[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: The War on Ron Paul Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they don't, Ron Paul IS the 'front runner' for the republican primary. Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting out Obama for the presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of the aisle, and is attracting the much sought after independent swing vote almost as fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet is indisputably Ron Paul country as countless polls and google trends have repeatedly shown. The gradual change in political rhetoric flowing out of Washington, D.C. over the last 3 years reflects an explosion of interest in the freedom message he spreads so tirelessly. The continuous growth in popularity of talk and news shows focusing on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts loud and clear the rising prominence of issues he has brought to the debate. For anyone with any powers of discernment, it's a no-brainer. So why do media pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable experts of self-aggrandized consequence spend great swathes of time, effort, and someone's money working so hard to convince the people otherwise? You can't turn on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet without encountering the words "He can't win," or some other lame variation repeated ad nauseam with great gusto. According to all the most acclaimed talking heads, that mythical beast "The Front Runner" has yet to be seen on the horizon and is still to arise from some unknown lair, "blazing a new trail" of GOP fame and success across political skies sometime in the not too distant future. Their blind adherence to this tired refrain boggles the mind. Personally, I can find only one reason for the constant repudiation...fear. Fear of the known...Ron Paul, and fear of the unknown...future largess. The status-quo is cornered and its biggest backers are flailing in desperation through media and political mouthpieces. With decades of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all in Washington that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money, power or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply...not for sale. Lobbyists for special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is such an undisputed reality that they don't even darken the door of his congressional office. His opinion can not be leased by the highest bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion. He is a man who stands his ground, refusing to back down, flip-flop, or play the political game of corporate footsie that entangles so many on the Hill. This is the kind of strength America not just needs, but deep down hungers for in a president. America does not need a president with the strength to circumvent law by executive order, ignore Congress and engage in needless conflicts, or break international and common law to achieve a victory. Those who stand to lose the most under a president who would not compromise the peoples' liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law for any reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul. If we apply Donald Rumsfeld's ludicrous scale of measurement, in use long before he popularized the phrase during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, then Ron Paul could aptly be termed a "known, known". Needless to say, much heated discussion has probably occurred in many a smoky back room about this unpleasant reality. Logic tells us that a good number of those rooms might even be located in the Pentagon. Ron Paul has never made a secret of the fact that he would like to: reduce military spending to that needed for defense only; bring the troops home from all foreign bases; and restore foreign affairs to a non-interventionist policy more befitting a Republic that purports to be the shining example of liberty. Accomplishing these goals would of course mean a vast reduction in the present size and budget of the military industrial complex and can be only a cause for apprehension in those quarters. If recent world events are any indication, the threat must be great indeed. In an unprecedented flurry of efficiency the military, under direction of Commander in Chief Obama, has recently not only rescued another country from tyrannical oppression, but tracked down and killed the world's worst terrorist, Osama Binladen, thus proving its undoubted worth and necessity. Unfortunately, the tyrant really isn't gone yet and no one can figure out exactly what happened with the bin laden operation. Nevertheless, we've been assured of the worthiness of our current pedal-to-the-metal monetary support for the military industrial complex. If we haven't then we're obviously unpatriotic and borderline terrorists ourselves. Of course no one would actually dare accuse Ron Paul of being unpatriotic. They'd be laughed right off the media stage, no matter how lofty their perch. So the approach is made from a different angle. That of foreign aid. Dr. Paul has clearly stated on numerous occasions that he would cut foreign aid to all countries, not only because of our fiscal situation but also because he believes we should respect the sovereignty of all nations and not try to dictate their policies through bribes or bombs. Cutting foreign aid in and of itself does not seem to be a problem. Polls reflect that a majority of Americans support cuts to foreign aid. However, the idea of cutting all foreign aid brings on an instantaneous and seemingly mass hysteria with regards to Israel. If we dare to look past AIPAC and other lobbyist groups for answers which contain more rational ideas than the usual accusations of anti-semitism, unpatriotic betrayal, or abandonment of democratic friends, informative sources soon surface. In a report by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively, the "special relationship" between the US and Israel is explained more fully. Surprisingly, the military complex appears to play a weighty role here as well. A brief look at some benefits specific to Israel include: retaining 25% of aid dollars to subsidize its own defense industry instead of spending 100% to subsidize the US defense industry as other countries must do; not having to account for how aid dollars are spent; and being provided " with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need." There is a plethora of information in just this one report that evidences the detrimental effects of the "special relationship" American taxpayers purchase annually with their foreign aid dollars with what would appear to be little or no benefit to themselves. Interestingly, there is growing evidence of a substantive support in Israel itself for an end to US foreign aid which is seen by many there as "an affront against Israeli liberty and sovereignty, as well as a drain on the development of numerous sectors of the Israeli economy, such as the weapons and biotechnology industries." Based on just the above facts it can be argued that perhaps it's time for the American people to debate the prudence of an industrial complex deciding our military decisions, instead of a decisive military defending our national borders. Having hurled their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity and foreign aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next big issue to be refuted...individual liberties. Of course they don't often mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived heart of the issue...heroin. Ron Paul wants to "legalize heroin" is touted gleefully to choruses of "and prostitution!" A round of smirks is the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed, drug abusing prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers' heads and scare them out of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate for anything, much less republican party nominee. A thinking person might wonder why the fascination and focus on heroin, other than for the shock value of course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned. "Protecting individual liberty," Ron Paul often explains, "is the purpose of all government. Individual liberty is the right to your life, the right to your property and the right to keep the fruits of your labor." With those two simple sentences and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually mean in regards to federal government overreach, almost everything that the status quo fights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it any wonder the most inflammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity to derail the very idea? No matter how much Washington, D.C. wishes to protect Americans from themselves, lift them out of poverty, provide for their well-being, or ensure their safety from dangerous products and enemies, it cannot do so without infringing on their individual liberties and violating the Constitution. The federal government we live with today no longer serves the interests of the American people, but serves the special interests of: corporate cronyism; militarism for profit influence and empire; centrally planned debt management, counterfeiting, fraud and currency debasement. Those who would maintain the status quo, despite its almost certain destructive end, are beginning to realize just how much they have underestimated the power of a quiet, consistent message of truth delivered to the people by a man of principle. A man who would be president not for the power he could wield over the people, but for the power he would give to the people by restoring their Republic. So war has been declared again, but this time the war is on liberty...and Ron Paul.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
He's the RINO that could win. Your standard issue Republican doesn't stand a chance. I hope he switches to a third party after the cross over voters in open primary states like NH nominate a libtard. With the lib vote split between the D's and R's, a conservative third party candidate could very likely win.
Liar, Ron Paul is the farthest thing from a RINO one can get.
The GOP elites and their candidates are globalist, war mongering, statist, anti-American, and liberal. For example... Herbie Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney. These pukes are REAL republicans. Ron Paul is pro-American, non-interventionist, pro-liberty, and a conservative. See the difference? Since the libtards mentioned above are real Republicans, that makes Ron Paul a RINO.
Paul's view on OBL is moronic. There's no other way to describe it. It's "lights are on but no one's home" looney tunes. The "law" that was invoked to get OBL was passed by the US Congress on 9/14 but the legal underpinning for going after him has existed for centuries.
What is the legal underpinning for violating the sovereignty of another nation? It's "lights are on but no one's home" looney tunes. Look, both of you agree on something! I think you two are more alike than you are different. Probably why you don't get along. I'm seeing this a lot from you that are left of conservative. The left and the neo's are united against a single candidate. That tells me I'm absolutely on the right track.
Something that Ron Paul used to quote until we did it: Letter of marque and reprisal -- it's in the Constitution. In international law, Reprisal means: A reprisal is an act of Self-Help … by the injured state, responding—after an unsatisfied demand—to an act contrary to international law committed by the offending state….Its object is to effect Reparation from the offending state for the offense or a return to legality by the avoidance of further offenses... To be considered legitimate, reprisals must be taken in response to prior illegal attacks... I used to think Ron Paul was a Constitutionalist. He's not. He's a pacifist.
Yes thanks...I didn't feel like hunting it down...
The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[30] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[31] Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque Now, instead of acting in a conservative and constitutional manner by issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, we have fought and won two wars and are currently engaged in nation building in both nations, are courting war with Libya and Pakistan, not to mention Iran. I doubt either one of you would tell me that Paul didn't have the right idea 10 years ago.
I was against the first Gulf War why would do you believe I would be for the second?
I didn't state that you were for either of them.
There are no replies to Comment # 14. End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|