Here is a list of canards that Ron Paul seems to continually repeat...

1) Ron Paul claims we have spent "trillions" on the war

Through the end of 2012, we will have spent around $1.4 trillion (not trillions), which amounts to about $120 billion per year average. 

By comparison Total Outlays projected for 2012 per the Whitehouse is ~$3.7 Trillion with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid accounting for ~$1.5 Trillion of that number (see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview).

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
March 29, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf 

2) Ron Paul and/or his followers claim the War or Wars are "Unconstitutional" since the Congress has never made a formal declaration of war. 

Yet Congress did approve the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Bill Summary & Status
107th Congress (2001 - 2002)
H.J.RES.114

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107%3AH.J.Res114:

Iraq Resolution was challenged in court in 2003 in Doe v. Bush and failed.

Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf 

Excerpt of opinion:

The Constitution reserves the war powers to the legislative and executive branches. This court has declined the invitation to become involved in such matters once before. Over thirty years ago, the First Circuit addressed a war powers case challenging the constitutionality of the Vietnam War on the basis that Congress had not declared war. Massachusetts v. Laird, 451-10-F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1971). The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war over the course of six years, id. at 34, provided enough indication of congressional approval to put the question beyond the reach of judicial review:

"The war in Vietnam is a product of the jointly supportive actions of the two branches to whom the congeries of the war powers have been committed. Because the branches are not in opposition, there is no necessity of determining boundaries. Should either branch be opposed to the continuance of hostilities, however, and present the issue in clear terms, a court might well take a different view. This question we do not face."

Afghanistan
Public Law 107–40
107th Congress

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

 3) Ron Paul claims that Israel's "blockade" of Gaza is an Act of War 

Video: Ron Paul denounces Israel’s flotilla raid, of course
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/03/video-ron-paul-denounces-israels-flotilla-raid-of-course/

Yet, if he read the Oslo Accords, he would understand that Israeli control of the Gaza coastline was part of the agreement.

Hamas’s useful Americans
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=229401 

Excerpt:
"Pursuant to the Oslo Accords negotiated and signed between Israel and the PLO, the Palestinians agreed that the Gaza coastline would be placed under Israeli control and that no foreign ships would be allowed closer than 12 nautical miles from the shore. Israel demanded this out of concern over widespread import of conventional and unconventional weapons into Gaza. Had it not been for this provision, there would be no Palestinian Authority today, and Israel would not have withdrawn from Gaza.

Because of this agreement, the Gaza maritime blockade is consistent with international law, and violating it constitutes a hostile action against the State of Israel. As such, Israel is permitted to utilize all necessary force to repel any seafaring intruders.

The UN’s soon-to-be-released Palmer Report, which investigated last year’s flotilla, will confirm that this is true."

4) Ron Paul claims that a "million" Iraqis have been killed because of the Iraq War.

Here is a recent interview of Ron Paul by Megyn Kelly on Fox News.

Megyn Kelly Interviews Ron Paul - FoxNews.com
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1113357701001/is-press-snubbing-ron-paul/ 

Ron Paul is likely referencing an erroneous Lancet "Study", which claimed there was between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqis killed in the Iraq War. The Study was funded in part by George Soros and was found to be statistically biased.

Here is the full analysis:

Data Bomb
By Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon, National Journal
Friday, Jan. 4, 2008
http://www3.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2008/0104nj1.htm 

Here is a more accurate source and the website is also anti-Iraq War so the organization that runs the site is not attempting to down play the number of Iraqi deaths.

Their estimate is no greater than 112,000. 

Iraq Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ 

5) Ron Paul claims that Israel can deter Iran by threat of nuclear retaliation, i.e., MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. 

Iran is run by Islamists who seek the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. They believe that the Mahdi will return when war, chaos and lawlessness engulfs the earth.

They are not afraid of dying for Islam. These are not people that are afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction or the death of their own people. They seek it.

It's the equivalent of threatening to kill a suicide bomber. MAD is definitely not a deterrent.

Here is a video produced by the Iranian Government:
The Coming is Upon Us - Translation: Reza Kahlili
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwiadYT-N9k 

Iranian Rulers, Believing Pre-Messianic Destruction Is Imminent, Make Film To Prepare Muslims
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-rulers-believing-pre-messianic-destruction-is-imminent-make-film-to-prepare-muslims/

Iran Film: Iran Plans to Conquer Israel, World

http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Ahmadinejad-Jerusalem-Iran-Hezbollah/2011/03/28/id/390925 

Ahmadinejad Claims Egyptian Riots Work of 12th Imam (Muslim Messiah)

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/16/ahmadinejad-claims-egyptian-riots-work-of-12th-imam-muslim-messiah/

6) Ron Paul, also claims that Islam/Sharia is not a threat. Islam/Islamists are already trying to undermine our country and are having some success. Europe already has major problems with Islam. 

