Ron Paul....it's possible

[murmur]

Not only is it possible, it necessary.

This is the truly free internet age.

The power of the internet and social media can be harnessed...maybe this one time only to defeat the Republicrats monopoly on political power.

There is an opportunity to force real issue based debate.....not the reality show train wrecks our political elections have become.

I'm begging you all to consider Ron Paul...he isn't perfect I'd agree....but the alternatives of Obama, Newt, Romney or Perry are an absolute nightmare.

Stand up for what is right

Stand up to saying no to endless wars

Stand up to reject the creeping police state

Stand up to reject the patriot act

Stand up to and face the fact that the Federal Reserve tinkering has looted the middle class.

Stand up to the fact that our politicians represent multinational banks, the mic, and special interest before the will of the people.

Stand up and believe that it is possible to elect a man of principle and integrity.

It's possible to elect Ron Paul

Start believing

[murmur]

It's possible....seize the moment

The Forgotten Candidate: Ron Paul Gathers Momentum, Has Sights Set on Newt Gingrich


While portions of the national press corps have declared the GOP primary a two-man race between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, the tenacious Texas Congressman on his third run for the White House, is quietly picking up speed.

The libertarian leaning Texas Congressman is buoyed by strong poll numbers. In the latest ABC News/ Washington Post poll, Paul is polling in the top three in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Similar polls by NBC, CBS, and the Des Moines Register show the same.

Paul has set his sights on Gingrich, releasing videos that criticize the former House Speaker for a career in politics and policy shifts.


The two have not only sparred over the size of the federal government, but its scope. Paul unveiled an ad last week attacking Newt for being a serial hypocrite and for building his wealth through questionable lobbying efforts on behalf of the health care industry and mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

“He’s been on a lot of different sides on all the issues,” Paul told ABC’s Jon Karl today. “He may be the opposite of what I’ve been doing for 30 years. My positions haven’t changed all that much.”

While Gingrich has led Republicans in Washington as Speaker of the House in the 1990s, Paul has often been a thorn in their side, unyielding in his support for a radical downsizing of the federal government. Paul unveiled a budget proposal in October which cuts $1 trillion from the federal government in the first year.

Although Paul’s budget has been lauded by both conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh and Iowa’s Gov. Terry Branstad who called it “the boldest plan to reduce the debt,” the framework has been dismissed by Gingrich.

The former House speaker labeled the plan “a non-starter.”
“If you come to me and tell me I need to lose 30 pounds and you’re going to amputate my right leg, I think it’s a non-starter, ” Gingrich told the Quad City Times.

Paul, who served in the House of Representatives with Gingrich for seven years – one while Gingrich was Speaker, gave the current GOP front-runner credit for “devis[ing] some strategies” while he led the House, but said he “falls short on leadership” in seeing those ideas through.

When asked about the Gingrich’s alleged infidelity and two divorces, Paul said”people have a right to know” about the “problems in his personal life.”
“But I don’t think that that should be the big deal,” Paul said. “When it comes to Gingrich I think everyone knows about the problems he has had in his personal life, but I think we need to know more about his policies and I think that is much more important.”

The two also sparred over the scope of government during a recent CNN debate in which Gingrich advocated for strengthening the Patriot Act, which provides law enforcement authorities enhanced tools to combat terrorism.
Paul refuted the idea, instead imploring “not to sacrifice liberty for security.” Gingrich shot back that he didn’t want to lose an American city before action is taken.

But the latest ABC News poll does show problems for Paul. On the electability issue, just 8 percent of likely caucus -goers see Paul as best able to beat Obama, trailing Gingrich by 21 points. It was Paul’s weakest attribute.
But this was far from his only challenge. Paul trails Gingrich by a whopping 30 points on having the best experience. And Paul’s renaissance on limited government and deficit control is counted by his very broad objection to his non-interventionist views.

In the coming weeks, Paul plans to continue airing ads in the early primary states reminding voters how’s he’s different from Gingrich.

The message will be reinforced by an extensive get-out-the-vote effort. The campaign is sending 500 young supporters to Iowa and New Hampshire. The program is called Christmas Vacation with Ron Paul, and through it, youth activists will travel around the key early-voting states to drum up support and get out the vote for Paul.

Paul’s organization is his greatest asset and the starkest contrast to Gingrich. Yahoo! News reported that phones for Newt Gingrich’s Iowa campaign office finally arrived on Tuesday, exactly one month before the state’s caucuses.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...newt-gingrich/

[murmur]

[murmur]

[murmur]

[noot]

Well I do have to say that the squeaky little barstard has managed to survive past his pull date. But I wouldn't be holding my breath on a Paul presidency.

[G2v[12]]

The country desperately needs third, fourth and five parties to break the yoke of existing political affairs. How unfortunate that the post 911 military intelligence complex finds such politics threatening to the anglo-fascist status quo. BTW, the Obama campaign has already received more funding from the wall street gang than all other candidates combined. I probably won't be voting for him in the second round. Ron Paul is looking better all the time.

[murmur]

[murmur]

[murmur]

Get on board

December 10, 2011

The Case for Ron Paul

By Jason McNew

Ron Paul, a physician, has earned himself the name "Dr. No" by refusing to vote for any bill which assumes powers other than those given in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution. When one takes a sober look at our country today, it's easy to see why Dr. Paul would behave this way.

Take note that there is no authority in the Constitution for the setting of interest rates (as the Federal Reserve does) -- interference which led directly to the housing bubble (which Ron Paul predicted).
Despite U.S. participation in several sizable wars, Congress has not bothered itself with actually declaring war since 1942 (on Romania). There is no authority to bail out banks, intervene in labor disputes, subsidize farming, regulate health insurance, or set educational policies. Every one of these unauthorized activities drives costs up (or drives prosperity down) and ultimately hurts average Americans. Increasingly, Americans are realizing that most of our social and economic ills can be traced to a failure to follow our own Constitution. Ron Paul has always been a strict, unapologetic Constitutionalist. How Ron Paul would govern as president can be envisioned by simply reading Article II of the Constitution (The Executive Branch.)



When it comes to the science of government, this statement by John Adams makes a perfect starting point for any debate: "The form of government which communicates happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is best."




No matter what position an individual occupies on the political spectrum, this statement is very difficult to disagree with (unless one is an advocate of totalitarianism). Once we start debating exactly what people need in order to be happy, or how they can go about securing these needs, things get ugly.

Americans are fond of calling our country an "experiment in democracy" -- but what exactly was so "experimental" about it? Democracy, the Constitutional Republic, checks and balances, and an array of other ideas in the Constitutions were not new at all. In truth, nearly every mechanism in the Constitution was many centuries old (at least) and had been borrowed from past political thinkers.




What was experimental was the way in which power flowed (from the bottom up) and how people would go about securing what they needed in order to be happy. Provided that people did not harm or injure others, they were generally not to be bothered by government, and they were to have their civil and economic freedoms protected. The Founders theorized that when human problems were solved at the lowest and most localized level possible -- be that in the family, the township, the city, the county, or a state -- the aggregate human happiness would be the greatest. Only in cases where it was not feasible for the States to solve a particular problem on their own would these problems be elevated (via the Constitution) to the federal government.
This bottom-up political system was known (until the advent of Progressivism in the early 20^th century) as liberal democracy. We now loosely call it conservatism, or sometimes libertarianism.



To make their classical liberal democracy work, the Founders gave around twenty specific governmental powers to the federal government, all enumerated in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution. These power are as follows: to tax, spend, borrow, regulate interstate and international commerce, establish uniform rules of citizenship, write bankruptcy laws, coin and regulate the value of money, standardize weights and measures, punish counterfeiters, establish a postal system, pass copyright and patent laws, establish federal courts, punish crimes on the high seas, declare war, finance and raise an armed forces, set rules for the armed forces, call up state militias, administer the seat of government (Washington, D.C.), and administer federal lands. Lastly, Congress was then given the actual authority for passing laws to implement these specific powers. All other authority was reserved to the States and the People.




Why the media ignores Ron Paul

The media tries to pretend that Ron Paul does not exist, claiming that he is "extreme" or "crazy." The reason for this is very simple -- to acknowledge the legitimacy of Paul's ideas is to openly acknowledge how dangerous our national economic problems have actually become. This willful ignorance is known as Normalcy Bias, a primal fight-or-flight mental state which allows otherwise rational people to ignore danger. Notable examples of Normalcy Bias include the refusal of German Jews to flee prior to the Holocaust or the refusal of Americans to evacuate the Gulf Coast before Hurricane Katrina.


Ron Paul has proposed cutting one trillion dollars from the federal budget during his first year in office because it is mathematically unavoidable. If we do not make these cuts voluntarily now, we will be forced to make them later.



Ron Paul's statements on 9/11

Every candidate has their warts, and this is where Paul's blemishes show -- glaringly. Paul has consistently argued that American foreign policy was a contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks, and insists that the attackers were motivated by U.S. troop presence in Muslim lands. It does not matter (as Paul's most die-hard supporters argue) if Paul "has a point" -- these statements are akin to asking what a rape victim was doing or wearing at the time of an attack. There is nothing to be gained from them. Ron Paul needs to back off here (and so do his supporters). For some voters, these statements alone will be a deal-breaker at the ballot box. The upside here is that Paul is a known quantity on everything -- no one is ever left wondering what Ron Paul "really thinks."




Ron Paul on foreign policy

Ron Paul's foreign policy is actually very simple. The physical safety of individual Americans from foreign aggressors should come first. Paul extends to other nations the same basic principles that are applied to individuals -- all foreign nations should be treated equally, unless they cause harm or injury to the United States or her citizens. A strong defensive function should be maintained to disincentivize other nations from hurting or killing Americans. Ron Paul has insisted that war should be waged only when conditions meet all six criteria of the Just War Theory.




Why Ron Paul can beat Barack Obama

Even Ron Paul's detractors concede his anvil-like integrity and unflappable adherence to principle. Barack Obama, having nearly no accomplishments to run on, and deprived of everything but boogeyman arguments, will be forced into a drawn-out war of ideas against a cranky obstetrician with a Jeffersonian mastery of economics, history, philosophy, politics, and theology. In terms of honesty, intellect, and knowledge, Barack Obama has no hope of prevailing in a one-on-one debate against Ron Paul. Such a mismatch on live television would be amusing.




We as Americans are poised at a crossroads. In this race, Ron Paul truly stands alone in his efforts to preserve classical liberal democracy as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The Founders had a theory (which was very radical at the time) that individuals, even those of meager education and modest means, were better able to govern their own affairs than were "the wise." The vast majority of those in Washington now, both Republicans and Democrats, view themselves as being a part of "the wise" -- believing that they should govern the affairs of others.



Ron Paul believes, as the Founders did, that individuals can do a much better job governing their own selves, and should not be ruled over by government.

Jason McNew is a 38-year-old IT professional. He can be reached at jasond@mcnew.org.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic..._ron_paul.html at December 10, 2011 - 11:31:54 AM CST