Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Ron Paul Military Donations Nearly Twice Those of His GOP Rivals and Obama Combined

From the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch:

LAKE JACKSON, Texas, Feb 03, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign raised more campaign donations from active-duty members of the military than all other presidential candidates combined–Republican or Democrat–according to a Paul campaign internal analysis.

A veteran of the Cold War-era, Paul raised more than $150,000 from active military in the fourth quarter. This comes after the Congressman outraised all GOP candidates — including all GOPers combined, and President Obama singularly — in the second and third quarters of last year. Dr. Paul also outraised his GOP competitors in a head-to-head comparison during his 2008 run for the presidency.

Especially notable is that Paul raised about triple the amount Obama received and about six times that of all currently-competing Republicans–Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Buddy Roemer, and Rick Santorum–combined.

Taken together, this means Dr. Paul raised approximately double the money from active military than all the candidates from both parties combined.

Romney and Gingrich each received around $10,000, meaning Paul trumps them by about 15 times in a head-to-head matchup.

Ron Paul Military Donations Nearly Twice Those of His GOP Rivals and Obama Combined*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul Speaks Out for WWII Philippine-American Veterans

Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman John Tate notes:

“Ron Paul is the foremost champion of constitutionally-limited government and he supports deeper spending cuts than any other presidential candidate in history.

“The one exception to what our campaign and experts term the most ambitious spending-cut platform in national politics is cuts to veterans’ services. In fact, Dr. Paul recently pushed back against President Obama’s misguided move to enact inauthentic spending cuts on the backs of veterans.

“Dr. Paul is the only presidential candidate – Republican or Democrat – with military service, having served honorably as an Air Force flight surgeon during the Cold War era.

“Dr. Paul also has a long history of honoring veterans, getting thousands of heroes the medals they never received due to Department of Defense omission.”

Ron Paul does indeed have a long history of making sure American veterans get the proper treatment, benefits and recognition for their service. Tonight, Paul continues in this mission. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is scheduled to speak tonight at a rally for Philippine-American veterans who are calling for repeal of a 1946 law that blocks them from receiving compensation for their World War II service.

The rally from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Leatherneck Club, 4360 Spring Mountain Road, is expected to draw hundreds of supporters from the Las Vegas Asian community. It is hosted by the Filipino-American Veterans of Nevada and a San Francisco-based advocacy group, Justice for Filipino American Veterans. Both are nonprofit organizations.

The groups are calling for Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., to co-sponsor a Senate bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as a companion to a House measure that seeks to repeal of the 1946 Rescission Act. The act says Philippine guerrillas who served under U.S. commanders shall not be considered active military for purposes of benefits.

One of those who would benefit from amending the act is 100-year-old Silverio Cuaresma of Las Vegas.

“They are waiting for me to die,” he said in October. “Maybe they don’t like me to win, but I keep on trying.”

Read the entire story

Ron Paul Speaks Out for WWII Philippine-American Veterans*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Six Ways Paul Beats Obama On Foreign Policy


Katie Kieffer
Feb 06, 2012

I predict that President Obama runs for reelection on his foreign policy record. He told us as much when he bookended his State of the Union address with his foreign policy “wins.” Unlike his economic record (non-existent), Obama has brag-worthy talking points on foreign policy. I think GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul could throw the most effective darts at Obama’s puerile attempt to police the world.

Certainly, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney can argue that he has more business experience than Obama. But his weakness in a general debate will be foreign policy. Romney can’t say that he has more presidential foreign policy experience than Obama. He can’t say he has more active-duty military experience than Obama. And Romney will struggle to attract war-weary voters because he’s criticized Obama’s highly interventional foreign policy as “timid.”

Let’s run through the six key foreign policy “wins” Obama touted during his 2012 State of the Union address—and the darts Paul could throw in a general debate.

Obama point #1: I love our troops! I “went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq.”

Paul counterpoint #1: I served the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon. I understand that our troops are weary and we’re broke and we should bring them home and utilize them on the U.S.-Mexico border where violent drug cartels are threatening Texas ranchers and farmers and the U.S. food supply. This is why I receive more individual contributions from active duty military men and women than any other major candidate.

You, on the other hand, never served in the military. And, you’ve childishly ignored Gov. Rick Perry’s call for more boots on the Texas border.

Obama point #2: “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.”

