-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.

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.

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.

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.

I have found that many of the “problems” with Ron Paul are not problems at all, and that most of his troublesome positions are in fact either outright fabrications invented by those who oppose him, or statements taken out of context.  Granted, there are still a few things that as a conservative make me cringe, but I am sure that liberals can say the same.  The thing is, as John Thorpe points out, liberty trumps all.  Next to freedom, most all of the other issues that we concern ourselves with become peripheral sideshows — and the one thing that Ron Paul definitely stands for, almost uniquely, is freedom.

For those of you who may not be aware of Ron Paul’s positions regarding several controversial issues, let me give some examples of what I have found out.

Ron Paul’s position on illegal immigration includes physically securing our borders, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, and ending birthright citizenship.  That does not sound like Paul is an open borders La Raza aficionado to me.                              

Ron Paul is not a proponent of abortion.  Doctor Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies, and no doubt understands more about the complexities involved in the debate than most of us.  As is the case with a number of issues, he has been made out to be a proponent of things that he does not endorse, but simply believes should be left up to the individual states to decide, as per the US Constitution. 

Ron Paul’s fiscal policies seem to me to be much more sane than anything I have seen come out of Washington since…well, actually I cannot think of any sane fiscal policy that has come out of Washington.  That is to say, Ron Paul’s ideas for responsible fiscal behavior are the sanest things to have come out of Washington in a loong time — end the Fed, end taxes, stop the government’s insane spending spree, and clean up rampant corruption.  You had better believe TPTB do not like the sound of any of that.                                                  

Claims that Ron Paul is racist are absurd.  Read the quote of his below and judge for yourself:  

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.  Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.  By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.  …The true antidote to racism is liberty.  Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.  …Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.” That bears rereading.                                            

John Nichols, writing for NPR on the Ron Paul candidacy notes that “what frightens Republican party leaders [is] the notion that the Grand Old Party might actually base its politics on values, as opposed to pay-to-play deal-making, [which] unsettles the Republican leaders who back only contenders who have been pre-approved by the Wall Street speculators, banksters and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab—and kindly pick up some of the bills for the Democrats, as well.  And if [Ron Paul] wins Iowa, he could begin a process of transforming the Republican Party into a conservative party.  That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters.  But it…quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the “conservatism” of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.”  (Italics added)    

I basically agree with Mr. Nichols, pausing only to mention in passing that the shoe is on the other foot, and that it is mainly the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are in bed with Wall Street.  The numbers paint a different story than liberals would have us believe: “These Democrats may claim to be on the side of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters, but the numbers don’t lie. They are clearly capitalizing on the populism of the day while continuing to line their campaign coffers with money from the very people they are now demonizing.”  In the spirit of détente I will drop that particular subject for the time being, and move onto Ron Paul’s “anti-war/non-intervention” stance of which much has been written.  

Not many people alive today remember the time when America was not the world’s “policeman,” but the current state of affairs is a rather recent development that did not start coming into being until shortly after WW II.  For most of America’s history the idea of policing the world would have been considered ludicrous.

Todd S. Purdum writing for “Vanity Fair” lays the blame for the rapid expansion of the military/industrial complex at the feet of George Kennan and an article he wrote in 1947 for the Council on Foreign Relations.  In his article Keenan outlined the need for America to fight communism in one hot-spot after another.  Keenan meant to fight it diplomatically and politically rather than militarily, but no matter, the military/industrial complex was born.  (John Bolton in a recent article gives Keenan much less credit, writing that Keenan “was simply a verbalizer for ideas swirling at the State Department” at the time). 

In any event, Keenan lived to rue his article and when US troops were sent to Somalia in 1992 he wrote “The dispatch of American armed forces to a seat of operations in a place far from our own shores, and this for what is actually a major police action in another country and in a situation where no defensible American interest is involved—this, obviously, is something that the Founding Fathers of this country never envisaged or would ever have approved. If this is in the American tradition, then it is a very recent tradition.”                                                                                                  

Exactly Ron Paul’s point — that all of this international military involvement is against the grain of America’s history, and at odds with our founding principles — if not flat out unconstitutional.  While our military is engaged in numerous operations overseas, the country that they are “defending” is going to hell in a hand-basket — economically, morally, and culturally.

I recently saw an article headlined “Draft Hillary.”  I thought to myself “”great idea!”  Issue her an M-16 and let her have at it in Afghanistan.  Send some of the more objectionable members of Congress along with her.  Let them get blown up, let them deal with suicide bombers, let them deal with insane ROEs in a tar-baby backwater surrounded on all sides by hostiles.  We would no doubt see a rapid “attitude-adjustment” on their part                                                                        

And if we were to successfully colonize Afghanistan — then what?  Colonize the surrounding countries of Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Yajikistan, and Pakistan?  We have to go after those terrorists you know.  Shall we colonize Yemen — we know they hide out there.  Somalia?  What about Sudan?  Where does it end?  What brainiac thought up this grand strategy?  I support our troops, and I want them out of Afghanistanbecause I support them.

I am not the non-interventionist that Ron Paul is, but I am for bringing most of our troops back home to regroup and reevaluate things.  We should concentrate on getting our own house in order, before we go waltzing around the world telling other folks how to run their business.  The United States has the world’s highest divorce rate, we lead the world in rapes, car thefts, and drug use.  We are by far the world’s main supplier of pornography, and we possess the planet’s most complicated tax system.  We have the most people behind bars, and we have far more foreign military bases that any other country.  Oh, and we spend over seven times more on our military than any other country.  What’s not to love?  Plenty.                                                                                       

It is no secret that war is big business and that many powerful people have a vested interest in seeing to it that wars continue unabated.  The “defense” industry beats out illegal drugs for profitability — only the oil industry brings in more money.  The “death merchants” make out like bandits while our young men and women lose lives, limbs, and heart.           

Speaking of drugs, now might be a good time to point out that Ron Paul is not for drug use, again he simply feels that it is something that should be left up to the individual states to decide.  (An interesting aside: did you know that Afghanistan’s multi-billion dollar opium trade rapidly expanded under US occupation?  Somehow I doubt that all that money goes to the Taliban).       

If you are under the delusion that our men and women in uniform are rabidly opposed to Ron Paul’s anti-war/isolationist stance, then you might be surprised to learn that Ron Paul receives more donations from active duty military personnel than any other politician — in either political party.  Paul Joseph Watson writes “judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.”        

The meme that Ron Paul is unelectable is rubbish — scare tactics courtesy of TPTB.  I “guesstimate” that apart from a small percentage of voters who will find some of Paul’s positions to be beyond the pale (which is of course their right), there is a large majority that may very well end up voting for him.  

The Ron Paul revolution is a real across-the-board revolution, and not some dialectical sophistry designed to hoodwink one ideological side or the other. The establishment, no matter what political banner they carry, will fight tooth and nail anyone who threatens their grip on the status quo.   They like things just the way they are — with them in charge.  

At least in regard to Ron Paul a truce should be called between “we the people” on the left and on the right.  Let us agree to disagree, and “keep our eyes on the prize” — our freedom.  It is not impossible that “we the people” can win this thing.          

In truth this is not about left vs. right; it is about up vs. down.  Up to freedom, truth, light and hope, or down to darkness, lies, despair and ruin.

As “we the people” move forward toward restoring liberty in our land it would be wise to keep in mind that Ron Paul is only one man, and a revolution should not be about just one person.  Using Ron Paul as a figurehead, a touchstone, and a rallying point is fine, but fundamentaly this revolution is about “we the people, and restoring hope and freedom to our children and future generations. 

That being said, I wholeheartedly and without reservation endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States.  Now let’s go kick some butt – lovingly of course.  Power to the people – right on.             

This was not just an appearance on a late night talk show. This was a Ron Paul campaign rally.

During the final interview segment with Paul, Leno asked him his thoughts on the other candidates and went down the list by name. When he got to Bachmann, Ron Paul replied, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” This probably didn’t win him any neo-conservative supporters. Then he doubled down on this when he replied similarly about Santorum saying he doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”  Wow. I can’t imagine that Santorum and Bachmann won’t issue a counter-attack soon.

This just further cements my point in previous articles. Ron Paul can and would beat Obama in the general election. His more difficult win is in the GOP primary.

During the appearance Twitter was about 99% positive about Ron Paul, including many tweets saying things like, “I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m definitely voting for Ron Paul.”

Now we can sit back and monitor how the pundits and other candidates react, if they react at all.

See the entire appearance below in 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0r0lRyiKY

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”
RON PAUL: “There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”
Bachmann: “It’s the IAEA report.”
THE FACTS: As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”
Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.

Yes, unsurprisingly it was Michelle Bachmann who lied or I guess if you are a supporter of hers, “stretched the truth”. Bachmann also appears to have lied about what is in the Iranian Constitution, claiming it “states unequivocally” to stretch “jihad across the world”. Well, unless the Wikipedia interpretation of the Iranian Constitution is wrong I see no mention of “jihad” or “caliphate”. In fact, it directly mentions foreign policy in section X, saying in part:

Article 152 The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

There is certainly no “unequivocal” mention of jihad against the world. Hopefully voters will see through Bachmann’s and Santorum’s melodramatic horse-hockey.

Here are all of Ron Paul’s moments in the debate, totaling over 18 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c

DONATE TODAY! It’s Tea Party ’11 Money Bomb Time.

I think I have a pretty good idea what getting water-boarded feels like. I’m not sure why I do this to myself, but I sometimes find myself reading the comments on Ron Paul articles appearing on various mainstream and semi-mainstream news sites. It is akin to torture. One of the more common things I keep seeing from anti-Ron Paul people is the charge of isolationism. I thought this was an old argument that most people already understood. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Ron Paul supporters invariably reply to set things straight. I know because I’ve done it before, too many times to count.

Today, in the billionth thread about Ron Paul’s so-called isolationism someone posted something that truly demonstrates a lack of understanding. This person said the following:

“If Ron Paul brings home our troops from other countries who’ll be there to protect freedom?”

Uh-huh. And Ron Paul is the crazy one. “Hey you, Start being free or I’ll shoot!” Let freedom ring!

Yesterday’s poll numbers from Public Policy Polling show that Ron Paul is gaining serious steam in Iowa, only a single percentage point behind Newt Gingrich. I head over to Twitter to see the reactions and I see a post from a popular “conservative” blog entitled, “No, Ron Paul is not a threat to win the Iowa Caucuses”. The article itself is full of wishful thinking analysis and struck me as a bunch of flapdoodle. Yeah, I said it: flapdoodle!

Then I read about radio talk show host Mark Levin saying some bad things about Ron Paul. Sorry, listening to him is not something I can permit myself to do. His voice disturbs me. You know what I mean. Though, I guess it could also be the things he says. Apparently, he went on a rant (surprise!) and called Ron Paul some names like “Ru Paul” (surprise!). If you ever thought this to be humorous then Ron Paul doesn’t need your vote. Yeah, all 3 of you.

A few other Twitter posters wanted to make the following point:

“If we Republicans nominate Ron Paul then Obama will win easily”

This is obviously coming from the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-after-they’re-all-dead wing of the GOP. Some people call them neo-conservatives, but I like my name for them a bit more.

The only way that Obama wins in 2012 is for the GOP to nominate a candidate not named Ronald Ernest Paul. Independents swing general elections one way or the other. The Democratic base will vote for Obama. The Republican base will hold their noses and vote for Paul because they hate him less than they hate Obama (except for maybe Mark Levin). Ron Paul is immensely strong with independents and moderate disaffected democrats. These two voting blocs will give Paul enough votes to beat Obama in the general.

The problem is that even if Ron Paul wins Iowa it means nothing unless he secures the nomination and it’s a tall order. Remember, McCain, the eventual GOP nominee in 2008, came in 4th in the Iowa Caucuses. Sleepyhead Fred Thompson even finished ahead of him.

Do you think the status-quo GOP would ever embrace Ron Paul as their nominee? I sure would like to find out.

That elephant might as well be a lion right now. Ron Paul is in the top tier of candidates for the GOP nomination. This is not wishful thinking or libertarian fantasy. Following his strong debate showing over the weekend he has the pundits wondering out loud, “Can Ron Paul win?”

If you fancy yourself a Republican, conservative, or independent and you want nothing more than Barack Obama to lose in 2012 then your only choice can be Ron Paul, even if you vehemently disagree with him on foreign policy or think he’s a nut job. I’ve said this before, but if any other GOP candidate gets the nomination, we’ll see a second term for Obama. And this won’t be due to Ron Paul running as a non-Republican as many in the GOP fear. It will be because the rest of the Republican candidates are weak where it matters to most Americans these days: honesty, integrity, and consistency.

Obama isn’t exactly stellar on those attributes either; however, he’s already in the White House. He’s the incumbent with charisma and those are kryptonite to the likes of Newt Romney. If you want to make him uncomfortable force him to attack from the Right. Imagine Obama debating Ron Paul on foreign policy. Who will his anti-war supporters support? The ones that don’t end up thoroughly confused will logically vote for Paul and his strong and consistent anti-war position. Paul will already have the support of the Republican base, some of which, may hold their noses and vote for him. He’s already proven in the polls how popular he is with independents. Those same independents went largely in favor of Obama in 2008.

This all adds up to a victory for Paul over Obama, if only he could secure the nomination. In fact, getting the GOP nomination is a tougher road for Paul than winning in the general. Another reason why the general election would be easier is that his experience in the GOP primary will prepare him for nearly everything he’s likely to face during the general.

A recent interview had Paul answering the “will you run 3rd party” question yet again. Then the ever-present followup question asking him if he’d support the GOP nominee assuming it wasn’t himself. Just once I’d like to see one of his opponents get asked those questions. It would probably go something like this:

BLITZER(CNN): Speaker Gingrich, if Ron Paul gets the nomination will you get angry, pick up all your toys and go run as a 3rd party candidate to give those in the GOP that do not agree with Dr. Paul’s foreign policy an alternative?

