Ron Paul

[American Patriot]

hehehe "Why are all the Ron Paul supporters so hysterical?"

I've been called hysterical when I scream about my rights (our individual rights).

[vector7]

Ron Paul’s Saul Alinsky?

Exclusive: Joel Richardson reveals 'scholar' candidate relies on for foreign policy

By Joel Richardson



Let me begin by making it very clear there are a lot of reasons to love Ron Paul.

He is a man with incredibly refreshing principles, ideas, qualities and character. There have actually been a couple of occasions where after listening to Paul, I have come close to joining the Ron Paul revolution.

But despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance. And just so that none of his supporters accuse me of misrepresenting him, here is what Paul himself infamously declared during the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina in 2008, concerning 9/11:

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

How is Paul’s position any different from Jeremiah Wright’s claim that 9/11 was simply a case of “America’s chickens … coming home to roost”? Paul may say it in a far less shrill manner than Wright, but his position is virtually identical. More specifically, on Paul’s own website, in an article titled, “Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror,” Paul clearly lays out his position:

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …

But where did Paul get this idea? We learn exactly from whom in the next paragraph:

Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.” In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95 percent were in response to foreign occupation.

It is essential to take note of the fact that the primary support for Paul’s belief concerning blowback comes from Robert Pape. The problem for Paul here is that by most accounts, Pape is an agenda-driven pseudo-scholar whose works and “studies” have been thoroughly debunked by several other scholars. I appeal to all supporters of Paul to read the following articles debunking Robert Pape’s, and thus Ron Paul’s, claims:

• “Design, Inference, and the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” in American Political Science Review
• “Contrasting Secular and Religious Terrorism” in Middle East Quarterly

But not only are Pape’s claims based on manufactured data, he has also been caught red-handed conspiring with the Hamas-linked group Council on American-Islamic Relations.

How many Ron Paul supporters can honestly say that they feel comfortable knowing that this is the man Paul looks to as one of his primary guides concerning foreign policy?

But beyond all of the high-minded analysis of data, I prefer to simply couch the discussion in terms that anyone can understand. Paul argues that if it had not been for our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have lost far fewer soldiers and we would all be far safer today. Let me ask this question: Would far fewer police officers be injured or killed each year if they all simply remained in their police stations and avoided ever engaging criminals? Of course they would. But would this make us all safer? Of course not. This is not hard to understand.

Evil exists, and there are times when it must be resisted. Freedom requires both responsibility and sacrifice. To cast the radical Islamic terrorists as the victims and the American people as those who deserve blame, which Paul has done, is simply asinine and downright disgusting. Ron Paul’s soothing grandfather-like persona may be far more palatable to most than Jeremiah Wright’s obnoxious rage-filled rants, but his habit of victim-blaming is no less repulsive and should be rejected by all genuine American patriots.

“Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes?” – Ron Paul

“Death to Israel!” –Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Finally – a few things about Paul’s stance on Israel and his Pollyannaish views concerning radical Islam.

To support his radical isolationist foreign policy, Paul has gone to some absurd lengths to deny the systemic evil of radical Islamism. Following his reliance on Pape’s debunked claims, according to Paul, the primary reason Israel is experiencing such resistance from the surrounding Muslim peoples is because of the Israeli “occupation.” I have heard this same claim made a thousand times by left-wing pro-Palestinian propagandists. Must I hear it from a so-called conservative as well?

But let’s think through the claim logically. Israel was officially established as a nation in 1948. But according to Islamic sacred tradition, it was roughly 1,300 years before when Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, declared the following prophecy:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

It is worth noting that this “prophecy” is listed as an eternal command within the actual charter of Hamas. But this vision of a last-days slaughter and wholesale genocide of the Jewish people was not “revealed” at a time the Jews were “occupying” anyone. There wasn’t even a Jewish state at the time. So what inspired Muhammad from the very early days of Islam to call for an eventual genocide of the Jewish people? If it wasn’t blowback, then what caused it?

There is much to love about Ron Paul, but until he is willing to acknowledge the very real reality of evil in this world, and the equally real need at times to confront it, he can kiss my vote goodbye. Too many Americans are looking desperately for a hero, and I’m sorry to say that Ron Paul is not the man.

[vector7]

WHY RON PAUL IS UNELECTABLE

By J.B. Williams
January 13, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

First, I must state that I deeply appreciate and applaud the passion and energy of the Ron Paul campaign and their undying loyalty to the concepts that his supporters believe Ron represents. No campaign is as focused and energetic as the Ron Paul campaign which actually began all the way back in 2008 and has persisted ever since.

What I don’t appreciate is the vicious and venomous nature of the average Paul supporter or their scorched-earth methods aimed at insulting or intimidating voters into supporting “their guy.” If it was my aim to destroy Ron Paul, all I’d have to do is publish a selection from hundreds of comments received from Paul supporters, full of F-bombs, insults, bold-faced lies and threats.

