I'm wondering about Ron Paul as a candidate for President..
Character and consistency is what I see with this man and this is over a long period of time.
I've heard others say he's a "loon" on this message board .. or words to that effect.
If something about Paul is wrong, I'd like to know what it might be specifically.
I'm of the view that he's the only candidate that might be able to right some of the wrongs that have been done to the country over the last several years and it largely has to do with returning to basic Constitutional principles.
Bottom line, a return to those constitutional principles might also be good for the economy.
Imagine that, such a simple concept!
For example, a smaller less burdensome and meddlesome govt also helps reduce fiscal deficits as do less foreign military adventures so a great chance to reduce the deficit and reduce the speed at which the debt is being piled up.
But I'll let him speak for himself as he lays out some of his platform principles in the letter below.
I only wish the media would do a better job of screening him for us...just in case I might be wrong about some of my assumptions.
I won't get into why the media isn't covering Mr Paul even though he has a much larger following than the MSM would indicate but it is a question that is well worth pondering and perhaps another thing that is wrong with America.(i.e MSM corruption)
Anyway, there's still time for the media to make amends and shine an unbiased light on Mr Paul so we can better see anything that might be hiding in the closet so to speak... the American people deserve as much.
Mr Paul also deserves a chance to show what he's really made of given his grass roots popularity in spite of having to struggle to get equal face time in the MSM.
Please let there not be a repeat of how Obama came to be President....a man who's true identity , ideology, and style was mostly kept a secret.
His letter follows for any that may wish to read it and I invite any objective critiques as I'd like to know if anything of substance I might be missing.
LOL, I'm not religious but do try to keep on the straight with a moral compass but that wasn't really the point.
Point is, with a smaller govt, the country might not only capture other economic advantages but also help keep people more ethical too.
Fear of God sure isn't doing it!
A bit more on the lack of coverage and secrecy:
<<Media coverageUntil the February 23, 2007 NACC/SPP meeting in Ottawa, there had been very little media coverage of the North American Competitiveness Council, its mandate or its meetings. In fact, the only mainstream North American source to write about the NACC has been Canada's Maclean's magazine, which ran a story on September 13 by Luiza Savage called "Meet NAFTA 2.0."
Savage described the NACC as a "cherry-picked group of executives who were whisked to Cancún in March by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and asked to come up with a plan for taking North American integration beyond NAFTA." She quoted Annette Verschuren, president of Home Depot Canada, who called the Cancún meeting "an intimate discussion" and "a lot of fun [because] there were no reporters, just a freewheeling discussion on the things that drive you crazy."
Ron Covais of Lockheed Martin told Savage that, "The guidance from the ministers was, 'tell us what we need to do and we'll make it happen,'" and that rather than going through the legislative process in any country, the Security and Prosperity Partnership must be implemented in incremental changes by executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulators. "We've decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes", Covais tells Savage, "because we won't get anywhere.">>
Big banks, big business all running the show and bypassing congress and the people is the real issue and Mr Herman Cain (like most other contenders) is part of this well connected establishment and the point I was trying to make.
<<I don't see any links there that demonstrates a plan for "no borders between the three countries">>
Yes, and I wouldn't expect you would. It's what we aren't told that is of concern.
Keep in mind, the emphasis here is on peripheral security.
Makes me think they might have given up on intra security and that's the real issue.
"“Building a North American Community.‟ It describes a five year plan for the establishment by 2010 of a economic and security community with a common outer security perimeter, i.e no borders between the three countries. “
just to stress "with a common outer security perimeter, i.e NO BORDERS BETWEEN the three countries “ is the claim and that's all it is is a claim.
As an aside, Lou Dobbs also raised the same questions:
<<In 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs argued that the SPP was part of a plan to merge the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union similar to the European Union,.>>
But it's the secrecy and closed club type meetings where they plan these things that also bothers people.
The NACC to which Herman Cain was one of only 10 US business members:
The North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was an official tri-national working group of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). It was created at the second summit of the SPP in Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico, in March 2006. Composed of 30 corporate representatives from some of North America's largest companies, the North American Competitiveness Council has been mandated to set priorities for the SPP and to act as a stable driver of the integration process through changes in government in all three countries.
Some thirty US-based organizations also sent an open letter to Congress on April 21, 2008 criticizing the secrecy and lack of any sort of democratic oversight:
"What differentiates the SPP from other security and trade agreements is that it is not subject to Congressional oversight or approval. The SPP establishes a corporate/government bureaucracy for implementation that excludes civil society participation. ... Facing a worrisome pact pushed forward in secrecy, it is time for Congress to halt this undemocratic approach and establish a process based on openness, accountability, and the participation of civil society.
<<media.....out of the blue they discover that a word was painted on a rock >>
But maybe not an accident if you buy into the idea that media is biased and/or paid for.
I don't personally like any of these candidates for various reasons but my sense is Cain may be coming from behind and gaining momentum on all those mentioned.(good timing?)
And I don't like him either.
Too much Federal Reserve system baggage in his history i.e. he served on the Federal Reserve of Kansas City and I also recall reading he's a Bilderberger/CFR type.
Just a personal opinion of mine but banking interests have had too dominant a role in setting policy and the agenda over the last number of years and I include the whole period where Greenspan was Chairman so there's a history here that Cain is closely associated with and I have to believe exerts influence on him today.
i.e. it also raises questions in my mind as to who would be financially backing his campaign and are these people interested in the greater good of Americans or preserving the establishment and status quo?
Also worth noting his 999 tax plan includes a broad based national sales tax which could easily be a forerunner to a VAT.
The global elite and the wealthy love VAT's because as a proportion of the economy, taxes can get a larger share but it doesn't hurt them as much because they spend a much smaller share of their income/wealth on consumption.
"Herman Cain is one of thirteen U.S. business members who belong to the powerful North American Competitive Council. The council is part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) that was established by the American, Canadian and Mexican government at the June 2006 Trilaterial meeting in Cancun, Mexico. As you will see from the attached article, „Sellout of America‟, the SPP plan is spelled out in detail in the CFR‟s 59 page document entitled, “Building a North American Community.‟ It describes a five year plan for the establishment by 2010 of a economic and security community with a common outer security perimeter, i.e no borders between the three countries. “
Seems to me, Obama's policies marched to this same tune...atleast as it relates to an unwillingness to support border security....(and even going so far as to stop Arizona from taking matters into its own hands)
Just not too many choices on either side of the political aisle that look attractive so I guess it comes down to electing individuals that we can trust the most.
<<In the private side, there can be some checks to keep people in control. Govt starts out trusting its managers so their are few checks on those who have some power.....
Our guys getting shot at have killed many fanatics and are magnets for the attention of those still alive.>>
Agree with much of what you say about ethics generally but the bit about "our guys killing lots of fanatics" overseas , raises a couple of serious questions in my mind.
There's a related issue here that is also related to ethics...higher ethics if you will ...and it involves the reasons given as to WHY we are overseas.
Are we justified in being over there in ALL of our military adventures?
I know I won't change anyone's mind here but there are many who question the reasons given for going to Iraq in the first place after 9-11.....just as one example in history.
And no doubt the people in the region have the same kinds of questions....evengoing back in recent history....i.e. since oil discovered in the region.
Spreading democracy and freedom (as much as I like that as a concept)...along with forced regime change also doesn't cut it as a valid excuse given that we haven't pushed for or seen those same freedoms in places like Saudi Arabia....a supposed ally ...
and the same can be said about so many other places.
Far too much inconsistency for my liking so I no longer trust what I'm being told no matter which party in the WH....it just doesn't seem to matter.
So yeah, when you see breaches of ethics at the top and regulatory forbearance where the rules aren't equally enforced , I can understand why more and more people are tempted to stray off the straight and narrow..
Question: Is it still possible for a man/women of ethics and character to win the presidency given that the media and money plays such an important role in the political process now?
I say no. Not anymore and not until the political and electoral process is changed and the ability of lobbyists and a BIASED media to exert so much influence on election outcomes is eliminated.
But I'd love to be proven wrong!
Guess I forgot to mention the owners of the Fed and the investment bankers on Wall Street...I believe they play the biggest role (from behind the curtain) in the big picture and none of these establishment institutions are looking out for the greater good anymore yet they exert enormous influence on some of the most important decisions that are being made... including how we are governed (through legislation)and how most money gets allocated .
Just the way it is... Money and power and the means to achieve and maintain it..
Only difference is, with organized crime in the traditional sense, they're usually organized and smart enough to not kill the host.
As to America, I'm not so sure she will be so lucky as the govt continues to get bigger and more powerful and sucks the remaining life blood out of the private sector....posibbly till the heart stops.
why be ethical in a world such as this?
To go to heaven?
It's not an accident that in the most corrupt third world countries, the people want and will do almost anything to get govt jobs because that's pretty much all there is....as long as still a little bit more blood to drain....
He is tainted because of his anti semitic views.
This is why I like Herman Cain at this point.
After all is said and done. Romney probably has the best chance......but.....big but......
If Obama get things turned around by election time and employment numbers are looking better then Obama wins this thing.
I still think we need Bernanke in their to keep printing some money. Maybe Romney understands this.
We need some balance....hard to find in this day and age. Gridlock seems to work.
After all is said and done, apparently the stock market does better under Democrats anyway.
Pension funds tied to stock market. This is why stock market is ultimate winner for everybody. Bernanke knows this. Print money to devalue dollar and pump up retirement funds and economy.
Ron Paul is against most all forms of police actions by the US anywhere in the globe, that is his foreign policy. Even if the US had the money to be involving itself in matters of other nations, Ron Paul does not support such action. Ron Paul believes that the US military should be used to defend the Nation, not police the world. But since we not only do not have the finances to police the world, but rather the fact that these wars and police actions are bankrupting the USA... YES ! Ron Paul is against supporting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya... and anywhere else YES !
So that makes him anti-semitic ?
A big part of elections is dependent on the media... they can control the flow to a large degree.
As far as the media is concerned... Mr. Paul is not and never has been in the race.
Too bad... the guy has it right.
I also believe we face a second national security crisis - our national debt. And it's something too few of our politicians are taking seriously.
Within ten years, if we do nothing, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and the interest on our debt will consume our entire budget.
No money - ZERO - left for national defense.
That's why we must face it now with an aggressive plan to balance our budget - NOT some plan that balances in 26 years like what others in this race have supported.
Instead, I will make our defense second to none in the world while cutting out waste and freeing us from our trillion dollar foreign adventures.
Our troops know who is the right man for this job. That's why they have honored me with their support - more support than every other candidate combined.
I think many of these good men and women know that we have been poorly served in the recent past by leaders who did not understand our military.
The lives of our servicemen and women are not a game.
Neoconservative foreign policy has led too many politicians to believe that wars do not have consequences. They do. They cost lives, limbs, and property.
They take fathers and mothers from sons and daughters. They spend trillions of dollars we cannot afford - especially right now.
As your Commander in Chief, I will always put the defense of our country first. I will make sure we have the strength to fight any enemy.
Defense will still be the number one priority of our federal government and our federal budget.
But I also pledge that we will not go to war without the approval of Congress. We will not go to war with the permission of or under the leadership of the UN.
And if we reluctantly go to war, we will go with overwhelming force to be victorious as quickly as possible.
Leading the fine men and women of our military is an honor. And it is a sacred trust. I will honor that trust while defending our freedom.
Please take a moment to watch my latest ad, entitled "Secure."
And if you would, please also forward this email to your friends and family, so they can read about my plan to keep America safe and secure.
You can also learn more about my positions on my website - www.RonPaul2012.com
The good news is, polls have shown my campaign within striking distance of first place, and they now show me defeating President Obama in a head-to-head match up.
As more voters realize I am the ONLY constitutional conservative in this race for President, my campaign will continue to grow.
But to help me get my pro-national security message out to as many voters as possible, I'm hoping I can count on your financial support, as well.
Together, you and I can Restore America Now!
P.S. Have you seen my new "Secure" ad highlighting my plan to keep America safe by securing our borders and ending the spending of trillions of dollars to police the world?
As a veteran and a candidate for President, I take the solemn responsibility to keep America safe and secure very seriously.
Please forward this email to your friends and family members so they can read more about my plan to Restore America now.
And please, if you possibly can, agree to a generous contribution to help me show this ad to as many voters as possible.
Paid for by Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
Dear Fellow Conservative,
Which candidate for President has received more contributions from active duty military than any other?
You might be surprised.
I am writing today to tell you about what our troops know that you should know.
As a champion of limited constitutional government, I believe the first and foremost responsibility of the President and the entire federal government is our national defense.
And as a veteran and a candidate for President of the United States, I take very seriously the solemn responsibility to keep America safe and strong.
So won't you take a moment to watch my new TV ad, "Secure," which outlines my plan for our national defense?
And if you can make a generous contribution to help my campaign run this ad, I'd really appreciate it!
As you'll see from my ad, I strongly believe America's national defense starts with protecting our borders - not the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It's never made any sense to me to fight trillion dollar wars overseas while leaving our back door unlocked here at home.
Our troops must agree. That's why they have honored ME with the largest number of contributions in the Presidential race.
Actually, I understated that a bit.
I have received more contributions from active duty servicemen and women than all the other candidates for President COMBINED!
My support for our troops is unwavering, and my commitment to them - before, during, and after war - is second to none.
I am well known in Congress and in my district for the battles I fight to ensure our servicemen and women receive their proper medals, their full recognition, and the benefits and health care that were promised to them.
Those who fought to protect us deserve our protection when they come home. They also deserve leaders who understand when and how to lead them into battle.
That's where my constitutional conservative beliefs help guide me to act as our Founding Fathers would have. I have several beliefs, rooted in our Constitution, that are different than my opponents, including:
#$%$ I would never allow our armed forces to serve under the United Nations. In fact, I would pull all funding from the United Nations immediately.
#$%$ The power to declare war rests in Congress. Though the President can and should respond quickly to a direct attack, I would never start a war with another country without the consent of Congress and the American people. We haven't declared war since World War II, and this has caused us to be led astray on what is and is not truly a conservative foreign policy.
#$%$ Bringing our troops home to re-strengthen our national defense and secure our borders.
Republican statesmen of the past were cautious in the use of force and decisive once a war was begun. We are now neither cautious nor decisive.
For example, our federal government recently launched an attack on Libya. There is no doubt that the Libyan dictator was a bad man - one of scores of similar petty dictators around the world.
But he was largely contained in his borders, and his opposition was made up of Islamic extremists at least loosely tied with Al Qaeda.
President Obama went to war unconstitutionally. He said he did not have time to go to Congress, but he somehow had time to go to the Arab League and the United Nations!
And Republican leaders have not been much better in recent years. That is what we need to change.
We can have a stronger, safer America by following the wisdom of our Founders and the rules of our own Constitution.
That is exactly what I would do as President.
He is a great American and deserves more attention, I think his talk of abolishing the FED scares people! It would be nice to hear Milton Friedman opine on Mr. Paul's positions. I really like the guy but going back to the gold standard, how are you going to do that and keep any entitlement programs? Of coarse if we can get the economy to grow say 6% and keep inflation around 2% then he is Santa!
Nixon let the horse out of the barn and Greenspan was the worst Fed Head of all time. So in theory Ron Paul is 40 years late, but a Great American for sure.
My opinion is this, its all about energy right now , America is addicted to oil right, GW said so, what does he do? he weakens the dollar, goes off and fights two oil intensive wars, and gives everyone a new home! Then Obama sprinkles ferry dust on it all! During the Clinton years gas was 1.39 at the pump and very few issues of deficit were around, once we hit 3.00 then $4.00 it all changed! We need lower input costs for consumers, manufacturers, transportation other wise we are stuck in low growth, no growth doomville! I don't know if the world is running out of oil but my best guess is we are not, and there our other ways to move us around Bio fuel, natty gas, grease, hydrogen, electric ! I see this as the #1 problem facing our nation today, simplistic yes! But just go back and look at recent recessions its about the oil baby, gotta have lower input cost for growth. Taxes, entitlement spending ect all smoke! more revenues would take care of spending, but ya you gotta at some point spend less then you take in, unless you can supersize growth and keep a strong dollar so maybe Mr Paul is the man for the job! He may just be on to something, wow! Yes he should be considered and heard you are right on point!