Ron Paul's Deceitfulness

I am not a Ron Paul fan.  In fact this may surprise some conservatives but he is my least favorite of the last four presidential candidates in the GOP race.  He is the least trustworthy IMO.  He kept on changing his answers when it came to reporters questioning him on his letters.  And, yes, I do think that he lied through his teeth when he said he didn't know who wrote the racist parts of his letter.  Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and he doesn't know who wrote the racist parts of his newsletters that goes beyond incompetence, to negligence IMO.  I do not want a president with that type of "hands off" approach. You wouldn’t trust a medical procedure to someone who took the easy route and got medical training from an online college, so why would you trust someone to run the country who either lies or is negligent? The extent to which someone involves and invests themselves, speaks volumes to how serious they are about the ultimate quality of their work.”

 Like last night in the debate he said the problem with politics in Washington is that it does take a team effort.  He is an idealist who is unwilling to compromise and be a team player with fellow Republicans but when it comes to pushing his isolationist foreign policy agenda he is more than willing to work with Democrats.  Ron Paul is willing to be a part of the team when it comes to working with Democrats to promote his nightmare of an isolationist foreign policy agenda.  Paul thinks that a madman who has threatened to blow Israel off the face of the map has a "right" to have possession of a nuclear weapon.  That is just crazy talk. He is just another political opportunist who uses people for his own cause. I don't like his snobbish attitude in how he thinks that he is better than other politicians just because he talks about liberty, the constitution, and freedom.  Just because he gives speeches and interviews promoting liberty? Seriously?  He has a flawed view of both our federal government and the tenth amendment.  It seems to me that Ron Paul thinks that the Federal government has no role in the United States.  The tenth amendment does give states the right to develop different systems of education and different health care services but it does NOT give the states the right to do harm.  Some states do not have the right to legalize abortion while others ban abortion.  The Constitution says that every person has an unalienable right to life and his tenth amendment views violate the Constitution, the very Constitution he pretends to uphold.

Ron Paul's recent television ad is deceitful in its implications which suggest that Rick Santorum supports Planned Parenthood.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  Paul equates voting for a budget that has Title X funding in it with supporting Planned Parenthood.  That is fallacious.  Rick Santorum not only talks the pro-life talk but also walks the walk so when people falsely accuse him of otherwise or distort his record for political opportunism it irks me to no end.  Under the law it is a requirement for budgets to be passed. This happened under Bush.  Unfortunately we haven't seen a budget passed since April 29, 2009, not long after the Democrats took control of the House, Senate, and White House. Plus, the Democratically controlled Senate has blocked all efforts to pass a budget since the Republicans took control of the House.

In an article on LifeNews.com Steven Ertelt makes it clear that Rick Santorum is a stalwart defender of the unborn and does not support Planned Parenthood.

From Life News:

On Monday, on the Sean Hannity program on Fox News, Santorum himself responded to the charge.

“Look, I’m not a big fan of Title X, that is Planned Parenthood. No, I want to defund Planned Parenthood,” he told Hannity.

Santorum also said in December that he strongly supports the most recent efforts in Congress to eliminate taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.

“[The abortion] is an inhumanity that should not occur in this country,” Santorum said, according to the Daily Iowan. “[Tax dollars] should not be used for things that are morally objectionable.”

“I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind,” Santorum said. “This is an organization that was founded on the eugenics movement, founded on racism — I mean, it’s horrific. It’s origins are horrific. And you can say, ‘well it’s not that anymore.’ It’s not far from where it was in my opinion.”

In fact, the record shows Santorum has a long line of votes to deny taxpayer funding for abortion and Planned Parenthood and frequently compiled 100% pro-life voting records from the National Right to Life Committee.

Life News has posted at least some of Santorum's pro-life votes while he served in the senate.

* July 2003 – Voted to support the Mexico City Policy de-funding Planned Parenthood.

* May 2003 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.

* June 2000 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.

* May 1999 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.

* June 1998 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.

* July 1997 – Voted against taxpayer funding of abortions in federal employee health insurance plans.

