Sibby Online

Pat Powers is a liar?

?Pat Powers says this today:

I was checking out some of the various political websites on the Internet today.

Just on the off chance that more information might have been available from the SDCAC in reference to my infamous ten questions, I glanced at their website. And while there’s still little to no information on the org and who it’s supporters are, I do see that the website has been revamped:

No, the web site has not been revamped. Here is the link to "http://sdconservativeactioncouncil.wordpress.com/". What Pat Powers linked to with the "I glanced at their website" is a different web address, "http://www.sdconservativeactioncouncil.com/".

So the idea that Pat Powers was "checking out some of the various political websites"… "Just on the off chance that more information might have been available from the SDCAC in reference to my infamous ten questions", is an obvious lie.

So what would you expect out of a RINO?

And can anybody remember if Pat Powers did any blogging on Lowell Feld...of Badlands Blue? Isn't he from Virginia or somewhere back East? Anyway, Pat Powers still includes that web site, who is paid for by the South Dakota Democrat Party, on his SD Blogosphere Updates, but not this web site. Whose side are you on Powers? Consider that another question.

UPDATE: Powers puts his lie on Keloaland's web site too. Anybody still want to know what a Drive-by is?

Populism versus power elites

The Argus Leader editorial board again brings up the Republican/Democrat love feast that we have in the South Dakota Senate:

The parallels between the South Dakota Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders almost are as easy to see as the differences: Dave Knudson, once a Democrat, now is the Republican Senate majority leader. Scott Heidepriem, once a Republican, now is the Senate minority leader. Both are Sioux Falls lawyers. Both are veterans of the South Dakota Legislature, and both are mentioned frequently as candidates for governor.

And during the course of an hour-long interview with the Argus Leader's editorial board earlier this month, the two men agreed on at least as much as they disagreed.

And then there is this:

EB: To what extent then, Scott, is it a Republican/ Democrat issue as you think about the House and the Senate? Dave didn't give us the reasons why that disconnect was there. Is it a Republican/Democrat issue, or does it go beyond that?

SCOTT HEIDEPRIEM: It's not a Republican/Democrat [divide] in terms of the Senate because, as you saw, we got along very well, and we passed everything that we wanted in the Senate with a few exceptions.

It's a difference in philosophy and here's the difference: In the Senate, the center of gravity was made up of people who wanted to see things pass. In the House, the center of gravity is made up of people who do not want to see things pass.

…

HEIDEPRIEM: Maybe Dave can think of some proposals that the House passed and sent to us that we killed. But I can't think of one right now, but I can think of quite a few significant bills that the Senate passed that the House killed. A number which were primarily sponsored by Dave Knudson, whether it's vocation governance, which was changed and died, or K-12 funding, dead in the House. Pre-K rule- making, dead in the House. Ethics, dead in the House. Maybe that's House-bashing?

Note the Pre-K rule-making. After reading through some of my posts, I think you will agree that issue is as far-left as you get. I mean, how more to the left is Hillar’s global village? Clearly the long-standing divide in the SD GOP is between the conservative populists versus the RINO elites.

Plutocracy and secular humanism

Cory Heidelberger goes after Bob Ellis and myself:

More often than not, Bob Ellis and Steve Sibson are the car wrecks of South Dakota blogging: so ugly and gruesome I can't help looking.

But as I read Senator R.F. Pettigrew's Triumphant Plutocracy this very white Christmas, the spirit of South Dakota's first US Senator and patron saint of prairie radicals compels me to write the following: Ellis and Sibson are deluded tools of the plutocracy.

Bob and Sibby aren't completely wrong. There is a vast secular, globalist threat to Christianity and family values, perpetrated by amoral agents devoted only to increasing their own power. it's called global corporate capitalism. Corporations have no God, no morality. Corporations care by design and duty for nothing but increased profits. They don't care what god you worship or what country you live in: they just want your money, your labor, and your loyalty/slavery.

I am not sure how Heidelberger can charge me with being a deluded tool of plutocracy, because my post that he referenced included this:

A key is the phrase public-private partnership that has been seen more and more often during the past decade. This means close ties between government and business. What results is not capitalism but corporatism – in which corporations and government cooperate both to discourage the open competition characteristic of genuine capitalism in favor of policy that is established and administered jointly, with each side doing favors with the other (e.g., "tax incentives" for business; support going to certain candidates for political office from business). This method is clearly a species of central planning.

And one of the examples I gave was the public-private partnership between the State Of South Dakota and SDN communications in regard to the High Speed REED. Heidelberger approves of that project. So when the plutocracy fits his special interest, his populist agenda goes out the window. I have more research on SDN, but I will leave that for another time. I bring it up here to set up the argument that it is the secular humanists that are guilty of being "deluded tools of the plutocracy" as they undermine traditional American values in order to establish their utopian one-world government.

Here is a link to a Paul Kurtz piece titled, "The New American Plutocracy". Kurtz piece is meant to undermine traditional American Principles and Christianity. Paul Kurtz also wrote the Humanist Manifesto II that states:

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.

And it is through this on-world government that Marxism will be implemented:

The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide — through an international authority that safeguards human rights — massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

Yeah, we all will be impoverished, so that means economic justice? Ask the people of the Soviet Union how well Marxism. And in case you don’t think communism prevents plutocracy, check this out about Vladimir Putin:

An unprecedented battle is taking place inside the Kremlin in advance of Vladimir Putin's departure from office, the Guardian has learned, with claims that the president presides over a secret multibillion-dollar fortune.

Rival clans inside the Kremlin are embroiled in a struggle for the control of assets as Putin prepares to transfer power to his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, in May, well-placed political observers and other sources have revealed.

At stake are billions of dollars in assets belonging to Russian state-run corporations. Additionally, details of Putin's own personal fortune, reportedly hidden in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, are being discussed for the first time.

And remember my post on how Hillary Clinton and Marc Tucker are working to federalize education in order to implement their…it takes a global village? Check this out:

Here comes another inconvenient truth. Despite all the attention to Oprah for Obama and the pundit blabbering about the Democratic primary horse race the outcome has been predetermined. What people do not want to know is that power elites control what the Democratic ticket will be. When the primaries end the winner will be the reigning plutocracy.

Rich and powerful elites want Hillary Clinton the White House if the Democrats get their turn in the rigged two-party system. Just one big problem: The establishment plutocracy wants her more than most Americans trust or like her. No matter how much she spends and no matter how many big name endorsements she gets, her phoniness and arrogance prevail. She would be America's irritating Panderer-in-Chief. What to do?

For power elites the answer is crystal clear. Obama is too young and inexperienced and less trustworthy for the elites, meaning he is less corrupted by big money than Hillary. But he is perfect to offset Hillary's negatives. A majority of voters can succumb to months of slick advertising promoting the first woman president and first black vice-president and future president. And eight years as vice president will train Obama to be an obedient Washington insider.

If Cory Heidelberger, Paul Kurtz and another secular humanist have a problem with plutocracy, they better take a close look at what they are promoting. Undermining American sovereignty and Jesus Christ in order to have one-world communism will do nothing but make these power elites who are in charge wealthy. Just take the time and look at all the United Nation’s scandals.

And based on what Cory has posted, I do believe he is interested in populism. I would like to point him to a link I have in my TransCanada Pipeline sidebar titled, "Globalists vs us all" (Read the whole thiung, it is really good). Excerpt:

The forced and obvious conclusion is that the people in Washington are neither Democrats nor Republicans. Some of those species are still found endangered, inhabiting the crevasses in the House of Representatives, but a few score mating pairs is not a lot. But there are no Republicans nor Democrats left in the Executive or the Senate. These people are exclusively globalists, and the next election is important because of that party.

So, the 2008 election will be fought out between globalists on one hand (Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Dodd) and American sovereign parties on the other (Tancredo, Hunter, Paul and Kucinich). It will be a mistake and a mirage for Americans to believe any longer in the Democrat-Republican political theatre, which has been mass packaged by the media for our consumption. These Grammy-winning musicals only exist to play the masses off one another so the globalists, who have dictated the entire top money-tiers of both parties, may forge ahead with their plan to obliterate American sovereignty and crush the peoples beneath their plans for high profits and the global police state. To again gain the privilege of actually having the liberal-conservative contest, populists on both sides must throw out the tops of both parties. What happens in political reality today is a dumb show of convenience, that the puppeteers might install that most beautiful globalist who gets chosen "best actor."

Cory has a post that defends Kucinich. Bob Ellis seems to be pushing Hunter. I haven’t heard boo about Hunter in the media. I have been hearing a little on Ron Paul, and the more I hear and read, the more I like his message.So I hope Cory understands that there are populist-minded conservatives/Republicans. Some of us are trying to hold our leaders accountable. Not all of us follow the Party line like Pat Powers. I hope Cory will also do his part to hold those in the Democrat Party accountable.

I hope that getting the word out regarding the secular humanist's role in American culture opens some eyes. I certainly don’t want "deluded tools of the plutocracy" to continue to be in the dark. Traditional American principles and those who believe in Jesus Christ are not the problem. It is abandonment of Jesus Christ and traditional American principles that will give the plutocrats even more money and power. And that power is not just about money. The current education system is geared to provide what Cory calls slaves to the power elites.

Government accountability

Yesterday’s Dave Kranz column included this:

A Web site to help hold state government accountable?

That is what Lee Breard, director of the South Dakota Conservative Action Council, is offering. He says that is the goal of the new information center, www.USASpending. gov, and he is calling on political leaders in Pierre to share that ideal.

"Given the recent bad publicity on secret government contracts in South Dakota, we need to have the same transparency that the federal government now has," Breard said.

The objective is to offer a simple way to determine things such as who receives state contracts and how state money is spent.

Keloland backtracks on Heidepriem setup

A couple of days ago I posted an excerpt from a Keloland report that included Scott Heidepriem attack toward Governor Rounds’ proposed budget cut on the Highway Patrol. Keloland made this statement:

Governor Rounds' proposed two million dollar cut to the Highway Patrol's 2009 budget is already having an impact on how many troopers are on the roads to respond to accidents.

Highway Patrol troopers have been busy for the past two days in the Sioux Falls area after five inches of snow fell Christmas Day. But only five troopers were on duty Tuesday, meaning only a few troopers were working on each shift, and a spokesperson for South Dakota's Department of Public Safety says the reason more troopers were not working was because of the proposed budget cuts.

And I made this observation:

So how could next year’s budget impact current year operations? It would be nice to ask the "spokesperson for South Dakota's Department of Public Safety", but Keloland did not identify their source.

Last night Keloland reported this:

Thursday night the South Dakota Highway Patrol says it did not put the safety of the public at risk during the recent snow storm because of proposed budget cuts.

The head of the department says five troopers were scheduled to work in the Sioux Falls area Christmas Day, and when the snow storm got worse he says an extra trooper was called into work and another was called in early.

As KELOLAND News first told you Wednesday night, the Highway Patrol had only five troopers working several shifts during the Christmas Day snow storm in the Sioux Falls area

And Colonel Dan Mosteller said the patrol did everything it could to make sure the public was safe on the highways that day despite the Governor's proposal to cut two million dollars from the department's budget.

Mosteller then explains his scheduling:

South Dakota Highway Patrol Colonel Dan Mosteller says, "Throughout the day I had a total of six troopers working, some of them longer shifts, and some of them were shorter shifts based on the calls and need to be out there."

Colonel Mosteller says five troopers were originally scheduled for Christmas Day because the Highway Patrol did not expect five inches of snow to fall in the area, but when the snow started falling they called in help.

