Page 636 of 740 FirstFirst ... 136536586626632633634635636637638639640646686736 ... LastLast
Results 6,351 to 6,360 of 7393
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

  1. #6351
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696


    Action Alert

    Paul Ryan's immigration record troubling -- But seems unlikely to pull Romney off good immigration promises

    The good news about Mitt Romney's pick to be his vice presidential running mate is that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) doesn't seem to have put a lot of thought into immigration policy and doesn't seem to have deep ideological reasons for his poor immigration record during his 14 years in Congress.

    (TO JOIN OTHERS IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ANALYSIS HERE, CLICK ON THIS LINK: https://www.numbersusa.com/conten t/nusablog/beckr/august-11-2012/paul-ryan-immigration-record-disappointing-he-doesnt-seem-likely-make-
    HALF-GOOD/HALF-BAD
    Our Grade Card on Ryan finds that about half the effect of his overall immigration actions has been toward protecting American workers and taxpayers from bad immigation policy -- and the other half has been supporting policies that hurt American workers and taxpayers.
    Ryan's Career Grade is a C.
    Half-Good/Half-Bad -- that's what a C-Grade means in the NumbersUSA Immigration-Reduction Grade Cards.
    BETTER THAN BIDEN
    Nonetheless, Ryan's immigration record is significantly better than that of the Democratic Vice Presidential incumbent Joe Biden.
    While serving in the Senate, Biden earned a Career D-Grade on immigration issues. That means he usually backed higher levels of foreign workers, including protecting the jobs of illegal aliens and the employers who hire them.
    Although Vice President Biden generally has supported legislation to help American workers, he has nearly always on immigration issues backed measures that loosen the labor market, drive down the wages of workers and increase the unemployment of American workers, particularly Black and Hispanic Americans.
    Biden earned an F-Grade in 5 immigration categories, a D-Grade in 2 categories and one C-Grade and one B-Grade (averaging to an overall D-Grade).
    (WANT TO COMMENT ON BIDEN'S RECORD? JOIN THE CONVERSATION AT: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/august-11-2012/paul-ryan-immigration-record-disappointing-he-doesnt-seem-likely-make-[/s]
    MOST NOTABLE FOR LACK OF IMMIGRATION ACTION AND INVOLVEMENT
    Ryan seems to have rarely spoken about immigration. And for the most part, he has acted on immigration only when forced to vote, seldom signing on to immigration bills.
    I invite NumbersUSA members to submit statements you can find Ryan having made about immigration. I'm not finding much.
    Paul Ryan's C-Grade puts him in the worst 10% of all current Republican Members of Congress when it comes to protecting workers and taxpayers from mass immigration an d illegal immigration. (The grade is based on all votes in committees and on the floor of the House, and on co-sponsorships of all bills, that would affect the number of legal and illegal immigrant workers and dependents added to the U.S. each year.)
    The Republican with the closest grade to Ryan's is Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) who is running for an open U.S. Senate seat this fall.

