Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Ron Paul Leading Obama in New Poll of Arizona Voters

Beats the President in head-to-head matchup

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul bests President Obama in a head-to-head matchup in the state of Arizona according to a new NBC/ Marist Poll.

Paul beats the President 43 percent to 41 percent among Arizona voters according to the poll.“Ron Paul is the only candidate for president who is taking our debt crisis seriously, and addresses it with his Plan to Restore America,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Arizona voters, like voters across America, are sick and tired of speeches filled with broken promises, more debt, less jobs, and less economic stability. As President, Ron Paul will rein in the spending, reduce the debt, and put Americans back to work.”

The results are based on a telephone survey conducted February 19th and 20th with a random sample of 2,487 registered voters living in Arizona.

The full results of the poll can be found here.

This comes on the heels of a series of polls showing Paul leading President Obama in head-to-head matchups in Virginia, Iowa, and Ohio.

Ron Paul Leading Obama in New Poll of Arizona Voters*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy.

To spread the message, visit and promote the following websites:

Ron Paul .com
http://Store.RonPaul.com
Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website
WhyRonPaul.com
Ron Paul Country | Grassroots War Room | RonPaulCountry.com - Front | RonPaulCountry.com
Congressman Ron Paul
Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Daily Paul
Ron Paul 2012 Forums - Liberty Forest Forums - Grassroots Central Updates
Ron Paul Videos - Ron Paul Flix - 2012


Ron Paul: End Illegal Immigration - YouTube

Ron Paul on Santorum, He is a fake!!!!


Notable moments from GOP debate in Arizona

By Associated Press
Thursday, February 23, 2012 - Added 3 hours ago



Notable moments from the GOP presidential debate Wednesday night in Mesa, Ariz.

SANTORUM UNDER FIRE

Rick Santorum’s first debate since surging to the top of polls might be one he’d like to forget. The former Pennsylvania senator took fire from all sides — even from an unsympathetic audience that twice booed him during answers.

Santorum’s chief rival for the GOP nomination, Mitt Romney, led the attack. Within moments of the beginning of the debate, the former Massachusetts governor criticized Santorum for votes during his years in Congress to raise the debt ceiling, place earmarks in bills, and provide money for Planned Parenthood and the Education Department.

Romney wasn’t alone. Rep. Ron Paul dismissed Santorum’s conservative credentials, saying he was a "phony" conservative.

The audience took its shots when Santorum explained why he voted for the No Child Left Behind law, President George W. Bush’s signature education plan, and when he tried to talk over Romney during the debate.

Santorum fought back, attacking Romney for the health care plan he crafted as governor and for his support of the Wall Street bailout. But Santorum spent much of the night on the defensive.

___

BIRTH CONTROL

CNN debate moderator John King pressed the candidates for their views on contraception, a topic that’s arisen as a point of contention in the Republican primaries. The candidates — and the audience, which booed King’s question — were having none of it, though. They quickly pivoted to attacks on President Barack Obama.

Gingrich said that rather than discuss his own views on contraception he’d rather talk about Obama’s support of "infanticide." Romney said Obama’s polices on birth control have been an attack on religious tolerance.

Santorum used the discussion to warn about the dangers of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

Paul, a doctor, says that contraception doesn’t lead to immorality, immorality leads to contraception.

IN A WORD

Forget the in-depth plans and white papers that candidates like to brag about. The GOP candidates were asked to describe themselves in a single word. Ron Paul said he is "consistent." Santorum described himself as "courageous." Romney said he is "resolute." There was a bit of laughter in the debate hall when the occasionally dour Gingrich chose his word: "Cheerful."

___

BLAME FOR OBAMACARE

Romney and Santorum’s sharpest exchange was on Obama’s health care plan. And, if you listen to them, the other candidate is the one to blame for it.

Santorum said Romney used government money to "fund a federal takeover of healthcare in Massachusetts" — a reference to the state law passed during Romney’s time as governor. Santorum said that law was a precursor to a federal overhaul by Obama and said Romney’s plan was used as the basis for Obama’s federal law mandating people have insurance.

Romney, in turn, said Santorum shared some of the blame for Obama’s plan — even though Santorum wasn’t in office at the time the law was passed in 2010. Romney said that Santorum’s support in a 2004 primary battle for then-Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania helped ensure his re-election. Specter eventually voted for Obama’s health care law.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Notable moments from GOP debate in Arizona - BostonHerald.com

Ron Paul Joins Viewing Party After Debate Mesa, AZ 2/22/12 - YouTube

Ron Paul in Detroit on Monday for a very different event

Submitted by David A Dudenhoefer on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 14:08

Dr. Paul will participate in a townhall event in Highland Park, a city next to Detroit and hit hard. Why this is so different, is that it is a townall with a demographic not normally addressed by candidates of any party...the poor and minorities of the inner city.

This was an idea that I had presented in theory to the campaign and we put it together. To add to the importance, the church that the event will be held at is used as a school for high school drop outs, an excellent venue to discuss the institutional racism going on in our legal and school system.

It is my hope that people from all political backgrounds can see the value in supporting Dr. Paul. I believe this will be a standard bearer for future urban cities and in future elections. We cannot ignore our urban cities and how status quo policies have effected them.

Any candidate can speak at Ford Field or the Detroit economic club, few if any will speak to the citizens in hard hit communities. Dr. Paul is one in a million.

Fun fact, the last presidential candidate to speak in the inner city in Detroit was Harry Truman in 1952.

Thank you Dr. Paul for being you.

Ron Paul in Detroit on Monday for a very different event | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

WHAT RON PAUL'S DETRACTORS REVEAL

By Chuck Baldwin
February 23, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

It is no secret that I am a huge Ron Paul fan--and I have been for many years. Do I agree with him on every single issue? Of course not. And I don't have to agree with him on every single issue to know Ron Paul is the only true constitutionalist in the Presidential field--from either major party. And when a President (or any other public office holder) takes his or her oath of office, they do not swear to be a good conservative, or to be a good Christian, or to support the state of Israel, or to "create jobs," etc., etc. They swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is their solemn oath before God and the American people. Nothing more. Nothing less. And for over two decades, Congressman Ron Paul has demonstrated his fidelity to that oath. And for that, I can and must support him.

In spite of Dr. Paul's stellar congressional record, however, there are large numbers of Republicans and "conservatives" that are his fiercest critics. I've even heard some "conservatives" say that they would rather see Barack Obama reelected than for Ron Paul to become President. Such is the lunacy of many so-called "conservatives" today.

So, what is it about Ron Paul's detractors that cause them to despise him so much? What is their beef? They would never say that they would rather Obama be reelected than to see Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum elected President. In fact, most of them spout the antiquated mantra, "Anybody but the Democrat (whoever it happens to be at the time)." Or, "At least Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc., won't take us over the cliff quite as fast as Obama." But when discussing Ron Paul, many "conservatives" take the position, "Anybody but Ron Paul." Why is this? What is it about this good man that so many good people can have such animosity toward him?

I am convinced that these "conservatives" who oppose Ron Paul reveal much more about themselves than they do about Dr. Paul. Let me proffer a few observations.

Observation Number One: We Have A Constitutionally Illiterate Society

Many "conservatives" are woefully ignorant of the US Constitution, and when a constitutional scholar such as Ron Paul interjects the Constitution into the political debate, he is speaking a language that many of these "conservatives" simply do not understand. He might as well be speaking Spanish or French. To many "conservatives," the Constitution is a foreign language.

For the better part of the Twentieth Century, the Constitution was ignored and neglected. Pastors have never studied the Constitution. Businessmen have never studied it. High school teachers and college professors have never studied it. Policemen and sheriff deputies have never studied it. Even attorneys and judges haven't studied the Constitution. Let's be honest: we have a constitutionally illiterate society today. As a result of this constitutional ignorance, people (including Christians and "conservatives") simply cannot fathom--much less appreciate--constitutional solutions to America's political woes.

Dr. Paul knows the Constitution. He has studied it. He has read what America's Founding Fathers and framers have written about the Constitution. He has studied the enlightenment philosophers, theologians, and teachers--you know, the same ones that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison studied. He knows that the reason America is in the mess it is in today is because the Constitution has been abandoned. And he also knows that the only way to fix it (politically) is to return to constitutional governance.Therefore, when Dr. Paul talks about drugs, foreign policy, military adventurism, or even social issues, he does so from a constitutional point of reference. And the Constitution is clear when it comes to these matters. Domestic drug laws are the exclusive responsibility of the states--as is virtually every other law enforcement matter. Foreign entanglements, empire building, turning our military personnel into the world's policemen, etc., are all anathema to constitutional government. And the longer our political leaders continue to ignore the Constitution, the more America will continue to slide down this slippery slope in which we now find ourselves.

Ron Paul's position on these matters is in historical agreement with America's Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. The following report outlines Dr. Paul's sagacity regarding so-called "social conservatism" and the proper role of constitutional government (the title of the news report notwithstanding)

Dr. Paul's detractors demonstrate that they do not truly understand the US Constitution.

Observation Number Two: Many "Conservatives" Have A Misguided Perception Of Ron Paul's Position On The State Of Israel.

How many times have we heard Dr. Paul's critics say that Ron Paul is "against Israel"? Too many times to count. I have been with Ron Paul in public and private many times, and I have never heard the first anti-Semitic word come out of his mouth.Theologically speaking, you could not get a consensus of opinion from among the leading Biblical scholars and theologians regarding the modern state of Israel and Biblical prophecy if your life depended upon it. Many sincere Christians believe that the Biblical promises to Israel have all taken place in history past. Many sincere Christians believe that there are many promises to Israel that are yet future. And of these groups, many believe that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, while many others believe that the modern state of Israel has no relationship whatsoever to the future Davidic Kingdom. And the fact is, when it comes to America's foreign policy, it doesn't matter!

Constitutionally, the President of the United States owes his loyalty and allegiance to only one country: The United States of America. He has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of any country--including Israel. He has no authority to give trillions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars of foreign aid to any country--including Israel. When Americans go to the polls this November, they will elect the President of the United States, not the Prime Minister of Israel. As far as any American President is concerned, Israel, like every other nation, should be judged on the basis of its actions, good or bad (as should our own nation be judged). Any American President should do everything in his power to cultivate peaceful trade relations with foreign countries, and to protect America's people and territory from those nations that would attempt to harm us--no matter who that nation is.

Ron Paul's position on Israel is a constitutional one. He knows the US should stop meddling in her affairs and let her govern herself as she sees fit. Israel is a sovereign, independent nation fully capable of conducting her own affairs. What is amazing to me about so much of this Israel debate is the way many Christians ignore the fact that for every dollar the US gives to Israel, it gives at least four dollars to her Arab neighbors. Tell me again how this "blesses" Israel? How has America's foreign policy of manipulation and coercion into the political and commercial affairs of nations throughout the world (including the Middle East) "blessed" Israel--or any other nation, for that matter? Can anyone remember when Iran was our friend? And who was it that cut the legs out from under that friend and elevated a government that would become hostile to both the United States and Israel? The US State Department, that's who! Who orchestrated the rise to power of both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? The US State Department, CIA, etc., that's who! Who has repeatedly demanded that Israel swap "land for peace"? Various US Presidents and Secretaries of State, that's who! And what is currently stirring the pot of strife and hostility in the Middle East today? An interventionist US foreign policy, that's what!

It is no accident that Ron Paul receives more support from American military personnel, active and retired, than all other GOP Presidential candidates combined. See this report.

No matter what one's personal view of Biblical eschatology may be, the President of the United States is obligated to put the interests and safety of the people of the United States first! Period! How dare any President pander to ANY foreign country? How dare any President elevate ANY foreign nation to a position superior to the United States? And how dare any American citizen expect that our President would do either?

Observation Number Three: Ron Paul's Detractors Must Not Comprehend The Existence Of The New World Order (NWO).

Ladies and gentlemen, ever since the Woodrow Wilson administration, the United States has been increasingly under the influence of internationalists who desire to commercially merge the nations of the world into one global community. The United Nations is a major contributor to this agenda, as are a number of international organizations. The New World Order is not a fantasy; it is a developing reality! And Presidential administrations from both major parties have willingly collaborated with this draconian agenda. In fact, under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, globalization efforts have mushroomed exponentially.

The Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, etc., are major players in the creation of a NWO, as is the military-industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, and international banks on both sides of the Atlantic. Another major component of the establishment of a New World Order is the burgeoning surveillance society and police state that both major parties in Washington, D.C., seem determined to implement.

Ron Paul is the ONLY Presidential candidate from either major party that truly understands the New World Order and is determined to resist it. He's the only one! Mark it down, neither Romney, Santorum, nor Gingrich will lift a finger to resist the power elite inside the New World Order. They will do nothing to reverse the surveillance society taking shape in America. They will do nothing to resist the federal government's obsessive control-freaks who are running many federal bureaucracies. Either none of them understands it, or if they do, they are absolutely unwilling to lift a finger to resist it.

I can only conclude that Ron Paul's detractors haven't a clue about the New World Order. They must not see it. They must not understand it. They must not be able to identify it. They must be totally ignorant about it, or else they would clearly appreciate Dr. Paul's knowledge and acumen when he seeks to warn people about it and put himself on the firing line to oppose it. Even if one disagrees with Dr. Paul regarding particular societal issues, one must admire Ron Paul's stand against the New World Order--especially since he is the only one opposing it! It is obvious to me that the only people who cannot appreciate Dr. Paul's courageous commitment against the NWO are those who totally do not understand it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everyone must agree with me and support Ron Paul for President. I know that good people can come to different conclusions in any political race. What I am saying is that it seems obvious to me that the vast majority of Dr. Paul's vocal detractors seem to demonstrate misperceptions--or even downright ignorance--in at least one or more of the above realities.

