Newt’s climate train wreck

 

English: Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich - Image via Wikipedia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Contact: Chris Horner
202.262.4458
Chris.Horner@ATI.org

Texas Tech ignores request for Gingrich book records
Controversial activist professor claims to have spent 100+ hours on chapter suddenly dropped from upcoming book

WASHINGTON — American Tradition Institute, a non-profit research institute dedicated to restoring science, liberty and accountability to the environmental debate, filed on Dec. 10 a Public Information Act request with Texas Tech University relating to collaboration on a book, using public time and resources, between “climate” activist Professor Katharine Hayhoe and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

Texas Tech was to produce responsive records by early last week. To date, ATI has not received a response.

“This is a matter of significant public interest, as Mr. Gingrich’s views and past activism on the ‘climate’ issue receive scrutiny by voters seeking to assess his judgment and compatibility with their views,” said Chris Horner, ATI’s Senior Director of Litigation.

Hayhoe, who preaches that human activity is destroying the climate and that Christian stewardship compels acceptance of the ‘climate’ agenda, had been publicly identified as a contributor to Gingrich’s forthcoming book “Environmental Entrepreneurs.” Hayhoe had gained notoriety for urging evangelical Christians into supporting the controversial, costly and according to all computer models, climatically meaningless ‘climate’ agenda.  News outlets now report that Gingrich, under fire for his left-of-center views on the environment from presidential competitors and Tea Party activists, quickly deep-sixed Hayhoe’s chapter last week.

“Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my #climate chapter in the trash. 100+ unpaid hrs I cd’ve spent playing w my baby,” Hayhoe posted on her Twitter account Dec. 30.

ATI requested all emails to or from any Texas Tech email account used by Hayhoe (including as “cc”,) and either or both Gingrich and his co-author Terry Maple.

ATI also requested all emails sent or received by Hayhoe citing or referring to one or more of the following: Newt Gingrich (or “Newt” or “Gingrich”), Terry Maple (or “Terry”, or “Maple”), American Solutions (including in the email address/domain), and/or “Environmental Entrepreneurs”.

With time of the essence and the law very clear, ATI questions any further delays by Texas Tech in coming into compliance with its obligations, and calls on the university to promptly produce these records the public paid for and have a right to see.

#  #  #


American Tradition Institute
Tom Tanton
, Acting Executive Director

2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 186
Washington, D.C.  20006
703-200-3669 (Direct Cell)

153 thoughts on “Newt’s climate train wreck

  1. I don’t trust Newt on this issue (and the border issue as well). That’s too bad because he’s a sharp guy and has lots of experience.

  2. I’m not exactly sure where I draw the line for FOIA and while this example may be legally within FOIA’s scope- to me- this request falls into the “Did you really need to send an FOIA about this?” I worry similar FOIA’s may eventually hurt our ability (and credibility) to demand more important things like code and raw data sets.

  3. . . . . “Newt’s climate train wreck”

    Hmmm … where is this Newt’s “train wreck”?

    Dismissed on account of “failure to show connection or relevancy” …

    (The beef seems to be with Texas Tech University.)

    HNY!

  4. I try and stay from the politics of place I do not live in or vote in. That said N.G. has painted himself in a ideological box year ago. His handlers know he is unelectable unless they can tone down the extreme and at least give the smoke and mirrors impression of moderation. Like the tail of emperors’ and new cloths it is a fools task.

  5. Eye of NEWT, eye of TOAD…Hum, as I recall one energy saving idea out of NEWT was ‘giant space mirrors” for night time illumination…

    I’m sure he’d have NO trouble positioning them himself, being already in close proximity..

  6. HalfEmpty you are right. Newt desire to glom onto any titillating idea before digesting it completely makes him too mercurial for the brass ring he is currently aiming for.

  7. Where’s Obama in all this? Hiding in the golf club, and wincing at any mention of Keystone.
    =================

  8. In my humble opinion, GOV. RICK PERRY is most qualified to
    be the next POTUS, Commander-in-Chief, and leader of the FREE WORLD.

    No other individual running for POTUS is better prepared, tested, and PROVEN to be the REAL leader that America needs in this juncture of our history. We are talking about electing a man that will lead and govern a nation with the 3rd largest population in the world…over 300,000,000 Americans. Furthermore, we are talking about electing the leader, of the WORLD’S LARGEST ECONOMY, and the world’s ONLY SUPERPOWER.

    For the last 11-years, GOV. RICK PERRY has successfully governed the state with the 2nd largest population in our country…a state with 25,000,000 people. In addition, Texas is the world’s 16th largest economy…bigger than a majority of the countries worldwide (including Israel). Texas has a 1200 mile border with a foreign country, it has coastlines and seaports, produces oil in vast quantities, it has more clean energy windmills than any other state in the country, it has 20,000 National Guard/Reserves troops…including numerous major military installations, and Space Center to boot.

    GOVERNOR RICK PERRY has served his country as a military officer and pilot in the USAF. Very importantly, there will be NO DOWN TIME in our country for any ON-THE-JOB TRAINING with GOV. RICK PERRY.

    RICK PERRY’S moral character, belief in God, and CAN DO attitude…will guide him well…as our future POTUS.

  9. We – all of us, not just the voting American public – have a right to know when our “leaders” are lying to us. Bush/Blair got the West into Iraq with out-and-out lies about Saddam and his non-existent WMD. If Newt is lying when he says he supports CO2 legislation but doesn’t, the pro-agenda people have a right to know he lies, and if he is lying when he says he doesn’t support the legislation, the anti-agenda people have a right to know that, too.

    The FOIA concept is to stop the lying endemic in public discourse by letting the potential liers know the truth will out. If they stump for a position, they’d better have done their homework and stand by their conclusions. Yes, there is a danger in shutting down the process by overwhelming the system with requests, some of which will be frivolous. But that is because, until now, access to records has been difficult, slow and easy to discourage. Lies, manipulations and deceit have worked very well to keep the political machines running – consider Blair’s admission that the British FOIA, in his opinion, interferes with “good” government. Only when enough politicians and others with personal and business agendas feel real threat should they step over the line, will the line-crossing reduce.

    Accountability should be the price for power and position. The FOIA laws are the first tool any of us outside of the inner circles have of implementing what should, morally, be already commonplace.

  10. The fact that this flip-flopping hypocrite is even relevant is a sad commentary on current Republican politics – as is most of their current crop of leadership wannabes.

  11. Gosh golly Gee we really need an Evangelical climate scientist hurling a crock of hooey into the debate. On second thought it’s probably more honest than the other bunch who cloak religion in the guise of science. But Old Newt sees the light, perhaps, but just like any politician he knows what’s good for him, and as AGW falls from favor, he shifts his platform. I’m sure there are more than a few Republicans raising their eyebrows at what might be perceived to be an inconsistency in policy?

  12. OT … Here in southern Alberta there is a large population of deeply devout Christians of assorted denominations. Most believe it is arrogant to think humans can manipulate climate and that what happens with weather and climate is in the hands of God. They do not accept AGW and believe we have no business meddling. Several have congratulated me for my “letters to the editor” because I do not believe in AGW for assorted scientific/factual reasons. I have explained my agnostic religious views to them, but we still agree that man has little influence on climate. We have different religious beliefs, but they are great allies.

    Clive

  13. Newt has been in the government version of the ivory tower so long his brain isn’t filled with gray matter, it’s filled with chameleon color. He will be whatever you want him to be, regardless of pledges to be this or that. This time I am voting for someone who has stood on just one side of the climate fence. If there is such a person. They all seem to have the rail shoved up between their legs.

  14. For much more on what a complete hack Hayhoe is, Steven Goddard’s realscience site has an abundance of examples.

    As soon as I had heard about Newt’s links to her I immediately began hoping for what is now happening. That is, Newt is toast.

  15. Newt’s behavior on this issue is disquieting. I know this is not a political blog and I am not an American citizen and have no right to be involved in American politics, so I observe in reference to the climate discussion that Newt should stick to what he knows something about before he steps in and sh*ts it all up for himself, his party and the American people.

    He is so sharp and witty and so many issues… how can he be so ZANY and off-the-rails on this?

    This revelation, that his has been conspiring with that global warming evangelical, puts him in a category and fundamentally untrustworthy and should be forthwith shunned but the republican party.

    I have no problem with religious advocacy. I have a big problem with science being turned into a religion and this woman Katharine Hayhoe (an IPCC reviewer no less) pursues her interests with abandon and claims that science was somehow involved. She is undisciplined in her reasoning and shockingly obsessed with AGW as being a fact, which exposes the inappropriateness of her involvement with the IPCC.

    Mysticism is great. Many of the religions in the world do great things. Many religious people have contributed profoundly to science (Bacon, Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, LeMaitre… etc). These great people were able to understand the fundamental necessity of the scientific method and allow their inspirations to be judged by the rigors of proof and evidence. Hayhoe is a delirious and spooky global warming robot with unrestrained religious enthusiasm about it.

    Therefore the fact that an aspiring PRESIDENT would engage such an inappropriate extremist nullifies his suitability to be the republican nominee.

    My son has a copy of one of his books signed in person by Newt at CPAC, and we think the world of Newt…. but this is the last straw. Newt….you are done.

  16. Good grief…..she had a baby in the shape this planet is in

    …we can hope it skips a generation

    Whining because her chapter was axed….tuff tooties

  17. Newt is a professonal, lifetme politician. He will back whatever he thinks necessary to gain power and retain it. An ethically challenged D.C. “insider”. Just like about 90% of our elected officials. I am, by the way, rather conservative in my views . I don’t know where the qualified and patriotic conservative candidates are, but Newt is just more of the status quo.

  18. Newt (and other politicians) sell their souls for 30 pieces of silver so often it is amazing they have anything left.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    I really hope he can pull it off. A breath of fresh air and some real positive changes would be a nice change from all the For-Sale-icians out there.

  19. Hoser says:
    January 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    The professor doesn’t belong in the White House.

    Which one? The Law Professor or the History Prof? Or was that rhetorical?

  20. I think Ron Paul is the best man for the job. He is the only one talking sense.

    Ron Paul 2012 !