    But I am optimistic that he is much different from Rep. Flake who in actions not graded by our system has for years been something of a publicity leader of the George W. Bush philosophies of amnesty for illegal aliens and expansion in green cards for foreign workers.An example of how different Ryan is from Flake is that although he has co-sponsored amnesties to give illegal aliens a path to citizenship, I can't find examples of Ryan making speeches, writing op-eds or otherwise publicly advocating for the amnesty.
    RECENT IMPROVEMENT
    Rep. Ryan's record shows that during most of his time in the House he was more influenced than the average Republican by the mass-immigratio n desires of 1990s Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and of Pres. Bush 2001-2008.
    You can view all of Ryan's immigration actions on this NumbersUSA Scoresheet:
    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/863/gradescoresheet/recent#tabset-3
    Yo u will find co-sponsorships of various amnesties.
    And you will also find a peculiar fondness for increasing the number of unskilled and lower-skilled immigrants.
    I call this peculiar because Ryan is best known for wanting to reduce the size of government. Low-skilled immigrants place heavy demands for larger government programs and more taxpayer subsidies. A Heritage Foundation study found the typical household with a low-educated immigrant head used about $20,000 more in taxes than it paid. Government statistics this year show that nearly 60% of all immigrant households with children use welfare programs.
    However, during this Congress (2011-12), Rep. Ryan appears to have discarded most of his bad immigration habits from the Bush era.
    (1) Faced with 7 votes on immigration, he has voted to protect American workers and taxpayers in every one.
    (2) He has not co-sponsored any bills that would reward illegal aliens or increase legal foreign workers.
    (3) His website takes a fairly strong stand against amnesties.
    "However, I do not support amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the United States. Any reform proposal must require that those who have disregarded the rule of law are not rewarded for their actions. In the end, I hope that with better border security and a more robust and up-to-date employee verification system, we will be able to stem the flow of illegal immigration and restore the rule of law." -- Paul Ryan website (as of 12AUG2012)
    His website expresses some sympathy for the illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty but says he opposes the amnesty because it deals with the "symptom" of the problem rather than fixing the problem. He indicates that part of the fix is a reliable workplace verification system.
    Nonetheless, his website continues to talk about the need for more guestworkers. This is an incredible blindness to the suffering of 20 million Americans (and their families) who want a full-time job and can't find one.
    WASHINGTON POST PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO THE PROBLEM WITH RYAN ON IMMIGRATION
    Today's Washington Post offered the first of what I'm sure will be many in-depth stories about Ryan. The story was quite positive overall, and gave some key facts about his adulthood which has been spent almost entirely in Washington D.C.
    "He has cited his Catholic faith and author Ayn Rand as major influences on his conservative thinking. -- Washington Post, 12AUG2012
    Ayn Rand's writing are often cited by libertarian think tank and other leaders as they argue for virtually open borders.
    The Post stated that a big step up the political ladder for the young Paul Ryan in 1993 was a job with Empower America, "a think tank run by former congressman Jack Kemp" (who was the GOP's Vice Presidential nominee in 1996).
    NumbersUSA spent many years trying to limit the damage on immigration policy that Empower America and Jack Kemp consistently caused. They preceded and then reinforced t he terrible Bush years of immigration policy.
    The Post says that when elected to Congress, Ryan didn't spend a lot of time talking with his colleagues in the House.
    "Instead, he focused on conservative thinkers outside Congress, such as Paul Gigot, the head of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine." -- Washington Post, 12AUG2012
    Gigot, Kristol and their publications have been at the forefront for many years in the minority part of the conservative movement that constantly pushes for loosening the labor market with more and more foreign workers -- even during a time of high unemployment.
    WHY THE BAD NEWS ON RYAN MAY NOT MATTER MUCH
    Of the dozen Republicans touted as potential VP picks, probably only two would have been as good or better than Mitt Romney on immigration.
    All the rest would have been as bad as -- and most much worse than -- Ryan on immigration.
    That simply reflects the fact that at the top of the Republican Party, the benefits of immigration for a releatively small number of Americans are a more important consideration than the costs to millions of American workers and tens of millions of taxpayers.
    Fortunately, Gov. Romney has been making very strong promises on immigration for a year now.
    He has made these promises very publicly and repeatedly. I have a great deal of confidence that he will not feel he can politically backtrack on them.
    Gov. Romney has promised:
    (1) to remove the jobs magnet from illegal immigration,
    (2) to promote mandatory E-Verify,
    (3) to eliminate legal immigration categories that don't serve the national interest,
    (4) to fully implement the border fence and the entry-exit system already passed by Congress.
    Although Ryan has not shown much leadership for these, he also hasn't led against them.
    And Ryan did step out to help E-Verify at a time he didn't have to in 2008. He signed the Discharge Petition that barely failed to get enough signatures to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to let the House vote on the SAVE Act, the bill by Democrat Rep. Heath Shuler to mandate E-Verify for all jobs.
    Nonetheless, Romney has shown a weakness for listening to business leaders who claim they may need more foreign workers. Ryan's voice in the inner circles will only magnify that weakness.
    If Romney and Ryan are elected, we will have our work cut out for us to stop some immigration initiatives that would hurt American workers.
    Of course, we have been fighting that battle for four years against the efforts of Pres. Obama and Vice President Bident, and for eight years against Pres. Bush on the same subject.
    We could hope that a Vice President Ryan would start paying more attention to the taxpayer costs of immigration, instead of perhaps bowing to some of the narrower interests of some economic entities that a Congressman always has to consider.
    Just as we continue to call on Obama and Biden to put unemployed Americans first in their immigration policies, we will do the same for Romney and Ryan.
    And we will continue to watch closely to see who is paying attention.
    (WANT TO VOICE A DIFFERENT OPINION OR SAY WHERE YOU AGREE WITH ME? JOIN OTHERS IN A CONVERSATION AT: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/august-11-2012/paul-ryan-immigration-record-disappointing-he-doesnt-seem-likely-make-




    roy beck
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 08-13-2012 at 03:12 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #6352
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Be mindful of "plants" in Tampa, masquerading as violent RPers.

