Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

This Is Why We Need Ron Paul 2012 - Wake up Americans and fight!

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f12/mitt-romney...eforms-260354/ <--- LINK

FLIP FLOP MITT HAS ONE UP'd HIMSELF

HE WILL NOW PERFORM A TRIPLE LINDY FOR THE ILLEGAL ALIEN's PROVIDING AMNESTY FOR THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS



"If you Can't Dazzle the GOP With Brillance"

"You Baffle Them With Bullshit"

Right after you lie to the Party to become the Presumptive Nominy

ONCE AGAIN... YOU HAVE BEEN BAMBOOZELED AMERICA

Be Prepared... The MITT ROMNEY Cart Wheels Are Coming

NO ONE CAN FLIP LIKE MITT

"Elektable"


Published on Jun 30, 2012 by JeremyRichterFilm

"Elektable" is a short fictional film about Ron Paul and the amazing political revolution he has inspired. The movie explores truth in the media and how it secretly holds a deep affection for Dr. Paul.

On a more serious note, Ron Paul still has a chance to win the GOP nomination. This will only happen if a majority of Americans realize that he is the true champion of the people. No amount of money and blatant blackouts can deny Dr. Paul the nomination if enough people get behind him and his message.

The film was written and directed by Jeremy Richter. All scenes were shot in Chicago over 4 days using the Red One MX and Epic Cameras.

Starring: Kevin Lingle, Pam Tierney & Bridget Erickson

With: Andrew Baltazar, Jimmy Chung, Holly Lowe Jones, Laura Pollina, Jeremy Richter, Marisol Velez & Lucy Zukaitis.

Extras: Shawn Askounis, Jeanette Austin, Brittany Clapper, Kathleen Gillespie, Mateusz Kociolek, Joel Manning & David Richter

Executive Producers: David & Jeremy Richter
Written & Directed By: Jeremy RIchter
Cinematography: Marcel Morin
Set Design: Sarah Mueller
Lighting Design: Joe Martinez, Jr.
Hair/Make-Up: Dani Schmidt & Peter Vassallo
Sound Design: Elliot Bancel
Edited By: Jeremy Richter
Animation/FX: Leon Kelsick
Color: Joe Martinez, Jr.

http://www.richterstudios.com/

Electronic Voting Machines - Ireland has dumped the Electronic vote machines the same ones used in the USA.

Submitted by Sovereign Human on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 12:39

Politics & Law

Had to share this with anyone interested to read.

Ireland dumps e-voting machines that America still uses

http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2012/07/ireland-dumps-e-...

You know it puzzles me, If I go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, it become my property, yet often I see a person stop me at the exit of the store and demand I prove that its my loaf of bread.

Now food is important and While I do not agree I understand so I keep my receipt in hand.

When I go to vote. I go to a machine and enter the data I choose to select those who would proclaim to represent the majority of the people.

I don’t get a receipt and no one ever demands that I prove who I vote for.

So I guess that its more important to prove ownership of a loaf of bread than its important to prove that some one was really elected by a majority of the individuals that comprise the area they would claim to represent.

Elections are a joke as are the polls, msm, the left right party game.

Electronic Voting Machines - Ireland has dumped the Electronic vote machines the same ones used in the USA. | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

Why the GOP Will Wish It Could Lead with Ron Paul After This ObamaCare Ruling

Brian Doherty | June 28, 2012

As readers of Reason have been reminded farand near, Mitt Romney, no matter how tough he's talking now, has some credibility issues when it comes to attacking ObamaCare as a potential president.
Not that everyone shouldn't know this by now, but Peter Suderman summed it up back in May 2011:

ObamaCare, which includes a health insurance mandate, is a near carbon copy of RomneyCare: a hefty Medicaid expansion coupled to equally large middle-class insurance subsidies, new regulations that all but turn health insurance into a public utility, and an individual mandate to buy a private insurance plan. Indeed, the same Obama administration that Romney accused of being fundamentally anti-American has on multiple occasions explicitly cited the plan that Romney signed into law as the direct model for their plan.

Romney’s only real contrast between his plan and the president’s plan boiled down to a single, simple distinction: Obama’s overhaul was a federal overhaul; Romney’s was state-based. Romney would have us believe that the same system of mandates and regulations that constitutes an unconscionable imposition on individual liberty at the federal level is somehow a natural and great part of the American way of life at the state level.