* July 1997 – Voted against allowing abortions at tax-funded military base hospitals.

* June 1997 – Voted against taxpayer funding of abortions in the S-CHIP program

* February 1997 – Voted against taxpayer fund of the pro-abortion UNFPA

On the other hand, is Ron Paul truly pro-life?  This is part of what is in his prolife profile: 

Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states' rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no 'right' to decriminalize child killing.  

There is more information here. 

Glenn Beck on Ron Paul: Soros Connection? 9/11 Truther?

Apparently Barney Frank and Ron Paul partnered in a project called the Sustainable Defense Task Force in which the main purpose was to reduce defense spending by around $1Trillion over the next ten years.  I am in favor of making some cuts to the defense budget but these type of deep cuts are irresponsible and will be detrimental to the safety of the U.S.  Anything that says "sustainable" or has that in its title I am quite leery of.  That usually means that the group follows progressive principles which seeks to undermine the Constitution and all that makes the United States good as a nation.

There is a difference between cutting and gutting the defense budget.  Plus, the cuts that Ron Paul, Barney Frank, Soros & Co proposed is not limited to the reduction of the number of bases and/or military personnel overseas but rather it guts very important parts of defense that our integral to our national security.

Here is a list of the the individuals on the Task Force.

Sustainable Defense Task Force

• Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives - Connected to George Soros 
• Benjamin H Friedman, Cato Institute - 
• William D Hartung, New America Foundation - Connected to George Soros
• Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project - Connected to Soros 
• Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network - Connected to George Soros 
• Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives - Connected to Soros 
• Lawrence J Korb, Center for American Progress - Connected to Soros 
• Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action - Connected to George Soros 
• Laicie Olson, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation - Connected to Soros 
• Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College
• Miriam Pemberton, Institute for Policy Studies
• Laura Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense
• Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
• Winslow Wheeler, Center for Defense Information - Connected to George Soros 

Front Page Mag provides more insight into those who have Soros connections. 

The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartung’s main expertise was appearing in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.”

Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, it’s Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.

The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and is, for all intents and purposes, the think tank of the White House. All three are Soros funded.

 But it doesn’t end there. Also on the panel was Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project (NPP). If you are wondering what the NPP is, it’s a think tank whose objective is to “influence national spending priorities.”  And if you’re in the mood for a double, Miriam Pemberton is also on the board of the NPP. The man behind the curtain at NPP? None other than our favorite Hungarian James Bond villain.

          Going further down the list there’s Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information (CDI).           The CDI’s goal is to strengthen “national and international security through international cooperation [and] reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict.” CDI operates under the aegis of the World Security Institute, which is apparently the least creepy name they could think of. Wheeler is a Counterpunch contributor, a site which even Stalinists think goes a bit too far. CDI gets money from the Open Society Institute (OSI) where the stench of death and stale cabbage never goes away.  

You can see additional information here. 

Did you see that 9 out of the 14 members on the Task Force are connected to George Soros?  I find that deeply troubling.  I find that troubling on so many levels, especially since Ron Paul claims to be "principled".  If he is so principled why did he allow so many people (or any) with connections to George Soros to sit on his Sustainable Defense Task Force?  

From FrontPage Mag: "The task force’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence; reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers; canceling the Joint Strike Fighter; “severely curtail missile defense” — and that is a direct quote from the report — retiring four Marine battalions; reducing the military by 200,000 personnel; cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years; and increasing health care fees for members of the military."   

I agree with Beck's assessment of Ron Paul.

Mark Steyn Calls Ron Paul's Worldview 'Sheer stupid, half-witted parochialism'

During Mark Steyn's regular appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio show he explained why the "truther-ism" aspects of Paul's and his supporters beliefs wouldn't hold up.


From The Daily Caller:

“This by the way is not an irrelevant thing because it gets to the heart of the most disfiguring aspect of Ron Paul’s campaign — leaving aside his unpleasantness to Michele Bachmann the other night and all the rest of it — which is this stunted parochialism.” Steyn said. “Let’s say for a moment 9/11 was an inside job. Does that also mean the Bali night club bombing was an inside job? That the Madrid train bombing was an inside job? That the Beslan school shooting was an inside job? That the London tube bombings were an inside job? In that case, that’s one hell of a sum to be hiding somewhere within the darkest recesses of Dick Cheney’s specific line items.”