Fact is the Paul supporters’ behaviors are largely responsible for Ron Paul’s unelectable status. Leftists are easily fooled, intimidated and offended by childish insults and pre-school name-calling techniques like “neocon,” a term first used by Communists who coined the phrase decades ago to insult “greedy capitalist pigs,” later picked up by David Duke and the White Supremacist movement as a negative reference to Jews or so-called “Zionists.” But conservatives and true constitutionalists are not so easily fooled, intimidated or offended…

As if they can’t do simple math, Paul supporters find themselves in a very dangerous position, unable to achieve their stated goal of turning this country around by electing Ron Paul, but able to make things much worse.

The inescapable reality of the 2012 GOP race

• Iowa, New Hampshire and even South Carolina all allow non-republican voters to vote in their primaries and still, Ron Paul was unable to win these states with his cross-party supporters.

• Ron Paul is popular with some Independents and Democrats, but is not popular with most Republicans, or as Paul supporters call them, “neocons.” He can’t win the GOP nomination without the support of GOP voters, whom they can’t seem to stop insulting.

• Every poll shows that Ron Paul is the least capable candidate in the race, in terms of defeating Obama in November and removing Obama and Clinton from office in 2012, the single highest priority in America today.

• Barring a late surge by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina or Florida, Mitt Romney is going to win the GOP nomination whether I like it or not. McCain won South Carolina with 33% support because six candidates went to South Carolina in 2008. 2012 also has six GOP candidates in South Carolina, at least three of them, not really in the running.

But Ron Paul’s biggest problem is Ron Paul. What his fans call “constitutional” is nothing more than a tightrope high-wire act of non-interventionism. Paul is the only candidate with no need to flip-flop because he has never actually taken a real position on anything. He has chosen not to intervene on any subject, and this, Paul supporters have misinterpreted as a constitutional stance.

To be sure, Ron Paul’s strongest point is his Tenth Amendment position on every issue. I too, believe firmly in individual and states’ rights, smaller less intrusive government and much lower taxation. That’s the easy stuff…. Most Americans get this stuff right, including all GOP candidates.

Paul’s positions fall apart when you ask one question however…. How?

I’ll demonstrate using a few issues based upon Ron Paul’s campaign talking points from his campaign site. You don’t have to believe me -- you can read Paul’s official positions for yourself. I’m just helping you see through the rhetoric, to the reality.

Abortion – Ron Paul is on record as opposed to abortion. He is also on record as opposed to outlawing abortion, which of course allows abortions to continue. His reasoning is that abortion is not a federal issue, but rather a state issue. - Really?

Most of what our federal government engages in today is not a federal issue assigned to D.C. via the constitution, abortion included. However, a true constitutionalist does not use a Tenth Amendment argument to run from constitutional reality and responsibility.

Every true constitutionalist knows that the Declaration of Independence established the fundamental foundational principles upon which all else was erected, and that LIFE is the very first “unalienable right” in our Declaration of Independence. This means that protecting the sanctity of innocent life is indeed a matter of utmost constitutional concern and authority.

Constitutionalists also know that the authority to make law was given exclusively to congress, not the courts, and thus, that Roe vs. Wade actually has no bearing on the legal status of abortion, as it could not “make law.” Abortion is the taking of innocent life, not in self-defense, which also happens to be the definition of murder. As congress has made no law legalizing murder, including in the form of abortion, Ron Paul’s position that this is not an issue for the federal government is incorrect and unconstitutional.

Paul is right to say that government’s first job is to protect the people’s rights. As a doctor, Paul confirms that life begins at conception. Abortion is a constitutional matter because LIFE is an unalienable constitutional Right. Why is Paul focused on liberty as a fundamental right, but not life, without which there can be no liberty or happiness? The protection of innocent LIFE is of utmost constitutional concern and authority and every true constitutionalist knows it.

Immigration – Ron Paul is on record as opposed to amnesty for millions of illegal migrants currently living in America and ongoing illegal immigration. He is reportedly for securing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws. So am I…

But Paul is also on record as opposed to deporting illegal invaders, which means they stay, in some form of amnesty, aka reform. Constitutionalists concerned with the equal enforcement of our laws understand that capturing and deporting illegals is the only way to enforce our immigration laws.

Paul says that our immigration laws are unfair. Apparently, he is not aware of the fact that America has the most lenient immigration laws on earth and that if we used Mexico’s immigration laws, we wouldn’t have an immigration problem.

Paul says that as president, he will eliminate all taxpayer-funded freebies for illegals.

That means public schooling, health care, food stamps, welfare, government housing and college grants, all of it. However, many of these freebies are offered by the states, as in California. How will Paul use the Oval Office to mandate California policies regarding state benefits for illegal immigrants, keeping Paul’s firm pro-Tenth Amendment status in mind?

