Sarah Palin or Jeb Bush could still win the Republican nomination in 2012 and become the next president of the United States.  Really.  In fact, Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie still have a chance too.  How could this be?  Well, it has now become clear that there is a very real chance that no Republican candidate will hold a majority of the delegates by the time the Republican convention rolls around.  If that happens, that would mean that we would have the first "brokered convention" in decades.  The truth is that the Republican establishment does not want this, but they are also scared to death of having someone like Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul as the nominee.  So exactly what is a brokered convention?

The following is how Wikipedia defines a brokered convention....

A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates 'won' during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party's presidential-candidate at its nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state's primary or caucus election) are "released," and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this 'freedom' will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.

Usually by this time in the election cycle, a clear frontrunner has emerged.  But in 2012 this has not happened.  Mitt Romney was presumed to be he frontrunner, but he just can't seem to rise any higher than the mid-20s in the polls.  A whole host of candidates have filled the role as the "anti-Romney candidate", but each has faded.  First it was Michele Bachmann, then it was Rick Perry, then it was Herman Cain and now it is Newt Gingrich.

For a while it looked like Newt Gingrich was going to become the clear frontrunner, but at this point he is clearly fading.

The conservative backlash against Newt Gingrich has been enormous.  Glenn Beck can't stand him.  Rush Limbaugh has come out against him.  And now conservative commentators all over the nation have jumped on the anti-Newt bandwagon.  The following comes from a recent article in the Washington Post....

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out today, you’re already seeing the anti-Gingrich mobilization among conservative thought leaders: Here’s George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Tom Coburn and Ann Coulter, just for starters. There’s this Politico story about all the Washington Republicans who hate Gingrich.

So what we have is a situation where there are 7 candidates and none of them can seem to break out in the polls.

There are three candidates that are pretty much guaranteed to go all the way - Gingrich, Romney and Ron Paul.

The rest seem fairly likely to stay in it until at least Super Tuesday.  Michele Bachmann is rising in most polls, Rick Perry seems to be bouncing back a bit, Rick Santorum is gaining a significant amount of traction in Iowa and Jon Huntsman is seeing his numbers move up in New Hampshire.

Sure, one or two might drop out in January, but the field would still be very muddied even if that happens.

In addition, a big factor in candidates wanting to stay in longer this year is the fact that proportional representation will now be used in all the early Republican primaries.

In the past, "winner take all" rules made it very easy for a frontrunner to lock up the nomination very, very early.  But now the rules have changed.  Delegates in the early states will be distributed among all the candidates.  This is going to extend the nomination fight and it is going to give weaker candidates an incentive to stay in and rack up delegates.  Those delegates may not win them the nomination, but it will give them leverage.  And in politics, leverage means a whole lot.

A recent article posted on Real Clear Politics described the rule changes that have been implemented by the Republican Party....

Basically, the Republican National Committee looked enviously at the lengthy Democratic primary from 2008 -- which strengthened the Democrats by forcing candidates to conduct registration drives and set up infrastructure in all 50 states -- and decided that a longer primary system would benefit the GOP as well.

So, it decided to require primaries and caucuses held prior to April 1 to allocate delegates through a proportional representation system. To greatly oversimplify, a candidate who receives at least 25 percent of the vote in any given state will receive that same percentage of the delegates (some states have a 20 percent viability threshold, and some states will have “mini-races” in each congressional district). A total of 1,277 delegates will be awarded prior to April 1, so it is nearly impossible for a candidate to rack up the 1,145 delegates needed to win the nomination outright by the end of March.

Proportional representation is the key to a brokered convention.  In the past, if someone won a state with 30 percent of the vote, they would get all the delegates.  Now a candidate with 30 percent of the vote will only get about 30 percent of the delegates in the early states.

Plus there is the Ron Paul factor.

Even if Ron Paul does not do well in the early states, he is going to stay in the race for the long haul.  His supporters are the most committed and he has shown that he can continue to raise money no matter where his poll numbers are at.

And at this point he has raised a ton of cash.  For the quarter ending September 30th, Ron Paul raised more than $12 million.

But the Republican establishment would do just about anything to keep him from winning.  The odds of him becoming the Republican nominee are not real great.

But it is very realistic to think that Ron Paul could be sitting there with 20 or 25 percent of the delegates by the time the convention rolls around.  If two other candidates such as Gingrich and Romney counterbalance one another the entire time, there is a real good chance that neither one of them will have accumulated 50 percent of the delegates by the convention.

Plus, remember, there will be other candidates sitting out there with their own chunks of delegates.

In addition, the growing dissatisfaction with the Republican field is making it much more likely that we could see a late entrant into the field.  Late entrants would not be on any of the early ballots, but they could get on lots of ballots in April, May, and June.

In such a scenario, the late entrant would have a very hard time locking up the nomination by convention time, but it would help to ensure that nobody else locked it up either.

In fact, there are rumors that some in the Republican establishment are already pushing for a late entrant or two to enter the race.  The following comes from a recent Wall Street Journal article....

Efforts are underway by some wealthy Republican donors and a group of conservative leaders to investigate whether a new Republican candidate could still get into the presidential race. The talk is still preliminary and somewhat wishful, but it reflects dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Conservative leaders are looking into whether it is feasible for a dark horse to get on the ballot in select states. The deadline to qualifying for the ballot has passed in Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire. But a candidate could still get on the ballot in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas. At the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, voters write in their choice, so there is no formal filing deadline.

The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

The truth is that a late entrant that gets into the race on February 1st could still potentially compete for more than 50 percent of all the delegates.

A brokered convention would be really strange, but this is the way that it was always done in the old days.

As William Kristol recently pointed out, brokered conventions have nominated some pretty famous names in the past....

In 1860, the second convention of the Republican party met in Chicago and nominated, on the third ballot, after considerable deliberation, our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. In 1932, the Democrats convened in Chicago and nominated on the fourth ballot—after a few days in which the balloting was suspended for deliberation—Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So yes, there is actually a very real possibility that Sarah Palin or Jeb Bush could win the Republican nomination in 2012.

It would be really weird, but stranger things have happened.

Hold on to your hats folks - this is going to be one wild election season.

It is absolutely mind blowing that any Republican would ever consider casting a single vote for Newt Gingrich.  The truth is that Newt Gingrich is not a real conservative.  He isn't even close.  After he left Congress, he spent years portraying himself as a "progressive" and he devoted a lot of time and resources to promoting liberal causes.  But now that he is running for office as a Republican again, all of a sudden he is trying to sound like a conservative.  And it is fooling a whole lot of people.  One recent poll had his support up to 38 percent.  But a Gingrich administration would be a total disaster for America.  A Gingrich administration would essentially be just about the same as a second Obama administration.  That is how liberal Newt Gingrich is.  Gingrich is a big time RINO ("Republican in name only") that is so liberal that he should actually be in the  other political party.  If you believe that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative and you plan to vote for him, then you are being incredibly foolish.

So what is so wrong with Newt Gingrich?

Well, for one he is for an individual health care mandate.

Republicans are supposed to be against Obamacare, and yet a huge percentage of them are supporting a candidate that was pushing an individual mandate way before Obamacare was ever even invented.

In June 2007, Gingrich made the following statement....

“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”

That doesn't sound very conservative.

Gingrich says that he will repeal Obamacare, but back in 2008 Gingrich wrote a book entitled "Real Change" in which he endorsed an individual health care mandate.

The truth is that Newt Gingrich is not a real conservative.

He just plays one on TV.

Gingrich has reaffirmed his commitment to an individual mandate over and over.  The following is an excerpt from an exchange between host David Gregory and Gingrich during an interview earlier this year on NBC's Meet The Press....

MR. GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point.

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. GINGRICH: ...or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

REP. GINGRICH: It's a variation on it.

If you are against Obamacare, you must be against Newt Gingrich.

There is no middle ground.

But this is not the only issue where Gingrich has been showing his liberal tendencies.

For example, before he was running for president, he was running around the country with Al Sharpton promoting the socialist education policies of the Obama administration.

Also, back in 2008 Gingrich actually did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi in which he declared that "our country must take action to address climate change".

The following is the sickening video that he did with Nancy Pelosi....

