Archive for the ‘Ron Paul’Category
Ron Paul on Quran Burning: “The Real Provocateurs”
LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul today issued the following statement about a Florida pastor’s plan to ban copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
“A professed Christian pastor in Gainesville, Florida, Terry Jones, plans to burn copies of the Quran on 9/11. He indicts all Islam for 9/11 and argues that it is a hate-driven religion. He’s convinced he’s on God’s side even though he is getting little support from other Christians, who believe that Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
“General David Petraeus, our military commander in Afghanistan, strongly condemned Mr. Jones’ plan, arguing it would be provocative, make his fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan more difficult and further jeopardize the lives of American soldiers.
“I agree! This blame of all Muslims for the atrocities of 9/11 only makes things worse — especially since it wasn’t the Taliban of Afghanistan that committed the atrocities on 9/11. Under Jones’ warped logic, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 suicide bombers came from that country.
“But while I am pleased to see General Petraeus recognize the danger of one type of incitement, he unfortunately fails to see the whole picture and understand that our policies of torture, targeted assassination, invasion of Muslim countries and unintended infliction of civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are also provocative. Pictures of victims of torture as well as innocent people killed by drones and stray bombs are every bit as bad as burning the Quran.
“In some ways, what Jones is doing may be minor compared to the resentment toward us as a consequence of what our government has done to thousands of innocent victims.
“As I have said time and time again, Osama bin Laden wins by ‘proving’ that America is an enemy of Islam and has an occupation agenda in the Middle East. And, we continue to walk into his trap and hand him up his best recruitment tool in his efforts to provoke hatred and terrorism against the United States.
“If we don’t want to incite radical Islamists, we need to stop these un-needed wars. It is high time we came to our senses, brought our troops home to defend our country and pursued a Constitutional, Pro-American foreign policy.”
07
09 2010
Ron Paul on Obama’s Iraq Speech: Mission Not Accomplished
LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on President Obama’s speech from the Oval Office last night:
“The President’s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ declaration was in 2003.
“Once again, we are being told the mission has been accomplished and our brave men and women are coming back home. Though the people are hopeful they remain skeptical, and rightfully so.
“The biggest problem is that success in Iraq is undefinable since the mission was never defined. The reasons given for the invasion were based on misinformation. Now, the war has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and this has contributed significantly to our economic woes.
“Forty-four hundred Americans are dead, thirty thousand severely wounded, and more than a hundred thousand are suffering from serious health problems related to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. This alone should tell us that it was not worth the investment and the needless sacrifice of our young people and the taxpayers.
“It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:
- the 50,000 troops carrying weapons remain in Iraq
- the 100,000 contractors that remain with more expected to go to Iraq
- the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq
- a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain
- Dozens of military bases that will stay
- Al Qaeda organizations that did not exist before the war
- Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist who has gained much political power
- The fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr
“Osama bin Laden wins by ‘proving’ that America has an agenda of occupation in the Middle East. And, we continue to walk into his trap and hand him up his best recruitment tool in his efforts to incite hatred and terrorism against the United States.
“What’s worse, President Obama made it clear last night that the troops and resources leaving Iraq will not come home to defend our country or ease our economic woes. They will instead be diverted to Afghanistan, perhaps also Pakistan and, I fear, even Iran.
“From my viewpoint we are the losers in this fool’s errand of endless war. Tragically, this new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade that will severely undermine our national security and continue us down the path to bankruptcy—a threat that we best not long ignore.”
04
09 2010
I AM C4L – Introduction
04
09 2010
Banned Ron Paul Video from FAUX NEWS
“I wonder how they paid howdy-doody ears news guy to sell his soul with his little “electability” bias attack bit? Penis enlargement? He’s gonna need lots of putty to build up that duddy! Alright! Thats it for me… you’ve been great a great audience. I’ll see ya next year. (high note)?
-Fred Face 9/2/10
02
09 2010
Ron Paul: Courage
“Bravery, fortitude, will, and intrepidity, is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty, or intimidation…
i.e. Courage
i.e. this guy…
31
08 2010
Iraq: An End or an Escalation?
By Ron Paul
Amid much fanfare last week, the last supposed “combat” troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq War and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort, and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.
After eight long draining years, I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war, to most people, means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous “mission accomplished” moment of the last administration, this “end” of the war also means none of those things.
50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!
Of course the number of private contractors — who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money — is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!
The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever, and getting worse! Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that ships hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of foreign policy is way overdue.
A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.
31
08 2010
C4L Rising
31
08 2010
Government is not the answer.
In this June 2009 speech in the U.S. House, Congressman Paul described the threat posed by continuing to follow failed policies and described how America can return to prosperity.
22
08 2010
The Anti-Fed Revolution
By Anthony Gregory
End the Fed by Ron Paul
(New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 212 pages.
Through his 2008 presidential campaign, Ron Paul managed to make monetary policy a national political issue. For nearly a century it had been a relatively obscure topic, and throughout my lifetime respectable opinion considered it a fringe inclination even to be interested in it. Certainly, those who questioned the necessity of even having a central bank had long been relegated to the kooky periphery of political discourse.
This all changed with Paul’s campaign, which put restoring sound money at the top of the 21st-century populist libertarian agenda, second only, perhaps, to ending the U.S. military empire. The financial crisis has made Americans from all walks of life dare to question the central banker behind the curtain. Recent polls show that the Federal Reserve is now among the least-trusted federal agencies, with a vast majority of the public supporting a thorough and independent audit. Paul’s efforts to bring about such an audit garnered more than two-thirds support in the House of Representatives, and for the first time, the Fed’s partisans are on the defensive, publishing articles vindicating its expansionary credit during the Bush years, which an increasing segment of the population, including some in the mainstream press, now blame for causing the housing bubble and consequent financial collapse.
Capitalizing upon this rising public distrust of the once-sacred central bank, Ron Paul has written End the Fed, a direct attack on the moral, economic, and legal foundations of the Federal Reserve. Although much of what can be found in the book can be learned elsewhere, no other popular treatment — concise, sharp, accessible, principled, and insightful — fills the niche that End the Fed serves to fill.
Of Paul’s many accomplishments in popularizing the ideals of liberty, his successful advancement of the Austrian school of economics deserves special recognition. End the Fed provides an accessible introduction to the economic thinking of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and others of the Austrian tradition, whose focus on individual human action is arguably the most radical of all the economic disciplines, and the most compatible with principled libertarian political philosophy. They are not one and the same, for economics is a value-free, scientific study of cause and effect, and the use of resources by people pursuing their interests in a world of material scarcity, whereas libertarianism is a political philosophy centered on moral precepts of property rights, with a definitive normative focus.
But the two reinforce each other by employing methodological individualism — the study of human affairs in terms of individual choices and decisions — and together they show that we are not required to choose between a free society and a prosperous one. For helping to bring such a radical and yet intuitively comprehendible outlook to the general public, one that is not burdened by the mathematical esoterica and affinity to central planning that permeate mainstream economics, we owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude.
Fiat money
Of course, what makes Austrian economics so particularly compelling and important these days is its explanation of the boom-and-bust business cycle. Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, the latter of whom won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for his work on this topic, explained unsustainable and systemic economic booms in terms of artificially easy credit, which leads to malinvestment in economic projects, especially long-term ones that cannot be justified by current savings. In a free market, interest rates are determined by the willingness of people to forgo spending and instead save their money. When the rates are lowered by the Fed, it discourages saving while simultaneously encouraging borrowing and investing. This leads to a cascade of high wages, massive construction, rising prices, and everything else we associate with booms such as those seen in the 1920s, the Nasdaq bubble, and the skyrocketing housing prices of the Bush era. But eventually, as economic projects must yield a return, the savings are shown not to have been there to justify the investment. Whereas a free market in interest rates harmonizes production and consumption over time, central bank distortions lead to the boom and bust.
The Fed was sold to the public partly on the basis that it would end the business cycle and financial panics forever. But “the data show otherwise,” writes Paul.
22
08 2010
Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam
“Once again… the voice of reason.”
-F.F.
LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:
“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
“It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”
“The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
“Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”
“Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
“The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
“The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
“Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
“This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
“There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
“If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
“The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
“Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
“Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.
“The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.
“The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.
“This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
“We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.
“Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100820005843/en/Ron-Paul-Left-Demagogue-Mosque-Islam
21
08 2010
Establishment Fails Again: Rand Paul Maintains Lead Over Conway
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The latest establishment media smear attempt against Rand Paul, in which they falsely reported for over a week that the Kentucky Senatorial candidate had “abducted” and “force drugged” a woman while in college, has completely failed again, with the very latest Rasmussen poll showing that Paul has retained a healthy lead over Democratic opponent Jack Conway.
The latest Rasmussen survey, conducted on Tuesday in the immediate aftermath of the “kidnap” hoax, confirms that Paul maintains a nine point lead over Conway in the race for the Kentucky Senate seat, a result “almost identical to those found in three surveys conducted in July and June,” proving that both the kidnap smear and the hyped civil rights argument had absolutely no effect at all on Paul’s popularity in the state.
“The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 49% support, while Conway earns the vote from 40%. Four percent (4%) prefer another candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided,” states the report.
In addition, when “leaners” are added to equation, people who are initially undecided but then lean towards a particular candidate when follow-up questions are asked, Paul extends his lead to ten points, attracting 51% of the vote to Conway’s 41%. Leaners become more important as the election gets nearer.
10 per cent more voters are “certain” to vote for Paul (73%) than for Conway (63%), emphasizing the fact that despite the manufactured controversies surrounding Paul, his support has in fact hardened.
When a completely discredited establishment media attacks Rand Paul, his supporters only see that as a sign that he is on the right track. This fundamentally underscores how much power the corporate media has lost in attempting to sway elections with bias and propaganda. Since hardly anyone trusts them anymore, their attacks are completely inept and sometimes even helpthe candidate being targeted.
Paul has been assaulted with at least one overblown, mischaracterized, or outright invented smear in each month since he trounced establishment Republican candidate Trey Grayson in the Kentucky primary back in May.
The establishment is desperate to discredit Paul by any means possible because he represents a true threat to the status quo and has become the most prominent Tea Party candidate in the run up to the October midterms.
Paul’s campaign victory speech, in which he stated, “I have a message from the Tea Party, we’re here to take our country back,” sent shockwaves through the Washington elite, and ever since they have been clamoring to tear down his reputation, with smear after smear repeated ad infinitum.
In the case of the “kidnap” hoax, the establishment media and the phony left-wing George Soros-funded outfits continued to claim that Paul had abducted and drugged a woman even days after the woman herself admitted that the whole thing was nothing more than a harmless college prank that had been “blown out of proportion” by the media.
Since Paul is developing a teflon-coated immunity to establishment smear attacks, one wonders what they will come up with next. As we asked in our last article on the issue, will the media start claiming that Rand Paul was the gunman behind the grassy knoll who shot JFK? Will they blame Paul for convincing LeBron James to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers? Did Rand Paul blow up the BP oil well? Do claims made by anonymous pals from college initiations from nearly 30 years ago indicate that Paul is actually a space alien from the planet pop tart?
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Your guess is as good as ours, but we’re sure to see more lies, slander, and smears thrown at Paul between now and October. The good news however is that none of them so far have had any impact whatsoever on his comfortable lead over establishment Democrat Conway, so we invite the establishment media to concoct more twaddle, safe in the knowledge that its effect is at best sterile and in some ways even counterproductive.
http://www.infowars.com/establishment-fails-again-rand-paul-maintains-lead-over-conway/
19
08 2010
Desperate Establishment’s Latest Rand Paul Hoax Backfires
“Wow! The media, republican, and democratic parties are really digging deep holes for themselves. Thanks!”
-F.F.
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Friday, August 13, 2010
The latest media hoax targeting Kentucky primary winner Rand Paul has exploded in the establishment’s face after a claim that Paul “kidnapped” a woman during a college prank was revealed to be completely mischaracterized, showing once again how desperate the system is to discredit Paul and prevent him from leading a populist revolt against the status quo.