  21. I lost almost all respect for Newt when he sat on the “global warming love seat” with Pelosi. I just couldn’t believe that commercial when I saw it. Still can’t believe he did that. We now know that Newt has has bought into AGW. Too bad he didn’t sit on the love seat with Al Gore. That would have shut him out of the race entirely, and none of this would be a problem. Still, he’d make a far better president than Obama. I really do not want to hold my nose and vote for yet another stinking RINO, but looks like that’s exactly what it will come down to. Again.

  22. If you hire a company to do the roof on your house, are you not allowed to verify that they did the job correctly? After all, if you are paying for it with your money, you have the inherent right to ensure that you get what you are paying for.

    Any company, government entity, or employee that receives PUBLIC money should be required, under penalty of imprisonment to produce any and all work or correspondence for PUBLIC scrutiny.

    If the public picks up the tab, it is our information. We paid for it.

  23. Paul Westhaver says:
    January 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    This revelation, that his has been conspiring with that global warming evangelical, puts him in a category and fundamentally untrustworthy and should be forthwith shunned but the republican party.
    —————————————-

    This is already underway. Newt was pressured into cutting ties with Ms. Hayhoe, but the damage has already been done.

    I’m a huge Chris Horner fan and a believer in pushing back against the climate alarmists, who have until now a free hand to spew propaganda without accountability, but I don’t see what Horner can accomplish with this action. Hayhoe only has to claim that she did her Newt Chapter on her own time and the whole excercise will appear like the skeptics are harrassing Hayhoe over nothing.

  24. “Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my #climate chapter in the trash. 100+ unpaid hrs I cd’ve spent playing w my baby,” Hayhoe posted on her Twitter account Dec. 30.
    _______________
    Twitter’s just the right forum for this Hayhoe twit.

    What about the countless unpaid hours that all of us will have to work to pay the debt from the global warming boondoggles forced on us by the stupidity of people like her?

  25. A Classical Washington insider move. Find out where the beliefs of your base are trending, and then cover any tracks that might show you out of step with those beliefs. Of course, what the base believes and what reality is are often quite different. Either way, the Newster’s move is classic but he still remains unelectable.

  26. Hayhoe has a company selling alarmist computer simulations.

    http://atmosresearch.com/who_katharine.html

    Don’t know whether she has customers, though. Just like Hansen, there’s a massive conflict of interest. I wouldn’t call her a twit but a person trying to game the system for all its worth. She has understood the propagandistic value of posing as a scientist to drive money her way, and the legality of it.

    Undermines the credibility of science further, of course. Also: has this person, who pretends to be a scientist, ever discovered anything? She’s the modern type of publically funded parasite pseudoscientist.

  27. Newt expressed his views on climate change in this bizarre 2008 video with Nanci Pelosi. Sitting together on a couch in front of the U.S. Capitol Building, they take turns speaking. “We may disagree on some issues…” Nancy concedes with a big grin, “But, Newt continues, “…we do agree, our country must take action to address climate change…” Camera moves back to show our nations capitol, and the two speakers together with their collegial smiles.

    To understand today’s Newt, we need to compare his earlier Cassandraism with the position being espoused last week in the Wall Street Journal editorial, a well-written anti-Obama screed in which he touts his “…unwavering opposition to cap and trade and any other form of tax on energy…”

    I believe it was Emerson who said, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” but Gingrich wants to make unsteadiness the new fashion. Changing your mind on an issue is one thing. Pretending your past positions and statements don’t exist in order to appear consistent is something else.

  28. R. Gates says:
    January 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    A Classical Washington insider move. Find out where the beliefs of your base are trending, and then cover any tracks that might show you out of step with those beliefs. Of course, what the base believes and what reality is are often quite different. Either way, the Newster’s move is classic but he still remains unelectable.
    _________________
    You are correct.
    Newt’s embrace of the Global Warming agenda was nothing short of scurrilous opportunism.

  29. TRM says:
    January 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Newt (and other politicians) sell their souls for 30 pieces of silver so often it is amazing they have anything left.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    Given the choice between anyone else and Ron Paul, I might support Ron even if we differ on many policy issues. AFAICT Ron Paul is honest and hasn’t taken the 30 pieces of silver. Dennis Kucinich seems to be the same. Both men will vote, sometimes together, for the interests of the republic and against the interests of whoever bought the rest of the congress critters.

    Larry Lessig has pointed his finger directly at the corruption that has made it almost impossible for honest politicians to get elected. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/larry-lessig-republic-lost/ I hope lots of people notice.

  30. Newt doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of be the Republican nominee. Too many skeletons in his closet, and nobody believes his “Born Again” BS.

    I haven’t seen any wannabe’s or incumbents that are worth the powder to blow them to hell.

    This is what people should be using as a benchmark for them, but everybody seems focused on hair or grin.

    Quote:
    GOD, give us men! A time like this demands
    Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
    Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
    Men whom the spoils of office can not buy;
    Men who possess opinions and a will;
    Men who have honor; men who will not lie;
    Men who can stand before a demagogue
    And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!
    Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
    In public duty, and in private thinking;
    For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds,
    Their large professions and their little deeds,
    Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps,
    Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.

    Josiah Gilbert Holland

  31. commieBob said @ January 1, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    “Given the choice between anyone else and Ron Paul, I might support Ron even if we differ on many policy issues. AFAICT Ron Paul is honest and hasn’t taken the 30 pieces of silver. Dennis Kucinich seems to be the same.”

    OMG! Two honest politicians!

    Do we have any advance on two honest politicians? Going once, twice, [BANG].

    There being no further bids, two honest politicians go to commieBob.

  32. Paul Westhaver says:
    January 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    =============

    Hammer meets nail.

    I think you got it.

  33. Hayhoe is a crackpot that regularly makes up facts and figures. She is a hoaxster who uses fraudulent historical data, made up or altered by herself and others, in order to verify her premise that the current weather is the most extreme in the last 12,000 years, more or less.
    She has been amply rewarded for this alarmism cum fraud for years by left wing politicians and foundations.

  34. I am not sure I have this straight. Is this the what is happening?

    (1)Newt is writing a book entitled “Environmental Entrepreneurs.”

    (2)Prof. Hayhoe is contributor (author?) to one planned chapter of the book, which Newt is now going to leave out..

    (3)Given Prof. Hayhoe’s publicly professed views on AGW, the ATI wants to know what was in the chapter that was left out.

    (4)From her email Prof. Hayhoe seems ticked off about her contribution being left out.

    My question: What kind of agreement does she have with Newt that would prevent her from repackaging her contribution to the chapter and publishing it herself? The ATI is apparently trying to expose Newt as agreeing with Prof. Hayhoe. But, Prof. Hayhoe seems perfectly comfortable with her views, whether Newt agrees with her or not. So this all about ATI going after Newt. Not about FOI.
    For the record, Newt lost my support after the commercial with Pelosi.

  35. Fascinating. How the ground has shifted. Pretty much all Republican candidates are now openly eschewing the “climate change” band wagon. Democrats, including President Obama, appear to be opting for qualified motherhood statements only strategies. I was highly impressed by Gov. Perry’s statement on “global warming” some months ago but unfortunately that seems to have been his strongest suit. Does he not deserve high accolades, nevertheless, for starting the stampede?

  36. Why gamble your children’s future. Do what you can now.

    The scientific community has determined that global warming is happening. As well, it is being exacerbated by our way of living and it is far worse than they had originally calculated. We are approaching a serious tipping point when there will be very little we can do to stop horrible environmental catastrophes that could effectively destroy all human life within this century. It is the duty of every human being to do what he or she can to stop this tragedy. We will not effectively do this until our nation’s governments do the following. Each official or those running for office must:
    1. Publicly declare that they recognize global warming as a real phenomenon.
    2. Publicly declare that man-made activities are increasing global warming.
    3. Pledge to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% within the next five years. (Effectively, their next term in office.)
    5. Pledge not to alter their stance and policy on this matter.
    6. Pledge to stimulate effective, non-greenhouse gas emitting energy alternatives and technologies.
    7. Pledge to remove all subsidies and tax breaks for dirty energy such as coal, oil and natural gas, except when those subsidies are utilized to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50% or more.
    8. Pledge to apply tariffs on products produced in countries that do not take the same course of action and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50%.
    Please got to:
    http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-pledge-to-reduce-man-made-co2-in-the-united-states-by-50-in-5-years and sign the petition today and send it on to all in your contact list.

    Thank you for your help.

  37. Chris Horner is a NRO Romney hack … shame on you for taking the bait …

    REPLY
    : I happen to know Chris Horner personally and it has always been about the climate issue, I’ve never seen nor heard a single Romney related word from him. And, this issue with Newt and climate preceded Romney entering the presidential race going back to the love seat climate commercial with Nancy Pelosi. Be as upset as you wish – Anthony

  38. Observation from afar – Newt is probably way the smartest of the contenders, but he seems to lack a moral, or even political, compass. What was he thinking getting involved with Hayhoe in the first place?

  39. This is proof that NG is apolitician, first and foremost. WHen it was trendy to be a Warmista, he was; now he understands that it is not cool to be a Repub Warmista. So, he no longer is. However, he shows himself to beno more than a political hack.

  40. Any chance Hayhoe would like to publish here?

    Is there a site that shows what the candidates’ stances are on miportant issues? I sure haven’t found one that I trust, yet. Anybody know where I can find a table of [Republican] candidate platforms?

  41. Daryl McCann says:
    January 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    You ought to pledge not to be such a complete dupe and useful idiot for the AGW industry. Do it for your children.

  42. McCann,
    Even assuming there actually is global warming, please explain how it is man-made. Also, how is it different from previous periods of global warming. Also, for bonus points, explain how a warmer planet, and more CO2, are bad.

  43. …since this is sorta political

    It’s just all about the republicans right now. And the republican candidates are no better or worse than what the democrats had to offer.
    You guys remember when it was all about the democrats?

    They had one candidate, ‘ol hoof in mouth, that thought Obama was clean.
    Another candidate that was busy as he could be making illegitimate children and paying for it.
    Another candidate that channeled Mariah Carey, the head bobbing and weaving thing, every time she was in front of a black person….and told lies about almost everything she did
    ..and finally a candidate that thought there was 58 states, and most of them were clinging to their guns and religion

    So cheer up!….I’m not paying one bit of attention to any of it…..every republican candidate is better than what we’ve got now

    We’re all going in, going straight down the republican ticket, and walking out, no matter who it is…..LOL

  44. Johanna:
    Given Newt’s [SNIP: If you have evidence, show it, but that sort of statement is defamatory and under the pending SOPT legislation would leave sites like this very vulnerable. Please stick to the topic. -REP].

  45. This is not really out of character for Gingrich. He has a habit of latching onto pseudo-intellectual fads of the moment.

    This is why he’s so dangerous. Most other politicians are just crooks. He strikes me as being a massive egotist and delusional, not a combination you ever want int a president.

  46. Doug Proctor says:
    January 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    We – all of us, not just the voting American public – have a right to know when our “leaders” are lying to us. Bush/Blair got the West into Iraq with out-and-out lies about Saddam and his non-existent WMD. If Newt is lying when he says he supports CO2 legislation but doesn’t, the pro-agenda people have a right to know he lies, and if he is lying when he says he doesn’t support the legislation, the anti-agenda people have a right to know that, too.

    The FOIA concept is to stop the lying endemic in public discourse by letting the potential liers know the truth will out. If they stump for a position, they’d better have done their homework and stand by their conclusions. Yes, there is a danger in shutting down the process by overwhelming the system with requests, some of which will be frivolous. But that is because, until now, access to records has been difficult, slow and easy to discourage. Lies, manipulations and deceit have worked very well to keep the political machines running – consider Blair’s admission that the British FOIA, in his opinion, interferes with “good” government. Only when enough politicians and others with personal and business agendas feel real threat should they step over the line, will the line-crossing reduce.

    Accountability should be the price for power and position. The FOIA laws are the first tool any of us outside of the inner circles have of implementing what should, morally, be already commonplace.
    —————–
    The system could be overwhelmed by the FOIA process only because the government is too big. There is so much money and so much power at stake it must be questioned in every area each and every day . FOIA is the proper way to legally monitor the activities of our elected and paid employees. That’s what the rules say. If our government has gotten so big and what we need to see causes grief for some then so be it. It’s what we must do. No government should ever be trusted.

  47. old engineer says:
    January 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    “The ATI is apparently trying to expose Newt as agreeing with Prof. Hayhoe. But, Prof. Hayhoe seems perfectly comfortable with her views, whether Newt agrees with her or not. So this all about ATI going after Newt. Not about FOI.”

    Look at the post:
    “American Tradition Institute, a non-profit research institute dedicated to restoring science, liberty and accountability to the environmental debate, filed on Dec. 10 a Public Information Act request with Texas Tech University”

    When ATI was filing the request Gingrich and Hayhoe were still a team.

  48. johanna says:
    January 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    Observation from afar – Newt is probably way the smartest of the contenders, but he seems to lack a moral, or even political, compass. What was he thinking getting involved with Hayhoe in the first place?
    —————–
    johanna, Hayhoe can’t be any worse that Pelosi or Sharpton.
    My problem with Newt is that of all the contenders he IS the true insider. He’s be standing next to the top tier. I really don’t want another beltway bandit as my president.

  49. REP:

    LOL. Likely you’re quite correct. I wonder what Newt’s opinion on the pending legislation is. Just think of all the escapades the politicians could get up to with no worries of the public ever being aware.

    This entire thread would probably not exist under that legislation. Or the FOIA request itself either.

    East Germany’s STASI would *adore* the internet. And facebook. And twitter. Lots of information out there for the asking. No need to bother neighbors or family about learning the details.

  50. No big deal. Just more of the same. Newt Gingrich will not be the next POTUS. The time has past for this faux intellectual and faux conservative to carry any real weight. I will grant him this — he is an excellent orator and debater. This country needs more of that like it needs another bank failure.

    You have to hand it to him for political prowess. He went from a deserted and failed campaign right into first place. Talk about miraculous comes backs! I credit it to sheer force of debate persona. But that anomaly is over.

  51. Ok, having read her schtick about ‘what would jesus do about global warming’ i have to say she’s one of those nutjobs that turns me off both religion and politics.

    Essentially, if i’m reading her correctly, I live in the first (developed) world i have access to technology and convenience not found in the third world (due to corruption and do gooding westerners). And, since ‘that’s not fair!’ (whiny tone), if I turn on my light switch to cook my dinner in my electric stove and wash my dishes with warm water, it will make the baby jesus cry.

    Well, that logic just makes ME cry. What’s she going to do about THAT unfairness?

    FOIA away, she’s clearly of the opinion that she’s the one single Joan of Arc of global warming.

    I’m willing to bet SHE turns on her electric light switches to cook HER dinner in her modern stove and washes HER dishes with running water. Bet she has a water seal toilet too. Will the baby jesus *ever* get over that! Repent professor, repent!

  52. A lot of evangelicals have been on the Carbon bandwagon for a long time. They started up the Green Train in 1968 with Hal Lindsey’s “Late Great Planet Earth”, long before it was a major secular cause.

    Clearly they enjoy advising their late-coming secular buddies like Newt and Nancy. It’s all one big Apocalyptic Revival Tent!

  53. Good luck for Nov 2012 America but I would say that whatever Newt Gingrich thinks about global warming is absolutely immaterial except that it may lengthen his odds even more UNLESS Mitt Romney gets hit by a bus.

    Current William Hill Odds Next US Presidential Election Winner

    Barack Obama 4/5
    Mitt Romney (man of all seasons?) 6/4
    Newt Gingrich 16/1
    Rick Santorum (sceptic?) 50/1

    As much as I do not agree with all of Mr Obama’s policies, he made me quite a lot of money on the last election. I think I might re-invest.

    (Two of Romney’s comments on global warming - “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course. But I believe the world is getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that. So I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

    “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us. My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward. I want us to become energy secure and independent of the oil cartels. And that means let’s aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power.”) Plus:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20127273-503544/mitt-romneys-shifting-views-on-climate-change/

  54. Newt will not be president, Obama and the democrats will slaughter him on the whole character issue.
    Romney has ZERO chance to win the south, and if you can’t win the south as a republican, you are not going to win the election.
    Rick Perry? Please. He’s certifiably insane.

    Plan on 4 more years of Obama.

  55. I am not defending or endorsing any candidate for any office (yet), but an elected representative of the people should represent his/her constituency. And somebody once said something to effect of “When the facts change, my position may change.” Re-evaluation of a position is not only the right but also the DUTY of citizens and their representatives.

    At one time I was convinced that CO2 and DDT (at different times) were serious problems, but careful examination of “new information” caused me to change my position. I would hope that elected representatives were capable of the same re-evaluation. If the majority of those represented change their position (on any topic), it should be an obligation of the elected to reconsider their position in order to represent the views of the electors. Sometimes a “flip-flop” is justified, and the right thing to do.

    At this point in the campaign, I am trying to keep an open mind (and ears and eyes) for viable alternatives to the incumbents.

  56. MattN says:
    January 1, 2012 at 6:46 pm
    Plan on 4 more years of Obama.
    ==================================
    Hardly……
    approx 50% of the registered voters, did not vote in the last election
    Obama got approx 50% of the vote and so did McCain….
    approx 25% and 25%

    No liberal voter in this country sat out the last election….
    and Obama’s 66 million votes was all of them
    …the 50% that did not vote were conservative republicans
    No one in this country has changed from conservative to liberal, or did not
    vote for Obama last time and has changed to Obama this time.

    Obama did not pay anyone’s mortgage………..
    …and every conservative in this country will vote this time

  57. Pat Moffitt [January 1, 2012 at 12:47 pm] says:

    “I’m not exactly sure where I draw the line for FOIA and while this example may be legally within FOIA’s scope- to me- this request falls into the “Did you really need to send an FOIA about this?” I worry similar FOIA’s may eventually hurt our ability (and credibility) to demand more important things like code and raw data sets.”

    I am quite certain that taxpayers in the great state of Texas will vehemently disagree.

    Perhaps if the Congress, with its well-known penchant for selecting misleading names for legislation, had chosen a different moniker, like FOTFIA Freedom of Taxpayer Funded Information Act, then there might be less apprehension at using this ‘FOIA’ tool. Considering the track record thus far for the release of data from the AGW cult, the last thought that would cross my mind at this point would be that FOIA requests might “eventually hurt our ability (and credibility) to demand more important things like code and raw data”. Any FOIA request is one too many to the information gatekeepers.

    Anyway, what’s the worst that could happen? The bean counters at taxpayer funded colleges might sharpen their pencils and do their jobs? The (so-called) scientists might hesitate and think twice before sucking up globs of taxpayer grants? If the threat of FOIA requests has a chilling effect on rent-seekers that use taxpayer funded grants then it would be not just a good thing, but a GREAT thing! These taxpayer funded avenues of financing research, particularly controversial AGW propaganda ridden research, should never be the choice of first resort – but the last resort. The more strings attached the better I say.

  58. Daryl McCann says:
    January 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    3. Pledge to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% within the next five years. (Effectively, their next term in office.)

    A Politician’s pledge is meaningless. If a trades-person misrepresents what they will provide in return for valuable consideration , they can be charged with a criminal offense and go to jail.

    If a Politicians tells you they will cut CO2 in return for your vote, and then once in office they do the opposite, there is nothing “illegal” with that. It is simply politics. Ask the folks in Oz. Ask the folks in Guantanamo. A politician can tell you any lie they want to gain office.

  59. Maybe Newt actually read what she was going to put in the book and came to his senses.

    I can imagine a quick review and a “holly crap” moment.

  60. “”””” Pat Moffitt says:

    January 1, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    I’m not exactly sure where I draw the line for FOIA and while this example may be legally within FOIA’s scope- to me- this request falls into the “Did you really need to send an FOIA about this?” I worry similar FOIA’s may eventually hurt our ability (and credibility) to demand more important things like code and raw data sets. “””””

    Well Pat, I think you have it entirely backward. I think it is the interractions between special interest groups and individuals, and government officials, both elected, and unelected beurocrats who make decisions that affect ALL (Americans anyway) that the public (American) has a right to know, under the FOIA doctrine; and especially when taxpayer funds are in play in the derivation or dissemination of said information.
    I’m less interested in seeing computer code and raw data from supposedly scientific endeavors; but I reserve the right to take with a grain of salt, any claimed results that are not supported by freely released data, that the creators of consider proprietary; as they say, those people of all people should know just what their stuff is worth. Anonymous postings are worth every bit of the belief that their own author feels proud to put hiser name to.

  61. Newt’s problem is as clear as the nose on his face: he thinks he is a genius. And all who think they are geniuses know that geniuses are above the laws, mores, and traditions that bind the rest of us in our petty paces.

    It is truly rare that I write something that I know is absolutely true. What a rush!

  62. Well the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they devised a system for having the several States of the Union select a President to manage the Union.

    Think of the pickle we’d be in if it was left up to the people to choose a leader as they do in Democracies. We’d probably end up with an Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jackson for the CIC of the world’s most significant super military.

    The current primary season looks exactly like an Italian firing squad; figuratively; the only difference is that the incumbent opposition, is entirely outside the circle, and not being addressed by anyone.

    Most of these candidates spin much more readily than wind turbines; for what we are about to receive, the American voters will be the last to accept reponsibility for what they do at the voting machine.

  63. Until I saw one of David Archibald’s presentations, I was unaware that there was any credible scientific objection to the ‘Global Warming’ theory as presented in the pages of the Scientific American. The huge arctic ice-melt reported in 2007 seemed to be an unmistakable confirmation. But after seeing David Archibald’s video and a few others like it, I realized the effect of carbon dioxide was being overstated, as if it were not subject to any law of diminishing effect. Also, some leading climate scientists appeared to be using dubious methods to revise climate history to emphasize the danger of continued carbon dioxide emission–a political agenda.

    I would recommend that politicians, unless they are climate scientists, be given a free pass for being on the wrong side of this issue at one time in their life, but not twice. Many otherwise intelligent people still believe that promoting carbon dioxide emission reduction is a moral imperative and think all CAGW skeptics are thoughtless cranks. Others may have their doubts, but do not want to offend this latter group.

  64. The candidates that don’t have a history of scandals and flip flops can’t even be a flavor of a week, much less a month?

    When the interest payments on the debt reach one trillion in 2020. We will slowly become a libertarian paradise anyway?
    I have never been so discouraged.

  65. Ed Mertin says:
    January 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm
    The candidates that don’t have a history of scandals and flip flops can’t even be a flavor of a week, much less a month?

    When the interest payments on the debt reach one trillion in 2020. We will slowly become a libertarian paradise anyway?
    I have never been so discouraged.

    ========================================

    Take heart! Be strong and of good courage.

    And I can not believe I am saying this butt I have to admit about the viable candidate: I AM AGREEING WITH R GATES.

    Ron Paul is the only intellectually honest presidential candidate….by a wide margin.

    But it is true. At least where the American Republic is concerned, Ron Paul is our only hope.

    Newt is a monster. Obama is the status quo same ole same ole.

    There are no legitimate candidates to lead this country out of its current dark ages….except one.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  66. @ GE Smith – “Think of the pickle we’d be in if it was left up to the people…” We’re in a pickle. Aristotle wrote in his Politics 2400 years ago, “the appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratical, and the election of them oligarchical; democratical again when there is no property qualification, oligarchical when there is.” Athenian democracy was not elective.

    Our freedom was never protected by representative government, but by the Constitution. The oligarchs are destroying the dollar through the Fed. They have destroyed the Constitution using their puppets in Congress. And NDAA 2012 puts the last nail in that coffin with martial law. The US today is an oligarchy; not a democracy; not a republic. And certainly no longer constitutional and no rule of law; just the rule that might makes right.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who can restore the Constitution before there is a total eclipse of liberty in the US. Once SOPA goes into effect and the oligarchs gain control of the Internet, say bye-bye to what freedom you still have.

  67. I hadn’t heard about this so-called “book.” Even assuming the Texas Tech professor is writing a book, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Gingrich has cooperated with her and that this could merely be a misleading rumor. Has anyone checked on whether or not Texas Tech has requested an extension of the deadline with the Attorney General? That is also a possibility Texas Tech is entitled to under the Texas Public Information Act.

    If there are records to give, I am sure Texas Tech will ultimately give them up. There may not even be any such “records” of collaboration. Just wait and see.

    I have not given up on Gingrich; he can be talked out of any stupidity in potential policy even if he has views on AGW that are not desirable.

  68. At a time when I despair at the prospect of finding the right candidate to vote for I find solace in the sage words of Milton Friedman:
    “Electing the right person is nice, but that is not how you change things. You change things by making it politically profitable for the wrong person to do the right thing.”

  69. The US needs another Ike Eisenhower. What we’re being offered is an array of William E. Millers. I’ll vote for whoever says Global Warming is a hoax. Who says that, anybody?

  70. jorgekafkazar says:
    January 2, 2012 at 12:28 am
    The US needs another Ike Eisenhower. What we’re being offered is an array of William E. Millers. I’ll vote for whoever says Global Warming is a hoax. Who says that, anybody?

    Take your pick:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-suggests-global-warming-is-a-hoax/2011/08/17/gIQAuoZoLJ_video.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-suggests-global-warming-is-a-hoax/2011/08/17/gIQAuoZoLJ_video.html

  71. Think about the converse. As preface let’s remember that a very short while ago over 70% of Americans viewed global warming as a pressing issue. We were deceived, taken in by shysters and con artists.

    Hayhoe is one of the more unscrupulous practitioners, and it’s a trivial matter to insinuate yourself, disguised as an “expert”, into a chapter of a book collaboration. The example I’m most familiar with is the guest blogger or the group blog. Think of Protein Wisdom and how that fell apart. The blog proprietor welcomes in the guest blogger, and everything is fine at first, but at some point the new comer decides to set policies that the original blogger doesn’t agree with.
    It’s not Hayhoe’s place to set policy for the Gingrich campaign, but being who she is you know that’s what she was doing.

    And now we have Horner trying to affirm Hayhoe as Gingrich’s spokesperson on the environmental concerns. Chris do you really want to back Newt into a corner?
    I’m not voting for a personality> I’m voting for a policy. If that policy comes from a guy who woke up to facts after climategate, well hallelujah, that makes Gingrich just like the most of us.
    I don’t care what his position on global warming used to be two years ago.
    I care about what he thinks and does today.
    Today, Gingrich says sitting on the couch with Nancy was not just a mistake in policy, but
    HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE. Today Gingrich is firing frauds like Kathrine Hayhoe.
    To me this is a healthy augury for behaviors he could carry with him into the White House.

    Who’s more likely to fire Jimmy Hansen? Romney or Gingrich? Who do you think based on recent history?

    So lets say NEWT gets a big push back based on Chris’ FOIA.

    Isn’t the end result of that that our politicians shy away from taking a stand, letting the thorny issue of global warming fall to the way side, and whichever milktoast ascends to the nomination, won’t they have got there not because they held the correct policy, but because they were the least offensive to the Hayhoe’s of the world?

    This FOI request will make us all blind. Drop it now. We want Gingrich and his eleventh hour epiphany out there on the campaign trail, because it forces all the rest of them to take a position and communicate it, no matter what the CNN and PBS talking heads would rather cover.

    DROP IT NOW CHRIS.

  72. @Richard G (1/2/12 12:20am)

    I second that thought, Friedman also said a lot of other brilliant things.

    Maybe we can make Milton Friedman our President posthumously. Couldn’t be worse than the way we are doing it now.

    More seriously, we have centralized power in Washington and the White House to the extent that no human is competent to handle the Presidency. The Constitution provided for distributed and limited, defined, power. Maybe we aught to try that idea again.

  73. Doug Proctor wrote, “Bush/Blair got the West into Iraq with out-and-out lies about Saddam and his non-existent WMD.”

    Doug, you’ve been misled by one of the Left’s Big Lies. Read what the Democrats were saying about Saddam’s WMDs, before Bush even took office:
    http://www.mooregop.org/WMDs_the_rest_of_the_story.html

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    – Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    (and many more)

    But now these folks say President Bush lied, that there never were any weapons of mass destruction, and that he took us to war for his oil buddies???

    “Assertions that the Bush administration strong-armed intelligence analysts in 2002 and 2003, or misled the nation in making its nuclear case for war, challenge logic. During and after Clinton’s presidency, the intelligence community repeatedly warned the White House that Iraq was one cache of fissile material and one year short of wielding a nuclear bomb. If the White House manipulated or exaggerated that intelligence before the war in order to paint a more-menacing portrait of Saddam Hussein, it’s difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough.”
    – Chicago Tribune, Nov. 30, 2005

  74. George E. Smith obviously has never heard of the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, which allows for direct election of US Senators. Oprah still has a shot.

  75. I’m afraid that everyone is missing the most important point. Politicians follow the money. (If anyone doubts that, think of what BO ran on vs. who he represented once in office. He, like every one of the current candidates except Ron Paul, it seems, is bought and paid for by Wall Street and the military industrial complex.) Again, follow the money.

    IMHO, what we need to be afraid of is a joining of politicians, no matter which side they are on, and businesses that would benefit greatly from a new stream of tax money. We have seen how a stream of tax money can corrupt even scientists. It is easy to contemplate how corrupting a big stream of new tax money could be for businesses (like GE?). The possibility of this does not seem unlikely to me.

  76. To TRM, SamG, LexingtonGreen, and anyone else out there who thinks that Ron Paul is honest and would make a good President:

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who told his supporters to vote against the Republican ticket in 2008, and thereby helped turn Obama’s victory into an even bigger landslide, with coattails long enough to ram through ObamaCare. If you like ObamaCare, then thank Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who, during the Reagan, Bush 41 & Clinton Administrations, published race-baiting newsletters marketed to white supremacists & survivalists, one of which even accused Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr of seducing “underage girls and boys.”

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who later flagrantly lied by claiming that he hadn’t known what was in his own newsletters, all of which were entitled with his own name: The “Ron Paul Political Report,” the “Ron Paul Survival Report,” etc.

