Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

United States Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The Mad As Hell Generation Under The Age Of 30 Are Giving Up

Check out the link http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv ... -s-economy

Ron Paul has MASSIVE Support from this group and doing quite well among all generations

this is what is going to make him a Power House

On Campas .. Obama is Out; Ron Paul is in ... Obama lost those votes when he continued the War in Afghanistan and started a New War in Libya

The Military is supporting Ron Paul big time in Donations. Ron Paul has now recieved more than ALL of the Other Candidates combined

INCLUDE Those Americans that are Sick of the War and Government Abuse of Power thats now looking at Ron Paul 's Position

This is going to get Very Interesting

Ron Paul is a Power House; you may not believe it now... But you will before its over. Even if he doesnt win Election; he is shaping the debate and the good ole boy GOP Network maybe booted out onto the street

If you cant teach Ole Dog's New Tricks... You Fire Them

you fire them all until you get representitive government

Ron Paul Says His Republican Rivals Want Bigger Government

Thursday, 24 Nov 2011 03:33 AM
By Hiram Reisner

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul says his rivals’ militant stances on “the defense of liberty” would make it difficult for him to support any of them for president should he not get the Republican nomination, because their positions would lead to bigger government. But the Texas congressman also told Fox News’ Neal Cavuto Wednesday that despite these concerns, he probably would not run as a third-party candidate.

“I would have trouble with what I heard last night because it is almost opposite of the defense of liberty that I’m talking about,” Paul told Cavuto, referring to Tuesday night’s presidential debate. “I mean, the Republican Party is supposed to be a party, you know, of defining small government — but when it came to the civil liberties, and the Patriot Act, and the invasion of privacy, and the Fourth Amendment — all these things — they wanted more government.

“It is the perception that you have to be more militant than the next guy. . . . Sometimes they change their positions — I would have to be convinced that their position has changed,” Paul said. “But from what I hear now, I think it would be very difficult for me to get very enthusiastic about any of them. I think time will tell, and who knows what will evolve.”

Cavuto then asked Paul whether his problems supporting others in the field of GOP contenders might lead him to run as a third-party candidate.

“Well, I don’t like to talk in absolutes — so I don’t talk in absolutes — but the odds of that happening are so slim that it is very close to an absolute,” Paul said. “My trouble is, I guess, I can be accused of less loyalty to political parties than others. I think political parties are vehicles and what you believe in, and your oath of office, and what the principles are of the Constitution and Bill of Rights — that has a higher priority for me — so I put loyalty to the party down.

“One time Ronald Reagan asked me to change my vote and I explained to him that I had promised in the campaign to vote a certain way, and I`m sorry, but I wouldn`t be able to do it. He was very, very respectful, and understood it, and didn’t then try to intimidate me in any way,” he said. “So I think that is the way it should be, but, unfortunately, the loyalty to the party should be secondary to loyalty to your oath of office.”

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/repub...1/24/id/419052

Pundit: Ron Paul Could Take Iowa

Friday, 25 Nov 2011 02:37 PM

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has decided to make a play for the Iowa caucuses after all. But The Hill columnist Brent Budowsky doesn’t think he can win, but does believe that Ron Paul can win.

The former Massachusetts governor “will lose Iowa because when Iowa Republicans meet on caucus night [Jan. 3], conservatives will tend to unite in each community behind the conservative candidate who can defeat Romney in that community,” Budowsky writes. “Ron Paul can win Iowa because his supporters are very highly motivated and his campaign is very highly organized. He will outperform his rising poll numbers.”

Budowsky says Romney could drop as far as third. He can’t yet predict who will win Iowa because that depends on whom conservatives unite behind. Newt Gingrich is the most likely selection, but Paul or Michelle Bachmann are possibilities as well, Budowsky writes.

“Paul is an interesting wild card in Iowa. He can win Iowa, and if for some reason Newt falls back, I suspect he will win,” Budowsky states. “The media has always underestimated the premium of passion, conviction and organization in the Paul campaign.”

Budowsky disagrees with those who maintain that the nomination will be decided early. “In my view this nomination will be decided, at the earliest, on Super Tuesday,” he writes. “The tendency will be for conservatives to unite behind one candidate by Super Tuesday, and that candidate will have a clean shot at Romney by Super Tuesday and beyond.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/paul...1/25/id/419110

'Ron Paul a threat to US corporate interests'

Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:5PM GMT

Video at the link: http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/212452.html

American Philosopher James H. Fetzer says presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas is “too great a threat to the corporate interests that dominate the United States media to give him a fair shake.

Vote For Ron Paul

November 28, 2011
by Bob Livingston

Dear Bob,

I received an email in support of Newt Gingrich. So am I understanding you correctly that you are a supporter of Newt over Romney?

Please explain why you feel that way?

Gerald

Dear Gerald,

No, you are NOT understanding correctly. Both (Newt / Romney) are part of the political elite, Bilderberg, CFR, corporatist cabal who will grow government and continue to lead us down the fascist path we currently tread. There is only one statesman in the race, and that is Ron Paul. A vote for anyone else is a vote for the status quo.

Best wishes,

Bob

Bob Livingston is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 42 years. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

http://www.personalliberty.com/question ... 11_28_PLA_[P11246716]&rrid=238434262

Ron Paul Remains Top-Tier in Latest Iowa Poll

Strong second, leads field in Independent vote

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – A NewsMax/Insider Advantage poll released yesterday shows 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in second place in the state of Iowa, solidifying his position at the top of the field and remaining a serious threat to take the Iowa Caucuses in January. Paul won 13 percent of likely caucus-goers in the poll and an impressive 30 percent of independent voters, leading the rest of the field. In addition, Paul won 47 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years old.“The latest poll results clearly prove Ron Paul’s status as a top contender, and confirms that our campaign is continuing to surge in early states,” said Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “The American people are ready for real change in Washington and Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has a plan to cut $1 trillion in spending, balance the budget, and restore prosperity to the American people.”This latest poll comes on the heels of a number of recent polls placing Paul among the top three in key early states. According to a recent American Research Group poll, Paul takes third among likely Republican caucus-goers in Iowa. He also scores third place in New Hampshire, according to a recent WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll. And the most recent Suffolk University/7 News poll has Paul holding steady in second place with 14 percent among likely New Hampshire primary voters.In addition, a late October CNN/Time poll showed the Texas congressman in the top three in the key Republican primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/2...est-iowa-poll/

Gerald Celente Endorses Ron Paul For President 11/29/11

Nov 30, 2011

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4HaiNP ... r_embedded

What Is Normal?

December 2, 2011 by Bob Livingston


Protesters are again occupying Egypts Tahrir Square.

“I like Ron Paul’s ideas on the economy, but I can’t vote for him because he’s an isolationist on foreign policy. He’s a kook (or naïve, or nuts or insert your own word) on foreign affairs.” That’s a common theme heard in discussions about the Republican Presidential aspirants.

What that means is that pushing Middle Eastern countries around and imposing our will on them is more important to so-called conservatives than getting our financial house in order. They — they being so-called conservatives — have decided that our national security can be served only by bullying smaller countries and installing dictators “friendly” to the United States. And it’s perfectly normal to believe this way, they think.

Americans are being terrorized by their own government. How? The constant drumbeat about Iran’s nuclear efforts. The same people who so vehemently declared that Iraq was close to having “the Bomb” — the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations, the CIA, Israel, etc. — are telling us the same thing about Iran. The GOP beauty contestants — save one — are promising one of or a combination of regime change, sanctions, the freezing of assets and/or no-fly zones for Iran should they be elected. These are all acts of war or preludes to war.

When the Hosni Mubarak regime began cracking down on anti-government protesters in Egypt, Americans expressed outrage. Mubarak, who was friendly to Israel and the U.S. and had benefited from billions of U.S. dollars, was suddenly persona non grata. President Barack Obama told him it was time to step down. Mubarak was tossed aside like a used table napkin.

A military government took over. Protesters are again occupying Egypt’s Tahrir Square.

When protesters — who we now know were members of al-Qaida — began protesting in Libya, Obama joined with NATO to quash President Moammar Gadhafi’s military and throw him out of office. A similar thing is about to happen in Syria.

In 1860 in the United States, South Carolina seceded from the Union. Six States soon followed. After the Battle of Fort Sumter, four more joined the Confederacy. President Abraham Lincoln attacked the Southern States to force them back into subjection. Most Americans see Lincoln’s actions as just and necessary. But they have a dichotomy. While they support Lincoln’s actions to “preserve” America, they oppose the actions of foreign rulers to keep their governments in power.

In Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is running for Russian President. What if he said he was advocating regime change in a former Soviet state: Georgia for instance? What would be the reaction of Americans? We know that Russian actions there in the South Ossetia war were highly condemned in 2008 by neocon hawks like Senator John McCain.

What if China suddenly acted on its designs toward Taiwan? What would be the reaction of Americans?

For most Americans, it was good and just for the American government to use military action to quash a rebellion 151 years ago, but other governments can’t do that today. And for most Republicans, America’s foreign policy should remain that we push around Middle Eastern, African and Persian countries — or anyone else, for that matter — and install our chosen dictators because we have some moral obligation to “spread democracy.” But other countries should not be allowed to spread their preferred form of government or install their own preferred dictators.

Republican voters believe this way and see this as a normal policy. What about this is normal?

Ron Paul wants to end foreign entanglements, maintain a strong national defense and get our financial house in order; but Republicans believe him to be the kook.

Which is the more rational, less kooky policy? What is normal?

http://www.personalliberty.com/conse...hat-is-normal/

Paul I'll Take My Oath of Office Very Seriously

Ron Paul - Wolf Blitzer Interview on CNN 12 - 2 - 2011
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lPZ6F78sN0



CNN
December 3, 2011

Ron Paul discusses a campaign web ad taking aim at Gingrich called serial hypocrisy.