Who is Ron Paul?

To understand Ron Paul’s stances on the issues you need to research the history of the issues. Especially the IRS and the Federal Reserve and when, how and why they came into existence. Make sure you read the constitution and understand the true and full meaning of it. Take a list of the founding fathers and research old books that were written about these men. Get their perspective and then use that perspective to follow the constitution and interpret history for yourself without the influence of the mainstream media. Than I think you will see the plan that Ron Paul has for this country.

Ron Paul is an honest politician. He wants to end the war, reduce the size of government, and restore individual liberties. All of these statements are made evident in his consistent voting record.

Dr. Paul has stated repeatedly that he would not dissolve these organizations overnight. He has repeatedly stated that to dissolve these agencies, he would need the approval of congress and the American people. He has repeatedly stated that any dissolution of any agency would require an orderly transition plan to avoid creating problems. To claim Ron Paul would dissolve these agencies :within weeks of taking office” is a strawman argument, plain and simple.

As far as Ron Paul being the favorite candidate of Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist groups – I can’t and don’t want to speak for these people, but their support seems to be based on a misunderstanding of his principals and ideals. Paul supports cutting off aid to Israel (not just Israel, but all foreign aid) and ending the war against Iraq (which arguably benefits Israel quite a bit). I imagine that this is a pretty popular position with anti-Semites, but for an entirely different reason than with Dr. Paul.

I mean this in jest Joe but if you take your political cues from one other journalist I would have to say your credibility is shot.

Like I said it was meant in good fun.

I think if you really want to know there are some great YouTube clips of Ron Paul or if you want something less propaganda-ish you can google “Ron Paul on sanctions” or “Ron Paul on foreign aid”. The first link you will get on both searches are to pieces written by Paul himself. Both pieces are short and to the point.

The great thing about Ron Paul’s platform is that everything fits together. The ideas seem so ambitious at first but the more I read the more I began to think “this really makes a heck of a lot of sense”

But I am still not sold on the income tax thing. I mean I understand that it is possible but highly unlikely… however at the very least he should be able to point us in the right direction.

Anyway,
Thanks for putting up with my posts. Take it easy.

Ron Paul is the equivalent of Dennis Kucinich in the democrat race: a political goofball who yells loudly and no one takes seriously except a vocal fringe support group and the other side when they point and mock.

Also Joe you may want to be wary. The Paulettes as they are known are famous for organizing online raids on message boards and blogs where they flood and spam the board to death. The Sean Hannity message board has been attacked repeatedly over the last few months.

I am a career Naval officer who has been politically neutral for my entire life, but voting for Ron Paul is about voting for America and our Constitution, which I took an oath to preserve. Ron Paul receives more contributions from the military than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. He says a lot of things that make a lot of sense, especially about foreign policy and also monetary policy–about which other candidates understand relatively little.

Barry Goldwater Jr., the former congressman and son of the founder of modern conservatism, endorsed Ron Paul this week. If you call yourself a conservative, you should think about it too. Google Ron Paul.

Joe, and everyone, here is the Ron Paul campaign’s response to the unfair Mona Charen article, from Paul’s communications director:

To the Editor
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.

1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.

2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.

Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.

I was going to write a big long disposition on Dr. Paul’s views, but it would be redundant. There is so much good info already out on the web about his viewpoints.

I will say this. The only people that a column like Mona’s will phase are the people that are not already familiar with Dr. Paul’s stances. Unfortunately that is a lot of people and I think that is why there is a pretty strong push in the mainstream media right now to dis-inform people about him. He is gaining popularity at an unprecedented rate and it isn’t because he is cool or slick (actually he is kind of plain and humble) or has massive amounts of money and media attention. The true reason is that people are figuring out what he actually stands for and it resonates very deeply. He is very intelligent and clear thinking about our government, where we are, where we came from, and where we are heading.

I don’t think he is perfect and there are a couple things that I disagree with him about. However, unlike any canidate for any office ever in my life, I think this guy is on the level.

I must say that the above post makes alot of good points. It is refreshing to hear a politician refer to the Constitution for answers, instead of rubes like Mitt Romney who said he would ask lawyers what authority he had to deal with terror suspects. Anytime we have to involve lawyers and lobbyists watch out. I also do give Paul credit for bringing out the truly conservative principles espoused by the old Republican party. I am going to give him a serious look.

ugh.. where to begin?

First I guess is that I can’t believe no one has dared to hit up Joe Vandal on his repulsive comment about ‘I am not going to “…research old books…” ‘

While not a book, The Constitution is but one of these “old” documents written by what are today disparagingly called ‘the dead white males’. The arrogant notion that todays generation knows it all and has no need to look back to our fore bearers is part of what has gotten us into this mess.

Next was ‘guest’ and his (?) comments about Dr Paul being a loon or crackpot or such. Yes, he is much like Dennis Kuccinich in a lot of ways, they both represent what their parties are supposed to and aren’t scared of that fact. I like a lot of what Kuccinich has to say, though I despise his program on legalising illegal immigrants. Dr Paul isn’t quite tough enough on the LEGAL immigrants but he at least knows that something must be done on this, is that not obvious to us here in SE Idaho? Surely you jest!

Supporting the robber barons of the illegal PRIVATELY operated organisation of the Federal Reserve and their henchmen of the IRS is not only un-Constitutional but appalling. Hard to imagine someone would criticise him for his want to shut down those organisations when we take home less of our paychecks each year.

Dr Paul wants to end our military occupation of the rest of the world. HOORAY! Finally someone who gets that you can’t force your views on the rest of the world and expect them to happily go along with it.

As for the Conspiracy theorists slur, this is but a buzzword many use to discredit anything of importance anyone has to say by simply calling them a ‘conspiracy theorist’. How lame. Argue the facts and validity of your view, and show me why such theories are wrong – don’t be like Mitt Romney and just keep saying “No! It’s all conspiracy theories” and thus attempt to shut them up. Or like Dubya Bush who in typical neo-con fashion just simply says ‘we shouldn’t tolerate conspiracy theories’. Excuse me mr Bush but that is the lamest approach to things I have ever heard. Another attempt just to discredit someone at face value and not have to look at any of their ideas and see if they are accurate. Just typical Big Brother styled “2+2=5 Trust me!” It is becomming ever so popular with some to just trust everything the stateists say and never question any of it.. ‘And none dare call it conspiracy’

To summarize this one at any rate, here is a great excerpt from Dr Paul himself on the

Tenacity of Power –
from FREEDOM UNDER SIEGE

Today’s simmering economic, social, and political problems will eventually boil over. The contest will eventually be clear to everyone. Big government advocates will spare no abuse, no
resources, no cost, no tricks, no force in order to maintain the status quo of state power.

Statism itself will be at stake and those in power will feel threatened. They will easily win unless the determination of we who love freedom is superior to the desires of those in charge to cling to their power.

Everyone has a role to play. The segment of society that is philosophically committed to big government will be tenacious in their endeavors as they see themselves in a death struggle.

The many who are complacent about conditions around them will be the
largest group and will be the bellwether of the apparent success of the two major factions. Some of these will go with the winners, some will go with the most vocal leaders, and some will go with the group they think will best provide for what they see is in their best interest in the nature of security. Complete complacency is an act in itself in that it is the absence of action that will permit one or the other faction to win.

The masses are important, but never
lead, and they need only to be convinced and guided.

Friends of freedom must quickly assemble and plan strategy. Everyone has a vital interest in the outcome. Broad agreements are crucial; arguing minute details of solutions to difficult problems can undermine the movement and become purely negative. Perfection by man in the struggle for freedom is not achievable. Denial of personality
differences and legitimate differences of opinion are a mistake. Refusing to agree on generalized and precise principles guarantees failure.

It is possible for some who claim kinship to the freedom movement to
inadvertently serve the statists by undermining the important work
on which we can agree. Agreeing on the libertarian principal of
nonaggression is worthwhile.

Demanding that everyone agree on every single cent in the defense
budget is nonproductive. Human beings are imperfect, and no one
person or collective wisdom of anybody or body of persons can
produce perfect solutions. Intellectual collectivism should not
replace a single person’s individuality to think for himself
and defend freedom while agreeing on broad principles.

Once one is committed and has chosen a side, the obligation to act
is clear. Efforts must be educational, political, organizational,
and financial. Each of us can use one or all of these tools to
promote the cause of freedom.

Clearly the fundamental flaw of the twentieth century has been our
loss of love for freedom and self-reliance while accepting the use
of government to promote special interest in the name of individual
rights. This low regard for the principles of freedom has promoted
the political economic crisis in which we find ourselves. A
precise plan is crucial to our survival and mandates. and self-reliance while accepting the use of government to promote special interest in the name of individual rights. This low regard for the principles of freedom has promoted the political economic crisis in which we find ourselves. A precise plan is crucial to our survival and mandates that all of us join in this historic
opportunity to restate the principles of freedom.

-

When was the last time your heard a politician say things like that? WOW!
If we only had a million less politicians and but a few more ‘Paul-iticians’. If only we had a few more Citizens and a few million less slaves.

I’m liking most of what I’m learning about Ron Paul since this article published, and via online snippets rather than ye duste olde bookes. 8^)

I’m happened into a history of the CIA, and holy cow I never realized how inept the CIA agency really has proven itself. They have had very few successes, too many huge public bungles, and the CIA’s cost and gestapo-secrecy seem to be more of a drag than helping America. The CIA’s bungles have seriously damaged America in the past 50 years, and even their few successes have later soured (Afghanistan, for example).

I can understand why Ron Paul would want to eliminate the CIA at least.

As I understand it, Ron Paul would also seek to overturn both the Patriot Act and Roe vs. Wade, an interesting mixed bag of personal rights issues.

Of course, Ron Paul deserves a fair shake. I think he says a lot of good things. I sided with Paul when I wrote in the name of Ronald Reagan in the 1976 presidential election, since he didn’t win the nomination from sitting president Ford.

But I want a candidate who has a chance at effecting real change. My politics changed, in 1980 I voted for the Independent candidate because I was hoping for real change…I basically threw away my vote.

One of my kids voted for Nader as a third party candidate, and she basically threw her vote away, too.

Our idealism and our hopes and dreams cause us to cling to the possibilities of these non-mainstream candidates…but they don’t create enough of a coalition to obtain the necessary votes to do any good.