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who wants to abolish the independent Federal Reserve and thereby take monetary policy away from the Fed — and so presumably return it to the Treasury Department, under the thumb of the President, as it was until 97 years ago. (Imagine President Obama in charge of monetary policy! )

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who wants let tyrants run amok throughout the world, and doesn’t even mind if Ahmadinejad gets nuclear weapons.

    Ron Paul — the only Republican who’s okay with genocide in Darfur. Hear him say it, himself, in the 0/27/2007 Republican Presidential debate in Baltimore, MD:
    http://www.taudiobook.com/closed_caption/republican_debate_maryland/ (Part 9)
    Skip to 8:05 to hear the question & the candidates’ answers. Ron Paul spoke 2nd, and opposed even sending food aid:

    “…we should direct our attention only to national security, and not get involved for these feel-good reasons of going overseas for the various reasons, and this is the main reason why I think we ought to just come home from every place in the coun-, from every place in the world…”

    Be sure to listen to the rest of the video, to hear the excellent rebuttals from other Republicans. I especially loved Alan Keyes’ eloquent reply (at 11:26):

    “I have to say I’m appalled by the suggestion that we retreat into some kind of Fortress America, and forget who we are. We are a nation of nations, a people of many peoples. We are in touch with every people on the face of the earth. If somebody’s is being hurt somewhere in the world, somebody in America grieves for them. And I don’t believe we can turn our backs on that universal significance, that universal mission. I think a lot of the suggestions made here [by other candidates] in terms of how we get involved are good ones. We don’t have to send troops, but we need to support and reinforce the sense of local regional responsibility for both humanitarian and military order in that region.”

    (a mostly-correct transcript is here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75913)

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who chums around with raving lunatics like Alex Jones, and quietly courts the support of “9-11 Truther” conspiracy nuts. (Alex Jones is nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake. See him in action here, abusing Michelle Malkin, who is the petite lady in the video. He “thinks” – I use the word loosely – that secret conspiracies or space aliens are in charge of everything, and that the government is intentionally poisoning you with fluoride to keep you docile. Here he tells his radio audience what he thinks of American conservatives.)

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate for President whose nomination would guarantee a 2nd term for Barrack Obama. (Maybe that’s one of the reasons that commieBob likes him?) But if that weren’t so, can you imagine Ron Paul’s appointments, if he were President? Press Secretary Alex Jones, Secretary of State John McManus, Secretary of Treasury Lew Rockwell, etc. The mind boggles.

    So please rethink your support for Rep. Paul.

    Please support Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Romney, or Huntsman — anybody but Ron Paul!

  77. savethesharks.com says:
    January 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm
    “Ron Paul is the only intellectually honest presidential candidate….by a wide margin.”

    That may be true but RP is the most ignorant candidate when it comes to world views. He is as ignorant as Obama, just on the other side of the fence.

    MattN says:
    January 1, 2012 at 6:46 pm
    “Plan on 4 more years of Obama.”

    Prediction (not from a computer model): Obama will not be the Democratic Party candidate. When the powers that run the show realize he cannot win, they will find a way for him to bow out and old Hillary will come to the “rescue” of America and sweep the election. Now, I do not like Hillary, Obama or any other Democrat, however, there are enough Hillary lovers in this Country for her to pull it off. Remember you heard it here first!

  78. Tom in Florida says:
    January 2, 2012 at 5:24 am
    Prediction (not from a computer model): Obama will not be the Democratic Party candidate. When the powers that run the show realize he cannot win, they will find a way for him to bow out and old Hillary will come to the “rescue” of America and sweep the election.
    _____________________________
    That’s an interesting scenario and given the POTUS general lackadaisical attitude, you might be on to something, but who are ‘the powers that run the show’?

  79. @daveburton –

    You’re *way* off base with Ron Paul, the only candidate who will return the US to the Constitution. Your remarks are defamatory and total disinformation. Every voter needs to find out for themselves who Paul really is and not rely on this kind of nonsense or listen to Fox. Go to RonPaul2012.com or watch any of hundreds of YouTubes like these to discover the real Ron Paul:

    “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who told his supporters to vote against the Republican ticket in 2008…” Citation please? This doesn’t sound like Paul at all, but I can say the millions of Paul supporters (like me) will not support any other GOP candidate so if you *don’t* want Obama again, support Paul.

    “Ron Paul — …published race-baiting newsletters marketed to white supremacists” Nonsense. There were a few sentences out of hundreds of newsletters and Paul didn’t write them. Paul has disavowed those newsletters. I challenge you to find racist remarks from Paul over his 24 year record in Congress, many books, and hundreds of YouTube interviews and appearances spanning 30+ years. He is the *only* GOP candidate who will end the war on drugs which is really a war on minorities. The only candidate who will pardon the thousands (millions?) of nonviolent drug offenders who are mostly minority.

    “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who later flagrantly lied by claiming that he hadn’t known what was in his own newsletters…” Wrong. Do you have proof of this?

    “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who wants to abolish the independent Federal Reserve and thereby take monetary policy away from the Fed…” Huh? The Fed is anything *but* independent. The Fed is destroying our country. The Fed has wrecked the economy. Every dollar the Fed prints is a dollar stolen from Middle Class savings accounts. The Fed is a monstrosity and unconstitutional. Yet Paul has said he won’t try to end the Fed but instead seek to repeal the legal tender laws to create competition in currency and sound money. Learn about the Fed here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k&feature=channel_video_title

    “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who wants let tyrants run amok throughout the world, and doesn’t even mind if Ahmadinejad gets nuclear weapons.” Again, completely false. It’s past administrations who have *supported* dictators. Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak were all puppets of US Presidents. Iran has not attacked another nation in centuries. Iran was a peaceful nation until US foreign policy radicalized Muslims beginning with 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected gov. And even the Israel Mossad is not concerned with Iran obtaining a nuke. Is Iran so stupid they would attack Israel who is believed to have hundreds of warheads? Netanyahu told Congress that Israel can take care of herself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mad9Q4TPaDk

    Attacking Iran (a nation of 75 million) would very possibly start WWIII given her close ties to both China and Russia and likely destroy what’s left of the US economy not to mention that I’ll be damned if my son is going to be sent to die in some armpit of the earth to assuage your paranoia and put dollars into Halliburton’s coffers.

    “Ron Paul — the only Republican who’s okay with genocide in Darfur.” Paul is not *okay* with it and that’s a despicable statement. He’s a non-interventionist. He follows the Constitution. If Americans want to *do* something, change the Constitution. But acting as policeman to the world will surely bankrupt the nation.

    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who chums around with raving lunatics like Alex Jones, and quietly courts…” Irrelevant. Chums? Really? He will give interviews to anyone. And if you aren’t concerned about the NDAA 2012… wow! is all I can say.

    “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate for President whose nomination would guarantee a 2nd term for Barrack Obama.” That’s factually wrong. Paul is the only candidate who *will* beat Obama. Paul has huge support among independents and many Democrats. I’m an independent and only chose GOP to vote for Paul. Any other GOP candidate will hand the election to Obama. Only support the other candidates have is establishment GOP and they’ll need independents and crossover Dems to beat Obama.

    “So please rethink your support for Rep. Paul. Please support Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Romney, or Huntsman — anybody but Ron Paul!” No.

    Paul is the *only* candidate who will cut Fed’l spending and rollback the Fed’l leviathan. The establishment candidates will continue driving the US down the road to perdition and only Ron Paul can be trusted to turn her around.

  80. daveburton says:
    January 2, 2012 at 4:45 am
    Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who chums around with raving lunatics like Alex Jones, and quietly courts the support of “9-11 Truther” conspiracy nuts.”
    _______________________
    Birds of a feather…

  81. Paul Homewood says:
    January 2, 2012 at 4:59 am

    Ya think? She’s an associate professor of political science. Here are her posted credentials from the TTU website:

    Hayhoe, Katherine, Associate Professor of Political Science, 2007. B.Sc., U. of Toronto (Canada), 1994; M.S,., Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), 1997, Ph.D., 2010.

  82. @Tom in Florida – “That may be true but RP is the most ignorant candidate when it comes to world views. He is as ignorant as Obama, just on the other side of the fence.”

    Based on what? Do you have expertise in foreign affairs? Paul sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, so I guess he knows more than you do. The former bin Laden CIA unit chief agrees with Paul on his foreign policy. Paul has forgotten more about foreign policy than the other candidates or Obama know put together.

    Paul also served in the Middle East while an Air Force flight surgeon during the Vietnam War. He knows the region. His positions are well founded and anyone would be hard pressed to argue against the historical facts of US interventionist policies that have backfired. Paul is a non-interventionist. Had Paul been President in the 1990’s, 911 would *not* have happened.

  83. When it comes down to it they are all TREES!!!! They sway in the direction they want to when it comes down to it and the idea can benefit them. I personally think Ron Paul is the best man for the job out of everyone in the race.. Seems like a nice honest guy..

  84. The ignorance and arrogance of politicians and liberal activists is unbound when it comes to values.

    Politicians and activists never tire of telling us what our moral values are and it is always tied to one or more of their goals and possibly personal investments.

    We elect politicians to represent us within the limits of the constitution not to lecture us on our values and certainly not to denigrate our religion by attempting to change the values imbedded in Christianity to support their ecological agendas.

    From yahoo answers: Ignorance can be fixed by learning but arrogance can only get worse.

  85. Dave, u r enamoured by sound bites. One of the worst ways to determine who to vote for are thru words spoken or read. That would include Paul’s words as well. Discover his voting record and careers. Base your decision on that, not sound bites.

  86. if you will forgive a Brit for commenting on this subject i can only offer this quote
    “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

    ~ H.L.Mencken”

  87. Luther Wu says:
    January 2, 2012 at 7:16 am
    “That’s an interesting scenario and given the POTUS general lackadaisical attitude, you might be on to something, but who are ‘the powers that run the show?”

    The real leaders of the Democrat Party, the ones who control who gets to spend the campaign money.

    plenarchist says:
    January 2, 2012 at 7:34 am
    “Had Paul been President in the 1990′s, 911 would *not* have happened.”

    That is precisely the ignorance I spoke of!

  88. savethesharks said:

    “Take heart! Be strong and of good courage.

