The American Pundit

Yeah, this should be a warning to voters. When even the candidate doesn’t imagine himself as president, perhaps you shouldn’t either.

An amazing admission tonight from Ron Paul.

In an exclusive interview, I asked him: “When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?”

“Not really,” he said.

He went on to say that he’s not blind to the odds, but they are “not as slim as they were 25 years ago.”

Hard to imagine any other candidate saying that.

Because it’s a stupid thing to say. Why, just one day away from your biggest shot to win the nomination, would you admit that even you don’t see yourself in the Oval Office?

He went on to defend the fact he’d be 81-years-old by the end of his first term by challenging other candidates to a physical fitness test. Hey, who’s up for an 85-year-old president?

The last poll scheduled to be released prior to the Iowa caucus on January 3rd has Mitt Romney leading his closest contender, Ron Paul, by a margin of 24-22. Rick Santorum comes in third at 15 percent.

Newt Gingrich comes in fourth at 12 percent. He’s followed by Rick Perry at 11 points and Michele Bachmann at 7 points. So we can now effectively count all of them out from a win in Iowa.

Which isn’t to say Mitt Romney will carry the state. In fact, polling from the last two day of the survey had Santorum surging. Romney still led but Santorum was clearly making a dent in Ron Paul’s support. Paul dropped to 18 percent.

How reliable is the final poll from the Des Moines Register? The survey actually has a pretty accurate history all things considered.

My projection: Santorum pulls out a win like Mike Huckabee did in 2008. Mitt Romney or Ron Paul come in second; probably Romney. In third…whoever didn’t come in second. Santorum can’t win the nomination, so Iowa becomes a wash.

The Obama Administration is considering the release of a top terrorist leader held in Guantanamo Bay. The move would be part of a measure to appease the Taliban into yielding in peace talks, sources say. The terrorist leader in question took part in the killing of CIA agent Johnny Michael Spann in 2001.

Any prisoner transfer would be part of a trust-building effort to renew peace talks next year with the Taliban that had reached a critical point before falling apart this month because of objections from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

One goal of renewed talks with the insurgents would be to identify cease-fire zones that could be used as a steppingstone toward a full peace agreement that stops most fighting, a senior administration official told The Associated Press — a goal that remains far out of reach.

U.S. officials from the State Department and White House plan to continue a series of secret meetings with Taliban representatives in Europe and the Persian Gulf region next year, assuming a small group of Taliban emissaries the U.S. considers legitimate remains willing, two officials said.

As part of some misguided “trust building” effort with the terror group, Obama would release five high-value Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay.

What would we get in return for releasing these American-murdering slime? Promises from the Taliban to end their relationship with Al Qaeda. Promises. In the hopes terrorist scum have suddenly developed a sense of honor, apparently.

Two abortion doctors in Maryland have been charged with murder following an investigation into botched abortions and what has been described as a “freezer full of fetuses”.

CBS Baltimore reports:

Two doctors who performed late-term abortions in a Cecil County clinic now face murder charges. The police investigation began last year when police say Dr. Steven Brigham and Dr. Nicola Riley performed part of an abortion in New Jersey, then transferred the patient to Maryland to finish it. When the 18-year-old woman suffered complications she was taken to the hospital. Then, police searched the abortion clinic looking for her medical records, but they found something else.

Dr. Riley, who lives in Utah, faces one count of first- and second-degree murder. Dr. Brigham from New Jersey faces 5 counts of murder.

The indictment is sealed so details are limited.

Reached by phone, State’s Attorney Ellis Rollins would not tell WJZ if the victims are the fetus found in the freezer.

Both doctors were apparently arrested out-of-state and so are being held pending extradition to Maryland. Court documents, which will provide more details, could be released next week.

As Jammie notes, it’s odd how many of Barack Obama’s buddies end up in prison on felony charges. It’s almost like he’s part of a culture of corruption or something.

A Democratic fundraiser was found guilty Friday of engineering a $21 million bank fraud scheme.

Courtney Dupree was convicted of vastly overstating the billings of his Long Island City-based lighting company GDC Acquisitions in order to fraudulently obtain a loan from Amalgamated Bank.

Dupree sat stone-faced as the verdict was read in Brooklyn Federal Court. He faces up to 30 years in prison.

The guy has big connections to Democratic politics:

Dupree, who attended the elite Wharton School of Business, was a rainmaker in Democratic circles.

In 2008, Dupree hosted a $1,000-a-ticket fund-raiser for Barack Obama at his Broad St. apartment that was attended by top aide Valerie Jarrett.

His company counted NBC Universal and Goldman Sachs among its clients.

In turn, NBC Universal and Goldman Sachs have been big sources of fundraising money for the Obama campaign and other Democratic causes.

How very convenient. It turns out he did write parts of the newsletters but coincidentally none of the parts causing so much controversy. Here’s the transcript from the interview with The Daily Caller:

CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?

PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.

CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.

PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.

Except it wasn’t just “eight or ten sentences”. We’re talking newsletters full of racism, conspiracies, and fear-mongering. That’s how he drew people in and made the money he did off the letters.

Cultists subscribed to these letters because it provided validation of some sort of their own conspiracy theories and racist beliefs. It provided them comfort that others thought like they did, that others were afraid of black helicopters and Jews running banks. They weren’t crazy as others told them. There’s this whole community, headed up by a former Congress and guy with an M.D. and who supposedly had inside knowledge, who held the same beliefs.

People didn’t subscribe year after year because there were wise bits of economic insight between racism, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories galore. They subscribed because of the racism, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories galore. It was the selling point. That’s how he made the money he did.

But then Allahpundit makes a great point: What is Paul defining as “bad stuff”? Just the racism? How about the conspiracy theories?

Everyone agrees that the racist material is bad; how about the five paragraphs devoted in one newsletter to the idea that AIDS might have been engineered at Fort Detrick? How about the section a few months after the first World Trade Center bombing wondering whether Mossad might be responsible? How about the fact that Paul was willing to speculate on camera in 2008, a year in which he was running for president, that the Bilderbergers were chatting about controlling the world’s banking and natural resources?

And over to Jamie Kirchick:

In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the “treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country.” Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded,“there’s pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true.”

Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various “Rockefeller Trilateralists.” The notion that these three specific groups — the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family — run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008…

Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones’s show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration.

In light of the newsletters and his current rhetoric, it is no wonder that Paul has attracted not just prominent racists, but seemingly every conspiracy theorist in America.

See thing is, it’s the fringe where Paul has found success. He makes his money by appealing to a cult of like-minded conspiracy theorists. He fills his campaign chests with a constant stream of devotees who think these secretive commissions and false-flag operations could be stopped if only Ron Paul gets into the White House. They see commander-in-chief Ron Paul as the guy who’ll stop the black helicopter from flying over their home.

There’s a reason Paul has to instruct his volunteers to act human while in public. He knows exactly who his devotees are. Not the kind you bring home to your parents. More the kind who stand on the corner ranting about the New World Order, Zionists running banks, and Bilderbergers poisoning the water supply, or whatever. He knows who made him. He knows who he relies on for support. And he knew damn-well what was in those letters.

The ever-elusive Hispanic vote that Republicans are always supposedly on the verge of winning if only they’d stop being so hard on illegal immigration.

Fun fact: Despite his support for amnesty and soft approach to immigration, George W. Bush still overwhelmingly lost the Hispanic vote both times.

Another fun fact: Despite the fact Hispanics disapprove of his handling of immigration, Barack Obama will still carry their vote overwhelmingly both times.

Still, the survey showed Obama easily winning more support among Latinos in hypothetical match-ups against Republican presidential candidates. Sixty-eight percent said they would vote for Obama if he were up against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who would earn 23 percent of the Latino vote, the poll found. The numbers were similar when Obama was stacked up against Texas Gov. Rick Perry – 69 percent to 23 percent.

That would be the same Rick Perry who supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens. And who supported allowing certain illegal aliens to stay. And who has generally taken a soft stance towards immigration in general.