Paul counterpoint #2: Why did it take you three years to bring the troops home from Iraq? You broke the promise you made on March 19, 2008: "When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war [in Iraq]. - I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades each month."

You didn’t successfully manage your elongated intervention in Iraq because she is now becoming a chaotic police state. And despite the fact that our country is broke, you’ve committed the U.S. to billions in ongoing aid in Iraq.

Obama point #3: I’m effectively fighting terrorism: “For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken.”

Paul counterpoint #3: Why do you continue to spoil Pakistan? Our “ally” helped us by (likely wittingly) harboring bin Laden in a fortified compound several hundred yards from the Abbottabad military academy. Then, Pakistan ignored the CIA and let China examine SEAL Team Six’s stealth copter tail technology. You gave the orders to kill bin Laden from the Situation Room but his capture and kill was the result of a cumulative effort over many years by many talented people.

You failed to negotiate with the Taliban and distinguish between the Taliban and al Qaeda. Senior Diplomat Richard Holbrooke believed in negotiating with the Taliban. For, the Taliban used to be our allies and they are primarily concerned with keeping foreigners off their land. When you took office, you undercut Holbrooke’s authority and threw away his opportunities to broker peace with the Taliban and potentially ouster al Qaeda’s top lieutenants quicker and with minor loss of U.S. blood, treasure and military technology.

President Obama, after initially promising to veto it, you signed the unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), authorizing the U.S. military—not local police or the FBI—to arrest and indefinitely imprison American citizens without a fair trial and a lawyer. This act violates the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

As I’ve explained, Mr. President, the NDAA “institutionalizes and codifies martial law …[such that] everybody in this country is [now] a potential terrorist. …if you happen to visit a website, happen to attend a meeting …you can be accused of being a terrorist and the bill says you have no right to a lawyer. They’ve been abusive of this for many years but now it’s been codified. …We should be consciously aware of terrorism and deal with it, but to say that we’re at war with the world … is very, very dangerous.”

Obama point #4: “From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan.”

Paul counterpoint #4: You are responsible for the troop surge in Afghanistan. Only 22,000 troops are set to come home this fall and you have no time table pacing the return of the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops.

Since 2008—the year you were elected—the U.S. has sustained nearly two-and-a-half times the number of fatalities in Afghanistan as the six previous years combined. While Americans faced a double-digit unemployment rate and Standard and Poor’s downgraded our triple-A credit rating, you blew about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan.

You’ve approached Afghan President Hamid Karzai like a trusted ally—even after reports leaked in 2010 that Karzai’s closest aide, former ambassador to Iran Umar Daudzai, receives bagfuls of cash in $1-, $2- and $6-million lump sums every other month from Iran.

You even sided with Karzai over your own senior general in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller; Fuller simply voiced frustration when Karzai made ungrateful and disloyal statements suggesting that, despite receiving $11.6 billion in aid from the U.S. to train Afghan security forces, Afghanistan would side with Pakistan against the U.S. if Pakistan felt threatened.

Obama point #5: “A year ago [Libyan dictator Muammar] Qaddafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators—a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone.”

Paul counterpoint #5: You spent about $9.5 million a day in Libya. Today, violence and chaos continues to fester under the Libyan Transitional National Council.

Obama point #6: I support Israel. I have levied “crippling sanctions” on Iran and “I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

Paul counterpoint #6: Your foreign policy undermines Israel’s sovereignty and also jeopardizes her safety. The U.S. gave $1.5 billion in annual military and monetary aid to Mubarak’s Egyptian regime despite Egypt’s aggressive animosity toward Israel. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are also Israel’s foes, yet you pushed for $11 billion in Iraqi military training and helicopter, weapon and tank sales to Iraq. In December, you brokered a $30 billion deal to sell sophisticated U.S. fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. How does it help Israel to pump her enemies with cash and military technology?

On May 24, 2011, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told Congress: “My friends, you don’t need to do nation-building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel; we’ve already got it! And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel; we defend ourselves!”

Your actions toward Iran are particularly dangerous to both American and Israeli interests. Iran blames the U.S. and Israel for the 2010 malicious Stuxnet cyberstrike and the ongoing assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. Middle East expert Vali Nasr argues in Bloomberg that Iran perceives American economic sanctions as the last straw—effectively an act of war—because sanctions will break Iran’s oil-dependent economy and send its citizens into the streets.

