After taking a week off, Jason and Brett host Georgia Congressional candidate Valerie Meyers (you may recall her Liberty Candidate interview with us) and United Liberty administrator and contributor Luke Brady on this week’s show.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made unsubstantiated accusations that the reason Mitt Romney only disclosed tax returns dating back to 2010 is because he didn’t pay taxes in years leading up to that point. Despite having no evidence to prove this charge, Reid said the burden on proof was on Romney.
Romney has denied Reid’s claim, saying that the Democratic leader should “put up or shut up.” While the Obama campaign denies that Reid is doing their bidding, they are certainly taking the opportunity to call on Romney to release more tax returns. During an interview on State of the Union, Robert Gibbs told Cindy Crowley, “I’ve never seen anybody jump through more hoops to say…that somebody’s lying, but also to not put out a document that would prove what the real truth is.”
Those of us concerned with the Fast and Furious scandal could make the same point presented by Gibbs, especially after President Obama used executive privilege to keep information from Congress. But I digress.
While some Republicans are hinting that Romney should release more tax returns to put the controversy to rest, others are beginning to fight back against Reid’s frivolous claim:
Voters in Texas will head to the Republican and Democratic Party primary voters will head to the polls tomorrow to determine who will be their nominees for office in November. Candidates on the ballot include Debra Medina, who is running for governor against incumbent Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Rep. Ron Paul, who is facing three primary challengers.
Medina, who was endorsed by Dr. Paul, had been rising until some comments on Glenn Beck’s radio show that sparked controversy. Since that time her poll numbers have dropped off, likely not enough to let Perry skate away without a runoff against Hutchinson.
While I haven’t been able to see any internal numbers, I hear Paul’s campaign isn’t too worried about the three challengers (John Gay, Tim Graney and Gerald Wall) he faces on Tuesday. That doesn’t mean that they don’t notice them, after all he has participated in debates and they seem to respect the anti-incumbent feeling in the political atmosphere.
None of the challengers have raised enough money to mount a significant campaign, though I would like to see Paul’s financial disclosure come the end of the first quarter.
I’d be shocked if Ron Paul received anything less than 60 percent of the vote tomorrow. We’ll let you know the results as soon as they are available.
Before discussing the comments made by Michael Reagan, I think it is necessary to note that I have not seen enough of the evidence that “9/11 truthers” present to convince me that the attacks of September 11th were an “inside job.” I am familiar with a lot of what they talk about, because their belief anti-war or anti-interventionism positions with regard to foreign policy, I cross paths with them.
Regarding Michael Reagan’s commentary, in which he calls for truthers who send literature and videos to troops that convey their message about 9/11, to be shot as “traitors.” He also notes that anyone who participates “doesn’t deserve to live” and that he would “pay for the bullet.” We are not talking about Carl Webb’s call for sabotage of a soldier’s equipment, but the act of including this evidence in a care package.
Reagan goes on to single out the leader of the group that was including their message with care packages, positing that Mark Dice should be taken out into an active firing range. Immediately prior, he quotes someone with an organization I am not familiar with by saying that the items in question would end up in the trash, toilets, or the firing range. If that’s their destination, what is the big deal?
With regard to the actions of these citizens, who are merely spreading a message they believe in, in an unconventional way, there is no reason to threaten or call others to act in a way that conflicts with your beliefs. To them, Michael Reagan’s acceptance of the “official story” is just as ridiculous as his view of what they believe is. Unless they have somehow inhibited one’s life, liberty, or property, they have done nothing wrong. Even if what they are doing were “wrong” in the eyes of the law (I’m not saying it is illegal), it is up to those who enforce the laws to bring them before a court, try them, and punish them upon conviction, NOT this guy to determine their “treason.”