Ron Paul appeared for about 3 minutes this morning on CNN’s “American Morning”. He spoke the hard truth about the interventionist foreign policies of both McCain and Barack Obama. Many people seem to believe that Obama is the “peace” candidate. I saw a bumper sticker with the ‘O’ in Obama represented as a peace sign. What a ridiculous lie that is. Ron Paul sets the story straight. He also points out the truth about the Russia-Georgian conflict saying that we did in Kosovo exactly what Russia is doing in South Ossetia.
Yet again Ron Paul demonstrates why he should have been the GOP nominee. He is the real change candidate. Watch the video below.
The Bob Barr campaign sent out a press release earlier today claiming that Barr is slated to be the only Presidential candidate on the November ballot in Texas. Apparently, the Democrats and Republicans have failed to meet the filing deadline for being on the ballot in the state. Well, at least that was the first report.
Ballot Access News seemed to confirm the initial report by verifying that “at 2:30 pm Texas time, August 27, Kim Kizer of the Texas Secretary of State’s elections division says neither major party’s certification has been received in the Elections Division.” Then later some new information surfaced from a different source that conflicts with this report.
Texas Secretary of State spokesperson Ashley Burton said that upon further checking, “Both parties filed before the deadline. We expect their amended filings after both parties finish their nominating process at the conventions.”
So did the Barr campaign overreact, get all giddy with excitement too soon and issue a false press release? Hardly. They well know the obstacles to ballot access in various states across the country. They are fighting not just for their singular campaign, but for all future third party and independent campaigns. They are throwing gas on the smoldering fire of unfair ballot access rules, doing their best to expose the two party duopoly. The campaign did the same thing when they filed the injunction lawsuit against the Saddleback Church’s Presidential Forum.
There has been some criticism of the Barr campaign recently, but they continue to fight to get the freedom message into as many minds as possible.
MIchelle Obama the wife of that candidate everyone’s been talking about for seemingly like 4 years now gave a rousing speech on behalf of her husband tonight. As this article points out she pledged that he will “end the war in Iraq, revise a sputtering economy and extend health care to all”. Apparently, those are the primary items on his Socialist Party approved honey do list. Where is Ron Paul or Bob Barr when you need them?
What will the Democrats say when/if Obama wins the election and brings our troops home from Iraq…. and then puts them on a plane directly to Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? “Yes we can… wait… WHAT?”
Obama is not advocating switching to a non-interventionist foreign policy. Neither is McCain, obviously. So what is the difference between the two on foreign policy? Nothing, except for the country they aim to occupy indefinitely. There is no fundamental difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on foreign policy. Saying Obama (or McCain) is better is like the difference between 5th and 6th place in the Olympics. Neither gets a medal. Both are still losers. Do you want to vote for a loser?
Much speculation has occurred about who Ron Paul will endorse following the Republican Convention and his Rally For The Republic. Perhaps just as much speculation has occurred about whether he will endorse anyone at all. If he were to endorse a candidate, the two names that have the most potential are Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. However, it’s high time to realize that Ron Paul’s endorsement isn’t the be all and end all. Let’s take a look at some other candidates that Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed already.
Sifting through the list of endorsed candidates from Ron Paul’s Liberty PAC web site reveals that Paul is no liberty purist like so many of his supporters. To me, this shows Paul does compromise and play politics to further the larger goal rather than focus on specific issues of fundamental disagreement. The fact that he endorses sending money to Paul Broun, an Iraq war and surge supporting Congressman from Georgia demonstrates this. It gets worse, much worse.
A special live event and screening of a documentary on fiscal responsibility entitled I.O.U.S.A. was held this evening. Ron Paul had a small part in the movie (actually two), but it was one of the more crowd pleasing moments of the entire movie. Paul’s clip showed him questioning Greenspan and telling him that if a doctor had the same failure rate at meeting his goals, patients would die. Then silence and everyone staring at each other, including Greenspan, all dumbfounded. Hilarious. The packed theater thought so too as the crowd laughed heartily and loudly.
The movie as a whole took great pains to be non-partisan and was quite successful. Ron Paul was the only Presidential candidate in the movie painted in a positive light. In fact he was utilized as an expert, especially during the discussion of the Fed and it’s power. The unflattering moments were saved for George W. Bush in the final part of the movie on the “leadership deficit”.
Bill Clinton received some positive air play for balancing the budget in the late 90’s. I was pleased that they then accurately added Social Security and Medicare to the budget equation showing the surplus being wiped out.
In 2005 Judge Andrew Napolitano gave an interview to Reason Magazine’s Nick Gillespie promoting his new book (at the time) “Constitutional Chaos“. In the interview he outlines the progression of liberty lost in America.
His explanation demonstrates the incremental steps taking us from freedom towards tyranny. The next time someone attempts to argue with you about having to sacrifice liberty for safety point them to this interview.
Reason: What’s your case against the USA PATRIOT Act?
