THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE!: Ron Paul

Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

9/18/2012

RON PAUL FANS: "A TIME FOR CHOOSING" 2012

Posted by Brian
H/T Breitbart
Ronald Reagan once gave one of the great speeches in American political history - "A Time For Choosing". (Video of speech, below) Though it did not move Barry Goldwater into the Oval Office, it laid the foundation for Ronald Reagan's ascension to that Office sixteen years later. It is time for choosing again.
A small number of Ron Paul fans still cling to the idea that he or Gary Johnson still have a legitimate shot at winning the White House in November. This is not only unrealistic, it's delusional. At this time there are only two realistic choices - Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.
As Kurt Schlichter makes clear in his article below, this is no time to play around with some morally superior notion that you won't compromise your ideological purity to vote for someone like Mitt Romney. In other elections, like 1992 and 1996, though I disagreed with Ross Perot, I understood to a degree the need for people to lodge a "protest vote" for Perot. In both cases, particularly 1992 (Perot won 18.9% of the vote), those "protests" ensured the election of Bill Clinton. Clinton remains the only candidate to win both election and reelection to President with less than 50% of the vote in either election. The difference this time is that, though I didn't and still don't support Bill Clinton, he was no Marxist ideologue. Barack Obama is. The stakes this election are greater that they've ever been in my lifetime. Another 4 years of Barack Obama will ensure that the future United States will no longer resemble the republic that has been a beacon of hope and freedom for over 225 years.
Ron Paul supporters, the choice is: An imperfect Mitt Romney, or a Barack Obama who stands for everything you hate. Make a choice

TIME FOR RON PAUL FANS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION

by KURT SCHLICHTER 18 Sep 2012, 11:14 AM
There is no more time for games, no room for hurt feelings. Ron Paul fans, you need to choose, because not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. It’s that simple. And you could make the difference.
Maybe Romney isn’t the uncompromising Ayn Rand hero you’d design if you could build your ideal candidate from scratch, but he’s a lot better than the guy on whose watch this happened:

Continue Reading Here

Ronald Reagan - "A Time For Choosing"

8/11/2012

Will "Paulinists" Give Us Four More Years Of Barack Obama?

Posted by Brian

Woke up this morning to what I had already assumed would be the "big announcement" when I went to bed. Mitt Romney has picked Rep. Paul Ryan as his Veep running mate. Not that I'm some clairvoyant, especially after it leaked that the announcement was being held in front of the USS WISCONSIN battleship. Pretty much a no-brainer.

Anyway, upon turning on the news this morning, and seeing that my hunch had been confirmed, I thought that Ryan should be a pretty solid pick for Romney. I still do. After watching him back in 2009, at the White House debt reduction meetings, in which he ran circles around everybody in the room, both Democrats and Republicans, I have watched Paul Ryan. Every time I have seen him , either in an interview or giving a speech, he is fully prepared. You can agree or disagree with his positions, but no one can accuse Paul Ryan of being ill-prepared in his debates. He is also likable. He doesn't destroy his opponents with clever sound bites or personal attacks. He beats them with irrefutable evidence to back up his points. Paul Ryan is a formidable opponent, not to be taken lightly.

The Dems and the Obama White House are saying that they are thrilled with Romney's choice, but I think that the truth is that they are scared spitless with Paul Ryan on the ticket.

This should be a winning ticket for the Republicans. But not so fast.

I have also been browsing Twitter today and the Ron Paul'ers are in an uproar. (Aren't they always?) There are a lot of thing that I like about Ron Paul and his economic policies. I think the GOP would do well to listen to him on those. In fact, some of them already may be based on the recent vote in Congress to audit the Fed. But, on a lot of other issues, I just happen to disagree. The problem with the Paul supporters is that they are like the Obama-zombies from 2008. It's more of a cult-status thing. He is this young generation's "Rocky Horror Picture Show", with a hell of a lot more on the line than dressing up, and remembering to bring toilet paper and newspapers. The selection of Paul Ryan has hit the Paulinists like holy water at an exorcism. It's not just the whining and complaining. We know they're going to do that. It's the number of them pushing for third-party votes and write-in votes.