So, Keloland got it wrong as they used factual incorrect reporting to give glory to Democrat Scott Hiedepriem. And I am the only blogger who has pointed that out. That is what happens when there is a blogger/mainstream media partnership. Accountability goes out the window. And Pat Powers uses the platform to attack conservatives, instead of pointing out their pro-Democrat bias.

A global example

Here is an excerpt regarding United airlines globalist success:

The Star Alliance has had a good month, and United Airlines has been one of the main beneficiaries.

In a year when a principal theme for legacy carriers was global expansion -- to China, India, Europe and Africa -- the largest of the air alliances had a December to remember, formally adding two major Chinese airlines and announcing that a big Indian carrier will also join.

United CEO Glenn Tilton applauded the arrival of Air China and Shanghai Airlines into the alliance in a taped message to employees last week. "It is difficult to overstate the importance of these two Chinese carriers for United and the continued growth of our services to China," he said.

The next day the Teamsters issues a press release regarding United Airline’s American mechanics:

United Airline mechanics and supporters from the Teamsters Union leafleted eight airports nationwide on Thursday. They alerted passengers to the airline’s practice of outsourcing heavy maintenance of its airplanes to China.

The Teamsters, who are organizing mechanics from United (NASDAQ: UAUA), support them in their efforts to prevent the sale of the San Francisco aircraft maintenance operation. The mechanics believe that aviation safety is compromised by outsourcing maintenance.

United now outsources all of its heavy maintenance of Boeing 747s and 777s to South Korea and China. In the Beijing repair station, only five of 2,179 mechanics are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Governor Rounds has decided to use Higher Ed as the mechanism to compete globally. Here is an excerpt by Larry P. Arnn, president of Hillsdale College from their November 2007 Imprimas:

The report of the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education reduces education to the purpose of preparing young people for a job and of making the nation powerful and successful in its economic competition with other nations. The idea-questionable on its face-is that only a national coordinated effort can make us formidable to China, for example. China in indeed growing rapidly. This has become possible only because, under duress and against its every wish, the government of China has liberated its people to start their own businesses and make their own plans. They seek to emulate our successes to the extent they are forced. We seek to emulate their failures because we find them attractive.

I think we need to rethink Governor Rounds’ plans to promote economic development based upon obtaining federal funding (and the controls that come with it) through expanding South Dakota’s Higher Ed. Governor Rounds seems to have lost faith in the people of South Dakota to make decisions for ourselves. I guess he must think that we are just a bunch of hillbillies. Or maybe he has just accepted the false premise of the globalists that bigger is always better. Looks like to me the plan means we have to move to China to get a job, or maybe we can make a living sweeping the floors of governments buildings. The pay may not be great, but we can probably get by with food stamps and other government welfare programs.

The Higher Ed scam

Phyllis Schlafly provides us with some information from US News &World Report that should give us pause in regard to Governor Rounds’ plan to bank South Dakota’s future on Higher Ed:

U.S. News & World Report, which has made a name for itself by ranking and announcing the best colleges every year, is now ranking and listing the best careers for young people. A comparison of the latest lists shows a shocking disconnect and makes for dispiriting holiday reading.

While the price of a college education has skyrocketed far faster than inflation, many careers for which colleges prepare their graduates are disappearing. U.S. News' Best Careers guide concludes, "college grads might want to consider blue-collar careers" because bachelor’s degree holders "are having trouble finding jobs that require college-graduate skills."

Incredibly, U.S. News is telling college graduates to look for jobs that do not require a college diploma. Among the 31 best opportunities for 2008 are the careers of firefighter, hairstylist, cosmetologist, locksmith and security-system technician.

Where did the higher-skill jobs go? Both large and small companies are "quietly increasing off-shoring efforts."

Ten years ago, we were told we really didn't need manufacturing because it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, that auto workers and others should move to information-age jobs. But now the information jobs are moving offshore, too, as well as marketing research and even many varieties of innovation.

The flight overseas includes professional as well as low-wage jobs, with engineering jobs offshored to India and China. Thousands of bright Asian engineers are willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages, which is why Boeing just signed a 10-year, $1 billion-a-year deal with a government-run company in India.

Society has been telling high school students that college is the ticket to get a life, and politicians are pandering to parents' desire for their children to be better educated and so have a higher standard of living. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., wants the taxpayers to guarantee every kid a college education, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says more education is the means for Americans to compete in a global economy.

But it doesn't make sense for parents to mortgage their homes, or for students to saddle themselves with long-term debt, to pay overpriced college tuition to prepare for jobs that no longer exist. Tuition at public universities has risen an unprecedented 51 percent over the last five years.

Schlafly allows challenges the globalization crusade as it leaves too many Americans dependent on government for a job:

U.S. News warns us that "government is becoming an employer of choice." Corporations are getting leaner, but government can continue to pay good salaries with lots of vacation days, sick leave, health insurance and retirement benefits, because government rakes in more tax revenue in good times and can raise taxes in bad times; and if the Democrats win in 2008, we can expect government to expand even more.

Presidential candidates have gotten the message from grass-roots Americans that we want our borders closed to illegal immigrants. Headlines now proclaim "Immigration moves to front and center of GOP race" and "GOP candidates hold fast on immigration at debate."

But Republican Party candidates haven't yet gotten the message that jobs are just as big a gut issue as immigration. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey conducted Dec. 14-17 reports that, by 58 percent to 28 percent, Americans believe globalization is bad because it subjects U.S. companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor.

Where are the limited-government fiscal conservatives when we need them to refute the notion that the best an engineering graduate can hope for is a job with the government? Are fiscal conservatives too busy chanting the failed mantra of "free trade" even though it has resulted in millions of good U.S. jobs being shipped overseas?

When are we going to call a halt to the way globalism is destroying U.S. jobs by foreign currency manipulation, theft of our intellectual property, shipping us poisonous seafood and toys, and unfair trade agreements that allow foreign subsidies (through the so-called Value Added Tax) to massively discriminate against U.S. producers and workers?

I think we need a grass roots movement that challenges Governor Rounds’ 2010 Initiatives that banks South Dakota’s future on bigger government through Higher Ed.

Charlie Wilson, a Reagan Democrat

I found this column by Dr. Jack Wheeler very interesting. Excerpts:

So it was a strange experience for me to see the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," a movie portraying events I participated in, to see how it was both true and not true, magnificent and ludicrous at the same time.

…

Not taking anything away from the magnificence, it is also ludicrous.

And not just because I'm not in the movie. After all, I'm the one who explained to him how defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan could win the Cold War, not some socialite in Houston. It's that no one who had a critical role in helping the Afghans or winning the Cold War is in the movie except Charlie, whose sidekicks are a single CIA lone ranger and a blond chick in Texas – not Bill Casey, not Ronald Reagan, no one.

In fact, at the movie's end, a character lauds Charlie as a Democrat for what he has accomplished despite "a Republican president." That's the movie's only reference to Reagan, and it is negative, as if Reagan were a hindrance in Charlie's way. That's an insult to both men, for Charlie had the highest respect for Ronald Reagan.

…

The movie is about providing weapons to Afghans fighting the Soviets, yet only one specific Afghan is named in the film, the legendary "Lion of Panjshir," Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Yet the CIA, in fact, provided little or no aid to Massoud for most of the war. The film never mentions who did get most of the CIA aid instead of Massoud: an America-hating Khomeini-loving Islamofascist named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and his "Hezbi" mujahedeen.

…

Whenever I came back from Afghanistan throughout the 1980s, along with various people in the Reagan White House, the Pentagon and Congress, I would always brief Charlie. My years of ranting at him about Gulbuddin finally got through to him in early 1987 – because it wasn't just me.

"Why do you and everyone else who's been inside [Afghanistan] tell me one thing, and the same thing, about the Hezbis, while the CIA tells me the opposite?" he mused.

"Because the CIA is lying to you, Charlie," I replied.

…

The movie has Charlie demanding the mujahedeen be given anti-aircraft weapons against the Soviet Hind helicopter gunships right from the start. It whiplashes from 1980 to 1987, shows a schematic of the European Milan anti-tank missile, then in the very next scene two Afghans use a U.S. Stinger against a Hind. This is a farce.

How the Afghans got the Stingers that won the war is a fascinating story, never fully told, and can only be abbreviated here. The very condensed version is this:

The massive weapons flow organized by Charlie and the CIA had, by mid-1986, done no good as it was mostly going to Gulbuddin. When I was in Afghanistan in August, the war was over. The Soviets had won; most of the mujahedeen had retreated back to the refugee camps in Pakistan. Soviet Spetsnaz teams were hunting down and killing the mujahedeen who were left.

Ronald Reagan had been well aware of the need for shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, and in April 1985 signed a classified executive order giving CIA Director Bill Casey the authority to provide the mujahedeen with Stingers. The order was blocked by CIA Deputy Director John McMahon.

McMahon was determined not to let the Afghans get Stingers, and he used every bureaucratic trick in the book in a constant stream of excuses to prevent their delivery, despite demands of Reagan, Sen. Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., Charlie, and many others in Congress such as Don Ritter, R-Pa.

By late 1985, the entire conservative movement was demanding military aid to anti-Soviet freedom fighters, so we decided to make an end run around McMahon. A visit by UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi was arranged to Washington, where he met President Reagan in the Oval Office on Jan. 30, 1986.

Savimbi told Reagan about the coming Soviet-Cuban offensive scheduled at the end of the rainy season in April, that UNITA would be destroyed without Stingers against the Hinds. Reagan gave Savimbi his word that the Stingers would be provided.

The president then called Bill Casey and said he just didn't care what the excuses were anymore. Any reason given by McMahon was to be disregarded. He signed an executive order to that effect on Feb. 18. Two weeks later, McMahon resigned. I was in Angola at UNITA's Jamba headquarters in April when the Stingers arrived. The Soviet-Cuban offensive was stopped, thanks to them.

Now the way was cleared for Stingers to the Afghans.

…

It was the Stingers that won the war, just like the movie shows, just as I told Charlie my conclusion after my first travels with the mujahedeen in 1983, "Take the Soviets out of the air, and the Muj will defeat them on the ground."

After the loss of hundreds of Soviet war craft and pilots from late '86 through '88, the Soviets retreated in defeat. Less than nine months after final retreat from Afghanistan on Feb. 15, 1989, the Berlin Wall was down, Eastern Europe liberated and the Cold War won.

It was a victory of many people, chief among them of course being Ronald Reagan, for implementing the entire strategy of the Reagan Doctrine targeting Soviet vulnerabilities. Support for anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, for democracy movements in Eastern Europe, was a critical part of that strategy – but only a part.

And in that part, Charlie Wilson played a critical role. It is silly for the movie to pretend that Charlie did it by himself without Ronald Reagan, and it is sad for the movie to end on a sour note of blame for the Taliban and al-Qaida. To understand how Afghanistan ended up with this twin-infestation, again read "Gulbuddin and the CIA"

…

The moral lesson of the movie should be a very sobering one for the Democratic Party. Charlie Wilson was proudly and unashamedly a pro-American, anti-communist Democrat. His heroism should be a deep embarrassment to the party of Pelosi Galore and Lost Harry Reid, the party who apologizes for America's existence and has neither the spine nor will to defend her.

The Democratic Party – indeed, America – needs more Charlie Wilsons. I will always have the greatest respect for what he did for our country, and I will always treasure his friendship.

