Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

$1,630,144.32 VICTORY LIES AHEAD

http://ronpaul-2012.org/mbpledge_sc.html?pid=0110

Romney Would Sign NDAA

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2012

During the latest “debate” in South Carolina, Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would sign the the National Defense Authorization Act.



Prior to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he wasn’t up to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website, which he never did.
Romney said you don’t have the “right to join a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.
The NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the bankster cartel now in control of the government.
The law is a “violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Truman tried to veto the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but he was overturned by Congress.Truman said it was “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly” since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and represented a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and was a “long step toward totalitarianism.”


In the years after Truman’s warning, the government slowly chipped away at the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus as it passed the McCartney-Walter Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (following the Oklahoma false flag), the Patriot Act (following the 9/11 false flag), and has finally repealed the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights with the passage of the NDAA.
As Sherwood Ross notes, with the passage of the NDAA, we have returned “to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.”
World War II, however, had an end, whereas the bogus war on terrorism is designed to last forever, as our leaders have stated on a number of occasions.
Romney has no opinion on the Constitution, Magna Carta, and centuries of common law. He is an empty vessel filled up with nonsense produced by the global elite who run the disgusting dog and pony shows that now pass as elections in the United States.
The ruling elite behind the curtain have worked slowly and methodically to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It stands in the way of their plan to implement world government and a global banking and economic system. Habeas corpus is a thorn in the side that prevents them from sending out the military to disappear those of us opposed to their plan for a global totalitarian future now under construction. They now have that power.

» Romney Would Sign NDAA Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles


NDAA Is A Hoax: You Can’t Legalize Tyranny
Ron Paul: The NDAA Repeals More Rights
Anonymous: Night Raid Firm Lobbied for NDAA, Donated $272K to Sen. Rob Portman
How Congress is Signing Its Own Arrest Warrants in the NDAA Citizen Arrest Bill
The Senate Assaults American Rights with NDAA Bill: Infowars Nightly News
Public Awakening to NDAA Criminal Takeover
Obama’s NDAA Power Grab vs. Bill of Rights: Infowars Nightly News
Anonymous will act against National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention
Don’t Mute Humanity: NDAA’s War on Americans & Bill of Rights
Romney Doesn’t Know What’s IN NDAA, Vaccines Dropped From The Sky & More
Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement is Just Smoke & Mirrors

bttt

Romney and Obama Share Same Bankster Campaign Contributors

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 17, 2012

Like Obama, Mitt Romney is a wind-up doll for Wall Street and the bankers. There is virtually no difference between them despite all the fetid air from the GOP propaganda machine.

Romney’s Bain Capital owns the “conservative” propaganda machine, Clear Channel.

This is revealed by a quick look at Romney’s top contributors. An Open Secrets page on top Romney contributors reads like a Who’s Who of Wall Street and the financial cartel. The top contributor is Goldman Sachs, followed by Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Barclays – major players in the Wall Street and City of London bankster constellation.

Bain Capital is also on the list. It is a “financial services” and investment firm co-founded by Romney. Bain owns the establishment media propaganda conglomerate Clear Channel, which explains why “conservative” talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin are supporting Romney, especially with the strong showing of Ron Paul in the primaries. Both Savage (real name Weiner) and Levin have gone so far as to call Paul a threat to the country.

In December, Mitt refused to release the identity of his “bundlers,” or people who gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and give the cash to the campaign.

In other words, the above list is only the tip of the iceberg. Romney’s lack of transparency about his bundlers indicates he is getting money from sources that want their identity concealed.

In November, it was reported that Jimmy Lee, a veteran Wall Street investment banker, and three other top executives at JPMorgan Chase & Co hosted a $2,500-per-person reception for Romney.

“I am committed to doing all that I can to help his campaign because I also believe he is the strongest challenger to President Obama,” Lee told Reuters. Lee said he has known Romney for almost all of his Wall Street career and that he made one of the first loans to Romney at Bain Capital.