Once again, Paul attempts to walk a tightrope between appearing concerned with illegal immigration without actually addressing true enforcement of our immigration laws, opposing amnesty while insuring that millions of illegal invaders will remain in America under some form of amnesty, under the guise of reform.

The Economy – Paul is on record for smaller government and less taxation. So are all the other GOP candidates and most Americans. This is an easy one for everyone, until you ask the question, how?

Nowhere in Paul’s campaign does he address the reality that it is largely government employee labor unions that are bankrupting both Federal and State governments, with huge unfunded benefits and pensions that no other American taxpayer enjoys.

Nowhere does Paul talk about all of the European nations currently folding under the weight of excessive government labor unions, or the well-known socialist international labor stranglehold on America, including in education.

But Paul does attack evil corporate America, private sector industry responsible for private sector employment and the private productivity that made America the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth. What is Paul’s idea of economic liberty?

Paul says he will eliminate all federal income, capital gains and death taxes, which account for roughly 60% of the federal revenue stream -- while not mentioning payroll taxes, which account for about 36% of federal revenues and fail to fund the related 60% of the federal budget which is social spending.

Not one penny of social spending is “constitutional.” Paul assaults national security and military spending, but not the social spending responsible for our economic demise, now representing 60% of all federal spending.

Constitutionally speaking, only about 7% of the current federal revenue stream was constitutional prior to 1913. I’m in favor of repealing all 1913 Amendments. Is Ron Paul?

Paul says “end the Federal Reserve,” which was also formed in 1913. But he does not say what we should replace it with -- A Soviet-style government banking system?

He says the dollar is a “fiat currency,” which is technically true in that every government sanctioned currency is a fiat currency. That’s the definition of fiat currency, an official currency sanctioned by government as a means of exchange. Contrary to Paul’s use of the term, it is not a dirty word.

He says we should return to a gold standard, knowing that America does not have the gold to back up even 30% of the currency currently in circulation and not recognizing why we left the gold standard to begin with. It was not stable… Is there any faster way to crash the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy? Even Obama will crash it slower than that.

He says we don’t know who owns the Federal Reserve, but we do. It is owned by its member banks, about 3000 of our nation’s 8000 private banks.

He says we don’t know who runs it, but we do. It is run by a government appointed Board of Governors.

He would refuse to raise the debt ceiling again, but has not addressed how to end deficit spending and until we do that, the debt ceiling will continue to rise.

National Security – First, Paul doesn’t call it “national security,” he calls it national defense, indicating his non-interventionist belief that America can defend itself without engaging an increasingly dangerous world, or using preventative measures.

Paul does not recognize the threat of Radical Islam that has existed in this world for centuries and now exists on our soil. When he has been forced to address the threat of Radical Islam, he blames America for the terrorist operations that have been part of Islam much longer than America has existed.

Paul takes a solidly passive view of national security, promising to respond to attacks rather than prevent attacks on the United States. Explain that policy to those left behind after the attack.

Paul opposes The Patriot Act put in place to deal with the fact that we have allowed terrorists to live among us. But he does not address what to do about the terrorists living among us or discuss how he will prevent an event worse than 9/11. He doesn’t even acknowledge the very real threat that exists at terror training camps on our soil today.

I am not in favor of the Patriot Act either, but I am also not for allowing terrorists to live among us, another reason why we should be deporting illegal invaders instead of opposing amnesty while also opposing deportation.

Despite the fact that Iran is currently producing nuclear power and long-range missiles, Paul does not see Iran as a potential nuclear threat. Despite Iran’s repeated promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Paul thinks Israel is the problem and should be left to defend itself alone.

I can keep going here, issue after issue and in the end, I can use reality to debunk the constitutional-sounding rhetoric used to promote Ron Paul. So can every other true constitutionalist or conservative in this country and that’s why Ron Paul only resonates with those who have heard his campaign slogans and not asked any questions.

The simple truth is Ron Paul is just as dangerous to America’s future as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, and that’s why Ron Paul is unelectable… His vicious supporters only make his odds of winning even worse, thank God.

He won’t win the GOP nomination, so he will have no chance to win the Presidential election. Take that to the bank!

What he and his loyal followers CAN do is make sure that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton win re-election in 2012. In some cases, this may be the actual goal as some Paul supporters have explained that allowing Obama to finish off our country might be the best thing for this country. Interesting logic…

It doesn’t require a scientist, a lawyer or a math professor to figure any of this out. Common sense and a grasp of reality are all that’s required. Not a common trait among most of the Paul supporters I have heard from over the years, with rare exception.

My goal is not to stop Ron Paul from being nominated because he will not be nominated whether I write about Ron Paul or not. If Paul supporters think that my column has the power to influence the outcome of the GOP nomination, they give me far too much credit and they are not reading the tea leaves as Romney marches towards the nomination.

