 11 fastest growing cities in America are located in low tax states. What a surprise! Even after Republicans have lost power and respect from the voters, Americans still choose FISCAL CONSERVATISM. You know what it's called when you're fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? Libertarian. That my fellow fiscal conservatives, is why I switched from the GOP to LP (Libertarian Party). I did not leave the GOP. The Republican Party left me when it embraced extreme religious right wing "out of the mainstream" views on issues such as Terri Schiavo, abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc. And to top it off, abandoned fiscal restraint by presiding over the greatest government expansion in modern political history.
But nothing has changed when it comes to money. A majority of Americans may no longer vote Republican, but they are still fiscally conservative. The proof is in the places they choose to live. Americans are voting with their feet and their wallets by relocating to places where taxes are lower, government spending is therefore lower, and freedom for entrepreneurs is higher. The Top 11 markets for 2007 are:
Seattle, Washington-blue state but ZERO state income tax
Beaumont, Texas-red state
Biloxi, Mississippi-red state
Bismark, North Dakota-red state
Salt Lake City, Utah-red state
Cumberland, Maryland-blue state
Albuquerque, New Mexico-red state
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-red state
Salem, Oregon-blue state
San Antonio, Texas-red state
Farmington, New Mexico-red state
So once again, despite a seismic political revolution in the USA from Republican (red) dominance to Democrat (blue) control of both houses of Congress (and a lead in polls for the White House in 2008), Americans still crave lower taxes and less government. Fiscal conservatism is still very much in style. It's just that voters no longer trust the GOP to reduce government spending, or the size and scope of government. Another poll earlier in the week points out that a majority of Americans thinks it's time for a third party President. Support for fiscal conservatism? Lower taxes? Less government? Support for a third party with these fiscal conservative values? Sounds like the American people are describing the LIBERTARIAN PARTY!
But wait- more interesting studies and polls point towards fiscal conservatism: AOL just released the "Tour America Best Cities to Live In." Based on a variety of factors, 9 of the 10, 90% were red low tax states!
Austin, Texas-red state
Ashville, North Carolina-red state
Coeur 'd Alene, Idaho-red state
Fairhope, Alabama-red state
Barren County, Kentucky-red state
Albuquerque, New Mexico-red state
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-red state
Colorado Springs, Colorado-red state
Alaska-red state
Vermont-blue state
And then there's the official U.S. Census Bureau, which recently predicted that the 5 fastest growing states in America for the next 25 years would be Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Utah. All 5 (surprise!) are red low tax, limited government states!
Despite what the liberal media have told us, nothing has changed. Americans have NOT abandoned traditional Republican Party fiscal conservatism. They have simply abandoned the GOP over the war in Iraq, the massive corruption and scandals of Republican politicians, the massive scale of incompetence of the Bush Administration, and the religious right extremism on social issues. The polls and studies above prove that Americans still want fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, smaller government, reduced government spending, and more economic freedom. They have simply decided that the GOP is no longer the party to give it to them.
Today, this former "Millionaire Republican" (the title of my best-selling book of 2005) stands proudly before you as a Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States. I am that third party candidate Americans are searching for. I am fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. I am carrying the mantle of my heroes- Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Today if they were alive, neither would call himself a Republican. Like me, they would call themselves Libertarian conservatives. As Bob Dylan would say, the world it is a-changing. As a man who is paid millions of dollars to make accurate predictions, I can feel something big happening in the pit of my stomach. The time is ripe for a serious challenge to the 2-party system that is so badly failing America's voters. It's the right time and place for a Libertarian political revolution.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 2095 )The "B" in Bloomberg Stands for BLAND. But what America needs is BOLD! Libertarian Presidential Candidate Asks Does America Want a "Competent Administrator?"
How typical of the American media. They specialize in creating "overnight sensations." Now they have instantly anointed Michael Bloomberg the next President of the United States. Why? Because he has big ideas? No. Interesting "out of the box" ideas? No. Is he the potential leader of a political revolution? No. The answer is simple: because he's a Billionaire (that's with a capital "B"). You see Michael Bloomberg is a very very very rich man! Perhaps $19 or $20 Billion dollars worth of rich (but hey what's a billion among friends). He could very easily spend $500 million, or perhaps even a billion of his own money on the race for the White House- and that's more than any campaign has ever spent before. That's a lot of buttons, bumper stickers and TV ads! And his biggest advantage of all is that it's his own money- so he doesn't have to waste valuable time attending fundraisers and sucking up to various special interests and rich fat cats. Bloomberg can just get out his checkbook and start writing checks. And this very rich guy can keep writing those checks forever!But winning the Presidency isn't just about money (although it helps). If writing checks were all it took, Ross Perot would have been elected President. Or John Kerry. There's something everyone is forgetting or ignoring- the power of personality. From everything I've heard, Bloomberg is a nice man and a very bright man. As far as business goes, he's a genius. But by all accounts, he is not exciting. He is not bold. He is more of an administrator than a leader or visionary. He has been described by the media as a "non-political manager." In other words, he's exceedingly competent at managing things- whether they be a business, city or perhaps a country. But is that the kind of personality that wins national elections in the age of MTV and Paris Hilton? Is that the personality America is looking for to win over friends (and enemies) on the world stage? Is that the personality to reform and dramatically reduce government? Is that the personality to lead the war on terror?