    And I can not believe I am saying this butt I have to admit about the viable candidate: I AM AGREEING WITH R GATES.

    Ron Paul is the only intellectually honest presidential candidate….by a wide margin.”
    _____
    Then we agree twice, as I happen to like Ron Paul as well…certainly the best, and as you said most honest, of the Republican crop. He’s never flip-flopped on any issue as every other candidate has. Unfortunately, he’ll never get too far as the Defense Industry won’t back him (and they have huge clout in D.C.), and the hardliner conservatives see him weak on defense (which he isn’t).

  89. plenarchist says:
    January 2, 2012 at 7:20 am
    “Paul is the *only* candidate who will cut Fed’l spending and rollback the Fed’l leviathan.”

    The POTUS CANNOT do anything about spending without a compliant Congress. The next Congress, no matter what the make up, will fail once again to make real cuts in programs that matter. The general public has been so well brain washed into believing that the government is the answer to all their woes that it is going to take several election cycles of bold leaders in both the White House and Congress to even begin to tackle the national debt. And that will never happen. Too many people receiving too many government checks.

  90. By the time nomination or even election gets around to my state and county it’s a done deal. That’d be part of why I’ve voted mostly third party the last 16 years. If you clowns would, I’d be happy with 1. Santorum 2. Romney 3. Ron Paul

    Santorum replied:

    I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd.

    Santorum continued that the idea of man-made climate changer may be part of a liberal conspiracy: “To me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’”

    “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life,” he added, “and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”

    Here’s the audio:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/rick-santorum-the-idea-of-climate-change-is-a-liberal-conspiracy.php?m=1

  91. Like her amigo, Andy Dessler, Ms. Hayhoe has a background in atmospheric science. Unfortunately for the tax paying public her real passion is politics (of the moonbat variety). This is a bad combo. As we know for progressives the ends justify any means. Her political goals seem to compromise her scientic objectivity since she uses the cachet of her scientific background to promote her political agenda and uses her political inclinations to advise her ‘science’.

    Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    M.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    B.Sc. Physics and Astronomy, University of Toronto

    Associate professor in the Department of Political Science Texas Tech

  92. Do you prefer a politician who can learn, and change position as new evidence materializes, or do you want one who has to be locked into an original thought? Remember, all the early published data took the mantra of global warming. After publication of these early views some time elapsed before skeptical views were published. It appears to me that Gingrich shows he can learn. This is unusual, and with his knowledge of Washington workings, he could likely cut costs more than anyone else. You might argue the words ‘could/would’, but the only other candidate who might be a real cost cutter is Ron Paul, an isolationist. As a conservative, in my view, that might possibly be worse than our current know-nothing, Obama.

  93. @Tom in Florida – “The POTUS CANNOT do anything about spending without a compliant Congress.”

    That’s not true at all.

    * The POTUS has control over *all* military operations. By executive order, POTUS can close foreign bases, return troops, stop wars, and disband mercenaries. That alone saves $100’s billions. Paul says he will do that.

    * The POTUS has control over foreign aid. Paul would eliminate all and save many billion$.

    * The POTUS can cancel *any* prior executive orders. Paul would cancel many if not all. That would include eliminating EPA which was enacted by Nixon executive order. He’ll close Gitmo.

    * POTUS appoints governors to Fed and selects Fed chairman. Senate must confirm but not confirming a Paul appointment would go against will of the people. As POTUS, he’d be able to put considerable pressure on the Fed.

    * POTUS can close down departments. Paul will close 5 federal depts; Energy, Education, HUD, Commerce, Interior. Saves billion$ more. Congress can’t stop that.

    * Current four Supremes in 70’s. Good chance for several appointments under next POTUS. Paul would choose Constitutionalist judges.

    Congress can appropriate funds but POTUS spends the money. Paul won’t spend the money. Congress can make laws to force POTUS but Paul would likely challenge them on Constitutional grounds. Their only recourse is to impeach, but if Paul is elected POTUS he has the will of the people behind him. Very risky for Congress to take that path. And Paul might be effective with Congress. To say he won’t is speculation. At the end of the day though, I’d rather have four years of do-nothing Congress than a ‘compliant’ Congress collaborating with the POTUS to continue raping this country.

  94. @Pete – “It appears to me that Gingrich shows he can learn.” Gingrich is not a newt, he’s a chameleon. This guy made $40 million from lobbying for big-pharma and Freddie Mac. He was removed from Congress for ethics violations. He’s a brilliant political operator and will say whatever he must to get elected. Then he’ll do what he wants. We already know Gingrich wants to push for CO2 regs and cap-n-trade. He has said repeatedly that his political hero is… FDR. Newt is no conservative.

    Paul OTH is an AGW skeptic and will likely eliminate the EPA. As an AGW skeptic myself, I’d rather have Paul in my corner.

  95. @Pete – “… Ron Paul, an isolationist.” And Paul is *not* an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist following the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson, “…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” The real isolationists want to put on sanctions, erect trade barriers, and invade other countries like Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and the rest. They are aggressive isolationists. Imperialists really.

  96. plenarchist,

    The one thing Ron Paul cannot do is beat Obama. Therefore, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

  97. Justa Joe says:
    January 2, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Why would a person with a degree in physics/math be working from the poli sci department?

  98. @Smokey – “The one thing Ron Paul cannot do is beat Obama. Therefore, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.” Based on what? Paul will get far more independent and crossover Dem votes than any other GOP candidate. Romney is the only other candidate who can beat Obama and Romney *is* another Obama. A Obama-vs-Romney match up will be a vote for Obomney. But bottom line, a vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil. One thing is certain though that if Paul doesn’t get the nomination, few Paul supporters will vote for the GOP candidate and many will go back to Obama. Not me, I’ll write in Paul.

  99. Given the high level of discourse on this blog, I am astonished and dismayed by the number of Paulbots emerging on this thread. Ron Paul has many good ideas on domestic fiscal policy, but larger number of completely kooky ones, especially when it comes to foreign policy. His suggestion that we forget about Iran and leave tiny Israel to defend herself against the fanatical mullahs intent upon bringing the 12th Iman into the world by eradicating “the Zionist entity” should disqualify Paul instantly. That isn’t just rhetoric: letting Iran have the Bomb will virtually guarantee the second Holocaust.

    I am a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but agree with those who question his intellectual dilettantism; he is also too enamored of statist ‘solutions’ for my tastes. I would love to see Newt eviscerate The Puppet President in debates, but worry about his steadiness as a Commander in Chief. I am also not happy with Newt’s flirtation with AGW dogma and Crap and Tax.

    Back in 2008 I sent a letter to Mitt Romney suggesting he take the lead in challenging the academic and political orthodoxy on AGW. I never even got the courtesy of a reply from a staffer. I’m quite sure Mitt’s recent moderation of his warmist views is a politically-motivated gesture to the skeptical Republican base.

    Rick Perry is a forthright exponent of skeptical views on climate, but he has yet to convince me he can think on his feet; he makes George W. Bush look positively eloquent.

    Probably the best is Rick Santorum:

    Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum further expressed his strong convictions on global warming in a recent interview with Fox News’ Glenn Beck.

    On Thursday’s show, when asked about global warming, Santorum told Beck, “There is no such thing as global warming,” apparently much to Beck’s delight.

    Earlier in the month Santorum told Rush Limbaugh that global warming was “junk science.”

    Questioned about oil by Beck, Santorum boldly stated, “Drill everywhere,” and proceeded to declare that there is enough oil, coal and natural gas to last centuries.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/25/rick-santorum-glenn-beck-global-warming-oil_n_884646.html

    I agree entirely with Sen. Santorum, but doubt there is much chance he can get nominated.

    /Mr Lynn

  100. @Mr Lynn – “…the number of Paulbots” Don’t insult me. What kind of ‘bot’ are you?

    “Ron Paul has many good ideas on domestic fiscal policy, but larger number of completely kooky ones, especially when it comes to foreign policy.” He’s the only sane candidate wrt foreign policy. Maybe you can back up your claim of Paul being kooky? Most of the intelligence community agrees with him, Mossad, Netanyahu, CIA bin Laden unit chief… These people kooks too?

    Santorum will start WWIII if he’s given half the chance. Santorum was listed by CREW as one of three most corrupt Senators (http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/). He’s a lobbyist. He’s never held a job outside politics and lobbying. He’s an imperialist and an Israel-firster. If anyone is kooky, he’s the guy.

    @Smokey – “I’m just being realistic.” That’s not an answer. I’m being realistic and believe Paul’s got the best chance of beating Obama. Why wouldn’t he? He might not get the support of hard-core neocons but he gets *way* more independents and crossover Dems. So, the Limbaugh and Hannity crowd won’t vote for him… Given a choice between Paul and Obama, would they vote Obama?

    If GOP puts up a polarizing candidate like Santorum or Gingrich, Obama wins. If GOP puts up Romney and Romney wins… the establishment wins because the Obama and Romney are ideological twins. There’s no difference between them once you get past the rhetoric.

  101. Smokey says:
    January 2, 2012 at 11:01 am

    > The one thing Ron Paul cannot do is beat Obama. Therefore, a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

    While it’s just a press release from the the Ron Paul campaign, apparently ttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-polls-strong-v-obama-in-relation-to-pauls-competitors-2011-12-21 thought it worth posting

    Poll highlights include Paul besting Obama 47 to 46 percent among those 65 years and older, said to be the most reliable voters. Paul also beats Obama among whites 51 to 46 percent, persons who reside in rural areas 52 to 44 percent, and independents by 48 to 47 percent.

    http://www.infowars.com/new-poll-ron-paul-betters-other-gop-candidates-vs-obama/ notes “The latest poll [the one marketwatch is referring to] dovetails with a previous NBC News/Marist poll out of Iowa that found Obama beating all GOP competitors except for Ron Paul.

    The results of these polls prove that Paul is the only GOP candidate that appeals to voters across the political spectrum.”

    You say “a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama,” but it’s also an important message that voters are not happy with hole the two old parties have dug. If they don’t get their act in order, they may find themselves enjoying an early retirement.

  102. I think Anthony should endorse Ron Paul. A lot of conservatives that visit wattsup have paleo-conservative values. Even though many of these posters do not realize it, they are really relics of old America just like Ron Paul.
    And I don’t see the point of this site, b!tching and complaining about the way the establishment wants carbon taxes, shelters, protects and created (you think someone like Man created a AGW hysteria on his own?) criminals like Man, expose the lies behind AGW endlessly. Yet the climate change machine marches forward, country after country introduces carbon taxes. And when a good opportunity comes to strike at the big GW lie politically, you make no move.
    Honestly, what’s the point of this site?
    Bachman, Gengrich, Romney all are actors that play the conservative tune but when it comes to action, they’re just liberals, the diet-coke version, no different than Bush or McCain.
    Bring the Constitution back, support Ron Paul!!!

  103. Ric Werme,

    Don’t misuderstand; in the general election I’ll vote for anyone but Obama. But in the primaries [open primary in California – I’m registered ‘Decline to State’], I’ll vote for the candidate I think is most likely to beat Obama. At this point I don’t think that’s Ron Paul. But I could change my mind as the primaries progress.

  104. I wrote, “Ron Paul — the only Republican candidate who told his supporters to vote against the Republican ticket in 2008…”

    Plenarchist replied, “Citation please? This doesn’t sound like Paul at all,…”

    Here is your citation:

    WASHINGTON (CNN)– Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.
    Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin…”

    And just how bad is Cynthia McKinney, who Ron Paul preferred for President over McCain?

    Well, do you remember Hank Johnson (D-GA), who worried that too many people might cause Guam to capsize? Hank is the upgrade from McKinney. Cynthia Mckinney used to represent that district, and Hank Johnson beat her because she was too insane for even that crazy district to stomach.

    But Ron Paul encouraged his supporters to vote for her over McCain, for President.

    Here you can see Cynthia McKinney on Libyan TV, supporting Gaddafi:

    That’s who Ron Paul preferred to McCain/Palin, for President of the United States of America.

    What do you think of Ron Paul’s judgment, now? Would you want him picking federal judges, cabinet secretaries, and ambassadors? Seriously??

    Are you shocked? Don’t feel bad. You’re not alone. I’ve found that most Ron Paul supporters don’t know much about him. They just know he speaks passionately (and usually correctly) about the Constitution and the limited powers which our bloated federal government is supposed to have, and they are moved to stand up and cheer! And, to that, I say, “Amen!”

    But Ron Paul also has a dark side: of race-baiting, of pandering to white supremacist & survivalist nuts & 9-11 “truthers” like Alex Jones, and of wildly irresponsible remarks, such as his recent encouragement for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz, a critical international waterway.

    Please don’t support Ron Paul.

  105. plenarchist says:
    January 2, 2012 at 11:45 am
    @Mr Lynn – “…the number of Paulbots” Don’t insult me. What kind of ‘bot’ are you?

    I’m a ‘notbot’.

    And if you think that Benyamin Netanyahu thinks that a nuclear Iran is not an existential threat to Israel, you’re as kooky as Ron Paul.

    /Mr Lynn

  106. Why I will vote for Ron Paul and not Mitt Romney.

    Mitt was responsible for “Romney Care” in Massachusetts. This is the model for Obama Care that Gingrich thought was a great idea.

    Mitt also has hired firms that employ illegal aliens on 2 occasions to do landscaping at his home in Belmont, Ma.

    Wall street loves Bankers….and Bankers love global warming.

    Mitt was responsible for the infamously costly Big Dig (which is still plagued with problems).

    Big Dig Contractor, Jay Cashman, managed to pull a few strings and get out of a bind regarding the Big Dig and has contributed to Romney’ campaign both times. This is how crony capitalism works.

    http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2005/10/03/www_windfarmblog_com?blog=14

    Furthermore, Jay Cashman has an in at General Electric (Obama’s favorite company) as he is also developing wind projects using GE turbines.

    http://www.patriotrenewables.com/

    And has recently acquired an old air force radar site built by GE for the purpose of more wind development.

    http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/real-estateinvestor-buysold-radar-site_2011-12-28.html

    Now about that special dredging project he got…

    http://www.hudsondredging.com/2011/04/06/ge-selects-contractor-for-hudson-dredging/

    So, we are looking at another Obama by design (in the event Obama loses).

    That is why I support Ron Paul.

  107. plenarchist says:
    January 2, 2012 at 10:44 am

    The points you make concerning PR’s domestic policies I happen to agree with, especially closing down many of the federal departments. However, my point was that the Ron Paul agenda pertaining to foreign policy and how he sees the world is, once again, ignorant. This is not the world of Thomas Jefferson, who btw is one of my favorite people. The POTUS cannot simply withdraw the U.S. from the world. Hiding our heads in the sand while the rest of the world falls to evil men is not the way to keep us safe. Recalling Martin Neimoller’s famous quote “and then they came for me…”. Closing bases and eliminating foreign aid make nice talking points but are not the way to get spending under control. Besides, we need to be a presence in the world, for our own benefit.

    As to saving “billions”, that is not even close to what we need. We need to save trillions, starting with the elimination of Social Security. Next to go would be Medicare as it now operates. Anything less than that is but a drop in the bucket.

    Finally, reading your posts gives me the impression that you have an almost religious belief in Ron Paul, almost like those who have a religious belief in AGW. Tough to make them see what they do not want to see.

  108. @daveburton –

    You need to get your facts straight. Paul endorsed a multiparty system. He is indicting the two-party system as anti-democratic. He does not endorse McKinney… he endorsed democracy. Stop spreading disinformation.

    “Are you shocked? Don’t feel bad. You’re not alone.” I don’t but you should be ashamed.

    “But Ron Paul also has a dark side: of race-baiting…” Prove it. Read my prior post. He has a long record of being a defender of minorities and you know it.

    “… such as his recent encouragement for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz…” In response to US sanctions because sanctions are an act of war. Get your facts straight and stop distorting Paul’s positions.

    @Mr. Lynn

    “And if you think that Benyamin Netanyahu thinks that a nuclear Iran is not an existential threat to Israel, you’re as kooky as Ron Paul.”

    Apparently the head of Mossad must be kooky too, “But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/29/395711/mossad-israel-iran-existential-threat/

  109. john says:
    January 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    . . . Mitt was responsible for the infamously costly Big Dig (which is still plagued with problems).

    Big Dig construction began in 1991, long before Mitt Romney became Governor, and planning long before that. It was pretty much a fait accompli by the time he took office.

    I have problems with Gov. Romney, but that, and “Wall St.” and his landscapers using illegal aliens are just silly non-issues.

    As are claims that he is no different from the Socialist-in-Chief now in the White House. And I though most of the commenters here were scientists, engineers, and other folks with a grounding in reality.

    /Mr Lynn

  110. “”””” Michael Reed says:

    January 2, 2012 at 4:38 am

    George E. Smith obviously has never heard of the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, which allows for direct election of US Senators. Oprah still has a shot. “””””

    And Michael Reed has never heard of “read what I wrote; not what you think that I wrote.”

    Election of Senators is unrelated in any way to what I wrote about selection of the President of the United States, by the Electoral College; made up of appointed electors, who are appointed by each of the States of the Union; by whatever means the laws of that State provide for; and who are voted for by no ordinary registered voter.

    But if any State wants to elect Oprah Winfrey to be one of its two senators; that would be fine with me; just look at the two deadbeats that California has as senators.

  111. @Tom in Florida –

    “This is not the world of Thomas Jefferson, who btw is one of my favorite people. The POTUS cannot simply withdraw the U.S. from the world. Hiding our heads in the sand while the rest of the world falls to evil men is not the way to keep us safe.”

    I disagree. US interventionism has *made* the world a dangerous place for Americans; not the other way around. The reason the world hates Americans now is because of a century of failed interventionist empire building. And Paul believes (and I agree) that US intervention makes the US *less* safe.

    He wants a strong national defense. He does not believe that a strong defense is a good offense like the neocons. He believes in Christian Just War Theory… fight when attacked and fight to win. The neocons want war to make themselves rich… not to make the US more secure.

  112. @Mr Lynn –

    “As are claims that he is no different from the Socialist-in-Chief now in the White House.”

    They are the same. Just like Obama is the same as Bush who was the same as Clinton. They are all the same. The rhetoric is different but the policies are the same. They are all owned by the oligarchs as is Congress.

    2008 major campaign contributors:

    Obama… Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS, Morgan Stanley.
    Romney… Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS, Morgan Stanley.

    Notice anything? Do you really think that either of those clowns gives a rip about this country? Your rights? Your economic well-being? In this new year, we might get to celebrate some new holidays… bank holidays. Look it up. We get poorer… they get richer.

  113. @Mr Lynn –

    “Obama… Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS, Morgan Stanley.
    Romney… Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS, Morgan Stanley.”

    And what’s really funny is that those Wall St firms “too big to fail” are using *your* money to fund Obama and Romney campaigns today. Remember 2008 there was a big market crash… but these firms got bailed out by Congress and the Fed. The TARP money was tax dollars. The Fed money was taken from your bank account. Now that money is in Romney’s and Obama’s bank accounts…

  114. Ric Werme wrote,

    http://www.infowars.com/new-poll-ron-paul-betters-other-gop-candidates-vs-obama/ notes “The latest poll [the one marketwatch is referring to] dovetails with a previous NBC News/Marist poll out of Iowa that found Obama beating all GOP competitors except for Ron Paul. The results of these polls prove that Paul is the only GOP candidate that appeals to voters across the political spectrum.”

    1. You need to pick your sources with more care. Infowars.com is Alex Jones’ web site. Mr. Jones is a chum of Ron Paul, and a raving “9-11 Truther” lunatic. See him in action here, abusing Michelle Malkin, the petite lady with the camera. Jones says (or, usually, screams) that secret conspiracies or space aliens are in charge of everything, and that the government is intentionally poisoning you with fluoride to keep you docile. Here he tells his radio audience what he thinks of American conservatives.

    2. The polls cited do not support those claims. The NBC/Marist poll was for Iowa, only, and the CNN/ORC poll has Ron Paul doing no better than Romney against Obama.

    3. The latest Rasmussen polls have Romney beating Obama by 6 percentage points, and Paul losing to Obama by 8 percentage points.

    4. When the electorate learns the truth about Ron Paul ‘s history of race-baiting, his pandering to white supremacist & survivalist nuts & 9-11 “truthers” like Alex Jones, and his dishonesty, his support vs. Obama will surely decline.

  115. daveburton says:
    January 2, 2012 at 4:45 am
    Please support Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Romney, or Huntsman — anybody but Ron Paul!
    Sure. Vote Ron Paul get Obama!

  116. Ron Paul has addressed the misconceptions about him.
    Just do a google search. misconceptions+about+Ron+Paul

    I conversed with a lot of people who call themselves liberal or left. I like to keep up with what they’re saying. Many like Dr. Paul and talk about voting for him. Some want to vote for Romney. Not a good sign for Obama.

  117. R. Gates on Ron Paul
    Unfortunately, he’ll never get too far as the Defense Industry won’t back him
    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

    Disgusting, no?
    For more evidence, google —> iowa caucus, vote count

  118. plenarchist says:
    January 2, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    “I disagree. US interventionism has *made* the world a dangerous place for Americans; not the other way around. The reason the world hates Americans now is because of a century of failed interventionist empire building. And Paul believes (and I agree) that US intervention makes the US *less* safe.He wants a strong national defense. He does not believe that a strong defense is a good offense like the neocons. He believes in Christian Just War Theory… fight when attacked and fight to win. The neocons want war to make themselves rich… not to make the US more secure.”

    Once again this expresses the ignorance of RP and his followers. Especially the “Christian Just War Theory”.

  119. Plenarchist wrote, “US interventionism has *made* the world a dangerous place for Americans; not the other way around. The reason the world hates Americans now is because of a century of failed interventionist empire building. And Paul believes (and I agree) that US intervention makes the US *less* safe.”

    Well, that does seem to be Ron Paul’s position. That’s one of the reasons I’ll never vote for him. I do not agree with you that imperialist empire building over the last 100 years, in places like Amiens, Normandy, Guadalcanal, Inchon, etc., had just made America despised in the world, without making the world any safer.

    According to Ron Paul, we shouldn’t interfere with genocide on the other side of the globe, either, not even by sending food aid:

    I agree with Sam Brownback and Alan Keys: that’s an appalling, cold-hearted, even un-American, position.

  120. GeoLurking says:
    January 1, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    If you hire a company to do the roof on your house, are you not allowed to verify that they did the job correctly? After all, if you are paying for it with your money, you have the inherent right to ensure that you get what you are paying for.

    Any company, government entity, or employee that receives PUBLIC money should be required, under penalty of imprisonment to produce any and all work or correspondence for PUBLIC scrutiny.

    If the public picks up the tab, it is our information. We paid for it.

    Very nice sounding and simplistic rhetoric, but is not – and cannot be – an absolute. What about Grand Jury testimony? At that point, no one has been indicted for a crime. Should those deliberations be made public? We did, after all, pay for it. Should we be permitted trial by press and besmirch the reputation of the innocent because “we paid for it”?

    What about weapons research. We surely paid for that. Shouldn’t the most sensitive classified information be made public? We paid for it, that puts it in the public domain – right?

    I can think of dozens of other examples right off the top of my head where public disclosure of publically funded information is not in the public interest.

    True story: An EPA scientist and a senior administrator are sent to a town hall meeting to discuss a private individual’s finding of PCB’s in their drinking water. Based on the raw data gathered by the EPA and available for download, a local “expert” made a startling discovery – high levels of PCB’s in their water! At this town hall meeting, the EPA scientist asks what test sample the PCB reading came from. Going back over the sample sheets, the scientist points out that the positive reading came from a test slug. This is a sample with a known type and level of contamination in it used to assure that the test equipment was working properly. So there is a danger to letting “raw data” get into the hands of those not qualified to interpret it.

    I understand your meaning, that publically funded scientific research that does not compromise national security should be, and by rights ought to be, available to the constituency that paid for it. And I agree. But let’s not paint with too broad a brush, shall we?

  121. OK I give. The important thing is to beat Obama. James Carville is most concerned to have Obummer face Mitt Romney. That would be because of the money deal. Run those ads to all the dumbed down people propped in front of the boob tubes. So maybe everyone should just right now rally behind Mitt.

    Honestly, when interest on our debt costs 1 trillion a year… Defaults later, will Ron Paul be remembered? We are in big trouble! I don’t see how we’re going to avoid permanent libertarian paradise without short term libertarian ideals for an election cycle or two.

  122. GOOD NEWS (FOR AMERICANS)

    “THERE MAY NOT have been a party in Times Square to celebrate, but
    two of the most wasteful subsidies ever to clutter the Internal Revenue
    Code went out with the old year. Congress declined to renew either the
    45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for corn-based ethanol or the
    54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, so both expired Dec. 31.”

    “Taxpayers will no longer have shell out roughly $6 billion per
    year for a program that badly distorted the global grain market,
    artificially raised the cost of agricultural land and did almost nothing
    to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A federal law requiring the use of 36
    billion gallons of ethanol for fuel by 2022 still props up the
    industry, but the tax credit’s expiration is a victory for common sense
    just the same…”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/overcharged/2011/12/30/gIQAzQ0yUP_story.html

    MEANWHILE, IN BRITAIN, THE INSANITY GROWS…

    “…this leaves Britain isolated in a mad little bubble of its own, the only country in the world committed by law to the completely unrealisable goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years.

    “On this very day, January 1, the EU is imposing a tax on airline flights which, on top of the Air Passenger Duty, when George Osborne raises it yet again in April, will bring the tax for a British family of four flying to Florida to £344.

    “Next year, Mr Osborne is to impose a “carbon floor price” of £16 on every ton of CO2 emitted by British industry, when the price of “carbon” under the EU’s emissions trading scheme has collapsed to just £5.40. Not only will Osborne’s tax do serious damage to the competitiveness of British industry, it will add £3 billion a year to the cost of our electricity. This will rise within eight years to £5 billion, which alone will add 25 per cent to all our bills.

    “Meanwhile, utterly lost in his own green dreamworld, the man supposedly in charge of energy policy, Chris Huhne, babbles about chequering thousands of square miles of our countryside and our coastal waters with a further 32,000 crazily expensive and useless windmills. It is a vision so insane that one cannot imagine why men in white coats have not already hauled him off – rather more expeditiously than the Essex police who, we are told, wish to see him prosecuted for perverting the course of justice over an alleged traffic offence.

    “Even if Huhne’s pipedream could be achieved (it is technically out of the question), he still has not grasped that it would be necessary to pay billions of pounds more to build dozens of grown-up gas-fired power stations, as essential back-up for those still days that render the energy contributions of windmills all too frequently derisory. Something that we can predict with certainty is not going to happen in 2012 is any trace of sanity on these matters entering this absurdly dangerous man’s charmless head.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8986379/Europe-cannot-save-the-euro-nor-save-itself-from-the-euro.html

  123. Don’t be too hard on the Newtster. A lot of people, especially those like Newt who grew up when NASA was doing heroic things like landing men on the moon, had a very hard time coming to grips with NASA and other scientists compromising their integrity to further political and financial agendas. Many still refuse to believe it.

    Ron Paul on the other hand would perhaps be a better fit for chief executive of Switzerland. For better or worse the US is the only remaining superpower and has a moral, ethical, and self-interest responsibilities in keeping the world mostly safe for capitalism, free trade, and democracy. Paul’s ideas might help the U.S. in the short term but would be disastrous in the long term for both the U.S. and the world. Isolationism leads to people like Stalin and Hitler acquiring a vast amount of power which leads to make-or-break world wars like WWI and WWII which take an all-out effort to win and must be won at any cost. Koreas and Vietnams and Iraqs and Afghanistans should be dealt with while still regionally confined and managable not after vast swaths of nations have been subsumed by some bloody dictator with dreams of global occupation.

  124. Newt’s embrace of the Global Warming agenda was nothing short of scurrilous opportunism.

    Exactly. No doubt, back when he first got this rolling, he felt this would help make him more “mainstream” and distance himself from the typical republicans… make him more electable to independants. Ie. The “MAVERICK” approach that McCain employs.

    A little wishy washyness over a minor issue is one thing, but this is a BIG issue with HUGE ramifications. I’m not comfortable giving a vote to someone willing to sell out the country for personal power.

  125. Present Political Positions of Mitt Romney: “He would consider cap-and-trade only if part of a larger global plan. He has not offered specific targets on energy efficiency. He does not support mileage goals as a stand-alone measure, but has indicated he would consider them only if they were part of a comprehensive energy plan.
    Romney has supported a $20 billion package for energy research & new car technology. He opposes a unilateral US global warming policy and believes that worldwide solutions are optimal.”

    Past postions include founding and funding the Regional Greenhouse Gas Innitiative, although at the last moment he withdrew. He does support creating a Carbon Tax, offset by a cut in payroll tax. In Massachusetts as governor he instituted carbon emissions standards for vehicles which were 30% stricter than national standards. He presided over the closing of a coal plant stating that it kills people.
    He is the author of RomneyCare, blue print policy for Obamacare.

  126. A Blast from the Past
    Election 1940
    Republican Candidate for President
    Wendell Willkie
    After eight long years of depression,
    Styling himself as “The ‘Good’ Liberal”

  127. “Doug Proctor”
    I object to your claim about Saddam Hussein not having WMDs.
    – he regularly claimed he did, the error was in believing he had much (there were post-ouster indications he was bluffing because his proven program to have nuclear weapons did not get far due to technical problems and/or he shifted priorities).
    – chemical weapons were discovered after his ouster, they may have been from the war with Iran
    – do you know what happened to the contents of the factories/warehouses found empty after his ouster? (The US military failed to secure the country effectively – such as the museums and such that were pilfered.)

  128. Maybe Texas Tech was closed for winter break during late December and early January and that is why you got no response. Its not appropriate for you to claim that have missed some deadline that you possibly made up. They have ten business days to send to you some response and an appropriate amount of time to send to you ay documents they find. Appropriate amount of time could be one day or 50 days or more depending on difficulty of your request.

    If they are closed for winter break, they might not have used any business days yet and could be falesly accused by this author of not meeting a deadline.

Comments are closed.