    Submitted by
    slingsandarrows5000 on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 00:12
    Daily Paul Liberty Forum

    Title says it all. Don't be surprised if you see alleged Ron Paul supporters who even have Lovelution t-shirts on, acting in a disrupting or violent manner.

    I have it on fairly reliable authority that some antipaul groups will attempt to disrupt events, and frame Paul supporters.

    You'll notice them if they're being obviously disruptive, and not really following directions from anyone else.

    If you see them, follow them and see where they go, film them if you can.

    It will not be surprising if they suddenly change clothing, etc.

    The guy in this video describes plants pretty clearly. Don't mind the video's title. The guy gives great insight into what to look for. Watch:



    Edit: The discussion on plants starts at about the 4 minute mark.

    Be mindful of "plants" in Tampa, masquerading as violent RPers. | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution

    pro·vo·ca·teur (pr-vk-tūr)n.An agent provocateur.

    Noun 1. provocateur - a secret agent who incites suspected persons to commit illegal acts agent provocateur intelligence agent, intelligence officer, operative, secret agent - a person secretly employed in espionage for a government


    provocateur - definition of provocateur by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 08-13-2012 at 10:53 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #6353
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Series of events raises questions about constitutional authority

    US Constitution
    August 12, 2012
    By: Anthony Martin



    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, among others, is a key member of the Council on Foreign Relations
    On Friday this reporter interviewed a research analyst for retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely's Stand Up America organization which delves into behind the scenes stories that are hidden and overshadowed by the major news headlines.

    In addition to serving his country as one of the top officers of the U.S. Army, Vallely is the former senior military analyst for Fox News. At present his organization employs the talents of various researchers who investigate the real truth that often lurks beneath misleading headlines and news stories.

    One of those researchers, Denise Simon, spoke with this reporter about issues related to a recent series of unusual occurrences in the U.S. government that led to serious questions regarding constitutional authority, the rule of law, and the subversion of that law and authority by shadowy figures both inside and outside of government.

    In order to understand the conversation with Simon within its context, a bit of background is necessary.

    Recently this reporter wrote a blog entry at The Liberty Sphere which details a series of events that raised the eyebrows of those who are concerned about the uniquely American understanding of human liberty, the centrality of the Constitution, and the fact that the rule of law and not of men trumps the power of any one human being or group of human beings who would seize power.

    The first indication that something in the highest levels of the federal government is amiss is the fact that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a stunningly flimsy majority opinion affirming the constitutionality of the ObamaCare law. Not only has it become clear that Roberts was set to rule with the conservative majority but he changed his mind at the 11th hour, forcing other justices to rewrite their opinions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, admitted last week that she had originally written in favor of ObamaCare as the minority opinion, meaning it was everyone's assumption that Roberts would join with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito in striking down the law.

    But at the last minute and to everyone's shock, Roberts changed his mind and ruled in favor of the law with the court's liberals.

    Why?

    Further, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ObamaCare, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal the law by an overwhelming majority. Although the Democrat controlled Senate would not go along, House Republicans made a clear statement about ObamaCare that was undeniable.

    Yet the House leadership, specifically Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy stated last week that ObamaCare would be fully funded along with the rest of the federal government in the continuing budget resolution.

    Why would the Republican leadership in the House decide to fund a program that its members had just voted overwhelmingly to repeal?

    The next unusual occurrence that raised eyebrows was Justice Antonin Scalia's statements on gun control in an interview he granted with Chris Wallace on Fox News.

    Although Scalia is one of the five justices on the high court to affirm the Second Amendment, including striking down the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., he indicated to Wallace that new gun control laws and court decisions may be headed down the pike at a time in U.S. history when support for the Second Amendment is at an all-time high and when citizens are arming themselves as never before with various types of firearms.

    Why?

    At the very same time that these occurrences were taking place, an attempt was made by the Obama administration, under the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to shove an international gun control measure down the throats of American citizens in the form of a so-called "small arms treaty."

    And then, as the last straw to many thinking people, Speaker Boehner called out a member of his own Party, U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., for suggesting that an investigation is needed into terrorist ties on the part of a top aide to Secretary Clinton. The aide in question is part of a family with known ties to Islamist terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

    Why, then, would Boehner reprimand a member of his own Party for calling for an investigation when many believe that a more appropriate response would be to ask Secretary Clinton why she has employed a person on her staff whose family has such close ties to terrorists?

    The circumstances delineated above led this reporter to conclude in a conversation with Simon, "It is as if someone, or some group, is holding the entire American government hostage in all three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. But who? And for what purpose?"

    Then came the point-blank question asked of Simon, who has significant sources and insight into the behind the scenes machinery of the federal government, "Do you believe that someone or something is holding the U.S. government hostage?"

    Simon's reply was without hesitation. She indicated that if one is looking for a conspiracy, one need look no further than the infamous and powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "Without de facto proof," said Simon, "the only reasonable explanation for the series of events you have described is that CFR has a choke hold on government with some hidden domestic mission objective that runs contrary to laws and the Constitution."

    What, then, is the CFR?

    The Council on Foreign Relations was originally established as a private, nonprofit, and nonpartisan think tank and publisher on foreign policy issues. CFR was a brain child of the progressives of the early 20th century, particularly President Woodrow Wilson. The organization was established in 1921 as a global entity designed to promote a "new world order."

    Today, most of those who are known to be the "ruling elites" of the "eastern liberal establishment" are members of the CFR, including mainstream media journalists, university professors, bankers from large, global banking institutions, and politicians and government bureaucrats who are known for advancing a progressive agenda such as former President Jimmy Carter, former President Bill Clinton, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, John Holdren, Larry Summers, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

    While many non-progressives are members of CFR, Simon explained that the power lies in the various committees of the Council which are controlled primarily by the progressive movers and shakers in global finance, academia, the mainstream media, and government.

    After an extensive period of research and consultation on the subject of conspiracy theories and the so-called "New World Order," this reporter has concluded that those who believe entities such as "the Rothschilds," the "Bilderbergs," and "large Israeli banks" are conspiring to destroy American liberty are exceedingly misguided. The clout and wealth of the Rothschilds of Europe, for example, has been in decline for decades.

    The Bilderbergs began as a means of addressing anti-Americanism in Europe, and to promote capitalism. And the Israeli banks are nowhere near the level of threat posed by American global financial corporations such as Goldman-Sachs, JPMorganChase, and Bank of America, all of whom have heavy representation on the CFR.

    If there is a coordinated effort to dominate the American system of government and subvert the rule of law and the Constitution, that effort lies with some of the various committees of the CFR and the powerful elites with a hidden agenda who serve on those committees.

    ALERT!

    A new entry in my regular series Musings After Midnight is now posted at my blog, The Liberty Sphere. It's titled "With All of THIS Going On, It's Enough to Make a Normal Person Become a Conspiracy Theorist." Don't miss it!

    Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.

    Series of events raises questions about constitutional authority - National Conservative | Examiner.com
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #6354
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Media Finally Admits Ron Paul Can be Nominated, Benton Plays it Cute

    Submitted by James_Madison_Lives on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 01:24
    Ron Paul 2012

    revised 1:40a.m EST

    Finally acknowledging what Ron Paul supporters have been saying all along, that Paul has in fact qualified for the nomination, Tampa Bay Online, the online presence of the Tampa Tribune, has called a movement to nominate Ron Paul "Romney's greatest fear":

    "Romney's greatest fear could be a movement to nominate Paul from the floor of the convention, which could happen if five state delegations line up behind him."

    The possibility of nomination was previously widely reported in the media to have "ended" in Nebraska. Alternative media has hammered that this is incorrect. At least six states already lined up behind Paul, notwithstanding a court battle in Louisiana. A "plurality" in five states is necessary to qualify for nomination.

    The Tampa Bay article ends by quoting campaign spokesman Jesse Benton, saying:

    ""Dr. Paul will not seek to be nominated from the floor,"

    The politic language has intrigued many. Candidates often use such wording to deflect speculation without ending it. Paul has attracted the largest audiences of all the Republican candidates so far, and polls well against Obama whereas Romney suffers a deficit. In addition, allegations and statistical arguments for vote-flipping against Paul have been made. It is not clear that convention leaders can stop the nomination of Dr. Paul.

    RELATED:

    "Media Says Ron Paul Wins Six States, Qualifying for Nomination. Romney Breaks Rules to Deny Speaking Slot," Hubpages.com


    Media Finally Admits Ron Paul Can be Nominated, Benton Plays it Cute | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #6355
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Sunday, 12 August 2012 00:00

    Veep Pick Paul Ryan Is No Conservative


    Written by Jack Kenny

    No sooner had Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate become known than the world of punditry was abuzz with talk of "Ryanmania." Since mania is by definition an excessive or unreasonable enthusiasm, the label may be regarded as an understatement.

    For while the seven-term Republican congressman from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee is not yet a household name across America, he does generate excitement within the "conservative movement," an excitement and enthusiasm that suggests the talking heads at Fox News and the dot.com warriors at The Weekly Standard have no more sense of conservative, constitutional government than the cheering chanting crowd of Republican partisans who greeted the vice presidential hopeful in Norfolk, Virginia, Saturday morning.

    Like him or not, the one thing politically aware Americans are supposed to know about Paul Ryan is that he is a fiscal conservative, a bold budget hawk. He is, after all, the prime author of the House budget plan (titled "the Path to Prosperity") to repeal the Obama health insurance program ("ObamaCare"), turn the Medicaid program for low-income Americans over to the states and create a private insurance option for Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2023.

    The plan would also turn food stamps and other federal programs for the poor into block grants to the states, with limits on the growth of those programs. If Republican voters have any doubts about Ryan's commitment to budget austerity, they need only hear the Democrats' outcry that Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" will be a road to the poorhouse for elderly and low-income Americans.

    But on the other side of the ledger, Ryan's voting record shows a robust support of big-spending programs to enlarge the role of the federal government, especially when they are promoted by a Republican in the White House. Ryan voted for all of the big-ticket, budget-busting items of the administration of President George W. Bush, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, often described as the largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

    Ryan voted to create the new Department of Homeland Security, including the Transportation Security Administration that has harassed air travelers, while making aircraft safe from shoes, belt buckles and grandma's knitting needles. He voted for the PATRIOT Act, giving government enhanced powers for warrantless snooping into the lives of American citizens as well as foreign nationals.

    Ryan voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program that bailed out the "too big to fail" financial institutions and inspired the Tea Party rebellion against big government and "crony capitalism." He backed the auto bailout that turned GM into "Government Motors."

    And while conservatives generally like to leave wars and military spending off the list of costly "big government" programs, Ryan's record on that front is also troubling. Like Romney, Ryan has no foreign policy credentials and no record of military service to point to in the election campaign. And like Romney, Ryan swallowed whole the Bush-Cheney line on Iraq and supported the decision to invade and occupy that country in a needless war that cost more than 4,000 American and hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives and has added roughly a trillion dollars to our soaring national debt.

    Ryan's budget calls for no reduction in military spending, despite the continued presence of U.S. troops in some 130 countries around the world, most of which have no bearing on our own national security.

    Even more troubling is Ryan's vote last December in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation included a provision authorizing the president to use the military to arrest suspected terrorists, including American citizens apprehended in the United States, and hold them indefinitely, without charges and without trial, in clear violation of due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This year Ryan voted against an amendment to remove that provision from the law.

    Ryan did vote against reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which grants loans and loan guarantees to foreign governments and businesses for the purchase of U.S. products. But his vote last year for the $915 billion Omnibus Appropriations Bill for 2012 went to support further spending on housing, education, foreign aid, and other programs for which there is no constitutional role for the federal government. On The New American magazine's latest Freedom Index, matching congressional votes with the strictures of the Constitution, Ryan's rating for the 112th Congress to date was an anemic 67 percent.

    Paul Ryan is, in short, a typical Bush-era Republican, whose selection as a vice presidential candidate is being trumpeted as a triumph by many of the same Republicans who are doing their best to flush the administration of George W. Bush down the memory hole. Republican candidates almost never invoke the Bush name and the most recent Republican President will not be attending the party's convention in Tampa, where Romney and Ryan are expected to be officially nominated. Chances are the name of the 43rd president will be mentioned in rare fleeting reference, if at all. Yet in his choice of running mate, Romney has chosen a loyal Bush Republican and reliable supporter of the programs and policies that made the Bush administration an anathema to genuine conservatives and an embarrassment to the nation.

    Finally, the Ryan budget, while including a number of unspecified cuts in entitlement programs, would push overall spending higher than current levels. Despite its optimistic revenue projections, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Ryan plan will lead to a balanced budget by 2040. That suggests a rousing slogan for the Romney-Ryan ticket: "Slightly Less Socialism and a Balanced Budget in 28 Years."

    Veep Pick Paul Ryan Is No Conservative
    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 08-13-2012 at 02:28 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6356
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    USA Today *POLL* on your Right to Keep and Bear arms

    In response to Eric Holder's assertion that, "We have no rights to possess guns", USA Today has a poll:

    USATODAY.com - Quick Question

    Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

    Yes - 97%
    No - 2%
    Undecided - 1%

    TOTAL VOTES: 11,465,102
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #6357
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Einhorn & Finkle, Finkle & Einhorn



    Obama is Romney; Romney is Obama

    This is NO Change Coming


    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #6358
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Romney Won't Have Delegates Like This At The Convention

    Submitted by
    myajace on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 14:22
    Ron Paul 2012

    Dr. Paul's delegates WILL be heard (And they won't even need their microphones turned on).



    Continued Below
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #6359
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #6360
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Sunday, 12 August 2012 16:00

    Romney Says Boy Scouts Should Accept Homosexual Leaders


    Written by Dave Bohon

    A campaign assistant for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney confirmed that the former Massachusetts governor's opposition to the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual leaders, which he publicly expressed in 1994, still stands. According to the Deseret News, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the Associated Press that Romney is still holding to the political stand he adopted nearly 20 years ago when he said during an unsuccessful run for Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate that while he supported “the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,” he also felt that “all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”

    As reported by The New American, despite intense pressure from homosexual activists and their supporters, the Boy Scouts organization announced in July that following a two-year study of its policy it has decided to continue its perpetual ban on homosexual leaders. “The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their rights to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” explained Bob Mazzuca, the Boy Scouts' chief executive, in a prepared announcement about the decision. “While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”

    Romney's position mirrors that of Barack Obama, whose office issued a statement August 8 saying that while “the president believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century,” he nonetheless “opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on basis of sexual orientation.” The Boy Scouts responded with a demure statement of its own saying that its leaders respect “the opinions of President Obama and appreciates his recognition that Scouting is a valuable organization. We believe that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to accomplish the common good.”

    Romney's own confirmation that he does not agree with the Boy Scouts' moral stand comes on the heels of his recent refusal to join other conservative leaders in their support of Chick-fil-A over its public stand for Christian values and traditional marriage. “It is almost as if the governor is going out of his way to de-motivate the conservative base,” said conservative commentator Bryan Fischer of the GOP candidate's politically motivated acquiescence to the “gay” lobby. “In fact, if he deliberately set out to dispirit evangelicals and members of the pro-family network, he could hardly do any worse.”

    “Gay” activists applauded Romney's subtle addition of the pro-homosexual plank to his campaign platform, with Zach Wells of a group called Scouts for Equality announcing that he was “proud to have Governor Romney’s support on this issue amid such a polarized political climate.” Wells added his hope that the Republican presidential hopeful would “set an example of how people with differing religious beliefs can come together to support the Boy Scouts of America’s mission to serve our communities and develop tomorrow’s leaders, regardless of sexual orientation.”

    Fischer emphasized the untenable moral nature of Romney's stand, noting that abundant research proves homosexual men very often sexually target boys the age of those participating in Boy Scouts and its junior program, Cub Scouts. “Gov. Romney's position, if adopted by the BSA, would put the sexual innocence of untold numbers of young boys at risk,” Fischer wrote. “It is truly an unconscionable position for a self-described 'severely conservative' candidate to take, particularly in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State.”

    Fischer added that Romney's position is wildly out of step with the socially conservative base that is of crucial importance to his campaign. “If the Democratic Party is going to take a stand for homosexual marriage and the Republican Party won't stand up for traditional marriage,” he said, “then they’re abdicating their role in the culture war.”

    He added that “we read stories about [Romney's] private meetings with social conservatives, and of course it's good that those conversations are taking place. But at some point, his private assurances to pro-family leaders must become public statements to the electorate or the socially conservative air will leak completely out of his balloon.”

    Romney Says Boy Scouts Should Accept Homosexual Leaders

    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 08-13-2012 at 03:20 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •