Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Ron Paul wrong again

Ron Paul: Wrong On The Taliban
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Ron Paul knows even less about the history of our enemies than he does about their proper treatment under the Constitution. He actually interrupted Monday night’s Republican candidates’ debate so he could interject the following:
I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al-Qaeda — you can’t mix the two. The al-Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says, “We don’t want foreigners.” We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.
Everything in this statement is wrong. Everything. Let’s start with the most basic point. The Taliban most certainly were not “our allies when we were fighting the Russians.” How could they have been, considering that the Taliban did not exist at the time of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?

I won’t belabor the point that it was not the United States but the Afghan mujahadeen, with the help of non-Afghan Muslims (mostly Arab), who did the actual fighting against the Soviets. We did, after all, fuel the anti-Soviet jihad with billions of dollars in materiel and other assistance — through our intermediary, Pakistani intelligence, with the Saudis matching our aid dollar-for-dollar. Presumably, this is what Representative Paul was talking about. Nevertheless, while a number of the Taliban’s eventual founders were veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad, the fact is that the Taliban was not established as an organization until 1994. That is five years after the Soviet Union skulked out of Afghanistan and three years after it collapsed.

Paul’s claim that the Taliban is just opposed to foreign interference in Afghanistan is patently absurd. To begin with, the Taliban’s creation was a direct result not of foreign invasion but of Afghanistan’s internecine tribal warfare after the Soviets left and the Americans lost interest. Its unabashed goal was to crush Afghan factions that impeded its establishment of a retrograde sharia state.

Moreover, the Taliban craves foreign interference, without which it would never have come to power. A Pashtun movement driven by Islamic scholars and spearheaded by Mullah Mohammed Omar in Kandahar, the Taliban owes its existence to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These Muslim nations, two of the only three nations in the world to recognize the Taliban-led government in Kabul, nurtured, armed, and financed the Taliban in its origin. They did so precisely because the Taliban was an effective ally in their machinations against regional rivals — India for the Pakistanis and Iran for the Saudis. The alliance was also grounded in the Taliban’s espousal of Deobandism, an uncompromising construction of Islam propagated in Afghan madrassas built by the Saudis’ Muslim World League in conjunction with Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s supremacist Islamic movement.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Taliban willingly gave al-Qaeda safe haven, knowing full well that bin Laden’s network was engaged in a global jihad that targeted the United States as its primary enemy. Al-Qaeda struck American interests several times while it had sanctuary from the Taliban, attacking American embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen before orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. By quite consciously accommodating and protecting an international terrorist organization that was at war with the United States, the Taliban joined al-Qaeda and became an enemy of the United States. It was thus every bit as much a part of al-Qaeda’s attacks on the U.S. as was al-Qaeda itself. That is not only how war works, it is a straightforward application of the criminal-law principles that Representative Paul claims to like so much — a conspirator and an aider-and-abettor is responsible for the actions of his confederates.

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Mr. Romney still lacks the consistency of political belief that drove voters to Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

An example:

Yesterday, Barack Obama was in Shaker Heights, Ohio, to deliver his awful class-war speech again. On page 39 of Mr. Romney's 160-page economic plan, he attacks the president's "inflammatory" rhetoric against "so-called millionaires and billionaires." Mr. Romney adds: "He actually includes every household earning more than $250,000 in that category." But turn to the next page, and you read that Mr. Romney will eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest "for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000."

This transparently insulates the wealthy Mr. Romney from attack, but the ploy discomfits and annoys his natural base. He's trying to force Republicans to cast a cynical vote in a year when many don't want to do that. Some will, but not all. It's the "not all" that could cost him the election.
READ MORE

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Game Over: Scans of Over 50 Ron Paul Newletters

From Kurt Vangsness:
Left wing blog, but contains copies of Ron Paul newsletters.
For a certain segment of the Ron Paul fanbase, no evidence of his disseminating hateful, paranoid material will ever be enough. . .

[snip]

It's fine to have convictions about things he believes in. But when you voluntarily whitewash his record or choose to ignore it and champion him anyway, you are complicit in supporting the idea that racism and homophobia are morally inconsequential to the process of running for President of the United States. And, while many Paul supporters consider racism a social injury subordinate to extra-legal military conflict, there are just as many who disgustingly handwave at racism because it's an inconsequential burp on the way to more tax cuts, Free Markets, Free Money, Free Black Peop — stuff for me!

[snip]

Below, I've tried to give helpful general (bold) titles to each excerpt of the various Ron Paul newsletters available. These come courtesy of a zipfile of scans sent to me by reader Heresiarch, who, along with others, compiled it from various sources back in 2008. I have omitted the over 65 pages of scanned federal earmarks Ron Paul requested for his district, in a fit of States' Wants pique. I have also omitted the scans of Von Mises Institute brochures about a Secession Conference at which Paul spoke. . .

Et tu, Mr. Destructo?
www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html"

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Ron Paul gittin' tired, may not make the long haul...

Ron Paul questioned Wednesday whether he would be able to endure a protracted fight for the Republican presidential nomination, wondering to reporters if he would be able to “hold up” through a long primary battle.

“I’m not looking forward to anything being long and protracted. So I hope it ends rather quickly and we do real well in the beginning of the year,” Paul said while campaigning in New Hampshire, according to CNN. “The organization is fantastic. The question is: am I going to hold up if I keep doing all this.”
If a long primary is too taxing, what would a presidential term be like?

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Friday, December 02, 2011

Time to Lock Up Uncle Ron in the Basement

Every family has a whackadoo relative – usually an uncle or an aunt of elderly comportment – who is indisputably insane but does exhibit lucidity with sufficient frequency to risk seating next to grandma at Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner...
I suppose I can start by declaring that Crazy Uncle Ron is also Utterly Ignorant Uncle Ron, who appears to know next to nothing about Islam and even less about its history since it first appeared in the 7th century – long before the United States was even a glint in the Founders’ eyes.

GREAT ARTICLE!

UPDATE:

From Robert Gismondi:
He forgot one thing. When Jefferson's ambassador, 200 years ago, asked the representative of the Barbary state why they attacked and plundered our ships and enslaved the crews, he replied that, "That is what we do."

He said nothing about occupying "their lands," and supporting dictators. They were persuaded to back off by non-Paulian techniques. Google Stephen Decatur. He and his men put "The Shores of Tripoli" into the Marine Hymn.

Similarly, when Muslim hordes thrust into Europe, finally to be stopped by Charles Martel, they were simply killing off Christians and Jews, and conquering the land of western civilization, a century after Mohammed founded the religion of peace.

Spanish queen and king Isabella and Ferdinand finally drove the Muslim hoards from the Iberian peninsula, after 700 years of Christian subjugation by conquering Muslim Moors.

We are presently the vanguard of Western civilization. Israel is the middle eastern redoubt of Judeo-Christian Western civilization. It is surrounded by barbarians.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Exposed: Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Ignorance and Naivety

During the recent Republican candidate debate, Congressman Ron Paul exhibited his ignorance and gullibility when the panel was asked "Do you plan to decrease Defense spending, to balance spending, or do you believe high spending is essential to security?"
After rejecting Santorum's thesis, Paul made his fatal blunder...

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Here is a list of canards that Ron Paul seems to continually repeat...


1) Ron Paul claims we have spent "trillions" on the war

Through the end of 2012, we will have spent around $1.4 trillion (not trillions), which amounts to about $120 billion per year average. 

By comparison Total Outlays projected for 2012 per the Whitehouse is ~$3.7 Trillion with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid accounting for ~$1.5 Trillion of that number (see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview).

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
March 29, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf 

2) Ron Paul and/or his followers claim the War or Wars are "Unconstitutional" since the Congress has never made a formal declaration of war. 

Yet Congress did approve the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Bill Summary & Status
107th Congress (2001 - 2002)
H.J.RES.114
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107%3AH.J.Res114:

Iraq Resolution was challenged in court in 2003 in Doe v. Bush and failed.

Doe v. Bush Opinion by Judge Lynch 3/13/2003
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf 

Excerpt of opinion:

The Constitution reserves the war powers to the legislative and executive branches. This court has declined the invitation to become involved in such matters once before. Over thirty years ago, the First Circuit addressed a war powers case challenging the constitutionality of the Vietnam War on the basis that Congress had not declared war. Massachusetts v. Laird, 451-10-F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1971). The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war over the course of six years, id. at 34, provided enough indication of congressional approval to put the question beyond the reach of judicial review:

"The war in Vietnam is a product of the jointly supportive actions of the two branches to whom the congeries of the war powers have been committed. Because the branches are not in opposition, there is no necessity of determining boundaries. Should either branch be opposed to the continuance of hostilities, however, and present the issue in clear terms, a court might well take a different view. This question we do not face."

Afghanistan
Public Law 107–40
107th Congress


To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

 3) Ron Paul claims that Israel's "blockade" of Gaza is an Act of War 

Video: Ron Paul denounces Israel’s flotilla raid, of course
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/03/video-ron-paul-denounces-israels-flotilla-raid-of-course/

Yet, if he read the Oslo Accords, he would understand that Israeli control of the Gaza coastline was part of the agreement.
Hamas’s useful Americans
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=229401 

Excerpt:
"Pursuant to the Oslo Accords negotiated and signed between Israel and the PLO, the Palestinians agreed that the Gaza coastline would be placed under Israeli control and that no foreign ships would be allowed closer than 12 nautical miles from the shore. Israel demanded this out of concern over widespread import of conventional and unconventional weapons into Gaza. Had it not been for this provision, there would be no Palestinian Authority today, and Israel would not have withdrawn from Gaza.

Because of this agreement, the Gaza maritime blockade is consistent with international law, and violating it constitutes a hostile action against the State of Israel. As such, Israel is permitted to utilize all necessary force to repel any seafaring intruders.

The UN’s soon-to-be-released Palmer Report, which investigated last year’s flotilla, will confirm that this is true."


4) Ron Paul claims that a "million" Iraqis have been killed because of the Iraq War.

Here is a recent interview of Ron Paul by Megyn Kelly on Fox News.

Megyn Kelly Interviews Ron Paul - FoxNews.com
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1113357701001/is-press-snubbing-ron-paul/ 

Ron Paul is likely referencing an erroneous Lancet "Study", which claimed there was between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqis killed in the Iraq War. The Study was funded in part by George Soros and was found to be statistically biased.

Here is the full analysis:

Data Bomb
By Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon, National Journal
Friday, Jan. 4, 2008
http://www3.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2008/0104nj1.htm 

Here is a more accurate source and the website is also anti-Iraq War so the organization that runs the site is not attempting to down play the number of Iraqi deaths.

Their estimate is no greater than 112,000. 

Iraq Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ 

5) Ron Paul claims that Israel can deter Iran by threat of nuclear retaliation, i.e., MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. 

Iran is run by Islamists who seek the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. They believe that the Mahdi will return when war, chaos and lawlessness engulfs the earth.

They are not afraid of dying for Islam. These are not people that are afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction or the death of their own people. They seek it.

It's the equivalent of threatening to kill a suicide bomber. MAD is definitely not a deterrent.

Here is a video produced by the Iranian Government:
The Coming is Upon Us - Translation: Reza Kahlili
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwiadYT-N9k 

Iranian Rulers, Believing Pre-Messianic Destruction Is Imminent, Make Film To Prepare Muslims
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-rulers-believing-pre-messianic-destruction-is-imminent-make-film-to-prepare-muslims/

Iran Film: Iran Plans to Conquer Israel, World
http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Ahmadinejad-Jerusalem-Iran-Hezbollah/2011/03/28/id/390925 

Ahmadinejad Claims Egyptian Riots Work of 12th Imam (Muslim Messiah)
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/16/ahmadinejad-claims-egyptian-riots-work-of-12th-imam-muslim-messiah/

6) Ron Paul, also claims that Islam/Sharia is not a threat. Islam/Islamists are already trying to undermine our country and are having some success. Europe already has major problems with Islam. 

(Too much evidence contradicting that claim to include all here)

Ron Paul: "Islam is not a threat"
The Alex Jones Show Wed 08.18.2010 part-5
http://youtu.be/fvoOOK6StuY?t=11m44s

Ron Paul: Without Hate For Islam Our Aggressive Foreign Policy Couldn't Continue
http://youtu.be/p8L2mH-kAlw

Ron Paul Slams NYC Mosque Demagogues
http://youtu.be/gLYCxeM78Ao

Islam: Do they Hate our Freedoms?
http://youtu.be/jcbPMdBTjwI

Ron Paul to Sean Hannity: “Stop with your Shari’a”
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/ron-paul-to-sean-hannity-stop-with-your-sharia/

Ron Paul Would Open America’s Doors to Sharia
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/

...............

Muslim Brotherhood's "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America" 05/22/1991
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf

Undated Muslim Brotherhood Paper entitled, "Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan"
http://shariahthethreat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Underground-Movement-Plan.pdf

Shariah Law and American State Courts
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

See report here:
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT

http://www.nefafoundation.org/newsite/file/FeaturedDocs/US_v_HLF_OppositionNAIT.pdf 

May Christians Preach Outside a Philadelphia Mosque?
http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2011/05/may_christians_preach_outside.html

Dearborn, Michigan: Muslims physically attack Christian groups
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/dearborn-michigan-muslims-physically-attack-christian-groups.html

81% of US Mosques Promote Jihad
http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/06/05/81-of-us-mosques-promote-jihad/

Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques
by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2011, pp. 59-72 (view PDF)
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause
http://youtu.be/ErzxOz3Dzv8 

7) Ron Paul claims Islam is attacking us because of US foreign intervention and he believes in a "Jeffersonian" foreign policy of non-intervention and avoiding "foreign entanglements".

Ron Paul claims that 9/11 was because of our "intervention" in the Middle East, i.e., "Blowback". He says Islam is attacking us because we are "bombing them" and that Iraq is an illegal war. Of course it doesn't matter that Congress passed a bill authorizing military intervention in Iraq, which was challenged in Federal Court and the Judge declined to intervene (see above).

He says he espouses Jeffersonian Foreign Policy as his excuse for his isolationist views. Of course history is always somewhat inconvenient in that Thomas Jefferson sent Navy ships and Marines to fight the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim Pirates from the Muslim Barbary states of the Ottoman Empire (Islamic Caliphate). They were attacking our unarmed merchant ships and enslaving our sailors, even though we were paying tribute to the Barbary States to not attack us.

Before Thomas Jefferson became President he and John Adams where sent to London to meet with the Ambassador from Tripoli.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Excerpt:
"In1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.' "
 

Also see: Barbary Wars
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

Excerpt: 
"In May, 1801, the United States refused to succumb to the increasing demands of the Pacha of Tripoli; in return, the Pacha declared war against the States. While Tripoli was not a strong power and little effort was necessary to watch and blockade it, the fear was that the other Barbary powers would join against the United States. The United States sent naval squadrons into the Mediterranean under the slogan of 'Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!' Under the leadership of Commodores Richard Dale and Edward Preble, the Navy blockaded the enemy coast, bombarded his shore fortresses, and engaged in close, bitterly contested gunboat actions." 

This "tribute" the US Government was paying the Barbary states was as high as 20% of the US Federal Government budget. The Muslim Barbary States likely considered it a "Jiyza" Tax. A Jizya tax is a tax that Muslims charge subjugated Kuffar (non-believers, i.e., Christians and Jews), meant to be so onerous as to impoverish the Kuffar.

Then when Thomas Jefferson became President he sent Naval ships to deal with the Muslim Pirates and Congress authorized it but did NOT issue a formal declaration of war (sound familiar).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Excerpt:
"In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed 'An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers', authorizing the President to '…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.' 'The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port.'" 

Someone should ask Ron Paul what was the United States doing to the Islamic Barbary States in 1786? Were we bombing them with hot air balloons or maybe.... carrier pigeons? Were we stealing their oil (at monopolistic prices)??

Why would they be attacking our unarmed merchant ships and enslaving the sailors??

Islamic Crusades 5: Why did they hate us in 1783?
http://youtu.be/vUuH2G7dPFk 
America's first "war on terror" Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates
http://youtu.be/BqwZcsvgl9c

The First War on Terror: The United Sates and the Barbary Coast
http://youtu.be/sB5BNDyGq1c 

8) Ron Paul claims we do not have trade relations with Cuba

A History Lesson for Ron Paul
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/12/a-history-lesson-for-ron-paul/ 

Excerpt:
"Ron Paul, in an exasperated tone during the Iowa debates, said: “All these trade sanctions!…This is why we still don’t have a trade relationship with Cuba.”

Ground Control to candidate Paul: according to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. has transacted almost $4 billion in trade with Cuba over the past decade. Up until two years ago the U.S. served as Stalinist Cuba’s biggest food supplier and fifth biggest import partner. We’ve fallen a few notched recently, but we’re still in the top half. Furthermore, the U.S. has been Castro-controlled Cuba’s biggest donor of humanitarian aid, including medicine and medical supplies for decades.

Ground Control to candidate Paul: For over a decade, the so-called U.S. embargo has merely stipulated that Castro’s Stalinist regime pay cash up front through a third–party bank for all U.S. agricultural products; no Ex-Im (U.S. taxpayer) financing of such sales. (You’d really, really think a libertarian would approve of this?) Enacted by the Bush team in 2001, this cash-up-front policy has kept the U.S. taxpayer among the few in the world not screwed and tattooed by Fidel Castro."


 Compiled by Kurt Vangsness

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Ron Paul recommends anti-Semitic author...

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign
In his book The Revolution: A Manifesto, Congressman Paul includes at the end a section called "A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America." And on that recommended reading list? Here's the entry, in full:
Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1944. Flynn, an accomplished journalist, analyzes fascism in Italy and Germany and concludes by considering the state of America in his day.
That's right. Congressman Paul is recommending the writings of a man who, in his day, was seen as a driving force behind the anti-Semitic liberal Republican Senator Nye and the Senate investigation into Jewish influence in Hollywood.
Anti-Semitism isn't the whole problem with Ron Paul and his followers, either:
But anti-Semitism aside, perhaps the real key to understanding the decided left-leaning tendencies of neoliberals is their considerable dislike of… Conservatives

You read that right.

Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with. . .
Read more

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Nation’s Oldest Conservative-Libertarian Activist Group Expels Ron Paul from Advisory Board

Young Americans for Freedom

As a former Libertarian, this makes me very happy!

Saturday, January 05, 2008

If candidates ads let it all hang out...

HILLARY - OBAMA - KUCINICH - EDWARDS - ROMNEY - GIULIANI - HUCKABEE - McCAIN - PAUL - THOMPSON

By Don Feder
Posted January 3, 2008

For a conservative, one of the masochistic delights of living in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, is listening to all of the cloying candidate ads – the pungent political fertilizer being shoveled into New Hampshire via Boston TV and radio stations.

If I hear of another candidate who “cares” or has “courage” or “vision” or supports “change,” I’ll begin cleaning my guns and listening to the voices again.

The other day, I heard a radio spot for the Creature from The Ninth Circle of Hell, sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers.

It consisted of a number of women chattering about the wonders of La Rodham, and what she’ll do for their children. “Education is the key to everything,” says one. “I’m supporting Hillary,” another gushes. A third assures us: “She really knows what’s going on. When she walks in, she’s gonna know what a president has to do.” (Here, the speaker clearly has confused U.S. president with Reich’s chancellor.)

Anyway, I thought: Wouldn’t it be peachy if the presidential candidates told us what was really on their (you should pardon the expression) minds.

It might go something like this:

Hillary Ad #1: “She couldn’t be bothered raising her own kid – when Bill was Arkansas governor, they hired a nanny, illegally paid for by the state’s taxpayers – but she wants to tell you how to raise yours. When Hillary says ‘it takes a village,’ she means a motley crew of social workers, bureaucrats and educrats. Hillary -- She has lots of experience talking about other people’s children.”

Hillary Ad #2: “’I’m Hillary Clinton, and I’m a power freak. For 30 years, I turned a blind eye to Bill’s philandering, and even played Tammy Wynette in public, for the power I derived from being first the wife of a governor and then first lady. During Bill’s White House years, I got a shot at nationalizing health care. Bill even gave me a say in cabinet and judicial appointments. Now, I want to step out from behind the throne and rule in my own right. Aren’t you getting a little tired of democracy and representative government? C’mon, give me a chance. I promise: It’s the last political decision you’ll ever have to make.’ Hillary -- for people who want to be told what to do.”

Hillary Ad #3: “’I’m Hillary Clinton, and I’m better than you. Sometimes I’m dazzled by my own brilliance. As long as I can recall, I’ve thought of myself as a superior being – both intellectually and morally. When Bill and I resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., aides were ordered not to look at me when they passed me in the hallway, lest I be sullied by their glances. You should be grateful that I’m willing to condescend to rule you, you pathetic peasant.’ Hillary Clinton – Here’s looking down at you, kid.”

Hillary Ad #4: “’Hillary here. If you’re a rich scoundrel who’ll someday need a presidential pardon, open your checkbook to me! Look what Bill and I did in our last weeks in the White House. What we did for Marc Rich (Time Magazine called his pardon ‘One of the Most Notorious Presidential Pardons’), we can do for you. Besides, Bill wants a crack at a new crop of White House interns.’ Billary -- because hormones are a terrible thing to waste.”

Hillary Ad #5: “I’m Hillary Rodham Clinton. If I’m elected president, I’ll pretend that North Korea isn’t developing nuclear weapons, just like Bill. Then, when I can no longer deny the obvious, I’ll sign a treaty with Pyongyang, just like Bill. And when Kim Jong-Il violates it, I’ll pretend it didn’t happen, just like Bill. And, when terrorists attack us, I’ll bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan, just like Bill. And then, I’ll disband the army, except for the gay division. And we’ll never go to war again, no matter what anyone does to us. And our children will pick flowers and learn to speak Korean and Farsi.”

Hillary Ad #6: “With no formal training and having despised capitalism as a student, Hillary turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000 in six months, playing the futures market. Turn the wolf of Wall Street loose on the federal budget.”

Hillary Ad #7: “Hillary knows how to keep a secret. When Bill was nominated in 1992, the paper shredders at the Rose Law Firm worked day and night. Hillary Clinton, she’ll make Richard Nixon seem open and candid. Can you say CIA Director James Carville?”

Obama Ad #1: “’I’m Barack Obama, and I have less experience than any other serious candidate. Three years ago, as a member of the Illinois legislature, I was taking constituent calls on potholes. But if you’re a guilty, white liberal obsessed with race, I’m you’re man.’ Barack Obama – politically inexperienced, Oprah approved.”

Obama Ad #2: “Democrats, I’m a political powerhouse. In 2004, I achieved the heroic feat of beating Alan Keyes for the Senate in Illinois. I have charisma to spare. And I’m really likeable, unlike you-know-who.”

Obama Ad #3: “To hell with the troops. Let’s signal the terrorists that they’ve won, by pulling out of Iraq now. The road to victory in the war on terrorism is paved with unilateral surrender. Obama -- for waving the white flag at Al-Qaeda.”

Obama Ad #4: “Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on the Iraq War. She voted in favor of the resolution authorizing intervention. Now she claims she’s against our involvement. Speaking to a veterans’ group this summer, she said the surge was working in ‘some ways.’ Hillary is a closet interventionist. Hillary in the White House would mean a continuation of the disastrous Bush/neo-con foreign policy. Hillary has a secret crush on Dick Cheney and writes anonymous mash notes to him almost every day.”

Kucinich Ad: “It isn’t easy getting to the left of Clinton and Obama, but Dennis – the Red Dwarf – Kucinich has managed to occupy that narrow strip of terrain. If you want a man in the White House who believes in UFOs – who might be an extra-terrestrial himself – vote Dennis. Besides, if you get tired of looking at him for 4 to 8 years, you can always look at his wife. Dennis Kucinich – ugly is as ugly does.”

Edwards Ad #1: “’I’m John Edwards and I made a fortune chasing ambulances. If you believe in multi-million dollar verdicts for women who scald themselves holding hot coffee between their knees while driving, support my candidacy.’ John Edwards – in tort lawyers we trust.”

Edwards Ad #2: “Most men who learn their wife has a recurrence of cancer would alter their career plans to be with her as much as possible and give her all of the support they could. Not the Breck Girl. If you admire blind ambition, vote Edwards in 08.”

Romney Ad #1: “I’m Mitt Romney, and I saw my father, the late Michigan Governor George Romney, march with Martin Luther King for civil rights. I also saw him land on Omaha Beach on D-Day, break through to Bastogne with Patton in the Battle of the Bulge, charge up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt and save the Union by stopping Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg. Actually, I didn’t literally see him do any of these things. I’m speaking metaphorically. What’s the meaning of ‘saw’ anyway? (See ‘Bill Clinton’s New Dictionary of the American Language.’)”

Romney Ad #2: “Mitt Romney: He lied to the people of Massachusetts for eight straight years, but he’s telling the truth now. You can trust Mitt Romney – to say anything to get elected.”

Romney Ad #3: “Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion, just like Ronald Reagan. Except, Reagan changed over years, Mitt changed over months. You might say Mitt had an epiphany on the Road to Des Moines. For most of his adult life, Mitt Romney was oblivious to the humanity of the unborn child. But after a mythical encounter with a Harvard stem-cell researcher, his eyes were opened. As a governor and a Senate candidate, Mitt also didn’t know what a handgun or an illegal alien was. Mitt Romney – he doesn’t have a clue.”

Romney Ad #4: “If Mitt Romney is elected president, he promises to build an electrified fence around his Belmont, Massachusetts home to keep illegal aliens from doing any more yard-work there. Mitt Romney – ready to get tough on illegal immigration in his own backyard.”

Giuliani Ad #1: “I’m Rudy Giuliani. I didn’t keep my promises to my first two wives -- to love and honor -- but I’ll keep my promises to you.”

Giuliani Ad #2: “Don’t ask Rudy Giuliani about his relationship with the Catholic Church. That’s between Rudy and his confessor, even though he doesn’t have one. And don’t ask him about his relationship with his children, who won’t even talk to him. Leave his family out of it! And don’t ask him how someone who was proud to be the mayor of a sanctuary city can secure our borders. Any other questions? Dial 1-800-Don’t-Ask-Rudy.”

Giuliani Ad # 3: “It’s time for conservatives to get over their obsession with abortion. And what better way to do that than to nominate a candidate who, as mayor, made New York City the abortion capital of America. If you’re a Republican who’s tired of getting the lion’s share of religious voters, we’ve got the solution. Rudy Giuliani – got choice?

Huckabee Ad #1: “I’m Mike Huckabee, and I want to be compassionate with your money. I believe in scholarships for the children of illegal aliens. It’s what Jesus would do – if he was a member of the National Council of La Raza.”

Huckabee Ad #2: Mike Huckabee isn’t sure if global warming is man-made. But he still wants a cap on CO-2 emissions, because we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment – even at the cost of wrecking the economy. Mike Huckabee -- we don’t need no stinkin’ jobs!”

Huckabee Ad #3: “Mike Huckabee believes in the DC voting rights bill, because minority-pandering and political correctness are more important than the Constitution. Vote Mike, and give the Democratic Party another House seat, and perhaps two Senators down the road, in perpetuity.”

Huckabee Ad #4: “’This is Mike Huckabee. Did you know that Mitt Romney is a member of a satanic cult that thinks the Devil is Jesus’ second-cousin once removed? I’m sorry I said that (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).’ Mike Huckabee -- because innuendo is a terrible thing to waste.”

McCain Ad #1: “He’s old. He’s mean. He shouts obscenities at Senate colleagues. Bleep kinder and gentler. Vote McCain.”

McCain Ad #2: “I’m John McCain and I was the chief Senate architect of the amnesty bill. Corporate America needs cheap, peon labor. We can’t arrest every illegal in the country; we haven’t got enough handcuffs. So why try? If I’m elected president, Mexico can close its embassy and consulates. I’ll represent its interests better. Vote for me, you stupid, racist gringos.”

McCain Ad #3: “’John McCain spent the past two decades pandering to The New York Times. He was – hands down – the media’s favorite Republican. He teamed up with Russ Feingold, a far-left Democrat, to stick it to his own party with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act., which partially suspends the First Amendment 90 days before a national election and unleashed George Soros in 2006. Bleep party loyalty. Bleep free speech. McCain for President.’ ‘I’m John McCain, and you bet I approve this message, you son of a -----.’”

Paul Ad: “Ron Paul is a knee-jerk isolationist. Ron Paul thinks there’s no national defense like no national defense. If you think 9/11 happened because ‘we bombed Iraq for 10 years,’ if you think ‘by far and away the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government,’ if you think heroin and prostitution should be legal, vote Paul. If you believe in black helicopters and CFR conspiracies, vote Ron Paul. If you want the foreign policy of Pat Buchanan with the social policy of Bill Maher, vote Ron Paul. If you don’t, his zombie army might get you.”

Thompson Ad: “Vote for Fred, in solidarity with the millions of Americans suffering from chronic-fatigue syndrome. ‘I’m Fred Thompson, and I’ll approve this message, as soon as I wake up.’”

Hillary Ad #8 – “This is Hillary Clinton, did you know Barack Obama is an addict, a Muslim, a card-carrying member of Al-Qaeda and part of the vast right-wing conspiracy? And if there’s one thing which I will not tolerate, it’s the politics of personal destruction.”

Now, isn’t this more fun than “She really knows what’s going on”?

An earlier version of this commentary appeared at GrassTopsUSA.com

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Ron Paul A Liberal-tarian, Not a Conservative

Written by JB Williams

©2007 USA

Ron Paul supporters are fast making a name for themselves on the web. Not because they are just web savvy, but because they have proven themselves to be the best at hacking on-line polls, invalidating conservative polling data on behalf of their candidate. It seems that even Democrat 527 MoveOn.org is now onboard the Ron Paul anti-war train.

Despite the fact that presidential candidate Ron Paul can not score better than 3% in any legitimate national poll, his supporters claim he is “the conservative” candidate to beat in the 2008 Republican race for the White House. Despite his less than conservative voting record in congress and his Teddy Kennedy like position on the war on terror in Iraq, his supporters think he is the most “conservative” candidate in the race. How?

On the Issues:

Not strong on life


Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Not strong on traditional Marriage

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)

Not strong on crime and punishment

Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Not strong on fighting the drug problem

Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

Not strong on free religious speech or private schooling options

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education

Not strong on national security and sovereignty

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Not strong on government reform and campaign transparency

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Not strong on Second Amendment Rights

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Not strong in the war on terror

We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

I can keep going, but you can go look for yourself if you need more information. I think this is more than enough to explain why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul for President. He’s better aligned with their thinking than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It’s true that he voted correctly several times throughout his lengthy political career too. But then, so has Hillary and Teddy. Paul is telling folks that he has never voted against Americans best interests, to paraphrase. Does that look true above?

The question is - why are some self-styled Republicans supporting him and why are they willing to adopt the liberal practice of manipulating on-line polls and trashing other conservative candidates in order to promote what is clearly not a conservative candidate?

In 1992, a similar set of events were underway, both liberal-tarian Republicans with an isolationist national security outlook and a desire to end all federal spending not aimed at benefiting them personally, worked together with liberal Democrats who shared those same “all about me” values to promote a third party candidate named Ross Perot. Together, they seated President Bill Clinton with less than 47% of the popular vote, against the will of more than 53% of voters.

A friend and fellow writer recently pointed out that libertarians are actually just social liberals who don’t want any of their money used to fund the natural consequences of a socially liberal society. They pretend to be conservatives, when all they really are is money conscious liberals with an isolationist view of the world they live in.

Ron Paul provides a perfect example. Like Ross Perot, the notion of ending all “unconstitutional” international spending and reducing taxes is appealing to both liberals and libertarians. Withdrawing from the world for monetary reasons might prove to be deadly, but it will result in temporary reduced spending and eventually lower taxes and that is the real goal.

Ron Paul claims to be Americas “constitutionalist.” I’m a constitutionalist, a strong supporter of the American ideals so carefully crafted by our founders more than 200 years ago. So, why am I at odds with Ron Paul?

First, he’s not a constitutionalist, except when it serves his political agenda which is that of an isolationist liberal-tarian, not a conservative. When he is playing constitutionalist, as in the case of the war on terror (specifically in Iraq), he is a foolish constitutionalist. He claims that the constitution somehow prevents us from protecting our national security interests abroad. He also fails to recognize that the national security threats are much different today, as compared to those present in 1776.

He has recently stated that America should have “declared war” before going into Iraq, and I agree. But in October of 2002, March of 2004 and June of 2006, he voted against such a notion. He has claimed that the Hussein regime posed no national security threat to America, despite the many efforts by the Hussein regime to specifically threaten America over the years. He also ignores the fact that congress has failed to “declare war” in ever military action since WWII, though they authorized military action in every case except Kosovo under Clinton.

Ron Paul uses the pieces of the constitution that serve his political agenda, while overlooking the fundamental concepts throughout our founding documents, a right to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, security, sovereignty, morality, public decency and personal freedom.

So again, why are some Republicans willing to use extreme tactics like poll manipulation and fellow conservative candidate bashing in order to promote such a liberal candidate?

It’s easy to figure out why liberal Democrats are supporting Ron Paul. He’s anti-war, pro- marijuana, pro- gay rights and abortion under the guise of “privacy”, pro- gun control, anti-trade and an isolationist who believes that America is the bad guy around the globe, rather than the generous beacon of freedom that has liberated more people than all other nations combined. He is a liberal of the blame America first, last and often sort. He is perfect for liberals who believe in all the same things… Only Cindy Sheehan or Jane Fonda can draw a bigger anti-war crowd.

Now try explaining why any Republicans support him? When you are through studying the views of his supporters, you will find that they have two common values, a strong anti-war isolationist view of world events and a deep love of their money.

At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters on both sides of the political aisle are driven by only two beliefs and one motivating factor. They are anti-war because they are anti-tax. They do not look beyond the agenda to reduce or eliminate taxes to see the consequences of the decisions they make. They would bring the war on terror abroad right to our own doorstep to save a few tax dollars and that allows Ron Paul to appeal to anti-war voters from the far left and the far right.

Thankfully, he has never appealed to more than 3% in any legitimate national poll. Sadly, his supporters will continue attacking all real conservatives and manipulating all on-line polls to cause further confusion and divisions among conservative voters.

The DNC is working behind the scenes to make him the Ross Perot of 2008, because no Democrat candidate can win unless the conservative vote is divided. Hillary Clinton can not get 50% of the vote in a general election and Barack Obama can not get even 40%. Republicans must be divided for Democrats to win.

That’s what the Ron Paul campaign is all about… Just my opinion of course.