(Too much evidence contradicting that claim to include all here)

Ron Paul: "Islam is not a threat"
The Alex Jones Show Wed 08.18.2010 part-5
http://youtu.be/fvoOOK6StuY?t=11m44s

Ron Paul: Without Hate For Islam Our Aggressive Foreign Policy Couldn't Continue
http://youtu.be/p8L2mH-kAlw

Ron Paul Slams NYC Mosque Demagogues
http://youtu.be/gLYCxeM78Ao

Islam: Do they Hate our Freedoms?
http://youtu.be/jcbPMdBTjwI

Ron Paul to Sean Hannity: “Stop with your Shari’a”
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/ron-paul-to-sean-hannity-stop-with-your-sharia/

Ron Paul Would Open America’s Doors to Sharia
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/

...............

Muslim Brotherhood's "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America" 05/22/1991
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf

Undated Muslim Brotherhood Paper entitled, "Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan"
http://shariahthethreat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Underground-Movement-Plan.pdf

Shariah Law and American State Courts
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

See report here:
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT
http://www.nefafoundation.org/newsite/file/FeaturedDocs/US_v_HLF_OppositionNAIT.pdf 

May Christians Preach Outside a Philadelphia Mosque?
http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2011/05/may_christians_preach_outside.html

Dearborn, Michigan: Muslims physically attack Christian groups
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/dearborn-michigan-muslims-physically-attack-christian-groups.html

81% of US Mosques Promote Jihad
http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/06/05/81-of-us-mosques-promote-jihad/

Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques
by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2011, pp. 59-72 (view PDF)
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause
http://youtu.be/ErzxOz3Dzv8 

7) Ron Paul claims Islam is attacking us because of US foreign intervention and he believes in a "Jeffersonian" foreign policy of non-intervention and avoiding "foreign entanglements".

Ron Paul claims that 9/11 was because of our "intervention" in the Middle East, i.e., "Blowback". He says Islam is attacking us because we are "bombing them" and that Iraq is an illegal war. Of course it doesn't matter that Congress passed a bill authorizing military intervention in Iraq, which was challenged in Federal Court and the Judge declined to intervene (see above).

He says he espouses Jeffersonian Foreign Policy as his excuse for his isolationist views. Of course history is always somewhat inconvenient in that Thomas Jefferson sent Navy ships and Marines to fight the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim Pirates from the Muslim Barbary states of the Ottoman Empire (Islamic Caliphate). They were attacking our unarmed merchant ships and enslaving our sailors, even though we were paying tribute to the Barbary States to not attack us.

Before Thomas Jefferson became President he and John Adams where sent to London to meet with the Ambassador from Tripoli.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Excerpt:
"In1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.' " 

Also see: Barbary Wars
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

Excerpt: 

"In May, 1801, the United States refused to succumb to the increasing demands of the Pacha of Tripoli; in return, the Pacha declared war against the States. While Tripoli was not a strong power and little effort was necessary to watch and blockade it, the fear was that the other Barbary powers would join against the United States. The United States sent naval squadrons into the Mediterranean under the slogan of 'Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!' Under the leadership of Commodores Richard Dale and Edward Preble, the Navy blockaded the enemy coast, bombarded his shore fortresses, and engaged in close, bitterly contested gunboat actions." 

This "tribute" the US Government was paying the Barbary states was as high as 20% of the US Federal Government budget. The Muslim Barbary States likely considered it a "Jiyza" Tax. A Jizya tax is a tax that Muslims charge subjugated Kuffar (non-believers, i.e., Christians and Jews), meant to be so onerous as to impoverish the Kuffar.

Then when Thomas Jefferson became President he sent Naval ships to deal with the Muslim Pirates and Congress authorized it but did NOT issue a formal declaration of war (sound familiar).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Excerpt:
"In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed 'An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers', authorizing the President to '…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.' 'The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port.'" 

Someone should ask Ron Paul what was the United States doing to the Islamic Barbary States in 1786? Were we bombing them with hot air balloons or maybe.... carrier pigeons? Were we stealing their oil (at monopolistic prices)??

Why would they be attacking our unarmed merchant ships and enslaving the sailors??

Islamic Crusades 5: Why did they hate us in 1783?
http://youtu.be/vUuH2G7dPFk 
America's first "war on terror" Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
http://youtu.be/BqwZcsvgl9c

The First War on Terror: The United Sates and the Barbary Coast

http://youtu.be/sB5BNDyGq1c 

8) Ron Paul claims we do not have trade relations with Cuba

A History Lesson for Ron Paul
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/12/a-history-lesson-for-ron-paul/ 

Excerpt:
"Ron Paul, in an exasperated tone during the Iowa debates, said: “All these trade sanctions!…This is why we still don’t have a trade relationship with Cuba.”

Ground Control to candidate Paul: according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. has transacted almost $4 billion in trade with Cuba over the past decade. Up until two years ago the U.S. served as Stalinist Cuba’s biggest food supplier and fifth biggest import partner. We’ve fallen a few notched recently, but we’re still in the top half. Furthermore, the U.S. has been Castro-controlled Cuba’s biggest donor of humanitarian aid, including medicine and medical supplies for decades.

Ground Control to candidate Paul: For over a decade, the so-called U.S. embargo has merely stipulated that Castro’s Stalinist regime pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. (You’d really, really think a libertarian would approve of this?) Enacted by the Bush team in 2001, this cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few in the world not screwed and tattooed by Fidel Castro."

 Compiled by Kurt Vangsness

Beirut Arizona: Know the REAL facts behind Operation Fast & Furious

Did you know: Muslims discovered America?

