There is a man in the White House with a wife and two daughters. We see him getting on and off Air Force One or a big presidential helicopter. He waves at people. He wears a nice suit and looks neat and trim. We see him sauntering up to a podium to say a few words. Nothing he says seems to be of any importance. He has a Press Secretary who speaks for him at the daily press briefing.
A while ago, I wrote an article in which I spoke of “Paulophobia.” Paulophobia, I claimed, is a cognitive disorder. Like a parasite, it eats away at its victim’s intellect. Perhaps because of this, it also corrupts his moral character. To encounter a Paulophobe whose disorder has reached an advanced stage is to come face-to-face with Irrationality incarnate. At the mere mention of Ron Paul’s name, this sort of Paulophobe practically begins to foam at the mouth. Everything in which he previously claimed to believe — his ideals, his principles, his values — he abruptly throws to the wind as he frantically searches for every and any aspersion, no matter how incredible, that he can cast against Congressman Paul.
In a front-page editorial Thursday, the publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader told readers of the statewide daily that "Ron Paul is a dangerous man." While the Republican presidential candidate's libertarian views on domestic issues are attractive to some voters, the editorial conceded, "it is Paul's position on issues of our national security that are truly dangerous."
“I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln — just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history.” So spake Barack Obama, in an interview with 60 Minutes earlier this month.
The stuff of establishment Republicans’ worst nightmares is now coming to pass: they can no longer depict Ron Paul as a “fringe” candidate. Even they have been compelled by events to acknowledge that the Texas Congressman could very well finish in first place in the Iowa caucuses.
I found the following passage in a book by Thomas Dick, The Philosophy of a Future State, published in Brookfield, Massachusetts, in 1830. It struck me as being as relevant to our present state of belief in life after death as anything argued today. And it is a particularly important contemporary issue since children in American public schools are taught the humanist doctrine that there is no afterlife, and that present existence is all that there is. Thomas Dick writes:
The old chestnut has it that there is seldom any great loss without some small gain.
We’ve lost the incalculably precious, ancient right to habeas corpus with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012; the bill has passed both houses of Congress and awaits only Obama's signature to become law. If he endorses the bill as promised, he’ll legalize a wholly unconstitutional horror: The President may declare anyone a “terrorist” without presenting a scintilla of evidence. Nor is his victim any longer entitled to a trial.
National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Deborah Hersman has called for states to mandate a total ban on cellphone usage while driving. She has also encouraged electronics manufacturers — via recommendations to the CTIA —The Wireless Association and the Consumer Electronics Association — to develop features that "disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion." That means she wants to be able to turn off your cellphone while you're driving.
On December 22 President Barack Obama released the following message through the White House’s Twitter account: "Thanks to all who shared #40dollars [sic] stories. Today's victory is yours. Keep making your voices heard — it makes all the difference. — bo"