It is not clear why Mr. Lee opposes Obama – his campaign contributors are almost a carbon copy of Mitt’s. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan (where Lee worked), Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, USB and many of the same players donated heavily to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

It should be obvious by now that the dog and pony show known as the “election cycle” in the United States is a musical chairs affair with the same gaggle of bankers and transnational corporations calling the shots.

Next time you hear Michael Savage, Mark Levin or some other bankster media whore rant and rave about the “communist” Obama and then declare their support for the “capitalist” Romney, you should realize they are selling the same poison designed to kill our republic.

There is virtually no difference between any of the establishment candidates – they are all onboard with the globalist agenda for war and the economic destruction of America as their masters and puppeteers move to consolidate their stranglehold over humanity and impose a dystopian one-world government and a high-tech control grid over the entire world.

» Romney and Obama Share Same Bankster Campaign Contributors Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

Wall Street cash shifts to Romney from Obama
Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Romney Supported by Talk Show sphere)
Moore: “Wall Street Has Their Man And His Name Is Barack Obama”
Romney Beats Obama in Race for Wall Street Cash
Federal Records Show Romney Campaign Bought And Paid For By Big Banks
Romney: I do support the Federal Reserve… auditing the Fed
Top Three Contributors to Ron Paul are U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force
Hypocrite Romney Is Just As Elitist As Obama
Goldman Sachs Hires Law Firm to Shut Down Blogger
Ron Paul Second Only To Romney In Obama Match Up
JPMorgan Chase Bankster Dimon Mentioned for Treasury Post
Goldman Profit Leaps as Firm Restrains Pay

The Stupid and the Dishonest Join the Attacks on Ron Paul


Thomas J. DiLorenzo
LewRockwell.com
January 17, 2012

Yet another neocon Republican establishment political hack has demonstrated ignorance, deceit, and bad manners in yet another attack on Ron Paul. This time it is one Jeffrey Lord, a “contributing editor” to The American Spectator magazine. Writing in a January 15 article on the Philly.com Web site, Lord feigns outrage over the fact that five years ago Ron Paul told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the Civil War was unnecessary to end slavery. Lord is being deceitful here by taking what Ron Paul said out of context. I remember Ron Paul’s appearance on that show, and the point he was making was that all the rest of the world – the British, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, the Northern states in the U.S. – ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century. His point was that we should have done what the British did, and used tax dollars to purchase the freedom of the slaves and then ended it forever.

That, Said Ron Paul, would have been preferable to a war that ended up killing over 650,000 Americans (850,000 according the the very latest historical research) while destroying a large part of the U.S. economy. Lord is obviously ignorant of all of this history.

Lord cites my book, The Real Lincoln, to feign additional outrage over the fact that I supposedly called Lincoln a “Dictator-President.” He apparently suffered a case of the vapors when he discovered that Ron Paul listed The Real Lincoln as “recommended reading” at the end of his own book, Revolution: A Manifesto. I don’t ever recall ever using those exact words about Lincoln, but I do know that generations of historians have routinely referred to “the Lincoln dicatatorhip,” although usually calling it a benign dictatorship. They have done this because of Lincoln’s illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus, the mass imprisonment of tens of thousands of Northern political dissenters, the shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers, the deportation of opposition member of Congress Clement L. Vallandigham, the rigging of elections, and worse. (Read Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague; and Constitutional Problems Under Lincolnby James Randall). Lord is obviously ignorant of these historical facts as well.

Jeffrey Lord is simply lying when he writes that “[Ron] Paul shares with DiLorenzo the belief that the war was not fought over issues of Union . . .” That in fact is exactly what I have argued in my writings. Southerners (and most Northern newspaper editors as well, by the way) believed that the union was voluntary, that the states that ratified the Constitution were sovereign, and that they therefore had a right to join or not join the Union. Lincoln believed that the union was a compulsory union from which there could never under any circumstances be any escape, and that he consequently had a right to wage total war on the civilian population of the South to “save the union.” I have argued that Lincoln destroyed the American union of the founders, which was in fact a voluntary union.

I have also quoted Lincoln himself as saying that his invasion of the Southern states was not to free the slaves but to “save the union” by destroying the right of secession. Lord expresses additional outrage that I have repeated Lincoln’s own views in my writing, instead of the comic book version of history that he prefers, which says that Lincoln launched an invasion to supposedly free the slaves. Of course, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress also announced to the world at the beginning of the Civil War that the purpose of the war was not to interfere with slavery but to “save the union.” Jeffrey Lord is obviously ignorant of this aspect of American history as well.

What’s even worse, says Jeffrey Lord, many contributors to LewRockwell.com, such as myself, “are no fans” of some of the more notorious members of the neocon cabal such as “William F. Buckley, Jr., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin”!! To this I plead guilty. Why, even “Rick Santorum also makes the list” of political figures who have been criticized by people like myself on LewRockwell.com. Off with our heads!

Jeffrey Lord also lies when he writes that “The Constitution, DiLorenzo maintains, is a ‘subversion’ orchestrated by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton to overthrow what DiLorenzo calls America’s first constitution – the Articles of Confederation.” First of all, I am hardly the first to note that the Constitution overthrew the Articles of Confederation. Scholars have been saying this for more than 200 years, but Jeffrey Lord is of course ignorant of this fact as well.

Secondly, I have never argued that Hamilton “orchestrated” the Constitution as some kind of “subversion.” Hamilton was essentially the original neocon, who showed up at the constitutional convention advocating a permanent president who would appoint all state governors, who would in turn have veto power over all state legislation. He did not get his way; the Constitution did not create a king, nor did it allow for the creation of an interventionist, mercantilist, corporate welfare empire of the sort Hamilton desired. (It wouldn’t be until the Lincoln administration that that was achieved). Hamilton did invent the idea of “implied powers” of the Constitution, and was the first to make the expansive interpretations of the Welfare and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution that have been used to essentially destroy the ability of the Constitution to limit the growth of government. I explain the Hamiltonian subversion of the Constitution that took place for decades after Hamilton’s death in my book, Hamilton’s Curse.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of Jeffrey Lord’s rant is that he invokes the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as one of his “authorities” in criticizing Ron Paul (and me). The SPLC espouses a communistic political philosophy and is so radical that it holds the confessed terrorist and murderer William Ayers up as a role model for children on its Web site, along with a woman named “Red Emma” Goldman, a twentieth-century communist who advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in order to adopt communism in America. (Ayers admitted setting off bombs at the Capitol Building in Washington and at police stations in the 1960s, and recently told the New York Times that he wishes he had set off even more bombs).

The modus oprandi of the SPLC is to publicly label any and all critics of its left-wing extremism as “haters” or somehow “linked to” hate groups. When the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. sponsored a public lecture on immigration policy, for example, the SPLC accused AEI of “mainstreaming hate.” The scholars at AEI are all really KKK guys in nice suits, you see. When the TEA Party movement was formed as a response to Obama’s mad rush to socialism the SPLC issued a special report on the movement that had the subtitle, “The Year in Hate.” These are the kinds of people who Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator magazine chooses to associate himself with to assist him in his ignorant smears of Ron Paul and me.

Similar/Related Articles

Herman Cain Describes Ron Paul Supporters’ Concerns As “Stupid”
More Rival Staffers Join Ron Paul Campaign
Ron Paul Attacks State Of The Union Theater
Paper: Obama’s Speech Most ‘Dishonest in Decades’
DNC-linked Organization Attacks Ron Paul
NY Times Attacks Ron Paul For Living in the Real World
Smear Attacks Have No Effect, Ron Paul Still On Course To Win Iowa
Republican Tea Party Diva Bachmann Attacks Ron Paul on Iran During Iowa Debate
Corporate Media Switches Tactics, Attacks Ron Paul
Mark Steyn: Ron Paul’s Support of Constitution is “Stunted Parochialism”
Will Beck join the biggest dot?
Jesse Ventura to Join the Ron Paul Revolution

RON PAUL'S FOREIGN POLICY

By Betty Freauf
January 18, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy which aligns with our first president’s philosophy about foreign entanglements seems to be a thorn in the side of the established Republicans who feel Israel must be an exception even though its Prime Minister says they do not need the financial aid. Being a consummate Libertarian, Paul makes no exceptions which brings the wrath of God on his head by the evangelical community.

For decades the GOP establishment figures the sheep will vote for any Republican candidate it chooses. If Paul doesn’t win, rather than not vote at all, the least we can do is go to the polls to vote for strong conservative people to be elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives where all appropriation bills originate and we surely must believe this time around any of those running for president on the GOP ticket will be better than Obama; however, never underestimate Barack and his well-oiled campaign and all his forced union dues money.

When Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) filed once again to run for President, he found RINOs hard pressed to even mention his name not alone say they’ll vote for him if he wins. It’s such a double standard and many voters are getting tired of voting the lesser of two evils but we’ve been burned so often by the smaller government rhetoric, which is now being advocated by Obama also, that we just don’t trust them anymore but I have to admit Gingrich really kicked butt at the South Carolina debate on the 16th receiving the first-ever standing ovation. Now, if we could only believe he wouldn’t flip flop again.

Paul’s persistent message has been resonating with more and more disgruntled Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Many Republicans are former Democrats who exited that party in the 60s when it began patronizing left-wing radicalism. For example, after the Watts Riots in 1965, which the Communists admitted they spent two years to foment, the Communists brought out this pamphlet entitled: “Watts Upsurge: A Communist Appraisal” indicating the challenge of the Watts explosion could be met only by a truly massive program of more government entitlements. This created more dependency on government by the slothful and class warfare and the eventual “white guilt” that elected Obama in 2008. Nothing happens by accident in government.

After Watts, Democrat leaders apologized to the rioters and gave them whatever they wanted and now we have the spoiled Occupy “Squatters.” While I doubt Presidential candidate Ron Paul supports the movement with its chaos and disruption in our communities, he can feel their sense of frustration because he’s been there – done that with his message for years only to be rebuffed and criticized by GOP leaders, the conservative media who seem to be Paul’s worst enemies stooping so low as to call him a racist! This is why we are seeing a variety of strange bedfellows and a blending of different causes including some of his Libertarian views agreeing with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, which we’ve known for a long time, is a front for the Communist Party.

The tea parties are motivated by anger at being forced to pay for bailouts, while the most compelling poster children of the Occupy “99 percent” are angry that they’ve not getting bailouts and their ridiculous attacks on capitalism illustrates they have never had Economics 101 in college, where most of these morons originate.

Stockholders in these corporations are people. When the economy is strong, the Public Employees Pensions and individuals earn profits. When the economy sours, unlike individuals who take the loss in the pocketbook (unless that corporation got favorable bailout money), PERS, in Oregon, for instance, expects a guaranteed 8 percent return and the taxpayers must make up the difference so where’s their beef?

When I hear the “99” percentage I’m reminded when Jesus came to his hour in John 12:27. Elizabeth C. Clephane penned a verse called “The Ninety and Nine” – “But none of the ransomed ever knew, how deep were the waters crossed; or how dark was the night that the Lord passed through, Ere He found his sheep that was lost. “ It’s time for the lost sheep to remember how He borne our griefs and carried our sorrow there on the cross. (Is. 53:4) Today, Jesus can be either the great comforter or the great divider.

I have received word that Obama signaled Congress he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia. Should we get excited and yell treason? The Soviets probably already have them. Democrat leaders have been violating the “Battle Act” and trading with the enemy since the Kennedy/Johnson administrations and the mainline media that is supposed to be a watchdog and report such things either distorts it or covers it up.

IT’S CALLED BRIDGE BUILDING

While there are many, one example discovered in the 1966 book The Politics of Surrender by M. Stanton Evans is the “sweet wheat” deal to the Soviet Union. In 1963 when Moscow let it be known the latest Soviet food shortage was acute, the Kennedy administration agreed to sell the Communists $200 million worth of American wheat and to get the deal consummated, our government went a good deal further than half way. The wheat was sold not at the price which the government had paid the American farmers, but at the artificially low world price. This, in effect, found the American government subsidizing the Soviet Union. Concessions were also made on freight rates and on credit with no conditions attached.

Later it was discovered that the wheat that the Soviets got from the U.S. at a bargain price was being shipped to Rumania to strengthen the Soviet grip on that satellite nation. This, at the same time, that the U.S. was plying Rumania with trade of our own, in order to woo it away from Moscow. All of these double dealings were suppose to help bridge the gap between the evil communist regimes and the U.S. Can we surmise the same type of double dealings is taking place with the Muslims in the Middle East? Liberal diplomats claimed their policy of aiding the Communists into affability would bring about a “thaw” in East-West relations but Stanton writes the historical record suggests, however that the Soviets have not responded very kindly to our pacifist overtures because while the wheat deal was moving toward completion, indeed, Communists acts of hostility seemed if anything to increase.

Then it was discovered after the wheat shipment that a shipment of rice was going to Moscow. Rice is not a high-consumption item in the USSR so can it be assumed the rice was also subsidized by the U.S. taxpayers and that it went to the Orient to feed the Viet Cong terrorists shooting at American soldiers in Viet Nam? We have only two presidential candidates – Ron Paul and Rick Perry- who have served their country in the military but I notice in these debates it’s the other candidates that are quick to go to war. We need to be more like Israel. My husband is a Korean vet, our son served in the U.S. Navy. We need a draft with no deferments or other excuses. With the exception of our volunteer military, this current generation of materialistic young people has taken their freedoms for granted.

THE BATTLE ACT OF 1951

The Battle Act of 1951 called for cutting off of aid to nations that knowingly sent strategic items to Communist countries. In 1961 Congress passed public law 87-128 which stated that subsidized agricultural commodities should not be available to the Soviet Union or to countries dominated by the USSR. The wheat deal was the first announced without any approval from Congress. In fact, Congress disapproved; however, the penalty provided in the Act – termination of U.S. aid – was never imposed and when the Act became operative on January 24, 1952, there was a presidential determination that continuance of aid was “in the interest of national security.”

This brings me to the next violation of “trading with the enemy.” Stanton writes about other U.S. sales to the Communist countries that were obviously “prototypes” – instruments or designs which the Communists could readily copy and manufacture in large numbers once they had obtained a specimen or blueprint of the original. This was in direct defiance of a finding by a select House Committee on Export Control which declared, “It makes no sense to strengthen the economic potential of our Cold War Communist enemies than to arm them,” and yet the Select Committee found glaring instances where we have economically strengthened countries in the Soviet bloc. It was suggested that immediate steps should be taken to more effectively control the exports of technical data. Were those steps implemented? Early in 1961, the Kennedy Administration approved for export to Russia precision machine tools designated as “clearly of military value” by the Defense Department.

WHAT HAPPENS TO WHISTLEBLOWERS

Congressman Ron Paul has been in Washington, D.C. long enough to have been aware of these double dealings by especially the State Department and may be why he responded to the current Wikileaks scandal as he did. It is easy for some to become Monday morning quarterbacks and shaming the Congressman for calling the accused traitor a patriot. While his remark may have been over the top, I sense he was glad to have a little transparency in government at long last.

Being a whistleblower takes courage. A caller to the Rush Limbaugh radio show on 7/1/2009 said he attended a Tea Party in April across from the White House. She talked to a man who was with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when asked what he thought about the carbon credits, he rolled his eyes and said he learned a long time ago to be skeptical of his own agency – an agency at the top or Ron Paul’s agenda to be eliminated. She asked about Whistle Blowing and he said, “I’ve seen what happens to people so I’m just going to lay low and try to keep people honest.