If Americans agree we need bold change to turn this great nation around, then I don't believe Michael Bloomberg is the answer. Bloomberg is quite simply "Guliani-lite." To be fair and honest, Rudy Guliani is the mayor who turned New York City around; who guided New York through 9-11; who took on the mob; who made big headlines with his bigger-than-life personality. But Bloomberg? He's simply "the guy that followed Guliani." He's the administrator that took over the ship and kept it floating. He kept it floating well, by the way. No knocks on his management style. But all the heavy lifting was already done. All Bloomberg had to do was steer! So if you want to congratulate a guy for keeping the trains running on time, well then Bloomberg's your guy. He's the King of Status Quo. How exciting is that? How impressive is that? This guy makes accountants look exciting. But because he's got a fortune in the billions, literally overnight the American media has awarded Bloomberg the mantle of frontrunner. Those dollar signs around Bloomberg's neck are so massive that everyone has forgotten how boring this guy is. Heck, give him a few weeks on the campaign trail, and Bloomberg will make voters hunger for the excitement of Al Gore!
So why is the media so enamored with Mayor Michael Bloomberg? It's pretty simple- GREED. Yes, the same media that spends all their waking hours attacking capitalism, business, and businessman is steeped in hypocrisy. You see all they really care about is the bottom line. The media makes its living condemning greed- but that is simply because big headlines attacking wealth and wealthy people sells papers and creates higher ratings. The news media is actually greedier than the greedy businesspeople they attack. Hypocrisy at its finest!
So how does the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg help the greedy hypocritical liberals that run the American media? First of all, a high-profile billionaire third party candidate (ala Ross Perot) creates excitement, headlines and RATINGS. So if the media can help create, build and promote that candidate, the result is an exciting three-way horserace and lots of controversy, hype and headlines. That adds up lots of people buying newspapers, magazines (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, etc.) and watching the news. And of course those sky-high ratings translate into billions of dollars in profits for the media.
Secondly, if Bloomberg enters the race and spends a remarkable one billion dollars to get his message out, guess who the beneficiary is? The media. He'll spend that billion on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. And even better, Bloomberg's record-setting spending will trigger a political "arms race" of epic proportions. He will force the Democrats and Republicans to spend more than they've ever spent in history. Michael Bloomberg is the best thing that has ever happened to a corrupt, greedy, hypocritical, biased American media that is riddled with conflicts of interest. They need Bloomberg to run. They want him to run. They will profit from his decision to run. And in order to make it happen, they will create the story (as opposed to reporting on it). They will purposely build Michael Bloomberg into a third party savior and superman of epic proportions. Even if in reality he is just a bland, boring administrator.
But it's actually much more than just greed that drives the media to over-estimate Michael Bloomberg. The media is ultra-liberal. That makes them biased and flawed in their thinking process. They wouldn't know what a typical American voter was thinking, if it hit them square in the face. The media has therefore misinterpreted the definition of "moderate" that American voters are looking for. Yes, the GOP has drifted too far to the extreme right. Yes, Democrats have drifted too far to the extreme left. There is no doubt that the 2-party system is a dramatic failure. Neither party is representing the interests of the American people. The time has never been more ripe for a successful third party candidate. That much is true. That's precisely why I'm running for President of the United States as a Libertarian.
But is Mayor Michael Bloomberg the answer? Absolutely not. Here's where the media has misjudged. Being a bland personality is the smallest of Bloomberg's problems. His biggest problem is that his stands on the issues are bland and boring. I am running for President as a Libertarian because I believe the American people want someone to lead this nation who has strong opinions and the bold personality necessary to carry them out. Someone who can lead a political revolution. Not a revolution that leads us to the boring, namby-pamby, wishy-washy center that stands for nothing. Not a competent administrator that leads us to various shades of grey. Not a man who is proud of the fact that subways run on time. Not a man who instead of cutting government and taxes dramatically, is proud of the fact that he didn't grow government very much, or raise taxes very much. Wow, is he a daring revolutionary! Wow, that Bloomberg fellow is really going to shake up America!
The media is correct about one thing- the majority of American voters are neither extreme left nor extreme right. But that doesn't mean they want wishy-washy moderation. To be moderate on every issue is to declare vanilla the best flavor and go home. Bloomberg has no strong convictions- he's just a competent manager. If status quo is what American voters want, Bloomberg is the perfect administrator for the job. He is a brilliant business strategist and he will certainly keep the trains running on time and the ship on course. His opinions are neither left nor right- so he won't offend anyone. Nothing controversial. Nothing out of the box. No inspiration (like JFK). No charisma (like Bill Clinton). No leading of revolutions (like Ronald Reagan). If Bloomberg was a color, he'd be vanilla. But is that what the American people want? Is that who they will follow? Is a bland vanilla administrator the right choice to shake up a fat, over-reaching government that seems intent on taking over our lives, decisions and bank accounts? I believe that we need a bold visionary. Someone who doesn't run away from controversy- but rather embraces it. Someone to lead a seismic political revolution. Someone to dramatically change "business as usual" in Washington, D.C. Someone to throw the bums out on their butts!
It's time for a Libertarian Revolution. The time for vanilla is long since past (Dwight Eisenhower was the last time that vanilla was the solution). Yes, American voters are sick and tired of the 2-party system. Yes, they are angry at "business as usual." Yes, they want moderation, instead of extreme right or left. But the definition of moderation that they crave is my Libertarian definition. You see American voters are both conservative and liberal (depending on the issue). What they're looking for when they say they want "moderation" is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, yet STRONG on every issue. Not wishy-washy middle of the road. Wishy washy doesn't work- it just gets the trains running on time. But it won't change a complicated, unfair tax system. It won't change crushing tax rates that force most Americans to work until April or May to pay their taxes (only then can they see a dime for themselves). It won't eliminate death taxes. It will not lead to dramatic reform of the Social Security or Medicare system. It won't reduce out-of-control government spending. It won't end welfare as we know it. It won't dramatically lower foreign aid. It won't boldly secure the borders. It won't solve the Education crisis we face- where 50% of minority children drop out of our public schools. Yes, we all want the trains to run on time- but there are more critical issues for a President of the United States. We have cabinet-level administrators for that job. So if you admire the competent job that Bloomberg has done by getting the trains to run on time, let's make him Secretary of the Department of Transportation. But not President of the United States.
The new immigration reform bill known on Capital Hill as Kennedy-McCain is a good example of the damage that moderation, compromise and "wishy-washy" can inflict on our nation. It's certainly moderate. It's certainly full of compromise. It certainly brings together politicians from both the right and left. Yet the result is disaster. The bill stinks. Moderation is a worthy goal in this country. But my definition of moderation is completely different than that of Mr. Bloomberg, or the media. Moderation- like the Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill- is in many cases a huge failure. Most solutions are not found in the middle. They are found on either the right or left- just not all right or all left. That's the complaint of the American people. Republicans think every answer to every problem is found on the right. Democrats think every answer to every problem is found on the left. But as O.J. would say, one glove doesn't fit all hands. Sometimes the solution is from the right, sometimes from the left. But rarely is it a
wishy-washy mishmash of moderation.
I define myself as "moderate" because I believe that some solutions are found on the right...and some are also found on the left. Polls prove that most Americans agree. I'm strongly, passionately and unabashedly conservative on issues such as limiting the power of government; reducing the size and scope of the federal government; dramatically cutting taxes; reducing spending; cutting entitlements (including corporate welfare); cutting foreign aid; supporting each citizen's right to bear arms; supporting States' Rights (moving the power of government whenever possible to the local level); instituting lawyer abuse reform: ending affirmative action and racial quotas; encouraging parental choice and competition to solve the education crisis in this country; establishing personal savings accounts to solve the Social Security crisis; securing our borders; and protecting rights and freedoms for the individual. Those are strong conservative stands that Michael Bloomberg would find far too bold...far too controversial.
Yet at the same time, I believe that certain social issues demand a solution found only on the left- a women's right to choose (with limits), gay rights, stem cell research, the right to die (the Terri Schiavo crisis), protecting the environment, legalization of medicinal marijuana and online gaming, ending government interference in the censorship of television, ending warrantless wiretaps, repeal of many aspects of the Patriot Act. On those issues I fall clearly on the side of freedom. I want to end "the Nanny State" and give the power back to the people. I don't want government involved in my bedroom, on my computer, on my television set, or having control over my body or my personal decisions.
That's the definition of "moderation" that I believe the American people are looking for. A willingness to move to the right or left, depending on the issue. Moderation does not have to mean weak. The Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill will fail because it tries too hard to be "moderate." It combines both right and left to create a complicated, dysfunctional disaster that works for no one. There are in fact strong, common sense solutions for the crucial issues that plague our country- those solutions come from both the right and left. The answer isn't compromise in the middle, but rather a willingness to utilize bold solutions from wherever they come. What America needs now is a strong, bold leader who can lead us in a new direction. Bloomberg's version of "moderation" will leave American voters feeling dissatisfied, bored and bland- in other words, vanilla is not the answer to every craving 24/7 for the rest of our lives. But hey, at least the trains will run on time.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to:
www.ROOTforAmerica.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 701 )Back Next
Avatar