Support him or not, vote for him or not, any honest American who understands constitutional government, who understands what a constitutional foreign policy should look like, and who understands and is concerned that America is in the throes of a burgeoning New World Order MUST at least appreciate and admire Congressman Ron Paul. And as for me, I SUPPORT, AND WILL VOTE FOR, RON PAUL!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2012 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Chuck Baldwin -- What Ron Paul's Detractors Reveal

Ron Paul Says Conservative Hawks Are Fiscal Hypocrites

February 23, 2012 by Sam Rolley


Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, in a statement regarding the recently released 2013 Federal budget, calls for an end to the hypocrisy of massive government spending and its negative impact on national security.

Paul writes that conservatives rightly complain about the more than $1 trillion deficit outlined in the budget, but that the same “conservatives” also complain that more money needs to be allocated for what the candidate refers to as overseas adventurism.

Citing “Attack of the Porkhawks,” an article written by the Cato Institute’s Doug Bandow, Paul argues that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: More money equals better results. The Federal education system clearly disproves the theory, writes the candidate.

Paul writes:

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.

Though the Republican establishment and mainstream media continue to defend the notion that Paul’s foreign policy is nothing short of insane, the candidate continues to enjoy comfortable support from many people with close ties to national defense. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden unit, endorsed Paul several months ago; and members of the armed forces overwhelmingly support the candidate.

Ron Paul Says Conservative Hawks Are Fiscal Hypocrites : Personal Liberty Alerts=

In Case You Missed It: Ron Paul’s Plan Is the Only One That Reduces the Debt

“The plans of Republicans Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would add trillions of dollars to the debt over the next decade.”


LAKE JACKSON, Texas– According to a recent nonpartisan report, 2012 Republican Presidential contender Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America is the only budget plan from a presidential candidate that would actually reduce the national debt. While all the candidates have proposed tax cuts, Ron Paul is the only candidate to propose concrete spending cuts to reduce deficits and ultimately the national debt. Below please find an article from Bloomberg summarizing the report.

Paul Is Only GOP Contender Whose Policies Would Pare Debt, Analysis Finds

By Brian Faler
Ron Paul is the only major Republican presidential candidate whose policies would reduce the U.S. debt, according to a nonpartisan report.

The plans of Republicans Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney would add trillions of dollars to the debt over the next decade, according to an analysis released today by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington.

The primary reason is tax cuts. Each candidate has proposed breaks that would drain far more revenue from the treasury than the candidates propose to save through spending cuts, according to the report.

It is the first independent analysis of what the candidates’ platforms would mean for the U.S. government’s $15.4 trillion debt and comes as the leading Republican contenders criticize President Barack Obama for a spiraling deficit.

The plans of former House Speaker Gingrich would add the most, with tax-and-spending policies that would increase the debt by $7 trillion by 2021, according to the report. The proposals of Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, would add $4.5 trillion, the analysis said. Both would push the debt to more than 100 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, according to the report.

For the original article, please click here.

For Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America, please click here.

In Case You Missed It: Ron Paul

Ron Paul Issues Statement on Obama Tax Proposal

“Tax-borrow-spend-and-inflate is not the way to balance the budget, restore the economy, or create jobs”


LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama administration’s latest tax reform proposal. See comments below
“Last week President Obama gave us a budget plan that contains more big government, a massive tax increase, and more destructive policies piling even greater debt onto the American people.

“Now from his administration we get a so-called tax reform plan that seeks to solve our bad spending habit with more of the same policies that have done nothing to help get us out of the mess we’re in. Obviously, this president still doesn’t get it. Tax-borrow-spend-and-inflate is not the way to balance the budget, restore the economy, or create jobs.

“By placing new taxes on Americans who do business overseas, President Obama’s plan drives capital away from the United States. By contrast, my Plan to Restore America will bring as much as $1 trillion into America’s capital markets by allowing Americans to repatriate capital without incurring additional taxes. This will spur trillions in new investment, creating good jobs for Americans.

“President Obama’s does cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, however, this is still a higher corporate tax rate than in Europe so the effectiveness of this rate cut in enhancing the competiveness of American business is questionable. My plan reduces the corporate tax to 15 percent, which would free up capital for greater investment in expansion and job creation. My plan also extends all the current tax cuts, once again encouraging greater levels of investment in our economy.

“In addition, my Plan to Restore America gives hardworking families in this country a break by ending all taxes on personal savings allowing them to build a nest egg, which in turn strengthens our nation’s overall economy.

“Unlike the President, who promised to ‘cut the federal deficit in half’ by the end of his first term only to increase the deficit he inherited by billions and this year offer us yet another trillion-dollar deficit—I promise that if elected President to cut spending by $1 trillion my first year in office and plan to keep that promise.

“Fixing the problems our country faces takes bold leadership, bold ideas, and bold actions, not tired rhetoric, class warfare, and unfulfilled promises. As President, I pledge to do what it takes to get people back to work, and restore American prosperity.”

Ron Paul Issues Statement on Obama Tax Proposal*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee