Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Romney: My Only Connection To The Republican Party Is That I'm Registered Republican



Does the Term RINO mean anything to the GOP anymore

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!



NOTE: It is important to separate hunting down terrorists who attack our country and deserve justice (which Ron Paul is 100% for), and not confuse justice with occupying entire countries for a decade under the guise of the "War on Terror" or "Spreading Democracy". Terrorists are individuals and small groups, so why are we picking fights with entire nations? BILLIONS for Defense, NOT A PENNY for Empire.

This speech is called "Imagine" and it was given by Ron Paul on March 11, 2009. The original text of the talk is below:

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

Guest Post: Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama



Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/18/2012 10:34 -040
Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt Market

Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama



If Americans are looking for anything in the dark clouds of political dust and powdered ash that choke our air and leave us feeling naked against the elements, it is but a simple moment of sincerity. It sounds like an easily attainable thing, and yet, we continue to gasp and clamor. The visible surface of our nation is so devoid of honest connection with our social voice that we have turned to a cynical form of loneliness. We have embraced a life without clarity, and been made wretchedly bitter, desperate for even the faintest taste of truth.

The false two party paradigm that drives America gives us a measure of sustenance. Just enough to keep us from going completely mad, but not enough to end our hunger. As this process continues, however, and the establishment grows bolder, we too become savvy in the ways of the machine. Eventually, the old standards just don’t keep the masses distracted like they used to, and so, the system, not willing to give up power, decides instead to become “like us”, at least outwardly. It steals our vision and our song and goes on parade. It tries to make us believe again…

The campaign of Barack Obama in 2008 was a perfect example of the propaganda pageant, complete with visceral slogans like “Hope” and “Change”. After eight years of the clownish George Bush Jr., when our country spiraled down into a state of disturbed and vicious adolescence, people were looking for a renewal. They were looking for a path away from the edge of the abyss. Instead, they were given a better liar, with a brand new costume. The American Dream has become harder to sustain since…to say the least.

In 2012, what I see is like a lightning bolt in slow motion. I can sense it branching out across the sky towards the ground and tearing through our surroundings, upending everything we know. Both the President and Congress have some of the lowest approval ratings in history. The question of whether anything can be accomplished through government has been answered for most people with a resounding “no”. The citizenry is on the verge of total fury.

I wish I could say that most have abandoned the fleeting hollow satisfaction of choosing the “lesser of two evils”, but that would not be accurate.

Recently, I was invited (by several separate people) to a central event in the state elections of Montana called the “Lincoln-Reagan Dinner”, and promptly tried to avoid it like a rat infested plague ship. I know from experience what these kinds of political elbow rubbing parties can be like, and have been thoroughly unimpressed. Somehow, I ended up there anyway. If your only experience of the Republican Party was to attend such shindigs, you might think the stuffy anal-retentive caricatures we often see of conservatives are well deserved. In stark contrast to a Ron Paul rally, most of the attendees were little younger than 55, and few seemed very animated. Perhaps they were suffering from the same distaste of the whole thing as I was. Luckily, a solid 15% of the crowd were Liberty Movement oriented, which helped me to weather the overall painful proceedings (I also won a door prize; a coupon for a free dinner, mmmm…), but a pair of earplugs and a bottle of whiskey would have been far more comforting.

The party also gave me a momentary window into the future of the state in which I now reside, and even the probable nature of campaigns occurring across the nation. The prospects weren’t very pretty.

If Americans plan to look to the GOP to save them from the jaws of impending disaster, they had better reconsider that foolish notion. Obama may be riding the economic collapse straight at us like a wild Mako shark, but that’s no excuse to delude ourselves with fantasies of a Republican savior. Mitt Romney (a man whose legislative record is little different from Obama’s) is just the tip of the iceberg. At the state level, a much more dire charade is taking place.

A most noticeable trend is the language that fake conservatives (Neo-Cons) have adopted in the past year, switching from die hard statism to sudden “opposition” to Federal encroachment. What happened to the GOP’s love affair with centralized government? Well, the tides of the populace have changed considerably over the past few years, and in 2012, co-option is the name of the game.

While the media goes out of its way to ignore Ron Paul, the elites in the GOP have lately decided its better to sound at least a little bit like the Constitutionalist candidate. Now, the parasites are brandishing rhetoric they wouldn’t have been caught dead uttering not long ago; railing against EPA intrusion on state jurisdiction of natural resources mostly, and the Federal Government in general, but it wasn’t much help. Speech after speech, the candidates were heavy on flag waving placations, light on substance or honor. The general message of the assembly was repeated over and over again;

WHOEVER the chosen candidates were after the primaries, conservatives were “duty bound” to supplant Obama and the Democrats at all costs. That is to say, if we do not unify around the selected Republican con-squad, Obama’s reelection would be entirely the fault of the non-conformists. “Anyone but Obama” was the catch phrase of the evening…

Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same kind of campaign the Democrats were running against Bush back in 2004, and it will lead to the same kind of disappointment.

Two political front men in Montana in particular left me so disgusted I could barely digest dinner afterwards. The first, of course, was Neil Livingstone, who as far as I can tell, is the quintessential nightmare candidate from the seventh circle of hell. With ties to the CIA under Air America, Iran Contra (though he denies it), multiple Blackwater-style mercenary firms, a penchant for death squads, and backdoor deals with dictators like Moammar Qaddafi, it’s hard to imagine a worse governor for an anti-Federal pro-Constitutional state like Montana.

Though we have been covering this information since Livingstone’s entry into the race, it’s nice to see that other outlets are finally catching on: The Most Interesting Gubernatorial Candidate in the World | Mother Jones

Mother Jones treats Livingstone’s record as a kind of anomaly; an outlandish joke that makes him unelectable. However, I tend to take his presence in Montana a bit more seriously. Money and friends in high places are still viable strategies in our very corrupt electoral process, and Livingstone has both.

The fact that the man moved back to Montana barely a year ago just to run for the governor’s position is also disconcerting. His running mate, Ryan Zinke, a former Seal Team 6 member, stated his solution to Montana’s unemployment problems is to build predator drone factories (I’m not joking).

And, both have received backing from a local retired two star general by the name of Paul Vallely who wrote a book called “The Myths Of Gitmo: Torture, Abuse Or The Truth”, in which he defends the detainment procedures of the infamous facility and claims that no torture, or at least what he defines as torture, occurs there. Though, this is not half as disturbing as the paper “From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory” which he wrote with legendary military Psyop analyst and creepy occultist Michael Aquino (look this guy up for a lesson in dangerously weird).

Vallely has been posing locally and nationally as a Liberty Movement proponent with his organization “Stand Up America”, just as Livingstone and Zinke have been posing as Constitutional freedom loving traditional conservatives. Anyone who has studied the Cointelpro operations of the 1960’s and 1970’s would probably see a familiar pattern in all of this, but many Montanans I fear may not be quite so aware.

Livingstone gets consistent applause for his broken record jokes on the hot button wolf problem here in the Big Sky State. And his speaking style is well trained.

Like most political snake oil salesmen, he has the ability to talk a lot without saying much. It may well be that the Constitutionalist movement that is thriving here has garnered special attention, and men like those listed so far are not here by coincidence.

The second politician stealing our oxygen was Rep. Denny Rehberg, a self proclaimed Tea Party Republican who consistently votes for Neo-Con style legislation, including the NDAA. Rehberg washed patriotic during his substance-less speech during the Lincoln-Reagan dinner, wandering off on tangents about his mother and then back to push button topics like Obamacare.

The one saving feature of his campaign was his opposition to the bailouts.

Unfortunately, when confronted by Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers after the event on his support of the NDAA, Rehberg revealed his true colors.

Apparently not recognizing who Rhodes was, he accused the long time veteran of “not supporting the troops” because of his opposition to the bill.

When confronted on the specific provisions of the bill which allow for indefinite detainment of any person the executive branch accuses of being an enemy combatant without trial, Rehberg denied that the bill opened doors to such action. This has been the typical response from other fake conservatives who voted for the draconian legislation.

Strangely, representatives of Rehberg have tried to contact Rhodes in the past to show support for a bill to “clarify” the language of the NDAA, but these drafts contained little to nothing to actually nullify the detainment sections.

If Rehberg has no remorse over his support for the NDAA, and feels it holds no threat to the American people, why try to draft a state bill to clarify the U.S. citizen issue? According to Rehberg, the only reason was to silence Constitutionalists who had been pointing out his non-conservative, pro-statist behavior.

“Clarity”, is not his true concern at all. The irrationality of the defense of the NDAA continues to escalate amongst closet neo-cons. From Alinsky style diversions and accusations, to full-on denial in spite of the evidence, they refuse to admit the nature of the legislation. Why? Because it is indefensible.

I have merely covered some local examples of fake-conservatives I have witnessed first hand, but this is a strategy being used all over the country.

The incredible threat these people pose cannot be underestimated (in a follow up article, I will cover some examples of legitimate liberty candidates).

With Obama sending America into a death spiral, the obvious and natural reaction by many will be to look to the conservative dynamic to put things right. Sadly, most Americans do not know what real conservatism and limited government looks like anymore.

Frankly, any hobgoblin in a suit can claim he is a conservative nowadays, and then implement the same globalist, collectivist policies as the fake liberal before him.

As I have said many times in the past, you have to examine the actions of these representatives, not their rhetoric. What they say is meaningless. What they do, and have done in the past, is everything.

This election year, we MUST NOT play the old game of the “lesser of two evils”. The fact is, there is no such thing, and there never was.

Guest Post: Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama | ZeroHedge

Karl Rove predicts Romney loss to Obama

Anthony Martin
Conservative Examiner


Republican strategist Karl Rove. Photo credit: (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Republican strategist Karl Rove, who is considered the architect of George W. Bush's two successful campaigns for the White House, is predicting that Mitt Romney will have a difficult time beating Barack Obama in the general election in November.

According to Rove, the situation is so dire that if the election were held today, Obama would win handily.

Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee, although he does not yet have enough delegates to win.

Rove is known for his pinpoint accuracy in predicting how the states will vote in general elections. In 2008 he correctly predicted the election results in 48 out of 50 states.

In an interview with NewsMax yesterday, Rove states that if the election were held today, Obama would win 284 electoral votes compared to Romney's 157. A candidate must win at least 270 electoral votes to gain the presidency.

Although Rove admits that it is still early and the electoral map will change as the campaign progresses, his prediction is odd given his numerous statements on Fox News concerning the electability factor of various potential Republican nominees.

This reporter has personally heard Rove claim that Romney is one of the few in the field who has the ability to beat Barack Obama in November. He has also disparaged potential and former candidates such as Sarah Palin, claiming that they are unelectable.

The fact that Rove is now saying that Romney will have a difficult time coming up with the 270 electoral votes necessary to win is perplexing given his previous statements.

Further, Rove's assessment gives one pause to question the entire premise of the Republican leadership establishment that assumes conservatives are unelectable and liberal or moderate candidates are best equipped to win.

The leadership establishment has incessantly harped on the electability factor, claiming that only candidates such as Romney, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush can garner enough support to beat Obama. Now that it appears Romney is sailing to the nomination, the public is being told a different story. Romney is in trouble.

This makes one wonder if the Republican leadership also misled voters on the electability of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. The leadership establishment claimed that these candidates are unelectable.

Interestingly, the very same elitist political machine said the same thing about Ronald Reagan throughout the 1970s and even in the 1980 Republican race for the nomination. While the faces were different back then, the mindset of the machine was exactly the same.

Reagan was constantly bashed as being too conservative for the general public to stomach. George H.W. Bush, who was one of the candidates opposing Reagan in 1980, referred to the Reagan economic plan as "voodoo."

Yet it was Reagan who became the only Republican to beat two different Democrats in two of the largest landslides in U.S. history, in 1980 and 1984.

These factors are ample reason to question not only the wisdom but the motives of people like Rove.

This reporter would like to ask Rove the following question: Why are you now saying that Romney will struggle to beat Obama when only a few months ago you were claiming that he was one of the few who are electable?

A second question logically follows the first: Do you also think it's possible you were dead wrong about the electability of Palin, Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, and Cain?

Notice!

A new entry in my regular series Musings After Midnight is posted at my blog, The Liberty Sphere. Get ready for some plain talk. The title of the post is Musings After Midnight: NOW What Are You Gonna Do--Romney's Apparent Smooth Sail to the Nomination and Other Abominations.

Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.

Subscribe by clicking the links at the top of the page, or below, and you will receive free notifications of new articles plus a free newsletter.

Karl Rove predicts Romney loss to Obama - National Conservative | Examiner.com

Have Fun America ... Dance Like No One is Watching



100th Monkey Effect: We will get there, just keep doing what we're doing



There will be a tipping Point but it's not going to happen unless we get off our butts and DANCE!

A Million Strong at the RNC!

"A Revolution Without Dancing; Is a Revolution Not Worth Having"

If you ever doubt if one person can make a difference, just remember this clip.

Ron Paul Has The Deepest Support I've Seen In Decades

Actually, Mitt Romney is secretly winning a lot FEWER delegates than you think

Submitted by hroos on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 14:02
Delegates

Actually, Mitt Romney is secretly winning a lot FEWER delegates than you think

It's not just about Romney losing the upcoming contests, its also about him losing the delegates he supposedly already has...

(Check out my previous post: #RonPaul upset in the works! for a past update on the delegate breakdown )

The Mainstream Media and political bigwigs in both parties have declared Mitt Romney the presumptive GOP nominee. This “presumptive” declaration is at best premature when even favorable estimates have Romney hundreds of delegates short of reaching the magic number of 1,144 delegates required to win the Republican nomination.

Romney needs about 300 more delegates from the remaining 14 contests to claim the nomination.

There is a final charge being mounted by the anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance to make sure Romney does not reach the 1,144 by contesting the last 14 states or by winning hundreds of delegates in states he's supposedly already won.

(Read more here for the breakdown)

Various published Romney delegate counts are as follows:

CNN 841 (SOURCE: CNN.com)

AP/NYT 847 (SOURCE: AP/NYT GOP Primary Page)

The Green Papers 869 (SOURCE: TheGreenPapers.com)

Recent events, however, indicate that some of Romney’s supposed delegate wins may not be as secure as once thought. This past week, county delegate nominating conventions in Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado were swept by Ron Paul supporters (and anti-Romney activists) leaving Romney with fewer delegates than expected and in the case of Iowa no expectation of delegates whatsoever (SOURCE: PolicyMic).

Clearly, the resistance to Romney’s potential candidacy is mounting a final two-front challenge not only in the upcoming 14 contests taking place next week through June but also in the county and state delegate nominating conventions scheduled through mid-July in 30 states that have already held their primary or caucus (SOURCE: Wikipedia).

In case you were not paying attention:

Romney can lose delegates.

Take a look at Iowa for example, CNN reports Romney to have won at least 7 delegates but in reality Paul supporters have taken the state GOP over and with it the RNC superdelegates (also known as RNC delegates) of chair and vice-chair. Furthermore, Paul supporters are expected to sweep the remaining state delegation slots for Paul in the upcoming state convention coming out of Iowa (SOURCE: IB Times).

In another twist to this scenario, the Massachusetts delegation, a supposedly safe Romney territory, was swept by Paul supporters in district conventions (SOURCE: PolicyMic). Despite the fact that these delegates are bound to vote for Romney in the first round of the convention there is much talk about the ability to vote “abstain” and not offer any support to any candidate in the hopes of forcing a brokered convention.

Four years ago, John McCain was not well liked by many in the grassroots and delegates with that sentiment showed their displeasure by voting “abstain” (SOURCE: Wikipedia). It may well turn out to be that a large number of anti-Romney delegates will have made it into the convention and will nullify this entire election cycle by forcing a brokered convention using this tactic.

In response to this existential threat, the Romney campaign has ordered draconian measures on Republican conventions that would clearly be overtaken by anti-Romney parties and continue their work to attain high percentage, primary wins in the remaining 14 contests (Source: Romney Hawks Believe in Ron Paul Threat).

Measures to combat insurgent grassroots locally have seen conventions canceled and SWAT teams used to break up gatherings as well as exorbitant fees charged to either delay bad outcomes or weaken grassroots resolve: (SOURCES: Washington Cancels Convention Just Before Voting, Missouri SWAT sent to MO Caucus, Alaska GOP charges last minute convention fee, then refuses to collect payment.

The name of the game being played is PERCEPTION.

The Romney campaign must maintain the perception of its inevitability or else lose precious momentum to the anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance whose goal is to force a brokered convention.

At a brokered convention, anything can happen.

In 1920, Warren Harding won a brokered convention starting with the least number of bound delegates. He went on to win by a landslide in the general election. Ron Paul has been compared to a present-day Warren Harding (Source: EPJ).

The Romney campaign has also relied on an election schedule packed with winner-take-all contests in relatively friendly states in order to maintain the PERCEPTION of the presumptive nominee.

In what could be a twist of fate, only 4 of the final 14 contests remaining are winner-take-all. This could cause a number of Romney campaign election stumbles in the coming weeks potentially crippling their chances.

This past Saturday, for instance, Ron Paul won the Louisiana caucus with 74% of the vote (Source: Sun Herald). A minor hiccup for the Romney campaign but a potential speed bump as the delegate fight continues forward. However, at the same time, the Alaska GOP was firmly taken over by Ron Paul supporters (allied with activists close to Sarah Palin who has never endorsed Romney) (Source: AK GOP New Chair supports Ron Paul).

Deciding Factor: Next week’s contests in Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon will be the first indication of a coalescing anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance that will continue the fight in the following 11 contests and also in a potential brokered convention.

There are many questions to be answered in the next coming weeks:

How many more state GOPs will be overtaken by Ron Paul supporters?

How many more delegations will be won by the anti-Romney, pro-Paul alliance?

How will the Romney campaign and the Mainstream Media continue to push the idea of the presumptive nominee?

How will the media and political establishment ultimately react to the image of the presumptive nominee slowly being chipped away by the change in political winds?

Whatever happens in the upcoming weeks, this is a turning point in the history of the Republican Party and ultimately the United States and the world.

Amicus libertatis

Actually, Mitt Romney is secretly winning a lot FEWER delegates than you think | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

The Ron Paul Revolution - The Movie - FULL HD

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: "Ron Paul's Policy/Perspective on Iran Most Accurate"

THE PHONY RIGHTWING

By Kelleigh Nelson
December 30, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Ron Paul

Yep we're slaves alright. Tax law being the most nefarious of the lot. Certainly, we are no longer living in a land of "justice". . We have lots and lots of laws of "Control and Obedience" to the American Royalty erroneously called The Federal Government. We have King and Queen Obama and a bunch of Czar's...Does anybody remember "America"? (the land of the free?) -J. Carlton, Calgary

This is for everyone who keeps writing me and asking, "When are you going to write about Ron Paul?" No matter what I write about Ron Paul, I will be loved by some and hated by others. Please remember I started with the worst of the lot and, IMHO all but Bachmann and Paul are globalists. Michele carries a lot of baggage, working for the IRS to me is as damaging as Herman Cain having worked for the Federal Reserve. With Ron Paul, you have a man who, among other things, wants to rid us of the Federal Reserve, (watch this important video) give power back to the states, is staunchly pro-life, doesn't believe in World Government, wants to stop the federal spending, wants to stop all foreign aid, wants to bring our soldiers home, has a way to cut spending and the deficit, wants to eliminate federal departments responsible for pushing the horrid UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, would repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley, would lower the corporate tax to 15%, and is a Christian who isn't pandering his faith like so many of the candidates. [Link] Here is Ron's statement of faith and I love it. [Link] Congressman Paul's detractors will list many points against him, but if one only searches the reasoning behind Paul's stances, you'll find that many of them are constitutional.

Ron Paul was born in August of 1935, and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 18 grandchildren and five great grandchildren. Paul was raised Lutheran, but now attends a Baptist Church.

Paul is a libertarian and thus there will be many facets of his belief system that constitutional conservatives might disagree with albeit his reasoning in most instances is sound and constitutional. If the states were given back their original power under the Constitution to decide issues such as abortion, that action would deprive the Federal government from passing laws like Roe v. Wade which resulted in a national law that forces all States to uphold abortion.

Let's look at some of the issues conservatives may have problems with, as well as those areas where we'd agree Ron Paul is the only candidate for President who is truly a constitutional conservative and who could put this nation back on the right track. Please take special notice of the links as they're quite informative and important.

1. Ron Paul voted for the repeal of "Don't Ask. Don't Tell." [Link] Paul seems to waver on whether homosexuality is a sin. [Link] The Congressman also believes the government should not be in your bedroom and says, "Gay couples can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want as long as they don't impose it on someone else." [Link]

Ron Paul stated in an article in the Huffington Post, "Everybody is an individual person, and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair, and the federal government has no say." Get the government out of our bedrooms! It is very important to see that this is an issue of individual justice rather than social justice.

2. Many Libertarians like Ron Paul are closer to the leftists in their love affair with Islam which is one area that is extremely troubling inasmuch as the desire of Islam is to overtake America and make it a Muslim nation. Paul doesn't believe the religion of Islam is our enemy and I'd have to disagree with him on this issue. [Link]

3. Congressman Paul says U.S. intervention motivated 9/11 attacks. [Link] Two weeks prior to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation. [Link] Ron Paul has spoken about ";," which is the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public. In Christopher Simpson's 1988 book, Blowback, he thoroughly explains America's recruitment of Nazis into the CIA and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy that has lasted for years. The same goes for the other CIA foreign operations the public has no knowledge of even today. Please see this important video on Blowback.

Paul also believes we should get out of the Muslim countries now. I too believe this, albeit I want all our soldiers brought home and put on our borders with 50 caliber machine guns to protect our nation from drug cartels and illegal aliens.

4. Ron Paul, the most visible libertarian in the US (under the Republican banner), has said he thinks that sending illegal aliens home where they came from is not "humanitarian." He also doesn't believe in building a 700 mile fence. Now it seems the Libertarian Party is following this same kind of reasoning. [Link]

But wait! Here's what Ron says about illegal aliens in an interview with John Stossel. He wants to get rid of the subsidies for illegals, as well as any mandates by the Federal Government. This would include food stamps, social security, medical care, automatic citizenship under the guise of amnesty, free education, etc. Stop the free rides and they'll stop rushing over our borders. I agree with his stance. If the bird feeder is empty, the birds won't come. With soldiers on the border, terrorists won't either. Paul is against amnesty. [Link]

5. Ron Paul's libertarian views would support legalization of pornography and prostitution. [Link] Again, Ron's view is the First Amendment protection and that parents can restrict and control their children and it is not the Federal government's responsibility to do same. [Link] Prostitution is still going on today whether it is legalized or not and this is a social issue like homosexuality and pornography. Congressman Paul doesn't believe the government should legislate virtue or morality. I wish he'd tell this to the leftist Fabian socialists and Marxists we have in government control. [Link]

One of the factors that has brought the decline of morality in America is the failure of today's churches in teaching sound biblical doctrines and exhorting the members to read and study God's Word and spread the Gospel and we need to understand this rather than laying the blame elsewhere.

6. Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life and would have laws protecting life decreed by the States rather than by federal law. As I explained above, Ron would like to see Roe v. Wade repealed and let the States decide rather than having the Federal Government making abortion a nationalized law. [Link]

7. Paul believes the government has no role or authority in regulating drugs, another Libertarian concept. However, his stance has a great deal of merit inasmuch as it actually does pull the rug out from under the drug cartels and their profits. Am I in agreement? Not necessarily, but here's the Congressman's take on this issue. [Link]

8. Ron says terrorists should be tried in American civil courts. The opposition says, "Foreign terrorists belong in a military court." As for American Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, like Ron Paul I have to ask, "Are we setting a precedent that will be used against other US citizens in the future?" [Link] It is something we definitely need to consider. Remember, what our government will do to an undesirable citizen, they can also do to us. Note the bill that just passed and will be signed into law H.R.1540 NDAA

9. Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A01 Amends H.R.1540): Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.

The results? (tallied here): 143 out of 185 Democrats present — 77% — voted against this amendment; 217 out of 235 Republicans present — 92% — voted for it. As for the two Republicans in Congress running who are Presidential candidates, Michele Bachmann voted for the amendment; Ron Paul against it.

AND here is the caveat, the law authorizes the United States to use military force anywhere it says there are terrorists, including within the borders of our own country and including against American citizens. This bill eliminates habeas corpus making detention indefinite. It represents the largest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history. The founders were seriously opposed to handing this much power over to executive, fearing tyranny, which is what we have today. If enacted into law, this provision would make Obama a total dictator who can wage war without the consent of the American people, which he has already done with Libya, but would legitimize it. This bill will legalize an unconstitutional act. [Link] Ron Paul has clearly sounded the alarm regarding the imminent destruction of the Republic. [Link]

10. The bogus claim of anti-Semitism arises with Ron Paul for several reasons. Basically his stance on our intervention in the Middle East which he feels resulted in terrorist attacks against us, and his pro-Islamic Mosque stance in New York have fueled this belief. Unfortunately Congressman Paul sponsored a bill that would have eliminated all aid to Israel alone rather than all foreign aid to any country. I do believe Paul wishes to eliminate all foreign aid and I'm in agreement with this stance. As well, I have Jewish friends in Israel who wish Israel would decline any monies from America so Israel could act as Israel sees fit and would not have to bow to American interests.

Here is what my one Israeli friend said, "US aid to Israel has made us (Israel) a puppet under the power of a terrible prez we didn't elect. US money enslaves us. If no one has the guts to speak truth, they don't merit to lead a nation. We in Israel live with empty words of blowhard politicians who're afraid of making the Arabs mad. If you don't tell the truth, they'll kill more of us. IF you tell the truth, they'll kill more of us. I'd rather die for the truth than a lie. The fact is, archeology- facts on the ground- and the history of the region attest to Jews not Palestinians being here from the beginning of time. Go study."

I have to agree with my Israeli friends and with Paul inasmuch as the strings attached to accepting US dollars inhibits Israel from proper defense of their country.

In Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto, at the end the Congressman includes a section called "A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America." And on that recommended reading list is John T. Flynn's book, As We Go Marching. Congressman Paul is recommending the writings of a man who, in his day, was seen as a driving force behind the anti-Semitic liberal Republican Senator Nye and the Senate investigation into Jewish influence in Hollywood. [Link] [Link]

More troubling is the fact that Ron Paul's website mourned the passing of virulent anti-Semite, Eustace Mullins. [Link] In my files I have a copy of Mullins' booklet, "My Life In Christ," which was printed for him by Aryan Nations. Any investigation of Mullins reveals strong anti-Semitism. The question is who controls Ron's website? I am sure Paul does not.
Ron's real stance on Israel is clear and the rumors of anti-Semitism are false. Here is Ron's stance on Israel in this interview. Here is Ron's interview with Newsmax on his support of Israel and from The Atlantic, "Ron Paul is More Mainstream than His Opponents on Foreign Policy."

11. Ron Paul's new Plan to Restore America basically abolishes all the cabinet level departments tasked with implementation and dissemination of Agenda 21. His supporters have been hot on all the Agenda 21 issues for a long time. They're probably the ones who got Rand Paul up to speed on the issues, since he didn't have a clue when one of our researchers wrote to him. Ron is proposing One Trillion dollars in budget cuts! [Link] Here are the key components of Paul's economic plan, "Restore America," released in October.

It’s not mentioned by name anywhere in Ron Paul's 11 page Plan to Restore America; but, the cabinet-level departments he’s abolishing (page 2 on his plan) are the same departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior & Education) that Bill Clinton appointed to his President’s Council on Sustainable Development in 1993 to co-ordinate with the UN’s Agenda 21. [Link]

For this reason alone I'd cast my vote for Ron Paul. If you are unaware of what UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development/Smart Growth/Smart Meters/Wildlands Project is all about, then visit Tom DeWeese's site on Agenda 21.

Conclusions

No one has ever accused Ron Paul of being a flip-flopper. He has been saying the same things for 35 years. Now the latest events in America and the world have conspired to make him look increasingly on target.

Congressman Paul is by far the most radically anti-big government candidate in the running. He'd boil the Federal government back down to a few skeletal constitutional functions. He'd cut all foreign aid, abolish the Patriot Act, get rid of Obamacare, return us to a gold standard, as well as eliminating the welfare state, and federal income taxes. He hates bipartisan compromise and loves gridlock!

Are there things on which I'd disagree with Dr. Paul? You bet there are! But there are far more things I agree with him on, especially his love of liberty and the Constitution. I have spent the better part of six months researching Dr. Paul and have collected hundreds of documents and articles on the man. The elite establishment politicos and media will do anything to destroy the reputation of this man, yet he gains more followers as the days go by.

Recently he was on the Jay Leno Show. Leno asked him how he liked the debates so far and Ron answered that standing there for two hours to speak for three minutes wasn't very enjoyable. Jay also made the statement that the bottom 15% of Americans pay no taxes. Ron quipped back, "That's a good start!"

If you wish to know more about Ron Paul, go to his website, Ron Paul on the Issues. Another site that contains valid information is Wikipedia's Political Positions of Ron Paul.

Paul isn't a 6'2" square jawed hunk of male flesh with a pompous arrogant, know-it-all attitude. He's a little Banty rooster who's smaller and faster than the globalists he's running against and who loves freedom.

If there's any chance in saving our country, I believe it's with Congressman Ron Paul.P.S. Here is a recent article written by his first and only speech writer in 1976. I think you'll enjoy it!

P.P.S. As the MSM falsely attacks Ron Paul for racist remarks, see the truth here and here. Make sure you watch the video.

© 2010 Kelleigh Nelson - All Rights Reserved

Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate group.

Website: www.rockytopfreedom.com

E-Mail: proverbs133@bellsouth.net

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh143.htm