We end up frustrated at the system, not knowing how to make real change, short of revolution, which is not something the vast majority of United States citizens will tolerate.

By the way, I WANT to pay taxes, because I want to have services that government pays for, such as police, schools, roadways, parks, etc. So I am for modifying the tax code (the 17% flat amount sounds good to me) but not for eliminating the IRS.

I’m new to this site, but a friend told me that this is one of the few news outlets in SE Idaho where people truly want to openly discuss the large problems of our day. So here goes my first post.

I am a Ron Paul convert. My story on why I support him is probably completely different than others, but that is what is so amazing about him and his message–I now find myself uniting with all these “different” people based on some basic principles that guide all of Dr. Paul’s decisions.

I found him after learning more about our National Debt ($9-$75 Trillion depending on how it is accounted for–check out our U.S. Comptroller David Walker’s web site for more info – http://www.gao.gov). Others find him for completely different reasons (immigration, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, defense, IRS, Federal Reserve, and the list goes on). What is amazing is that no matter what “hot button” has awakened you to the fact that something is not right in our country, you will find that Dr. Paul has probably already thought through a possible solution based on some enduring principles that he lives by. And even better you can look at his 30+ year record to see that his stance in relation to these principles is consistent (vs. just taking his word for it “this time”). I didn’t think this kind of politician existed any more.

For some reason the mainstream media want everyone to forget that Dr. Paul exists. They want people to dismiss things that he says as “weird” and continue to focus on the “status quo” and the next “status quo” candidates. They want us to think that he is “unelectable”. I’m still not completely sure why this is. However, I would challenge anyone who hears something about Dr. Paul that seems “odd” to do some additional research and see what he truly has to say about the issue.

Don’t like his stance in regards to the Iraq War because that is what the “Democrats” say? Do some research on the real reasons he’s against the war and how he actually is more focused on the real defense of our country than anyone.

Don’t think that abolishing the IRS is possible? Do some research on how it actually is possible.

Think that he must be crazy because 9/11 truth people associate with him? Do some research on what he actually says about 9/11.

And finally if you don’t think that Dr. Paul can win, then you’re probably right. However as you start to do a little research don’t be surprised that you find yourself starting to believe and hope that things can become better again, and maybe you’ll even find yourself joining in to help him actually win!

Of course one man cannot save this country, but one man can give the people of this country hope again that given the opportunity they can save it themselves.

Whatever your “hot button” is, do some research on Dr. Paul and see if you don’t find yourself starting to believe once again that there might actually still be one “statesman” still around in Washington D.C.

Go Ron Paul!

Guest_007 – Do you know of someone else that has the answers? He’s got 30 years of being ignored. Maybe people are finally figuring out that his message was possibly the right one and everyone else has been taking us the wrong direction.

When I initially heard about him I thought the same thing you did. Just do a little research.

aaaahhhhhh…..and thus the reason nobody has ever heard of this guy until just recently! I knew there had to be a legitimate reason.
Interesting!

I personally think taxes need to be paid. That’s the price of living in a free society. It helps fund our military, it pays the salaries of the leadership of this nation, and much much more. Every democratic type free society pays taxes. Some more than others, but taxes nonetheless. Could they be reduced a little bit? Sure! Should the richer of us pay more and stop getting all these tax benefits on ridiculous things? Absolutely!
Middle class America pays the majority of the taxes in this country and it’s getting to the point where there won’t be a middle class America anymore. It won’t be long until it will just be the upper class and the lower class and I think Ron Paul is the man for the job. So what if he’s seen a UFO? I’ve seen an unexplained object in the sky on a couple different occasions. It could be any number of things, it doesnt mean he believes there’s Martians out there! Just because things like this aren’t seen all the time, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I say give Ron Paul a chance! He certainly can’t do any worse than the current administration!!!

Getting rid of the IRS wouldn’t eliminate all taxes, it would just eliminate “unconstitutional” taxes (at least they were until Amendment 16).

I still haven’t heard any other legitimate arguments on the supposed Ron Paul Conspiracy Theories.

And I’m still waiting to hear about anyone else that has any better ideas than returning the original intent of the Constitution as Dr. Paul continues to suggest (all the other so-called good options just keep digging us into a bigger and bigger hole).

P.S. For those of you who do support Ron Paul, we do have a Meetup Group with ~50 members in the Idaho Falls/Rexburg area. Please check us out at meetup.com. We are the Ron Paul Meetup Group #431. Search for Idaho Falls Meetups or Ron Paul Meetups in the Idaho Falls area.

Also please remember the Boston Tea Party Anniversary Event this December 16 – http://www.teaparty07.com. This time around it is to protest the oppressive (and hidden) inflation tax. Don’t believe it exists – just do a little research!

Who is Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is the guest for the entire hour of Glenn Beck either tonight or tomorrow.

Glenn is uber conservative, probably more of a Huckabee/Romney fan (Glenn is LDS) but this could be interesting if you really want to check into Ron Paul.

Glenn’s show runs on CNN Headline News about 3 times each night.

Glenn Beck is also on AM560 from 2 or 3 to 6pm. I think Glenn Beck should run for President myself!

Maybe he was tired or having a bad night. (we ALL have them) Every time I’ve heard him speak he’s very well spoken and is the furthest thing from a “blithering idiot”.
You know it’s one thing to support a different candidate, but there’s no reason bash an opposing candidate and call him names. That’s just childish and really shows how little class you have.

I think it’s funny that 15-30 second sound bites in a debate (Bill Clinton was excellent and Romney has got it down now) now dictate how “good” a candidate is vs. someone that has a 30 year impeccable record. Thomas Jefferson hated to speak and wasn’t always the most articulate unless he had time to think things through, but at the same time he also wrote the “Declaration of Independence”.

Yes, Dr. Paul could work a bit on his presentation skills, but look at his record and you will find no one better. Also, what I have found sad is that personally I sometimes don’t always understand what Dr. Paul says because he is talking about issues that the Major Media doesn’t talk about (but in actuality are the more important issues of our day). For example, ask most people about the true meaning of “inflation”, if the Federal Reserve is a government department, etc. and you’ll find that we haven’t been very well educated from our “TV” culture. Sometimes it’s just hard to admit that Dr. Paul just knows more than the rest of us. (72 years of living and studying sometimes does that.)

Also, if you really don’t agree with Dr. Paul then please give us something of substance. When you use “name calling” it ends up giving even more credibility to the candidate. If there’s something specific you disagree with then please share.

I’ll wait till Google Ron Paul can rise above 1% in the polls then I’ll give him some love.

GuestIF said…

“I’ll wait till Google Ron Paul can rise above 1% in the polls then I’ll give him some love.”

Great idea! Wait till he either looses or fails before you even look into it. I can see it now -”I’ll wait till ya win Mr. Jeferson/Washington etc. Then I’ll support the cause of freedom”. You bore me Guest. To no surprise, you of course are like many here in are part of the problem…You remind me of the guy that just kicks in a few snide remarks and his “two cents” once every four years, that is the extent of your political activism. No wonder we are where we are today. Turn back on your TV and go back to sleep. Put your head back in the sand where it has been before you stumbled on this post as you are doing no good here.

Dr. Paul did raise 6.6 million in one day and it is a record. Three things that make it even more impressive are that it was all from small time donations, it was not organized by the official campaign, and it was done before the primaries. The other large political fund raising days have always happened after a nomination.

Some very interesting points here in the comments. Just as a note, to those who are worried about the IRS going away and not having roads or local police don’t worry. Firstly, the amount taken in from personal income taxes will be offset by the savings from less federal spending. Personal income taxes currently make up only about 43% of the money going into the federal government. As I understand Ron Paul’s positions – he is mostly for a limited federal government. State governments can still assess taxes as they see fit on their citizens. The thinking is that the more local the government is the better they will be able to do what is right and needed for the people. I find Ron Paul very refreshing and honest. He is not a politician in the normal sense of the word – so he doesn’t always impress people at the debates. He is not a smooth talker that can make you feel good without saying anything of substance and a lot of doubletalk.

I’m glad to see a good discussion on this site. Paul supporters can be overly excited at times, but that doesn’t mean we think everyone must agree or else. I am happy if you don’t agree that the federal government has too much power and want to vote for any of the other candidates who wish to increase the power and scope of the government – as long as you are making an informed choice.

I think the point that the Ronulans are missing is that he is only one man who will have ZILCH, ZERO, NADA support from Congress. I don’t care if he wins in a landslide (if he ever gets that far), he won’t be able to do much, if anything. He talks a good line and I agree with a lot that he says, but…… he’s too “aggressive” and polarizing in his ambitions and he scares the hell out of the typical “Jaywalk All-star” voter.

The way to eat this proverbial elephant is from the ground up, IMHO. We need to get like minded folks elected to local and state offices first, then to national office, so as to build a support base for these ideas. Until then, it will always boil down to voting for the “lesser of two evils” A.KA. maintaining the status quo.

LR_Import, you bring up a good point that I’ve discussed quite a bit with many of my friends. However an additional question usually comes up. Now that we are so far away from the original intent of the Constitution, do we need some un-constitutional approaches to get back to it? For example Congress is powerless in many ways right now (some by choice, but many by Presidential Executive Orders and also by Unconstitutional Supreme Court legislation). Yes, ideally it would be nice if we could have a complete ground-up movement through our representatives, but considering where we are as a nation (economically; our foreign policy; our socialistic approaches in healthcare, education, social security, etc.; our stance on national sovereignty; and the list goes on), I come back to instead Dr. Paul’s candidacy as maybe the only real hope for a ground-up effort in this environment. And here is where I’m unclear (please comment), but maybe if Dr. Paul was elected and could use some short-term executive orders to better manage our foreign policy, to better allow for short-term fixes to our socialistic programs, etc.; then we could hopefully get back to a place where we as the people could also then elect new representatives to truly take us back to the Constitution.

Maybe there is another option, but I have yet to see one put forth by any of the other candidates. All I hear from the Democrats is full-speed ahead with additional socialism (which will bankrupt us/is bankrupting us). And all I hear from the other Republican candidates is that just be optimistic, just trust in me, and I’ll figure out how to fix everything (I’ll let you keep your tax cuts and let you keep your government programs). Well a Republican President and a Republican Congress had 6 years to “fix” things and they just made things worse. So until these other Republican candidates can offer something truly different than what we had from 2000-2006, I come back to Dr. Paul as the best option available. I know the media makes him out as a “nut”, but I’ve seen more people unite under him than I have in any “movement” in a long time. This is the ground-up movement–please jump in!

LR_Import

If Ron Paul wins, It will be the biggest precedent in politics set in the last 50+ years. Congress will be scared to death and will fall in line for they know like the grass hoppers in the movie A Bugs Life that we the Ants are way too powerful to mess with. The political perspective that the people (the majority) don’t care any more is being smashed and will be demolished if Ron Paul wins.
If he doesn’t get the nomination or win the election for president, this movement is not going away. Can you imagine a social net work of 500k to a million plus voters organized, angry, and vocal injecting their concerns, disappointments, and marching in the streets? A new day is dawning in american politics, I for one welcome it, mostly because it activates the greatest check our government has for checking the power of the government, the people.

I wasn’t planning to say the above, but I couldn’t help myself. What I really wanted to post is this long winded piece that follows. Please comment on the ideas and questions I ask. I along with many of you are really concerned about such things and how they are perceived and what we can and should do to rectify our political problems. thanks for your indulgence.

Is Ron Paul is just too idealistic?

A week or so ago, while talking to a friend of mine about the candidate that I endorse for the President of the United States, I was blind sided by his accusation that Ron Paul had voted for appropriation bills that were totally unconstitutional. I replied that I could not speak to that because of my lack of knowledge concerning his actual voting record, but that to my understanding that couldn’t be true. Upon further investigation, however, I have found his accusations to be spurious.

During my investigation and comparison to his candidate Duncan Hunter, I found their two voting records in sharp contrast to each other. Hunter showed a plethora of spending votes, while Paul, showed zero. Well, he had “yes” votes but they were all constitutional, voting to restrict funding for unconstitutional appropriations.
I was upset when questioning him further, after presenting my findings, that he had basically taken an attacking sound bite against Paul from the media, and used it to support his personal view that Paul “wasn’t all that”. It just so happened to be that he was, and is all that, and more.
My friend (and I do consider him a friend not a foe), then went on to articulate that he was trying to say (hopefully I can quote him accurately), that although Dr. Paul is idealistic he has to compromise some times to get things done and that his compromises are unconstitutional. As we then went back and forth, I came to realize that the sound bite that he was talking about were concerning the earmarks that he put into appropriation bills, and not his alleged voting for them that was the real issue.
As I tried to address this idea, I explained that Ron Paul believed that he had an obligation to his constituency to ask for earmarks that were requested from his congressional district. He feels no obligation to weed them out or qualify them, so his policy as of 2007 is to allow them to be earmarked to the appropriation bills.
Where this gets sticky is that he never will vote for a bill that has an earmark attached because it is against his stated principles of “never voting for legislation that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution”.
The question really is then if Ron Paul understands (and I’m sure that he does) that allowing the acceptance of earmarks attached to bills is unconstitutional, then why does he allow them, and is it wrong enough to make a huge deal over? That I can only conjecture about since I have never heard him speak to that exact question, so I will try.
Some times perceptions are realities no matter how false they may appear to some more educated or enlightened. We are constantly being bombarded with ideas and concepts that if we do not look into and check up on we could be considered ignorant in. One example would be in defining the term of our government. The media is constantly telling us that we are a democracy and that the form of government that out founders envisioned for us was such. The fact is we are a Republic. These are two totally different types of government ideologies. Could it be that we have confused these governing structure processes as well? I do not think that would be too much of a stretch to consider.
So, what a constituency believes is the proper role of government may become reality in time, or what is generally accepted by the majority and indulged in by your neighbors may become the status quo practice. A politician wanting to get back to proper processes may indulge the present system for a time, while he hopes for a chance to get back to the proper role of his respective Government.

My friend disagreed, but I’m afraid only because we were talking about the idealist Ron Paul. He seemed to have no aversion (I’m being facetious due to the direction of my friend’s unwarranted arguments) to his candidate’s apparent total disregard for the rule of law of the constitution by adding earmarks, voting for them and voting for totally unconstitutional appropriation bills that he accused my candidate of falling prey to. I think this is called largess in the political world (voting money from the public treasury for special interests and the general public to get re-elected).

So ignorance of constitutional principles which you have taken an oath to protect and preserve is more forgivable than indulging the people in some areas, while they get their constitutional moorings? A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, so can we expect the general public to understand constitutional principles and forfeit opportunities that they see their neighbors taking advantage of when he has been taught his whole life that this is the way government works? Everyone in congress asks for earmarks, and we all pay in so why not get some of our own money back? Sounds reasonable, but is dangerously unconstitutional. So what is to be done?

If all congressmen voted like Ron Paul there would be no discussion about earmarks for they would be irrelevant. The bigger question in the minds of some of the more cynical among us (and with good reason) is…Is Ron Paul doing this out of principle or out of avarice for power and acknowledgement?
Some basic information may help you make that decision on your own:
Ron Paul opted out of the lucrative congressional pension program. Why?
He has never taken any money from a special interest lobbyist. Why?
He returns a portion of his congressional staffing allowance to the treasury every year. Why?
He has returned back to Washington in his golden years to fight for freedom instead of retiring to private life. Why?
He has never voted for a congressional pay raise. Why?
He supported Ronald Reagan in “76” when no one else would, but then refused to fund the congressional metal of honor to the Reagans, but instead offered to pay for his share of the cost out of his own pocket but couldn’t get his contemporaries to do the same. Why?
All congressmen have the ability to keep earmarks hidden from the general public. Why does Ron Paul keep his actions and earmarks transparent? Maybe because he is an idealist?

Isn’t it odd how fickle and cynical we have become towards men with high ideals who come so close to political perfection that we just cannot believe their reported actions. We strain at gnats and swallow camels as we try to prove to ourselves and others that idealism is foolish. Yet as a Christian nation we believe in a theology that is absolutely idealistic, and to some unrealistic to even try to live by.
For instance, the scriptures seem to be speaking oxymoronically when they say we are to become independent of all creatures under the Celestial world, but to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness to save our lives. We are to become perfect, yet men who get close are taken up to heaven before achieving it, and most think that it is just unattainable (in fact we are told on our own it is impossible).
These statements are not oxymoronic to me because I understand what the Lord is saying. Just as Ron Paul, being an idealist, realizes that he must take what is given until the people understand and there is a moral majority to move in that direction. Until then he will do what he can to effect change towards constitutional governance.

My friend often talks about idealism in a way I feel is totally appropriate, and in fact I encourage, so he is included in the idealistic category that I am trying to encourage. I hope he will not be too harsh on my man Ron for we are all vulnerable to finger pointing and hypocrisy. My next statement is not meant to be judgmental in nature but more inquisitive because I’m not his accountant but I know that he (my friend) knows that taking money through taxation from one segment of society and giving it to another is wrong (we may have a debate to its constitutionality but it is absolutely immoral). So, what does he do at tax time when his accountant says, hey I just got you a $4,000.00 tax credit for your children? Or when your children go to college do you discourage them from taking out government grants or loans for their schooling? If you are going to ride the hard line of constitutionality, shouldn’t it start with us?

The message of Ron Paul is virtuous, the principles he espouses are correct in relation to the proper role of government. Ron Paul is not perfect, he has his personal frailties, yet the message of freedom that he advocates in my estimation does not. He is an idealist to a fault, but aren’t most idealists? I know I am.
I wish Ron Paul didn’t include ear marks to the appropriation bills, but the fact is my thoughts are not his thoughts and so I may not quite understand exactly where he is coming from, but, I can tell you this much, I wont “throw the baby out with the bath water” He’s head and shoulders above the competition. And by the way, wouldn’t hoping for more that what we have be a little idealistic?

God bless us to uphold, restore, and embrace the heavenly banner of ideal governance, The Constitution of the United States of America, until the only King righteous enough to reign in perfection sits to rule as King of kings and Lord of lords. Until then may the God of Heaven bless men the likes of Ron Paul to continue to believe in idealism, “for whatsoever is more or less that this cometh of evil”. God bless and good luck.

Dan

I had an interesting and educational political experience in college as a student senator. A ’special interest’ proposal to spend a big chunk of student activity fee funds was made by a group of students whose agenda was opposed by most individual students. (It was supported by a narrow majority of the student senators since those who joined the senate were more ‘activist’ than the student body as a whole. The details of the proposal are unimportant, but my procedural blunder in trying to defeat it is on point.)

Since a minority of the senators were opposed on principle to the expenditure since it funded something with which we totally disagreed, the ‘purist’ position was to vote no straight up or down.

Someone wiser than I was proposed an amendment to reduce the scope of the funding by half.

Evidently I thought we had the votes to kill the thing altogether, and the prospect of supporting the amendment made me feel as if by voting for it, I would be making it more likely that some funding would actually pass which I did not want to happen.

So I voted against the amendment and one or two of my colleagues following my lead did so as well, such that the amendment failed. Had we voted for the amendment it would have passed.

On the vote for the unamended proposal we fell short and the thing passed in its most gross and expensive original form.

I learned from this that in the preliminaries, you angle for the best deal you can make, even that deal is one with which you cannot live. Then in the final vote, you vote your conscience. Doing it this way allows you to minimize the damage while preserving your integrity.

One could argue that in the Congressman’s case he cynically relied on the votes of other spendthrift colleagues to pass what he himself voted against so as ‘to keep his hands clean’ I suppose. However, there is nothing in record as a lonely firm voice of principled dissent sometimes solitary and sometimes among a mere handful in opposition, suggesting Ron Paul has such a cynical nature.

I for one much appreciate J Adams’ comments.

Frankly I am thus far astonished at what might be called the ‘nuanced’ thinking of the vast mass of Ron Paul supporters, who aren’t sidetracked by the pitfalls set up for them by the supporters of the status quo, even so-called neocons. (I do not call the latter enemies of freedom because in many if not most cases I think they are zealous and also of good will but lack understanding [*see Brandeis quote below].)

As the decades unfold, it has never ceased to amaze me — in my youth, I briefly believed the opposite and am delighted to be shown wrong time and time again — just how sensible and wise are the American people when they have full information and the time to digest it.

