500x100

A true conservative candidate vs. a libertarian/ Part II

 

by Don Hank

 

Does Ron Paul understand cultural Marxism?

Ron Paul’s scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.

America has been victimized by cultural Marxism for decades. First it was the feminazis, who ushered in the “woman’s right” to kill her unborn and discredited fatherhood, influencing the courts to separate men from their children, effectively separating families under welfare rules, and generally declaring men evil abusers.

Now it is the homosexual activists (not gays as a group) who are organizing to discredit  candidates who oppose gay marriage. Ron is unfairly benefitting from this radical movement to gain ground with the gay agenda. It is cowardly and does him no credit.

And it is illegal aliens who are now demanding special rights, even as border guards sit in jail for essentially doing their jobs. The administration has contrived to make it look like it is protecting our borders, but that is a lie. They are in fact arresting and deporting fewer of them.

Paul’s position on illegal immigration? A true Von Mises libertarian, Ron Paul has never been strong on the border and illegal immigration. In fact, NumbersUSA has given him an F on immigration. A very big red flag.

 

Is there anyone left?

Who has the best grade NumbersUSA grade on immigration?

Why that would be Michele Bachmann. And just what if people could be focused on illegal immigration again, and made to understand that it is costing jobs? Wouldn’t that help her poll numbers? Of course, the GOP would have to stop catering to lawbreakers.

Further, regarding cultural Marxism (of which illegal immigration is a facet), Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in politics who understand what 100% of politicians should understand about cultural Marxism. For example, she recently set a feminazi straight on the Kinsey myths, ie, who Kinsey was, and what his agenda was. She probably could also have shown why he should have gone to jail instead of being hailed as a great researcher.

Anyone who still believes the Kinsey myths needs to check out the work of Dr. Judith Reisman at:

http://drjudithreisman.org/

I doubt any of the other candidates have a clue about this, and other, cultural Marxism issues.

 

But can Bachmann win against Obama?

The GOP wants you to think she can’t and that only a leftwinger who is ideologically indistinguishable from Obama can beat Obama. So why not just clone Obama, give him another name (would that be a third?), and run him?

But they are forgetting a few things.

Here is what one poster commented on a blog regarding a recent PA poll:

And now for a little course in Political Science 101: This poll is not of ‘likely’ voters. It included a sample of 500 Pennsylvanians. It was done by PPP which is a democratic polling group. It is notoriously flawed because in past polls PPP has been poorly predictive when identifying Republicans and Republican leaning Independents for the sample. It is also flawed because of its proximity to the general election in November of 2012. Polls taken long before elections are inherently non-predictive of the actual election results.

Added to this is that fact that the poll didn’t even include Bachmann, although she was not trailing Santorum by much, and he was included. It also doesn’t show the fallout of another 6 months of further job losses and other Obama incompetency that  may well make him unable to beat a warm body. Finally, let’s admit that Ron Paul has been successful largely because of his fund raising, and much of his money has come from libertarians, recreational drug enthusiasts and anti-war groups. What would happen if the GOP got behind Michele Bachmann and backed her financially instead of giving her the cold shoulder? Can we admit her poll numbers would rise significantly?

One of the main reasons Bachmann is showing so poorly is that the GOP and RINOs in the MSM are either unfairly attacking her or ignoring her sterling conservative and fiscal merits. There are no real conservatives left in the GOP leadership, which is bringing the party dangerously close to irrelevance.

If they were suddenly to turn around and show how Reagan-like Bachmann is, for example, that would change everything. After all, who would not want to return to the boom times under Reagan? It would be Reagan-Carter all over again.

A lesson that the GOP learned the hard way – again – is that when you try to hype a candidate like Newt or Mitt, who in important ways are indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who have ethical and moral issues as well, the public will eventually focus on these blemishes. Not because conservatives point them out, but because the Democrat-leaning MSM won’t let us forget.

Bachmann, to her credit, has no major skeletons, and all the criticism she has reaped so far looks like what it is: extreme nitpicking. For example, apparently one of her advisors fed her a false statement about an IEAE report showing that “Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months.” I have read the latest IAEA report and although it does not say that, it actually shows that Iran has been weaponizing nuclear materials for a long time, and one can infer that it most likely will have a warhead in the near future. Ron Paul crucified her for the inaccuracy but ignored the relevant facts of that report.

At this point, the GOP has a worrisome dilemma: either choose Ron Paul, whose star is rising even as Newt’s wanes, or choose squeaky clean candidate Michele Bachmann and give her that much needed, and much deserved, extreme PR makeover.

Now would be a good time to act, before Ron Paul takes the nomination.

Michele Bachmann is probably their – and our — only chance.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

Romney is for illegal aliens:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071

Newt is for illegal aliens:

http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt

Ron Paul is for illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

23 Responses to “A true conservative candidate vs. a libertarian/ Part II”

  1. You’re exactly right, Don. The RINO-run GOP is the problem. The left-run MSM–including FOX–has always tried to smear Conservatives or give them little attention. Bachmann’s getting a lot of attention now but it’s almost all from liberal rag reporters and columnists.

    You don’t have to worry about the GOP getting behind Ron Paul–they aren’t! Paul will be lucky to get 10% in most primaries, particularly in his disgraceful exchange with Bachmann in the last debate.

  2. Hi Don

    Let us all read together the specific STRATEGY said to be used by Ron Paul. What we will read is not written by his enemies, but by a devotee and supporter, apparently somehow affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded by Ron Paul’s former congressional chief of staff, for the promotion of, among other things, the political philosophy of Voluntaryism, a form of anarchy or stateless society.

    We find the strategy specifically outlined in the caption to a video titled “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist,” designed to show from Ron Paul’s own words that he is a true voluntaryist / anarchist.

    Find the video here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25612.aspx

    Note the LvMI end credits. The producer, Graham Wright, answers many questions in the comment section, and his bio is also on the site. FWIW: he describes himself as a former libertarian who took libertarianism to its logical conclusion, and became an anarchist.

    That is probably significant as Ron Paul is a former libertarian Presidential candidate.

    The video caption reads:

    “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.”

    Should we take the video and this caption for what they present themselves to be? Is Ron Paul a voluntaryist, implementing the “limited government and appeal to the Constitution part of it as described?

    If so, then we must accept that his taking of limited government positions is nothing or less than a strategy, only means to an end. Those positions have no more substance than shadows, offered simply to gain approval and ultimately power. That is so stated. Do we believe the report?

    If Ron Paul is a voluntaryist utilizing this strategy, then what could it possibly matter if he offers a limited government position of which we agree. Of course he would. He has an agenda to be accomplished by taking positions with which someone of us would agree. That hardly means they are real positions.

    Let us not be fooled, again.

    If Ron Paul is what is described in this video, this website, and others, then he is no more simply an eccentric “conservative” than Obama is a liberal with a few eccentricities.

    Let us not forget that Obama is long associated with the anarchist political philosophies, and now, we find the same with Ron Paul. Odd huh?

    If Ron Paul is what he is presented, then Limited government is not his goal should he gain power. His goal is NOT to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution he uses for his strategy.

    His goal is NOT to restore America to the intent of our Founders with a government of We the People, with enumerated powers, personal responsibility, and all those other things, we hope he is alluding to.

    If Ron Paul is a voluntaryist, then he deems any and all government as immoral in concept, including our government, and thus the Constitution that created it. His goal would be nothing less than to dissolve government itself, this specifically includes OUR government, and to instituted a governmentless, stateless, society, based on anarchy.

    One can only image what the transition between where we are now, and statelessness might be like, when law itself is deemed immoral, and certainly law enforcement.

    We do not have to image what the end result would look like. History tells us:

    “Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

    John Adams tells us of the historical end of the Utopian vision of Ron Paul the Voluntaryist.

    Ron Paul and his ilk, would have us believe it will be different this time.

    I’ll trust Adams.

  3. Sapient’s post is astonishingly vacuous! He presents no argument for his allegation that Ron Paul is an anarchist, but tells us that someone else, with whom we already disagree, says he is an anarchist.
    No credible argument can be made that Paul is for anything but the rule of Law.
    I have been amused at those for whom a return to limited, Constitutional government seems like a threat.They struggle to indict Paul by any means necessary to protect the status quo and that status quo is a government that doubles in size vis a vis the private sector in an average period of less than two decades.
    Paul is the most prolific writer of any of the candidates. his ideas are consistent over thirty years. They are consistent with his public statements and his voting record. To suggest that he is an anarchist is just A LIE. It does not matter, Sapient, if you have deluded yourself, first and actually believe what you are saying. You are saying it in public and bear full responsibility.
    You are a LIAR.

  4. And now Don:
    Don says, “Ron Paul’s scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.”
    Well, Don, here’s the problem. Statists think the Government should control culture. Cultural Marxists have, in fact, made their greatest incursions into our culture via Public (Socialist) Education. Ron Paul, by contrast, lines up with traditional conservatism, that is, whatever culture is or becomes should be an outgrowth of freedom, not imposed by government. If your intention is to impose Judeo Christian beliefs (Ron Paul shares, BTW), or any other social/moral/political philosophy, on the electorate through the Presidency, you will not be pleased with Ron Paul. If, however, you don’t feel it is the government’s role to impose philosophy or religion, he is the one candidate that has never attempted to do so by violating the Constitution.
    Bachman’s recent refusal to oppose the bill giving Barack Obama the power to kill or detain innocent Americans without trial or rights make it highly unlikely that she has an interest in freedom deeper than her Presidential ambition.

  5. Doug,
    You are putting up a valiant fight on behalf of Ron Paul. But neither he nor my favorite Michele Bachmann voted against NDAA.
    We are not really in good hands no matter who wins.
    Don Hank

    http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10772387

    Republicans Voting ‘Abstain’
    Name Voted
    Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] Abstain
    Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Abstain
    Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21] Abstain
    Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Abstain
    Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Abstain
    Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Abstain
    Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Abstain
    Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Abstain

    As for Ron’s stand on illegal immigration, it has evolved over the years, and now that elections are nigh, he suddenly sounds conservative. But how is it that Michele has a B+ on immigration while Paul has had a failing to near-failing grade for years.
    Did you know that the Constitution that Ron talks about all the time says that the US government is to protect the states from invasion.
    I guess if you use a creative definition of “invasion,” then we aren’t being invaded by criminals and drug dealers from Mexico. But I call a spade a spade. It is an invasion and Ron has a smorgasbord view of the Constitution — taking what he wants and leaving the rest on the table.

  6. You say “Michele has a B+” as if there were some course we were all taking, as if there were some, universally agreed grading system. She has a high grade from the enemies of immigration.
    Fred Thompson ran into this 4 years ago being called “less conservative” because he voted against Federal “tort reform,” a conservative goal with an unconstitutional methodology. He was graded “more liberal” for being, actually, more conservative.
    You say, “Did you know that the Constitution that Ron talks about all the time says that the US government is to protect the states from invasion.” Agreed. But for politicians the objectives justify the means, and that is what is prescribed, here. The Machiavellian erection of a police state to protect us from the inevitable consequences of Socialism.
    Numbers USA takes the position that immigration is bad. Not just illegal immigration. If you assume that anyone requesting entrance into the USA is an enemy and stake out positions that way, you’ll get a good “Numbers” rating. Further, they unabashedly champion unconstitutional measures to further their objectives, like mandating “mark of the beast” databasing of all Americans. Like holding employers liable for following the “non-discriminatory” instructions they get from Social Security.
    Being willing to violate your oath of office for the sake of their immigration goals wins you higher marks at “Numbers.”
    Are your papers in order, Herr Hanks?

  7. Doug,
    You sound just like Ron with this kind of accusation:

    You say “Michele has a B+” as if there were some course we were all taking, as if there were some, universally agreed grading system. She has a high grade from the enemies of immigration.

    I beg your pardon, but have you never once pondered the difference between IMMIGRATON and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?
    This is so reminiscent of Ron Paul absurdly declaring that Michele Bachmann “doesn’t like Muslims” and Santorum “doesn’t like gays.”
    Maybe you and Ron Paul hate blacks because you don’t want Obama to win the next election then? Hmmm?

  8. One can’t talk with a Ron Paul supporter. They are just like an Obama supporter. They like the ‘talk’ and can’t look beyond that. Just like a used car salemen both these men can sale one back the old car that they just traded in that was totally shot and make one think they are getting a great bargain.

    It happened here in ’08 when people were promissed the ‘candy store’ without the understanding that it was empty and mortgaged to the hilt. So they got the hole in the floor. Paul’s people are buying the same old kind of dead horse.

    Germany bought the words of a speaker and the world got a war. With Paul we might have one heck of a war of trying to really fend off those that want to kill us while Paul is being their friend.

    You can’t chance a Paulbot to a sound way of thinking so it isn’t worth the time to try.

  9. What are you talking about?
    Numbers USA is, quite literally against ALL immigration, not just illegal immigration. That is not a slur, as you suggest, but a demonstrable fact.
    From the website of Numbers, USA:
    “Those who need to refer to NumbersUSA Action with a short, descriptive modifier should call it an ‘immigration-reduction organization.'”
    What was that, again, Don? An illegal immigration reduction organization? No, it is an “immigration reduction organization”
    And are they conservative? What’s this?
    an organization “organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America” Environmental sustainability? That’s Agenda 21, Don.
    “Economic Justice”? That’s redistribution, Don.
    Where did I get that? From their website, Don. And what’s this? “It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.”- Barbara Jordan” Where did I get that quote? Numbers USA. Who is Barbara Jordan? Among the top 7 most liberal members of Congress (either house)
    of the last 100 years, eloquent in the attacks (scurrilous, all of them) on the great Constitutionalist, Robert Bork.

  10. “Doris,” above, can’t make a sound argument so she relies, instead, on name calling.

  11. Say what you will Mr. Parris. But for for too many years I have known of Paul and his ideas. To listen to him we would have a wonderful world where everyone could do as he wishes. He calls it freedom. But is it really? There is nothing that is totally free. Most come with a high cost. To say that we don’t need to worry about Iran and that we need to make friends with them is just plain crazy.

    To want to legalize street drugs so that people can become stoned under the law is just plain crazy.

    To think that the border problem will take care of itself is just plain crazy.

    To say just about everything Paul says is well when one gets down to it is just plain crazy. I read something like what the world was like when man had so much freedom to do as he wished. In fact it is in the Bible.

    Freedom is not free and someone always pays the cost. Just where does the freedom of one begin and the others end? Government is to protect the people from those that wish to harm us. To wish to do away with just about all that government stands for is well…just plain crazy.

    Guess you might say I think most of Paul’s ideas are crazy.

    Now think of me what you will. I really don’t care as I find that most Paulbot’s don’t really see the real Paul and just where he would lead our country.

    May God have mercy on our country and may He protect us from ourselves in this coming election because some don’t seem to know how to protect themselves.

  12. Doug

    Sorry I missed your post.

    Re: “Sapient’s post is astonishingly vacuous! He presents no argument for his allegation that Ron Paul is an anarchist, but tells us that someone else, with whom we already disagree, says he is an anarchist.
    No credible argument can be made that Paul is for anything but the rule of Law.”

    Good deal. May I invite you to my article “Outing Ron Paul” on this forum at
    http://laiglesforum.com/outing-ron-paul/2850.htm#comments

    There is a lot of evidence, etc that I hope you will fill in the “vacuous” gap.

    I have already put some questions to Carol, who also is a RP supporter, so, read my article, check the reference I present there, and then consider reading my response to her, and jump right in.

    Glad to have you, and look forward to it. Civility expected.

    God bless and Merry CHRISTmas

    Ron Paul: “You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”

    Ron Paul, End the Fed: “In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

  13. Ron Paul is for illegals? If we tell the lie often enough, people will believe it? And legal pot?? No one here is old enough to remember the prohibition days when Al Capone’s mob ran a reign of terror, mayhem, killings, blood in the streets of this nation…as the Drug Cartel does along our southern border today.

    When drugs are legal, it will render the Drug Cartel impotent. People who WANT drugs will have to have a PRESCRIPTION and pay the tax the government places on it. When this happens, how many of you will be using or trying heroin, cocaine, etc.? Exactly. None of you. Only people who use drugs NOW will be able to purchase them LEGALLY and only with a prescription that doctors will LEGALLY be able to prescribe cutting out the “middle man” the drug cartel. It also puts the responsibility of the addict on the doctor. Who is responsible for the drug addict now? No one.

    Ron Paul is more intelligent than you give him credit. He is not “Crazy Uncle Ron”. He knows that when something is subsidized, we get more of it. How many times have you heard him say that? Use discernment! but first you have to listen.

    I know it’s hard to listen to someone who has up to now irritates the living daylights out of you. I do it every day and believe me, my stress is out of sight! But I have to…to be thorough in my search to know the truth. I don’t say to myself, “Ack! another video someone wants me to watch of their favorite candidate” or “ANOTHER email he/she wants me to read about Joe Smo” then delete it! No! I read, watch or listen with an open mind. Usually there is confirmation that this person or this candidate is WRONG…and I tell them so. (Isn’t that right, Don?)

    On illegal immigration, Ron Paul has said when he is President, HE WILL REMOVE THE MAGNETS. Do y ou understand what that means? He will do away with SSI, welfare, ANY AND ALL PERKS that draw them here. How will that change anything? Let me tell you. Illegals will leave on their own….IN DROVES! Not one single deportation order will have to be issued, no expensive walls built, and very few border patrols will be required. Is that genius or what?

    Here is an article I hope you’ll read. Just about every problem could be eliminated simply by electing Ron Paul for President 2012. http://immigrationcounters.com/datasource.html

    Do you find it difficult at times to understand your doctor? That may be your problem with DOCTOR Ron Paul as he has that irritating trait that some doctors have. They tend to talk over our heads and take it for granted that we’ve understood every word they’ve said, but we don’t. So what WE have to do is try to think like he thinks, or ask him to explain what he just said. OR…you can listen to those who do understand him. I pray you will.

  14. A true conservative vs a Libertarian? LOL. Thats an oxymoron. Libertarians are the true conservatives. Your idea of conservatism IS neoconservatism…and it doesn’t surprise me one bit that you back Michele Bachmann…is she still in the race? nope!! too scary. This country has had enough of your phony neoconservatism under the disguise of faux conservatism. You believe in policing the world and our failed foreign policies…all of which the constitution doesn’t support. You blindly support Zionism and every action of the Israeli govt. So much for our Republic. But the good news is that the days of the neocon are coming to an end, what you don’t realize is that you’re all leftists and don’t even know it!! that to me is the funniest thing.

    Keep knocking Ron Paul, but he is ALWAYS RIGHT and always proves the failed policies of the neocon.

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is” – Ron Reagan

  15. Don T says:

    “Your idea of conservatism IS neoconservatism…and it doesn’t surprise me one bit that you back Michele Bachmann…is she still in the race? nope!! too scary. This country has had enough of your phony neoconservatism under the disguise of faux conservatism. You believe in policing the world and our failed foreign policies…all of which the constitution doesn’t support. You blindly support Zionism and every action of the Israeli govt. So much for our Republic. But the good news is that the days of the neocon are coming to an end, what you don’t realize is that you’re all leftists and don’t even know it!! that to me is the funniest thing.”

    I have serious misgivings about Bachmann’s ideas on the Middle East involvement. But have you read my series of articles on the folly of our Middle Eastern conflicts?
    I will gladly send you links. I was against our war in Kosovo and Iraq and the Arab Spring involvement and I presented information that neither liberals or libertarians nor conservatives seem to report about.
    I don’t think I have shared my views on Israel with you so stop pretending to know me.
    BTW, perhaps Ron Paul could actually be a better president than the other candidates, but we have no way of knowing what his actual stance will be on
    –border protection and illegal immigration (he has waffled)
    –how to respond to Iran’s threats (does he really think we can offer them “friendship”?)
    –drugs (will he leave the issue up to the states, as he suggests, or will he go further and use his bully pulpit to promote Cato’s childish viewpoint that legalization is best, despite the facts).
    Your problem is you don’t bother getting to know the people you THINK are your enemies before bullying them with a host of presumptive accusations and harsh words. But in my experience, this irrational behavior often marks Paul supporters.
    It harms his campaign because it is reminiscent of leftist behavior and many of us–rightly or wrongly–are conflating your group with the Left as a result. After all, we associate the Left with bullying. Yet libertarians, who claim to be for liberty, are often the biggest bullies–authoritarians at bottom. You are one of the most notable examples.
    This reminds me of the epic romantic poem “The Gypsies” by Alexander Pushkin, describing a freedom loving young Russian who joins a roving gypsy band to enjoy freedom in nature. He falls in love with a pretty gypsy girl, but when she asserts HER freedom of choice to be with the man she fancies — another gypsy — he kills her out of jealousy. The opera Carmen, where the toreador kills a gypsy girl he loves, is based on a novella that is in turn based on Pushkin’s poem.
    It’s an all too common theme and it describes an all too common human trait: the desire for freedom for ME (but not so much for YOU).

  16. Don T. says: Keep knocking Ron Paul; but he is ALWAYS RIGHT
    and here I was thinking only God is the one ALWAYS RIGHT! to say Ron Paul is ALWAYS RIGHT is one of the dumbest remarks that I have read in a long time. Are you sure you of what you stated there?

    Somehow the words just don’t sound right when used with Ron Paul. Anyone who thinks like Ron Paul does on drugs alone is not ALWAYS RIGHT in my books and those who agree with him on just that issue alone aren’t ALWAYS THINKING RIGHT either.

    By the way, when is Ron Paul going to give us a new Bible to go by since he is ALWAYS RIGHT and seems to know more about Isreal than the Bible I read says?

  17. Don, you said, “It’s an all too common theme and it describes an all too common human trait: the desire for freedom for ME (but not so much for YOU).”

    Is this in context with drugs? That was what we were discussing, wasn’t it? If so, then how is the freedom for someone else to use the drug of their choice depriving you of your freedom (to use or not to use)?

    I do have doubts of whether or not legalizing drugs is the answer. My latest is, “Maybe it’s a ploy of the government to get control of something they pretty much already have control but want more control.” They do operate on both sides of the fence. They’ve controlled and benefitted in the heroin trade in the far east, and they were in the thick of the “War on Drugs” (research George H. W. Bush and “Governor” William Clinton’s involvement– Mena, Arkansas search is a good place to start). If no one is aware of this, they haven’t done their homework.

    To Doris: “By the way, when is Ron Paul going to give us a new Bible to go by since he is ALWAYS RIGHT and seems to know more about Isreal than the Bible I read says?”

    There is a reason behind why some think the way they do — and others don’t and generally it’s because they lack the same knowledge.

    Sometimes, Doris, when the Bible speaks of “Israel”, it speaks of ALL of the 12 tribes of Israel, not just Judah. Sometimes it isn’t even speaking about Judah. Maybe you are not aware that the English speaking nations ARE Israel. Perhaps you’re believing the clerics when they say “The 10 Tribes of Israel are missing and no one knows where they are.” Using your logic, just how do MILLIONS of people “go missing” and no one has a clue of what happened to them?

    That being said, just how much understanding (if my suspicions are correct) do we have of the Bible? For example, the majority of Protestantism when they read “Israel” in their Bibles, they assume it refers to the country in the middle-east we call “Israel” today. Which, in my opininon and according to what I’ve read and researched, warrants much investigation. But we’ll never know until we do (research). Meanwhile, we’ll just listen to the modern day “prophets” who continue to tell us that Israel is the land and people in the middle east that was formed in 1948…but really began in 1917? Thank you, but no.

  18. I should clarify my statement, “Meanwhile, we’ll just listen to the modern day “prophets” who continue to tell us that Israel is the land and people in the middle east that was formed in 1948…but really began in 1917? Thank you, but no.” to read: “they are not the ONLY Israelites in the world. There are Israelites in Europe and North America, Australia, as well. Actually there are more in the rest of the world than are in Middle East Israel.”

  19. I note that there are posts following my last, here, on Dec. 21 of which I was unaware and, hence, ignored, inadvertently. And the fact is that I do not have time to respond, at present. So one must imagine the brilliant rebuttals I would have posted, or, alternatively, that I was so overwhelmed by the responses I got that I am unable to respond… unless, of course, I eventually do
    .

  20. Don, you said “As for Ron’s stand on illegal immigration, it has evolved over the years, and now that elections are nigh, he suddenly sounds conservative. But how is it that Michele has a B+ on immigration while Paul has had a failing to near-failing grade for years.”

    I get emails almost daily from NumbersUSA as I’ve been member for several years. I had to take Roy Beck to task in one of his emails as he had left out Ron Paul when he most certainly should not have. Just as the media does on a daily basis. Think about this the next time you see Ron Paul’s report card on illegal immigration.

    Ron Paul has the best and most simple plan that would work. The others rely on lots of money and bureaucracy. So it’s not surprising that Roy Beck gives Ron Paul a “bad grade” and Michelle Bachmann “a good one”. They don’t want Ron Paul as nominee or president. Too bad. They would keep their freedoms and regain the several they’ve lost. In my opinion they don’t deserve them.

  21. This is from Ron Paul’s campaign website:
    From his campaign website:

    A nation without borders is no nation at all.

    It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.

    Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.

    Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutions” that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.

    Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse. He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

    While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt. This must not be tolerated any longer.

    Like most Americans, Ron Paul also understands just how valuable legal immigration is to our country.

    Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets.

    If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty – The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

    * Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

    As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.

    As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.

  22. And for the above, NumbersUSA gave him an F? WHY?!

  23. You can definitely see your expertise within the work you write. The arena hopes for more passionate writers like you who aren’t afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.

Leave a Reply

*