Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Ron Paul Campaign Names New ‘LDS for Ron Paul’ Nationwide Coalition Members

From notables to neighbors, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members prefer Dr. Paul

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign announced today new members of its “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition. Included among the new additions are prominent author Connor Boyack, and two Ron Paul campaign staff working in western states.

Focusing on a large western-states voting bloc, the continued use of coalitions will build capacity in a manner that proved pivotal to the 12-term Congressman from Texas’s top-tier finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The launch of “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” reveals a voter segment not monopolized by any particular candidate. Voters of an LDS background are in fact investigating the limited-government message of Dr. Paul and turning toward his candidacy. Their support and that of many other affinity groups proves Ron Paul can win the votes required be the Republican nominee for the presidency.

Connor Boyack is author of Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics. Latter-day Liberty explores the fundamental aspect of liberty in the good news of the Gospel, what it is and what role it plays in our lives. The book has been featured with Mr. Boyack on national TV, including on “Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.”

Offering a personal endorsement, Mr. Boyack is also state coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He is a political economist and web developer by trade, and a Brigham Young University graduate residing in Utah with his wife and two children.

“As Latter-day Saints (Mormons), we strongly support the Constitution and revere the founding fathers of this country. We are commanded in our scripture to seek out and support good, honest, and wise men for public office – those who will support and defend the Constitution. In the 2012 presidential campaign, only one candidate clearly meets these criteria,” said Mr. Boyack.

Continuing, Mr. Boyack described his support for Dr. Paul saying, “Rep. Ron Paul has been a consistent champion of the Constitution and the principles of liberty, placing himself in similar esteem with Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and other principled statesmen of the founding generation. He, more than any other candidate, has repeatedly demonstrated an unwavering, consistent commitment to keeping his sacred oath of office. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would do well to seriously study the public record and personal life of Ron Paul, and take advantage of the wonderful opportunity we have to support for President our very own modern founding father.”

Also joining the national steering committee are two Ron Paul campaign staff members, Michelle Jenson of Tendoy, Idaho and Dustin Petersen of Quincy, Washington.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michele Jenson stated, “There is only one clear choice for President of the United States and that is Dr. Ron Paul. Throughout my life, I have morally and spiritually convicted to pick honorable men and women to represent my values, and am encouraged to choose candidates who uphold and protect the Constitution.”

“In my view the only candidate who lives by these divinely-inspired principles and values is Ron Paul. In fact, the conviction of my faith has led me to dedicate my time to Ron Paul, doing all I can to step forward and preserve the Constitution as it hangs by a narrow thread,” added Ms. Jenson.

“As Members of the LDS Church we are taught to support candidates who uphold the Constitution of the United States. Without question, I know that Congressman Paul best represents that counsel. No one has fought more courageously for our Constitutional Freedoms,” stated Dustin Petersen, a BYU-Idaho Senior and who served a Mission in Ecuador.

As a function of today’s announcement, Messrs. Boyack and Petersen and Ms. Jenson are now national advisory board members of the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.

As a first basic step, those wanting to join the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition should visit the official page by clicking here. They should also send an email to Chris Kuper, National Coalitions Liaison, athq.coalitions@ronpaul2012.com.

###

Ron Paul Campaign Names New

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

LOL Love it...

What does Ron Paul want?
By Josh Lederman - 01/14/12 07:25 AM ET

Ron Paul is on track to end the GOP presidential race in second place. But his refusal to directly take on the man who's ahed of him — Mitt Romney — has Republicans wondering: What does Ron Paul want?

Paul has already ruled out a return to the House if he loses the race for the Republican nomination. And at 76, Paul can be ruled out for another presidential bid in the future.

That has left some in the GOP fearful that with nothing to lose if and when he exits the race, he could lambast the party and Romney for choosing moderation over true conservative principles.

The Texan has made a habit of voting against legislation supported by his party in Congress, making clear that his allegiance is to his issues — civil liberty, fiscal conservatism and limited government — and not to the Republican Party.

Even worse for Republicans, Paul could launch a third-party campaign for president, which would likely result in siphoning off votes from the GOP nominee and handing Obama a second term.

“I’m asked this all the time and every time my answer is the same. I have no plans on running as a third party,” Paul said on Saturday during a debate in Manchester, N.H.

But there’s another reason for Paul not to burn the house down: his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose political ambitions could be damaged by a father who went rogue.

“There has been a belief that he eventually wanted to take on the mantle of his dad’s brand” of libertarianism, said a Republican strategist with deep ties to Kentucky politics. “But Republicans are really focused on winning the White House. Anything that would jeopardize that would be viewed by folks in the party as unhelpful.”

When he ran for president in 2008, the elder Paul secured just 35 delegates and never won a state, unable to break into the top tier of candidates. But he stayed in the race until July, arguing he was continuing to accrue victories by influencing the ideas and discussions that drove the campaign. Even after he dropped out, he never backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and was given no platform for his views at the GOP convention.

This time around, Paul and his die-hard supporters are a much larger force to be reckoned with. Paul took third place in Iowa, then second place in New Hampshire, and polls show him on the rise in South Carolina, where voters will head to the polls on Jan. 21.

“If he keeps placing in the top three, he’s going to have between 100 and 200 delegates,” said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist. “Therefore, he would have some type of recognition at the convention.”

Even GOP kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), who has said he will not endorse, has been praising Paul in the lead-up to South Carolina’s primary and urging other candidates to adopt his fiscal message.

While acknowledging that his goal is to promote his cause — not himself — the congressman has pushed back on speculation that he isn’t really in it to win the White House.

“The best way to promote a cause is to win elections,” Paul said in Iowa after coming in third in the caucuses. He made similar comments in New Hampshire in the lead-up to his second-place finish Tuesday in the first-in-the-nation primary.

Still, Paul has yet to launch the same full-throttle attacks against Romney, the man who stands between him and the nomination, that he has against the lower-tier candidates who pose less of a threat. When Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry went after Romney for saying he liked being able to fire people who provide poor service, Paul even came to Romney’s defense.

There’s no shortage of conjecture about why Paul has gone soft on Romney.

It could be that he feels he’s doing just fine without going negative — especially if his real goal is to call attention to pet issues like standing up to the Federal Reserve that have suddenly entered the national discussion as a result of Paul’s presence in the GOP race. And with Gingrich, Perry and Rick Santorum playing attack-dog roles against Romney, Paul is free to take the high road.

Some say Paul — like the others — is trying to consolidate the support currently splintered among the candidates vying to be the conservative Romney alternative, so it makes more sense to go after them directly. Others say Paul likes Romney personally but loathes many of his other Republican opponents. And some say Paul has gone after Romney just plenty.

“If you look ad the ads that were run in Iowa, Paul worked really hard to differentiate himself from all the candidates, and had no problem pointing out that Mitt Romney supported the bailouts,” said A.J. Spiker, who served as vice-chairman of Paul’s Iowa campaign.

A spokesman for Paul did not respond to a message asking about Paul’s approach to taking on Romney — or about Paul will do if the former Massachusetts governor does win the nomination.

Romney, meanwhile, has largely left Paul alone when attacking his Republican rivals – he’s said multiple times that he likes Paul — giving the Texas congressman and his issues credibility and respect, even if nobody can quite gauge what he’s going to do next.

“Paul’s kind of like a dangerous animal that needs to be treated with respect,” said a GOP consultant working for one of the 2012 candidates. “People underestimate him at their own peril.”


What does Ron Paul want? - The Hill's Ballot Box

ON RON PAUL AND “ELECTABILITY”

By Professor Steven Yates
January 14, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

J. B. Williams’ article “Why Ron Paul Is Unelectable” contains misinformation but does raise a few questions; thus this effort to sort matters out. I should note before proceeding: I have defended Ron Paul or discussed his thinking in the past here, here, and more recently here. I have written this article because (1) if Mitt Romney’s nomination really were inevitable it is no guarantee, obviously, of a victory over Barack Obama (especially if those who supported Ron Paul decide out of conscience that they can’t support Romney and choose to vote third party or go fishing—like it or not, the GOP needs us); and (2) if Romney is the best the GOP can do, it only guarantees more of the same because—as with McCain vs. Obama back in 2008—the differences are more cosmetic than substantive.

In other words, the anybody-but-Obama rhetoric we are hearing from a lot of conservatives these days is as deceptive as the anybody-but-Bush rhetoric of Democrats was back in 2008. Obama has more in common with Bush than he has differences. He, like Bush, proved to be a creature of the power elite—on Wall Street, in the Trilateral Commission, and elsewhere. He continued Bush’s foreign wars and has even widened them to include Libya and Pakistan—and possibly Iran before near-future events can play out.

The hope-and-change rhetoric changed nothing. Likewise, promises of a change in direction coming from the Romney camp will change nothing. We’ll see why before we are done here.
First, let us deal with some misinformation in Williams’ article. Neocon is not an insult. The word is short for neoconservative: a specific political position worked out in detail. One can find the “Cliff Notes” version on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Wikipedia says:

“Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state. Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).”
Wikipedia’s discussion continues by noting how the stance was developed by former Trotskyite left-liberals, perhaps explaining how one of its founding fathers, Irving Kristol, could famously describe a neoconservative as a “liberal who has been mugged by reality.”

Back in the early 1980s, the term was not an insult. But as it developed, it was clear that neoconservatism retained a good bit of the leftism from which it originally sprung—having made peace with the welfare state, for example, or Keynesian economics, or a good deal of the trappings of political correctness when that became an issue in the 1990s. It was fundamentally a creature of Fabian socialism, created in academic centers of Fabian permeation such as New York University and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute where Fabian ideas hijacked both capitalist economics and conservative politics.

Neoconservatism combined these with a violently militaristic view of the world. Accordingly, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs senior fellow Richard Clarke could describe neoconservatism as having these “main characteristics”:

• a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on U.S. unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East
• an us-versus-them mentality."

Is this really conservatism? Should we have problems with it? Neoconservatives believe in a brand of “American exceptionalism” holding that the U.S. both can and should police the rest of the world, that it should intervene in the affairs of other nations including initiating violent “regime change” against foreign leaders who have neither attacked nor threatened us, nor have the technological means of attacking us (Iraq is an example). To be fair, this idea hardly began with neoconservatism—Mohammed Mosadegh was forcibly unseated from his position as Iran’s elected president in a CIA-backed coup back in the early 1950s, after all—but today’s neoconservatives, especially since 9/11, have taken this kind of program further than ever before. All we need as is how many stable democracies neoconservatives have created in the Middle East in the past 20 years? The answer is: none!

The movement’s history of belligerence passed off as conservatism has caused friction between neoconservatives and, e.g., paleoconservatives, or libertarian-leaning Republicans such as those of us backing Dr. Paul. It is probably true that the term neocon has been thrown at some of the other candidates for the GOP nomination as an insult, or at their supporters. I confess to having done this a time or two myself. Mea culpa. Point taken. We should try to do better, to focus on issues instead of on personalities. We shouldn’t have too much trouble, because there are plenty of issues!

Our national debt is pushing $15.2 trillion! This is just the official figure! The actual figure, which would include, e.g., Social Security obligations, is at least five times higher! Republicans cannot blame this on Obama. He hasn’t been around that long. The national debt was $5.7 when George W. Bush took office and $10.8 trillion when Obama took office.

Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994 until 2006. Congressional spending did not drop appreciably. Both mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats have contributed to the skyrocketing national debt, and neither seems to have any incentive to do anything about it once its people are elected.

Ron Paul promises to do something by immediately cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget. He pledges to end six federal agencies, including the worthless U.S. Department of Education.

But we shouldn’t take these actions, under the admittedly tall assumption that he ever gets to make them, out of context. Ron Paul wishes to take the federal government back to the U.S. Constitution. What does it mean to do this? Is it doable? J.B. Williams understandably wants to know how? One of the main arguments he makes is that Ron Paul hasn’t shown us how he would do anything. To find out whether this has the sting he thinks it has, let’s focus on a specific: the Federal Reserve, which Dr. Paul wants to abolish (one of his many books is entitled End the Fed).

The first thing to note is that Ron Paul has never promised to enact a program and obtain comprehensive results overnight. Such a promise would make him a raving lunatic. This is why he’s introduced bills into Congress aimed at subjecting the Fed to a comprehensive audit. He believes that such an audit would generate sufficient outrage that many besides himself would demand it be shut down—and replaced by a decentralized banking system that would allow both public banks and private ones giving the buying public a genuine choice. Whether Dr. Paul is right about this or not, I don’t know. But what we have learned is that the Fed gave $16.1 trillion to the banking leviathans both American and foreign between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010.

Where did the Fed get $16.1 trillion? It created the money out of thin air. Fed bureaucrats entered data into a computer. During this economic crisis the Fed has had one consistent policy: inflate. It hasn’t worked. We don’t have a “real” economic recovery, we have a “technical” recovery—reflected in professional economists statistics but not in people’s lives. For all practical purposes the Fed owns the economics profession in this country. (I am, of course, speaking metaphorically.)

For all Williams’s complaints about how we Ron Paul supporters don’t understand fiat money—or how there isn’t enough gold in the country to support a gold standard—what should be clear is that such practices by the central bank will eventually destroy the dollar. The dollar has lost over 96 percent of its value since the Fed was created in 1913. The loss in value accelerated after Nixon “closed the gold window” in 1971. It is possible to justify money creation to keep up with population growth and genuine economic expansion. But when used as a means to stimulate expansion, the practice is nothing but trouble. The Fed has been generating artificial economic booms since the Nixon years. We know, after the fact, that they are artificial because they always end in “busts”—painful recessions. Artificial booms mean malinvestments and bubbles. A recession is the economy’s “effort” to clear these out. If not allowed to do so, the bubble moves elsewhere (e.g., from the tech sector in the late 1990s to the housing sector in the 2000s). Eventually, though, reality kicks in and the bubble bursts. The housing bubble began to deflate in 2007.

The combination of this with the greed-driven manipulations in the leviathan banks—CDS’s and other derivatives, for example—nearly destabilized the entire financial system in early fall 2008. The fundamentals that gave rise to those manipulations are still in place. The derivatives bubble still exists. It is considerably larger today than it was in 2008. That is why many of us believe the Meltdown of 2008 isn’t over, that we may be in an economy like that of the early 1930s. The Dow had recovered back then as well. Mainstream economists then were heard to say, “The worst is behind us.” They were wrong. Our mainstream economists are also wrong. Always remember: the economics profession is “owned” by the Fed, and therefore by the elite central bankers who have profited massively while the American people have been thrown out of work and, in many cases, into the streets in many cases. Can Ron Paul do anything about this? I don’t know. He certainly can’t wave a magic wand and make economic reality go away. But he could put us on track to begin a necessary reversal of course—necessary because the alternative is economic decline punctuated by more 2008-style shocks and government dysfunction.

A few mavericks among economists have shown that in reality, the country has experienced very little real growth since the 1970s. Paul Craig Roberts is an example. Wages have not kept up with inflation. As a nation we are getting poorer. The descendents of those bankers who created the Fed are getting richer. They represent a tiny minority who have learned to generate “wealth” by moving fiat money around all day. The middle class, meanwhile, is disappearing. The reasons for this are more complex than just Fed policy, of course; but the diminishing purchasing power of our money is an important factor.

We should all thank Ron Paul for having drawn attention to this. Before 2008, few people had even heard of the Fed.

Today, its name is verging on becoming a household word. This is true especially among young people who have college degrees but fear spiraling downward into poverty. They move back in with Mom and Dad because they can’t find jobs that will allow them to live independently. They have allowed themselves to be roped into the federally guaranteed student loan system. Loans by definition must be paid back—to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. This requires a decent-paying job. Recent college graduates understandably fear indentured servitude when there aren’t any such jobs, in an economy having entered irreversible decline. This generation is turning to Ron Paul in record numbers. Its members may not have Ph.D.’s in economics. But their noses are telling them this country can’t continue in its present direction without descending to something akin to third world status.

Williams maintains that Ron Paul has misread the Constitution on abortion. He may be right. Ron Paul, we should remember, is probably more libertarian than conservative. His ideal is as small a government as is capable of maintaining social stability. But that still might include protecting life as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t believe for a minute Dr. Paul thinks abortion is morally acceptable. He was a baby doctor before he went into politics. He’s delivered thousand of babies. His seemingly laissez-faire stance on social issues has set many traditional-minded conservatives on edge, however. He does not agree with them that these issues can be settled by force. I tend to agree (I develop my argument in detail here). What will settle them? A change in worldview, not a change in elected officials. The bottom line: a large percentage of the population—I don’t have statistics here, but I am confident it represents at least half—sees nothing morally wrong with first-trimester abortions at the very least. The percentage of those who would deny the abortion option to victims of rape or incest is now very small. Few abortions are performed on rape or incest victims. Most are acts of convenience. Again, mainstream Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 until 2006. They had every opportunity to do something about abortion besides bloviate on the subject and accept money from pro-life groups. They did nothing. To my mind it seems hypocritical for anyone in the GOP to condemn Ron Paul for declaring abortion to be not a federal responsibility.

Williams also sees Dr. Paul—along with many others in the GOP mainstream—as soft on radical Islam, as not seeing the colossal danger it supposedly represents. Those of us who take a heretical position on this issue—that danger from Muslims is not nonexistent but is very much overblown—do so for a very simple reason. “Our” political class has done absolutely nothing to keep potentially hostile aliens out of this country by securing our borders. (Not all illegal aliens are from Mexico, after all!) TSA officials in airports feel up little girls and strip search grandmothers but don’t much bother with Muslims. They would have to engage in “racial profiling” to do that, and we know the sacred canons of political correctness can’t be violated. This joke agency, moreover, has yet to detect a single terrorist, Muslim or otherwise. If Muslims wanted to wreak havoc on American soil, they would have little trouble doing it. There are sports events at major colleges and universities everywhere in this country on almost every weekend of the academic year. Fall football games attract almost a hundred thousand people per Saturday. No such event has ever been hit. No doubt I will get some hostile responses to this. I welcome evidence that Muslims represent the threat to this country that neoconservatives make them out to be, and that our political elites, Republican and Democrat, haven’t created a bogeyman and used it to justify war, war, and more war—not to mention the increasingly repressive domestic police state for which the Patriot Act wrote the first post-9/11 chapter.

The long and the short of it is this: we have, for the first time since 1964 (the year the Republicans ran for president a genuine conservative who understood something of “our” globalist power elite—Barry Goldwater—against the liberal Lyndon Johnson), an opportunity to present voters with a choice between two very different political philosophies based on very different premises about where this country ought to go. One direction promises us more of what we have now (that is to say, more war, more police-statism, more economic dysfunction, and eventually massive tax increases and price inflation). The other promises a slow struggle back to liberty and Constitutionally limited government (it does not promise that this struggle will be easy).

If Williams is right, and Mitt Romney already has the nomination pretty much sown up, then we’ve made our choice, and we’ll have another rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. This is essentially what we had in 2008, once Ron Paul supporters were forcibly ejected from the GOP National Convention. (And Williams wonders why many Ron Paul supporters seem so ticked off?) Perhaps we should note: at present, Romney’s major campaign contributor is Goldman Sachs; in the 2008 election cycle Obama’s second largest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs. Today, Romney’s former company Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel, in turn the largest owner of conservative talk radio stations in the country. It is true that Romney no longer runs the company; but he has a financial stake in it worth millions (go here). Is it really that surprising that major conservative voices—or voices that call themselves conservative at any rate—are supporting Romney? Follow the money.

In sum: let’s just look at the delegate numbers at this stage of the game—prior to the South Carolina primary. As of this writing, Romney has twelve delegates. Ron Paul has ten. Rick Santorum has seven. Jon Huntsman has two. Newt Gingrich has two. Rick Perry has two. The number needed to win nomination is 1,144. Ron Paul vaulted into second place despite hostility from mainstream Republicans and an initial blackout by the mainstream media. My point: contrary to Williams, this is far from over.

This GOP nomination season is a contest between those who have been fooled into thinking Romney offers a real alternative to Obama, and those of us who know better.

However, I suggest we leave this in the hands of the people rather than with trying to decide it a priori. If Mitt Romney does win the nomination, the reasonable conclusion is that America’s masses are either satisfied with the status quo or too public-schooled to think all these issues through for themselves. They will have to live with the consequences.

© 2012 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

Steven Yates’s new book is entitled; Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic, and was published in December by Brush Fire Press International. He is the author of two earlier books, Worldviews: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (2005) and Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), as well as several hundred articles in various periodicals and online. He earns his living teaching philosophy and lives in Greenville County, South Carolina.

Steven Yates -- On Ron Paul and "Electability"

GOP stealing the election from Ron Paul CITIZENS ALERT - YouTube



Dec 29, 2011

Mike Rivero a patriotic Jewish American radio host reveals that the GOP leadership are going to THIEVE THE ELECTION

~Ron Paul~ Terrorizing The Establishment - YouTube

mitt V mitt : Awsom Ron Paul - YouTube

Passionate About President Paul

Writes The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza:

In the wake of his second-place showing in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday night, Texas Rep. Ron Paul declared: “We are dangerous to the status quo of this country”.

He’s right…

A look at exit polling from New Hampshire suggests that Paul has a significant — and steady — following that exists almost entirely apart from the Republican party and is, in many ways, based on a disgust with the GOP.

Two numbers from the exit polls jump out.

1) Almost seven in ten people who voted for Paul on Tuesday in New Hampshire said they would be “dissatisfied” if former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee.

2) Fully 78 percent of Paul’s New Hampshire support came from those who are dissatisfied or angry with the Obama administration — not surprising given the low regard in which the current president is held by Republicans. But, consider this: 77 percent of Paul’s Granite State supporters in 2008 were similarly upset with the Bush administration. In fact, half of all Paul’s votes four years ago came from voters downright “angry” with Republican president.

Combine those two data points with the fact that Paul’s vote total more than tripled between 2008 (18,308 votes) and 2012 (56,000 votes and counting) and it’s clear that the Texas Republican’s support is not only primed and ready to follow him wherever he leads but it is also growing…

What creates Paul’s pied-piper appeal is not just consistency and authenticity. What really makes people follow Paul—whether they know it or not—is that he has a pretty empowering message: common sense prevails. If a guy who started out delivering babies can figure out what needs to be done to resolve the financial crisis, he seems to be saying, voters can too. He leads with explanations instead of orders, with straightforward logic instead of high-minded policy solutions.

This faith in common sense is what anchors Paul’s leadership, and is what makes him patient and trusting that both the system—and the voters—will ultimately come around to his truth telling. It’s often said Paul’s popularity comes from the fact that his followers trust him. But perhaps more important, he makes them feel like he trusts them.

Paul’s ability to inspire enthusiastic loyalty could help him were he to be elected president… if he were, such passion could help him pull together a galvanized team of staffers and motivated network of supporters lined up behind a common cause.

Passionate About President Paul*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Reagan’s Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on Ron Paul and Abortion

Ron Paul has been 100% pro-life his entire political career. An obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, being pro-life has always been integral to Paul’s political and personal philosophy. In fact, Paul’s first book written in 1983 was titled Abortion and Liberty. The foreword was written by C. Everett Koop, the pro-life Surgeon General appointed by Ronald Reagan. Below is Koop’s foreword:

Foreword

One might wonder why another book on abortion. Is there anything to say except the tricky alliteration of a new slogan? Has someone found a new message? Is there a person out there with credentials no one else seems to have?

The answer to that last question is: “Yes.” Ron Paul is not only a physician, but he was trained in the discipline of obstetrics and gynecology and therefore is a the front lines in the battle against abortion. This physician was then elected to Congress four times and looks back on abortion as a problem he saw in biomedical ethics as a student, then as a resident and finally as a practitioner of obstetrics.

The fresh insights that Ron Paul, the physician, brings to the question of abortion stem from the experience he developed as a Member of Congress, as he contemplated the relationship between natural rights and a free society.

It is true that some of the old arguments about rights, viability, mother versus child, child abuse, health of the mother, and rape are considered in these pages. There is much more. The unique contribution found in this book is the examination of a free society in reference to that society’s responsibilities. Perhaps another way of stating it is that there is an examination of the child’s rights versus the mother’s obligations. The concluding warning is clear: a disregard for human life will not expand human freedom.

The individual rights we all cherish are rooted in the value we assign to human life, especially innocent human life. The author’s credentials are unique and so is his approach to the diverse social problem abortion has become in our day.

C.Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D. 5

Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on Ron Paul and Abortion*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul Florida Team Names New ‘Hispanics for Ron Paul’ Nationwide Coalition Members

Paul backers from crucial Sunshine State voting bloc to assist with Miami-Dade County outreach

KISSIMMEE, Florida – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today additional members of its growing “Hispanics for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.

The following additions are all from Miami-Dade County, Florida and have pledged to support Ron Paul’s candidacy spread the word about Dr. Paul among their peers.

Renyel Rivero is a real estate broker and owner of Worldwide Select Group. He says he is “…inspired by Ron Paul, specifically when it comes to his defiance of the corporatism that most don’t dare speak about. His persistence has created the possibility that what the powerful individuals and special interests have created will be brought down in the name of liberty once again. It’s no coincidence that as the population grows conscious of the special interests that have misled us, the support for Ron Paul grows.”

Originally from pre-Castro Havana, Cuba, Leopoldo Aguilera of Miami is a veteran of Brigade 2506, the group of Cuban exiles sponsored by the CIA for an attempted coup of the Castro-led government. A proud Cuban naturalized American citizen, Mr. Aguilera originally learned of Ron Paul while living in Texas in the 70s and 80s.

“I have followed Ron Paul since he first started in Texas. I lived there and can assure you that he is a totally straight arrow who has been warning us about our present economic disaster for over 30 years, and he is the only one that really knows and means what he says about solving our economic calamity,” said Mr. Aguilera.

Melanie Modesti of Coral Gables has been enthusiastically involved with the grassroots office in Miami, doing phone banking and precinct walking for Ron Paul, and has committed to more involvement in outreach for the local Hispanic community.

Born and raised in Miami’s Cuban exile community, Anthony Travieso is now studying economics at George Mason University in Virginia. Although offering a personal endorsement, Mr. Travieso is a member of the Miami-Dade Republican Executive Committee and is involved in many conservative grassroots organizations.

Mr. Travieso stated, “As a young Cuban-American, I believe Ron Paul’s platform of economic freedom can modernize a Cold War foreign policy of sanctions and embargos. Free-trade creates and empowers a middle class in all nations, so that individuals may guide their country’s future with unfettered rights.”

Similar to those first joining the coalition during its launch in November, the new members being announced today are leaders in their community who are representative of the support Dr. Paul enjoys from America’s fastest-growing population and voter segment.

A recent poll shows Dr. Paul faring better among nonwhite votes than any other Republican candidate when matched against incumbent President Barack Obama. “Hispanics for Ron Paul,” then, offers the Ron Paul campaign the opportunity to form a larger winning coalition by sharing his message of personal and economic liberty among voters of Hispanic ancestry.

As a function of this announcement, Messrs. Rivero, Aguilera, Travieso and Ms. Modesti are all members of the “Hispanics for Ron Paul” national advisory board, a steering committee focused on operations and referrals.

As a first basic step, those wanting to join the active “Hispanics for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition should visit the official web page by clicking here. Prospective members should also email Fernando Cortes, the Hispanic Outreach Director for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign, at fernandoc@ronpaul2012.com

Ron Paul Florida Team Names New