Your intentions are probably good. And Netanyahu praised American sanctions on Iran. But I’m concerned about blowback against America and Israel. Plus, our own DOD has shown Iran’s nuclear program to be defensive and deterrent in nature.

This month, TIME published an investigative report on Iran’s nuclear program by Karl Vick in Jerusalem. Vick’s report shows that Israel’s air force is incapable of meaningfully taking out Iran’s nuclear program. Even if the U.S. were to aid Israel militarily, the evidence shows that it would be a long shot, could motivate Iran to build deeper, more secretive operations and coult incite asymmetric attacks against the U.S. and Israel.

TIME writes: “The potential targets are scattered and hidden all over Iran …In 1981, Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in a daring surprise strike. …One forgotten lesson of Osirak is that, as a consequence, Saddam Hussein took his nuclear weapons program into the shadows and got much closer to a bomb before the rest of the world caught wind of his intentions. An attack on Iran, even one led by the U.S., might produce only a temporary halt in its nuclear program—and a greater resolve to develop weapons out of sight of international inspectors, if only to buttress Iranian security in years to come.”

Obama closing remarks: “We have made some incredible strides together. Yes we have! … Precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges… we knew [change] was gonna take time.”

Paul closing remarks: Mr. President, please don’t blame your successors for your failures. You’ve even said that of all the Presidents, you most admire the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush.

“Freedom brings people together!” We’re broke. Our troops are weary. The U.S.-Mexico border is porous. I think we can better defend ourselves and our allies, like Israel, by revising our foreign policy.

I’ll leave it up to you, my reader, to decide who won this theoretical foreign policy debate.

Six Ways Paul Beats Obama On Foreign Policy - Katie Kieffer - Townhall Conservative

Ron Paul is the True Conservative

Writes Aaron Blake at The Washington Post:

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are fighting for the right to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

But they both lost that battle in Nevada — to Ron Paul.

Entrance polls from Saturday’s Nevada caucuses show Romney racking up huge wins among the vast majority of demographics, which isn’t surprising given that he took about 50 percent of the vote.

But the one demographic that is supposed to be Gingrich’s and Santorum’s bread and butter — people looking for the “true conservative” in the race — didn’t go for either one of them.

Which begs the question: Just what is the argument for their candidacies right now?

The entrance polls show about one in five voters said the most important attribute they want to see in a candidate is that he is a “true conservative.”

Among those voters, Romney took just 4 percent — a showing that lends credence to the idea that there is room for a true conservative alternative.

But those voters didn’t spurn Romney for Gingrich or Santorum; instead, they went for Paul, who won the demographic with about 40 percent…

this is really a must-have demographic for Gingrich and Santorum, and the fact that neither of them tapped it is bad news for their campaigns and their cases for pressing forward.

Exit and entrance polls give voters four options for their top priority in picking a candidate — that they can beat President Obama, that they have the right experience, that they have strong moral character and that they are the true conservative in the field…

The “true conservative” vote, then, is really the only one where he is going to cede big votes. It’s a necessary… demographic for any would-be anti-Romney candidate.
But if a significant amount of these voters are going to Paul, then Gingrich and Santorum have no chance.

Ron Paul is the True Conservative*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney

The Christian Science Monitor’s Peter Grier writes:

Will Ron Paul be Mitt Romney’s last rival standing? We ask that question because if you sort through the Nevada caucus results, look at this week’s GOP events, add in a few financial disclosure forms, and shake, you can produce a scenario where Representative Paul outlasts Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. That would make the Texas libertarian the only non-Romney to run all the way to the Tampa Republican convention in August.

Yes, we know Paul actually placed third in Nevada’s Saturday vote. He’d hoped to do better, placement-wise. He ended up with 19 percent of the vote. Ex-Speaker Gingrich got 21 percent. Mr. Romney reached the 50 percent threshold.

But look at it this way: That 18 percent is four percentage points higher than Paul’s 2008 Nevada vote. It’s also higher than prevote polls had predicted: A Las Vegas Review-Journal survey in late Januaryhad him at only 9.2 percent of the vote, for example.

Plus, as The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake points out Monday morning, Nevada entrance polls showed something surprising: Paul won among voters who said that the most important quality in a candidate is that they are “a true conservative.”

Paul got 42 percent of that vote, versus 30 percent for Gingrich and 24 percent for Mr. Santorum.