The corporate media has now launched no less than three hyped or outright manufactured “controversies” in an effort to tear down Paul’s popularity in the less than three months since he won the Kentucky primary. The system is scared stiff of what Paul represents because he is a true constitutionalist with a real chance of winning in October after having brushed aside establishment Republican candidate Trey Grayson back in May.
On the very night of his primary success, the media kicked into high gear and instantly tried to characterize Paul as a hypocrite and a racist elitist simply because he held his victory celebration at a country club.
When this attempt to smear Paul fell flat on its face, the Civil Rights sideshow was ramped up, with MSNBC airing eight different segments totaling 37 minutes with every single guest attacking Rand Paul as a closet racist who wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act, something which he never said. Indeed, although Paul expressed a nuanced view on the Civil Rights Act, he made it clear that he would not vote to repeal it. This didn’t stop Rachel Maddow and MSNBC from publishing an out of context script in a crass stunt to make it appear as if Paul had answered “yes” to Maddow’s question about whether businesses should have the right not to serve black people.
But with Paul still maintaining a healthy lead over his Democratic rival Jack Conway, the establishment was forced to launch its third absurd smear attack in as many months, by manufacturing a national controversy out of the claims of an anonymous woman who talked to GQ Magazine about a college prank Paul was involved in 30 years ago, alleging that Paul had “kidnapped” the woman and forced her to take drugs.
The hoax was unraveled when the woman later admitted to the Washington Post that she was not kidnapped, she was not forced drugged, and that “the whole thing has been blown out of proportion” because she willingly went along with the prank, which on the face of it is mild tomfoolery when measured against similar college hazing pranks performed today.
“That characterization of events supports Paul’s claim that, as he told Fox News yesterday, “No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people,” concedes the Post.
“It is satisfying to see the libelous and grossly irresponsible charges of kidnapping completely shot down,” Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Post. “It remains puzzling to us why the drive-by media continues to focus on an alleged 30 year old teenage prank when our nation faces high unemployment, a thirteen trillion dollar debt and are threatened with a Cap and Trade national energy tax.”
But that’s not good enough for the Washington Post, who, with the “kidnap” hoax now firmly distinguished, still insist that Paul jokingly telling a college friend 30 years ago to “worship the Aqua Buddha,” is an issue of national importance, even as America enters a third great depression.
Perhaps if rather than engaging in such an apparently horrendous prank as asking someone to smoke pot, Paul had instead lied naked in a coffin masterbating while kissing skulls and screaming as people like George W. Bush and John Kerry did at Yale for their Skull and Bones initiation, then the mainstream media wouldn’t have made such a big deal out of it.
Barely a week goes by within which Tea Party candidates, their supporters, or conservative media outlets are not the target of a manufactured smear, an attempted set-up, or another fabricated hoax, enthusiastically peddled by the corporate media ad infinitum.
This latest Rand Paul hoax arrives on the back of Obama campaign volunteer and long term Democratic operative Tyler Collins attempting to portray Paul’s supporters as racists by dressing up in a tin-foil hat and adopting a slack-jawed accent while carrying signs opposing illegal immigration.
The provocateur was caught out by an attendee at the Fancy Farm political celebration in Kentucky who claimed he saw the man speaking with supporters and campaign officials of Paul’s opponent for the Kentucky Senate, Jack Conway, shortly before making his way into the crowds. Collins was later seen marching with fellow Conway supporters.
The Louisville Courier Journal even used footage of the man, portraying him as a legitimate Rand Paul supporter, in a video report about the event.
Another hoax revolved around what is one of the biggest platforms for anti-establishment candidates, the Drudge Report website, which back in March was falsely accused by Senate Democrats of serving malware viruses to its visitors, which in fact were coming from third party ad scripts. The New York Times and many other websites have inadvertently infected visitors with Malware viruses, but Democrats in the Senate seemed only interested in linking the viruses to Drudge in an effort to prevent people from visiting the website.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.), dismissed the flap as an overhyped ploy to stop Senate staff from reading Drudge, “Because Drudge comes out with really good stuff and we want them to access the Drudge Report. We’re on the Drudge Report about half the time.”
Given the establishment left’s ceaseless attempts to frame Tea Party activists, and particularly Rand Paul, who is seen by many as the true voice of the Tea Party, expect to see many more dirty tricks and brazen hoaxes pulled before the midterm elections.
The corporate media has proven itself to be morally bankrupt in vigorously peddling hoax after hoax in an attempt to shoot down Ron Paul’s campaign. They are doing so not because any of the manufactured controversies hold any merit or importance, but because Paul’s grass roots candidacy represents a fundamental threat to the status quo in Washington.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Paul needs to file libel and slander lawsuits to send a message that more hoaxes, stunts, and set-ups will not be tolerated.
In the interests of time-saving, we’ve gone to the trouble of offering a selection of controversies which we made up out of thin air that the establishment can select from next time they attempt to smear Rand Paul.
- Rand Paul was the gunman behind the grassy knoll who shot JFK.
- Rand Paul convinced LeBron James to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers.
- Rand Paul was responsible for blowing up the BP oil well.
- Rand Paul, and not Yoko Ono, caused the Beatles to break up.
- Rand Paul is an 18 million year old space reptoid from the planet pop tart.
Although some of the above facts may sound a little far fetched, we were assured that they were true by an “anonymous source,” so we are now going to seriously debate how this will affect Paul’s Senatorial campaign for a good week or two, before quietly admitting that it’s all nonsense – but only after the mud has stuck of course.
FLASHBACK: Former Obama Campaigner Caught Provocatuering As ‘Racist’ Tea Party Member
FLASHBACK: Rand Paul Strikes Back At Mainstream Media Smear Machine
FLASHBACK: The Establishment Is In Full Blown Panic Over Rand Paul
FLASHBACK: Rand Paul Survives Smear Campaign To Maintain Healthy Lead Over Conway
FLASHBACK: Racist Government Imposed Segregation Laws, Not 2-Year-Old Rand Paul
http://www.infowars.com/desperate-establishments-latest-rand-paul-hoax-backfires/
14
08 2010
The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism
By Chuck Baldwin
The GOP is frantically searching for the person who will lead them to the Promised Land (translate: White House) in 2012. Barack Obama is leaving a death stench so heavy that even most of the political allies in his own party are asking him to stay away from their reelection campaigns. You gotta give it to Obama: he has done in one term what most Presidents cannot accomplish until their second (lame duck) term. The problem is, the GOP just can’t seem to find their Moses (or even their Ronald Reagan). That means, as far fetched as it sounds now, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. And, once again, when any Democrat candidate for President wins, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves. 2012 could be another example.
You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don’t know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don’t want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, “Ron Paul”?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a “Democrat in Drag” to borrow from Steve Farrell.
That brings me to one of the people that the talking heads at Fox News and other GOP propaganda centers are routinely discussing as their 2012 Presidential hopeful: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
According to Reuters News, “Republican former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday [July 25th] he will decide after November’s congressional elections whether he will make a run for the White House in 2012.”
Here’s what Gingrich is looking at: he wants to see if the GOP makes significant gains in both houses of Congress in the November elections. If the GOP wins one house (especially if enough real conservatives win), I predict Gingrich will enter the race. So he can ride a conservative wave into the White House in 2012? No! So he can derail any potential conservative momentum that the Tea Parties might be able to create in this year’s November elections. You see, Newt Gingrich is the Grinch Who Stole Conservatism from the GOP.
Some of us are old enough to remember Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” that produced huge Republican victories in both houses of Congress back in 1994. However, what did that “Conservative Revolution” (as it was called then) actually produce? The answer: NOTHING! Newt’s promise of smaller government was immediately forgotten. Instead, Gingrich, along with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, facilitated and helped orchestrate further expansion of the federal government. The “less government” theme that swept house freshmen such as Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sonny Bono, Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth, John Shadegg, and J.C. Watts into Congress quickly evaporated and this new neocon Republican Party was born.
Mark it down, if Newt Gingrich is the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee in 2012, he will do to whatever grassroots conservative momentum is brought about by this year’s congressional victories what he did to the “Conservative Revolution” in 1994: DESTROY IT!
Newt’s track record is there for anyone to see. So, why does Fox News continue to promote him as a leader of smaller government or constitutionalism? Does Fox News even have a clue as to what limited government really means? Apparently not.
Remember, Newt Gingrich is a long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a notorious proponent of globalism and archenemy of national independence, State sovereignty, and limited government. Does anyone at Fox News recall what Admiral Chester Ward said about the CFR? (Plus, how many of the Big Shots at Fox News are themselves members of the CFR?)
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956 to 1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
Admiral Ward also said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.”
Accordingly, as a loyal CFR elitist, Gingrich has supported Big Government programs and policies all of his political life. Gingrich is also an ardent disciple of Alvin Toffler, who is the guru of “The Third Wave” politics. That’s why Gingrich refers to himself as a “conservative futurist.”
Webster’s (1992) Dictionary defines “Futurism” as: “Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to IMPOSE CONTROLS ON EVENTS.” (Emphasis added.)
Steve Farrell rightly notes that “futurism is a head-in-the-clouds political philosophy, complete with theories and forecasts, which envisions the use of force to insure that those theories and forecasts come to pass.” Farrell summarizes “conservative futurism” as “communism with economic vision.”
This is why Gingrich went along with Clinton’s Big Government agenda, and supported the unconstitutional faith-based subsidies, public-private “partnerships,” etc. Gingrich’s brand of “conservatism” spawned another Big Government neocon’s (Karl Rove—another favorite son at Fox News) “Compassionate Conservative” movement of the G.W. Bush White House, which at the time led to the biggest expansion of the federal government since Lyndon Johnson.
Gingrich’s infatuation with “conservative futurism” also helps explain his support for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and virtually every other policy promoting globalism and interdependence. It also helps explain why Gingrich and former Vice President Al Gore have worked so closely together in globalist organizations such as the now-defunct Congressional Clearing House on the Future (once chaired by Gore).
10
08 2010
Kentucky Dem Operative Busted Trying to Discredit Rand Paul
“This sums up what the Libertarian/Ron Paul movement faces to often by democratic & republican operative scum bags. Makes you wonder why the establishment, (both sides), are so afraid of the “”real”" massage of this movement. It should make most Americans wonder why they associate racists with the, (once credible), tea party movement. This is literally mind control. People would see news clips of fuck-heads like this saying dumb racial shit. You bet you bottom dollar some of those news clips had an actor and a script to them.”
-Fred Face 8/9/10
09
08 2010
Ron Paul Introduces SEC Transparency Act
Congressman Ron Paul yesterday introduced the SEC Transparency Act of 2010 (HR 5970), a bill designed to force greater transparency in the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bill is designed to repeal the amendments made by section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Recent news reports have publicized the little-noticed provision in the recently-passed financial reform package that the Securities and Exchange Commission has used to deny requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Paul’s bill would repeal the provision in the newly-passed legislation the SEC has used to deny FOIA requests.
“It is unfortunate, yet not unexpected, that legislation touted as fixing problems with the banking system actually makes them worse and provides more cover and power for organizations that failed us like the SEC and the Fed,” Paul said in introducing the bill. “I expect in the coming weeks and months that many more harmful provisions like this will come to light and it will take quite a bit of work to undo the damage from this massive and misguided legislation.”
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-30/ron-paul-introduces-sec-transparency-act-of-2010/
01
08 2010
Ron Paul: Why Do They Want To Kill Us? Because We Occupy Their Land!
Dr. Paul highlights how many people thought this administration would shrink our foreign wars. Instead, drone attacks have doubled, civilian casualties are high, we sent $7.5 billion in “aid” to Pakistan with much of the money going to the ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) who, it turns out, have been funding the Taliban. Dr. Paul states “we slip into wars” by slowly increasing the amount of our involvement…
29
07 2010
Give the American people accurate information
On Wednesday, Congressman Paul discussed the business cycle and government contributions to our economic turmoil at the Joint Economic Committee hearing.
17
07 2010
Peter Schiff For Senate
Get Involved HERE
Peter Schiff is a successful businessman, bestselling author, and economic expert widely credited with foretelling the US economic crisis years before it occurred.
Peter is not a politician and has never held elected office, instead dedicating his entire adult life to economics and finance. A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Peter studied finance and accounting before joining a prominent brokerage firm. In 1996 he acquired Euro Pacific Capital, a small brokerage with no clients or revenues, building it into an industry leader in international investment strategies with thousands of clients and six offices nationwide.
In 2006, Peter sounded the alarm that the US economy was facing significant challenges as the credit and housing bubbles neared deflation. His numerous appearances on national television predicting the recession were met with skepticism by established insiders, but Peter continued to warn of the coming economic collapse.
In 2007, Peter authored the bestselling “Crash Proof” in which he warned that upon the economic downturn, the federal government would mis-read the situation, over react and propose solutions that would actually undermine any possible recovery. As Peter predicted, the government has grown at an exponential rate and has choked off the free market system from bringing economic renewal.
Peter maintains that government intervention through regulation, stimulus programs, and corporate bailouts can only worsen our economic crisis. Peter has been a vocal critic of the economic stimulus packages proposed by both President Obama and President George W. Bush, while other Republicans remained silent and on the sidelines.
Peter is a Connecticut native, and the third generation to call the Nutmeg state home. His paternal grandfather settled in Connecticut at the turn of the century, working as a skilled laborer on a number of local landmarks including the Yale Bowl. Connecticut continues to play a central role in Peter’s life. He chose Westport as the headquarters for his business and lives in Weston, where he is raising his seven year old son.
Peter embraces strong fiscally conservative principles and believes that our economic recovery should be left to the free market through businesses and individuals – not the federal government. He believes that, out of 100 members of the US Senate, at least one should have real world experience in finance and economics.
12
07 2010
Ron Paul Discusses the future of “Audit the Fed” efforts
Congressman Ron Paul discusses the latest in the efforts to get a full and complete audit of the Fed as well as the future of Fed transparency.
See a list of H.R. 1207 cosponsors who voted against the motion here:http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mat…
02
07 2010
Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War
Ron Paul explains why sanctions on Iran might not be that good. The idea of sanctions means war against another country. Ron Paul explains that they can’t afford to be at so many places at once. The US spends $1 trillion a year to operate. He explains that the US is flatout broke and at the same time looking for another war. He says that according to information he has, the CIA is working on a nuclear weapon. Ron Paul also says that Iran has never been found guilty of breaking the non-proliferation treaty. He says the hype about “weapons of mass destruction” is war talk exactly like what sent the US to Iraq where no weapons of mass destructions were found. What the US is doing is driving Iran to the Chinese as he explains. The US is trying to take over the world with natural resources Ron Paul says.
02
07 2010
FEC Attempts to Shut Down Campaign for Liberty
“Insane… Insane… Insane. Obama is showing his true tyrant colors. Never thought Obama would be as bad as he has been. He’s a little tyrant slob parasite. Impeach this mad man.”
-Fred Face 6/30/10
Campaign for Liberty
June 30, 2010
Dear Liberty Activist,
The FEC has launched a pair of investigations on Campaign for Liberty.
Both are meritless, but could seriously disrupt our growing program.
Please read Campaign for Liberty President John Tate’s letter below and stand with us.
This is exactly the type of government action to quell liberty that I have spent my life opposing.
Sincerely,
Congressman Ron Paul
—
Dear Friend of Liberty,
The best way to know you are succeeding in changing Washington is when you get attacked by the FEC.
And attack us they have!
I’m writing you this letter today not to scare you or to cry wolf. I’m writing to let you know that our success has its price, and that price right now is the wrath of the Obama Administration and its attack dogs at the Federal Election Commission.
I urge you to read this message and then sign the Declaration of Support (in which I ask for your advice on a critical legal and moral question), as we are forced into battle with federal agencies and courts.
You see, this isn’t theoretical. They’ve already come after us in multiple cases, alleging that Campaign for Liberty has acted illegally merely by putting the candidates on the record and reporting their positions.
My attorneys tell me we are under a gag rule and cannot go in to too many details or even tell you with what we have been charged and where the charges originated.
But I can say there have been at least two complaints filed in two different states against our issue discussion activities.
They claim we are in violation of various FEC rules and laws.
Their allegations are completely false. And we must fight back now, or they will win and be able to silence our movement.
You see, the Washington, D.C., establishment doesn’t like to be challenged. They hate it when we fight back.
They are absolutely BESIDE themselves when we are winning.
In less than 2 years, your Campaign for Liberty has become a major force on the American political landscape.
I can give you a list of our accomplishments, talk about our growth (we are approaching half a million members), and show you press coverage from across the nation on our efforts.
But nothing shows our success more than how our enemies react when challenged.
When that happens, they do what they do best: use the power of the federal government to attack us.
They want to do one of two things: shut us up, or shut us down.
This battle is over a very fundamental idea – that Campaign for Liberty and our members should have a voice in lobbying their legislators and exposing the radical views of candidates for office.
Exposing what they’re up to – that’s what the powers that be can’t stand. That’s because they don’t want Americans to know:
** Congress is spending at a record pace and has now left us over 13 TRILLION dollars in debt, with no end in sight.
** The out of control FED has not accounted for nearly 2 trillion dollars and has doubled our monetary base, risking our entire economy.
** The federal government has imposed a mandate that every American either purchase a health care product the Feds approve of, costing tens of thousands of dollars, or risk fines and jail time.
** The federal government has attempted to take away your 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, all in the past year, with more certainly to come.
We’re exposing them – and holding them accountable as they come back home to seek reelection.
Of course, this may not sound like the end of the world. But just think: the FEC has an ARMY of lawyers and a budget of nearly $70 MILLION dollars.
That’s a lot of lawyers.
And add to it the fact that this group of people is adamantly against free speech under the First Amendment, and well, you have a recipe for trouble.
Subpeonas. Depositions. Fishing expeditions that cover tens of thousands of documents.
Legal fees just to defend our right to free speech.
Thousands of hours of staff time to comply with their demands.
You can see where this is going.
If FEC radicals succeed, I will not even be allowed to tell you and your neighbors how candidates for the House and Senate (or for President in the future) have voted on Liberty issues, so you can put the heat on them when they are most likely to listen.
Let me explain that a bit more.
For the first time ever, there is a nationwide group that is dedicated to holding politicians accountable for their votes on Liberty issues.
It’s Campaign for Liberty, and our over 450,000 members are doing battle across the country to hold the politicians’ feet to the fire.
Whether it is getting more than 300 sponsors for Audit the Fed, or lobbying to stop Cap and Tax and Real ID schemes, Campaign for Liberty is making a difference.
And we’re prepared to make an even bigger difference this fall, as the time comes to inform the people where their candidates stand.
So the statists in Washington are out to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Their main weapon is the Federal Election Commission.
The FEC has always been against free speech and a tool of the powerful elite in Washington, who desperately seek to hang on to power.
But as bad as the FEC has been since its inception, with the Obama Administration in power, you and I face even more aggressive assaults on our free speech.
My attorneys have warned me that the puppets at the Federal Election Commission are ordering me to stop mobilizing hundreds of thousands of Americans against power grabs in Congress.
In doing so, they are trying to cripple our ability to stop dangerous legislation in Congress. If we continue to oppose these Liberty-stealing bills as we have in the past, I face the danger of multimillion-dollar fines and even a jail term!
In fact, I may even be questioned in court for writing this letter tonight.
I must make a decision soon. Should I allow the Federal Election Commission to tie my hands during this crucial election year?
Or should I defy their gag-rule regulations . . . and face prosecution from the out of control federal authorities for exercising our right to political speech?
Please give me your answer by filling out the Declaration of Support.
If you and other members want me to proceed with our efforts to inform the public of the positions of your candidates on Liberty issues, and to oppose legislation in the Congress (and I hope you do), I will also need your financial help.
So please consider making a generous contribution of 10, 20 or even 40 for this battle, if you can.
The fact is the enemies of Liberty are preparing for a political attack far more serious than their election power grab of 2008, in which they put in power some of the biggest enemies of freedom and promoters of Big Government in a generation.
Our program to stop more statist takeovers in Congress is simple. By mobilizing our grassroots army, we can put a lot of heat on individual Congressmen and Senators.
The FEC insists we can’t do that during election years.
They say by telling you where your Congressman and Senators stand, I may influence your vote. The FEC election regulators contend that’s illegal electioneering.
Basically, government bureaucrats and their out of control regulations insist I dismantle our lobbying operation during election years — precisely at the time it would have its greatest impact.
Top legal experts tell me that this harassment by the FEC and any attempts to shut down our program violate several decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and are flatly unconstitutional.
But they also warn me that if I challenge the FEC ruling, I may face a huge, tax-funded lawsuit which could stretch on for decades and cost us as much as a million dollars.
In addition to potential million-dollar fines and legal penalties, I also face an enormous funding challenge.
Our program to fight back in Congress will require at least $3.2 million.
So there are a lot of decisions to make, and I wanted to be sure I have your support as we move forward.
If I am to proceed with this effort (which I am hoping you will allow), I will need more than just your authorization. I will need your financial support as well.
Every dollar, every quarter, every dime will be used to defeat dangerous Liberty-stealing schemes in Congress and in all 50 states.
George, please respond soon.
This is one of the most far-reaching questions I have ever had to pose to you. The future of Campaign for Liberty is at stake.
If our people are heard, I am sure Liberty will once again thrive in our country. And we are making great strides in even just the past year.
So please, act today. If you believe our voices should be heard, and that the federal government CANNOT be allowed to silence them, it’s vital you answer today.
Thank you for all you do for Liberty.
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
Just like in 2008, the establishment and statists are desperate to shut us up or shut us down. They don’t want to have their records exposed.
You and I cannot give them the playing field. We must fight back today.
http://www.infowars.com/fec-attempts-to-shut-down-campaign-for-liberty/
30
06 2010
Checking Presidential Power
On Thursday, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox News’ Your World w/ Neil Cavuto concerning presidential power and BP.
26
06 2010
Congress wants your name…
18
06 2010
What’s This Guys Name…
Dr. Ron Paul urged Congress to restore our economic stability and strengthen our national security by rejecting failed big government policies in this speech before the House from June 2009…
08
06 2010
C4L Interviews Daniel McCarthy
03
06 2010
Left and Right Try to Stop the Rand Paul Revolution
The day after Republican Rand Paul’s landslide primary victory in Kentucky, the mainstream Left tried to paint him as a segregationist, while the mainstream Right either ignored or attacked him. And for good reason. Like his father Ron, Rand represents revolution, and the establishment is petrified.
Let’s begin with the Left. Afraid that they can’t beat a conservative Republican of Paul’s pedigree in the Tea Party-influenced, anti-Obama political climate of 2010, liberals are trying to run against him in 1964. Cherry-picking irrelevant references Paul has made about private property rights and how they could possibly relate to the Civil Rights Act or even the Americans with Disabilities Act, Democrats are trying to portray Rand the libertarian as a closeted Klansman who secretly hates “coloreds” and “cripples.”
It’s no surprise that in any discussion about government intrusiveness and private business, race-obsessed liberals immediately equate free will and free markets with Jim Crow. When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hysterically brought up the specter of segregated lunch counters during an interview with Paul, author Thomas Woods noted the absurdity of even having such a conversation today. Writing for The American Conservative, Woods says: “Any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within 10 seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed.” Fictional indeed.
And portraying Paul as somehow being anti-black is no different than conservatives who portray antiwar protesters as anti-American; in both cases, legitimate concerns by citizens about the actions of their government are misconstrued to imply horrible and untrue things about the concerned. Liberals howl when right-wing talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck call President Obama “racist,” and now the Left shamelessly borrows from their playbook.
But it’s not just the Left who are upset over the rapid ascent of America’s next top conservative idol. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum finds Paul to be as “extreme” as liberals do, writing on the day after the election, “Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics.”
Frum’s preferred candidate in the Kentucky primary, Trey Grayson, was not only a former Bill Clinton Democrat but a George W. Bush Republican who deviated rarely from the party establishment and heartily received their endorsement. Both former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lined up behind Grayson in a desperate attempt to prevent Paul from winning. With Paul trouncing Grayson 59 percent to 34 percent, the old Republican guard lost in a Randslide.
Fashioning himself and his Bush league friends as supporters of “strong national defense” and “rational conservative politics,” it doesn’t take much investigation to discover what Frum believes “rational conservative politics” to be: a return to a GOP brand that today’s grassroots conservatives reject most — big-spending, debt-doubling neoconservatism. Disaffected Republicans turned Tea Partiers are not as enamored with America’s ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan as they once were, and they aren’t so in love with war that they will ignore the continued growth of big government, a narrative Bush and the neocons successfully used for eight years to keep rank-and-file Republicans in line. Frum’s fear is that Kentuckians, and Americans at large, might be encouraged to actually think about the wisdom of American foreign policy.
And this fear extends to conservative talk radio, where on the day after Paul’s victory, hosts Limbaugh and Sean Hannity said next to nothing about it. Compare their silence to the election of Scott Brown, the Massachusetts senator who received wall-to-wall coverage in the conservative media. Why was there so much excitement for this moderate-to-liberal Republican from Massachusetts? That’s easy. Brown was a conventional Republican who excited the conservative base without upsetting the GOP establishment. Paul is the opposite. The Hill’s John Feehery notes the difference: “Rand Paul will be more than the skunk at the garden party in the U.S. Senate. He will be subversive when it comes to critical Republican orthodoxies.” Like his father, Rand is the Republican establishment’s worst nightmare.
It’s somewhat appropriate that liberals would go all the way back to 1964 in order to attack Rand, because his rise truly is the resurgence of a Barry Goldwater-style, limited-government philosophy. Goldwater’s politics were once the bedrock of American conservatism, but today those beliefs are controversial, not only to the Left with its race obsession, but the mainstream Right, which fails to find virtue in Rand’s “extremist” brand of liberty. This ridiculous, two-party status quo restricts substantive debate, impedes real reform, and begs for revolution. And whether the establishment likes it or not, Rand Paul just might give it to them.
02
06 2010
Ron Paul Defends Rand Against Concerted Corporate Media Attack
Ron Paul
May 28, 2010
Dear Friend,
It sure didn’t take long for the entire establishment to attack my son Rand in the days after he won the Kentucky Senate primary.
As I left Kentucky last week, I was both happy for Rand and anxious for what I knew would be coming at him soon. But it came sooner than even I feared.
A mainstream media network has gone into all-out warfare against Rand, beginning with a full 24 hours of repeating outright lies by Rand’s Democrat opponent.
It’s funny. Rand’s opponent’s ideas are anti-freedom. They’re pro Big Government. They’re pro-welfare state, and will stand lock-step with the Obama agenda. And if they are the issue, he can’t beat Rand in Kentucky. So he’s trying to make sure this race is on a different playing field.
Rand needs to fight back. Some of it will be now, some will be in the coming months. But he needs your help to do it.
I know it seems like he won his primary by a lot, and it certainly was a great achievement. But having done this many times before, I urged him to take nothing for granted, and to run like he was 10 points behind. He did just that, and it was an amazing victory to watch! I was very proud of him and his team.
And thanks to you, he had the funds to do everything he needed to do. But he wisely used those funds in the primary, and has only a small amount left in his campaign treasury as we begin the general election.
And now he’s under all-out attack.
I hope you’ll help him out the way you did in the primary. We can’t count on others to help. Sure, he’ll have a few more friends now. But we need that to be in ADDITION to what our movement can give him. We can’t rest now, this is one of the biggest opportunities for a liberty minded candidate in a long time.
Please consider helping Rand today, and as often as you can throughout the general election. He’s going to need to raise three of four times what he raised in the primary to compete with the national special interests that will pour money into Kentucky to stop him.
These early attacks prove one thing for sure: The establishment and the powers that be in Washington are scared to death of a Senator Rand Paul. And they should be.
Now let’s start helping him get there to shake up the Senate!
Please donate today at www.RandPaul2010.com.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-defends-rand-against-concerted-corporate-media-attack/
28
05 2010
Rand Paul and the Constitution
“More support after the “set-up” civil rights smear campaign.”
-F.F.
Editorial of The New York Sun
The New York Sun wasn’t publishing in 1964, but we have no doubt that it would have supported the Civil Rights Act, as the editor who now conducts these columns did then and as the Sun does now. We revere the great figures of the civil rights movement. When their names — Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, Thurgood Marshall, to mark but three who are still in the news columns — come up at the dinner table, we speak to our children about their righteousness, courage, and heroism. We haven’t the slightest hesitation in supporting the authority of the federal government to outlaw racial discrimination in public or private businesses and myriad private transactions, such as, say, the sale of real estate. We favor aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws, even after the dismantling of Jim Crow.
If we were voting in Kentucky today, however, we’d vote for Rand Paul for senator. It’s not that we care to cavil about the fine points of the Civil Rights Act. It’s no mere artifact of a great struggle. On the contrary, we’re of the view that without it, the danger of a retreat would be a constant worry, even in the early 21st century. But the law itself is settled and secure. What does not seem settled and secure are other matters — property rights, say — on which Dr. Paul stands heads and shoulders above his opponent, Jack Conway, one of the most aggressive state attorneys general advanced by a Democratic party that has shown scant regard for the principles of federalism, for the constitutional contract that undergirds our republic, and for the negative way the constitution vouchsafes our rights.
By this we mean, Dr. Paul comprehends that the Bill of Rights is largely a prohibition on the government. When one listens to him talk, one gets the sense that he comprehends that the Founders of America feared that the biggest threat to our rights was from our own government. He has this streak of constitutional fundamentalism that one hears among the Tea Party enthusiasts, but among not only them. One hears it from the Libertarians, and from a growing number of neoconservatives who are taking a fresh look at the Constitution at a time when advocates of limited government are unlikely to find much encouragement from the Congress or the administration.
There are those who belittle this constitutionalist streak, including, to pick a recent example, the columnist Michael Gerson, who, Ira Stoll noted in a post at Futureofcapitalism.com, complained of what “might be called ‘constitutional conservatism.’” Mr. Gerson reckons such conservatism has “the virtue of being easily explainable — and the drawback of being impossible.” This prompted Mr. Stoll to point out that it did pretty well — not flawlessly, but pretty well — in the century-and-a-half before the New Deal. By our lights the blitheness with which so many are prepared to breeze past the plain language of the Constitution, and past such bedrock as the idea of enumerated powers, is breathtaking. That Rand Paul has the grit to challenge all this is, we’d like to think, connected to his popularity.
* * *
This is one of the traits of both of the Pauls, father and son. We have many times remarked that we part company with them, and other libertarians, on many aspects of foreign policy (though Ron Paul would not abandon the fight against Al Qaeda; we have already endorsed his plan to use against Osama Bin Laden Congress’s power to grant letters of marque and reprisal). But they are an outstanding pair when it comes to this idea of constitutional conservatism — or, our preference, plain language constitutionalism. A lot of things can happen between now and election day. But our guess is that if Rand Paul prevails, one of the reasons will be his attention to the theoretical underpinnings of our constitutional republic, a trait that he shares with the architects of the Civil Rights Act we amire so much.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/rand-paul-and-the-constitution/86970/
27
05 2010
Ron Paul- “More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex”
by Ron Paul
Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.
If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 “regular” appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.
The latest supplemental bill is touted as an “emergency” war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.
Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.
The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.
With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.
There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6d5Nls830g&feature=player_embedded
26
05 2010
Ron Paul on Fox Business
On Friday, Congressman Paul appeared on Fox Business’ Varney & Co. to discuss the price of gold and the markets.
26
05 2010
Rand Paul on the (obnoxious) Rachel Maddow show
“Oh man, Democrat operative Maddow is sooo obnoxious. Do you really have to ask the question to Paul.
There are dumb white people talking stupid racist shit.
There are dumb mexican people talking stupid racist shit.
There are dumb black people talking stupid racist shit. etc, etc.
They are a small stupid minority. Like Paul said, this is America and they have the freedom to talk shit even if it’s fucked up. If you watch the news enough… they’ll make you think there is a racist on every corner about to carve up your particular race.
You see… our government is fucked. They just raped you financially through the bailouts and thats just the tip of the iceberg. Their credibility is plummeting fast, even with the “slow to catch on” public. And instead of the American people, (Black, White, Brown, Whatever), focusing their anger on the real enemy, (I.E. THE US GOVERNMENT & BANKING INSTITUTIONS), they want us at “each other’s” throats. I’ll say it again… Divide & Conquer.”
-Fred Face 5/21/10
21
05 2010
Why should taxpayers be on the hook?
“Because the majority of people in this country have had their backs broken and they won’t make a peep about being robbed.”
-F.F.
21
05 2010
Rand Paul Wins!! The Tide Is Turning Suckers!!!
“Lets Get On With The Revolution!!! Take a short break and pat yourselves on your back… and then lets get back on the job & turn this country around!!!”
-Fred Face 5/20/10
20
05 2010
Ron Paul on Fed Audit, I Am Very Concerned
“I can’t grasp why Americans can’t see that this is one of the few qualified people in politics to be president…. Oh ya, I forgot most people don’t read or look into things more than their Daddies, (mainstream media tv), dictate to them.”
-Fred Face 5/12/10
12
05 2010
Biometric ID Card
26
04 2010
We Are Change Booted Out of California Tea Party Event
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 26, 2010
Members of We Are Change from the San Francisco area were kicked out of a Tea Party event on April 15. The event was held at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton, California. See the video below.
It appears only supporters of the Republican hijacked Tea Party were welcome at the event.
Orly Taitz, an Orange County attorney who has gone to court to disqualify Obama on constitutional grounds, was invited to speak at the event. She was dis-invited after establishment Republican political candidates got wind of her planned attendance. “It’s not worth it,” Bridget Melson, founder and president of the Pleasanton Tea Party, told the Los Angeles Times. “She’s too controversial. This is not what the tea party is about at this point.”
The event was announced and promoted by the Tea Party Patriots, an organization partnered withFreedomWorks, the “conservative” (neocon) organization headed up by the former establishment Republican Dick Armey and funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, a neocon operation directed by the billionaire and CIA operative Richard Mellon Scaife. Other Tea Party Patriots partners include the Republican news portal and blog site RedState and the neocon blogger, concentration camp apologist and Fox News darling Michelle Malkin.
The Pleasanton Tea Party does not list partners or financial backers on its website. However, since they are teamed up with the Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, and the scurrilous neocon Scaife we can assume they share the Republican Borg hive version of Tea Party activism (including swearing fealty to theRepublican national platform of total war and the bankster agenda).
The Tea Party Patriots website has posted effusive praise for the Fox News disinfo operative Glenn Beck. Beck has denounced the 9/11 truth movement on numerous occasions, accused it of being in cahoots with al-Qaeda and white supremacists, and believes truthers plan to assassinate Obama.
If the Republican version of the Tea Party manages to absorb the Libertarian Tea Party movement, we can expect a new crop of neocon Republicans to replace the “socialist” Democrats come November. If the momentum continues into 2012, we can expect another George W. Bush as president and a continuation of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The bankster agenda and the Federal Reserve will move forward, albeit with the trappings of the Tea Party (confined to the same sort of fake Libertarian lip-service Reagan read from a script while fronting as president for the New World Order).
Is it unfair to characterize the Republican Tea Party as the CIA Tea Party? Considering the involvement of Richard Mellon Scaife, a covert takeover of the movement by the spook agency is a distinct possibility. It certainly would not be the first time a legitimate political movement was taken over by an intelligence agency. In fact, the CIA specializes in creating political movements from the ground-up.
http://www.infowars.com/we-are-change-booted-out-of-california-tea-party-event/