Suderman again, from earlier this month:

The GOP candidate's promises to do away with the president’s health law have never been terribly convincing: His plan to offer states waivers to avoid the law probably won’t work. His promises to push for repeal have always come across as hollow when paired with his defense of his own law.
That’s even more true now. Not only did Romney accept the mandate in Massachusetts, he forcefully defended it while his staff insisted on its inclusion. And despite widespread distrust of Romney’s commitment to unwinding the federal health care overhaul, Romney decided to appoint as a senior adviser someone who profits from ObamaCare and professionally urges conservative legislators to fall in line with one its key directives despite contrary advice from every major policy shop that opposes the health law.
Does this sound like someone whose commitment to opposing ObamaCare and its mandate is in any way reliable? It’s almost as if Romney doesn’t really find ObamaCare or its underlying structure particularly objectionable, and is merely pretending to vehemently oppose the law because he believes that’s what the voters his campaign is targeting want to hear.

Indeed, though even the Tea Party, supposedly so energized by ObamaCare hate, seems willing to sigh and take Romney.
But even if we believed Romney will for political expedience barrel through with anti-ObamaCare Tea Party talking points for political gain whether or not he is credible or really believes it, he can't really "repeal it in day one" without Congress's going along, nor wouldhis "state waiver" plan likely do what he claims it will.
A House repeal vote is scheduled for July 9. Good luck, congressional Republicans. Timothy Carney argues, interestingly, that given the "tax" nature of the decision, reducing that "tax" to zero counts as budget reconciliation and thus can't be filibustered, thus requiring only 51 Senate votes to essentially repeal that part in the Senate. And good luck withthat, Senate Republicans.
The fate of ObamaCare, as some bemoan and some cheer, a matter for the politicians now. While some darkly suspect Roberts was pressured by Obama forces to give in, others suspect he was in fact knowingly helping Romney forces to allegedly help ensure enough angry energized Republican voters to smash Obama in November. Perhaps Obama the health care martyr would be a better energizer of his base, while the GOP can count on its forces rising to beat Obama the health care dictator.
Romney certainly can presume most anti-ObamaCare potential voters (there are still lots of them) probably thinking they have nowhere else to go. But who would have been a more effective anti-ObamaCare standardbearer? Ron Paul, of course.
Paul's comments on the decision:

"I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.
"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens....

And Paul talking up the problems with ObamaCare earlier this week:

supporters of Obamacare are willfully ignorant of basic economics. The fundamental problem with health care costs in America is that the doctor-patient relationship has been profoundly altered by third party interference. Third parties, either government agencies themselves or nominally private insurance companies virtually forced upon us by government policies, have not only destroyed doctor-patient confidentiality. They also inescapably drive up costs because basic market disciplines —supply and demand, price sensitivity, and profit signals — are destroyed … Obamacare, via its insurance mandate, is more of the same misdiagnosis.”

Ron Paul, as above, has demonstrated understanding of why health care costs are so damn high (hint: RomneyCare has not actually contained costs), and it's because of the absurd and complicated system of third party payments and supply reductions imposed by government mandate.
Paul also knew that the Court would validate the mandate, back in March, and wrote in the sort of rhetorical move that should appeal to leftists a bit worried about government forcing us to buy a product from huge powerful corporations, in his book Liberty Defined, "A better description of...the past forty to fifty years is the takeover of medical care by the corporations. We now have a form of corporatism veering toward fascism....Regardless of party, corporate special interests are protected....Corporations, unions, and government stand between patients and their doctors regardless of motivation. The quality and cost of medical care can never be improved by forcing on the American people greater debt-financed involvement in medical care."
Paul argues against not only the expansion of government involvement in medicine inherent in ObamaCare but also the past government incursions on the market for making both insurance and health care costs rise, thus making him the only consistent voice for the principles of government involvement in health care reined in not only by a more consistent interpretation of proper congressional power, but economic sense as well.

