The Ron Paul Revolution
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I have to start off by saying that I like Ron Paul. I don’t know that I like him enough to vote for him for president yet but I like most of his positions. There is a Ron Paul Revolution that appears to be coming from the youth in America, those of college age who are most likely fed up with politics as usual in this country. The problem is, will there be enough of them to help him win? If the history of voting shows anything, it might not be an issue because the youth in America tend NOT to vote. That is why the mainstream politicians court the vote of the seasoned among us. The elderly vote in droves compared to the young however, Paul’s age might help him with the elderly vote. One other thing; is Paul the candidate that can beat any Democrat on the ticket?
Paul has great ideas about retuning this country to following the Constitution. His Congressional nickname is Dr. No because he votes no on any item that does not conform to the limits of the Constitution. As far as any of the candidates are concerned, his voting record is the only one that shows conformity to the Constitution.
Paul is for placing us back on the gold standard and for abolishing the IRS and he would repeal the income tax, all are not bad ideas. Placing us on the gold standard would not allow us just print money to handle inflation. Our country did well under the gold standard and it is time our money was backed by something of value. The backing of the words of politicians is not very strong. The tax system in this country is a sham and it allows government to take our money and redistribute it anywhere they so desire. Congress has shown that it does not know how to handle money and that it is fiscally irresponsible. The XVI Amendment, passed in 1913, is reported to have never been ratified by the required 3/4 of the states because Ohio was not “a state” due to an administrative error. Regardless of the arguments, the tax code has been in effect for nearly 100 years and the only way to do it right is to repeal it and start over.
The IRS is nothing more than the enforcement arm of the extortion racket the government runs. In the days of the mob, people were forced to join protection rackets. If they refused to pay some big guy named Bruno showed up and beat the hell out of them or their business mysteriously burned to the ground. The government extorts money from us and we cannot limit them when they do it. If they passed a law requiring everyone to pay 80% of income in taxes we could not stop it. If we refused to pay, the IRS (their Bruno) would come looking for us and make life miserable. Paul is on to something when he says that we should get rid of this stuff. I like his Constitutional approach. He is not like by the status quo because he says the things DC insiders do not like.
One thing that Ron Paul is adamant about is getting out of the UN. I agree 100% with him on that and believe that we should dissolve all treaties with regard to the UN and we should kick them out of our country. They are worthless and oppose us at every turn.
There are negatives though. Paul is in his 70s and that is a liability though he seems to be in good shape and is handling the rigor of a campaign well. It is still a concern though being young is not necessarily a guarantee one will not die while in office (JFK), it just means that they have a better chance.
There are also the fringe groups that support Paul. The Skinheads is probably the major one but I am sure there are others. I do not think for one minute that Ron Paul courts these people or that he agrees with their message but it is disconcerting that these kinds of folks would flock to his message. Regardless of how Paul feels, perception is reality to many people and many will perceive that he has their philosophies.
The other thing to think about is can Ron Paul beat any of the Democrats that are running? He certainly can garner votes from young people fed up with the system and he can garner votes from moderate conservatives who want the country run in accordance with the Constitution but there are a lot of liberals who are going to vote and they do not like this idea of limited government or repealing the income tax. Liberals are for big government and lots of tax money to spend on worthless programs. Since universal health care is not part of the Constitution, they will not like Paul’s positions because he would deny those things liberals believe to be entitlements.
While I agree with Paul on domestic issues, I am not in agreement with his foreign policy ideas. Regardless of what one believes about the war in Iraq, a complete withdrawal would result in disaster in Iraq as well as here at home. If we are perceived as weak then the radical Muslims will increase their attacks upon us. Clinton’s decisions not to attack them after they continually attacked us led to 9/11. Despite the rewritten history and the Berger stolen documents, it is undeniable that this is what happened. Bin Laden told us that he attacked us because of the weakness displayed by Clinton. If Ron Paul displays a similar weakness then we will be hit again.
If Ron Paul is unwilling to use our military then he should not be President. If, on the other hand, he has some idea as to how to use them to keep us from being attacked then I can listen to what he has to say. I realize that Paul believes we attacked illegally and that the money is being wasted and I know liberals would love to spend it on street corner abortion clinics or other such things. With regard to Paul, the money is worthless if we are attacked here at home and with regard to liberals, they will not get the money if Paul is President. However, if Paul agrees to withdraw all of the financial support we provide around the world and bring our troops home from all nations and put them on bases guarding our country from enemies (and ILLEGALS) then we might be on to something. This means ALL support but it also means that we would be abandoning our allies like Israel, unless Paul has some idea about a treaty with them to help protect them from the Muslim world. I doubt that would happen because Paul seems convinced that since we were able to stare down a Soviet Union with nukes that an Iran with nukes would pose little threat and should be of no concern. I am not sure that he understands that Ahmadinejad is not plating with a full deck and would launch on Israel. In that case I would have to throw back the Ron Paul supporter’s question; WWRPD?
I have not decided on a candidate as of yet. I am watching and listening to see who will do the best job for this country and who can beat the Democratic candidate. I will continue to watch Paul with the rest of them (I never discounted him like the media did) and will decide as we get closer to the election.
One thing is for sure, thoughtful comments and dialog will be beneficial to the process but Ron Paul spammers calling names does little to help the process.
Someone from the Revolution enlighten me and my readers.
Tags: conformity, Congress, constitution, Democrats, gold standard, illegals, income tax, Military, President, ron paul, sham, war
So Much for Democratic Fiscal Responsibility
Nov 15, 2007 Political
Citizens Against Government Waste is putting the finishing touches on its pork report for the year and what they will report is not pretty. There were 8000 earmarks totaling 20 billion dollars. That is 20 billion dollars in taxpayer money that was flushed down the drain by the Democratic Congress, the ones who promised to put an end to waste and be a more efficient government. The truth is they could not keep their money grubbing hands out of our pockets and they could not exercise any control. For those who say the government should tax the hell out of us to provide unconstitutional social programs, here is 20 billion dollars that could have provided services without raising taxes.
Of course, I do not believe in universal health care or other government run and government provided services but if I did I would be asking how we can afford this kind of waste and not the items that Democrats think are important. The Republican led Congress (and President Bush for that matter) was no better but they lost last year so this is on the new majority. The Democrats campaigned on their ability to fix these kinds of things and now it is glaringly obvious that they are unable. They lack control and they lack responsibility.
Democrats like to say we need to end the war because that is why they were elected. They campaigned on ending the war along with the promise to be responsible with our money so that means if ending the war was a mandate, so was being fiscally responsible. They have failed miserably on both counts.
I do not think the election was a mandate on the war but this is what they think. So they are not free to cherry pick what they were elected to do. They promised to be responsible with our money and they have not been. This is another reason we need the line item veto and it is a very good example of why we should never trust Democrats.
There should be no doubt that they are truly the tax and spend party.
Source:
The Politico
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Wake Up America, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Congress, Democrats, government waste, line item veto, mandate, pork report, President, tax and spend, taxpayer money, universal health care, war
Hillary Clinton – Honesty
Nov 11, 2007 Political
Yesterday it was reported that the Clinton campaign admitted that it planted a question at one of the Hildabeast’s speeches in Iowa and the campaign stated that it would not happen again. When I wrote about it I asked if they meant they would not get caught again or if they would not do it again like Bill would not molest women again. It appears that they were, in fact, caught again and it was like Bill not molesting women. A minister is alleging that he campaign tried to get him to ask a question about the war. The campaign wanted a question that would show a difference between Obama and Clinton on the way they have opposed President Bush and the funding for the war in Iraq. The Clinton campaign indicates that they did not ask anyone to ask a question and that their campaign person knows the minister and they were just talking.
The problem is, Minister Geoffrey Mitchell claims he does not know Chris Hayler, the staffer in question. Mitchell stated that he has seen Hayler at other events but the two do not know each other. Now we have a problem with honesty here because, obviously, someone is not telling the truth. While Mitchell is an Obama supporter and could make a false claim what motivation would a minister have to do so given how being caught in a lie would hurt his profession and the people he leads? The entity with something to lose here is the Clinton campaign because the incident, if true, would demonstrate a complete lack of honesty on the part of the campaign. They will have told a lie and broken a promise in a 24 hour time period.
We have already seen that the campaign lacks integrity and now their lack of honesty has been displayed for all to see. This, for those who have a problem distinguishing, is an example of dishonesty and I “double dog dare” anyone to show how it s not.
Of course, if Mitchell is the one lying then it is a different story all together.
Source:
Fox News
Tags: caught in a lie, clinton campaign, fox news, Hillary, honesty, Obama, telling the truth, war, war in iraq
Hillary’s Best is Always the Worst
Nov 6, 2007 Link Fest, Political
Hillary Clinton stated today that she was not at her best [examiner.com] in the last debate, ya think? Despite what some people might think, she herself has admitted that she did not do OK. She indicated that she has answered thousands of questions and she has made clear her positions on everything and how she would pay for her programs. This, of course, is a flat out lie. Clinton has not been clear. There are a number of news articles from the past year that show she has taken one position in one location and another position in a different geographic location. He suggestion that she has been open about things is just plain BS and anyone with a thinking brain knows it.
Bill Clinton has refused to authorize the release of documents that would support Hillary’s claim that she gained her experience as First Lady. Let me repeat that for the uninformed, the uneducated, or the plain ignorant; Bill Clinton has done absolutely nothing to speed up the release of documents that have any bearing on the race. He asked that certain documents that related to what he did be released but he specifically said that the communication between him and his wife is not to be released.
These are the cold hard facts and while some Hillary sycophant could claim that it is not she who is holding up the process one would have to dispense with reality by believing that Hillary cannot get the documents released if she wants them released. She has Bill’s testicles in a lock box and in all reality he wants to get back in the White House as badly as she does. He wants the life that comes with living there and she has a strong desire to have her ego stroked. Therefore, I can only conclude that the papers that they refuse to release would damage her candidacy. There are things there that they do not want out in the public prior to the election for one reason and one reason only, they are harmful to the Hildebeast. Rest assured, if those papers made it look like Hillary walked on water without getting her ankles wet Bill would release them yesterday with her in tow to ensure they got out. Since word is they will not be released until well after the election [ABC] we can only conclude that they are hiding something. I mean, they have had eight years to get them ready for issue so the only two things holding it up are Bill and Hillary.
No folks, Hillary has not been straight forward and she has not been honest. Bill has been less than honest as well though none of this should surprise anyone. Bill claims to be working to have papers released quickly when he is actually impeding the process. Hillary says that she has been clear when she has not.
Hillary said she did not have her best night the other night. If she wins in 2008 the country will not be having a good night but that night will not go away. It will morph into a 4 or 8 year nightmare with Satan at the helm.
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: bill clinton, candidacy, ego, first lady, Hillary Clinton, sycophant, uneducated, war
Let the Families Decide
Oct 28, 2007 Political
The Flag folding ceremony of veterans has been around for quite some time. The meanings of the folds, not part of the Flag Code, have been read by veterans while honoring a fallen hero. Now there is an edict that the meanings of the folds are not to be read at veteran’s funerals at federal cemeteries because there was a single complaint about the words used when describing some of the folds. Here are the meanings ascribed to the 13 folds:
- Symbol of life.
- Symbol of our belief in the eternal life.
- In honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.
- Represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.
- A tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, “Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.”
- Represents where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- A tribute to our armed forces.
- A tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother’s Day.
- A tribute to womanhood.
- A tribute to father.
- In the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
- In the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
- When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, “In God We Trust.”
The problem seems to stem from the last few where God is mentioned and there is acknowledgment of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Someone who attended a military funeral took exception to these words and complained about them prompting the National Cemetery Administration to ban the words at all of the cemeteries it oversees. The Administration claims they are just trying to ensure uniformity but there can be no mistake that this edict is a reaction to the complaint.
The person who made this complaint seems to feel the funeral was all about him. The funeral is a ceremony honoring the dead and it is for the dead that we perform the ceremony. The ceremony is also to bring family and friends together in order to honor the life that was lost. One thing a funeral is not is a place for some self centered idiot to make a political statement.
Here is my idea. Why don’t we allow the families of the fallen to decide if they want the words read during the Flag folding ceremony? The families can see the words beforehand and decide if they want the words read. After all, the funeral is part of a benefit afforded a fallen member of the armed forces and it is in our best interests as a country to allow the families, not some bureaucrat or sensitive bystander, to decide.
This is just another example of certain people in our society trying to cleanse any mention of our Judeo-Christian history. It is a misapplication of the First Amendment which guarantees us freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. In any event, the decision should rest solely upon the family of the fallen and not on the whims of a bureaucrat trying to appease some malcontent.
Certain veteran’s groups have decided to ignore the edict. They fought for the right to free expression and they damn sure have the right, no the duty, to fight any assault upon our freedoms.
…Against all enemies foreign and domestic so help me God.
Tags: flag code, flag folding, flag of the united states of america, Military, pledge allegiance to the flag, tribute, veteran, war