Multiculturists versus true Americans

Looks like there is three true Americans running for President, two on the fence, and the rest are multiculturists:

Republican candidates Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes showed up at the Federation for American Immigration Reform talk radio row in Des Moines to talk about immigration policy, and surrogates for Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee made appearances.

But other Republicans – and all Democratic candidates – declined the opportunity, despite national television coverage from both Fox News and CNN.

UPDATE: Joseph Farah believes that Romney is a phony in regard to the issue of the multiculturist issue and instead believes Duncan Hunter is the best choice for America:

Last week, Tancredo withdrew from the race and endorsed Mitt Romney for the presidency.

This was a huge mistake by Tancredo. I'm sure he had his reasons. He said he wanted to find a top-tier candidate who was strongest on his pet issue. But, this is the primary season. In the primary season, Americans should pay little attention to the polls and select the very best candidate possible. Actual votes decide who is selected as the party nominees – not polls.

That's why I supported Tancredo in the first place. I didn't pay attention to the polls. I selected the man I thought would be the best candidate. I liked Tancredo so much, I published his terrific book, "In Mortal Danger," still one of the very best indictments of America's disastrous border and immigration policies.

I will certainly not follow Tancredo's lead in supporting Romney. Romney is a pretender to the throne. He launched his campaign for the Republican nomination by running contrary to virtually every major position and action he has previously taken in public life.

…

Therefore, today I make a new, personal endorsement for the Republican nomination – Duncan Hunter.

I do so with no hesitancy. I do so with great enthusiasm.

In fact, I have previously made it clear just how much admiration and respect I have for Hunter.

He's my guy because on all the major issues facing this country, Hunter is right. And he is a proven leader who gets the job done.

• Illegal immigration and border security: Duncan Hunter takes a backseat to no one on this issue – not even Tom Tancredo. He took the initiative long ago to protect the citizens of his own San Diego area by building a virtually impenetrable fence that has cut down human trafficking in the area by nearly 100 percent.
• Threat of Islamo-fascism: Hunter recognizes the gravity of the war in which America finds itself, whether we like it or not. Hunter has a strong military background and would make an effective leader in a conflict that will not go away unless we destroy the enemy.
• Our cultural meltdown: Hunter rejects the madness of political correctness and multiculturalism that is ripping America apart at the seams. He is a man of God who will stand for what is morally right no matter the consequences.
• The economy: Duncan Hunter will fight the mindless globalization that is destroying jobs in America and transferring them abroad – bringing in return cheap goods that are often unsafe and little more than junk. He will also cut taxes and revamp the unfair and highly intrusive tax system – both of which will stimulate the American economy.
• Matters of life and death: Hunter is steadfastly and consistently pro-life – at both ends of the life spectrum.

There is much more to say about his excellent record and his fearless championing of all that is good and decent about America.

Ron Paul exciting grassroots

From Jerome R. Corsi:

Rep. Ron Paul says the surprising $20 million he is projected to raise this quarter in his bid for the White House shows "there's a lot of starvation out there for a different message."

"Our focus on the Constitution, defending our borders and the whole idea of assuming responsibility for themselves appeals to millions of Americans who are not looking for government to take care of them," the Republican presidential candidate told WND in an interview in Iowa.

Paul contended his campaign – a grassroots movement that comes, he argued, from his message, not from mainstream media focus or campaign hype – enjoyed the most dedicated support in either party.

"We have real loyalty from our supporters," he said. "Once a voter commits to our campaign, they don't go back and forth.

"With the other candidates, voters are for this candidate this week and somebody else next week," Paul emphasized. "Our numbers have been steady and growing. Our voters are not going to switch at the last moment."

Paul told WND that he hopes to do better in the Iowa caucuses than his poll numbers would indicate.

"The pollsters haven't realized that my campaign has a lot of independent voters," Paul said. "We have Democratic voters who have crossed over to support my campaign, and those people usually are not measured by pollsters who focus on party identification."