It is rather like an extreme case of the phenomenon in 1989 with the long oppressed victims of the former Soviet Bloc. Having been fed two generations of lies and balderdash by their Soviet Marxist masters from almost the time they could speak, these fine people given the first opportunity, immediately dismissed the whole of the hooey and intuitively opted for freedom.

Each time I begin to worry that this spontaneous apprehension of reality is no longer so, events spontaneously occur to prove that my worries were mistaken.

There are nowhere nearly enough people in America who previously even had heard of Ron Paul (even though he once before ran for President) to account for the magnitude and breadth of the grass roots resonance and traction that his 2007 and 2008 Presidential run is finding. To be sure, many of his younger supporters were toddlers in the late 80’s.

In a generation of cynics, liars and crass opportunistic manipulators, finding anyone in politics — GOP or Democrat — who speaks with integrity, wisdom, conviction and knowledge, is such a precious and scarce good that anyone encountering it is nearly enchanted.

I believe more than a few among the current crop of politicians are the very people in my opinion that the Founding Fathers warned us against, those Franklin meant when he cautioningly said, “A republic, if you can keep it,” when asked what kind of government that the Constitutional Convention proposed.

No matter what happens down the road — and I believe that a Ron Paul presidency now is far more than an ephemeral possibility — the word is spread and the torch of liberty is successfully being passed to a generation who will live and share it among the next three to come.

No matter what happens down the road — we are at a crossroads and the legacy of our parents and grandparents might possibly, however briefly, even be lost — there is now a broad deep reservoir of understanding and common sense about freedom and America’s part in it that is irrepressible.

No matter what happens down the road — for good or ill, none of us can divine the future — those of us who have dedicated a portion of our lives to ensure that liberty and freedom will survive can know already, now, today, that we have accomplished our goal and that no force, no matter how malevolent, can stamp it out or eradicate our effort.

If one or more individuals during the course of promoting Ron Paul’s campaign should err on the side of zeal, we can be confident that they do so meaning well. And even if their statement or action should prove to be in error, they will not have acted without understanding of freedom or our American heritage.

* “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal — well-meaning but without understanding.” – Justice Louis Brandeis

I was tempted again.. I steered over into the light of looking more into what is now being called “Ron Paul’ism”.

I know it”s not good to do such for me as it will only further alienate me from the rest of the lemmings and then if I do this, how will I support my self and family? But I guess the hopes is that there will be enough of us all, even here in apathetic I.F. and in the heart of neoconservative’ville.

I again took a look at this S.E. Idaho blog for Ron Paul. They have posted a graph of some sort detailing more information on the Underdog theory. I must admit, Clinton I recall as being thought of as an underdog and he got in.

The man isn’t crazy and his supporters are just zealous for a great cause. It has been a very long time since I really got behind any politician and thought of them as anything other then just that – politicians.

I am half tempted to smack myself for being delusional when I realize how many here in our little I.F. area really and truly are politically motivated and who really do any more research into a story outside of the PC PstRgstr. I know the younger generation don’t read that rag so perhaps there is hope afterall considering they have yet to give him the time of day.. Like I said, I hate to get optimistic about the state of the nation, and my town both. But every now and again… I get sidetracked and start actually believing in the people once again.

Someone please stop me from doing the above. Please reassure me that we have all lost our minds and that there is no hope for our country or our state much less the common man.

Stop me from looking at this I.F. site and reading positive comments from people with heads on their shoulders. Someone please get that Ron Paul Eastern Idaho blog pulled down and let’s get back to doing nothing before I get excited and actually start volunteering to help write an article for that site or do something really drastic like donate money to this campaign and go join this Idaho Falls area Ron Paul meetup in thinking we can actually change something…

I seem to recall a similar feverish zeal for a candidate in 1992. His name was Ross Perot. If RP doesn’t win the Republican nomination and his supporters talk him into a 3rd party run, won’t it be the irony of ironies to see Hillary elected the same way her husband was?

THERE IS? There hasn’t be a true “revolution” in this country for ages! That’s why our government is the way it is. Government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around. But ours has brainwashed so many for so long into thinking nothings wrong and that we need our government to take care of us. It’s a sad state of affairs I tell ya! This is why protests work in other countries, but not in ours anymore. The governments in other countries are afraid of their people revolting and taking over, but ours just laugh and rarely give any news coverage to protests. Let alone care what the people think.
This country needs some serious reform and until we put our elections back into the hands of the general population, this country will never change. Get rid of the stupid caucus bs and the electoral college. It’s ruining our way of life!

Nobody is perfect and you’re going to find good and bad in EVERYBODY, no matter who you are or what type of upbringing you had.

Ron Paul was on Jay Leno last night and I thought he handled himself quite well. Jay asked some really tough questions and I was very impressed with Dr. Paul.

Personally, I think Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs.
The author of that article was all about pulling out little snipits of Ron Pauls newsletters and completely twisting them out of context. You could do that with just about anybody’s speeches or whathaveyou.
Heck, you can do that with the Bible! And then you get to the bottom of the article and see the first remark made by poster “Ken” and I quote
” Unfortunately, your information is simply propaganda that is misleading, inaccurate, and definitely with a political agenda. I am ashamed that I read your entire post. Moreover, you contradict yourself. Van Meses was a jew- so how can Dr. Paul be an anti-Semite. Do your research thoroughly without a political agenda and you will see that your are way off. Thank you very much but no thank you. Note: I am Hispanic and I despise smears.”

Good try regardless…..
Like I stated at the beginning of this post. You can find good and bad things about EVERYBODY. However, like the previous comment, some people only focus on the bad, or in this case take quotes out of context and twist them around to make someone else look bad. Those of us that have done more than look for one bad article written about someone and base their opinions on that, know better.
Better luck next time!

Please do some research. This “smear” report has been brought up multiple times and been addressed multiple times. It’s interesting that someone would bring it up again today, considering it’s New Hampshire’s elections.

Here is Dr. Paul’s official response. If you check around you’ll also find that these claims have been pulled from most web sites since they were proven incorrect.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Some additional information also can be found at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018424.html

TNR Hit Piece Removed from The Drudge Report
Posted by Nick Bradley at January 8, 2008 03:30 PM

The Drudge Report is no longer linking to the Kirchick hit piece. I guess Matt Drudge has realized that it doesn’t even meet the National Enquirer level of believability and has decided to disassociate himself from such a trashy piece. FOX News won’t even link to it!

From the comment section on the TNR article, I think the following post sums it up nicely:

I’m a black guy. I’m having trouble determining which candidate to support. Should I support one who advocates dismantling the single largest institutionally racist program that has oppressed African Americans (hint: its initials are WOD), but who may have had an employee or two who wrote some stupid things twenty years ago that should have been edited? Or should I support the candidate(s) who pose with the working class black mom, may play a jazz instrument (ooo, how “black” of them), and yet advocates (explicitly or passively) the continued incarceration of hundreds of thousands of non-violent young black men? Hmm, tough call. What do you think I should do, TNR? You seem to have a real deep understanding of modern racial sociopolitical issues.
I would also like to note that the “Free At Last” moneybomb, scheduled on January 21st to commemorate Martin Luther King Day, has the same number of pledges through 5 days as the Nov. 5th Moneybomb.

Man give me a break.

You don’t read anything about Ron Paul until you read a hit piece by Mona Charen, then suddenly you have “concerns?” Do you honestly think that is a valid basis for making a judgement?

Mona Charon, like all other neo-cons, hates Ron Paul because he isn’t a supporter of Israel. That’s it in a nut shell. It really isn’t anymore complicated than that.

Ron Paul supports limited, federal govenrment. That means the states decide most issues. That’s the way this country was set up, and it has not been changed constitutionally. Ron Paul wants the governement and the people who work for it to OBEY THE CONSTITUION. Pretty simple no?

Ken

Tons of stories now turning up showing that people are voting for Dr Paul, but, surprise surprise votes aren’t being counted. One is reminded of the famous Stalin quote about it not counting who votes, but who counts the votes.

http://www.ronpauforpresident2008.com and http://www.infowars.com are both linking to tons of articel online showing this.

One is also reminded of the JFK quote on peaceful revolutions being made impossible, and the violent revolutions being made inevitable.

I love how people say he blames the americans for 9/11. if you actually listen to what he says..
he stated that it is not our fault. it is our policies that are the problem. and obviously we don’t need to be over there. foreign policy needs to be changed. that’s what he’s about. and i love how the guy who wrote this whole paragraph of laughable crap doesn’t even take the time to read any of the stories and so has no idea of what he’s even talking about. gg buddy..

That’s the problem…
Ron Paul may have some good ideas and may want to turn our country around, but unfortunately nobody is taking him seriously and so he’s not even “in the running”. (which is quite sad imo)
Until we change our voting system to a popular vote instead of all this primary garbage & electoral college bs, our problems with this country will never get fixed. We’ll continue going deeper and deeper in debt and our dollar will continue to be worth nothing. Our current administration continues to put band-aids over everything and not really fix the major problems. This country needs a triple by-pass surgery, not a band-aid!
And until that happens, this country will continue to destroy itself from the inside out.

Is he still running???

What is wrong with challenging Zionism? http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

http://www.chomsky.info

Jew and Zionist are not interchangeable terms.

I disagree with #104, because I feel the (off-topic) subject is infinitely more complex than “Jews trying to preserve a homeland.”

I also do not agree that challenging Zionism is hateful towards anyone, especially Jews. Nor would the significant numbers of anti-Zionist Jews throughout the world.

Here is another useful site. http://www.answers.com/topic/zionism.

Hi Crystal,

YOU raised the “off topic” subject and posted three links to it………!!!

…..you really can’t control what everyone thinks and/or says on these posts and I wonder if that is the source of your unhappiness with IFLZ and your attempts to convert it to something more benign, like the “CITYDATA” site you keep referencing…….

just a suggestion.

Yeah, but babs loves to argue with her. She can’t resist a good disagreement either. Ladies, chill!

So, bailouts are on the horizon. A blank check is about to be handed to irresponsible firms for giving out loans to people who couldn’t pay them in the first place. Does anyone remember that Ron Paul warned us about this?

He was right on the money. Here is a recent interview of Ron Paul on the bailout mess being engineered by Dems and Repubs to screw us further.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/4/15/ron-paul-sees-bailout-writing-on-the-wall.html

I am seriously considering voting for Paul in the Nov. Election. I can’t stomach what I am hearing from McObama right now!