Category Archives: 2012 Presidential Election

CNBC Stops 2012 Online Presidential Polls Because of Ron Paul

This story will not surprise anyone who has seen the results of this year’s online polls. The spamming tactics of the Ron Paul campaign first came to public attention in October 2007. CNBC hosted a Republican presidential debate and at the time the Texas lawmaker was receiving 3% in the public opinion polls.
As soon as CNBC uplinked its post debate survey, it was immediately bombarded. A link to the survey was posted on all Ron Paul websites and the campaign sent a blast e-mail to supporters urging them to vote repeatedly for the Congressman.
The same tactic is being repeated this year, and “Ron Paul Polls” has been established to spam every survey. Any website desiring a huge amount of traffic should consider posting a presidential survey. The numbers increase significantly if responders are allowed to vote more than once.
In the CNBC survey Paul received over 75% of the online vote, and libertarians claimed a major triumph. They said the results indicted public opinion polls were wrong.
CNBC realized the results were fraudulent and they removed the survey. The story is told by Allan Wastler, the CNBC Managing Editor:

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout our debate , but I haven’t seen him pull those kind of numbers in any “legit” poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn’t our intention and certainly doesn’t serve our readers … at least those who aren’t already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many,” I get a little worried. I’d take it down again.

Rick Perry vs. Ron Paul Feud Heats Up Over Gaza by Gregory Hilton

Despite Ron Paul's claims, no one is starving in Gaza. There is no lack of electricity or running water, and Gaza City has a luxury shopping mall.

The feud between Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is continuing, and the new flash point is the Gaza Strip. A new flotilla of large ships will arrive soon and Perry says it is an “unacceptable provocation,” while Paul has always claimed Israel’s Gaza blockade is an act of war. He described the last flotilla of nine ships as breaking the “siege” of Gaza.
Paul has criticized the Governor as an “establishment candidate” and for being “identified with the Bush administration and very much the status quo.” Bush and Perry were gubernatorial running makes in 1998. In 2007, Paul said Perry should be investigated for a criminal violation of the Logan Act when he attended the Bilderberg Conference. That same year Paul said Perry’s attendance was “A sign that he’s involved in the international conspiracy.”
In 2008, Paul endorsed Perry’s GOP primary opponent, Debra Medina, who was linked to the 9/11 Truth movement which believes the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the attack. During an interview with Glenn Beck, Medina would not deny she was a 9/11 Truther.
In his endorsement letter Paul said: “I have known Debra for over 10 years and she been a key supporter and member of my campaign team. . . I asked Debra to serve on the board of directors of my national grassroots action group, Campaign for Liberty.”
Perry is the complete opposite of Ron Paul and says the Gaza flotilla is a propaganda ploy. As the Red Cross has repeatedly confirmed, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel’s actions are in accordance with its inherent right to self-defense, and it is foolish to legitimize Hamas.
Every week about 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza. Ron Paul says Israel is violating “Palestinian waters,” but they do not exist because Palestine is not a country. Hamas won the last election in Gaza and they refuse to recognize Israel.
What is Hamas?
Hamas will not renounce violence and they have repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. A suicide bomber who attacked an Israeli pizzeria crowded with children was praised by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post:

Hamas is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It is a radical movement considered a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union. Hamas leaders condemned America for killing Osama bin Laden, and a founding principle of the Hamas charter calls for Jihad, a holy war on behalf of Islam.
Hamas has been responsible for more than a hundred suicide attacks, and has fired more than 10,000 rockets and missiles into towns and villages in Israel. The international community estimates that Hamas receives $20 million to $30 million in funding from Iran, a tyrannical regime that repeatedly denies its citizens basic human rights and kills any persons who question its principles.

Ron Paul’s Defense of Hamas
Congressman Paul says Hamas is an elected government so Israel should not be blocking the delivery of weapons to Gaza. Once again, an estimated 10,000 Katusha rockets from Gaza have been launched at Israel since their voluntary withdrawal six years ago. Rep. Paul has never described these attacks as an act of war.
In both of the presidential debates this year, the lawmaker has said he wants a “non-interventionist foreign policy.” He often votes alone and will not join his colleagues in condemning genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape camps and numerous other human rights abuses anywhere in the world. He justifies his actions by saying we should not tell other countries what to do, but he always tells Israel what to do and never fails to repeat Hamas and Hezbollah propaganda.
What Ron Paul Does Not Say

  • Israel has always acted in accordance with international maritime law. They are in a state of armed conflict with Hamas. In such cases blockades are permissible under international law so long as humanitarian goods are not prevented from reaching the population. Boarding a vessel is permissible if the ship is bound for a “belligerent” territory.
  • The organizers of the flotilla are affiliated with an officially designated terrorist organization. They have said suicide attacks against Israeli citizens are religiously sanctioned.
  • Gaza shipments do not have to come through Israel. They are allowed to unload their cargo of humanitarian goods at the Egyptian port of El-Arish. The supplies are then transferred on land to Gaza after being checked.
  • According to the International Monetary Fund, Gaza’s economy expanded by 15.2% last year.
  • Hamas strictly limits freedom of the press and religious freedom. Christians do not have the same freedom as Muslims, and any political assemblies must be approved in advance. Women are denied basic human rights.

Should Israel comply with international law and the values of the international community? Yes. Does it? Yes, and like every nation is has a right to self-defense.

The Libertarian Debate: Rep. Ron Paul vs. Gov. Gary Johnson by Gregory Hilton

In a significant setback to his campaign, former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM) was not included in this week’s CNN presidential debate in New Hampshire. Johnson did participate in the first debate in South Carolina which was organized by Fox News.
CNN policy is to exclude candidates who are not receiving at least 2% of the vote in national public opinion polls. In 2007, former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK) was also excluded by the same criteria, but his supporters were successful in organizing a protest campaign and CNN relented.
Johnson supporters also protested but CNN only received a few messages and the two-term Governor was not included. He told CNN he had been re-elected with 20% of the vote, while former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) was defeated by 18%. Santorum participated in the debate. Johnson’s plea fell on deaf ears at the network.
The former Governor is battling Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for the support of libertarians, and the future direction of this movement. They agree on most issues, but there are some significant and interesting differences. Johnson is more of a mainstream libertarian, while Paul is far more popular with the movements rank and file.
Johnson was the most prominent Republican to endorse Paul in 2008, and said: “I am endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President because of his commitment to less government, greater liberty, and lasting prosperity for America. We are at a point in this country where we need to reduce our dependency on government and regain control of our future. To this end, Ron Paul will bring back troops, end the War in Iraq, and will strengthen the U.S. dollar and the economy. For these reasons and more, Ron Paul has my support, respect, and vote”. Listed below are their positions on some of the major issues.
Defense: Both candidates advocate unilateral disarmament and the end of all readiness and modernization programs. Paul wants a minimum cut of $1 trillion out of the Pentagon over a decade. Johnson vows to cut the budget by $1.65 trillion in his first year which would require an immediate 25% reduction in defense spending.
Federal Reserve: Johnson supports for the Federal Reserve which Paul wants to abolish. In April, the Governor told Judge Andrew Napolitano it was not necessary to end the Federal Reserve, and the focus should instead be on balancing the budget. Johnson has since copied some of Paul’s anti-Fed rhetoric. However, as of today, he is still saying the Fed should not be abolished. He wants it to focus on price stability.
Earmarks: Johnson has taken the GOP pledge to abolish earmarks while Paul is in favor of them.
Guantanamo Detention Facility: Paul wants it shut immediately while Johnson says terrorists have to be put somewhere. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) also disagrees with his father on earmarks and Guantanamo.
Trade: Johnson supported NAFTA and other free trade agreements. When he became a presidential candidate, he changed his position on NAFTA and now calls it “corporatist.” Unlike Paul, Johnson will not rule out future free trade agreements. Paul claims to be a free trader but has opposed practically every free trade agreement since his first election in 1976.
Abortion: The former Governor is personally pro-choice while Paul is personally pro-life. Johnson’s pro-choice views have turned out to be his most controversial position at GOP gatherings. However, both candidates really have the same position.
They do not want abortion to be a federal matter and would turn it over to the states. This was the system which existed before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision where some states allowed abortion and others did not.
Foreign Aid: Paul wants the entire program abolished without exception. Johnson would not end humanitarian programs or the military assistance which is provided to Israel.
Foreign Policy: Both candidates oppose the U.S. role in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference today in New Orleans, Johnson said “Let’s get out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow.” He supports Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) bill to set a deadline for getting out. He also opposes the U.S. role in Libya.
In 2001, Rep. Paul did vote in favor of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan but quickly changed his mind. The difference is that Johnson supports interventions for humanitarian purposes and to prevent genocide. He was in favor of the U.S. role in Bosnia and Kosovo, which Paul opposed.
Paul wants to end America’s collective security system. Johnson says “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation? Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about?” Paul’s policy is non-intervention everywhere, no matter how compelling the cause.
Osama bin Laden Raid: Johnson supported and Paul opposed the raid. The Congressman said “It was absolutely not necessary.” Paul says this should have been handled by Pakistan while Johnson says that would have allowed bin Laden to escape.
Budget: Johnson advocates a 43% cut in the federal budget and supports the GOP’s Ryan plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade. Johnson says it is a good start, but Paul voted with the Democrats to kill the Ryan plan because he advocates larger reductions.
Cabinet: Johnson would not abolish cabinet departments for Agriculture and Commerce. He would abolish the Departments of Education and HUD. Paul would abolish all of them as well as the CIA, Labor and the Department of Homeland Security.
Immigration: Both Johnson and Paul oppose the border fence. Johnson wants to increase the number of work visas. Paul is against the E—Verify program and other initiatives to keep employers from hiring illegal aliens. Johnson is for E-Verify. Paul would allow the individual states to decide immigration policies.
Gold Standard: Paul has written four books advocating a return to the gold standard. Johnson has issued one twitter message which vaguely promises to link the dollar to gold.
Gay Civil Unions: Johnson is in favor but Paul says it should be decided by the states.
Patriot Act and Military Trials for Terrorists: They are both opposed.
War on Drugs: They both want to end the Drug War. Johnson, 58, has admitted smoking marijuana since he left the Governorship in 2002. Paul, 75, would allow all dangerous drugs to be legal if that policy was approved by a state government. Johnson calls the Drug War “an expensive bust.”
Conspiracy Theories: Johnson has not addressed some of Paul’s favorite topics, the fictitious North American Union, the alleged Amero currency to replace the dollar, or the non-existent NAFTA Superhighway. Johnson does not believe FEMA is building concentration camps for American citizens, and he is not calling for another investigation of the 9/11 attack. These differences were noted by Aaron Biterman who created the official 2008 Facebook page for the Ron Paul campaign, but has since shifted his support to Johnson. He is the past Vice Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus and said:

“At and, criticism of Israel and the Federal Reserve too often focuses on Jews as the problem rather than more substantive concerns. Such conspiracy theories and attacks are not productive for the liberty movement. . .Unfortunately, neither the Congressman nor his numerous organizations have ever put out a message to clearly distance themselves from these unappealing arguments.”

The Case Against Ron Paul by Gregory Hilton

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says “If you have the inconsistency then you’re not defending liberty.”[1] Paul has always been inconsistent. This inconsistency was noted by conservative commentator Mark Levin who says “Paul is poison. Hate America first crowd.”[2]
A major reason is because the Texan advocates policies which are the exact opposite of his rhetoric. If you visit his website it indicates he supports many things he actually opposes.
With Ron Paul you always have to read the fine print. His speeches before conservative audiences are often impressive, but the reality is completely different. Some examples are:

  • Paul is a registered Republican but expresses considerable disdain for the GOP. He says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. In 1987 the Congressman said “I want to completely disassociate myself from Ronald Reagan,” and described his administration as a “dramatic failure.”
    He accused George H.W. Bush of war crimes, and wanted to impeach George W. Bush because of the non-existent North American Union. He says Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is part of the “international conspiracy” and endorsed his primary opponent.
    Paul refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, and was the only Republican to express approval when Democrats captured control of the House and Senate in 2006. If Paul is not nominated, he refuses to pledge support the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.[3]
  • The Congressman says he supports a strong national defense and emphasizes his military service. He was an Air Force gynecologist who never left the United States. Today he wants to cut $1 trillion out of the Pentagon budget. He would abandon NATO and abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
    He would give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. He would also ignore the major lesson from WW I and WW II, collective security. He would abandon our allies who paid 100% of the costs of Operation Desert Storm and have suffered 35% of all combat casualties in Afghanistan.[4]
  • The Texan says he is an advocate of free trade, but opposes practically every free trade agreement. As the Club for Growth notes, Paul “lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that ‘tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,’ but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”[5]
  • He claims to be a right to life champion, but his plan allows abortion on the state level. He is against taxpayer funded abortions but not self paid abortions in the states’ rights category.[6]
  • He claims to be against illegal immigration. He did vote for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and claims to support the Border Fence, but he also voted against it on numerous occasions and has repeatedly said it is not needed. He says sensors at the border are enough. He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient.
    The Border Patrol is not mentioned in the Constitution and he use to claim they were unconstitutional. On one hand Paul is arguing for complete sovereignty and isolationism, but on the other hand he is opposing the border fence.[7]
  • He also claims to be against amnesty but his book, Liberty Defined, advocates it. He claims to be against birthright citizenship but his book supports it. He also opposes the E-Verify system to check employment.[8]
  • He says we should not tell other countries what to do, but is always the first to criticize Israel.[9]
  • He describes himself as a fiscal conservative but he has voted for numerous pork barrel projects and was against the Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto. He says it is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to the president. Paul is one of only four Republicans who supports earmarks, and opposes the GOP Ryan plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade.[10]
  • Ron Paul says he is for health care reform, but he opposes the GOP plan. Republicans believe excessive litigation increases health care costs and they advocate tort reform. Ron Paul is against it because it “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.”
    According to the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Ten years ago, 19 hospitals in Philadelphia were in the business of delivering babies. Next month, only eight will remain.” This is because of “high expenses for malpractice insurance.” The result is that hospitals lose about “$2000 per delivery” and are being forced to close their OB units.[11]
  • He says the growth of entitlements are a major problem and admits they are insolvent, but opposed George Bush’s social security reforms. Paul wants to end social security, medicare and medicaid, but would not accept the Bush plan as a interim step to reduce costs.[12]
  • He has criticized welfare for decades but was one of of just four GOP Congressmen who voted against extending welfare reform in 2002. Most Americans are not fond of welfare but the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996” was a GOP proposal signed by a reluctant Bill Clinton.
    When Clinton added his signature the sign on his desk said “Welfare to Work,” and the promise came true. The act resulted in a large reduction in the number of people collecting welfare and that is why Republicans have supported its continuation.[13]
  • Paul says he is against gun control but advocates policies which would allow states to disarm their residents.[14]
  • He says he is against gay marriage, but voted against the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The amendment would have outlawed gay marriage but not civil unions. At the 2007 Values Voter Debate Paul said, “True Christians believe marriage is a church function, not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.” By that definition any liberal church would be free to perform gay marriages that would be recognized by the state. [15]
  • As a medical doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and to “prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” Nevertheless, Paul is at the forefront of the anti-vaccine movement which has had a serious impact.
    Now the U.S. is struggling with a large number of cases of measles and other disease which were once thought to have been eradicated. According to the Centers for Disease Control, America is experiencing the largest outbreak in 15 years.[16]
  • His admirers claim he is the only truthful lawmaker on Capitol Hill, but he tells outrageous lies. Paul falsely claims 1) Israel created Hamas, 2) Palestinians are starving and confined to a “concentration camp,” 3) the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the first Afghan War, 4) the CIA is behind the sale of illegal drugs, and 5) there is an “international conspiracy” focused on the non-existent North American Union.[17]
  • Rep. Paul has won the presidential straw vote at the last two Conservative Political Action Conferences, but his 2011 rating from the liberal ACLU is 80%. They oppose all aspects of the War on Terror. Paul voted against the constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. He is against the death penalty, allowing silent school prayer, and school vouchers.[18]
  • Paul claims to be a champion of individual liberty but is the only lawmaker to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Act, and voted against the legislation on its 40th anniversary. This is the law which allows blacks to eat at the lunch counter and says they cannot be turned away from hotels.[19]

Ron Paul is not a conservative or a “Constitutionalist.” He is a libertarian who has been consistent since his election to Congress in 1976 in advocating unilateral disarmament of America’s defense and trade policy. Many of his supporters describe themselves as conservatives, but they back a national security agenda which is almost identical with the radical left.[20]
Among the many additional reasons conservatives should oppose him are:
DEFICIT SPENDING: He claims to be for limited government but Ron Paul was one of four Republicans who opposed the Paul Ryan budget plan to reduce the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade. Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Paul said it did not cut enough, but he would not accept the Ryan plan as a starting point. He also said it was “maintaining our empire” and “being the policeman of the world.” [21]
EARMARKS: He is the only GOP candidate who continues to support earmarks and pork barrel spending. When Neil Cavuto asked him about this Paul replied: “I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.”
Earmarks are placed in appropriations bills while they are in committee. This is what Paul has always done, and then he claims to have never voted or an earmark. He votes against every appropriations bill but knows they will pass by a wide margin.
The end result is that he receives his usual $400 million in earmarks every year. In Texas he brags about these pork barrel projects, but in the presidential campaign he claims to be against earmarks. Paul is one of only four Republicans on Capitol Hill who requested earmarks in the 2011 budget.
Paul defends earmarks by saying “I don’t think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back.” The earmarks he requests are a complete contradiction of his self-proclaimed “opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.”[22]
TRADE: He claims to support free trade but votes against practically every free trade agreement.
He wants America to leave the World Trade Organization, and is one of the greatest protectionists in the Republican Party.[23]
ABORTION: He claims to be pro-life, and says Right to Life is the foundation for all rights in the Constitution. He even says “life does begin at conception.” The truth is that he is really pro-choice on the state level. That is the purpose of his Sanctity of Life Bill.
He is essential saying it is fine with him to kill a child if a state agrees. During the 2008 campaign every GOP candidate had a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, except Ron Paul. He received a 65% score in 2006, 75% in 2005 and 65% in 2004. [24]
IMMIGRATION: He claims to be against illegal immigration, but has repeatedly voted against the border fence (with one exception in 2006), as well as the E-Verify program to stop employers from hiring illegal aliens. In fact, he is against all laws prohibiting employers from hiring illegal aliens.
He opposes Arizona’s get tough policies and the deportation of people who are here illegally. He claims to oppose amnesty but that is what his program advocates. If a state wants open borders that is fine with him.
When he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, Paul advocated the official policy of his party. He said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” At the same time he advocated the complete elimination of the Border Patrol, which he said was unconstitutional.
He has since changed his mind and now has strong rhetoric against illegal immigration on the campaign trail. This is not supported by his voting record or other actions. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) recent said: “I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. . . Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.”
In their “2012 Presidential Hopefuls Immigration Stances Report Card”, NumbersUSA gives him an “F” rating on immigration. The organization says:

The ratings add up to an overall stance that just barely misses warranting an F-minus and squeaks through just better than President Obama. It is significantly worse than the grade of former Speaker Newt Gingrich who had previously been the worst of all Republican Hopefuls on immigration. . . only one Republican in Congress has a worse grade on border issues than Ron Paul. Furthermore, he has failed to act in every category of immigration during this new Congress. Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose “amnesty,” Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between “legalization” or mass deportation.[25]

DEFENSE: If elected president, Paul, 75, says he could see “no reason” to ever justify military action:

There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons.

The Texan wants to ignore all state sponsors of terrorism. He claims no one will ever attack us but that is what the America First isolationists said in the 1930’s right up until Pearl Harbor. The terrorists have attacked us: 1993 (World Trade Center I), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (African Embassies), 2000 (USS Cole), and 2001 (9/11). Paul’s “non-intervention” policy would have barred America from helping Europe against Hitler.
There would have been no West Berlin airlift (1948), the North Koreans would have been allowed to take over South Korea (1950). We also would have ignored Grenada (1984), and there would have been no Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait (1991).
Paul says he supports a strong national defense but the $1 trillion in Pentagon reductions he is seeking would end all modernization and readiness programs. It would return America to the hollow military of the 1970s when many service members were eligible for food stamps.
Bush and Obama now agree on practically every war on terror policy including the Patriot Act and the use of Predator drones. They are opposed by Ron Paul and Code Pink. [26]
FOREIGN POLICY: The introduction to Paul’s book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, says the Cold War and the War on Terror are both a “farce”, and designed to justify a larger role for government. He compares the U.S. role in Iraq and Afghanistan to “a schoolyard bully.”
The Congressman says if he was President 1) He would not have authorized the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. He said killing bin Laden “was absolutely not necessary.” 2) No U.S. soldiers were killed in the former Yugoslavia but he believes it was wrong to join the NATO mission which stopped genocide, ethnic cleansing and rape camps. The Milosevic dictatorship would have continued and Bosnia would have been taken over if it was up to Ron Paul.
3) Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to walk away, but that will not make our nation safe and it will not stop terrorism. The problems associated with radical Islamic fundamentalists will remain. It is not a problem we can just turn over to Europe or the UN (which does not have an army). If we abandon the war on terror we will soon have to confront it on the U.S. homeland.[27]
SADDAM HUSSEIN: Ron Paul was not only opposed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to liberate Kuwait, but to this day he continues to defend the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He says Iraq invasion was justified because Kuwait broke off negotiations and was slant drilling in an attempt to steal $14 billion of Iraq’s oil.
He says “Over 500,000 people were slaughtered in Bush’s war.” The accusations are absurd. Iraq had plenty of money through the UN Oil for Food program, but the dictator decided to build 54 palaces instead of feeding his people. Kuwait never stole Iraq’s oil.
If Rep. Paul had his way, Iraq would have been allowed to take over Kuwait and he would have done nothing if they threatened to capture three-quarters of the world’s reserves by taking over the Saudi oil fields. An attack on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have violated the UN charter and had terrible repercussions for our energy security. Paul would not have responded because “it did not involve an attack on America.” He always voted against placing sanctions on Saddam Hussein, and he opposes sanctions on Iran.[28]
WAR ON DRUGS: Paul would immediately end the war on drugs. All dangerous drugs would be legal if they were approved by a state government.[29]
CIVIL RIGHTS: He is the only Republican in the House or Senate who opposes the Civil Rights Act. We have heard his sovereignty arguments before. That is what the Southern states said when they started the Civil War. They said it again in the Southern Manifesto of 1957 to keep black children out of public schools, and they repeated it in 1964 when they tried to stop the Civil Rights Act. Because of states’ rights opposition, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had to send in the U.S. military to open the schools. [30]
HUMAN RIGHTS: Rep. Paul has always been a friend of dictators because he consistently votes against sanctions and human rights resolutions. He was the only Member of Congress who voted against “condolences and sympathy” for Myanmar (Burma) after the devastating 2007 cyclone. Paul is also the only Republican Member of Congress who will not vote to condemn the Islamic Republic of Iran for gross human rights violations.
Iranian women have to endure cruel torture. They have been hanged and stoned to death for behavior which is normal in America. They are routinely jailed for the following offenses: 1) Anyone who has tucked her pants inside her boots. 2) Those who do not wear long dresses under their winter coats. 3) Those who wear a hat without wearing a scarf or Hijab underneath. 4) Long boots, tight pants and tight coats are strictly forbidden.
When confronted with evil, Ron Paul always looks the other way. He says what happens in Iran is not our business. That was also the attitude in the 1930s when Hitler’s treatment of the Jews was well known, but was ignored by the League of Nations because it was “an internal German matter.”
Similar to Paul, the isolationists in 1941 wanted to ignore Japan’s seizure of Indo-China because it did not involve an attack on the United States. The U.S. government rejected their advice and placed sanctions on Japan. America did nothing in 1933 when Japan took over Manchuria, which is one third of China. Even if there is no change, I am glad the United States has gone on record in opposition to the cruel behavior of the Islamic Republic.[31]
ISRAEL: In defending many of his past controversial statements, the Ron Paul campaign frequently mentions his endorsement by “Americans For Israel.” This is a front group which was specifically established to promote Ron Paul. It has no other focus.
The candidate says we should worry about our own borders not Israel’s. He is the only Republican who refused to vote for the resolution condemning Iran’s President after he said “Israel should be wiped off the map.” The Congressman would end all foreign aid to Israel but never mentions that 85% of it is military assistance.
Paul claims Israel created the terrorist group Hamas, and the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union.
Both statements are outrageous lies. Paul has also said he would end America’s special relationship with Israel. In “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” Paul wrote: “I see no reason that our friendship with Israel cannot continue. I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. But that also means no special privileges like foreign aid. . .” With good reason, the Republican Jewish Coalition has barred Paul from their candidate forums.[32]
GAZA: He claims Israel is keeping food, medicine and humanitarian supplies out of Gaza, even though the Red Cross says this is not true and there is no crisis. He says Palestinians in Gaza are confined to a “concentration camp.” Israel’s blockade is only stopping weapons, but Paul says Hamas was democratically elected so they should have weapons. He believes they are entitled to more Katusha rockets even though they have already launched 10,000 of them at Israel during the last six years.
He voted against House Resolution 34 (1/09/08) recognizing Israel’s “right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks” and reaffirming U.S. support for Israel. Paul said:

I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side? . . I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war — and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.[33]

IRAN: Ron Paul says he will not vote for a resolution criticizing Iran because 1) We should not comment on the internal affairs of another nation and 2) The Islamic Republic is not attacking anyone. Iran is the chief sponsor of the terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Their oil wealth has made them the central banker of terrorism.
Iran does have terrible financial problems, but nevertheless, the nation’s official budget lists over $1 billion which is distributed to terrorist organizations on an annual basis. They also train and provide guidance and weapons to numerous terrorist and militant organizations. They have been meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza for many years. Iran’s nuclear activities and human rights abuses are not the only ones that violate UN resolutions. The Islamic Republic’s support for terrorist organizations does so as well.[34]
INTELLIGENCE: He accuses the CIA of being in the drug business and says they need to be “taken out. . . There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”
A suicide bomber attacked Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan and took the lives of seven CIA agents. They are heroes who were on the front lines protecting us. We should be praising them, not making false allegations. The CIA did not invent crack cocaine and they have never been in the drug business. It is Muslim extremists who intentionally target civilians, not the CIA or the US military.
Rep. Paul wants to abolish the CIA and when the Wikileaks revelations were made he said:

No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name? . . The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more.[35]

GOLD STANDARD: He is the author of four books advocating a return to the gold standard. It did not work in the past, and no country has ever been able to maintain it. Gold is not sound money and it can be easily manipulated. Gold based dollars were devalued in the past to make exports cheaper. Gold would decrease the U.S. monetary supply by about half, cause massive deflation and threaten an economic collapse. The Congressman advocates private money (anyone can have their own currency), a 100% gold ratio and outlawing Fractional Reserve lending. Very few economists are advocating a gold backed dollar.[36]
ECONOMY: Paul believes in the Austrian School of Economics which is totally ignored by mainstream academia. The standard economics texts used on the university level do not even mention it. There are no more than 75 scholars worldwide who follow the Austrian School while there are over 20,000 PhD level members of the American Economics Association. Mainstream economists use the scientific method, but the Austrians reject it. Mainstream economists make heavy use of statistics, but the Austrians claim they have little value. Mainstream economists believe in fiat money, while the Austrians believe in the gold standard. Libertarian economics is a small cult.
Similar to the Austrian School, Paul proposes simple but highly impractical solutions. For example, how should we solve the current crisis over the debt ceiling? It is easy according to the Congressman. Just abolish the Federal Reserve Board, declare bankruptcy and have the Fed destroy the government bonds it now holds. Paul says “We owe, like, $1.6 trillion because the Federal Reserve bought that debt, so we have to work hard to pay the interest to the Federal Reserve. We don’t, I mean, they’re nobody; why do we have to pay them off?”
First, the Fed returns that interest to the government (it was $79 billion last year), and 2) Paul’s solution is a contractual breach and it could never happen. Unlike corporations, sovereign nations cannot declare bankruptcy, and all of America’s Federal Reserve Notes must be fully collateralized. As of last year, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks held $1.066 trillion in Treasury securities, and $925 billion was pledged to secure their note issues.
So for the Fed to return these securities to the Treasury for cancellation would require the Fed to recall 98% of the U.S. currency in circulation. Paul’s recommendation would lead to an insolvent central bank, which he desires, but it would be disastrous for our economy.[37]
GUN CONTROL: The Congressman has always been a strong supporter of gun rights, but his unusual views are a real danger to the Second Amendment. He rejects the entire idea that the federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states.
If the states did not have to follow the bill of rights they could ignore the Second Amendment and disarm their residents. He wants no restrictions at all, but there is no right to own a bazooka, tank or fighter jet. The radical libertarians want no restrictions on gun ownership. No background checks to prevent convicted criminals, registered sex offenders, suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants or anyone else from getting their hands on fully automatic weapons.[38]
NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND AMERO CURRENCY: The Texas Congressman is a firm isolationist and wants to pull out of NATO, the WTO, and to abandon America’s veto in the UN Security Council. He promotes many conspiracy theories. He has spoken frequently of the dangers of the North American Union (NAU) and an “Amero” currency. Neither of these things exist, and were never planned by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, Paul was one of four lawmakers to co-sponsor a resolution outlawing an NAU whose only advocate was an obscure university professor.
The Boston Globe said Paul “has made the North American Union one of his central issues.” The NAU and the Amero are complete and total fantasy, but this conspiracy theory is difficult to ignore because in 2008 it was among the topic three subjects raised in the over 125 “Ask Mitt Romney Anything” town hall meetings. The other two were Iraq and healthcare.
The single Amero currency for the US, Mexico and Canada was proposed in 1999 by Canadian economist Herbert Grubel. This was when the euro was first entering circulation. Grubel admits no government official has ever approved of his plan, and “There wouldn’t be very much benefit for the United States.”
The Congressman’s current website makes these outrageous claims: “NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.”[39]
NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY: U.S./Mexico trade has quadrupled since the NAFTA agreement was signed in 1993. The agreement added to the economic boom in Paul’s home state of Texas. Nevertheless, one of the Congressman’s greatest fears is a new highway.
He has nothing to worry about. The NAFTA Superhighway conspiracy theory was mentioned repeatedly by the Congressman during the 2008 campaign. When he participated in the CNN GOP presidential debate on November 28, 2007, Paul said:

They don’t talk about it [the NAFTA superhighway], and they might not admit it, but there’s been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They’re planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.

The “NAFTA Superhighway” was a name private contractors gave to their proposal for expanding an existing road, Interstate 35. It was never a government project. Paul later used the term to refer to the Trans Texas Corridor which was canceled. It was always a state and never a federal initiative. Ian Grossman, a spokesman for the Federal Highway Administration told the Los Angeles Times, “There is no such superhighway like the one [Paul is] talking about. It doesn’t exist, in plans or anywhere else.”
This conspiracy theories were completely debunked by the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, Newsweek and the urban legend site [40]
WERE OTHER GOP LEADERS ISOLATIONISTS? The Congressman claims he is following a GOP tradition by advocating isolationism, and points to the policies of former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Mona Charen responded to this by noting:

He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower ‘who stopped the Korean War’ and including Nixon ‘who stopped the war in Vietnam.’ Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.
Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chile, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of ‘minding our own business.'[41]

RON PAUL IS FOR A THIRD PARTY, NOT THE GOP: Paul was the 1988 presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party and abandoned the GOP at that time. A vote for Paul will be a vote for a third party. He refused to support the last GOP candidate and of course he will not support the 2012 GOP nominee.
In the last campaign he issued a “blanket endorsement” for former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) of the Green Party, independent Ralph Nader, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
Paul endorsed the four candidates after they signed a joint policy statement to “bring the troops home, investigate the Federal Reserve,” and oppose the Patriot Act, FISA and the Military Commissions Act. The Congressman said he opposed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) because “I couldn’t find anything that we agreed on.”
When asked why he ran as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, Paul responded: “Because the system is so biased against alternative parties. . .Republicans and Democrats are actually alike on economic policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, everything. They pretend they are a little bit different. . . there’s no difference, they’re both for sending more troops to Afghanistan, they’re both for all these laws to address the subject of terrorism and the Patriot Act. There’s really no difference between them.”
McCain’s 2010 rating from the American Conservative Union is 100%, and in 2009 it was 96%. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) lifetime ACU rating as a Senator is 10%.
Rep. Paul did not see any differences and instead endorsed Cynthia McKinney who was the highest elected official to support the 9/11 Truth movement, which believes the U.S. government knew in advance about the attacks. She endorsed the 2008 primary opponent of Nancy Pelosi because she thought the then Speaker was not sufficiently liberal.
Paul endorsed Ralph Nader who as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000 claimed Al Gore was not a true liberal on environmental issues. He described Bush and Cheney as “war criminals.” Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party is a protectionist who is also associated with the 9/11 truth movement. He believes “the South was right in the War Between the States”, and leaders of the Confederacy were not racists. The Constitution Party opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party was opposed to every program in the War on Terror which was endorsed by George W. Bush and subsequently Barack Obama. Barr was employed by the ACLU to lobby against the Patriot Act.
In 2007 he said one of the candidates he identifies with is the most liberal Member of Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the founder of the Progressive Caucus.
When the GOP lost control of the House and Senate in 2006, Rep. Paul was pleased. Controversial radio host Alex Jones asked him if the Democratic victory wasn’t a “rejection of neo-fascist imperialism.” Paul replied, “Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I’m concerned.” [42]
ANTI-VACCINE MOVEMENT: Ron Paul and his anti-vaccine supporters are wrong. Vaccinations save millions of lives every year. People no longer die of cholera, smallpox, scarlet fever, and dozens of other diseases which were once endemic to the United States.
Children should be immunized. A very small number of people have adverse reactions, but there is no reason to stop these programs. The benefits far outweigh the risks.
We cannot return to the days when thousands of children were in iron lungs or walking on crutches because of polio. When Ron Paul was in high school he had friends and neighbors who died of polio. He admits there is an effective vaccine, but does not approve of any mandatory medical treatment because it is a violation of the 14th amendment. Paul says government “should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.”
The Congressman was asked “If a dangerous disease was spreading like wildfire would you change your view and require immunization in a dire situation?” Paul responded “No, I wouldn’t do it, because the person who doesn’t take the shot is the one at risk.” [43]
PROSTITUTION: He describes himself as an evangelical Christian, but prostitution is fine with him if it is approved at the state level. He says prostitution can be legal because it does not hurt anyone. He is wrong. It hurts the women who are being trafficked, whether it is voluntary or not. Prostitutes have been killed, but the more common problem is drug addiction. Other concerns are the spread of diseases such as HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes. Many men have brought these diseases home to their wives.[44]
EXTREMISM: He says one of his first political mentors was the late Rep. Larry McDonald (D-GA), who was Chairman of the extremist conspiracy theory group, the John Birch Society (JBS). McDonald was the first person Paul called when he decided to run for Congress in 1974. Paul was the keynote speaker at the JBS 50th anniversary dinner. JBS is the organization which accused President Eisenhower of being an agent of the Communist conspiracy and they were thrown out of the conservative movement by Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Many JBS officials have had a prominent role in the Paul campaign.
Paul has voted to protect the privacy of sexual predators. He will not require operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child pornography to report it to the government. He was one of 14 Congressmen who opposed the “Child Abduction Emergency” or “Amber Alerts.” The decision to declare an Amber Alert is made by the State Police or Highway Patrol.
He said Governor Rick Perry’s (R-TX) attendance at a 2007 Bilderberg meeting was “A sign that he’s involved in the international conspiracy.” Paul also does not want the Census Bureau to be allowed to collect demographic data on age, race, and income. The data is essential for determining allocation of state and national budgets. [45]
NEW WORLD ORDER: After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush used the phrase “new world order” in his 1991 State of the Union Address. Bush said:

Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a world order in which ‘the principles of justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong.’ A world where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf War put this new world to its first test. And my fellow Americans, we passed that test.

Bush later described this as the world our Founding Fathers wanted. He was definitely not referring to a world government, or a single currency, bank, or religion. Bush was never part of any conspiracy to deny Americans their rights or sovereignty. Ron Paul refused to accept this explanation, and for the past two decades he has spoken of a conspiracy. In 2007 he said:

The first President Bush said the New World Order was in tune– and that’s what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They’re working right now very significantly towards a North American Union (NAU). That’s why there’s a lot of people in Washington right now who don’t care too much about our borders. They have a philosophical belief that national sovereignty is not important. It’s also the reason I’ve made the very strong suggestion the U.S. need not be in the U.N. for national security reasons.

There is no U.S. elected official who is advocating the programs Paul describes, and the NAU does not exist. The only group I could locate which is associated with such a strange plan is one affiliated with Ron Paul. The Congressman has been a Distinguished Counselor at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute since it was formed in 1982. Once again, Paul believes in the strange Austrian School of Economics, and one of its most important books is the massive Human Action by von Mises. Von Mises is the one who advocates a one world government. He says one of the four requirements for a free market is a single coersive government. The late economist believed free trade would lead to global supplier of a given product. [46]
ROSA PARKS: She started the Montgomery Bus Boycott which was a milestone in the civil rights movement, and deserves the gratitude of all Americans. The only lawmaker to vote against giving her a Congressional Gold Medal was Ron Paul.
He said medals cost too much and offered to make a personal contribution to a private medal, and also claimed Rosa Parks would not want it. Rosa Parks was alive at the time and gratefully accepted the medal.
Rep. Paul tries to portray himself as the only consistent fiscal conservative on Capitol Hill, and his supporters praise his opposition. As usual, they never tell the truth. The Rosa Parks medal did not cost the taxpayers anything.
It was funded by the Treasury’s Private Enterprise Fund, and the entire cost was offset by replicas which sold out. The Congressman’s offer to make a personal contribution was one of his many hollow gestures. Paul’s Republican and Democratic colleagues said his arguments had no merit, and the Congressman knew they were telling the truth.
He was a co-sponsor and voted for the Boy Scout Commemorative Coin. It came out of the same fund, but this time the profits went to the Boy Scouts, not the Treasury. The taxpayers paid for the Boy Scout coin, not the Rosa Parks medal.[47]
RACISM: Ron Paul says he is not a racist but once again, he is the only Republican in the House and Senate who opposes civil rights. He has always denounced the legislation and voted it against it on its 40th anniversary. The “Ron Paul Report” newsletters began in 1978 and in the 1980s the publication’s gross income was in excess of $1 million/year. The newsletters were filled with racism, and for 15 years the newsletter staff included his wife and daughter.
During the 2008 presidential campaign major publications reprinted some of the racist comments, and Paul claimed he did not know what was in the newsletter which carried his name. In the previous two decades he had never voiced a complaint.
The newsletter said: “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
Along with “even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming. . . opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions.”
The Congressman received $500 from Don Black of the white supremacy group Stormfront, and despite numerous media inquiries he never returned it. Black is also a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. According to The New Republic:

“In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’ While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.”

Paul supporters falsely claim the Congressman has been vindicated because the NAACP says he is “not a racist”. That never happened. In 2008, George Linder, the president of the Austin, Texas branch of the organization, made that statement. Linder emphasized he was speaking as a private citizen and was not authorized to speak on behalf of the NAACP. [48]
Ron Paul supporters often claim Ronald Reagan, Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft (R-OH) and conservative journalist William F. Buckley were admirers of the Texan, and would have supported him. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite all of Paul’s harsh comments about Reagan, his most prominent 2008 TV featured the former president. The narrator said: “We need to keep him fighting for our country,” and the words are attributed to Reagan. This was a pro forma endorsement Reagan had given to every GOP lawmaker in 1982.
When Paul tried to use the quote in his 1996 Congressional campaign, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas to insist that Reagan had offered no recent endorsements.
Taft was an isolationist prior to WW II and opposed NATO after the war. However, Taft was not as extreme as Ron Paul. He supported the creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. He also advocated “100 percent support for the Chinese National government on Formosa,” “occasional extensions … into Europe, Asia, and Africa,” and he wanted to keep six divisions (120,000 troops) in Europe.
Buckley had libertarian tendencies and advocated the legalization of marijuana, but was not a Ron Paul supporter. He contributed to the 2008 McCain campaign. When he was running for president in 1988, Paul was the only guest on Buckley’s TV program which lasted for for an hour. A 2007 interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, had this exchange with Buckley:

QUESTION: :You know who Ron Paul is — the congressman. He’s derided and discounted by many conservatives and his fellow Republicans as a kook. Yet his strong stands in favor of limited constitutional government, lower taxes, more personal freedoms and nonintervention overseas make him in many ways sound like a conservative of old — a Robert Taft, or a Coolidge kind of conservative in some ways.”
BUCKLEY: “I agree, yeah.”[49]

SUMMATION – HE OPPOSES PROGRESS: Ron Paul’s answer is always the same simplistic solution. Remove the role of the federal government and everything will be fine. All Republicans advocate a balanced budget and major cutbacks in government programs, but there are many vital areas in which it would be foolish to abolish federal role. The best summation of Ron Paul’s career comes from the Club for Growth in their 2007 White Paper, “Ron Paul The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good.”

Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that Members of Congress develop and propose idealized solutions.
But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation. Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.[50]

If you questions or comments I can be reached at:

Ron Paul is Wrong on Military Tribunals and the Rights of Terrorists

In the May 5th GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) addressed several issues related to the war on terrorism. The Congressman said: Continue reading

America’s Founders Were Not Isolationists by Gregory Hilton

Lafayette Square is directly across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, and contains four statues honoring foreigners who had key roles in the American Revolution.

Many isolationists use quotes from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to claim they represent the Founders’ viewpoint. This was also the tactic of the America First organization in its campaign to keep the nation neutral in World War II. At every large rally they displayed Washington’s portrait, and even though the Nazi’s controlled all of Europe, they claimed America would never be attacked by the “Axis of Steel.” They went out of business the day after Pearl Harbor. Continue reading

The Case Against Gold: Why Ron Paul is Wrong About The Gold Standard by Gregory Hilton

“The gold standard is to economics what the flat earth theory is to astronomy: something that may have seemed to make sense back when people didn’t know any better but is ridiculous to suggest today.” – Dr. Russ Anderson

“Ron Paul is saying: ‘Let’s make everything simple again. . . If we had a gold standard, we wouldn’t need complex monetary policy. But how do we get from here to there? There might not be a way. It is just nostalgia for a time that never really existed.– Dr. Vincent Reinhart, American Enterprise Institute Continue reading

Conservatives Should Not Be Silent About The Dangers of The Ron Paul Revolution by Gregory Hilton

I am a conservative Republican who enthusiastically wants my party to win, but I am an American first. That is why I cannot ignore the clear and present danger the Ron Paul Revolution presents to our national security. Republicans made a mistake in 2008 by ignoring the Ron Paul challenge. Their response was understandable because everyone knew the Congressman would not win. He failed in every primary and did not carry one county. His own Congressional District rejected him. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani forcefully answered him in some of the debates, but the general policy was to smile at the Texan because the GOP did not want to alienate his libertarian supporters.
This attitude could be repeated in 2012, but it would be a mistake because over the past four years Ron Paul has been triumphant. Ron Paul will not win the 2012 GOP nomination. He knows that and we know that. The Ron Paul Revolution is not about the nomination. Its goal is fundamentally changing the Republican Party, and they have had considerable success.view Why am I focusing on Rep. Ron Paul Mike Chumbley of Salem, Oregon writes: “Is bashing Ron Paul in every post what I can expect in the future? Paul has no chance of election so why not move on to meatier issues?” You can expect far more Ron Paul criticism from me in the future. I have only just begun. I am a Republican and a conservative, but I am an American first. I want Republicans to win but I cannot ignore a clear and present danger to our national security. When confronted with such an obvious threat I cannot look the other way even if it results in a gain for my political party. Continue reading

The Inside Story: Why a Ron Paul Disciple Left His Ranks by Gregory Hilton

David Bahnsen of Newport Beach, California is a Senior Vice President of Morgan Stanley, and also serves on the Board of Advisors of the California Recovery Project with Dr. Arthur Laffer. Bahnsen has abandoned his earlier support of the Ron Paul crusade, and now describes himself as an “economically literate Republican.” He wrote the recent article “The Undiscerning and Dangerous Appreciation of Ron Paul.” Continue reading

Another Bad Idea From Ron Paul: Letters of Marque and Reprisal by Gregory Hilton

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. . . Pirates were the terrorists in the days of our founders and held no allegiance to any nation – the same as the terrorists of today. Our wise founders left us with the solution where mercenaries could be hired and given the authority to hunt down and bring terrorists to justice.” – Congressman Ron Paul

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) believes it was wrong to use Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden. He says it was “absolutely not necessary,” and falsely claims it cost $1 trillion to kill the al-Qaeda leader. He arrived at that figure by adding up all military expenses related to terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Paul says his plan would have accomplished the same goal for only $500 million.
The Congressman also does not approve of the war on terrorism and his solution is to stop using the U.S. military because it so expensive.
Paul believes we could capture or kill all of the terrorists by bringing back an ancient custom known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
They would offer a cash bounty for every terrorist killed or captured. There is nothing wrong with offering large rewards for prominent individuals such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar.
Rewards should continue to be offered, but no one has collected the bounty for bin Laden. That is not too surprising because private individuals do not have the resources of a government which allows the use of technology such as satellites and drones.
There are many problems with what Congressman Paul is proposing. Letters of Marque and Reprisal have not been used in the U.S. since 1815, and they were outlawed by the 1856 Treaty of Paris which ended the Crimean War.
No government uses these Letters today, but Paul foolishly says allowing their use would save taxpayers enormous amounts of money. Instead of using the U.S. military, he wants to outsource major portions of the war on terror to privateers. Since 2002, Paul has continually introduced legislation calling for the revival of these Letters, but no lawmaker has co-sponsored the legislation.
Were Letters of Marque and Reprisal Successful in Stopping the Pirate Problem?
No. Pirates were a problem during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. These letters authorized privateers but this only made the situation worse. Privateers such as “Captain” William Kidd ended up switching sides and becoming famous pirates. Ample evidence of this is provided in Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns by Janice Thompson. The pirate problem was not solved until governments became involved.
Why Did The U.S. Government Use Letters of Marque and Reprisal?
The U.S. Navy lost 24 ships during the Revolutionary War and at one time it was reduced to just two vessels. When the Navy was restored following the war of 1812, the privateers were no longer necessary.
What Are The Problem Areas?

  • What would happen if American privateers were captured or killed by terrorists? Would the U.S. military have to rescue them or avenge their deaths?
  • The privateers would be paid only after they turned over evidence which would primarily be dead bodies. The detainees at Guantanamo have proven to be a major headache for the government. With dead bodies being turned over the possibility of innocent people being killed inorder to collect a bounty would be high.
  • Privateers backfired on the British in the War of 1812. The final engagement was the Battle of New Orleans. The British privateers switched sides and provided General Andrew Jackson’s forces with the intelligence they needed to secure a stunning victory.
  • That was a long time ago but problems remains today. The Blackwater security firm should not be described as privateers. They are civilians who had previously been part of the U.S. special forces. They were not paid a bounty for killing terrorists. They were a private security firm which proved to be an enormous embarrassment for the U.S. government when they were found guilty of killing 17 innocent civilians. The firm was permanently barred by the Iraqi government and the public relations damage for America was huge.
  • There are bounty hunters in the United States but they are looking for a specific individual. In the war on terror we do not know the identity of enemy combatants.

Ron Paul wants private citizens to operate as privateers in areas such as Somalia and Kandahar, Afghanistan. It would be similar to vigilantism. There are excellent reasons why the United States abandoned Letters of Marque and Reprisal in 1815, and you can always count on Ron Paul and the libertarians to come up with the worst possible solution to any problem.