Others treat him like he's Justin Bieber .

Still others are threatening to move out of the country if Mitt Romney wins the election. Really? So, they're willing to stay in the country if Barack Obama is President, and see Mitt Romney as a bigger threat?

That should tell us all we need to know about some of these people who support Ron Paul. What kind of person would rather let their country collapse under Barack Obama, a person bent on taking us on a path to Marxism/socialism, rather than vote for someone who is not their "perfect" candidate. Yet, they see themselves as some sort of Paul Revere.

Some Paul supporters are legitimately concerned for this country and where it is heading. But they are not, as I far as I can tell, the majority of his supporters.

Many of his supporters who I have talked to and/or interacted with on social sites, are not much different than many of the Obama crowd. Self-centered and self absorbed. These are the "High Times" Paul'ers who really only care about legalizing marijuana and other drugs.

There are also the anti-Semitic Paul'ers who support the Hamas -backed Palestinians, and talk constantly about the "neo-Cons", their term for Jew-loving conservatives. and complain about U.S. Aid to Israel. Notice that they never complain about aid to the PLO, or other countries in the Middle East. Why is that?

Regardless of their reasons, Romney would be well served to give Paul some kind of a role in his administration. Say, overseeing all things at the Federal Reserve. The RNC could also give Ron Paul some time at the GOP convention. This should not be done in a vacuum, though. Paul needs to speak to his supporters and unify them behind Romney for this election. Though their percentages may be small, there are enough to hand this election to Obama, just as Ross Perot ensured Bill Clinton victories in '92 (below) and '96.

Those Ron Paul supporters who end up doing a write-in campaign, or voting for libertarian Gary Johnson, may fashion themselves as Paul Revere, but if Barack Obama wins reelection in November, they will have only succeeded in being Benedict Arnold.

2/23/2012

Ron Paul Is The Real Phony On Earmarks

Posted by Brian

Paul Submits Earmarks Into Favorable Bills, Then Abstains or Votes Against Them

Ron Paul was completely hypocritical in calling Rick Santorum "fake" while discussing earmarks in last night's debate. With very little effort, it is easy to find that Ron Paul is no stranger to earmarks himself.

In 2011 Paul requested earmarks totaling $157 million, one of only four GOP House members to request earmarks. These included but were not limited to:

$500K to widen a barge channel
$4 million for visitor information stations, sidewalk repair, wheelchair ramps, and landscaping in Galveston, TX
$1 million for sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, street signs, pedestrian lighting, bike racks, benches and trash cans in League City, TX
$1.2 Million for a child day-care center

In 2010, he requested fifty-four earmarks, which totaled $398,460, 640, which included $2.5 million for trash cans, bike racks, and decorative street lighting in Baytown, TX. There were also $4.5 million requested for the Wharton County Youth Fair, $150,000 to create sustainable wetlands, $105 thousand to reduce the drop-out rate and enhance educational attainment in Victoria, TX, just to name a few. These and many others are all on Ron Paul's website (click here for link).

Whether you consider these earmarks a good use of taxpayer funds is not the point. I don't think that all earmarks are waste or pork. It is a case-by-case basis. The issue is the disingenuousness of Ron Paul holding himself up as a paragon on Congressional earmarks, and berating his opponents, while being guilty of doing that which he condemns.

What's worse is that he uses deception to hide his use of earmarks. Ron Paul will submit earmark requests and have them attached to legislation of which is passage is a certainty. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, Ron Paul will either abstain, or vote against the bill. In this way he can claim that "I've never voted for an earmark", while bringing home the pork to his district.

If anyone is "phony" on earmarks it is Ron Paul and his attempted deception of constituents and supporters.

2/21/2012

Ron Paul Reimbursed By Taxpayers AND Non-Profits For The Same Flights

Posted by Brian

A Ron Paul Finance Scandal?
By JOHN TABIN on 2.21.12 @ 12:50AM

Roll Call's Jonathan Strong reports that Ron Paul's office has a history of billing both US taxpayers and outside groups for the same flights -- and that he's been confronted about it:

In March 2005, David James called Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) Congressional office for some documentation.

