Liberty Maven

There was little hope and change in Obama’s State of Union speech last night. In fact, he demonstrated how far America has fallen away from the principles of our Founders. When Obama suggested that states require high school students stay in school until they reach age 18 or graduate, I nearly lost it. If you have school-aged children you may know why. There is no denying indoctrination is happening in our schools. We now home school our children, but there was a time when we did not. I recall my daughter coming home from school and refusing to throw anything in the trash because no matter what it was, she learned, could be recycled! So the choice was clear… end up on the show “Hoarders” or start home schooling. This was not the only occurrence that lead us down the home schooling road, but it is representative.

Obama didn’t directly attack Congress, but he strongly implied it with his rhetoric, continually saying things like, “send me the bill and I’ll sign it”. He seemed to take zero responsibility for the state of the country, blaming everyone else. It seemed the main area of agreement in the room was over the war-mongering words he used when discussing foreign policy and Iran. When it comes to foreign policy these days, there is no Left or Right there is only “Bomb them, if they get in our way!” How does this attitude foster an appreciation of America all over the world? That appreciation stems from fear. America is the fear-inducing tyrant in the world. Uh-oh… am I blaming America?

Yes. I am.

Of course, I’m not blaming the people of America. Just the status-quo “bomb them” policy of the Republicans and Democrats today and the recent past.

There is hope in the candidacy of Ron Paul. I firmly believe that just as many agree here in 2012 that Ron Paul was right on the economy in 2002 when he predicted the housing bubble collapse he will be seen as similarly prophetic on foreign policy when we look back at his words today from the year 2020 (or maybe before that, hopefully).

Ron Paul is an old dude and he won’t be around forever. Luckily, his son Rand Paul, is already in the Senate and has taken up the fight for liberty like his father. In fact, he is poised to be the standard-bearer for the message of liberty in the future. He is young, charismatic, and energetic.

America can show the world we are ready to lead by example rather than lead by the bomb by nominating Ron Paul as the Republican candidate to take on Obama. This is unlikely to happen, but we can still show the world we are on the right path by ensuring Ron Paul gets the highest number of possible votes and delegates toward that nomination.

While the state of the union may seem bleak right now, Ron Paul and son could pave the way for a game-changing resurgence of the libertarian message of America’s founding. The success of his 2012 campaign thus far is already proving this to be true.

This is the hope you are voting for when you vote for Ron Paul today.

Call out the instigators
Because there’s something in the air
We’ve got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution’s here, and you know it’s right
And you know that it’s right

-Thunderclap Newman “Something in the Air“

“A neo-con is a former Marxist turned conservative who is in reality now a Fabian socialist.”

-Kelleigh Nelson

I confess I am puzzled by the folks who say “I like Ron Paul’s domestic agenda, but I do not like his foreign policy stance.”  Well isn’t that special.  They like Dr. Paul’s positions regarding liberty, the economy, and the US Constitution, but…but they oppose his positions on waging unconstitutional wars, giving away billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to foreign governments (many of them reprehensible, and some who hate us), and throwing our military men and women into unwinnable meat-grinder wars.  I suppose that they must just love big government.

Hmm, perhaps someday they will explain their nonsensical flip-flopping to me.  In any event, I am sure that the Power Elites and “merchants of death” welcome their myopic tunnel-visioned “patriotism,” their feeble grasp of the US Constitution, and their total failure to understand what liberty is all about.  Go get ‘em tigers and tigerettes!

Me — I smell freedom in the air.  I sense that even though the GOP elites, Democratic elites, MSM elites, entertainment elites, the Military/industrial complex elites, and all of The Powers That Be — that is, the establishment — are arrayed against the Ron Paul revolution, they are on the losing side of history.  ”An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government.”

Voting for Obama, who has shown himself to be in the pocket of the banksters and military/industrial complex is no longer an option for anyone who values freedom — nor is voting for any of the GOP-approved “Obama Lite” candidates.  ”We the people” must see through the web of lies, disinformation, and slander — whether they come from simple ignorance of the truth, or from Power Elite shills.  This is our last shot at saving America as a free republic, and if Ron Paul loses it all goes down the drain, on our watch.

The tired schtick of “meet the new boss; same as the old boss” is no longer playing in Peoria these days.  ”We the people” are increasing hip to how we have been played and gamed by the Power Elites — under whatever label they hide behind.  Time for a revolution, a real revolution, the Ron Paul Revolution.

With Ron Paul still pushing for the GOP nomination and Gary Johnson running as a Libertarian it begs a question. I’ve written at length about how I firmly believe that Ron Paul would beat Obama in a general election; however, what about Gary Johnson? No, I don’t think he’d win, but there are likely many Ron Paul supporters who would vote for Johnson over Obama or the GOP nominee. So if that is true it suggests another reason why, if you want nothing more than to defeat Obama, Ron Paul should be your choice for the GOP nomination.

But is it true? What percentage could Gary Johnson receive should Paul not get the GOP nomination and would it be enough to help re-elect Barack Obama? I suspect it is. To add more fuel to this fire Obama is starting to campaign as an anti-war president to difference himself from the GOP field of likely nominees. This “Campaigner-In-Chief” move could be completely stymied by Republicans making Ron Paul their nominee. Who would be the real anti-war candidate if it were a Ron “non-interventionist” Paul vs Barack “drone bomber” Obama contest? This is yet another reason to make Paul the nominee.

Let’s see what you think about the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson factor.

 Loading ...

Iowans, there is no need for you to caucus tonight. It seems that new information has come out that suggests your effort to support the candidate of your choice does not matter at all. The Iowa GOP leaders will decide the winner, not you. So, go ahead and snuggle up in front of your TV’s and wait for your almighty GOP leaders to tell you the winner. And since it would be so embarrassing for a candidate to win that actually believes in and follows his oath to the Constitution unlike any of the other candidates… you don’t have to fret about Ron Paul winning. They won’t let him.

The only question is will the party bosses side with Willard “Sideburns” Romney or will they be eating a giant plate of frothy Santorum Salad on caucus night? Or will they even conspire to have Ron Paul finish in 3rd behind both or worse?

For evidence of this effort, please see this video.

What do you think?

 Loading ...

The final Public Policy Polling Iowa Caucus poll has just come out. The final tally is: Ron Paul 20%, Mitt Romney 19%, Rick Santorum 18%, and the rest further back. Even after being attacked incessantly for over a week about his newsletters, Ron Paul is still in the lead though the attacks seemed to have had an affect. His overall poll numbers are down 4%.  This poll is likely the most accurate because it doesn’t exclude itself to Republicans. In Iowa, no matter your party you can show up and register as a Republican then vote/caucus for the candidate of your choice.

It seems to me that this process is more open and most like a general election. To win the general you need independents and party-switchers. This is why Ron Paul is in the best position to beat Obama. He wins in those segments in poll after poll. Something that should negate any question of “electability”.

Following the results, something the PPP folks noted on Twitter was the following:

Young voters and indys unusual winning formula for GOP caucus but if Paul really gets them out he can win.

This comment is specific to Iowa, but Iowa is probably the best microcosm we have at this time of a general election. Paul is rather notorious for getting supporters out to vote for him. He wins or places in just about every straw poll in the country, including a very close 2nd in this summer’s Iowa Ames Straw Poll. So that is truly the bottom line, if Paul’s unusual strategy works then he can win Iowa. And that unusual strategy happens to be the exact strategy to take votes away from Obama in the general election.

Some of Paul’s detractors make the claim he’d be “dangerous for America”. Well, okay, that depends upon how you define America. If by America you mean the statist-status-quo in Washington DC and Obama’s re-election chances then yes, he’s extremely dangerous for America.

If by America you mean the country of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” and if by America you mean a country that places individual liberty as its highest value then Ron Paul would be the best friend America ever had.

So yes, if you want to beat Obama, Ron Paul is your choice, but he’s also so much more than that.

…comes from Glenn Greenwald. I’ve always admired Greenwald; however, I found myself cheering in agreement as I read his latest article, “Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies”. He suggests that voters will have to decide for themselves on the lesser of evils (as usual). In doing so Greenwald pushes to the surface the numerous actions Obama has taken that goes directly against what self-righteous progressives are all about. It’s long, but read it. It is truth. Yes, even the part about the newsletters. Here is an excerpt:

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations withdrones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has wagedan unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Read it all at Salon.com.

A very eloquent plea from an Israeli settler. Read the entire thing. An excerpt is below.

What is it about Ron Paul that inspires such extremes? Such maddening support on the one hand, and such fear and loathing on the other? I can give the answer in one word: Soul.

The essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that men are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to most men. This is because most men want to control others, to take away their freedom. This is usually referred to as the drive for power. The drive for power is antithetical to freedom because power means the ability to control others. There is only one legitimate thing that power can and should be used for, whether it be military, legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize freedom.

Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President to “give” me freedom. He doesn’t own my freedom and he didn’t give it to me. The only reason Ron Paul wants to be President is to stop punishing people for using their freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power. This is clear to anyone who listens to him speak.

Read it all.

Earlier tonight Michelle Bachmann lost her Iowa Campaign chairman to the Ron Paul campaign. She lashed out claiming it was financially motivated. Not true, says her current Iowa Political Director.

Here is the relevant portion of Bachmann’s statement after the defection occurred:

Kent Sorenson personally told me he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign. Kent campaigned with us earlier this afternoon and went immediately afterward  to a Ron Paul event and announced he is changing teams. Kent said to me yesterday that ‘everyone sells out in Iowa, why shouldn’t I,’ then he told me he would stay with our campaign.

Here is a statement from her current Iowa political director Wes Enos regarding her statement above from a press release put out by the Ron Paul campaign:

“I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated.  His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset.  While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.

The full press release (received via email) is here but should soon be up on the Ron Paul 2012 site:

Read More »

Newt Gingrich is right. There are no decent Americans that could possibly support Ron Paul. I am one example of a person that Gingrich calls indecent. I support Ron Paul. Since Gingrich has decided to make it personal. I will too. I’m 40 years old. I have 3 young children. I work long hours for decent pay. I’ve been married for nearly 12 years to the same woman. I’ve never been divorced. I never committed adultery with younger women while my wife was seriously ill two times. I’ve not even done it one time. I never will.  I’ve never been accused of saying the following about my wife, “She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.“  I will never take 1.6 million dollars as a “consultant” to a tax-funded government sponsored enterprise like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. I never had 84 ethics sanctions brought against me by my peers.

Yeah, Newt… we who support Ron Paul are the indecent ones. You figured us out. Congrats.

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government…we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.  In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address to the Nation, 1961                                    

“Ron Paul and I would disagree on many issues. …However, these are policy differences. They can be negotiated or legislated into a compromise.  But on liberty, on human rights, and on the Constitution, Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets it.  …Liberty is where we begin and end the conversation in America.  For far too long, government has chipped away at the rights of Americans.  Ron Paul would reverse that trend.  Whatever else he does is secondary to that prime directive.”

John Thorpe “Forbes“                                                                                                                                  

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Thorpe (a liberal) in the above paragraph.  I also agree with those expressed by conservative Steve Deace: “as much as I disagree with Paul, I’d choose him over the Republicrat ruling class any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.” 

The fact that individuals from both the left and right of the political spectrum find Ron Paul increasingly attractive is of no little concern to The Powers That Be (TPTB) and their long-knives are already out.  Should Ron Paul become the lead, or one of the lead Republican candidates they will attempt to slice and dice him like a Cuisinart — count on it.  The MSM, who cannot seem to find Obama’s past history with a bloodhound and a road map will suddenly become super-sleuths able to sniff out every nook and cranny of Ron Paul’s past — and where the truth does not suit their purposes they will twist it until it does.

It is understandable that the Far Left would oppose Ron Paul, because of his stance on state’s rights, limited government, and his staunch defense of the US Constitution.  What perplexes me is the animosity shown toward Paul by the purportedly conservative Republican establishment — and there can be no doubt that the GOP elites despise Paul’s positions.  Rush Limbaugh has dumped on him; the “conservative” press treats him as a joke, and “conservative” talking heads routinely dismiss him.  Recently Neil Cavuto took his fellow pundits at Fox News to task for their blatantly dismissive attitudes toward Ron Paul.                                                                                                                                  

All of which only makes Ron Paul all the more attractive to me as a candidate, and I suspect that a growing number of conservatives feel similarly — we know how lame “conservative” media can be. 

“We the people” are more than a little tired of the condescending arrogance thrown our way by Republican elites and their duplicitous mouthpieces.  The truth is that for all of their talk of being conservative, they find Ron Paul’s ideas about limited government anathema.  They want big government — they only differ from the liberal elites in their choice of what type of big government we should have.  It is of no importance to them that freedom decreases as government increases. 

I only recently became aware of just how much negative information TPTB have already put out about Ron Paul, so one of my first tasks has been to bring myself up to speed on what is true about Ron Paul, and what is false.  I found that I needed to brush aside much of the “common wisdom” surrounding him.

Read More »