Thus, while Paul is himself more federalist than many libertarians like, he doesn't accept Romney's excuse that mandating insurance purchase in Massachusetts was the right thing to do whereas doing it federally is not. Such mandates would never be the right thing to do, and fall under no proper understanding of what government is even for.
Romney may be able to get away with the two party game of blaming the latest extension of crappy governing principles on the other guy, but neither he nor any other prominent Republican seem to actually understand why our health care system was such a mess that ObamaCare could even pass--or are prepared to explain the moral, legal, constitutional, and economic reasons why nearly all government interference in health care is a bad idea. Only Ron Paul could do that.
With the Court granting Congress potentially limitless power to do anything under the taxing power, this decision reminds us that we need a sea change not just in the Nine Supremes. (It is worth noting that there is a reasonable libertarian-friendly interpretation of today's decision, whichsome cheer and some jeer, that in rejecting the Commerce Clause arguments Roberts has indeed stabbed post-New Deal pro-state jurisprudence in the heart even if the blood didn't stain the mandate)
The change, as Ron Paul always recognized, needs to be in the political philosophy and action of the people as a whole. And Paul was the only GOP candidate who consistently and fully understands and can be relied to act on the principled reasons why ObamaCare was and is wrong.
Alas, the Tea Party sold out that One True Voice against ObamaCare and the reasons we got ObamaCare, and without some version of his ideas animating national politics, ObamaCare may eventually be killed, but the forces that have led to massive and growing health care expenses will remain. That will merely trigger the next feckless state-run solution to a problem that would be far better served by less government involvement, not more.
My book on the meaning of Ron Paul writ large, Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

Why the GOP Will Wish It Could Lead with Ron Paul After This ObamaCare Ruling - Hit & Run : Reason.com

double post

Tea Party "Not Sure About Romney?" ...Duh

Submitted by yrad on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:41

Ron Paul 2012

My response to this horrible story...
"Not one mention of the Godfather of the Tea Party? The one true conservative elected to office as a Tea Party Republican 12 times? The one candidate that has served this country in war and who wants to return this country to fiscal sanity. The one candidate that pulls votes from all three demographics. The only candidate who worked in the medical field for over 40 years. I feel sorry for Americans. Ignorant people are a politicians warm blanket. Uneducated, dumbed down public. No ambition or drive and believe whatever the black box in their living room tells them. Tea Party? We handed them the most qualified person to run for POTUS in the last 100 years and what do they do? They do what the are told to do.. dismiss him. Sheep to the information trough. Im so tired of telling people to wake up. There is not a glass of water cold enough. The collapse of this nation is the only thing loud enough to bring them to consciousness. I hope Romney wins so America might finally realize nobody is really on their side. Wishful thinking...
Ron Paul 2012. Your children are watching you..."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/obamacare-tea-party-r...

Tea Party "Not Sure About Romney?" ...Duh | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

Jury Nullification Passed in New Hampshire!

Submitted by Harmonist on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:46

Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Quicklink

Defense attorneys may now inform juries that they may rule on the merits of the law.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/new-hampshire-adopts-jury-...

Jury Nullification Passed in New Hampshire! | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

The most liberal justices of the postwar era were actually named by Republican presidents

Submitted by Austrolib on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:07
Current Events

Another reason why the republican party can go to hell:

"The Supreme Court was poised to deliver conservatives a major victory by overturning a hated liberal policy with little basis in the Constitution. A majority of the justices had been appointed by Republican presidents. Some of them were so conservative that Senate Democrats had attempted to prevent their confirmation.

Yet when the much anticipated ruling was finally handed down, the liberal policy was upheld with fairly minor caveats. A Republican-appointed justice unexpectedly voted with the liberal bloc. Instead of a victory, conservatives feared they had endured a permanent defeat on an important issue, and in an election year to boot.

While this certainly describes the past day’s events, it was also true 20 years ago. When the Senate narrowly confirmed Clarence Thomas, liberals feared he would be the deciding vote against Roe v. Wade.

Well, Thomas did rule that Roe was wrongly decided at his first opportunity. But in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 5-4 majority affirmed the core holding of the infamous abortion decision.

Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, saved Roe with a pivotal flip-flop and ended up writing an opinion as filled with liberal clichés as any amicus brief filed by a pointy-headed lefty law professor. Sandra Day O’Connor, also a Reagan pick, was another of three Republicans to join the plurality opinion. Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, gave us Roe in the first place. Earl Warren, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, David Souter—some of THE MOST LIBERAL JUSTICES OF THE POSTWAR ERA WERE ACTUALLY NAMED BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-roberts...

The most liberal justices of the postwar era were actually named by Republican presidents | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

The Bizarre Case of Santa Cruz’s Precinct 51100: Rigging or Coincidence?

