Ron Paul kills (as usual) at the January 7, 2012 Republican Debate

I can barely watch these anymore but I've opted to watch the highlights found on both the Daily Paul and the Lew Rockwell blog.


That said, I am typing these comments as I watch the Paul highlights because so much gets convoluted when I actually start thinking about the minutia that inevitably ensues post spectacle. 


Here are my comments - for better or worse.


Stephanopoulos - starts in by "confusing" the word corrupt for corporate.  There is a difference (so long as the corporation isn't in bed with the government of course).  I feel these sorts of "slips" are quite intentional. I also think they're so transparent to a thinking person that the media needs to knock it off and hire people we know can actually read beyond a third grade level.  Stephanopoulos then adds corrupt back into his point.  Yes, they think we're that stupid.  


Next when Paul answers, the feedback on the microphone is back.  Not that I'm not a fan of a good conspiracy but is this the best they can do to throw Paul off point?  If so, it ain't working because he's right back on point after the accusation from Santorum that "they caught you not telling the truth Ron".   Not telling the truth?  Really Rick? Yes, you record does count - stand it up against Paul any day of the week and it'll fall like a house of cards.  Hell, Pennsylvania kicked you out.  


I agree with Paul - we should publicize how much money Santorum took from lobbyists to pass unconstitutional legislation and fund bailouts while lining his own pockets (his campaign pockets are now empty which is good news).  Santorum was not only criticized by CREW but sued by them for being conservative?  How did that case end up?  Ron Paul wasn't sued by CREW so I guess he's not a conservative.  By the way, how in the world does Santorum call Ron Paul "John" and then say "when you were a senator in Texas"?  Did he forget to take his meds?  I know, I know, I'm being petty but hey, this might be my last chance (election wise) to pick on Santorum. 


Did anyone notice that Romney still has that same Ken doll smile plastered all over his face no matter what is being discussed?  I digress. 


So Santorum defends himself as not being corrupt because he takes money from PACs.  I know  Ron Pauls PAC is run by Tom Woods - the Liberty PAC.  They have yet to be sued by CREW. 


Another thing that I thought was disgusting (yes, I said it) was Santorums statement that Ron Paul "should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations".  "I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Conservative".  Well, duh Rick - a Libertarian knows the value of a sound currency, limited government and staying out of foreign wars at almost any cost.  


Next five minutes of Santorum talking about his life (who the hell cares, we know he's a neocon regardless of who is grandfather hoped he would be!) which just loses me. 


Paul on voting, spending and earmarks - his same lines based on his voting record following his long held constitutional principals and doing what is right for his district at the state level.  Money taken by the Feds from the district MUST be earmarked to return to the district.  Santorum needs a lesson in the way that the corrupt government he's embarking on really works.   He IS a big government crony.  Period.  


Shameless side note: do you think anyone but Paul knows what a real (big L) Libertarian actually IS?


Santorum then goes on to take far too long defending why he's not corrupt - even having the nerve to brag about having had a "Spendometer".  My car has a speedometer but does this mean I always drive the speed limit (you can guess the answer to that one)?  

Santorum just gets worse and matters less so I'll end on that ridiculous comment.

I got off on a Santorum tangent. Here is for Paul - Perry in a word is slow. It's like watching George W. Bush being able to make speeches when he was the Texas Governor and then once elected slurring and letting Cheney run the show.

Paul to Perry about Paul being an insider: "Well I call it being a constitutionalist because I believe we should earmark or designate every penny". (Nailed it!). "You designate weapons systems. You designate to go and spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Iraq. That's an earmark too. I say that congress has more responsibility". Zing!

Paul: "But this thing back to, back to Senator Santorum. You know he ducks behind this he's for this budget balance amendment that voted five times to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars". This is what the whole tea party movement is about - quit!." " So what's your excuse for that? You didn't do very much to slow it up when you had the chance." Zing!

Paul is trying to stop the wars but at least he went when he was called.  Zing!
"I think people who don't serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments they have no right to send our kids off to war and not to even be against the wars I'm trying to stop the wars we have but at least I went....we have so many suicides" 8,500 dead, over 40,000 injured. "I have a pet peeve" Dr. Paul says in regards to candidates not having served, supporting more war and using the excuse that they thought one person wouldn't have made a difference. "My heart bleeds" says Dr. Paul about seeing veterans come home injured or dead and as a result of undeclared wars.


I do not claim to be a journalist but this was all I needed to see how hard hitting a message this is.  Even though Newt decided to spend his time defending himself (again) this time for deferments (saying he didn't have deferments but if his mouth is moving he's lying in my opinion). 


Santorum decided to interrupt Paul when asked why he won't run third party if he doesn't get the Rep. nomination.  I'm so proud of him for calling Rikky out on this.  Dr. Paul is always a gentleman even if he's telling these neocons what they are afraid to hear.  He deserves the same respect he gives to them and it's yet another example of how desperate and afraid the status-quo candidates are.  Low blows and cheap shots are their game and it proves they haven't learned from anything over the last sixty or so years. 


Ron, you did it again.  "Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief but he's not the King.  That's why we fought a revolution, not to have a king and decide when we go to war."


On the economy - "You can't solve any of these economic crises unless you understand economics."  He understands economics, he's read Mises, Rothbard, Hyak - all great Austrian economists.  One of his advisers is Peter Shiff.  It doesn't get much better than the two people who predicted the bust of the housing market - Paul and Shiff. 


I could go on and on but this is already too long for me.  To watch the highlights click here.


I clearly understand why the world is begging Americans to stand up to this fascist system that is going to implode violently or be dismantled in a peaceful, less painful way so that we can sustain as free humans able to meet our daily needs and have prosperity again. 

A quickie for Tom Woods

Okay - so you know I am an an anarchist.  I'll take a minimalist anti-interventionism stance until I can get to anarchy because, well you can't really go down the path of minarchy without reaching anarchy (I learned from Mises and Rothbard ya know). 


I thought I'd post my new favorite site: Tom Woods' Patriot Polls  (check it!!)


1. He's awesomely intelligent
2. He's running Paul's liberty PAC
3. He's got Adam Kockesh and Ian Cioffi, two of my favorite people!
4. His polls are often hilarious
5. He followed me on twitter? Now can I get Kockesh and Stefan Molyneux on board too?

Until this unemployed IT person (me) can figure out how to customize bloggers ugly links lists, you get quickies!

PLEASE go to http://patriotpolls.com and take the damn funny polls as well as those serious ones!

For Peace - Maureen

Ron Paul Revolution Enters Crucial Countdown To Iowa - by Paul Joseph Watson

December 16 money bomb set to be biggest ever
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, December 8, 2011


With Ron Paul now firmly established as a top tier candidate just weeks away from the crucial caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Paul campaign is set to launch what could turn out to be the biggest ever single day online money bomb in the history of U.S. politics.


Back in 2007, Ron Paul supporters made history by raising $6 million in online contributions in a single 24 hour period, beating the single day record for a national candidate.


That total could easily be topped on December 16th, when the Paul campaign launches its ‘Tea Party Money Bomb’ as part of a final mail, radio, and TV ad push in Iowa.
However, Congressman Paul has urged his supporters to donate as soon as possible so as to fund ad buys in Iowa. Paul’s TV ads have been devastating to his Republican rivals thus far, with the latest being targeted against Newt Gingrich’s “serial hypocrisy”.
The crucial Iowa caucus takes place on January 3rd with New Hampshire following a week later on January 10th.


“We need to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, because it’s very important for perception,” Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said to POLITICO after the Michigan debate. “It’s also important because the voters in those states are very adept and astute at evaluating candidates, so we need to be in the top three in those states, no question about it,” Mr. Benton added.


“If you were holding off on contributing until the Money Bomb later this month, I must ask you to please contribute today at least half of whatever you were planning to give on the 16th,” Mr. Paul said in a campaign email.


As Michael Brendan Dougherty highlights, the next few weeks could be the most exciting ever in the history of the Ron Paul Revolution. It’s no longer a stretch to say that Ron Paul has a genuine chance of building the kind of momentum that could see him secure the Republican candidacy.


“This is no longer a political novelty act. It’s not a seminar on the Constitution disguised as a campaign. This is the emergence of a populist-libertarian force that is growing into an organized movement in American politics. And if Paul shocks the establishment in Iowa, January 3rd 2012 will be recorded in history as this movement’s coming out party,” writes Dougherty.


As numerous polls have shown, should Paul become the Republican nominee, he has every chance of defeating Barack Obama in a head to head run off. The most recent survey conducted by NBC-Marist shows that Paul has the best chance of beating Obama compared to all the other Republican candidates. Paul is currently tied with Obama 42-42, whereas Newt Gingrich trails Obama 47-37 and Mitt Romney is behind 46-39.


There are also reports that Democrats are abandoning Obama in droves over his vast expansion of the U.S. Military’s involvement in foreign conflicts and registering as Republicans simply so they can vote for Ron Paul.


Now has never been a more important time to get behind Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, and we encourage all our readers to donate either before or on the day of the next scheduled money bomb by visiting http://www.ronpaul2012.com/.


Link to original article
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Iran - the "War Prediction"

Just heard a pretty sensible prediction about Iran and our future in going to WWIII . This is a prediction that many of us see coming so it's not too far fetched.  


We will be at war with Iran.  The Obama administration along with the UN & NATO will keep poking them with a stick until we go to war by forcing Iran to make the first move.  This will be the beginning of WWIII.  According to insiders, should Obama have his way, we will be in a war with Iran by September or October of 2012.  The insider tactics? Very predictable (in fact, I had this very conversation last night!) Intimidate and harass Iran into launching the first move.  If Tehran refuses to halt their nuclear weapons program, we'll continue to force their hand in making the first move. 


I don't doubt this "plan" by the US because Obama has exhausted his credibility by launching undeclared wars so we'll need a significant event in the US that can be blamed on Iran and/or a first strike overseas in order to fully engage the middle east in all out war.  Russia? They've moved in.  China? They've already declared their support to Iran.  I hope this never happens but again, it's what many of us have been discussing in recent weeks. 


According to history, no sitting president has ever lost re-election during a time of emergency or war.  The election is obviously in November so an October incident would put Obama in the same situation.  He knows there is no other chance of his re-election. 


Please keep this in mind and vote your conscious!  With Ron Paul, we can change our future and prove that history doesn't have to repeat itself again.


In peace - 

Why I support Ron Paul in 2012 (and did in 2008)

People ask me why I support Ron Paul. 

If someone came to you and admitted being a liar and a thief but gave you some insurance or proof as to how they've corrected their behavior, you might be very leery about trusting them. Let's say you took a chance and for the sake of argument, trusted this person but remained cautious about such trust. After the person built a personal reputation with you over time, trust would build and if this person showed true honesty and loyalty - true values and morals (and didn't repeat the lying and stealing), the trust would continue to build right? If you witnessed high moral character, sincere regret for/and disembarking on previous immoral behaviors, this trust could definitely grow very deep.


How about a second type of person. Someone comes to you and never mentions any history of fraud, deceit or immorality. But you did your homework and researched this second person. In the process you found some acts of fraud, amoral behavior and low behavior. Wouldn't you be far more skeptical about trusting this person than the first type of person? Most people would be apt not to even bother trusting this second person. Here is why I believe that Gingrich and Cain are the definition of this second type of person.

Let's examine their prior ethical practices (or lack thereof)? Since there really isn't any difference between the Republicans and Democrat choices (i.e. Obama has done everything McCain promised to do upon campaigning against Obama and Obama has done the opposite of what he has promised to do once elected), I've adopted a common term: Republicrats.

I start and end with Gingrich since he's probably the juiciest and probably the most evil (if possible). Will most likely be out of the race soon after Cain, Bachmann and Santorum.

Gingrich is a "big ideas guy" claims to be a fiscal conservative even after taking huge compensation from special interest groups such as the heath insurance industry and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right before the bubble burst.

The marital affairs are a distraction from the real issues. That said, if true, these allegations do demonstrate the level of morality beyond serving the Federal Reserve (Cain) and securing sub-prime mortgage holders fates through government sponsored entities such as Freddie and Fannie (Gingrich). In addition, everyone who has a memory beyond 1996 remembers Gingrich going after Clinton's impeachment with Ken Starr even though he himself was having an affair all the while. Forced to exit from his position as speaker, it seems inappropriate to me to call him "Mr. Speaker" in the debates though I know this is trivial. I liken it to calling someone demoted from General to Private the previous rank of General. Makes no sense but what in politics usually does?

What can I say? I'm sold on Ron Paul and I pick my "battles" in educating people quite carefully. In other words, those who insist that they are "proud to have a well spoken and well liked president" don't get any argument from me. I feel that my support of Ron Paul is not just for me or those I care about but for the world - including those who are married to the notion of left vs. right (four legs good two legs bad?).

I cannot however help but poke some fun here at how bright the current Commander in 'Chief is. Does anyone who has pontificated how smart Obama is remember him saying he'd been to 57 states so far and had one to go? "Take it to the bank" - the promise to end the war in Iraq, close Gitmo and not build any permanent bases in Iraq (even though what we've done under his "leadership" is build a base larger than the Vatican in Iraq and send more troops into the middle east and now we're poking Iran with a stick again.

There's lots we can do but we must act. Do we want a crash landing or a free fall? If you want the former, let's talk Paul.