GUESS TONIGHT’S ELECTION OUTCOME

137 comments

Posted on 6th November 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

Time for another TBP contest. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs tonight. You need 270 to become President.

Please provide your guess for the final electoral count tonight.

As a tiebreaker, please provide your guess on the overall popular vote.

The winner of this contest will get an all expenses paid trip to Staten Island and be put up at a 2 star hotel without electricity or heat. As an added bonus, you will receive a FEMA tee shirt made in China that says:

I SURVIVED SUPERSTORM SANDY AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS STUPID TEE SHIRT

Don’t forget – vote early and vote often.

In early results from Towamencin PA, Gary Johnson has racked up 1 vote.

GARY JOHNSON IS RIGHT

21 comments

Posted on 15th September 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

,

I agree with Karl Denninger on many things, but he and Ann Barnhardt sound like raving lunatics when it comes to foreign policy. Denninger is Mr. Budget Hawk and then argues for America to obliterate the Middle East. His rant against Gary Johnson is nonsensical and crazy. I’ll post it in the comments. Johnson and Ron Paul logically argue the libertarian viewpoint. Denninger is no libertarian.

Libya, Afghanistan and the Middle East — Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong

2012 Presidential candidate and former Governor of New Mexico

Foreign policy is supposed to make us safer, not get Americans killed and bankrupt us. Yet, even as we mourn the loss of four Americans in Libya and watch the Middle East ignite with anti-American fervor, our leaders don’t get it.

In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that — after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo — we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone’s feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot — and shoot them.

I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don’t turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it’s actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don’t need to be — and out of harm’s way — and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes.

Let’s review American foreign policy during the Bush-Obama years. Just imagine for a minute that, in 2002, President Bush granted Iran’s Ayatollah one wish above all others. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Supreme Leader would have said, “Can you please kill Saddam Hussein and make sure our mortal enemy Iraq can no longer threaten us. Then, we can get about our goals of destroying Israel, building a nuke and becoming a legitimate thorn in the side of the Western infidels.”

Well…

And then there are Afghanistan and Pakistan. After 9/11, going after Bin Laden and al Qaeda was exactly the right thing to do. We were attacked and we attacked back. We must defend ourselves, and we absolutely must have a strong defense. But within a few months, our troops had scattered al Qaeda like ants from a kicked anthill, and Bin Laden had set up housekeeping in Pakistan. Al Qaeda left, but we stayed — and kept fighting a war that was, in terms of our immediate interests, over. And we’re still fighting it today, ignoring the lessons learned at great cost by the Soviet Union and the British Empire.

While we’re fighting a war we don’t need to fight in Afghanistan, we’re pumping billions of dollars into the coffers of our new best friend Pakistan — making them the second largest recipient of our borrowed and printed dollars on the globe. When we finally found and killed Bin Laden, was anyone surprised that we found him — you got it — in Pakistan? And our new best U.S.-financed friends are treating the good Pakistanis who helped us find him like criminals.

Fast forward to Libya. Make no mistake, Muammar Gaddafi was a despicable human being and no reasonable person mourns his demise. But toppling dictators we don’t like has not worked out very well for us. We launched hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of missiles to kill the guy, and what do we get? A Libya that cannot even keep its benefactors safe — and may not even be trying very hard. Somebody needs to ask, and I will be that somebody: As despicable as he was, would our ambassador and three other dedicated public servants have been killed in a Gaddafi-controlled Libya? Are we safer today after launching all those missiles and killing Gaddafi? Clearly not.
In Egypt and the other blossoms of the Arab Spring, is America any safer or our interests any better served as the result of the billions of dollars we are giving away? Again, clearly not.

Oh, and there is one other matter. We’re broke.  We are borrowing or printing 43 cents of every one of the more than $4 billion a year we are sending to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. And all those missiles we launched, and the war in Afghanistan are likewise being put on the national credit card. Why are we building roads, bridges, hospitals and schools half a world away on borrowed money? Don’t we have those same needs here at home?

It’s time to tell and face the truth: The Bush-Obama-and-now-Romney interventionist approach to foreign policy is getting Americans killed and contributing to the bankruptcy of our nation without clear sight of our national interests. By what measure is that good policy?

The Best Presidential Candidate No One’s Heard Of

6 comments

Posted on 20th October 2011 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

www.caseyresearch.com/editorial.php?page=articles/best-presidential-candidate-no-one-s-heard&ppref=TGO420ED1011A

Gary Johnson is running for the Republican nomination for president. If you didn’t know that, you’re not alone. Precious few people do. He is the longest of long shots, with little money, a bare-bones grassroots organization and parsimonious media coverage, to say the least. He has had to fight through the indignity of being uninvited to most of the candidates’ debates. When polls are taken about voters’ choices, his name is often simply omitted from the list, lending him little chance to develop support momentum. 

That he’s being ignored is not surprising, given his shoestring budget in a campaign where others are already spending countless millions. And it doesn’t help that the mainstream Republican establishment can’t stand him. It might seem like he’d be embraced as a very popular, two-term GOP governor of New Mexico, a state with a 2-1 Democratic voter registration. (He’s the only governor running who maintains a better than 50% approval rating in his home state.) Obviously, he attracts the Independents and crossover Democrats that Republicans covet. He would probably beat Obama handily.