Well, your kid probably does!

Harvard is one of eighteen universities that receive government funding under Title 6 of the Higher Education Act. To qualify for that funding, the universities are required to conduct outreach to K-12 teachers, helping them shape lessons from schoolchildren. The teachers think they’re getting expert insight from university scholars about Islam and the Middle East. They may be getting much more.

The Saudi government has donated millions to Middle East centers at universities that receive Title 6 funding. For example, the Harvard Center received a $20 million dollar donation from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal in 2005. The Prince also gave Georgetown $20 million that same year. . . .

Among the textbooks the Harvard Center recommends for school children is the Arab World Studies Notebook. The book is published by Arab World and Islamic Resources, a Saudi-funded group in New Mexico. The notebook has come under fire for negatively portraying America and Israel while white-washing Islam. It’s been banned by some school districts. . . One of the notebook’s most controversial claims is that Muslims made it to the New World before Columbus. It states that some native-American chiefs even had Muslim names.

Do you think the changes mentioned at the end of this video will make everything ok again (just like it used to be when kids were taught that Columbus discovered America?)

Fast & Furious: The White House knew...

New Fast and Furious details indicate gov’t cover-up, White House involvement

UPDATE 3:04 p.m.: Though the White House has claimed these newly discovered emails didn’t contain any details on the “investigative tactics” officials used in Operation Fast and Furious, one comment has surfaced suggesting otherwise. Politico reports that, in an August 18, 2010, email to O’Reilly, Newell described the details of what was going on.

POLITICO:

Another lawmaker who has pressed for more answers about Fast and Furious, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), suggested Friday that people in the White House beyond O’Reilly, Restrepo and Gatjanis must have been aware of the operation — possibly including President Barack Obama.

Can a law declared unconstitutional in 1895 be constitutional in 1913 and beyond?

Was the Income Tax Amendment Ever Ratified? U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD STRUCK DOWN A DIRECT TAX IN 1895

The Tea Party trouble with Romney

A few of highlights from Romney’s record showing just how unfriendly he has been over the years to the ideas the tea party holds dear (links and details further below):

• Romney distanced himself from Reagan and Reagan’s policies
• Romney didn’t like the Contract with America
• Romney led the fight for and implemented health care reform almost identical to ObamaCare 
• Romney called his beta version of ObamaCare “a model for the nation” 
• Romney defended the individual mandate, saying, “I like mandates. The mandates work.” 
• Romney supports cap-and-trade “on a global basis”
• Romney worked to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” in Massachusetts
• Romney got Massachusetts involved in a regional climate change pact 
• Romney supports ethanol subsidies 
• Romney wants to increase spending “substantially” on energy research  
• Romney opposes the Flat Tax
• Romney refused to support the 2003 Bush tax cuts
• Romney’s claim to not have raised taxes is called “mostly myth” by Cato Institute
• Romney thought Obama’s stimulus would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery”
• Romney supports TARP
• Romney says there’s nothing wrong with companies asking for bailouts
• Romney supports No Child Left Behind
• Romney supports reappointing Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve

 The Issue with Romney is the Issues

President Obama fights for Islam at the expense of free speech

National Review Online: The Administration Takes on ‘Islamophobia’

Sorry, but when you fight to undermine our constitution, that's treasonous behavior--especially for someone that took an oath to defend this country (and by country, no one simply means a piece of dirt).

Rick Perry got this one right

Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme! In fact, Social Security is a bit worse than that.

CERN: global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans!

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled

JSOC: TOP SECRET

By Dana Priest and William M. Arkin, Published: September 2

The CIA’s armed drones and paramilitary forces have killed dozens of al-Qaeda leaders and thousands of its foot soldiers. But there is another mysterious organization that has killed even more of America’s enemies in the decade since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. CIA operatives have imprisoned and interrogated nearly 100 suspected terrorists in their former secret prisons around the world, but troops from this other secret organization have imprisoned and interrogated 10 times as many, holding them in jails that it alone controls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘Top Secret America’: A look at the military’s Joint Special Operations Command

Hugh Hewitt Show, Saturday, September 03, 2011:
General Jerry Boykin on Kiloton Threat, and disgraceful action at the Washington Post, releasing Special Operations secrets

HH: Now while that story unfolds, attention is going to be on a new book, and a new series in the Washington Post, Top Secret America: The Rise Of The New American Security State, by Dana Priest and a name I’m sure is familiar to you, William Arkin.

JB: Yeah.

HH: And it reveals operational secrets, General. What do you think of this? And what do you think of Arkin?

JB: Well, you know, I’ve had a lot of experience with Arkin. Arkin came after me, and Dana Priest has a record very similar to Arkin’s of exposing things that are very sensitive. Arkin, remember, he wrote the book Code Words. It exposed the code words of many, many very sensitive programs in our government, not just the Department of Defense. Arkin is not just anti-American, I mean anti-military, but he is very much anti-American. I think the guy is, frankly, I think he’s a hard-core Marxist. And if it was 1960, I think he’d be a leader in the Weather Underground. And Dana Priest has done similar kinds of things in exposing very sensitive programs. I can’t tell you what their agenda is other than they are very anti-American.

HH: Now I referred to Arkin earlier today as scum, because his record of attacking the military as mercenaries, and other attacks, not just on you, but I mean generally, he’s so anti-military and so anti-American, the Institute For Policy Studies, Greenpeace, he’s got this long lefty pedigree. What is the Washington Post doing, General, publishing this stuff. It’s not…there will be nutters and left wing extremists like Arkin out there. But why is the Washington Post aiding and abetting them?

JB: Well, I certainly can’t answer for the leadership of the Washington Post, but the Washington Post has a history of doing this, particularly with Dana Priest, who has been working with the Washington Post for a very long time. And I must tell you, I think this is an example of how the 1^st Amendment was never intended to have an open press without some check and balance, without some accountability for what they do. And this is another example of how that can be very damaging to the nation.

HH: When a newspaper publishes the nicknames and the code names for some of the Special Operators, like Task Force Green, secret army in Northern Virginia, Task Force 11, Task Force 121, when they talk very specifically about where the new headquarters is, what the new operational command is, does that help the enemy?

JB: Of course it helps the enemy, and it also discourages the brave, young Americans that are playing by the rules, and taking some very high risks, and making a lot of sacrifices. It’s very discouraging to them, but it also encourages the enemy very much, because they see themselves being on the winning side, and they’re using our civil liberties against us. And it concerns me a great deal.

HH: Should we have released as much information as we did about the bin Laden mission?

JB: No, and it’s interesting. I was just talking to someone two days ago about that, and I will tell you that that was all a political ploy. You’re going to see a movie about it come out the 1^st of October. The producers and so forth have been integrated into a number of things now with the administration. And I must tell you, this whole thing is political. It is trying to build the credibility of this president as the commander-in-chief, and as a substantial leader. And I think that it is disgraceful, because you never heard who got Saddam Hussein. You heard the 4^th Infantry Division. Well, I happen to know that embedded in there, the people that really got him, was a Special Operations element. But nobody talked about who that was. There was no fanfare on that. But that wasn’t used for political purposes.

HH: I will be right back. One more segment with General, retired General William G. Jerry Boykin.

The Fog of Mediscare

By Tevi Troy at COMMENTARY MAGAZINE

If you wonder what the central issue of the 2012 election will be, Nancy Pelosi has a three-word proposal: “Medicare, Medicare, Medicare.” In a front-page profile in the Washington Post, the former Speaker of the House stated that the health-insurance program for the elderly will occupy all three slots in her list of the top three priorities. For those who care about the health of America’s seniors and the fiscal health of the nation, this is not good news.

Recent statements and actions by Pelosi and other Democrats reveal that the Democratic Party believes that making political use of Medicare is more important than ensuring the viability of the program itself. Recent history shows that the hunger to be simultaneously on offense and defense—fighting aggressively against efforts at reforming Medicare in order to save it—may well succeed in undermining any prospects for meaningful reform and further poison the relations between the two parties.

The eagerness to exploit the politics of Medicare is already influencing the Democratic party’s approach to policy. The Washington Post recently reported that Senator Patty Murray, chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) -and newly appointed Democratic co-chair of the deficit reduction super committee, is working behind the scenes to stop any Democratic compromise or effort to reform Medicare. A source close to Murray described her political rationale: “We shouldn’t be giving away our advantage on Medicare….We should be very careful about giving away the biggest advantage we’ve had as Democrats in some time.”

For Murray and other Democrats, the Medicare “advantage” means rekindling the politics of the 1990s, when Democrats in Congress teamed up with a Democratic president to turn a Republican attempt to reform Medicare from an honest debate into a decisive victory against conservatives in 1995. This “advantage,” as Murray sees it, means ignoring the Medicare trustees who have warned that the long-term liability of Medicare is in the neighborhood of $30 trillion. It also means ignoring the lessons of Greece, Portugal, and Italy, whose unsustainable entitlement programs are sending shockwaves throughout the international monetary system.

Democrats have good reason to see Medicare-based attacks as a path to electoral success. Looking at the history of such attacks over the last 30 years reveals a landscape littered with the bodies of those who got on the wrong side of what the late columnist William Safire dubbed “Mediscare.” He defined it, back in 1995, as a “shamelessly demagogic campaign to frighten older Americans into thinking that deficit reduction might soon leave them destitute in the snow, and to bamboozle them with pie in the medical sky.” This sorry conduct also explains why and how Medicare ended up as a program in crisis that could sink the nation’s economy.

Safire coined the term to describe Bill Clinton’s attacks on Newt Gingrich’s Congress, but the use of the tactic goes back further, to Jimmy Carter and the 1980 election. Carter charged that, in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan opposed the creation of Medicare and that as president he would therefore be a poor steward of the program. This line of attack was responsible for one of the great unforced errors in American political history. As Jim Lehrer describes in his new book about presidential debates,* the sole 1980 presidential debate came to a head on “a proposal concerning Medicare and Carter’s repeated charge that Reagan had opposed even its original creation on the grounds that it was socialized medicine.” On the subject, Carter said, “Governor Reagan again, typically, is against such a proposal.” Reagan’s response began with four words that devastated Carter’s chances of reelection: “There you go again.”

Carter, in an interview with Lehrer years later, was bitter about the way things played out. “That was a memorable line,” the former president said. “I think that it showed he was relaxed and had a sense of humor, and it was kind of a denigrating thing for me. And I think that he benefited from saying that, politically speaking.” Carter’s sorrowful tone applies to the fact that the interaction benefited Reagan “politically speaking,” and not to any regrets that Carter had attempted to make dishonest use of Medicare.

The brilliant viciousness of Mediscare is that it implicitly accuses your opponents of moral turpitude, selfishness, and hatred of the elderly. Reagan’s response, which combined exasperation with mannerly disagreement, dismantled the accusation because he did not have the mien of a man intending to harm old people—after all, he was 69 when he spoke those words, which meant Reagan was one of them. He followed his riposte with a simple statement that he had at the time favored alternative legislation that would have been more fiscally responsible. And, indeed, it would have been.

In 1980, Medicare was only in its adolescence, having been signed into law in 1965, and the extent of the fiscal challenges it would create were not yet apparent. For this reason, attacks against Republicans on the Medicare issue were relatively mild throughout the 1980s (although the left achieved some of the same effect by highlighting homelessness). By the 1990s, however, things had changed, as the program that was originally projected to cost only $12 billion in 1990 had already surpassed $100 billion in spending annually. As Avik Roy explained in National Affairs, “Medicare expenditures grew at roughly 2.4 times the rate of inflation” in the period from 1975 to 1990—a period that was not unfamiliar with inflation.

By the time the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate in 1994, Medicare had become a significant part of the federal spending—today, Medicare and Medicaid constitute a staggering 23 percent of the federal budget. No effort to control budget deficits could then or can now be taken seriously without taking Medicare into serious consideration. In the aftermath of their electoral triumph, the Gingrich Republicans saw an issue that had to be addressed, and they sought to put controls on the growth of Medicare spending. And in this, Democrats saw an opportunity to regain lost political ground.

According to Gingrich, who endured the brunt of the attack in the 1995–1996 Mediscare wave, the Democrats “attacked Republicans in thousands of ads” on the issue. The nature of the attacks will sound familiar to those following the current debate. Bill Clinton claimed, in an oft-repeated phrase, that Republicans wanted to let Medicare “wither on the vine.” This was a mischaracterization of Gingrich’s comment that his vision of seniors choosing private health coverage would cause the unpopular and intrusive Medicare bureaucracy to “wither on the vine.”

Clinton’s comments were not the only distortion. Far from it. Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry foreshadowed the rhetorical excesses of the one-term Florida Representative Alan Grayson in 2009 when he argued on October 26, 1995, that “the reason they’re trying to slow the rate of increase in the program, I suppose, is because eventually they’d like to see the program just die and go away. You know, that’s probably what they’d like to see happen to seniors, too, if you think about it.”

Even the pre–Fox News White House press corps thought this was a bit much. The official transcript from the briefing at the Clinton Library records the press reaction to this statement as “Q: Ooooooooh!” McCurry, chastened somewhat by the “Ooooooooh!,” backtracked only slightly, saying, “What they want to do is move this very important program that is a life line for many elderly, which provides them necessary resources to get medical attention. And they want to shift things over to private-sector arrangement in the belief that people will fend for themselves better than if they have [a] helping hand from government.”

The standard narrative about the episode is that the Mediscare campaign, along with the showdown over the government shutdown, stopped the momentum of the Republican Revolution and helped get Clinton reelected in 1996. This in turn diminished the threat of Gingrich and his ideas, and after Gingrich was deposed as speaker after the 1998 election, the Republican Congress became more wary of taking on Medicare and other third-rail political issues. Gingrich tells the tale slightly differently. Writing in Human Events, the former speaker argued, “In 1996, the House Republicans were vindicated when we became the first reelected House Republican majority since 1928. All those lies about Medicare led to public disgust with the Democrats, and they did not regain power until the Republicans had held the House for twelve years.”

Perhaps Gingrich is right in his analysis, but certainly Republicans acted in the elections that followed 1996 as though they would do almost anything to avoid another Mediscare assault. So it is no surprise that Mediscare is once again the approach Democrats plan to pursue for 2012, and that the Republican Party is worried. One GOP lobbyist and former Bush White House official recently told a group of GOP Capitol Hill staffers that it was “fun being on offense, but now you’re on defense.” Many Republicans share the feeling. While the 2009 and 2010 battles over Obama’s health-care law provide evidence that Republicans can push back and win on the health-care issue, conventional wisdom and most current GOP thinking both argue that the GOP cannot win on the narrower issue of Medicare.

The reaction to Representative Paul Ryan’s honest proposal to reform Medicare has served only to solidify that fear. In April, Ryan proposed a “premium support” plan to restructure Medicare to make it fiscally sustainable. He has long been regarded as the most thoughtful and articulate Republican on budget issues, and the plan he created is far from a radical one. As Politico observed, Ryan’s plan was a “proposal he developed with former Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin,” who served in that position in the Clinton administration and remains a Democratic grand dame on budgetary issues. Rivlin’s participation in the plan’s genesis should signal that the plan (which she has not endorsed) is not nearly as frightening as either Democrats or the media are making it out to be.