My goal is to get Paul supporters to channel all that passion for freedom and liberty somewhere they can actually make a positive, rather than a negative difference. There are many things they could do to help save this nation and helping Obama win re-election isn’t one of them.

Based upon communications received from Paul supporters over the last four years, I don’t expect that they will be able to accept reality and act on it in the best interest of our country. Only a few who have written me have demonstrated such abilities.

But the rest of the pro-American freedom and liberty voters can feel completely confident and justified in dismissing the Ron Paul campaign. They had better find some voters to replace the Paul voters though, or no GOP candidate will be able to defeat Obama and Clinton come November.

Most of the Paul supporters are committed to “voting their conscience” – which apparently includes helping Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remain in power. I call it their “greater evil strategy.”

My conscience calls me to do all that I can to keep that from happening. Based on the polling data in the GOP race, I’d say most American’s share the goal of defeating Obama at any cost. They will have to do it without Paul supporters, who seem to have a very different kind of moral compass.

[vector7]

January 10, 2012 · 2:12 pm
↓ Jump to Comments
Ron Paul Does Jane Fonda



The Iranian Mullahcracy absolutely loves Ron Paul, and for Iran’s propaganda war against the West – Ron Paul is a beloved ally of the Islamofascists in Tehran.

As I have consistently noted about Ron Paul, the enemies of the USA love to interview and quote him for their propaganda purposes against this country and the West of whom they seek to either destroy or subjugate to Sharia Law.

One of the major key reasons for my long opposition to this usurper-Republican running for the presidency for the 3rd time, is his absolutely insane and moronic positions regarding foreign policy, notwithstanding his anti-Jew conspiratorialist agenda and past racism that only now, some of his own former associates are beginning to bring to the public’s attention.

As further evidence of what I consider to be Jane Fona-esque treason, whether willful or by clueless idiocy, Ron Paul provides the enemies of the United States, his own anti-American platform and anti-semitic positions to arm themselves with ammunition to wage their own war against the infidel Great and Little Satan.

Ron Paul stated he would have never gone to war against the Nazis, so we can assume he would also not dare raise a hand against the Islamofascist’s in Iran either. In fact, the Jihadist regime play video of Ron Paul justifying their “right” to make and have nuclear weapons. This, after Ahmadinejad stated Iran had a right to USE nuclear weapons and promising Israel will be ‘wiped off the map’. A more dangerous and clueless nut job cannot be found, excepting only that Hussein Obama II runs a close second to Paul’s dangerous insanity.

The enemies of America and the West have an ally in Ron Paul, and the current occupant of the White House. For the Jihadists, their future seems bright. God help us all, as blinding brightness may one day visit our cities if either of these two clowns continue in the chair at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Tehran TV Loves Ron Paul

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.
PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring hisanti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.



The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery,The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Headlining one montage of Ron Paul sound bites denouncing U.S. support for Israel, PressTV reveals that President Obama has issued a “Ron Paul ‘kill order.’”

This dramatic claim was “revealed” in a “secret letter sent to Prime Minister Putin by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda” released to the press by the Russian Federal Security Service, better known during Cold War days for wanton fabrications and disinformation campaigns.

The purported letter “contains a warning that United States President Barack Obama has issued an executive-level ‘kill order’ against U.S. Congressman Ron Paul over fears this charismatic politician, who many believe could capture the Republican Presidential 2012 nomination, is about to expose to all Americans what can only be described as the largest mass theft in human history,” PressTV breathlessly explains.

Of course, “‘kill order’ is a metaphor for silencing down Congressman Ron Paul in the mass media as if he doesn’t exist,” the network hastens to add.

No contemporary U.S. political leader has been so in sync with Tehran as Ron Paul. Here are just a few of the recent Ron Paul sound bites on Iran and U.S. policy toward Iran prominently featured by PressTV:

“Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there, the Indians are there, the Pakistanis are there, the Israelis are there, the United States is there. All these countries—China has nuclear weapons! Wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a weapon? Internationally, they’d be given more respect… They have no evidence that they are working on a weapon. “Paul blasts US policy on Iran, Aug. 12, 2011.

“I think we’re looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran… Sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack.” “Iran sanctions ‘acts of war’: Ron Paul,” Dec. 31, 2011; “Ron Paul raps US hostility toward Iran,” Jan. 7, 2012.

“Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map.” Quick Facts: Ron Paul on US Foreign Policy, Dec. 24, 2011.

“Iran is not a physical threat to us. They do not have capabilities. The stories you might hear about them being on the verge of a nuclear weapon is not true by our CIA and by the United Nations. They are not on the verge of it.” Quick Facts: Ron Paul on US Foreign Policy, Dec. 24, 2011.

“Who are they [Iran] going to bomb? If they had one or two bombs, they are going to bomb Israel? Israel has 300 of them! And our submarines all around there passing and everything else.” Quick Facts: Ron Paul on US Foreign Policy, Dec. 24, 2011.

“I think they’re acting in self-defense… That is a gross distortion of this debate that they’re on the verge of a nuclear weapon.”

Ron Paul defends his anti-war policies, Dec. 16, 2011
“At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What is so terribly bad about this? Countries you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business. Do not get involved in these wars and bring our troops home.” Ron Paul blasts US policy on Iran, Aug. 12, 2011

A Google search of PressTV.com—their U.S. website—returned 349 stories about Ron Paul, the overwhelming majority of them from this past year. The network’s Iranian website, PressTV.ir, had more than 1,020 stories featuring Ron Paul.

A similar search of the U.S. website revealed significantly lower numbers for the other GOP candidates, with 242 hits for Mitt Romney, 211 for Newt Gingrich, 119 for Rick Santorum, 103 for Rick Perry, and 95 for Michele Bachmann.

By comparison, a Google search of “Hitler” got 509 hits on PressTV.com, while a search for “Barack Obama” got 3,600.
PressTV’s passion for Ron Paul also can be seen in their choice of headlines.

Paul’s anti-war call attracts GOP ears

Ron Paul ‘challenges US establishment’

Ron Paul’s surge

Iowa voters bring anti-war message into the mainstream

Ron Paul: “We don’t need Patriot Act”

Ron Paul holding Iowa lead in new PPP poll

This last entry publicizes a robo-call survey by Democratic Party polling outfit Public Policy Polling, which touts its “highly accurate polling across the country”on its website. Of course, that particular poll, conducted just days before the Iowa caucuses, was dramatically off, given that Ron Paul placed third after Romney and Santorum essentially tied for first.

By comparison, PressTV coverage of Newt Gingrich is almost exclusively negative, with headlines such as these:

Newt Gingrich calls Mitt Romney “a liar”
Newt Gingrich: History of anti-Islam slurs
Watchdog files FEC complaint against Newt Gingrich
Occupy protesters heckle Newt Gingrich at Iowa event

Most of the other GOP candidates are given the Gingrich treatment by PressTV editors. Rick Santorum gets blasted for declaring “there is no Palestine,” Michele Bachmann for saying she would “bomb Iran,” and Perry for just about everything, most recently his debate pledge to “reinvade Iraq.”

This autumn, before the Republican field thinned out, PressTV aired an unsigned commentary titled “Romney, Cain or Perry nomination an absolute disaster for America” that featured a viciously satirical Mitt Romney flip-flopper video—two weeks before the Obama campaign released their own version!

In recent weeks, however, their coverage of Romney has become more factual and less charged, perhaps because Iran’s leaders expect him to win the GOP nomination and possibly become president of the United States.

While PressTV gives some coverage to economic issues—especially any factoid suggesting that poverty is on the rise in the United States—it frequently highlights Ron Paul’s refusal to see the Islamic regime in Iran as a potential threat, his pledge to bring American troops home from overseas, and especially his anti-Israel stance.

PressTV editors introduce a montage of Ron Paul debate clips with the ominous onscreen title, “Do you know why the Israel lobby and Neocons hate US Congressman Ron Paul?”

“We’ve been at war in Iran a lot longer than 1979. We started it in 1953, when we sent in a coup and installed the Shah in a coup, and the blowback’s been going on ever since 1979 because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s the problem,” Paul says in one of these clips.

“We don’t even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we’re going to send our kids and our money endlessly?” he says in another.

Anti-Israel theme:

The Tehran regime owns PressTV and controls its content, so its emphasis on finding politicians and “experts” who oppose any form of pressure on Iran is understandable. Some readers, however, may find its proclivity for airing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rants more troublesome.

Many of Ron Paul’s talking points get repeated by the pro-Tehran conspiracy theorists who populate the PressTV airwaves. In the oxygen-free reaches they appear to inhabit, Ron Paul would become the next president of the United States if only the “Zionist lobby” would let him win.

“Paul is pulling around second in Iowa and is being considered a very serious contender by many,” a PressTV anchorwoman says. Then in all seriousness, she asks Mark Dankof, a self-declared political analyst, “Will the Zionist lobby let him win?”

Dankof, who is a frequent guest on PressTV shows, explains that Ron Paul will lose because of the Jews. “If Paul should be successful early on in a couple of primaries or a couple of caucuses then I think the shrill voices in the Israeli-controlled American media will begin to become more aggressive in attacking him,” he says. Zionist lobbies demonizing Ron Paul, Dec. 3, 2011

PressTV touts Dankof as a “former U.S. Senate candidate,” a “political commentator,” or “political analyst” as a way of plumping his resumé. The subterfuge is typical, and Dankof is reliably pro-Tehran, pro-Ron Paul and anti-American—lumping Barack Obama in the same basket as George W. Bush.

But what about his credential as a former U.S. Senate candidate? Dankof claims on his website that he was the “nominated candidate of the Constitution party” in Delaware in 2000. It turns out, however, that the Constitution Party never held a formal nominating process or a party primary, and that Dankof essentially nominated himself to run in that year’s U.S. Senate race.

“Anybody can be a candidate just by filing the forms,” said Howard Phillips, Conservative Party founder and long-time standard bearer. “Mark was never anointed by the Constitution Party; he decided to run by himself.”

Dankof is typical of the type of rabidly anti-Israel, borderline anti-Semitic commentators PressTV relies on. Other regulars include the likes of Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA officer who regularly denounces Israeli policies as “manifestly evil;” Paul Sheldon Foote, who promotes Holocaust deniers; and a bevy of left-wing, “anti-war” bloggers and 9/11 “truthers.”

Nisa Islam Mohammad, a staff writer for the Nation of Islam’s Final Call newspaper and a member of the Washington Association of Black Journalists, devoted an entire 25-minute segment of her “American Dream” magazine show to the Zionist lobby effort to “destroy” Ron Paul.

“Texas Congressman Ron Paul is campaigning to become the president of America,” she starts off. “But you might not know that if you just watch mainstream media. Why is he omitted? Why wasn’t he invited to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s forum for presidential candidates?”

The answers, of course, can be found in the title of her show. Why Israel lobby and neocons hate Ron Paul, Dec. 26, 2011

[American Patriot]

What I don’t appreciate is the vicious and venomous nature of the average Paul supporter or their scorched-earth methods aimed at insulting or intimidating voters into supporting “their guy.” If it was my aim to destroy Ron Paul, all I’d have to do is publish a selection from hundreds of comments received from Paul supporters, full of F-bombs, insults, bold-faced lies and threats.

Yep... my issue as well.

[Malsua]

And of course, the video of Ron Paul saying he wouldn't have taken Osama.

Ron Paul is an unelectable asshole. The faster he's out of the running the better.

Unfortunately it seem the media wants Obama to run against Mitt Romney. Ugh, i'd vote for a carrot over Obama but Romney isn't much better.

[American Patriot]

Yeah, I don't GET this pressure to put him on top. Even Ann Coulter is pushing for him now. Glenn Beck seems to be saying (doesn't want to committ I think) that he is for Romney, but doesn't like his thinking about things like the Patriot act and similar.

[American Patriot]

says Ron Paul

‘The Republic is No More’ Ron Paul Warns: “Police brutality and militarization may induce a violent event far beyond Ferguson”

Posted by TheSurvivalGuy on January 14, 2015
Posted in: News/ Current Events, Whatever Your Opinion. Tagged: Civil Liberties, current-events, Federal Government, government, Liberties, militarization of the police, News/ Current Events, Paul Krugman, Paul Samuelson, police brutality, Police State, police violence, principles of equal justice, Racism, Ron Paul, structural poverty, Whatever Your Opinion. Leave a comment


By Mac Slavo – SHTFplan.com
In a stark outlook and set of predictions for 2015, former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul cautioned that America has descended into a police state where liberties are “under siege” and further violent events and inner city turmoil, such as that seen in Ferguson, were likely to occur:

If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.
It didn’t happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.
[…]
This is especially noticeable in the police war on the lawbreakers — real and unreal — in America. The failures of social and economic policy of the past 50 years have led to a mounting friction between the local police and the rights of the people. Local police have been militarized and have become an integral part of the national police state. A police culture that accepts the principle of initiating unjustified violence against citizens has become a serious problem.
The news is constant. If it’s not Ferguson, it’s New York City. If not New York City, it’s Chicago or Detroit or Cleveland. And I believe the violence in our cities is only in its early stages. We had a taste of the conflict in the 1960s, but the fundamental values of equal justice and economic opportunity have receded further from reality. Failing to understand why the past 50 years of government expansion to eradicate poverty has only worsened the conditions of our cities will guarantee that the violent conflicts we see erupting today will only get worse.

In a lengthy essay, Ron Paul spells out much of the bigger picture problems that have created fractures in a system that is doomed to fail, and designed to divide and conquer the population as it comes apart through an orchestrated game of musical chairs. Paul argues:

Many factors are involved in the crisis of our cities, including the following:
Police brutality, militarization of the police, excessive laws, courts and law enforcement efforts ignoring the principles of equal justice,
Racism that exists to some degree on both sides of the conflict,
Rampant crime reflecting structural poverty,
Absence of an understanding of the difference between earned and stolen wealth,
Race baiting,
The entitlement mentality, self-reliance not being a goal for many, and the breakdown of the family unit,
The war on drugs, and
[especially, the elephant in every room and street riot]
The lack of economic understanding regarding the Federal Reserve, taxes, welfare, economic consequences of constant war, deficits, and excessive government spending.