As Mr. Blake notes, Nevada leans libertarian, and that may have been a factor in this result. But Gingrich and Santorum are competing to be the conservative alternative to Romney, aren’t they?
“This is really a must-have demographic for Gingrich and Santorum, and the fact that neither of them tapped it is bad news for their campaigns and their cases for pressing forward,” writes Blake…

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul Attracts Over 1,500 People at Final Minnesota Event of the Day—Will Return Monday

Huge crowd greets Dr. Paul at Bethel University


MINNETONKA, Minnesota– 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul attracted a remarkable crowd of more than 1,500 supporters and undecided voters at his third and final event of the day in Minnesota. The 12-term Congressman from Texas also enjoyed large crowds earlier, attracting 700-plus voters in Rochester and more than 600 people in Chanhassen.

Ron Paul’s Arden Hill’s rally was held in the Benson Great Hall of Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive, Arden Hill, MN 55112.

Ron Paul speaks to a crowd of over 1500 at Bethel University.

Dr. Paul will return to Minnesota on Monday, February 6^th for two more events in the run-up to the Tuesday, February 7^th caucus. Details of the events are as follows. All times Central.Monday, February 6, 2012
4:00 p.m.
St. Cloud Town Hall Meeting & Rally
St. Cloud River’s Edge Convention Center
10 4th Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
7:00 p.m.
Minneapolis Rally
Minneapolis Convention Center
1301 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55403

Ron Paul Attracts Over 1,500 People at Final Minnesota Event of the Day

Reminder: Ron Paul to Visit Minnesota in Run-Up to Caucus

Dr. Paul to visit St. Cloud and Minneapolis


LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul will campaign in Minnesota on Monday, February 6th, in the run-up to the Tuesday, February 7^th caucus.

The 12-term Congressman from Texas will be in the North Star State today, and his visit will feature a St. Cloud Town Hall & Rally, and a Minneapolis Rally.

“We’re delighted to have Ron Paul return to Minnesota where last November he attracted more than 3,000 supportersto a rally held in St. Cloud. Dr. Paul’s upcoming visit will energize supporters and promises to help us achieve a strong showing in the upcoming caucus,” said Marianne Stebbins, the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign’s Minnesota Chair.
Event details are as follows. All times Central.

Monday, February 6, 2012
4:00 p.m.
St. Cloud Town Hall & Rally
St. Cloud River’s Edge Convention Center
10 4th Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
7:00 p.m.
Minneapolis Rally
Minneapolis Convention Center
1301 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55403

Reminder: Ron Paul to Visit Minnesota in Run-Up to Caucus*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul Military Donations Nearly Twice Those of His GOP Rivals and Obama Combined

From the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch:

LAKE JACKSON, Texas, Feb 03, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign raised more campaign donations from active-duty members of the military than all other presidential candidates combined–Republican or Democrat–according to a Paul campaign internal analysis.

A veteran of the Cold War-era, Paul raised more than $150,000 from active military in the fourth quarter. This comes after the Congressman outraised all GOP candidates — including all GOPers combined, and President Obama singularly — in the second and third quarters of last year. Dr. Paul also outraised his GOP competitors in a head-to-head comparison during his 2008 run for the presidency.

Especially notable is that Paul raised about triple the amount Obama received and about six times that of all currently-competing Republicans–Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Buddy Roemer, and Rick Santorum–combined.

Taken together, this means Dr. Paul raised approximately double the money from active military than all the candidates from both parties combined.

Romney and Gingrich each received around $10,000, meaning Paul trumps them by about 15 times in a head-to-head matchup.


Ron Paul Military Donations Nearly Twice Those of His GOP Rivals and Obama Combined*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

In The Absence Of Left-Right Paradigm Is Ron Paul Mainstream?

February 6, 2012 by Sam Rolley

Paul’s supporters are generally Americans worried about the future of their country.

By now, if Americans hear someone talking about that “kooky old guy with the bad foreign policy ideas” who is running for President, they immediately know that Republican candidate Ron Paul is the topic of discussion.

Though it is easy to write Paul off as a fringe candidate, given the establishment’s disdain for him and his zealous base of support, the philosophies he has abided by and encouraged for three decades are quickly and quietly becoming mainstream.

Fiat Money And The Federal Reserve
In 2009, End The Fed made its debut at No. 6 on The New York Times Bestseller List. Though Paul had been discussing the problems of fiat money and the Federal Reserve’s reckless economic policies for decades, his book brought the average American to the roundtable. In simple terms, Paul had broken down what the Fed does and why it is wrong. After the book was published, many people began to ask questions about the Federal Reserve; the political pressure has led to much progress in the way of increasing Fed transparency.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was able to carry out the first-ever audit of the Federal Reserve due to an amendment added to the Dodd-Frank bill by Paul and Representative Alan Grayson (R-Fla.).

The audit was vehemently opposed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the other banksters at the central bank. They lied and said that Fed transparency would devastate financial markets. Americans soon found out why Bernanke and his Fed counterparts so opposed the transparency: They had issued $16 trillion in secret bailouts since 2008 as the dollar continued to lose buying power.

Those who have followed Paul in recent years have undoubtedly seen videos of his harsh exchanges with Bernanke during House Financial Services Committee meetings. Paul was, it seems, the only Fed critic in the room back then. Bernanke, often schooled by Paul, usually sat, nodded, sometimes agreed and never seemed very worried.



But now, Paul is no longer the sole critic. Many other lawmakers are asking questions. Last week, Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, took Bernanke to task over the central bank’s failure to do anything but hurt the American people.



Support for a House bill calling for a more comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve (HR 459) has drummed up 199 co-sponsors, according to Campaign For Liberty.

Foreign Paul-icy
In a Nation of people desensitized by the fact that their Nobel Peace Prize-winning President repeatedly used drones to kill targets (sometimes American citizens) in foreign lands where the country is not at war, converted the once-covert SEAL Team Six into his own lethal public relations firm and declared his homeland a warzone by authorizing the detention of American citizens, it is no surprise that Paul’s foreign policy seems unorthodox. At some point, the idea that the President’s first and foremost foreign policy duty was diplomacy was lost (i.e., “Speak softly and carry a big stick”). It seems that for the past several decades the United States has taken to shouting while hurling twigs and stones at enemies abroad.

Paul’s foreign policy plan embodies a new (old) way of thinking: Work with countries until it becomes evident beyond the shadow of a doubt that they pose a real military threat to the United States, and then work with Congress and military officials to create the most effective plan of action.
An article by Pat Buchannan in The American Conservative sums up why any foreign policy plan but Paul’s may lead to the undoing of the United States:

Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?
… U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.
But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?

When top brass military officials announced the new “military model” for the United States last month, they emphasized the need to ensure that the country is capable of fighting two wars at once. Recent developments, as Iran continues to kick sand and North Korea adjusts to its new leadership, do not look good for a nuclear superpower like the United States intent on hurling twigs and stones while shouting, even as other nuclear superpowers like China and Russia warn of implications.

The Supporters
Paul’s supporters are generally Americans worried about the future of their country. The candidate’s supporters are young, old, wealthy, poor, left, right or sideways.

The “Paulbots” who scan the Internet for stories about the candidate and liberty-threatening issues, commenting on forums and leading discussions about the dire state of the Nation are one type, probably those most responsible for the 76-year-old’s massive Internet presence.

Another group of supporters are the Constitutionalists, the group that can be taken as a whole or broken into subsets. Some of these people are vehement defenders of the 2^nd Amendment, some are States’ rights activists and some just want to live in peace, knowing that the Federal government does not have the authority to tell them how to behave or how to care for themselves.

And still, there are some Paul supporters who are just coming around, possibly out of self-preservation. Speaking on CNBC, Pacific Investment Management (PIMCO) co-founder Bill Gross said that Federal Reserve policy has affected his thinking in a peculiar way: He has become “a little Ron Paulish.”

“Both parties basically have followed a policy that hasn’t promoted long-term investment in the United States and I think ultimately we need to produce things as opposed to paper,” he said, before continuing that policy change is very important no matter who is elected.

Paul may have no chance of winning the nomination, but for his supporters it may be enough to know that the debate has changed around his ideas. And it’s possible Paul will find himself in or near the White House even if he does not secure the nomination. A recent report by The Washington Post indicates that he and favored-candidate Mitt Romney may be willing to work together if either of them secures the Nation’s highest office. Only time will tell what long-term impact Paul’s ideas, or the absence of his ideas, in American politics will mean for the Nation.

In The Absence Of Left-Right Paradigm Is Ron Paul Mainstream? : Personal Liberty Digest™=

Celebrities for Ron Paul? - YouTube