Why a Tea Party conservative now supports Ron Paul...including his foreign policy By Russ Paladino December 16, 2011 Ask any conservative about Ron Paul and you will usually hear the following statement: "I love him on fiscal policy but his foreign policy is naive and dangerous." You can also throw in the obligatory "He hates Israel." If someone had asked me about Paul from 9/12/01 through October of 2011, I'd have said the exact same things. Something about my certitude always felt a bit uncomfortable, though, because I admired the "good parts" of Ron Paul (and later, his son Rand). Having participated in the Tea Party movement since its inception, and then witnessing the phony propaganda concocted to invalidate it, my BS meter began to pin whenever I heard (or spoke) harsh rhetoric denouncing Ron Paul. Since the contradiction bugged me, I decided to take the advice of my twenty-year-old son and read Ron Paul's book, Revolution. This required me to consider ideas which were once unthinkable. I undertook the mission with the promise to think outside my conservative box. After reading the book, I came away with a completely different understanding of Ron Paul and his philosophy. I'm hoping my Tea Party compatriots, fellow conservatives, and all Americans will step outside their own comfort zones to do the same. It is vital that our nation seriously consider the important constitutional concepts and defense of liberty that Ron Paul espouses. Today, the Middle East is falling to Islamic rule like a series of dominos. The supposed "friendly Arab nations" want our troops out of their land and threaten to side with our enemies. Our soldiers are hamstrung by politically correct rules of engagement that make them sitting ducks. Our economy is collapsing under the weight of our debt (a good portion of which goes to fund our worldwide military adventures), and our effort to spread a love of liberty among Middle-Eastern nations is thwarted by the unfortunate reality that the clans and cultures do not desire our brand of freedom. We were
led to believe that we could leave Iraq after they became able to defend themselves. With all that we've invested, there is still uncertainty about whether they are up to the job. We have never received the oil benefits that were supposed to follow from our liberation of Iraq, as we pay upwards of $4.00 a gallon at the pump! Our effort to be an honest broker of Israeli/Palestinian peace has produced a decades-long record of abject failure. The game is such that we give mountains of money to both sides and then compel Israel to fall in line with our demands. We simultaneously force Palestinians to make promises that they have no intention of keeping. We have tried to play both ends against the middle, and both parties look at us with suspicion and/or contempt. Perhaps it's time we heed Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's request (from the pulpit of the U.S. Congress) that we allow Israel to negotiate and defend herself as she sees fit? This just so happens to be the view of Ron Paul as well. He believes that we should always provide unambiguous rhetorical support for Israel and trade our goods and military armaments with her freely. We must also liberate her from the heavy hand of U.S. dominance in her affairs. If Iran or others attempt to make war on Israel, our involvement should be predicated on whether Israel asks for our military help, and then if Congress authorizes military actions by declaring war. That's how the Constitution says it's supposed to work! Why are we are so willing to dismiss the one candidate in this race who dares to highlight the undeniable truths about our foreign policy failures? How could it be that we are terrified to consider the concept of pulling back, regrouping, and retooling that which is demonstrably failing? It's not that our soldiers have not gone above and beyond everything we've asked them to do, and done it with heroism and honor. It's that we've seen fit to keep them deployed indefinitely in an ill-defined mission, where the concept of victory is far from clear. It is less patriotic to keep the status quo than to acknowledge our foreign policy failures and correct them. Don't we owe that much to the troops? Perhaps this is why Ron Paul is far and away the choice of active duty military in terms of campaign contributions? Our military is spread dangerously thin, and its bloated bureaucracy is just as detrimental to our physical
security as our fiscal mess is to our economic security. The times demand that we elect a leader who will do more than just nibble around the edges. Ron Paul's approach is the most comprehensive of all the candidates' for returning the United States of America to its constitutional roots and founding principles. We must elect a leader who we can trust has the values, integrity, and record to follow through and get it done. Ron Paul has been doggedly consistent in his fidelity to the constitution in all his years in public office. He is a man of integrity. Making Ron Paul the GOP candidate for president will send the strongest possible message to a Republican establishment that is hell-bent on co-opting the Tea Party and maintaining the status quo. A primary victory will make it unmistakably clear that we meant it when we marched in D.C. on 9/12/08. We meant it when we gathered in D.C. to protest the implementation of Obamacare. We mean it when we petition our representatives about government intrusions into the free market and individual liberty, and we will not be patted on the head and disregarded anymore! Ron Paul has a complete vision for restoring our fiscal health and rebuilding our status as the world's wealthiest nation. Wealthy nations are historically the safest, and unfortunately, we are no longer the wealthiest. Paul's prescription for putting our fiscal house in order and returning us to a free-market growth economy will make our nation safer than it is today. Economic implosion is a more realistic and immediate issue than Iran delivering a nuke to our shores (a move that would ensure that nation's immediate annihilation). That's not to say that we should ever take the Islamic fundamentalist menace lightly -- far from it. We must be ever vigilant in protecting against their maniacal aims. However, at this moment we are at the tipping point of economic collapse, after which we won't be able to fend off enemies of any kind. To this I say with confidence, Ron Paul 2012! http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Surging Ron Paul cuts into Newt Gingrich’s dream of winning Iowa caucus BY Jonathan Lemire NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
He is soaring in the polls. He is giving speeches to packed halls. He is worshiped like a rock star by adoring fans who scream his name. He is eccentric 76-year-old congressman Ron Paul — and he may be Newt Gingrich’s worst nightmare. “Ron Paul has a lot of momentum right now and is appealing to a wide spectrum of people here in Iowa,” said James McCormick, political science professor at Iowa State University. “He’s going to have a real impact,” said McCormick. “He is set to play spoiler.” Paul, the longtime Texas congressman, is making his third bid for the White House, and while his unorthodox views leave him little chance of securing the Republican nomination, his quixotic quest is muddying the GOP field. Thanks to a well-organized Iowa ground game, Paul has surged in the polls just weeks before the Jan. 3 caucus. In a survey by Public Policy Polling last week, he moved into second place, just one percentage point behind Gingrich. And in one conducted by Rasmussen Reports, he has moved into third — just five points behind Mitt Romney and two behind Gingrich. He has also begun to climb in New Hampshire, which votes a week after Iowa. Pundits agree that a Paul triumph in Iowa would seriously damage the former Speaker. “While Romney appeals to a more moderate voter, Gingrich’s and Paul’s supporters have some overlap,” said Prof. Tim Hagle of the University of Iowa. “And Iowa means more to Gingrich than to Romney — if he slips to a disappointing finish, that’s a serious blow to his campaign.” Romney, all but assured of a victory in New Hampshire, has spent limited time and money in Iowa and is more able to brush off a defeat, pundits said. But Gingrich, who surged to the top of the GOP field before cooling off in recent days, needs a
strong showing in the Hawkeye State. “[A loss\] would be evidence his surge has passed and his bubble had burst,” said Hagle. “Gingrich doesn’t have the resources or organization of Romney — he needs the momentum from a good finish in Iowa.” Though the early states are Paul’s greatest chance to make waves in the GOP race, his team has also set up offices in oft-overlooked caucus states — like Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming — where he stands to poach delegates and give himself a voice at the Republican Convention. That caucus-centric strategy — used successfully by Barack Obama in 2008 — could extend the GOP race and further hurt Gingrich, who doesn’t have Romney’s finances. Longtime Paul watchers are impressed by his transformation into a GOP power player. “He was as a curiosity — someone who was memorable but not to be taken seriously,” said Prof. Cal Jillson at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “He’s not a light comedy anymore.” Paul, who represents a swath of coastal Texas that is larger than Massachusetts, is a die-hard libertarian who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and pull the U.S. military back to America’s shores. His anti-government message and folksy style have resonated with college students and strict conservatives, who have given Paul the biggest crowds of any candidate in Iowa. “Even after his support falls back to the single digits, which it likely will later in the race, he’ll still be out there,” said Jillson. “He really believes in his message.” jlemire@nydailynews.com Republic vs Democracy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0 The American Dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU The American War-Machine, A Lesson in Blowback, and The Greatest Speech Ever Written http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7Hz7WCQE8