It appears that Barack Obama has again ignored the rule of law by signing a defense appropriations bill that prohibits him sharing vital United States leading-edge strategic US missile technology with Russia, yet he has told both houses of Congress that he plans to share the US missile technology anyway. Why is this important? Because it goes light-years beyond partisan politics and into an area where our national defense will be put at unreasonable risk. It is believed that the Russians will pass this technology onto China, Iran and North Korea.

I find it bitterly ironic that this president pushes an agenda of excessive government regulation and oversight under the guise of consumer safety. Virtually everything in our homes, offices and automobiles is regulated to some extent by federal bureaucracy. Yet at the same time, he’s subjecting tens of millions of American lives to unreasonable risk by unilaterally giving away our deepest US missile technology to nations hostile to American interests.

So here’s the bottom line. There are those of us who would vote for a Republican candidate because we do not believe in the agenda of this administration. Then there is those of us who would vote again for Barack Obama under the belief that he will take care of us financially by redistributing wealth so that everyone can be more or less equal regardless of skills, talent or work ethic. There’s just one problem. If you take away the United States military’s ability to protect this great nation from a nuclear missile launched from North Korea or even someday Iran, then the concept of federal cradle-to-grave protection and enablement probably loses most of its meaning, doesn’t it?

If you’re concerned, then you might want to watch this video produced by Dick Morris. I think Dick sums it up best when he says that this president
“has defined the opinion of both houses of Congress, both political parties, in pursuit of some phantom agenda of getting the Russians to like us a little bit more…. I think we will beat this guy in November, but we may not have a country by then”.

Read More at Western Journalism By Craig Covello

Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy which aligns with our first president’s philosophy about foreign entanglements seems to be a thorn in the side of the established Republicans who feel Israel must be an exception even though its Prime Minister says they do not need the financial aid. Being a consummate Libertarian, Paul makes no exceptions which brings the wrath of God on his head by the evangelical community.

For decades the GOP establishment figures the sheep will vote for any Republican candidate it chooses. If Paul doesn’t win, rather than not vote at all, the least we can do is go to the polls to vote for strong conservative people to be elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives where all appropriation bills originate and we surely must believe this time around any of those running for president on the GOP ticket will be better than Obama; however, never underestimate Barack and his well-oiled campaign and all his forced union dues money.

When Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) filed once again to run for President, he found RINOs hard pressed to even mention his name not alone say they’ll vote for him if he wins. It’s such a double standard and many voters are getting tired of voting the lesser of two evils but we’ve been burned so often by the smaller government rhetoric, which is now being advocated by Obama also, that we just don’t trust them anymore but I have to admit Gingrich really kicked butt at the South Carolina debate on the 16th receiving the first-ever standing ovation. Now, if we could only believe he wouldn’t flip flop again.

Paul’s persistent message has been resonating with more and more disgruntled Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Many Republicans are former Democrats who exited that party in the 60s when it began patronizing left-wing radicalism. For example, after the Watts Riots in 1965, which the Communists admitted they spent two years to foment, the Communists brought out this pamphlet entitled: “Watts Upsurge: A Communist Appraisal” indicating the challenge of the Watts explosion could be met only by a truly massive program of more government entitlements. This created more dependency on government by the slothful and class warfare and the eventual “white guilt” that elected Obama in 2008. Nothing happens by accident in government.

After Watts, Democrat leaders apologized to the rioters and gave them whatever they wanted and now we have the spoiled Occupy “Squatters.” While I doubt Presidential candidate Ron Paul supports the movement with its chaos and disruption in our communities, he can feel their sense of frustration because he’s been there – done that with his message for years only to be rebuffed and criticized by GOP leaders, the conservative media who seem to be Paul’s worst enemies stooping so low as to call him a racist! This is why we are seeing a variety of strange bedfellows and a blending of different causes including some of his Libertarian views agreeing with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, which we’ve known for a long time, is a front for the Communist Party.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read More at newswithviews.com By Betty Freauf

Disapproving hisses and supportive slaps of chairs alternated as former senatorial candidate Joe Miller LAW ’95 delivered a speech opposing federal involvement in the American education system Tuesday evening.

The Tea Party politician, who was invited to campus by the Yale Political Union, told a group of about 130 undergraduates in Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall that federal involvement in education is unconstitutional and has not yielded good results for the country. Still, the majority of the crowd expressed disapproval of Miller’s position in the debate, and YPU members ultimately voted against his stance by a vote of 31 to 23.

“The government wants to control the masses,” he said in his speech, evoking strong hisses from the audience.

A former U.S. magistrate judge, Miller said constitutional law provides the strongest support for his argument, arguing that education is legally a state responsibility and pointing out that the Constitution has no mention of the words “education” or “school.”

Miller warned that ignoring the country’s constitutional foundation would damage the rule of law, setting a precedent that may result in a “tyranny of the majority.”

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Read More at Yale Daily News By Clinton Wang, Yale Daily News

Should Newt Gingrich turn in a strong showing in the South Carolina primary Saturday and his rivals for the conservative vote drop out of the GOP presidential race, the former House speaker feels confident he can draw a sharp contrast with front-runner Mitt Romney and win their party’s nomination for President this year.

“I have a game plan to win after South Carolina,” said Gingrich, who spoke to HUMAN EVENTS Wednesday morning between campaign stops in the Palmetto State. While freely admitting he is “totally focused on winning South Carolina,” Gingrich echoed the view of Florida campaign chairman Bill McCollum that he can defeat Romney in that state’s primary January 31st.

“And then, we will be competing in the Republican caucuses [to choose national convention delegates] in Colorado and Minnesota February 7 and then the caucuses in Washington State [March 3] and then we’re into ‘Super Tuesday,’ he told us, referring to the voting March 6 in which caucuses and primaries in a dozen states will choose their delegates.

“The one significant mistake we made in the campaign so far was failing to get on the ballot in Virginia [March 6],” Gingrich conceded, but he quickly added that “we learned from that mistake and we just have to work harder in the other Super Tuesday states to make up for this. (He did not mention that he also failed to qualify for the primary ballot in Missouri February 7, but Gingrich backers pointed out to us that the Show Me State primary is a non-binding “beauty contest” and that actual delegates are chosen at a state convention later in the year in which they insist their man will be competitive).

Gingrich’s “game plan” depends on conservative opponents such as Rick Perry and Rick Santorum leaving the race soon and letting him face Romney, whom he dismissed as a “confused Massachusetts moderate.” Referring to a recent appearance by Karl Rove on Fox Television, Gingrich recalled how the former Bush White House counselor concluded that Romney could not win if there was a “consensus conservative vote coming to South Carolina.” Gingrich himself believes “if there was a unified conservative vote in South Carolina, I would defeat Romney by at least 60-40.”

Read More at Human Events By John Gizzi, Human Events

This is what happens when you make the Internet mad.

On Wednesday, a group of technology companies began an unusual form of protest: The firms shut down or replaced the content on their own popular Web sites with protest messages to show their unhappiness with two Internet-regulation bills grinding through Congress. They argue that the bills would impose huge regulatory costs and stifle innovation on the Web.

Around the country, Americans woke up without some of the oddball essentials of online life. No Wikipedia. No Reddit, a compendium of links to stories and funny pictures that draws millions a day. And no I Can Has Cheezburger?, the world’s best-known collection of funny cat pictures.

In Washington, however, Wednesday has another significance.

It culminates a surprising lobbying effort in which technology companies such as Twitter, Wikipedia and Google have used their massive reach into Americans’ daily lives as a political weapon, to whip up support from online users.

Read More at The Washington Post By David A. Farenthold, The Washington Post