GINGRICH: I may not agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy but he’s better than Obama and I would not hesitate to support our party’s nominee, yes, even if that nominee is Ron Paul.

BLITZER(CNN): Governor Romney, same question to you.

ROMNEY: Ron Paul and I have our differences for sure, but I have greater differences with Obama, and I would support the Republican nominee, no matter which one of us is selected for that great honor.

So let me repeat and make it clear:

If you don’t want Obama for 4 more years, Ron Paul is your only hope.

If you consider his positions too extreme then you still must support him. He has two other branches of government to temper his “extremism”. Every other candidate is tinkering around the edges and would have a zero net effect on American prosperity. A libertarian-leaning president coupled with a more moderate judiciary and legislature is exactly the shot in the arm America needs right now.

If you are worried Paul would ignore his oath of office and the Constitution and use his presidency as an extreme libertarian power-grab, well then, you don’t really know Ron Paul and you need to study up on libertarianism.

Republicans rejoice! You have a candidate in the race who can beat Obama. It’s time you embraced your inner elephant and make Ron Paul your nominee.

There are Republicans that will only vote Republican and stand behind the nominee no matter who it is.

There are Democrats that believe in unicorns, double rainbows, and “Yes we can!” that will vote for Obama no matter how much his actions suggest “Oh no we didn’t!”.

Then there are the the rest of us who will vote for the guy (Sorry Michele and Sarah but you gals don’t have a chance… how’s that feel coming from a Ron Paul supporter?) that actually agrees with us on approximately 80 to 100% of what we believe in.

If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee Obama would be forced to attack from the right on foreign policy, alienating those liberal voters who are ignorantly sympathetic to the drone-bombing fetishist, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Obama would be compelled to “let-me-be-clear” his way out of not being very clear on why there are still troops in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and maybe Syria and “Pock-ih-stohn”.

Now where would those voters turn after being stabbed in the back by their warmonger-in-chief? That’s right, the only other candidate in the race with years of truth and integrity spilling out of him: Ron Paul.

Nearly every question Paul received during the debate last week on MSNBC was obviously aimed at scaring people who have become dependent on the federal government. Even the CNN “Tea Party” debate earlier this week had some of this as well. Don’t fall for their magic markers. Paint your own picture of who Ron Paul is and what he believes (this video is a great start).

Newsflash: Hey MSNBC viewers, everything you despise about FOX News is exactly what MSNBC does except the paint dries blue, not red.

You have to take the crazy out of yourself before you will notice that Ron Paul is just not crazy. He is the candidate with the most common sense. I’m sure that one of Paul’s trusted advisers said to him prior to the debate, “Ron, if you look at the rest of the candidates on that stage, and you can’t find the sane one, then YOU are the sane one.”

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. We keep electing the same clowns over and over again and expect different results. But here is Ron Paul, once again, offering America new solutions to ancient problems.

He’s the only one that can truly beat Obama. Do you want four more years of recession, desperation, broken promises, and apologies? Vote Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, or Obama.

But if you want four years of prosperity, integrity, honesty, liberty, and peace. Vote Paul. He’s just the kind of crazy America needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cVqb_utNGM

This morning McCain sounded a similar tune when talking about Obama’s recent support of actions in Libya.

“There’s always been an isolation strain in the Republican party, that Pat Buchanan (a former Republican presidential contender) wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak,” he said.

There is no question that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, made the right choice in lending US military support to the NATO mission in Libya, McCain told ABC television’s “This Week” program.

“If we had not intervened, Kadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That’s a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?

“That’s not the Republican party of the 20th century and now the 21st century,” McCain said.

McCain is a neo-con Republican dinosaur with a jingoist broken record roar of, “America F&%K YEAH!” It is as tired as it is desperate. He also, along with much of the media, needs to learn the proper definition of isolationism. For more see this excellent video on isolationism from Jack Hunter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLVlv_OP5Gw

It is a testament to Ron Paul that his message of non-interventionism is now being echoed, in various forms, by his 2012 GOP opponents. However, let’s not kid ourselves, not a single candidate in the field other than Ron Paul can be trusted to put action behind the words.

In 2008 I wrote that I didn’t think America was ready for Ron Paul. Here in 2011-2012, America just might be ready. Even if Dino-McCain isn’t.

Here is his appearance on GMA. Note his excellent responses to all of the questions posed to him. Much like his fire in the first GOP debate, it has become obvious to me that this 2012 effort is no longer just an educational effort like 2008 admittedly was. He’s in it to win it this time around. The thing about Ron Paul is that even if he loses in the conventional sense (which right now appears likely) he will win and has already won the hearts and minds of a new generation of leaders. And their sole focus is what the America of the future needs most: liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKRwIm_N0vA