These apathetic whistleblowers are generally jittery insiders who drop off brown envelopes at the risk of their job, their lives or a psychiatric facility. Former U.S. House of Representatives Republican Bob Barr said the scales of justice are rigged and the failure of Congress to protect people with the courage to blow the whistle on corruption has also been enormous. He mentions when Linda Tripp (remember the blue dress/Lewinsky and Bill Clinton) was illegally smeared, Congress offered only lukewarm words of support.

Revelation 3:15-16 has some pretty strong words about lukewarm people. He said allowing Tripp and others like her to suffer the unchecked wrath of the administration will ensure critics silence in the future.

And then he said the Department of Justice turns a blind eye to the White House operatives, who violate federal privacy laws by rummaging through FBI files and smearing those in Congress who dared to hold a President accountable for impeachable offenses. Hillary Clinton accessed FBI records during the Lewinsky scandal.

And, of course, we’ve seen how the Obama Department of Justice covers for him. The journalists have the responsibility to expose corruption, but they, too, run for cover when the intimidating phone calls come in the middle of the night so the corruption goes on generally unabated. Things haven’t changed since Jesus walked on earth. Among the chief rulers, many believed on Him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43) Today there are those who want their paychecks, paid health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. and they don’t want to lose their posh government jobs so the Titanic continues to tip like the luxury cruise ship that hit some rocks off the coast of Italy.

© 2012 Betty Freauf - All Rights Reserved

Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004.

Betty is a researcher specializing in education, a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to www.NewsWithViews.com

E-Mail: bettyfreauf@gmail.com

Betty Freauf -- Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

Ron Paul to Pause from Campaigning in South Carolina for Debt-Ceiling Vote

Shields taxpayers and future generations from costly Washington enlargement, irresponsibility

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul will pause from his active South Carolina campaign schedule to return to Washington for a vote denying President Obama’s request for a debt-ceiling increase. The 12-term Congressman from Texas will travel to the nation’s capital tomorrow, Wednesday, and return early Thursday morning for the final three days of campaigning.

On January 12^th, Obama announced his intention to exercise early an option to increase the debt-limit, and to do so in the amount of $1.2 trillion. His option to do so was created under a 2011 budget agreement that created a near-automatic debt-increase mechanism, the use of a disastrous unconstitutional “Super Committee,” and other means of helping Congress shirk their core mission of managing the federal government’s purse-strings.

Tomorrow, House Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and other budget hawks have an opportunity to voice their displeasure at the spendthrift habits of the administration and those of their peers in a resolution refusing to grant Obama the right to exercise his option. The vote, then, separates the true budget hawks from the tax-hikers and the borrowers, and helps frame the debate by forcing the Democrat-controlled Senate to support Obama – or compelling Obama to step way out in front and demand a credit card increase of $1.2 trillion in taxpayer money at a time when the national debt surpasses national GDP.

Paul’s campaigning in the Palmetto State has been vigorous, with speeches to the South Carolina Tea Party Convention and the Faith & Freedom Coalition Presidential Kick-Off, and participation in last night’s Fox News presidential debate. Today Paul also is holding town hall meetings in Spartanburg and Rock Hill.

Paul’s campaigning was also fruitful. On Sunday he picked up the consequential endorsement of state Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort), who earlier today joined Paul for a press conference at the South Carolina State House where Paul picked up additional key endorsements from state Sens. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg), Kevin Bryant (R-Spartanburg), and Danny Verdin (Greenville).

“The issue of debt and spending are uniting Republicans and independent voters to stand up and say ‘enough.’ The Washington establishment has for far too long gambled away Americans’ hard-earned wages while going so far as to present the children and grandchildren of workers with a dim future saddled with debt,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

“Ron Paul is taking real action to stop the debt wherever he can while his rivals for the Republican nomination pay only lip service. Tomorrow’s vote will divide leaders into two starkly different camps: the tax-and-spend establishment, and the true reformers who want to roll back decades of government enlargement, overreach, and irresponsibility. Voters this election cycle, we trust, are savvy and can distinguish between smooth-talking politicians and the one candidate of authentic change, Ron Paul,” added Mr. Benton.

In addition to his South Carolina campaign successes, Ron Paul released his new ad ‘Three of a Kind’ concerning the serial hypocrisy, counterfeit conservatism, and flip-flopping of his rivals Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney respectively.

Ron Paul to Pause from Campaigning in South Carolina for Debt-Ceiling Vote*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Unlike His Opponents, Opposing Debt Increases Always a “No-Brainer” for Ron Paul

The Washington Times reports:

Rep. Ron Paul will drop off the campaign trail in South Carolina on Wednesday and fly back to Washington to cast a vote against raising the debt ceiling, his campaign said Tuesday…

Returning to Washington to take the vote highlights one of Mr. Paul’s strengths in the race: He is one of only two current officeholders still in the race — the other is Texas Gov. Rick Perry — and the only one whose job allows him to actually go head-to-head with President Obama.

The vote is a no-brainer for Mr. Paul, now in his 12th term, who has made a career out of voting against spending bills and debt increases. It also will give him a chance to highlight another difference with some of his competitors, former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who supported debt increases during their time in Congress.

Unlike His Opponents, Opposing Debt Increases Always a "No-Brainer" for Ron Paul*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Baptist Pastor Explains “Why Ron Paul?”

These are some good answers for voters who have questions about Ron Paul from a Christian perspective. Writes Voddie Baucham, Pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church:

Since posting a passing comment on my Facebook fan page about Ron Paul, I have been inundated with questions and concerns about my support of the Texas Congressman in the current Republican Primary race… The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative… As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.
I. Ron Paul is a Christian Conservative

While I am not looking for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” it is important to me that the man for whom I cast my vote be a Christian, if at all possible… I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.

Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate” wrote Paul on his Web site… Having met and talked to Dr. Paul, I would say it is authenticity, and humility more than anything else. He wants “to avoid any appearance of exploiting [his faith] for political gain.”[6]
II. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative

Not only is Ron Paul a Christian Conservative; he is also a Constitutional Conservative. He holds himself accountable to the Constitution of the United States, even when it means he has to vote against legislation that may be otherwise beneficial… I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that. Especially in several crucial areas facing our Republic, like money, war, States’ Rights, and foreign policy, for example.
Constitutional Money

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of money. He is the only candidate consistently to confront the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank), and address the issue of fiat currency (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11), which debases the dollar, manipulates business cycles, creates inflation, and always benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. And he talks about the issue in just those terms.

Congressman Paul is also the only candidate who has a budget that will cut a TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in year one.[7] He is the only candidate who has committed to defund and eliminate expensive, unconstitutional agencies…
Constitutional War

I support Ron Paul because he is a military veteran (yup… he refuses to beat that drum too, which is why you may not have known that little tidbit). And though I do not believe it is necessary for a man to have served in the military for him to serve as President, the fact that Congressman Paul knows and hates war lends credibility to his desire and commitment to ending the wars and bringing our troops home.

Moreover, he has a constitutional understanding of war (only Congress can send us to war), and a Christian commitment to historic Just War Theory (rooted in the Sixth Commandment… HIS WORDS).[8] He, unlike other candidates, can be counted on not to commit to acts of war without congressional authority (i.e., unilaterally deciding to bomb a sovereign nation if they advance their weapons technology in a region several thousand miles away from the U.S., under the watchful eye of a nation with over 300 nukes who can stop them in a heartbeat… but I digress).

There is a reason Dr. Paul has received more support from members of the military than all other candidates…
Constitutional States’ Rights

I support Ron Paul because he not only understands, but believes in the Tenth Amendment. I know many Christians have been scared off by the “Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, gay marriage, and abortion” rhetoric. However, looking beyond the rhetoric reveals Paul’s true constitutional conservatism (and biblical understanding of jurisdiction). He has personal convictions, but those will not be allowed to steer him away from his constitutional oath. The presidency, and the Federal Government have limits.
The President is not “Pastor in Chief.” It is not the President’s job (or the job of the Federal Government) to set such policies. The “War on Drugs,” for example, has been a monumental, unconstitutional, fiscal failure (to the tune of more than $3 BILLION)![12] The Federal Government must be held within the confines of its enumerated powers. This is important for Christians because we will not always have people in the White House with whom we agree (in fact, politicians will always let us down).

What happens when we send a man to the White House with the express purpose of “changing the moral standards” of America in our favor, then, down the line we have a president who uses the same un-cheked powers to promote moral standards with which we disagree? How’s that workin’ for ya’?
Constitutional Foreign Policy

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of foreign policy. Ironically, our foreign policy has been so unconstitutional for so long that many people recoil at the idea of getting it back in line. Moreover, the semantic game Paul’s opponents play (using “isolationism” as opposed to “non-intervention” to define his position) doesn’t help. For most Christians, this is where they believe I’ve left the reservation. They may not say, “We have to be the world’s police force,” but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Do you know his position on Israel?” “Surely you can’t support a man who doesn’t support Israel!”

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel…

III. Ron Paul is a Consistent Conservative

Finally, I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened;[13] and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!

Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.

The entire post is well worth reading

Baptist Pastor Explains "Why Ron Paul?"*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

It’s Over – Only Two Republican Candidates on Virginia Ballot

In the Commonwealth, real change candidate and Champion of the Constitution Ron Paul will face down establishment flip-flopper Mitt Romney

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, the constitutionally-observant candidate of real change, will face down establishment candidate and notorious flip-flopper Mitt Romney in a head-to-head matchup in the Virginia primary.

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied four candidates’ appeals to appear on the ballot after their glaring failure to comply with the Commonwealth’s stringent, but widely-known, ballot access requirements.

Former candidate Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum did not file signatures with the Virginia State Board of Elections at all. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich did file signatures, but fell short of qualifying. Rick Perry then brought a suit against the state challenging the ballot-access requirements to which all candidates were held, and others failing to qualify joined the suit. When the suit was struck down, an injunction was filed in part to reconcile whether and when paper ballots would be printed, and today the final decision was handed down.

Virginia is the nation’s 12^th-largest state and its primary election takes place on March 6^th – Super Tuesday. The absence of any other candidates on the ballot aside from Paul and Romney, including serial hypocrite Gingrich and counterfeit conservative Santorum, is sending ripple effects throughout key early voting states including South Carolina where Palmetto State voters now are concerned about how their vote will affect the nominating process going forward.

For example, some voters might vote for a candidate with an organization too weak to comply with ballot access requirements. Voting for that candidate would result in a vote wasted, as were the votes of many for candidates who exited the race like Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman. Others ponder that only one veteran of the armed forces – Ron Paul – will be on the ballot in Virginia, a state so steeped in military tradition. Still others have observed that only one Evangelical Christian will appear on the ballot there. Indeed, there are many questions.

One thing is certain. And that is, the decision has upended what plaintiffs against the Commonwealth and voters nationwide had expected just hours ago when plaintiffs held onto thin hopes of a reversal, or a convenient exception to the rule of law.

“It’s over,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Ron Paul, the candidate of real change, will face off against establishment flip-flopper Mitt Romney in the Virginia primary, making that that Tuesday less ‘super’ for serial hypocrite Newt Gingrich, counterfeit conservative Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry, who I should mention is marginally attached to the presidential race.”

“This legal development affirms that this Republican nominating contest has always been a two-man race between the candidates with the resources and organization required for a 50-state race. Voters nationwide should get behind the candidate of real change as he competes nationwide – and nationwide means a lot of states, including large ones like Virginia,” said Mr. Benton.

“Right now South Carolina voters have vital information helpful for deciding not only who the authentic conservative in the race is – Ron Paul – but whether that candidate leaves South Carolina with a ticket that actually gets him somewhere,” added Mr. Benton.

It's Over