Submitted by Dr.K.Research on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:10
Daily Paul Liberty Forum

While in Ireland I had an interesting conversation with one of the area’s top private businessmen. I asked him if the country still uses those e-voting machines they bought a few years ago. He said, “No way, we threw them out. We’ll never use them again. They were unreliable. We do everything on paper.” Then, he went into a dissertation about how money buys the elections in America: he couldn’t understand how the people could tolerate it.

He likes Ron Paul. Then, he looked at me, saying, “If you keep letting them use those machines, they’ll keep cheating you.”

Only through this Ron Paul revolution has there been even the slightest challenge against secretive voting. It makes no sense that we could have done this poorly, that is in the public vote.

My Irish friend kept telling me, “Unless you’ve got paper, they’ll cheat you.” No truer words could be said.

In many instances when Ron Paul votes were counted under careful watch, he won. When there is no watching, he loses extensively. When there is watching, including exit polling, he often wins.

In New Hampshire the votes in some 70 precincts were carefully watched by the organization watchthevote2012. Paul won those 70 precincts.

In Nevada’s so-called Adelson Caucus, Clark County, where the votes were counted in full public forum—fully televised on CNN--Ron Paul handily won over Romney, live on TV, 153 votes to 49.

Regarding Maine, freedom fighter Matt McDonald caught the crooks in the act; and when the GOP realized he had the goods on them, the results were reinstated. Otherwise, his precinct would have shown a Paul loss instead of a win.

In Milwaukee this author watched the vote at three precincts for up to 8 hours. In these combined precincts Dr. Paul won the vote in a relatively tight race.

In Santa Cruz for 3 hours activists carefully polled precinct 51100, along with two other ‘sister’ precincts, from 5:00 p.m. to closing. Every exiting voter was polled. The count: 16 votes for Ron Paul and 2 votes for Mitt Romney. A landslide seemed likely, although a five-hour poll would have been more telling.

When the unofficial results were posted, the activists got a surprise: Romney was listed as the winner with 57 votes versus 54 for Paul (this includes absentees). However, in 51100 in live votes Paul actually won, 18 to 16: a rare, almost unheard of official win in this state.

The final canvass still boasted a Romney win, but not by much: 78 votes for Romney versus 74 for Dr. Paul, or 51% for Romney over 54% for Paul.

In Nevada only the highly publicized and publically counted Clark caucus showed a Paul landslide. In contrast, in virtually all secretly counted (and re-counted) caucuses, Paul lost.

Regarding the Milwaukee results, again, only the publically counted precincts showed wins and second places (large-size). All other City of Milwaukee precincts showed dismal results.

In Santa Cruz, yet again, only the exit-polled precinct 51100 showed a near win; all others had Paul losing massively, many with a percentages compared to Romney of 25% and less.

UPDATE on HAWAII: and now see this witnessing from WhiteRabbit, lead grassroots coordinator of the Big Island: "I can say with certainty that the votes counted at each Precinct on the night of March 13 on the Big Island of Hawaii – HD1 through HD7 - are accurate, because I personally assigned an Observer to all 10 locations. I had also embedded trusted Ron Paul supporters as GOP Poll Workers. The Observers each reported back to me with the count that they had witnessed. I verified that these matched the GOP spreadsheet and they are in fact correct. There is no dispute at the local level on this particular island as far as regular ballots go."

And do you know what? We WON the Big Island.

Is it all coincidence? No one can say. Yet, when combined with voter suppression, ballot stuffing, secret counting, and physical violence—all directed at Ron Paul voters--suspicions should run high.

We win in the public eye. We lose in secret.

We’ve fought too long and hard for a just system. Now is NOT the time to give up.

Why are we allowing this? This is brutal. No more. From now on every vote must be counted: in public. There must be independent vote watchers from every campaign directly on-site.

In 2004 the Irish people threw out their machines. Now, as was just announced in the Independent, these machines are being ground up for scrap. The Irish taxpayers have won, defeating—and destroying—these mechanisms of evil.

We must do the same. No more secret votes. That’s it. Time to show some Irish-style tenacity: turn the machines into (metallic) dust.

Also see:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/RonRules/Elections20...

Data is here: http://www.votescount.com/jun12/fpnsov.pdf
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/54m-voting-machines-...

Original article at: http://www.libertyusapac.org/wordpresspac/2012/07/02/the-biz...

http://www.dailypaul.com/242795/the-...or-coincidence