By Jim Brown
GCN Live.com

Endorsements are coming right and left from major party officials in the Republican primary presidential race.

Even so, The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion page column last week that concluded endorsements don’t make all that much difference in the final outcome. Nevertheless, the three current major Republican candidates continue to seek out anyone they can get to join their campaigns.

A number of evangelical Christian ministers have endorsed former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich has picked up recent support from Herman Cain, who dropped out of the presidential race last month. Sarah Palin has given a wink and a nod to Gingrich. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has garnered the most endorsements and continues to be the front runner and gather momentum. But just as interesting is the list of major Republican heavyweights who are sitting on the sidelines.

Florida’s U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has close ties to both Romney and Gingrich, and finds himself in a political triangle. Going back as far as 2006, Gingrich has shared suggestions for Rubio’s book, 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s future. Romney perceptively endorsed Rubio for Senator in the early stages of his campaign when few gave the then Florida Speaker much of a chance. And though Rubio says he has no interest, both candidates have put him on their candidate for Vice President short list. So Rubio is playing it coy to shore up his options in this current campaign.

One of the most sought after endorsements is that of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. His father, the former president, has endorsed Romney, while his brother, also a former president, is officially staying neutral. Governor Bush may now be more inclined to endorse Romney following his big victory in Florida this week. However, Bush seems more interested in promoting his educational initiatives rather than in becoming involved in someone else’s presidential race.

Governor Bush rolled into my hometown of Baton Rouge this past Monday to speak at a conference on educational reform. But he didn’t just show up. An advance team was sent in three days ahead to plan the Governor’s itinerary. VIP receptions were arranged, with photo opportunities for the party faithful. A private jet delivered Bush and his traveling staff to Baton Rouge, and a contingent of security guards were in attendance as the Governor arrived and made his way to the podium. The only thing missing was Air Force One.

Until recently, many republicans were hoping that Bush would jump into the race for President. Some were even dreaming of a brokered convention, where no consensus occurs, and Bush would become the go to guy. Not likely. To many of the party faithful, there still is the stigma of the Bush name being associated with the failing economy and the Iraq War. But time passes and people forgive and forget. Four years from now, if President Obama is re elected, the timing could be just right for a third Bush to emerge. Jeb Bush would be just 62 when the next presidential election rolls around. I pressed the Governor on his future plans when we visited here in Baton Rouge, but he just smiled and talked about his education initiatives.

The Sarasota Tribune says Former first lady Laura Bush wishes there were one more candidate in the Republican presidential primary. Speaking to a sold-out audience in Sarasota on Wednesday, when asked if Jeb Bush will run for president someday, Laura Bush said, “George and I wish he would, we wanted him to this time.”

And then there is Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal. Many political prognosticators thought the second term Louisiana Governor made a big mistake when he early on endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry for President. Perry quickly crashed and burned. But was Jindal also a loser? Hardly. He told any who inquired that Perry was a close friend, from a neighboring state that shares numerous issues along the gulf coast. Allies of the Louisiana Governor also point out that he built up some major IOUs in the second largest state in the nation, a state that generates big-time campaign contributions for someone who, say, might have an interest in a future presidential bid.

With Perry out of the race, Jindal, just like the Florida Governor, is withholding any endorsement. Interestingly, Jindal’s top adviser, former chief of Staff Timmy Teepell told a gathering of reporters that President Obama is well positioned for re election. “It’s going to be a much tougher battle than most people think for Republicans to beat Obama.”

So if Obama is reelected, the present bunch of candidates, most of whom are in there mid 60s or older, will be fading away. Jindal needs to chalk up some major state legislative successes to build a better campaign resume. But no close observer will be a bit surprised to see Bobby Jindal emerging early on as a top tier candidate in the next campaign. And guess what? That next presidential election is only 1730 days away.

*****

“When I was a boy, I was told that anybody could be elected President. Now I’m beginning to believe it.”
- Clarence Darrow

Peace and Justice
Jim Brown

---

Jim Brown is the host of Jim Brown’s Common Sense talk radio show, which airs on GCN Sundays 9:00am-11:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Barb Adams
GCN Live.com

In what now seems to be an unending stream of legislation brought about as part of the so-called “war on terrorism,” new legislation introduced in Congress recently would, if passed, allow the government to strip you of your citizenship if it decides it is in the country’s best interests.

Introduced as S. 1698 and H.R. 3166 by co-sponsors Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Congressman Charles Dent (R-PA), the Enemy Expatriation Act would give the government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without having to convict them of being “hostile” against the United States. What this means is that anyone could be stripped of their citizenship for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” For the purpose of the bill, ‘hostilities’ is defined to mean any conflict subject to the laws of war, but considering the ambiguity of the “war on terrorism,” almost any action could be interpreted as supporting terrorism.

Constitutional lawyers Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson point out, “The American people are constantly being reminded that the nation is at war against terrorism, albeit undeclared by Congress, and against an as-yet-to-be-defined enemy. Anyone voicing opposition to the war in Afghanistan, or contributing to an Islamic charitable organization, is thus in jeopardy of being charged with committing the expatriating act set forth in these two bills.”

The Enemy Expatriation Act follows on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and is designed to “add engaging or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.” With the term “supporting hostilities” so loosely defined, it would allow the government widespread interpretation as to what actually constitutes “supporting hostilities.” Additionally, once stripped of citizenship, a non-citizen would not have the same rights as a citizen, and would be subject to the full force of the NDAA. It appears that this new bill may be the loophole by which the government could indefinitely detain Americans.

According to Titus and Olson, “These bills are inconsistent with current law and Supreme Court precedent. They appear to be tailored to cow the American people, without regard for the 14th-Amendment guarantee prohibiting Congress from divesting an American citizen of his citizenship.” It would appear the government, rather than protecting us from abuses against our liberty, may be leading the charge.

S.1698 and H.R. 3166 differ from current law regarding expatriation in that these new bills would make it easier for the government to strip Americans of their citizenship. “Six of the seven expatriating acts in the current law require proof of formal actions—either a direct renunciation of citizenship, or a similar act unmistakably demonstrating a change of allegiance to another country. These bills would require neither. Rather, they describe a newly minted offense, the commission of which may give rise to the inference of an intent to renounce citizenship, but without requiring any direct evidence of such an intent,” state Titus and Olson.

Under current law, before a person is divested of their citizenship, that person must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of one or more criminal acts in a “court governed by procedural safeguards of trial by jury.” Under the newly proposed bill, the government would only be required to provide a preponderance of evidence, that is, “just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.” In other words, you could be accused of engaging in or supporting hostilities any way the government decides to define it, and then the government could strip you of your citizenship and apply indefinite detention per the NDAA without convicting you in a court of law.

Expatriation is not a civil matter. It is a very serious criminal punishment—and anyone charged with renouncing their citizenship, according to Titus and Olson, “should be entitled to all the criminal procedures secured by the Bill of Rights. Nothing less will satisfy due process of law. S.1698 and H.R. 3166 move the nation in just the opposite direction, adding more uncertainty where more precision is needed. If American citizenship is to be protected against involuntary forfeiture, government officials must be reminded that in America, the People, not the government, are sovereign.”

What would the Founding Fathers think of such legislation? And how would they feel knowing that “We the People” have stood idly by allowing such atrocities against our liberty to be enacted against us, with only minimal public outrage and opposition? Somehow this experiment in democracy is going totally awry. As historian Carl Becker wrote, “If the framers of the Constitution could come back and see what the federal government is doing today, they would all agree that this monstrous thing was no child of theirs; for to-day the federal government exercises as a matter of course powers which they never dreamed of.”

---

Barb Adams is the host of Amerika Now talk radio show, which airs on GCN Saturdays 9:00p-1:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Steve Watson
GCN Live.com
February 1, 2012

Congressman has effectively been campaigning in the states for four years.

While Mitt Romney walked home an inevitable victory in the winner takes all Florida primary this week, the Ron Paul 2012 campaign was busy campaigning in Maine and Nevada, where the Congressman’s team has been busy building on a six figure ad buy.

Paul’s campaign has a lot riding on Nevada where the Congressman, scheduled to hold a major press conference in Las Vegas today, has polled consistently high for weeks.

Indeed, Paul has been running ads in The Silver State since last summer in anticipation of the caucuses which begin this Saturday, Feb 4th. When Paul unveiled his centerpiece budget plan last October, he did it in Las Vegas.

Four years ago Paul placed second in Nevada behind Mitt Romney. This time around Paul’s support has grown exponentially, while Romney’s has more or less remained the same. The Congressman has had two offices open in Nevada for months and has amassed a sizeable army of volunteers to canvass for the campaign, just as he did in Iowa and New Hampshire. In contrast, Newt Gingrich only opened an office in the state last weekend.

Furthermore, as noted in the Wall Street Journal today:

Paul’s core supporters have been campaigning in Nevada since September, and a group of Paul backers made a coordinated effort to become elected as Republican officers in their local party groups after a delegate dispute in the state party convention in 2008. “The ground game and the grass-roots activity never stopped,” said Carl Bunce, chairman of Mr. Paul’s campaign in Nevada.

As the article notes, it is Paul and Romney that hold the cards in Nevada – Paul because of his strong organization, and Romney because Mormons account for more than one-quarter of caucus-goers.

Paul has chosen to focus on Nevada because TV advertising is cheaper and independents are eligible to vote in the caucuses.

Rick Santorum resides way behind in terms of contributions, with just $915,000 for Q4, still by far, his best fundraising quarter for the year, however.

Romney tapped into his vast establishment connections and brought in $24.3 million between October and the end of the year.

The Caucuses in Maine and Colorado also begin this Saturday and Ron Paul is the only candidate who has routed significant energy into campaigning in the states.

Appearing on CNN last night, Paul elaborated on his strategy:

“You have to break through and get the attention that you can win some states.” Paul said. “We spent some time in Maine and there’s tremendous support up there so we are optimistic about that. We went through Colorado today, the crowds were very very big and very enthusiastic and we think we have a good organisation there, and that’s a caucus state. Now we’re in Nevada, and the same things goes there, but we’ll also be in Minnesota.” Paul stated.

“It’s easier for us to compete. You need energy and harder workers, you need people who are dedicated and who believe in something. Then you can compensate for not having 30 or 50 million dollars to campaign in a state like Florida.” the Congressman added.

“We’re fortunate that the system still permits individuals like myself to compete when you compete on the fervor of believing in ideas and having good supporters.” Paul urged.

“If we were to have endless funds or I would have had the wealth of Ross Perot, I could have competed with Mitt in Florida. So that is a significant thing, but it’s also winning the hearts and minds and getting the people to understand that liberty is in their best interests.” Paul added.

Watch the full interview below:

---

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Steven Birn
Steven Birn Speaks

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary last night and seems poised to take the GOP nomination.

His biggest asset seems to be that Republicans think he’s electable. He certainly has the old guard establishment on his side. Make no mistake, Mitt Romney is a terrific businessman who knows how to make money. Obviously he’s shown the ability to lead whether it’s in business, at the Olympics or as Governor of Massachusetts.

But for all of that, do we even really know who Mitt Romney is or what he believes? If there’s one thing that has been evident at the first 19 debates it’s that Mitt Romney has trouble articulating the conservative position. He says he’s for tax cuts but his economic plan is convoluted with 50+ points. It doesn’t take 50 points to adequately explain the conservative position on the economy. Romney has never opposed regulatory action by government, he seems not interested in reducing regulation but rather he seems interested in shifting it around to make it more “economical.”

Obviously we all know about Romneycare, which is essentially the state version of Obamacare. Romney has defended the plan and seems to only oppose Obamacare because it’s a Federal plan not a state plan. When did it become conservative to support a massive state run health care system? Romney weasels out of this question by talking about states rights, something most conservatives love to hear. But doing so only deflects attention away from the fact that Romney signed into law a massive state run health care system.

On issues of life, Romney’s record is the opposite of what he is now saying on the campaign trail. When he ran for Governor just a decade ago he said he was committed to the pro-choice cause. He said he believed in parental consent for a minor to have an abortion but supported judge’s having the ability to overrule parents.

Yes, Romney says that he’s had a change of heart. But does that change of heart mean he will nominate only pro-life judges to the Supreme Court? Romney has never committed to such a litmus test. In fact, Romney hasn’t talked about judges at all. If we look at his record as Governor, he did little more than appoint liberal Democrats to the bench. Perhaps it’s true, in a state as blue as Massachusetts Romney couldn’t nominate conservatives. But that still leaves the question open, what sort of judge will Romney appoint? We have no idea.

Just a decade ago Romney called himself a progressive Republican. Not surprising given his upbringing. Mitt’s father George was Governor of Michigan in the 60′s. He had good things to say about radical leftist Saul Alinsky. Romney went the liberal Cranbrook School in metro Detroit as a child. Mitt was raised by liberals, educated by liberals and a decade ago identified himself as a progressive liberal.

With all of that in mind are we to believe he had a sudden change of heart? Romney references no moment when he realized the leftist cause was wrong. Even if we believe that Romney has had a conversion to the conservative cause, he doesn’t have the foundation to serve as President. We’re talking about a man who until he decided to run for President was a leftist.

Let’s say he’s rejected liberalism, it doesn’t mean he now has an intellectually conservative foundation. Quite the opposite, he still has his liberal foundation. It shows itself when he defends Romneycare but opposes Obamacare. It shows itself when he suggests regulatory reform that doesn’t actually make government smaller. It shows itself in a 50+ point economic plan.

In short, we don’t really know who Mitt Romney is. We don’t know what he really believes. We have no idea how he’s going to govern. He had no conservative foundation, much less a conservative Christian foundation. This is the man the Republican Party thinks will defeat Obama? This is the man the GOP thinks is going to govern better than Obama? Maybe Romney really is a conservative but there’s a much greater chance that Mitt Romney will be the second coming of Richard Nixon, just without the tapes and criminal activity. His life long record suggests as such.

---

Steven Birn is an attorney and conservative political junkie and blogger. For more news and commentary visit Steven Birn Speaks.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.