Not only that, Gingrich also has promoted the idea of a "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme.  Back in 2007, Gingrich said the following....

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”

In addition, as we have seen during the recent debates, Gingrich openly supports amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

So how in the world is Gingrich still leading in the polls?

Are Republicans this stupid?

It is almost as if they don't even care about all of the corruption that has been revealed.

For example, according to Bloomberg, Gingrich earned somewhere between $1.6 million and $1.8 million lobbying for Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2008.  He was supposed to lobby Republicans in Congress and convince them that Freddie Mac was doing a good job....

Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.

But now Gingrich says that he was not doing any lobbying.

The truth is that it is really hard to know that if we can believe anything that Gingrich is saying these days.  Just check out the amazing video posted below.  You have got to see this....

So why are so many Tea Party activists supporting Newt at this point?

Newt represents everything that they are supposed to be against.

For example, In 2008 Newt Gingrich declared that he would have voted for the TARP bailout if he was still a member of Congress.

Isn't the Tea Party supposed to be against bailouts?

The Tea Party is supposed to be against higher taxes too.

But Newt Gingrich voted for higher taxes on numerous occasions.

In fact, while Newt was the Speaker of the House the amount of taxes collected by the U.S. government soared from $1.001 trillion to $1.511 trillion.

Does that sounds conservative to you?

In addition to everything else above, Newt Gingrich has shown that he does not have the character to be president.

The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of "family values", but they are getting ready to send someone to the White House that has a track record that would make Bill Clinton blush.

The following is how a recent Business Insider article described the "skeletons in the closet" from his personal life....

Newt's personal baggage is either weird or scary. He married his high-school geometry teacher. He cheated on her and divorced her while she had cancer. So he married Marianne Ginther six months later. But that wasn't to last.

Gingrich conducted a tawdry affair behind her back with one of his staffers while making political hay out of Clinton's affair with a White House intern. He then divorced Marianne and married the staffer. 

How in the world can Republicans be supporting this guy?

The following video has more about Newt's marital issues....

If the Republicans nominate this guy, Christians should leave the party in droves.

For much more on the skeletons in Newt's closet, just check out this shocking website.

The sad truth is that Newt Gingrich is not a real conservative.  He is not even close.

His tough talk about Obama is just an illusion.  It is just a trick to get elected.

Yes, four more years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare for America.

But so would four years of Newt Gingrich.

And then after Gingrich failed as president we would almost certainly get Hillary.

Is that what you want?

Please share this information about Newt Gingrich with as many people as you can.  There is still time to turn this election season around.

President Obama donned his golf clothes this week for an outing at Mamala Bay Golf Course at Hickam Air Force Base in Honolulu this week, but it wasn't loud golf pants that had eyebrows raised. Along with White House travel director Marvin Nicholson, the president's group included his childhood friend Robert “Bobby” Titcomb, who was arrested by police in Honolulu for soliciting prostitution back in the spring.

This is not the first time Obama has golfed with Titcomb since taking office. Titcomb, who went to school with Obama at Punahou School in Honolulu during the 1970s, was a guest at the White House in August 2010 when the president celebrated his birthday. The birthday festivities included a round of golf at Andrews Air Force Base for the president and a few intimate friends, followed by a barbeque at the White House. Titcomb, considered one of Obama's closest friends, was present for both activities.

However, this week's outing marked the first time Titcomb has appeared in public with the president since the alleged incident occurred in April. At the time, Titcomb was one of four people who were caught up in an undercover prostitution sting orchestrated by Honolulu police. Titcomb has not been convicted of any wrongdoing.

Titcomb, who is a commercial fisherman and an airline employee, has been a close friend of the president since their youth together, and has always maintained a close relationship with the Obama family. The family’s Christmas vacations in Hawaii traditionally include a full day of jet-skiing, volleyball and grilling out with Titcomb at his North Shore home. This past December, the president, along with the first lady and their daughters, stayed at Titcomb's home for almost an entire day, and Titcomb is often a welcome guest at the golf and basketball outings Obama schedules for his Hawaii trips.

Titcomb was a featured speaker at a ceremony at Punahou School that honored the president. “He’s honest, he’s truthful and he’s always encouraged the better things in you," Titcomb said at the event. "And you always go back to those people who water your plant. Who water your garden.”

While plenty of people around the world applauded the overthrowing of the dictator, Hosni Mubarak, many were cautiously optimistic. It's not that they questioned whether or not Mubarak was a horrible man who suppressed his people, but rather, their concern was that something worse was looming on the horizon?

One needs only to look around the globe, at who is being persecuted today, to see that “evil” is alive and well.

The goal of evil has always been to do away with the belief in God and one method for accomplishing such has been to do away with God's people. The purpose of the Holocaust was to rid the world of the people of God-- the Jews. Today we are seeing this same agenda rear its ugly head. However, it is just not the Jews who are God’s people, it is also the Christians.

The cries of the world after World War II were, “we will never forget” the cost of apathy for the mass slaughter of a certain group of people. Today, many have already forgotten what evil is capable of, if left unchecked. Many more have never been taught the lesson, to begin with. We are, once again, witnessing God’s people being slaughtered, and the world (including the west) is, once again, silent.

Just like how America was silent when millions of Jewish men, women and children were being herded into concentration camps to be murdered, it seems as though we are keeping our mouths shut, today, as were are seeing the up-tick in the slaughtering of Jews and Christians around the world.

During the past few weeks, Egypt has displayed an unprecedented level of persecution against the Christians. First, there was the burning down of a Christian (Coptic) Church, despite the fact that it had all the proper permits and obeyed the laws of not having any visible crosses or ringing bells.

After the Church was set ablaze, about 1,000 Christians in Egypt decided to have a peaceful march, and sit-in, in front of the state controlled television building. What happened next could be the beginning of the end, with respect to one's right to publicly display their Christian faith in Egypt.

The Egyptian army fired live ammunition into the crowds, and used its armored vehicles to jump onto sidewalks and mow down the Christian protesters. May of the victims’ bodies were mutilated and many of the dead bodies were riddled with bullets. So far twenty-six people were killed, and more are dying every day from their serious injuries. There are reports that anywhere between 250- 500 have been injured.

This is the same Egyptian army that, earlier in the year, allowed the Egyptian protesters to sit endless days in Tahrir Square without a single shot being fired or a single protester being killed (initially). The Egyptian army is now killing its own people; something they vowed they would never do. It is also being reported that, just before slaughtering the Christians, the Egyptian soldiers, much like Al-Qaeda terrorists, have begun yelling the rally cry, “Allah Akbar” which means “God is great”.

Analogous to the days of Nazi Germany, the Egyptian State TV is also proving to be anti-Christian, and has evolved into a full-fledged propaganda machine. As the events began to play out, the media actually urged Egyptians to help police in ridding the Christian protesters, portraying them as a violent mob, attacking the army and public property.

Soon afterwards, young men armed with sticks, rocks, swords and firebombs began to roam central Cairo, attacking Christians. Troops and riot police did nothing to stop the attacks.

In Egypt, Christians make up only 10% of the 85 million people. There has been as strong outcry from the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic sects, for Egypt to become an Islamic state. Since the Egyptian Jews have mostly been done away with, the only people who stand in the way of bring this to fruition are the Christians.

In 1948, 75,000 Jews lived in Egypt. Today, there are about 100. There has been a mass exodus due to the persecution and anti-Semitism of Jews
This is not the first time Christians are being attacked, but by far, the most blazen. Since the removal of Mubarrak these attacks on Christians have esculated sharply.

In January, a suspected suicide bomber hit a church in Alexandria as Christians celebrated the new year, killing 23 people.

In March, thousands of Christians protested in front of the state television building after the torching of a church. Thirteen people were killed and 140 wounded in sectarian violence

In May, 12 people were killed and 52 wounded, in sectarian clashes, and in the burning of St. Mary's Church in the Cairo suburb of Imbaba.
This had occurred after rumors spread about how Christians were protecting a woman who had recently converted from Islam.

As a result of the increased persecution of Christians (since the overthrow of President Mubarak), Christians have been fleeing Egypt.  In a recent report, nearly 100,000 Christians have emigrated from Egypt since March 2011. This report also warned that this mass exodus has been prompted by the escalating intimidation and attacks on Christians by Islamists. There is fervor amongst this “new Egypt” to cleanse the country of Christians, just like they did the Jews.

Those that do not believe in the Judeo Christian God may not care about this rash of killings against Jews and Christians, however, not caring about a group of people who are being rounded up and killed for their beliefs, just because you're not a part of that group, has proven, historically, to be a very dangerous attitude, just as it did in the days of Nazi Germany.

Even if it is a group you fundamentally disagree with, or the massacre is happening thousands of miles of away, once evil has room to grow it will spread like wildfire and be hard to contain.

There was a prominent protestant pastor who first supported the Nazi regime, but then became an outspoken critic of Adolf Hitler. He later spent the last 7 years of his life in a concentration camp, during which, he wrote this poem about the dangerous cost of apathy.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

There are two ways this apathy will play out; we will either let history repeat itself and stand idly by, because it does not affect us, or we will be the watchman on the wall sounding the warning bells that they are coming for God’s people.

*****

The preceding was a guest post for The Truth by Alisha Venetis.  Alisha Venetis is co-founder of www.thePrepRoom.net - an online store specializing in emergency preparedness supplies.  She writes for Smart Girl Nation, as well as other conservative blogs, where she reports on world politics, domestic and global economics and the potentially negative ramifications they may have on America.

Since December of 2007, the government and mainstream media have pointed to runaway spending and predatory lending practices as the cause of the economic meltdown. The fairytale we’ve been spoon-fed is that borrowing, lending and the derivatives debacle was brought on with the fiscal abandon of a frat boy with a free brewery pass at spring break. There is no doubt that all three lead to foreclosures and financial ruin for far too many US citizens. But that’s only part of the story. The real instigator that has so many of us dodging pink slips, fighting to put food on the table and scrambling to stave off foreclosure began with the restructuring of NAFTA and GATT agreements.

When President George W Bush handed the baton over to President Clinton to sign the beefed-up North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992, it rang the death knell for America. At the time, concerned citizens were alarmed, for the agreement flew in the face of the constitution: article 1, section 8 that states tariffs are to be levied as a means to support the US government.

Many insiders warned NAFTA was less about improved investments and exchange of goods than it was a means for mega rich investors and multi-national corporations to grow richer and more powerful from the sweat of cheap labor. Others feared for US sovereignty and possible tariff deficits that would place greater burdens on US taxpayers. Simultaneously, warning cries were sounded over the safety of unregulated food imports from Mexican farmers whose growing practices include DDT and the use of human feces as fertilizer.

GATT was touted as the panacea that would promote US economic growth by breaking down barriers of trade and investment with other countries as well as dissolve “favored nation” status to steer trade that dissolve discriminatory practices against developing nations. The American public was promised job creation through the increased exports GATT would generate. However, not many in the public sector knew that GATT was negotiated by the United Nations, and through the consortium of nation member agreement, GATT was changed to the World Trade Organization in 1995.

Behind the Smoke and Mirrors

Before the restructuring of NAFTA, the US enjoyed a trade surplus with Mexico. A few short years later, the US economy was plunged into a $20 Billion trade deficit with Mexico and had suffered a 69% increase in trade deficits with Canada. Many growers, most notably California and North Dakota, lost their market share with grain, tomatoes and avocado distribution due to direct competition with Canada and Mexico. This was occurring simultaneously while the US bailed out the Mexico peso in 1994 during the Clinton Presidency.

NAFTA opened the floodgates for 4 billion of the world populace to join the world economy and stave off high unemployment for China, India, Vietman, Banglagesh. Today, we experience this shift, daily, with overseas call centers, outsourcing, and emerging financial mite as China gobbles up vast US holdings and real estate while our labor force suffers ever-growing unemployment.

GATT, however, was disaster on an even greater scale, for it threw aside the sovereignty of all nations in exchange for a global marketplace for cheap labor, capital, services and products. It served as master, turning into slaves those already living in squalor in third world countries through the use of sweatshops.

One example is Nike Corporation. When Nike moved offshore to Indonesia, they were able to reduce the cost of manufacturing a pair of tennis shoes to just $2.75, yet the price of their tennis shoes, after having moved offshore for cheap labor and lower taxes, remained at $70 to the public. Studies have shown that Nike’s Indonesian employees are not protected by their government, and due to the minimum wage of  $2.50 per day, many suffer malnutrition for lack of money to purchase nutritious food.

Nike is far from the only large manufacturer to jump ship for wage-friendly environs. Halliburton followed suit by moving its corporate headquarters to Dubai, Accentuate, a subsidiary of Arthur Anderson, are now headquartered in Bermuda and Foster Wheeler likewise moved its headquarters to Bermuda. Ingersoll-Rand, once headquartered in New Jersey, is now based in Bermuda, Tyco International has pulled stakes from the US to Bermuda, Cooper Industries jumped ship from Houston to Bermuda, Noble Drilling left Sugar Land, Texas for the Cayman Islands, Global Crossing moved to Bermuda, Seagate Technology now calls the Cayman Islands home, and Neighbors Industries proved to be less neighborly with a move from Texas to Bermuda. Hewlett Packard and Advanced Micro likewise abandoned the US for underdeveloped countries for cheaper wages and lower taxes.

Demographics show that a staggering number of factories and large businesses have vacated US borders, or have gone bankrupt in the attempt to compete when exporting goods made by higher US wage earners. In fact, the greed practiced by corporations is overshadowed by the necessity of an offshore move for manufacturers to remain competitive. As reported by The Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA was the direct result of lost or displaced jobs for 682,900 workers, which additionally added to the US trade deficit.

As reported by CNBC June 14, 2011,US home foreclosures now stands at 33%, higher than that experienced at the height of the Great Depression, which climbed to 31%. In 2011 alone, food prices saw an increase of 37% and are slated to climb much higher due to extreme drought and weather-related extremes that destroyed vast swatches of cropland.

There exists other negative ramifications of global dependence on manufacturing that are rarely discussed. Namely, when Japan experienced the devastating 8.9 earthquake in April 2011 which resulted in tsunami and the meltdown of Fukushima, G.M., Toyota and Subaru production plants were crippled due to Japan’s inability to continue supplying these plants with auto parts routinely imported to them.

No Lessons Learned; AKA Pushing an Agenda

NAFTA and GATT were not the only free trade agreements that played a part in US insolvency. The Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), was signed by President George W Bush after a tough congressional battle in 1995. This agreement was entered into with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic for cheap labor, free tarriffs and increased commerce.

The Republic of Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) is a free trade agreement between Korea and the US that was inacted in June of 2007 and renogotiated and signed by President Obamah in 2010.

Yet another free trade agreement called the Doha Development Agenda that stagnated under the tutalidge of President Bush was dusted off and promoted by The World Trade Organization at meetings held in its support in July of 2011. The Doha Development Agenda is esentially another free trade agreement between world leaders and developing countries, alowing poverty striken devoloping countries to get on the globalization bandwagon towards free trade and investment liberalisation.

The WTO is and always has been a bureaucracy that will remain borderless while they report to over 120 nations and answer to multi-national, powerful corporations.

Building Insolvency, One displaced Worker at a Time

As a result of NAFTA and GATT Michigan alone lost 315,200 manufacturing jobs by 2008, totaling a 35.5% reduction of manufacturing jobs, which lead the national decline as reported by the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition. The resulting job loss for Michigan was 489,900 due to the trickle-down effect.

Other huge hits resulting from the NAFTA agreement to the US economy are in computer and electronic parts, which accounts for 22% of job losses. Motor vehicle and parts workers have suffered a 15% job loss.

In the last decade, the United States lost some five million manufacturing jobs, a contraction of approximately one-third. In total, 42,000 US manufacturers have permanently closed their doors since 2001.

The public was not privy to the fact that unemployment rates had already begun to rise as 2.4 million jobs were lost between March 2001-October 2003 with the majority of displaced workers being in the manufacturing sector.

Today, the official unemployment rate stands at 9.10 percent. However, these rates are misleading. Those who have exhausted their unemployment entitlement are no longer counted as part of the US displaced work force. Neither do these reported numbers take into consideration that to stay employed, many workers have been forced to take steep pay cuts or accept the reduction of health benefits or both. Additionally, benefits such as retirement and profit sharing plans have been drastically reduced or curtailed. Many displaced workers seeking employment have had to settle for drastically reduced salaries and in some cases, have had to accept shorter hours just to re-join the ranks of the employed. Sadly, there facts are underreported to the general public. This underreporting makes it nearly impossible for the public to get a clear picture of the seriousness of the US economic condition, which is directly tied to employment.

The Solution

Recently M.I.T. did an investigation on the state of US manufacturing. Their consensus was the US must create17 to 20 million jobs over the next decade to see a full recovery of the current recession.

It’s difficult to fathom how as a nation we can expect to become fiscally sound when our leaders have proven time and time again their agenda does not always protect the interests of the nation’s infrastructure or its workforce. Evidenced with the continuing trend towards free trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT. This practice has brought the US work force and our economic solvency to its knees as manufacturers flee the nation and employment continues to plummet to disheartening levels. With the outrageous tariff deficits and alarming reduction of the workforce, the decision to continue on this path of destruction with CAFTA, KURUS, and most likely the Doha Development Agenda, it holds terrifying indicators for the failure.

But should The US abolish free trade agreements and swap globalism for the return of manufacturing on US soil, we have a chance to reclaim the solvency we have enjoyed since the industrial revolution and we can then offer a future to the generations to come.

*****

The preceding was a guest post for The Truth by author Barbara Fix.

Visit Survival Diva Blog http://www.survivaldiva.com/ for more information on rural living, gardening, home canning, food storage, and tips on combating skyrocketing food prices.

Survival Diva, Barbara’s preparedness book is available at http://www.survivaldiva.com/ Download for just $7.75

***The following is a guest article for The Truth by Left Coast Rebel.  I think that you will agree that Left Coast Rebel has definitely knocked the ball out of the park with this one.***

The Washington Post has it that "GOP Leaders Rebuked on Spending;" Politico has it that "Vote shows Boehner's Lack of Control."

Per usual, the lamestream press is missing the point.

I'll put it simply here: John Boehner and Eric Cantor think that they can "get along" with the Democrats, quietly pushing through destructive legislation that aids and abets the statist agenda.

They don't even put up a fight.

They just roll over and expect conservatives in the House and the Tea Party grassroots to go along.

No. And they must go.

CNS News has the real reasons behind House conservatives voting down the Boehner/Cantor continuing resolution (a fancy way of saying short-term) budget:

(CNSNews.com) - The Republican leadership tried to pass a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives on Wednesday afternoon that would have permitted funding for Obamacare implementation, Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Palestinian Authority to continue in the new federal fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

The bill was defeated 195 to 230 when 48 House conservatives joined with 182 House Democrats in voting against it.

Sweet. Attaboy for standing by your principles, House conservatives.

Republican leadership is known for saying one thing and doing the precise opposite. Limited government! Taxes! Ooohh, those wascally Democrats!

Then, they don't even put up a fight. How's this for throwing social conservatives under the bus:

An analysis of the CR published by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said that it “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

And fiscal conservatives, too:

The failed CR, promoted by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), was a temporary measure designed to fund the entire government through Nov. 18.

During that time, it would have funded the government at an annualized rate just $7 billion less than the level of federal spending for fiscal 2011--but $24 billion more than the Republican-controlled House approved in the budget resolution they passed earlier this year.

How about throwing all limited-government conservatives, independents, libertarians et al. under the bus?

Obamacare -- the same Obamacare that Boehner/Cantor rode into House majority status with, promising to repeal/replace/de-fund gets funded in Boehner/Cantor budget:

“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” said the study-committee analysis.

Imagine that there isn't anyone railing against this abomination over at Memeorandum. "Conservative" bloggers and talking heads are too busy waving their 'R' red-white-and-blue flags to consider that they are being used and bamboozled by the very leadership that they put into power positions November of last year in the first place.

Boehner and Cantor have no interest in promoting or furthering the righting of our financial ship. Can we afford that right now?

Another question: What happens when we have a President Rick Perry or Mitt Romney and these two guys are still the leaders in the House?

Think about it.