The basic outline of the Ryan plan is as follows. Future, not current, retirees will get a list of guaranteed coverage options for Medicare provided by private-sector insurance companies. They will also get some level of federal support for the premiums they must pay into the plan they choose. The support would be means-tested, so wealthier individuals would receive less support than would lower-income individuals. Medicare would also provide additional assistance to both lower-income recipients and beneficiaries with greater health risks.

This innovation—linking support to both economic and health needs—would correct a serious flaw in the current structure of Medicare. Right now, seniors currently are promised, and receive, Medicare hospital benefits regardless of income level. This means that Medicare’s Part A does not distinguish between Warren Buffett and an impoverished widow. As a result, Medicare currently spends billions of dollars on seniors who do not need governmental assistance to pay for their medical bills. This is done largely to maintain the illusion that Medicare is an insurance policy on which people are collecting and not an income transfer from younger taxpayers to the elderly. Shattering this illusion is one of the most politically explosive aspects of the Ryan plan.

There are other advantages to the Ryan plan as well. Providing a fixed level of premium support to each senior would make federal health-care spending a predictable expenditure—thus ending the unknowable spiral of cost increases Medicare now presents. In addition, it will follow in the footsteps of the 2003 Medicare Part D prescription drug program by encouraging competition, which has held costs for Part D under projected levels and has proved extremely popular with its participants. Third, the plan will get the government out of the business of picking and choosing medical services, or of rationing care. Under the plan, the government would pay for premiums, but the coverage decisions would be made by plans chosen by seniors, and seniors could choose to switch plans if those decisions were not to their liking.

The Mediscare playbook was so obvious that the critics on the right were writing the Post and Times stories before the Democratic machinery even got started. While reviewing the Ryan plan for National Review Online, the Manhattan Institute’s Paul Howard predicted that it would be greeted with “howls of outrage on Capitol Hill.” He was right—and those howls have echoed throughout the media.

Even the Democratic Party’s more august members succumbed to the temptation to exploit the politics of Medicare. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, a former economic advisor for President Clinton, went on the offensive in the Wall Street Journal, accusing Ryan of creating a “Reverse Robin Hood Budget.” If academics feel free to begin the discussion so stridently, why should party hacks show the slightest restraint? And they didn’t. After Texas Republican Representative Francisco Canseco voted for the Ryan Budget, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee aired a radio ad that asked listeners, “Did you know Congressman Francisco Canseco voted to end Medicare, forcing seniors to pay $12,500 for private insurance, without guaranteed coverage? Tell Canseco to keep his hands off our Medicare.” Another ad featured a senior citizen moonlighting as a stripper at a bachelorette party in order to pay for his health-care costs after Republicans “end Medicare.”

Off-the-cuff remarks from Democratic operatives have been as laden with absurd metaphors as the scripted attacks. A party spokesman named Matt Canter fired off this salvo at some of Ohio’s top Republican politicians: “Mandel, Coughlin, and Blackwell’s party bosses are playing chicken with Ohio’s economy solely to advance their extreme plan to end Medicare.” He used exactly the same metaphor in Nevada: “Dean Heller’s party bosses are playing chicken with Nevada’s economy solely to advance their extreme plan to end Medicare.” Another party spokesman, Jesse Ferguson, said, “House Republican leaders are now full speed ahead on a partisan plan that would dismantle Medicare for seniors.”

The plan does nothing of the sort—everyone currently receiving Medicare will continue to receive it, as will everyone who is now 10 years away from retirement age. No matter. Democrats believe that this line of assault will put them back in power, and they offer as evidence Democrat Kathy Hochul’s victory in a special election to replace New York Republican House member Mike Lee. Despite the fact that a liberal activist ran as a tea-party candidate in the race, splitting the Republican vote in the largely Republican district, Washington journalists and pundits attributed the Democratic victory to an aggressive use of the Medicare issue.

Although this history gives Democrats cause for optimism, Republicans may have a chance at fighting back against a Mediscare campaign because of the Democrats’ own actions on the issue. Obama’s health-care law included cost-cutting measures of its own, such as the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and Comparative Effective Research (CER). Both of these represent attempts to manage the practice of medicine in the United States from the top down, in a manner that might cut costs but in a spectacularly heavy-handed way, by denying people life-extending treatments. And from a fiscal perspective, the Obama health-care law seeks to save Medicare money through these tactics only in order to put it toward other extensions of public health-care spending.

Furthermore, in the past, the no-change brigade has had an unbeatable edge in the Mediscare wars. Today, however, there is mounting and frightening evidence that buried heads in the sand cannot solve the enormous fiscal problems Medicare faces. In fact, over the past two years, we have seen an increasing although insufficient recognition on the part of the American people that Medicare shortfalls are creating an undeniable threat to our nation’s fiscal well-being. The deficit for just this one program—$39 billion this year alone—is greater than the entire $35 billion deficit of Greece. Greece’s national insolvency is minuscule when compared with the colossus of Medicare dysfunction. Medicare trustees have warned of the $30 trillion long-term liability: “If Congress continues to override the statutory decreases in physician fees, and if the reduced price increases for other health services under Medicare become unworkable and do not take effect in the long range, [this] would substantially increase the strain on the nation’s workers, the economy, Medicare beneficiaries, and the Federal Budget.”