Napolitano: Let’s put aside all of the procedural problems with enacting it. Forget about the fact that there was no debate. Forget about the fact that most members of Congress didn’t even have an opportunity to read it. It is a direct assault on at least three amendments to the Constitution: the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The PATRIOT Act legitimates the notion that if we give up certain freedoms, the government will keep us safer. I reject that notion from a moral and legal point of view. I also reject it from a practical point of view. It doesn’t work. The government doesn’t need our freedoms to keep us safer. No one–no lawyer, judge, or historian–can point to a single incident in American history where national security was impaired because someone insisted on their right to free speech or their right to privacy or their right to due process.
The PATRIOT Act encourages what the government calls “national security letters”–basically, self-written search warrants. It violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits self-written search warrants. The PATRIOT Act and two of its predecessors, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act of 1977 [FISA] and the Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, authorized the government to obtain search warrants by bypassing [longstanding tradition in] the courts. Today an FBI agent investigating a person need only satisfy her or himself that the person under investigation is a threat to national security. The agent doesn’t have to demonstrate evidence to a judge.
The Judge can authoritatively articulate our loss of liberty better than anyone and that includes Ron Paul. It is a shame he is beholden to FOX News and cannot show bias about candidates he supports. It is pretty obvious that he is a Ron Paul supporter after his rousing introduction of Ron Paul last year, calling him the “Thomas Jefferson of our day”.
He deserves a medal for doing his radio show along side neocon torture supporter and warmonger Brian Kilmeade without choking him.
The recent Washington Post feature article about Bob Barr cements the suspicion many liberty seekers have regarding the delusionary hope for fairness for third party and independent candidates. It doesn’t matter that a candidate has the credibility of serving in the House of Representatives for eight years. All that matters is that he is not Obama or McCain and therefore must be stopped.
This treatment apparently is not even limited to third party and independent candidates. The media’s marginalization of Republican candidate Ron Paul reinforces that being a true “maverick” instead gets you the “extreme” or “crazy” label even if you are a member of one of the two major parties. The incredulous and almost laughable treatment of Ron Paul during his primary campaign inspired what became one of the most read articles here at Liberty Maven.
In the typical faux liberty laden USA Bob Barr’s lawsuit claims against the Saddleback Church forum were denied. From CBS news in Los Angeles:
SANTA ANA, Calif. A federal judge Friday denied Libertarian presidential hopeful Bob Barr’s bid to be included in a presidential forum in Lake Forest with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama or stop the event as a violation of federal campaign law.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter refused to issue an order on behalf of Barr and Wayne Root, his vice presidential running mate, that would disrupt the Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion scheduled to begin Saturday at 5 p.m. at Saddleback Church.
“Plaintiffs will lose out on a fair amount of exposure and the opportunity to express their views in a popular forum,” Carter conceded. “On the other hand, halting this event would deny the other candidates the opportunity to be heard and would deprive the public of an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views.
“Forcing Saddleback to include another candidate at the last moment could cause serious logistical problems and take away from the presentations of other candidate,” Carter said. “This might well disrupt the planned presentation.”
Carter said Barr and Root “will have many other opportunities in the coming months to express their views and make their candidacy known.”
This is hardly a shock but sooner or later one of these fights will be won; therefore, it is important to continue the fight. Some called this effort a “waste”. Imagine if the Judge happened to be libertarian leaning. I’m told some of them do exist (See former Judge Andrew Napolitano).
The purist libertarian critics of Barr are attacking him for utilizing the court system in an attempt to block the Saddleback Church Presidential Forum where McCain and Obama were invited and Barr was excluded. This libertarian applauds Barr for this fight. He is utilizing their own rules against them, even if he himself wants those rules overturned. It is true that the church is a private organization and can invite whomever they want to such an event. However, Barr’s fight is based on current election law.
“It is our opinion that the Saddleback Church forum failed to publish any pre-established, objective criteria for inviting candidates to the event,” says Russell Verney, Barr’s campaign manager. “Because of Saddleback’s apparent failure to comply with campaign finance laws, the exclusion of Bob Barr appears to be an illegal, corporate, in-kind contribution to Senators Obama and McCain.”
Federal election laws stipulate that an event such as the one Saddleback Church is hosting must provide pre-established and objective criteria for inviting candidates. A failure to do so can be considered an illegal campaign contribution.
I’m not sure Barr has much hope for winning this case, but it is rather interesting that he is using their own two party duopoly rules against them. He is merely requesting that the rule of law be enforced. Read the full Barr press release on the case and the LA Times coverage.
Much has been argued on both sides of the recent Georgian - Russian conflict. Over at a favorite read of mine Antiwar.comJustin Raimondo calls great attention to the fact that Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. He also points out that Georgian President Saakashvili didn’t exactly come to power democratically no matter what is said on the matter. He is the foil for the current anti-Russian “narrative” from the main stream media in the US.
Both the Russians and Georgians make “information warfare” claims of each other. It seems to me both of their claims are true. Georgia attacked South Ossetia for their goal of independence. Russia used that attack as an excuse to wage all out war with Georgia. A curious interview occurred on the FOX News channel where a 12 year old girl (and her mother) both had harsh words for Georgia for bombing South Ossetia. It was almost as if Vladimir Putin himself controlled puppet strings attached to the girl and her mother. The truth we may never know, but it is a perfect example of the word warfare inherent in this conflict.
Liberty Maven
“. In the interview he outlines the progression of liberty lost in America.