Meanwhile:

While 58 percent of Latinos approved of Obama’s performance as president in 2010, 49 percent of them now approve, according to the poll. Meanwhile, 59 percent of Latinos disapprove of how the Obama administration is managing the deportation of illegal immigrants, while only 27 percent approve.

We lost the Hispanic vote in 2008 despite running a guy who literally put his name on amnesty legislation. We lost the Hispanic vote in 2004 and 2000 despite running a guy from Texas who was notoriously soft on immigration and who supported amnesty. Hell, Reagan failed to capture the Hispanic vote either time and he literally enacted amnesty.

Each and every time the Hispanic vote went to the liberal Democrat instead.

Of course there are exceptions. Cuban-Americans tend to be great Republicans and even conservatives. And there are certainly regions of the country where Republicans have benefited greatly from Hispanic support.

But on the national level, when we look at the entire picture, Hispanic voters — regardless of the immigration stance of candidates — election after election back the Democrat. Even when they don’t approve of him or his handling of immigration, as is the case with Obama.

I don’t support writing off the demographic. That would be hasty and unnecessary. But it’s time to let go of this myth that if Republicans were only softer on immigration then the Hispanic vote would be there to propel them to success. It’s simply not the case. There’s more to it than that.

Jon Huntsman has been wrong about quite a few things. In this case he’s very, very right. A Ron Paul nomination would mean an Obama re-election landslide.

“He is not electable at the end of the day. Let’s be real about it,” Huntsman told more than 150 voters at a town hall meeting in southern New Hampshire. “I’m not an isolationist. I don’t share the Ron Paul world view. I am a realist.”

Paul’s biggest problem isn’t even the isolationism. Voters could kinda-sorta live with that.

His biggest problem is his extensive, modern history of racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and associations with nutjobs like Alex Jones.

The racist, antisemitic guy from the south isn’t going to win an election against the first black president, regardless of the shape of the economy. Nor should he be elected under any circumstances.

Anyone so prone to believe Alex Jones’ latest theory about Jews and false-flag operations shouldn’t be allowed near the White House, much less be allowed to occupy the Oval Office for four years.

Renowned libertarian economist Thomas Sowell has decided to endorse former Speaker Newt Gingrich for president.

In his endorsement, Sowell notes the viable alternative — Mitt Romney — has plenty of progressive accomplishments (like RomneyCare) but no conservative achievements on his record.

The fact that each of the short-lived front-runners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.

Romney’s own talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.

Indeed, George Soros is a successful businessman, too. So is Donald Trump. I wouldn’t want either of them running the nation.

And forgetting the affair allegations, look at how successful businessman Herman Cain ran his campaign. Success in business does not necessarily translate to success in politics or governance.

As Mitt Romney can attest.

See, for all his talk of experience, Romney has lost more elections than he’s won. He lost the United States Senate race against Kennedy and the 2008 Republican nomination.

Romney’s only political victory has been the election to a single term as governor of Massachusetts. And there he maintained popularity by governing as a leftist — not by winning others over to his side of the argument.

Keep all of that in mind. This is a guy who has a piss-poor track record in politics. Even now he’s only remained viable because the other alternatives have flamed out. He still struggles to crack 30% in the primary. He actually sucks at winning elections.

From the comment section on my post about Ron Paul believing the Bilderbergers are out to rule the world:

You sound like a typical Neocon, who believes (the well-known) terrorist state of Israel can do no wrong. In 2009, the WSJ, an Askenazi Jew owned paper even admitted that Israel created Hamas.
The REAL Semites are Arabs and Sephardic Jews, both of whom are treated like the Euro-Jews (supposedly were) in Hitler’s concentration camps.

However Israel, since 1948 has been ruled by Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern European peoples posing as Jews) rather than actual Semites (native Jews and Arabs) and is indeed the Synagogue of Satan as stated in the Holy Book of Revelations. In fact, Satan’s symbol, the Hexagram (or so called Star of David/Seal of Solomon) is the only symbol appearing on Israel’s flag (And it equals 666 in more ways than one). King Solomon was an Occultist as is anyone who practices Jewish Mysticism, like the teaching of the Kabbalah.

The POTUS doesn’t run sh*t!

So much crazy. Just…so much crazy.