Even President Obama, quarterback of the Mediscare effort, has acknowledged the enormity of our fiscal problem, saying, “If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.” He added, “I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.” Obama’s chief of staff, William Daley, said on ABC’s This Week that “Medicare’s got to be strengthened. It will run out of money in five years if we don’t do something.”

Obama and his economic lieutenants may make this point, but they have failed to propose reform alternatives, knowing that it is far easier to knock down the proposals of the other side than to offer serious but politically risky reforms of their own. To be fair, this was the Republican strategy in opposing Obama’s health-care law. But at the time, Republicans had no control of any of the levers of power and made their case in opposition as a minority party. Obama, in contrast, is trying to have it both ways, posing as the nation’s responsible fiscal steward, while at the same time leading a campaign predicated on both opposing serious reform and refusing to offer alternative approaches.

And so, even as the administration’s leaders acknowledge the absolutely desperate state of Medicare’s finances—while refusing to suggest ways to solve the problem—their minions are steadily on the political attack on behalf of this misleading and unattainable notion of “saving Medicare as we know it.” The next election will test Republican resolve to get the country on a more responsible track, and test the basic honesty of Democratic leaders when they are called to account for the fiscal disasters that lie in wait if Medicare is not reformed. And the American people will be tested as well. Will they be able to see through the fog of Mediscare to the very simple fact that a program designed with the best of intentions could have the most catastrophic of results—the fiscal collapse of the country itself?

About the Author: Tevi Troy is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services.

 

ABC: More White House fraud and crony capitalism uncovered

If you watch the video, you'll see workers absolutely stunned to find the doors to their company shuttered...and zero severance packages available.

House investigators said they have uncovered evidence that White House officials became personally involved in an Energy Department review of a hot-button $535 million loan guarantee to the now-failed California solar company Solyndra. The allegation surfaced in a letter House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) sent to the White House Thursday night, saying he planned to accelerate efforts to understand an investment deal that may have left taxpayers out half a billion dollars.

Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

ATLAS SHRUGGED DVD

Official Atlas Shrugged DVD: FreedomWorks Special Edition

Is there any other state that is as stupid as California?

Workers Comp For Babysitters And 20 Other Reasons Why California Is Stupid

Dispensationalism: The New Christianity

He Risked his Life, His Fortune and His Sacred Honor...
To Do What’s Right

by Nancy Bonus
(Nice tribute to Nancy from Pamela Geller here.)

Glenn Beck is hated:

Many in the world hate Glenn Beck. Maybe you’re one of them.

He’s been called – a right wing extremist, a hater, a liar, a bigot, a buffoon, dangerous, an Anti-Semite, and most improbably and contradictory – a Jew-Lover. This character assassination comes from many sources, regrettably often from good people who are well meaning and want to warn others not to be taken in by him.

Unfortunately most often their negative opinions of him are based, not upon having watched and listened to full-length broadcasts of his, but upon what they’ve heard others say about him and what he supposedly stands for.

Assassinating another’s character and slandering them publically is one of the most grievous offenses one can commit against another according to Jewish scripture. Public humiliation – the act of destroying their good name, means you have killed their reputation in the eyes of others and it’s one of the most difficult offenses to overcome.

But this is what many do when they take part in repeating or agreeing with vicious slanders about Mr. Beck based upon what they’ve read online or have heard about from websites they frequent… or from magazines who paint him in the most unflattering light through doctored photos, innuendoes or partial quotes or sound-bites taken out of context.  (This is a tactic that’s been used against Jews repeatedly throughout history to turn public opinion against them…and has led to expulsions, pogroms, and attempted annihilations.)

He certainly does inspire passion from all sides. Unfortunately what passes for journalism today is not ‘just the facts.’ That went out decades ago and most journalists admit they want to promote an agenda and see that as their job.

Good people without a lot of time to do their own research believe the opinion pieces without realizing that the writers today have a strong bias or agenda they are promoting. Mr. Beck often says, “The truth has no agenda.” He encourages his listeners to “question with boldness” and to “do your own research” not believing what anyone says, even him unless you’ve checked it out from first level sources…not what someone says about another, but what that person actually said or wrote himself.

We had to be in Jerusalem at this momentous time:

My husband and I traveled to Jerusalem to take part in Glenn Beck’s – “Restoring Courage” event. I felt compelled to support this non-Jewish man who was standing up and standing by Israel and Jews in this dangerous and perilous time.

During the time we were there from August 18th to August 28th, there were three major suicide-bombing attacks against Israeli civilians and military from different points around the country. Areas that had never been targets were now on the hit list for terror.

The Arab Spring and its promise of “democracy” had brought instead chaos, agitation, and the rise of Muslim Brotherhood agitators, Hamas/Fatah partnerships, and awakening of Al Qaeda affiliates. Israel is under siege once more and the stakes are very serious.

What would have happened if Christians supported the Jews during WWII?

The burning impetus for being there was to experience and take part in a miracle - a new phenomenon in world history – the Christian love and support for Jews and for Israel. Finally at this crucial time in our history, we are not alone.

As someone who grew up experiencing many incidents of painful Anti-Semitism directed against me for no reason other than my having been born Jewish, I am awed by the love and support of our Christian brothers and sisters at this important time in history. I keep thinking to myself what a different world it would have been had we had this kind of love and support, during the Holocaust and in my childhood when I felt the sting of persecution for being a Jewish minority in a hostile, Christian land.

I’ve become active by supporting and attending events presented by various Christian organizations who not only love Israel and the Jewish people, but who do everything in their ability to show that love and support through charitable contributions, rally’s, books in support of Israel, pamphlets, educational seminars and events for which they risk everything to do the right thing…often making them targets for attack themselves.

Christians United For Israel:

I’ve heard Reverend John Hagee many times as he preached to thousands about the duty of Christians to love and support Israel. I’ve also seen countless Glenn Beck shows where he laid out the danger the Arab Spring would bring to Israel and why the western world must support her now in her hour of need.

When I tell others about the love and support many Christian movements today have for Israel I often am confronted with suspicion or cynicism. And of course, I understand why there would be mistrust, based upon centuries of Christian persecution of the Jewish people.

That’s why this new kind of Christianity, called ‘Dispensationalism’ is such a miracle and something that all Jews should thank God for and wholeheartedly embrace. John Nelson Darby, a 19th century British evangelist who is the forerunner of modern Christianity, popularized it.

This new kind of Christianity supersedes “Replacement” theology in which Christianity was said to have replaced Judaism and for that reason, there was no longer any need for Jews except those who would convert to Christianity. Unlike the bigoted Christianity that our parent’s generation faced, this brand of Christianity loves the Jewish people and quotes bible verses where God commands them to do so. They also are thankful for the Jews who gave them Jesus, Joseph, Mary, the Apostles, the patriarchs, the bible, the ten commandments, etc…In other words, without Judaism, there would be no Christianity.

This is not to say that all Christians today follow this kind of theology but the numbers who do is extremely large and growing.

Glenn Beck and Restoring Courage:

Glenn Beck is a very complex, intelligent, compassionate and courageous man. In many ways, he’s been a kind of prophet by accurately predicting world events years before they occur and warning his viewers of what is coming and to be prepared for what will be happening in the world and to all of us.

He would (and has) rejected the notion that he is any kind of prophet and would probably not appreciate my seeing him that way, but I truly feel he is a man of God that was placed on earth just at this time, to help show all of us the way to save ourselves. He believes that Israel is the cornerstone for Western Civilization and believes that, if Israel were to fall, the Western countries would be close behind, including America.

He predicted the Arab Spring before it occurred and told of what would happen if it came to pass. He showed with maps and diagrams how the various countries would threaten Israel and even used the phrase that “Israel is being set up.”

In promoting his “Restoring Courage” event, he often spoke about the courageous reverend, Dietrich Bonhoeffer whose life greatly impacted Glenn’s own. Bonhoeffer was hunted down and tortured by the Nazi’s for speaking out against their evil. Even when they imprisoned him and tortured him and prohibited him from writing and getting the word out, he didn’t stop and found ways to sneak his words out of the prisons in an attempt to rally support for fighting against the evil of Nazism. He was executed by hanging by the Nazis when he was only in his early 30’s, right before the end of the war.

Glenn often quoted Bonhoeffer as a guiding light for right action in the face of evil: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Glenn said on many shows, “I stand with Israel and the Jewish People. If you must come for someone, come for me.”

This courageous man who stands with Israel and the Jewish people has been an inspiration throughout the world. In a Gallup Poll last year, Americans said they admired Glenn Beck more than the Pope; more than Billy Graham, or Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush – and he came in a close second to Nelson Mandella. So it’s pretty obvious he didn’t do this for fame.

It also took a lot of his own money to make this happen. One article said he was around $1million in the hole in order to put on these events (after the three events in Israel, he took the show to South Africa – to show that Israel is NOT and never has been an Apartheid state…to South America, with the same message – the necessity of standing for good over evil – supporting Israel and he’ll finish up with a huge rally in Texas.) He didn’t do this for fortune.

He did it because it’s the right thing to do and he has the clout and recognition to bring attention to this issue. He is highly principled and as a recovering Alcoholic, follows the steps laid out as part of that recovery – and he obviously takes them seriously.

So did he achieve his goals of imparting the importance for each of us to do the right thing and to stand up for good over evil no matter the price? I know for myself and for thousands of others, he certainly did.

Shelby Steele: senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama's character, today's left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there.

Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-'60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America's exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America's greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom.

Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, his passion for redistribution, and his scolding and scapegoating of Wall Street—as if his mandate was somehow to overcome, or at least subdue, American capitalism itself.

Obama and the Burden of Exceptionalism

 

The guilt of the West

The guilt of the West lies in the out-and-out lies (there is no compulsion in Islam) despite overwhelming evidence (in the quran and the daily death toll worldwide) and the silence of the lambs (media, culture and political elites). The majority of devout Muslims believe this because this is Islam and this is what is taught, but the acquiescence to this brutal and radical ideology by the "enlightened" is unforgivable.

Muslims Brutally Beat Christian With Rods for Refusing Islam