James's nonprofit group, the Liberty Committee, had paid for one of Paul's flights, and James needed a receipt or boarding pass to document the expense. He'd been pushing Paul for the paperwork and now, on the phone, he was "putting his foot down."

"So I called the office manager," James recalled. "They knew me, like, as well as they knew Ron. And I said, ‘Liberty Committee is paying for this expense. I need to get the boarding pass or the ticket or something.'"

The office manager said Paul's Congressional office no longer had documentation for that flight; Paul had sent it in to the House Finance Office for reimbursement. But Liberty Committee had already sent a check to American Express to cover the charge on Paul's credit card...
Read More at The American Spectator

1/20/2012

GOP Debate: Candidates Plans On Illegal Immigration

Romney's Plan To End Illegal Immigration

Newt Gingrich's Plan To End Illegal Immigration

Ron Paul: We Can't Defend Mexican Border While Troops Are On Afghanistan/Pakistan Border

Santorum Challenges Romney On Immigration Stance

Posted by Brian

1/06/2012

The Ron Paul Two-Step On Earmarks

Posted by Brian
Ron Paul says he has never voted for an earmark? Here are figures for just 2010:
Name ST # Total Cost Solo Solo Cost

Ron Paul (R-Texas)

$17,113,000

$1,900,000

Source: OpenSecrets.org

The Hypocrisy of Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul has rarely been on my radar. Sure there were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill (my emphasis). Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

1/02/2012

Obama’s Peace Partners, the Taliban, Attack Bagram Air Base on New Year’s Eve

Posted by Brian
Note to Ron Paul: This is what "reaching out" and "offering friendship" to our enemies brings - a perception on their part that we are weak, and continued attacks. You don't offer your enemies friendship. You defeat them with overwhelming, disproportionate force, thoroughly demoralizing them until they lose the will to fight and beg you to accept their surrender. Remember the videos of shell-shocked Iraqi soldiers surrendering to news crews and US soldiers in Gulf War 1, their fighting spirit totally broken? That is what victory looks like.

From the Gateway Pundit:

“Look, the Taliban, per se, is not our enemy.”
- VP Joe Biden
December 2011

Two weeks ago the White House told us that the Taliban was not our enemy.

Iran Press TV reported that nine missiles were launched in the attack on Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. There were initial reports of several casualties.

UPDATE: Press TV has more on the attack:

Ron Paul's Dangerously Naive Foreign Policy in His Own Words

This montage of interviews and debate performances with Ron Paul, juxtaposed with Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and Iranian state-run chants of "death to America", illustrate how naive and dangerous Ron Paul's foreign policy views are. According to Dr. Paul, America should approach a mad man like the Iranian president with hugs and offers of friendship. I guess sitting around the campfire and singing Kumbaya will cause Ahmadinejad to rethink his hatred toward the U.S. and Israel.
Ron Paul's foreign policy vision alone should disqualify him from the nomination

h/t to Sunny Abarbanell
Posted by Brian

12/29/2011

Rick Santorum: Ron Paul Foreign Policy Wouldn't Be Markedly Different Than Obama 2nd Term

Posted by Brian
Santorum: "I would vote for Ron Paul" over Barack Obama. "Absolutely".

12/27/2011

Video: Ron Paul in 1995 on the Ron Paul Survival Report

1995 interview in which Ron Paul discusses his newsletter "The Ron Paul Survival Report", which contradicts his recent claims that he did read or write any of the articles, including incendiary racial remarks smattered throughout the newsletter which bore his name.

Posted by Brian

12/26/2011

Ron Paul's Fans Can't Have It Both Ways

Ron Paul's fans have been complaining that he isn't being taken seriously. Now that he has a chance to win Iowa because of the lack of scrutiny he's had so far, people are starting to take Paul seriously and look at some of the crazy things he's said and wants to do. Ron Paul's fans don't seem to like that either. But, you can't have it both ways. If you want to be President, you don't get to limit the conversation to the Constitution, deficit cutting, and the gold standard. Your opponents get to pick things out of your record that they want to talk about, too, and Ron Paul has a lot of disqualifiers that make it impossible for him to be the next President of the United States.

Posted by Brian

Fmr. Paul Staffer: Ron Paul Racist? No. Anti-Israel? Most Certainly!

Posted by Brian
Former Ron Paul staffer and Senior Aide says Ron Paul is also anti-Israeli, supports the Palestinians, and "supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs".

Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism
Written By : Eric Dondero

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Read More at Right Wing News

Ron Paul Xmas Gift Makes Republican Girl Cry

Woman in video get a Ron Paul book for Christmas. Upon reading an excerpt from Ron Paul's book, "Liberty Defined", in which he calls Israel an "apartheid state", the woman gets visibly upset and starts to cry.

Posted by Brian

12/23/2011

Flashback: Ron Paul Endorses Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader For President

Posted by Brian

Would you vote for this woman? Ron Paul would.

As if there are any more reasons to show that Ron Paul should not be the GOP Presidential candidate, there is this bit from 2008 in which Paul endorses four(!) candidates for President, including the Marxist whack-job Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. How unhinged to you have to be, intellectually, to endorse not only four people, but four whom also hold diametrically opposing views on the role of government. This alone shows that Ron Paul is not a serious thinker. In fact it shows him to be a reactionary flame thrower, willing to completely abandon principles when he doesn't get his way.
Ron Paul may truly be concerned for the direction of the country, as all of us are, but undisciplined rhetoric and childish temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way should disqualify him from the top nomination of any party.
See some of Cynthia McKinney's lowlights below:
On Libyan Television supporting Ghadafi Regime

Cynthia McKinney in Libya and Iran (sorry about the poor quality)

Ron Paul to announce presidential endorsement plans

WASHINGTON (CNN)– Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul will call on supporters to back a third party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his own party’s nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.
Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney (my emphasis), Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide.
Read more at CNN Political Ticker Blog

12/16/2011

Ron Paul’s Self-Inflicted Handicap

Posted by Brian

Because the media doesn’t view Ron Paul as a serious contender for the GOP nomination, he’s gotten almost no scrutiny this season for some of the uglier skeletons in his closet – most notably, his infamous newsletters that promoted outright bigotry.

Read More at Commentary

Ron Paul admits he would not have ordered the bin Laden kill

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) admits on WHO Radio that he would not have ordered the bin Laden kill. Paul spoke to WHO's Simon Conway May 10, 2011.

Posted by Brian

12/15/2011

Ron Paul's Racism and Anti-Semite Problem

Posted by Brian

Paul's Newsletters, Past Quotes On Race, Jews, Gays May Sink His Presidential Campaign

Ron Paul is surging in Iowa and New Hampshire, while Newt Gingrich's support looks to have peaked and is now trending downward. In the "anyone but Romney" campaign, Paul seems to be the the candidate who is the beneficiary of Gingrich's falling numbers. Paul's consistent drumbeat of "end the fed" and "end the wars" has the candidate appearing to gain some traction. But outside of those positions, what do the people who are giving Paul a second look really know about the candidate? The media have certainly been mum on doing any real digging on Paul's past, unlike the anal exams given to Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann.
For many, their biggest issue with Paul has to do with his Blame America First foreign policy positions. According to Paul, we were responsible for the jihadists crashing planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania. It was our interference in the Middle East, and our alliance with Israel that set them off. It makes me wonder if he had a direct line of communication to Bin Laden's propaganda minister, as this was almost exactly what Al Qaeda was saying.
He also claims that it is unconstitutional for the President to go to war without Congressional approval. On this, he is dangerously wrong. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Constitution "vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad - especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States". In Paul's defense, he is probably referring to the 1973 War Power's Resolution. However, that is not the Constitution, and there is still much debate on the constitutionality of the resolution. The Founding Fathers', in their wisdom, gave sole authority to the executive power of the Presidency to make war against any and all threats. This was essential, as having 435 members of Congress debating the need to go to war would be a politicized process at a time when swift action may be needed. Congress certainly has the authority to cut funding for war, but that is also looked at through a political lens, and rarely happens.
The biggest problem for Ron Paul though, may be his past statements, and articles in his newsletters, on race, Israel, and the Jews. On these issues, his achilles may be exposed. He, or the newsletters to which he has attached his name, have made numerous comments that, at the least, can be seen as racially insensitive, if not outright racist, or disparaging to Jews. These include, but are not limited to:

“opinion polls consistently show only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,”
“if you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
In 1991, a Paul-controlled newsletter praised ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. “Duke lost the [Senate] election [in Louisiana], but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment,” it stated.
Paul has reportedly called Israel “evil” and has alleged that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, might have blown up the World Trade Center in 1993.
In 1987, an edition of Paul's Investment Letter described Israel as "an aggressive, national socialist state."

Paul denies ever making these comments, saying that they were written by contributors to his newsletter. However, these are in newsletters which bear his name, and which purportedly reflect his views and policies. If this many racially insensitive, outright racist, and anti-semitic remarks are made in his newsletter, and he says he has no idea these articles were in there, I have a couple of questions. How can anyone who is a serious thinker allow their name to be put on a periodical, and which are going to be seen as your views, have little to no oversight of the material being published? Also, if you say, as you do, that you don't have racist or anti-semitic thoughts and views, how can you have so many people around you, for so many years, who apparently do? Why does your campaign draw so much support from anti-semites, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists? What are they seeing, or reading in your words and writings which are drawing them into your camp?
The Paul campaign has also accepted campaign donations, and has refused to return them, from the white supremacist group Stormfront.org, which has ties to white supremacist prison gangs.
Ron Paul has a lot of things that I agree with from an domestic and economic policy standpoint. However, he has failed to distance himself from comments made by staffers and supporters who hold some of the most vile views on race, Israel and the Jewish people, and gays. In fact, in most cases he refuses to even repudiate or take a stand on these statements. His refusal to do so will rightly sink his run for President. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

The Real Ron Paul: Racist, Homophobe and Anti-Semite

Ron Paul May Not Be a Racist or Anti-Semitic, But Their $2 Million Put Him in Congress

8/25/2011

More Attention Really Does Need To Be Paid To Ron Paul

Posted by Brian
Ron Paul's supporters have been very vocal lately about the lack of press that he gets. Well, I'm certainly not the press, but at least I can affect my little corner of the world regarding Rep. Paul's views and some of his history, which I'm sure that some of my friends who are Paul supporters won't appreciate. In fact, my several encounters with Ron Paul supporters have shown them to be unwilling to look at any beliefs other than their own, eerily similar to the supporters of Obama. The cult of personality is a strong master.
I actually agree with some of what Ron Paul says as it relates to fiscal matters and domestic policies. But, there is a huge chasm between Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas and where I stand. There are definite undercurrents in his policies/ideas of racism, anti-semitism, and outright hostility toward Israel. His isolationist policy ideas have far more in common with George McGovern and Woodrow Wilson than Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge.
The American Spectator's Lord has written a great article as a primer to educating the public on some of the less well-known quirks of the Paul Doctrine.
Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign
By Jeffrey Lord on 8.23.11 @ 6:09AM

To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education.
-- Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul

Sigh.

Somebody needs to say this.

Does Ron Paul have a lot of interesting ideas he puts forward as a presidential candidate?

Yes. From his honestly libertarian views (he was the 1988 Libertarian presidential nominee, so he's been at this a long time) to his willingness to challenge the status quo on economics (questioning the role of everything from sugar subsidies to the Federal Reserve) to his emphasis on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, Congressman Paul has been fearless in sticking with his principles. And in bringing new ideas -- or old ideas -- to an American electorate that has been staggered by the far-left reality that is the Obama Administration.

But as complaints surface in the wake of his strong showing in the Iowa Straw Poll, complaints from Paul supporters and candidate Paul himself that he is not receiving the attention that is his due -- someone should say the Congressman and his supporters are correct. There should be -- must be -- more attention paid to the Paul campaign.
More at The American Spectator

9/18/2012

Related articles

8/11/2012

2/23/2012

Related articles

2/21/2012

Related articles

1/20/2012

Related articles

1/06/2012

Related articles

1/02/2012

Related articles

Related articles

12/29/2011

Related articles

12/27/2011

Related articles

12/26/2011

Related articles

12/23/2011

12/16/2011

Related articles

12/15/2011

Related articles

8/25/2011

Related articles