And that, says Steyn, along with his isolationist view on foreign policy, is where Paul “meets the left.”

“So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”

Mark Steyn is spot on.


I have found further confirmation and explanation via Proof at Say Anything Blog that Ron Paul is much more of an isolationist than I had previously thought. In Proof's post Ron Paul On Foreign Policy: "Most Assuredly An Isolationist", Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Ron Paul, reveals Ron Paul's radically rigid isolationist foreign policy views. 


From Eric Dondero: 

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously.

But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay” (sic)…

I think this reveals a hard-core isolationism which is disturbing. How could Paul not see the legitimacy of the U.S. having entered WWII in order to stop Hitler from murdering countless Jews as well as other innocents?  This is where Paul's rugged individualism -every man for himself - conflicts with justice and promoting the common good.  We must protect those most vulnerable in our society. I guess this is another instance of his belief that states or a state has the right to do wrong, even if it is morally abhorrent.  That is an unjustifiably morally unacceptable position.  It would have been morally unacceptable for nations to allow the extermination of the Jews to continue.  Paul's foreign policy views are too dangerous not only for me but for all Americans, America, and for him to be commander-in-chief.  I cannot wrap my head around how any sane individual could hold these types of foreign policy beliefs.  

Ron Paul Confronts Ben Bernanke: Is Gold Money?

I Found this on WhatisGold.net: 

Gold is Money

Gold has always been accepted around the world as a means of exchange and a store of value - the mark of good money. Gold is money because it is uniquely suited for being our money, not because it's shiny and fancy looking, but because it is actually the most practical choice. What makes Gold the good money? Gold is money because gold is durable. Other choices from the past like wheat, hemp, fish, cows, or even people, cannot endure the test of time - only gold can. Gold is money because Gold is divisible and consistent. Pure gold is worth exactly the same amount per unit regardless of how it is divided; it is all just gold. Making change for a cow is far too messy, cumbersome and subjective. If you take a pretty, shiny, 1 ounce coin and chop it in half with a hatchet, you have two half ounce pieces of gold. Melt it down and pour it into 10 1/10 ounces and all 10 pieces together will equal the value of the original one ounce gold piece. Gold is money because gold is portable. One ounce of gold has almost always had the same 'purchasing power' throughout history.

It is said that in Rome, one ounce of gold would buy a nice toga, a belt and a pair of shoes. Today, an ounce of gold is worth about $1400 so this is relatively accurate. One ounce of gold won't buy you the best suit on the market, but that tiny little one ounce coin packs a purchasing power punch; $1400 in the palm of your hand. A hand bag filled with gold coins, about the same weight as Paris Hilton's dog (say three pounds), would be worth around $70000! Gold is well-suited for travelling or moving abroad because people around the world accept it. And, lastly and perhaps most misunderstood, gold is money because it has intrinsic value, it is extra ordinarily useful in ways that nothing else on earth or the known universe is useful.

Gold, in the form of gold nanoparticles, is used in extremely high technology like space travel and cutting edge cancer treatments. Gold is both the most ductile (one ounce can be pulled into an extremely thin wire 35 miles long!) and most malleable (can be pounded into an extremely thin wafer, so thin that light passes through it - 1 5/1000000 of an inch thin!) element in the known universe. Gold is the second best conductor of heat and electricity next to silver. Paired with gold's rarity, gold's amazing properties make it extremely valuable as money and to the progress of science and technology and ultimately mankind. For now, you can easily make an Investment in Gold, Trade Gold Online, and Save your Wealth in Gold. Just hurry and buy gold now because, as the prices rise, it won't always be this easy! Gold is money, gold is the world’s true money.


"The great merit of gold is precisely that it is scarce; that its quantity is limited by nature; that it is costly to discover, to mine, and to process; and that it cannot be created by political fiat or caprice." ~ Henry Hazlitt