The tyranny of a militarized police crackdown is ultimately a symptom of transferring far too much power to a centralized, federal government in the name of increasing “security” at the expense of “liberty.” Thanks to lobbyists for defense contractors, Big Pharma and the prison industry, the military industrial complex has put weapons of war in the hands of police, while using the drug war to upend impoverished communities and justify a crackdown:

This social disruption has motivated the enthusiastic growth and militarization of our local police departments. The law and order crowd thrives on excessive laws and regulations that no US citizen can escape. The out-of-control war on drugs is the worst part, and it generates the greatest danger in poverty-ridden areas via out-of-control police. It is estimated that these conditions have generated up to 80,000 SWAT raids per year in the United States. Most are in poor neighborhoods and involve black homes and businesses being hit disproportionately. This involves a high percentage of no-knock attacks. As can be expected many totally innocent people are killed in the process. Property damage is routine and compensation is rare. The routine use of civil forfeiture of property has become an abomination, totally out of control, which significantly contributes to the chaos. It should not be a surprise to see resentment building up against the police under these conditions.
The overreaction by both sides continues to make the situation much worse. As a result, policing in general is out of control, and anything suggesting racial confrontation leads to rioting, looting, and property destruction. Civil liberties are ignored by the police, and the private property of innocent bystanders is disregarded by those resenting police violence. When police overreact and unfairly enforce the law, it elicits a violent reaction from those on the receiving end. This only escalates the problem. It’s an invitation for outside provocateurs to rush in and aggravate the racial tensions…
Why do the race baiters have so much success in making this type of conflict a racial problem alone? Unfortunately many of them make a living off stirring up trouble. If the situation were understood in terms of police brutality and poverty, the evening news would be dramatically different. Turning it into strictly a racial conflict narrows the discussion, and the idea of responsibility for one’s action no longer needs to be discussed.
[…]
The economic and moral decay of American society is reflected in the loss of liberties. This problem affects all Americans and not just the poor in the inner city. Gradual erosion of personal and economic liberty has proceeded for a century. The loss of our liberty has sharply accelerated since the 9/11 attacks. We have done to ourselves what no foreign enemy could have possibly accomplished.
Government surveillance provides the state with information that enables it to know our every move. The protection of the Fourth Amendment is gone. Many Americans are comfortable with the sacrifice of liberty for safety and accept the notion that government’s key responsibility is to keep us safe.

Society has been trained to expect government to provide everything – unlimited safety and security, free money and benefits and benevolent control over all areas of society. But the illusion is dangerous and cannot provide these things.
Cheap prosperity for the rich and benefits and handouts for the poor come at the expense of more and more taxes, money printing, surveillance and control over everything from education to medicine, food, media and information.
In short, Ron Paul argues that the Welfare State, and the perpetual War State, have made tighter police controls a requirement.

Welfare, which is the use of force to transfer wealth from one group to another, is based on a moral principle of equality that in fact is not moral and does not work. The wealthy special interests, such as banks, the military-industrial complex, the medical industry, the drug industry, and many other corporatists, quickly gain control of the system. Crumbs may be thrown to the poor, but the principle of wealth transfer is hijacked and used for corporate and foreign welfare instead of wealth transfers to the poor.
[…]
The very expensive war on poverty has after 50 years only made matters worse, compounding the problems of poverty and inflation while hurting most of the people the “war” was supposed to help. Currently our government spends over $1 trillion per year on anti-poverty programs. Over the past 50 years, over $16 trillion was spent, i.e., wasted. And yet poverty and dire economic conditions remain the major factor in the violence that persists, which incites or gives the police the excuse to overreact to maintain order. The plans and expectations for the war on poverty must have been seriously flawed.
Although the degree of poverty is different for the various races in the United States, all categories — Asian, white, Hispanic, and black — have had a steady increase in real median income from 1964 until the year 2000, when the first of many bubbles started bursting. In all four race categories incomes are lower since then. With the economy moving into the next stage of liquidation of bad investment and debt, we should expect this trend to continue. Economic setbacks and a decrease in real income are not limited to blacks in the inner city.
[…]
Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if “the children” have to suffer. The deception of promising “success” has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough “gravy” for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.
As the size of government grew and cracks in the system became readily apparent, a federal police force was needed to regulate our lives and the economy, as well as to protect us from ourselves and make sure the redistribution of a shrinking economic pie was “fair” to all. Central economic planning requires an economic police force to monitor every transaction of all Americans. Special interests were quick to get governments to regulate everything we put in our bodies: food, medications, and even politically correct ideas. IRS employees soon needed to carry guns to maximize revenue collections.
The global commitment to perpetual war, though present for decades, exploded in size and scope after 9/11. If there weren’t enough economic reasons to monitor everything we did, fanatics used the excuse of national security to condition the American people to accept total surveillance of all by the NSA, the TSA, FISA courts, the CIA, and the FBI. The people even became sympathetic to our government’s policy of torture.

In a fundamental way, the naive calls to expand government power in Washington over a period of decades has made the resulting police state, increasing federal control over local police and the rise of a national police force a predictable reciprocation to undue power that cannot meet the needs of the people:

To keep the people obedient to statism that originated at the federal level of government, control of education was required. It is now recognized that central control of education has actually ruined education, while costs have skyrocketed. National control of medical care has brought a similar result. This has meant more money for bureaucrats, as well as drug, insurance, and health management companies, and less money for medical care. Constantly more police are required to run our lives at greater costs while providing less benefit. “Nationalizing” both medical care and education has provided a great incentive to increase the policing powers of the federal government.
The predictable poverty that results from such a terrible system is now upon us and is a strong motivation for the militarization of local police as part of the expansion of the national police state. Temporary and perceived benefits of government overreach and expanded policing powers end up becoming the real problem.

Basically a vacuum has been created for total control to fill.
To escape this nightmarish cycle of increased poverty met with increased police response, the root of the economic problems must be realized – allowing the central government to plan the economy, and enrich wealthy insiders who are supposed to manage vast programs to benefit the many is certain to end in greater disparity in wealth and a concentrated of more government power at the expense of the civil liberties of the individuals of society.

The killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson plus many similar incidents are signs of a serious economic and political crisis that is not limited to police brutality and runaway violence.
Police brutality and militarization may well induce a violent event far beyond what we have seen in Ferguson. It also can serve as an excuse. But it is not the root cause of turmoil. The real cause is poverty, the entitlement mentality, and the breakdown of the rule of law. Moral decay and the national police state are the real culprits.
More police with improved training will not do much to deal with this growing conflict. Bowing to entitlement demands from the “victims” will not be helpful in a bankrupt system. We have too many police, too many laws, and too much exemption of government officials from the crimes they commit. Both adding police and increasing entitlements involve expanding the role of government in an effort to solve problems that too much government has already caused. Government can only be expanded by diminishing the people’s liberty. This problem can only be ended by maximizing liberty and getting people to realize that self-reliance, hard work, and the absence of coercive force by individuals and government is the only way to reverse the downward trend from which we are suffering.

Instead of keeping us safe, and redistributing the wealth to make everyone more equal, and the poor better off, government control has lead to an all out federal government war on all Americans, according to Ron Paul:

It’s the federal government that leads the charge in all our domestic wars, which, in addition to the global war on terrorism, include the war on drugs, taxpayers, and poverty, all of which contribute to the constant war on our privacy. Today every American is a suspect. Our president has established a policy that an American citizen can be assassinated without even being charged with a crime. The national police are made up of over 100,000 bureaucrats and police officials who carry guns to enforce federal law on the American citizens. The Founders and our Constitution intended that policing powers would be the responsibility of the individual states. That was forgotten a long time ago.
Not only do employees of agencies like the CIA, FBI, and BATF carry guns, employees of OSHA, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and many other agencies enforcing regulations do so as well. The notion of total homeland security being provided by a heavily armed Department of Homeland Security was foreign to America up until just recently. Today, whether it’s riots in our cities or chaos after a national disaster like a hurricane, the Feds are there taking charge over all local officials and property owners. It shouldn’t surprise us that our local police departments have become an arm of a runaway federal police mentality that mimics an army.
The Founders did not even want a standing army. They wanted only a militia. Today we endure, at the expense of our liberties, a national police force armed like an invading military force. We are destined to see a continued escalation of violence in our cities as the internal conflicts grow. Instead of the police quelling the violence, they unfortunately have become part of it.

2015 holds promise of worsening conditions, including inner city uprisings and police violence. The economic shoe, too, will fall, if not in 2015, then at some point, unless these policies are abandoned.
Ron Paul urges:

We must get people to reject flawed economic policy if we want a real war on poverty. LBJ’s war on poverty was no more successful than his Vietnam War — or any war since, for that matter. A national government that can print money as needed to finance extraordinary extravagance can function longer than a city, state, or private entity, but it too must eventually “file for bankruptcy” albeit in a different fashion. As we are now seeing, the bankruptcy of a nation also involves poverty for many. This situation will continue to worsen. Since poverty is a major contributing factor to the violence of excessive police militarization, some fundamentals must be understood. The economic theories of Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman, John Maynard Keynes, and all those who claim to know how to “regulate” the economy to benefit the poor, must be challenged and abandoned.

Read Ron Paul’s entire essay at the Ron Paul Institute, including the above excepts and much more about the underlying causes of American unrest that many have seen coming for some time, but are now here, and worsening with each new crisis and each new demand for greater control and fewer freedoms.
Will anyone wake up and stop this before it is too late?
This article first appeared at SHTFplan.com: ‘The Republic is No More’ Ron Paul Warns: “Police brutality and militarization may induce a violent event far beyond Ferguson”