Thread: Open Letter To Herman Cain Supporters

I know it seems very unfair how the media has been to your candidate. Lots of those allegations are coming out of Chicago, an Obama stronghold. It is strange.

One thing we have all realized is that you do not have to agree with Dr. Paul on each and every issue. No candidate is the perfect candidate. But what we all can agree on, and we all really really like, is that we have now 30 years of books, essays and videos of Dr Paul in action, so we know ahead of time were he stands. No flip flopping here. Moreover, we have come to realize that Doctor Paul is more than just a medical doctor, he is a doctor in Economics, or at least should have an honorary one from the Mises Economics Institute. His predictions are amazing. So check out all his old videos.

And I know you are still taking a long look at Newt. Newt's infidelity is known, or so people seem to think, so it seems a bit unfair that Cain's issues are center stage while Newt's get a pass by the Mainstream Media.

Mr. Cain announced he was suspending his campaign for President. But some of the goals of his platform still can be reached; lower taxes, Government reduction. I would appeal to you to take a look at Ron Paul and his Restoration of America Plan it reduces Government as well as spending, balances the budget and begins to pay down our National Debt.

As well as ...elimnate non-essential Government entities. I know many of you may have issues with Foreign Policy, but once you understand that this is the policy the Founders intended it is easy to accept.

Don't for one minute think that a Paul Presidency would be weak though. Any war during a Paul Presidency would be a Constituional Declaration of War by Congress and all U.S. resources would be accessed to win it. I know many may be bitter, but when you do seek another candidate (and I'm sure you will) please consider Ron Paul and the 30+ years of consistency. Thank you!

Ron Paul Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/r ... o-restor...

Ron Paul would get my vote , BUT, despite him being the perfect conservative in every respect, he is naive when it comes to our enemies. Ron Paul would never make a first strike. If not before Barry leaves office this will be necessary in the next term. The Nuclear capability of Iran WILL have to be taken out. Not a matter of IF , it is a matter of WHEN?
Sitting down with the Ayatollah for tea and cookies will not convince them to stop. Military action will be needed and Ron Paul would not do it.

Originally Posted by dsprtt

Ron Paul would get my vote , BUT, despite him being the perfect conservative in every respect, he is naive when it comes to our enemies. Ron Paul would never make a first strike. If not before Barry leaves office this will be necessary in the next term. The Nuclear capability of Iran WILL have to be taken out. Not a matter of IF , it is a matter of WHEN?
Sitting down with the Ayatollah for tea and cookies will not convince them to stop. Military action will be needed and Ron Paul would not do it.

First of all let me ask you, when did Iran recently become our enemy? Did they attack us? Despite their leader, the citizens there are pretty much Westernized and have admired the US. Wouldn't it better serve our interests to continue to have them on our side rather than antagonizing them with threats?

Personally speaking, I take the reports of Iran's nuclear capability with a grain of salt. We were lied to about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify going to war with Iraq and now we are supposed to believe them again when it comes to Iran? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Even if Iran were building these weapons, don't you think they're feeling a bit nervous having Israel nearby with their nuclear warheads and us threatening to go to war with them too? We may be backing them into a corner to do exactly what we don't want.

You have to understand that when Ron Paul speaks about this he is saying that if we are going to go to war, then we need to vote for a congressional declaration. Also, Ron Paul voted to hunt down Osama Bin Laden so I really don't think he was preparing to have tea and cookies with one of our enemies!

Conservatives NEVER had a history of first strike attacks until Bush and the neo-cons came to power. Do you realize that the last time congress declared war it was for WWII?? Obama is no different than Bush. In fact, he's done worse and gone into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, etc without declarations. I don't doubt that he strike Iran next.

A friend sent me this email:

Going to war without a declaration of war not only represents aggression against the nation in question, but against every U.S. taxpayer as well. The only argument that can be made for taxing a free people is that taxation is necessary to underwrite protection of their lives, liberties, and properties. The only way that they can be compelled to pay for a war is if a state of war exists between them and another nation. To tax them for a war fought for other reasons, including defending people other than themselves, is to aggress against them. Once the government is allowed to do that, it is time to stop calling the United States “the land of the free.â€

Originally Posted by chloe24

One thing we have all realized is that you do not have to agree with Dr. Paul on each and every issue. No candidate is the perfect candidate. But what we all can agree on, and we all really really like, is that we have now 30 years of books, essays and videos of Dr Paul in action, so we know ahead of time where he stands.

On illegal immigration? No welfare to illegals is not the primary reason illegals are here, they are here for all the jobs, the occupiers won't do!

But will have to do, because the Obama Money is almost gone!

First of all let me ask you, when did Iran recently become our enemy? Did they attack us? Despite their leader, the citizens there are pretty much Westernized and have admired the US.

I must have misunderstood their intentions when they march in the streets burning American flags and chanting Death to the Great Satan, taking over our embassy and holding hostages, and just two days ago burning the British Embassy. When kinder gentler Iranians get control of the government and dismantle their weapons program , decommission their centrifuges courtesy of A Q Kahn,( father of the Paki bomb), and the North Koreans I might reconsider. By the way why are they building weapons delivery systems for nukes ? Are they actually planning on going to the moon or visiting the space station?

Let them aquire the bomb and the Jews will not hesitate to turn Persia into one big glass skating rink.

Originally Posted by dsprtt

First of all let me ask you, when did Iran recently become our enemy? Did they attack us? Despite their leader, the citizens there are pretty much Westernized and have admired the US.

I must have misunderstood their intentions when they march in the streets burning American flags and chanting Death to the Great Satan, taking over our embassy and holding hostages, and just two days ago burning the British Embassy. When kinder gentler Iranians get control of the government and dismantle their weapons program , decommission their centrifuges courtesy of A Q Kahn,( father of the Paki bomb), and the North Koreans I might reconsider. By the way why are they building weapons delivery systems for nukes ? Are they actually planning on going to the moon or visiting the space station?

Let them aquire the bomb and the Jews will not hesitate to turn Persia into one big glass skating rink.

Our “mediaâ€

Being familiar with history there are a long list of failed nation building projects conducted primarily by the CIA. Papa Doc, and JR , Noriega, Batista, Marcos, Saddam, the Shah, Karzi. Somalia has been a shining success , as was Angola, Chile and Nicaragua. Egypt will fall to the hard liners as will Syria. The only success stories that come to mind are Germany, Japan and Grenada. But in those cases you had something more than savages to work with.

I personally do not care how any of them treat each other and if they stay within their own borders they can do as they please. They can all subjugate women and treat them as property. They can decide they do not like a particular group and eradicate them all , as long as they stay in their own country and do it.

The same Ayatollah is still in power today and they got what they wanted. Ahmadinejad is just a mouthpiece and the whole structure of their government is a facade. The people in Egypt will be whining in just a few years about how oppressed they are , as will the Libyans. I have no sympathy for them.

On this point Ron Paul is correct, mind our own business. My concern lies in whether or not he really understands how dangerous these people really are. I have had personal experience with them, and I know the hatred they have not only towards Americans but the west and non believers in general. The day may come when it will be necessary to shoot first and ask the questions later. To err on the side of the safety and security of the U.S. is not always the wrong thing to do. Would he take action before or after? Today the power of the weapons available are not what they were in 1941 when we were blindsided by the Japanese. I would guess somewhere around 3000 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and it took us 44 months to defeat them. Today Millions could be killed in a single strike.

I have always liked Ron Paul , and respect him. But his blaming the U.S. and claiming it is our fault that the world trade towers were brought down , the pentagon attacked and another aircraft lost is absurd. The way to prevent people from attacking you is for them to fear you and what will happen to them if they do. If and when we pursue action against any other nation it should be a scorched earth policy. They should know nothing will be left standing and none will survive. This is the proper use of military force and it must be projected as such. Reagan projected this position and attitude well. The positive results are well known.

I feel as many do Dr. Paul would hesitate to use military force until after the fact. Many lives have been lost through frivolous , ineffective and unwarranted use of our military. Should the day come when undeniable use of force is warranted I want someone who is not hesitant to use it to it's full effect.
My personal opinion and that of many other members of the military service is that this has not been the case since WWII.

Dr. Paul should define this stance more towards a projection of power and strength , rather than the perception of reliance on diplomacy , apology and appeasement.

My apologies for the long delay in replying.

There is a big difference between using military force at the whim of the president, vs. asking congress for a declaration of war. When you don't get a declaration, there is no time table, no clear mission, no limit on spending and the wars never end. We haven't had a declaration of war since WWII. It has nearly bankrupted us, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lives lost of our soldiers and innocent civilians.

With great strength comes great responsibility. You don't win people over by propping up dictators in their own countries who then abuse them, or by waging wars of aggression. Fear breeds hatred and this is the motive behind why terrorists attack us. It is not absurd. The CIA has warned us about it. In fact it is just common sense when you think about the law of cause and effect. With all due respect, it is naive to believe otherwise.

There is a great number of members of our military who agree with Ron Paul 's position on defense and foreign policy. Both in 2008 and now in the 2012 presidential campaign, he has received the most donations from the armed services than any other candidate. And if anyone should know what it's like going to war, it would be them.

Ron Paul gets more donations fro the military:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t_d38_ojL8

URGENT MESSAGE From the Troops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYxPkKGe ... _embedded#!

You point to Reagan, but also look at all his years working through diplomatic channels with the Soviets. Reagan once said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means."We had all the years of the cold war and the danger of nuclear weapons. Our strength was not only in maintaining a strong defense at home but with our trading and diplomatic relationships as well. The collapse of the USSR was due to their empire of aggression all over the world. They could no longer afford it. And now we have become more like them. It is only a matter of time before we suffer the same fate. Why would you support borrowing $3 billion a day from the Chinese central government if you are concerned with national security? The most important element for long term national security is our economy.


I would like to remind you that when it came to the issue of attacking Iraq, Ron Paul called for a Declaration of War, not just an Executive Branch operation as defined in the War Powers Act.

http://www.house.gov/...

An excerpt from Ron Paul:

"I don't believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don't need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

And he led Congress to go after Bin Laden:

From 2007:
In October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not still be at large six years later. But today, John Bresnahan of Politico.com describes Congressman Ron Paul's effort to capture Osama bin Laden as "wacky." Wacky? Let's see.

Letters of marque and reprisal would: Improve chances to capture Osama bin Laden and others more quickly. Decrease the risk of American military being wounded or killed. Decrease the risk of a larger war developing. Decrease the number of innocent civilians killed. Reduce the cost of U.S. military operations. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property.

In 2001 when Congressman Paul introduced his legislation to grant letters of marque and reprisal against Osama bin Laden, he said, "The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government."

Dr. Paul's marque and reprisal legislation did not pass in 2001. But Osama bin Laden is still at large. Therefore, Dr. Paul re-introduced his legislation a few days ago. In a letter dated July 21, 2007, Dr. Paul states: I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression. However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
Ron Paul's leadership is wise -- not wacky. http://ronpaul.myfeedportal.com/a/ron_p ... in_laden30


Regarding comments about blaming America for 9-11:
Where exactly did RP ever say, specifically, that he blamed America for 9-11? That was started by Rudy Guliani who lashed out and made it seem that's what RP had said. I'm from NY and I know Guliani. He's an arrogant lier and uses the tragedy of 9-11 for his own personal gain. He was blatently pandering for votes during the 2007 GOP debates when he attacked RP for blaming Americans. Fox News then ratcheted it up with Hannity and the rest of the neo-cons. If Guliani is so pro- American why does his firm represent a business consortium that was involved with the Trans-Texas Corridor, a plan to ram a foreign super hwy through TX? The media never reported about THAT.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915600/posts

The fact is, Paul was criticizing our policy makers over the years, NOT America. He was attempting to explain the motive behind the attacks and referenced books and reports from our own CIA and the 9-11 commission panel that reported the threat of "blow-back" due to our policies. . In fact, he was warning about it for years:

Ron Paul Predicts Terrorist Attacks in 1997, 1999, and 2001http:/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnPV2xea2ro&fea ... r_embedded

You say that it's absurd to blame our government.

I say it's absurd to believe that they attacked us just because we are free! We blame our government for their flawed immigration policies, their flawed economic policies, etc. Yet we give them a free pass when it comes to their foreign policies. I'd be curious to hear why you think we were attacked. Ron Paul was just retelling information that our intelligence agencies have been warning us about the dangers of blowback.

It really is quite common sense if one turns off the rhetoric of the media. The issue concerns Cause and Effect. What I like about Paul is that because he is a MD, he views problems exactly like a Doctor would. What is the cause of the problem and how to best treat it. Unfortunately, many of our leaders don't examine things the same way.

Unfortunately, Paul isn't the greatest communicator when it comes to getting his message across. And much of the media completely distorts his position on certain issues. They completely ignore his successes too - such as winning 21 straw polls throughout the year - the most of any candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll ... ries,_2012

Ron Paul is for a STRONG national defense, and that is one of the few things that he believes the federal governemnt SHOULD do, but if we go to war, Ron Paul simply wants the wars to be authorized by congress, have a clearly defined enemy, accomplish the mission, and come home.

There are dangers of not having a clear enemy or mission. We can't afford the wars, and we are losing our liberties for them. If fighting the terrorists was so important, why do we give up all this freedom, spend all this money, and sacrifice all these lives, and then leave our own borders wide open? He obviously agreed that makes no sense and we are still in danger. Ron Paul also wants to use the troops to protect our own borders.

I invite you to review some of these videos. You learn a lot more about his positions when he's one on on. Maybe they will even address some of your concerns:


Foreign Policy & Israel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZpL8F4FgU

Ron Paul Answers The Iran Nuke Question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTB0GF5z ... re=related

Ron Paul Answers On A Hypothetical Threat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKse3W0Y ... r_embedded

A Conservative Speaks about War and Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoWhWsOWk