There is one person that the GOP hates more than President Obama.  I wasn't aware of this until this last weekend.  Prior to that, I simply thought the GOP wanted to "beat" Obama and wanted that more than anything.   Saturday was our GOP County Convention. For those of you unfamiliar with the Caucus process...the County Convention is where the delegates that were voted on go to vote on who they want to represent the County at the State Convention. This was my first time being involved in this process.   I was voted in as a delegate in the Caucus...and arrived at our County Convention as the County Coordinator for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul won our County by a slim margin over Santorum.  Romney and Gingrich had little support in our County.  Anyway, we had 45% of the delegates arriving last Saturday.  To cut to the chase...we took only 1/3 of the delegates and all but one of the alternates.  Now many of you might find this acceptable....but its not, I find this as a total loss, and its how it came about that bothers me the most.  We did not lose because our candidate was the least popular.  We lost when our candidate was the most popular.

We lost because Santorum, Gingrich and Romney united to beat us.  We are not the only county that this has happened in.  This is happening in every county where we hold the most delegates of any one candidate.   Now many of you still will not see a problem with this...but here is my point.   Santorum and Gingrich know full well...the only way they can ever become president is to see a brokered convention.   The only way you can do so is to deny Romney as many delegates as possible.   Once he reaches 1144 the game is over.  Yet.............they make a deal with Romney...giving him delegates just to prevent Ron Paul from winning.

Beating Obama takes a back seat to beating Ron Paul and the message of freedom.  To the GOP Ron Paul is more offensive than Barack Obama because he is not an authoritarian.  He is the only GOP that polls better with independents than Obama......and if you truly wanted to win...you would push him to win.  They truly cannot think that ignoring the independents is going to give you a win.   Its insanity..and suicide...and the Santorum, Gingrich campaigns knowingly committing political suicide just to keep Ron Paul from getting delegates explains it all.

We need to wake up as a Country and see, that authoritarians rule our country.  They want to tell you how to live.  The most dangerous person to a society that does not offer choice...is a man that doesnt want to tell you how to live...and who wants to give you choice.

I am very concerned about my country.   I spent 14 hours arguing my case in front of my peers on Saturday.....and it fell on deaf ears.  We were divided...and I felt like I couldnt be further from the majority in the room if I was an Obama supporter.  When I got up for my speech, I could see the disgust and hatred in the eyes of 60% of the audience.  It was awkward.....but I stood my ground.

To my democrat brothers/sisters in this country.....don't worry..the GOP doesn't really dislike Barack Obama...they are doing everything they can to get him in for another four years.  He is after all an authoritarian just like them.

One woman asked who Paul feels should pay for birth control pills.

“That’s the big issue of the moment, isn’t it? The world is about to blow up, the economy is about to blow up, and the biggest discussion we have is on birth control,” he said.

“The people whom use birth control pills should pay for birth control pills,” Paul said. “If you mandate to an insurance company what they have to cover, it’s not insurance anymore. It’s an autocracy.”

Paul also responded to a question about Syria and Iran by saying he doesn’t believe in interfering in other countries.

“There is absolutely no rationalization for going to war against Iran at this time,” he said.

He said ending all foreign aid would not hurt Israel.

“Israel is worse off for our intervention,” he said. "We give seven times the foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than we do to Israel.”

An interfering foreign policy makes the United States less safe, not safer.

“People tend to get a little annoyed when we go in and bomb them,” he said.

“He gets it”

Those in the crowd were sold on Ron Paul.

“I’ve been a voter since Richard Nixon, and I’ve never had a candidate that has such a firm grasp on the Constitution,” said St. Louis County resident Phil R. Bales. “This is the first time in my life I chose to give money to a candidate.”

Kucinich says: "I've worked with Ron Paul and I know he cannot be bought, cannot be bossed around, keeps his own counsel and is a person of conscience. He's shown a lot of courage in challenging three wars – the war on drugs, the war on civil liberties and the wars America prosecutes around the world."

One of the most conservative voices in Congress stands hand in glove with one of the most liberal. Such unconventional alliances are another element of Paul's attraction to his army of young supporters, who are scathing of the horse-trading that goes on within and between the two main parties. As Nick Brancato, 31, said as he stood outside a New Hampshire polling station on the day of the primary: "He's the only candidate who makes sense and wants change. He doesn't flipflop, he's always said what he believes in and I know he's not going to change his stance when he's elected."

Sure it's embarrassing to have stood by Newt Gingrich, thinking all of his dirty laundry had already been aired, only to find out that there might be more.  I still think he's probably the most intelligent, the most knowledgeable, and, perhaps, even the most pragmatic of all the candidates.  He's also probably the candidate best suited to navigate the highways and byways of Washington in order to get things done and, frankly, there are certainly many areas on which we agree.  The problem is, there may be too many areas on which we disagree, and I'm not sure how many more pair of dirty socks and shorts I can take.  It is from this perspective that I take yet another look at Dr. Ron Paul.

The good news, and the bad news, is that a vote for Ron Paul should not be looked at as a wasted or "protest" vote.  At the moment, he certainly has a valid chance of winning the nomination for President of the United States.  As with the other candidates that find themselves in his position, the chance of victory propels him from a man with interesting ideas to a man whose negatives, as well as positives, need to be examined.  Much has been written about Dr. Paul, not always with the most positive of spin, but there is no doubt that as the viability of his candidacy has risen, so has the rhetoric. 

On the plus side, there is no doubt that Dr. Ron Paul actually personifies the "hope and change" promised by Barrack Obama, with Paul's emphasis on changing the government by limiting it and placing his hope in empowering the individual.  His views are well known, and few would argue that he is a favorite of the establishment.  He has the experience of being in private practice as a physician, is not an attorney, and, apparently, has served his constituency well since 1997.  Of particular interest to me is, unlike every President since Ronald Reagan,  he is not affiliated with either Harvard or Yale.  This also suggests that any Supreme Court vacancies which occur during his presidency might also have the chance of being filled by someone other than an alumnus of either of those two fine educational institutions.  He has stood up to the Federal Reserve, as well as Wall Street and the Big Banks and, finally, he claims to be for individual freedoms and the rights of the individual, sometimes disputed by those who wish to retain those freedoms only for themselves and thus they, in my opinion, misunderstand and misrepresent his positions.

Now, on the negative side, one has to wonder if he is up to the job, and I mean no disrespect, and not that I think he could do a poorer job then the present occupant.  There is always a difference between giving an opinion, and making a decision and thus being one of 435 House members is much different than being one President.  Further, when one looks at his performance in the House of Representatives, one wonders how many allies he would find should he be elected.  His foreign policy outlook is a bit naive, in an area where there are few, if any, "do-overs" or "take-backs" and thus radical changes would have, whether positive or negative, radical consequences.  Similarly, it's not necessarily a question of what the goal is domestically, but rather how to move in the right direction without capsizing the ship of state.

Obviously my thoughts above only scratch the surface, both negatively and positively, regarding Dr. Paul's candidacy but, having said that, I find I am beginning to lean once again in his favor.  There are problems, some of which may be below the surface with unexpected results.  For example, although I am for a return to "hard" money, we must be careful that in doing so, the status quo is not simply solidified at the present level of inequity.  Similarly, an "open-border" policy might be based on libertarian principles, but a massive increase in new immigrants can only keep wages low, while benefiting those with significant assets.  The question is whether he will be used, just as the present President has been, to implement policies which others might not be able to implement because of their perceived political views.  If Dr. Paul is truly a "constitutionalist" than our saving grace may be that he can impact those areas in a positive way, but be much less able to do so in other areas.

So, is Ron Paul our last chance?  I, personally, am beginning to think so, and thus, even with my concerns regarding some of the harm he might do, I have to wonder if changing the political paradigm isn't worth it.

For those of you here on the vine...and the United States of America who find yourself leaning Democrat or liberal.  

Whose supporters do you run across the most from  the  GOP?

quick easy.....please answer the poll. and make any comments you might like.

South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the darling of the Tea Party wing nuts of the GOP, is urging Republican candidates to listen to Ron Paul. “One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

Why the sudden enthusiasm of Republican leaders for Ron Paul? Credit his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, where 47 percent of primary voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for him.

No other Republican candidate has come nearly as close to winning over young voters – and the GOP desperately needs young voters. The median age of registered Republicans is rising faster than the median age of America.

The Republican right thinks Paul’s views on the economy are responsible for this fire among the young. Yesterday evening, on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program, I squared off with Larry and the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore. Both are convinced young people are attracted by Paul’s strict adherence to the views of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and Paul’s desire to move America back to the gold standard.

Baloney. The young are flocking to Ron Paul because he wants to slice military spending, bring our troops home, stop government from spying on American citizens, and legalize pot.

As Paul encouraged his supporters to believe—to never give up on their vision for America, the crowd broke out into a spontaneous chant, a phrase made up of three monosyllables that the candidate had coined.

No, it wasn’t “Yes we can!” It was “End the Fed!” But you’d have to be blind to not to see the parallels between Paul’s 2012 campaign and the one Barack Obama launched in 2008.

What made Obama’s campaign historic was in part the momentous outpouring of support he received from the youth vote. A disproportionate number of young voters participated in the election, and voters 18 to 29 went for Obama 68% to 30%, a 38 point margin. While Romney won in New Hampshire with 39% of the vote, Paul took 47% of the 18 to 29 vote, beating Romney by 22 points.

"Ron Paul is unelectable". You hear it all the time from the mainstream media and "conservative" commentators. Ron Paul says the war on drugs is unconstitutional and a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that the Federal Reserve, the Communist Manifesto's central bank of the 5th plank, is a failure and should be abolished? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that Department of Education, which didn't even begin operation until the Reagan years, should be abolished in order to help balance the budget? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that we should withdraw troops from Afghanistan while Afghan President Karzai calls America a "main enemy", says that he would prefer the Taliban over America, and would take the side of Pakistan if war broke out with the United States? Unelectable!

But somehow the media, the pundits, and the blowhard commentators are very reluctant to call any other Republican 'unelectable', even if the truth is staring them right in the face. If they were to expose the other candidates' hypocrisy by comparing them to the Republican Party platform that supposedly espouses Constitutionally limited government, low taxes, and low spending, it might go a little something like this:

Rather than complaining about the article being just a tad early, I invite you to accept my wishes to you and yours for a Happy and prosperous New Year, filled with joy and meaning.  These wishes go out without regard to party, faith, ethnicity,gender,sexual orientation,country of origin,present location,political leanings, or, even, our last encounter.

Enjoy this last day of 2011 and, for those who wish to, feel free to mention either a New Years Resolution, or, in keeping with the venue, your more general wish for the new year.

Thank you for your contribution to my on-line experiences.

Resolutions?

Sure, I could have written a more thoughtful article, but maybe that will have to wait until 1/1/2012...

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who recently bolted the Republican Party and declared his intention to seek the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination next year, told the Daily Caller on Wednesday that he is urging his supporters to vote for the like-minded Rep. Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primaries.

When asked by the Daily Caller if Johnson believes that his Republican supporters should vote for Paul in the primary stage of the election, Johnson responded simply “yeah.”However, Johnson still wants committed libertarian voters to pull the lever for him next November

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it’s 85 percent.

The fact that roughly half of Paul’s primary supporters are Democrats or independents is probably an asset in selling his general election viability, which his fellow Republicans have frequently called into question. In a recent CNN survey that polled hypothetical head-to-heads between Obama and Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich respectively, Paul tied Romney in performing best against the President in large part because he outperformed all the other GOP candidates among Democrats, independents, 18- to 34-year-olds and non-white voters.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/27/ron-pauls-novel-coalition-faces-its-major-moment-in-iowa/#ixzz1hlVmrkzy

We haven’t even said goodbye to 2011, but I want to be first in line with my person of the year prediction for 2012: Ron Paul. I don’t think Paul is going to win the presidency, or even win the Republican nomination. But he’s going to come close enough to change the GOP forever.

Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They’re wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20^th Century was, and they’ll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It’s said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”

Small government conservatism, the kind to which today’s Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement’s efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.

Obama’s health care reform bill was modeled after Romney’s Massachusetts own legislation. Gingrich expressed support for the individual health care mandate 15 years before Obama was elected. On the same day that Obama gave a speech memorializing Teddy Roosevelt’s progressivism and a “new nationalism,” Gingrich lavished praise on Roosevelt for essentially the same reasons in an interview with Glenn Beck. Besides the individual policies that all three of them have embraced at one time or another, when it comes to their overarching view of foreign and economic policy, all of them accept the premise that the federal government must be powerful and expensive, both at home and abroad.

It’s easy to see why the president isn’t scared of Gingrich or Romney; both of them offer a similar, slightly more right-wing version of Obama’s inflationary monetary policy, massive deficits, federal intrusion of civil liberties, and an imperial role for the U.S. military. Although these policies are embraced by the mainstream of both parties and have contributed heavily to an exploding national debt, a dying dollar, and economic stagnation, when faced with two candidates with eerily similar platforms, voters will likely choose the devil they know over a thrice-married “historian” or a flip-flopping governor.

Paul, on the other hand, offers a completely different philosophy than the president and the rest of the GOP field. For decades, Paul has been warning about the dangers of easy credit, policing the world, deficits, government spending, and government intervention into the marketplace. If elected, Paul plans to slash the deficit, balance the budget, cut taxes, establish a sound currency, and stop policing the world. In their endorsement of Paul, The Daily Iowan cites Paul’s consistency, record, and the fact that “the candidates who have a chance of winning the state often take stances that are not dissimilar to that of President Obama.”

In a far cry from his ragtag 2008 effort, Ron Paul is looking beyond the traditional early state contests and gearing up for a long primary slog that lasts at least through Super Tuesday.

It’s a strategy that could make Paul a player at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla.

The Texas congressman’s long-haul approach is designed to take advantage of new GOP proportional allocation rules that enable candidates to amass delegates without finishing in first place, and to leverage the unique attributes of his campaign — an intensely loyal following and a steady flow of money that will likely enable him to continue for as long as he chooses.

Paul has already put teams in place in 12 caucus states through March 6, when about a dozen Republican primaries and caucuses will take place. On Wednesday, the campaign announced five office openings: Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota and Washington.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt, and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference unless they use force or fraud against others. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

QUOTEBOX: Ron Paul, in his own words

* On the U.S. Patriot Act: ``I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty ... Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security.

* On siding with Israel against Iran: ``Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.''

* On foreign aid: ``I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country, and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries.''

* On the drug war: ``I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure ... Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol?''

* On following the golden rule in foreign policy: ``I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us?''

* On leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan: ``Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there, because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country, just like we would if anybody tried to occupy us.''

* On gay marriage: ``I think the government should just be out of it, I think it should be done by the Church or private contract and we shouldn't have this argument, who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others, others have standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.''

* On the 9/11 attacks: ``Our policies definitely had an influence. And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country ... So I'm saying policies have an effect. But that's a far cry from blaming America.''

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Alberts+Paul+candidacy+thrives+libertarian+unconventional+views/5775051/story.html#ixzz1f2cchNdi

Blah, blah, blah, Ron Paul is awesome.

As college students, we’ve all heard them –– Ron Paul supporters who rant and rave about how their libertarian savior is going to bring freedom back to the country, legalize pot and pull us out of Afghanistan. Allow my prickly beard to burst the idealistic bubble for you all: Ron Paul could never be president. And considering the circumstances, that’s probably the biggest compliment anyone could give him.

What Americans claim to crave from their politicians is honesty. We say we want the truth, but when it comes right down to it, the facts can be downright depressing. So instead we go for a candidate who tells us what we want to hear. We go for a candidate who claims their political party was doing it right all along. We vote for whomever can scream their pre-written talking points the loudest. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul isn’t that guy.

Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party’s nomination, but in many respects, it’s hard to see why. As a libertarian, Paul believes in a small government that doesn’t mess with America’s free-market economy (totally kosher for Republicans). But Paul also believes the federal government should keep it’s hands off same-sex marriage, get rid of torture and pull out of all foreign wars (all about as kosher as a roasted pig wrapped in bacon).

What’s worse, Ron Paul has held the same views on just about everything since he was elected to Congress in the 1970s. Compared to every single Republican front runner, Ron Paul is the only one who hasn’t been made a fool of by flip-flopping opinions. Michele Bachmann is pretty consistent as well, but being consistently crazy is rarely a positive attribute.

90 seconds is all the talking time Ron Paul receieved in last nights GOP debate in the first hour.

90 seconds out of 3600 seconds available.

that means that 3510 seconds were available to the remaining candidates to spout their nonsense of authoritarianism.

When are the people of this country going to stand up for what is right and demand that we have fair elections and that our media be unbiased in its reporting?????  Especially when it comes to presidential and political campaigns.

Once the people realize that what is being done to Ron Paul by ALL media organizations, then they need to question   WHY?????

We need to question what is being told to us.   We need to question authority and the media.   When different news sources from opposite sides of the spectrum are doing the same thing.......something is just not right.   I dont want to hear he is not electable.   That is what the media tells us over and over and over again.   If they were to tell the public the opposite...that he was the only electable candidate...I am sure the results would be different.  If he were given 3510 seconds out of 3600 the results would be different.  If the other candidates were only given 90 seconds out of an hour to spread the plans....the results would be different.

90 seconds.......90 seconds

Americans please take 90 seconds and think about this....and if you truly are fair...and are for freedom of speech....and for a free and fair election....then please let your voice be heard about this.  Contact the media...contact your local politicians......

We need to stand up and reject this tyranny.

peace.

Ron Paul is the only choice for Republicans.   It is my personal belief that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  The others dont stand a chance.  For one on war....hell Obama is out killing and out warmongering the warmongers.....they cant beat him there.   Safety by taking away rights???  they cant beat him there.....as he has continued Bush's horrible and rights violating Patriot Act and EXPANDED upon it...now killing American citizens without due process.   He is out dictatoring(I know not a word) the dictators....how many executive orders has he done.???...He has already assumed the power that Bush and others have given the executive branch....and he is continued the expansion.   Social issues....well...people always want something for nothing....and there is no way in hell the republicans can beat Obama on this issue.

What we have left that they may get him on is the economy.   Considering they knew about as much as Obama did prior to the recession....well.....its a draw...Bush and the republican presidents before him also expanded government so its a draw I think with the economy.  I know, I know  some say that the dems and repubs are different on this...but history proves otherwise.

That leaves Ron Paul.  

He is the only one for change.   THE ONLY ONE.

Foreign policy would be greatly altered...he would end our warmongering worldwide...bring our troops home so they can spend their money here.....one up on the warmongers...and already one up on the economy.

Safety by taking away rights.....this is an interesting one....Ron Paul obviously believes that freedom should not be taken away for security....he would end the Patriot Act and coupled with a new foreign policy of trade and friendship.....we would be safer than ever before....now of course the authoritarian minded will think otherwise...but freedom will ring on this issue...again advantage Ron Paul.

Economy....Ron Paul would bury Obama on this issue...not even close...Ron Paul is an economic genius in comparison to the simpleton Obama.....advantage Ron Paul.

Corporations....again Ron Paul would not be for subsidies or bailouts of failed corporations...and the corporations know this...so they would support Obama...and this is were he will start to slip...as the media..which is a corporation, will support Obama.....now they will use fear to convince the public that bailing out corporations is a good thing.....but the OWS shows people are catching on...again advantage Ron Paul.

Social Issues   those with an education will see through the media bias and bull on this one...unfortunately many vote in this country and decide on issues after investing about 1 hr a year on politics....so although I believe freedom is the only way to go....tyranny will win out here....although Ron Paul wouldnt really be at a disadvantage here compared with other republicans although for different reasons.   advantage Obama

Constitution   again clear advantage for Ron Paul as he actually believes in the Constitution....all the good and bad.

One thing I almost forgot is the left wing vote.  I know of many progressives who have said that they will vote for Ron Paul if he wins the nomination....no other Republican can say that....advantage Ron Paul

Then of course you have that little thing called a third party...If Ron Paul decides to run as a third party he will destroy any chances the GOP would have of winning.....so Republicans, the choice is clear.

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

Gee...what a surprise....Who would of thought that Anonymous would be supporting a Republican....for freedom.

wake up people.

The first glimpse of this came nine minutes into the debate. It followed Speaker Gingrich’s tirade against the chairman of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, Ben Bernanke. “I don’t see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think that it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.”

“So, Congressman Paul,” interjected Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, “where do you come down on this?”

It is fascinating to watch the appreciative laughter that greeted her question. Everyone at the table understood that Dr. Paul was way out in front of them, and the Texas libertarian gave his first glimpse of why. “One thing I might say is that we have made some inroads on the Federal Reserve. We passed a bill last year, we got a partial audit of the Fed. We’ve learned a whole lot. They were dealing in 15 trillion dollars, five trillion went overseas to bail out foreign banks.”

Dr. Paul then credited key news organizations, including Bloomberg News, one of the hosts of the debate, and Fox News, for pressing law suits to force disclosures by the Fed. And he expressed the view that to make progress on the issue coalitions could be built, “without sacrificing principles.” It was an allusion to his effort to get Congress to force a Fed audit, which he started as a lone voice and which eventually gained broad, bipartisan support.

The second Ron Paul moment was again set up by Speaker Gingrich, who was railing about how the Treasury Secretaries Paulson and Geithner and Mr. Bernanke “didn’t have a clue.” At that point Charlie Rose, who did a marvelous job as moderator, turned to the question of housing and asked Dr. Paul whether he would get the Federal government out of housing. “Absolutely,” Dr. Paul replied. “No credit?” Mr. Rose asked. “No Freddie Mac, Fannie mae, no nothing?”

“No. That’s where the distortions come,” Dr. Paul replied. “That’s where the moral hazard comes from, that’s where the mal-investment . . . It was predictable. You talked about what economists we should look to. And unfortunately we’ve been living with Keynesian economics for many, many decades, and everybody who was right about predicting the bubbles were Austrian economists.”

Continued he: “ . . They said [the bubbles] were coming, and yet they’re also saying, and I agree with them, that everything we’re doing right now is wrong. So what we did with the housing bubble, yes, we had too many houses, it was glaring in our face, the bubble was doomed to burst. It came because of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, easy credit, and also Community Reinvestment Act. So who got into trouble? The people who did the speculating — Wall Street, the derivatives market, they got the bailout, they got the privileges.”

Nothing more needs to be said

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

How influential is Ron Paul?
For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”

Ron Paul supporters know he has little chance of becoming the next president, but they say his third bid for the job is about more than winning the GOP nomination or the White House — it’s about guiding the political landscape beyond the Republican-Democrat duopoly that’s controlled Washington for more than a century.

The man who in his 2008 bid was dismissed as a sideshow has emerged this year as the prophet of libertarian-leaning conservatives and tea-party supporters alike and has come to define the burgeoning coalition that preaches lower taxes, global retrenchment and more modest use of federal powers here at home.

The dollar just ain't what it used to be.

Literally: For most of the United States' existence, the value of dollar had been tied to gold. That ended in 1971, when President Richard Nixon decided that the dollar could no longer be converted, at a fixed rate, into gold. But now, 40 years after abandoning what's known as the gold standard, fears over a falling dollar—both due to America's debt and the recent fiscal indecision of its leaders—may be giving gold, and its advocates, like GOP presidential contender Ron Paul, a new shot.

"A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it." ~Frank Lloyd Wright

As we approach, yet, another major election cycle (well, that cycle has already left the station months ago, such is politics in this very polarized, but still great nonetheless, nation) in America, the pundits are out in droves, polarized speak is the only discussion in most circles, and people are gearing up, on both sides of the political spectrum, to say whatever they need to win whether or not what's being said is the truth. Welcome to politics in America, the great circus on Earth.

I am not going to make this too long, but my only intention, in this forum today, is to present a question that, hopefully, will spur some real debate and force proponents and opponents of Barack Obama alike to do some real soul searching when it comes to question of whether or not another 4 years of Mr. Obama is better for the nation than any of the alternatives currently in the pool.

I posed this same question to people in the comments section of another recent article, posted here by Jim Davis from Veterans For Change, but not one person could refute my argument and provide a solid response.

The problem I see happening at the moment, with a momentum that will surely continue to grow unless logic and reason is injected into the conversation, is that the GOP rank and file is centering a lot of their collective message, leading up to the pivotal election next year, on their view that Barack Obama has not performed adequately and almost anyone could have done a better job.  My response to that notion is that it is complete nonsense, utter hogwash. The GOP is banking on their ability to twist the message, throw folks off with respect to the actual record, and brainwash as many people as possible into believing their off-message, unsupported, unqualified rhetoric.  I believe that the America public is smarter than the Republican's give credit and, as such, putting the facts into perspective is more important than ever considering the critical times in which we all live. America is at another cross roads and the national cannot afford to make a mistake in 2012 by not giving this President another term.

Here it is in a nutshell. In my opinion, to do any better than Mr. Obama has (with respect to the economy among other things) in Washington and, more broadly, America today, it would have taken a magician and an army of wizards or, more realistically, an outright act of God in favor of another candidate.

Sadly but surely, Mr. Bush decimated the economy, among other things, and, believe it or not, we are doing as well as the realm of possibility could provide (at this time, so soon after Bush's devastation) considering how the state the economy was left after the last GOP administration. Categorically in my view, under no other leadership, on either side of the aisle, could we have been in better shape presently with respect to not only the economy, but on several fronts.

There's no question that the Republicans would have continued down the path Mr. Bush blazed and, accordingly, things would have gotten far worse post-election and over the ensuring three years. We would undoubtedly have the same old tax breaks for the wealthy elite, inadequate health care for millions (that now have it) would still exist (GOP would rather cull the population than give people better health care services), we'd not yet be winding down our military missions in the Middle East, and, most importantly to be considered, banks and corporations would still be coming before the people.

In my view, the Republican vision and agenda hasn't changed in centuries proverbially being that the rich should get richer, and the poor should get poorer.

Conversely, any other Democratic candidate would have taken a similar approach and path [to the economy] as Mr. Obama (and his advisers who would likely, at least in some significant cases, be part of any potential Democratic administration that might have unfolded in 2008) and, accordingly, we'd be in a similar position to the present - on the road to recovery.

Elect a Republican, Tea Partier, or Independent candidate for President and the nation will indeed reach new lows with diminishing levels of prosperity and prominence. If Mr. Obama is elected again (or a Democrat with similar policies and views), I wholeheartedly believe that the economy, at the very least and among other things, will fully recover by the end of his second term.

One of the central reasons that none of the GOP candidates are resonating with the voters at large (and why Mr. Obama will indeed win a second term and validation of his policies) is because all any of them have managed to succeed at (with their collectively weak message) is bashing the president's policies without ever offering solutions or expressly qualifying their criticisms with how they would have handled matters differently.

To be clear, not only do I believe that no other candidate that presently exists, Republican, Democrat or Independent alike, would have stewarded a better economic recovery (or made more positive all around change for that matter), but I will take my assertion one big step further and challenge anyone here (on Newsvine), or from any politically active person, group or committee, or, wishfully thinking on my part, that is actively a candidate presently running against the policies of Mr. Obama in 2012 (on any government level) to credibly refute these views.

Does anyone here really think things would have been better under Mr. McCain or Mr. Romney? How about Mrs. Clinton (she would have fostered similar policies to what we see presently)?

Let's have a discussion, folks, about this topic without the rhetoric, one-liners, and polarizing speak that never leads to a resolution of concept and ideology. I want to learn more and, if I'm wrong about my opinions, please let me know.

Any intelligent, thoughtful rebuttal should include not only what needs to be done now and going forward (differently from Mr. Obama's policies), but also explain what strikingly different direction should have been taken in 2008, with respect to the economy, that would have seen us in a far better position than at present, with a robust, economy that would have seen more people back to work (than what's been accomplished under Mr. Obama). If anyone can come up with a credible rebuttal, then please convey your ideas in this forum and consider offering your services to a Republican candidate because we all know and it's quite evident that they're struggling with their convoluted message and need the fresh input.

Please take the time to complete the polling questions and make your opinion known.

This article shows why the GOP and the rest of America needs to get behind Ron Paul.

he is for "human" rights....not just those sponsored by a certain party.

peace.

The latest new Tim Pawlenty is the born-again neoconservative moving to the far right on warmaking issues, destined to clash with Ron Paul in the presidential debates. Actually, Pawlenty is not a born-again neocon. This is his first birth as warmaker in his latest version of Pawlenty. By contrast with Ron Paul, who has always been Ron Paul.

Today, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, released a column titled “How Should Government Treat Energy Producers?” In his column, Paul explained why a good energy market is great for the economy and what the differences are between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions

When Ron Paul announced four years ago that he was running for president, the congressman from Texas had a tough time attracting attention.

Paul -- known for his calls for a significantly limited government, opposition to the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan conflicts and his drive to get rid of the Federal Reserve -- stayed in Washington to declare his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on C-Span, the cable television station devoted to government proceedings. His entry earned a one-sentence mention near the end of a Washington Post political story, and little notice elsewhere.

“As President, I will not be able to waive a magic wand and solve all of our problems overnight. I will have to work with Congress and build consensus from the American People."

The surprising poll results were revealed Saturday as several Republican presidential hopefuls made their way to New Orleans to appeal to southern conservatives. Paul (R-Texas) won nearly 40 percent of the vote while Huntsman, former governor of Utah, nabbed nearly a quarter of the vote.

"This win is just the latest indicator of how the majority of American opinion is turning in Ron Paul’s direction,” Jesse Benton, chairman of Paul's campaign, said in a statement.

NEW YORK (TheStreet ) -- If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there's a chance he wouldn't have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket.

Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host -- Andrew Napolitano -- as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet's Alix Steel in Washington this week.

Ron Paul’s followers’ passion is matched only by his detractors’ derision

Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels have dropped out of the 2012 presidential contest, and, as last week’s column pointed out, Newt Gingrich comes with some serious deficiencies in the family values department.

That leaves Texas Congressman Ron Paul who, at age 75, has announced that he is once again ready to make a third attempt to attain the Oval Office.

“I’ve been beating the same drum for 30 years,” said Paul. “I think the time is right.”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is worried about the falling value of the U.S. dollar and doesn't want the debt ceiling raised, he told CNBC Wednesday.

But he also doesn't want to default on payments to U.S. bond holders.

Rather than raise the debt ceiling, he wants to see cuts in military spending and sales of some American assets — such as gold reserves.

"They’re worrying about raising the debt limit," said the Texas congressman. "I’m worried about the value of the dollar" especially if the Federal Reserve continues to "print money" whenever it wants.

The case has been made....he deserves to be president and we need him more than we know.

And here we go.....................

Ron Paul 2012

Revolution