RSDavis
11-16-2007, 01:29 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (11-16-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=329187784&Mytoken=D4A98750-FD5D-424E-B3D74AABA38C40C131408208)
Hello Freedomphiles! Today's Roundup is full of shady political dealing, suspense, intrigue. It's gonna read like a Tom Clancy novel. So, let's get started, shall we?
We'll begin with some breaking news (http://www.nysun.com/article/66542?page_no=1)out of the New York Sun. I almost included this in yesterday's Roundup, but I wanted it to develop a bit, see if it was true, before I mentioned it. Well, it seems as if the offices of the Liberty Dollar were raided:
Federal agents, in a move that could have an impact on the presidential race, raided the Indiana office of the issuer of a private currency known as the Liberty Dollar — and seized tens of thousands of coins bearing the likeness of a presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul.
Overall, agents on Wednesday hauled away more than 2 tons of copper coins and 500 pounds of silver coins, as well as records and computers, the founder of the currency system, Bernard von NotHaus, told The New York Sun by phone from Miami. Although not present in Evansville, Ind., for the raid, Mr. von NotHaus said he has been told that the government agents left business cards from the FBI and Secret Service. Neither agency would confirm or deny the raid when contacted by the Sun.
But why? Well, it appears for counterfietting?
The reason behind the raid is unclear. The Justice Department's position, according to a year-old consumer alert on the Web site of the United States Mint, is that using Liberty Dollars "as circulating money is a federal crime." Mint officials said the Liberty Dollar looks similar to legal tender, with inscriptions that say, "Trust in God" and "USA."
It's not clear, however, what the Justice Department's view is on the legality of possessing the coins for novelty or as protection against the declining value of government notes.
Mr. von NotHaus said he suspects the raid is in response to "the competition" his currency poses to the U.S. Mint. His Liberty Dollars, whose value is the price of the coin's metal, have proven a better investment in recent years than government issued notes, whose value has plummeted in relation to the price of gold.
"This is an example of Bernanke trying to protect his own nest because he knows it's got holes in it," Mr. von NotHaus said, referring to Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. "He can't have something like the Liberty Dollar running around competing with his currency. It points out the fallacy of the fiat monetary system. They had to do something. Their currency is losing and we're going to the moon."
So, is revenge a motive? I don't know. But here is exhibit A for the defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM
I'll keep you updated as more develops. If you'd like to examine the FBI's case, here's (http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/meckdeck/pdfs/USAVLibdoll.pdf) a pdf of their affidavit.
Speaking of videos, according to National Review Online, this supporter-created Rudy spot includes (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODRkMDQzMDc1YjRiYjc2ZTM2YWJlZWQ5NmI1YzMwMWM=) Ron Paul with Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as villainous enemies of America:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2259061911820027671&pr=goog-sl
In other Ron Paul news, the JTA is reporting (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105349.html) that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is demanding Ron Paul distance himself from extremist groups:
Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas, has come under fire for the support his campaign has enjoyed from leading white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.
His campaign reportedly has accepted a donation from Don Black, the owner of the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. Sites for several extremist groups also feature prominent links supporting Paul's candidacy.
ADL's assistant director of civil rights, Steven Freeman, told JTA his organization planned to communicate with Paul privately and urge him to distance himself from those groups.
"If he doesn't do that, then we will decide what we're going to say publicly about it," Freeman said.
Paul thus far has refused to return the campaign contribution from Black. In response to a question from a reporter for Reason magazine, a campaign spokesperson said, "If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss."
I can understand the desire to just checkout from the gotcha politics and not give any legitimacy to the underhanded "guilt by association" game that plays out in so much of modern politics, but maybe he ought to just give that money back.
JewishJournal.com has joined the fray (http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=18512), reporting on Paul's Jewish supporters. But before I get to that, I wanted to point out a line from their introduction to the piece:
Paul's candidacy was dismissed early on due to his support from white supremist, Libertarian and other fringe groups, but the campaign has begun to pick up steam on college campuses and on the Internet, in part due to his staunch anti-war stance.
Okay. Thanks for lumping libertarians in with white supremecists, you asshats. Anyway, here's what they had to say about Paul's Jewish support:
Still, Paul commands a loyal, albeit small, Jewish following. This Jewish support has followed the same pattern as Paul's backing from other groups -- coming from out-of-the way places on the Internet and taking mainstream media and political organizations by surprise.
In addition to Perry's Jews for Ron Paul, there is Zionists for Ron Paul -- an outfit launched by Yehuda HaKohen, an American immigrant to Israel, and some of his friends back in the United States.
Some of Paul's Jewish supporters believe that it would be best for Israel if the United States kept out of Jerusalem's affairs. There are also those who believe that American aid to Israel is dangerous because it feeds the perception that Jews wield too much influence over U.S. foreign policy.
"Many of us believe the current relationship between the United States and Israel is a very unhealthy relationship, like that of a man and concubine, or a slave and master," HaKohen said.
While traveling from Washington to New Hampshire to campaign earlier this month, Paul provided a statement to JTA explaining his position on Israel.
"I support free trade and friendship with all nations, meaning that my administration would treat Israel as a friend and trading partner. Americans would be encouraged to travel to and trade with Israel," Paul said.
"Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war."
In fact, combined U.S. aid to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and other friendly Arab nations is roughly commensurate with the $2.4 billion military aid package Israel currently gets.
"We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington," he added.
And that's the truth. But sticking with the critical, let's go to Real Clear Politics, where Kevin Sullivan is attempting to dissect The Realism of Ron Paul: (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/11/ron_pauls_realism.html)
This isn't merely a "pre-9/11" mindset, but rather, one that pre-dates even the Cold War. Conflict in the Middle East is a trifling matter to Paul, one that he sees the U.S. playing no substantive role in:
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
Americans have historically looked towards their president for some kind of global vision at times of war and global uncertainty. President Roosevelt eased domestic fears during times of economic upheaval, and rallied America to defend the world from Fascism during World War II. President Reagan, assuming the presidency at a time of domestic uncertainty, challenged Americans to be proud of their accomplishments, and stood resolutely against the Soviet Empire and their catastrophic ideology.
Would President Paul inspire in a similar fashion, or does a Paul candidacy instead find its appeal with a frustrated and war weary electorate? Less ambitious, and apparently lacking in vision, Paul offers an unrealistic comfort to those who believe America, and indeed the world, is safer when America folds in on herself. It appeals to the most isolated and irresponsible tendencies of the American makeup. An unlikely candidate in past years, Ron Paul's global non-vision has provided the perfect storm to a portion of the electorate burned out by six years of war.
You couldn't be more wrong, Mr Sullivan. You don't have to go back to before the Cold War - you have to go back before The War to End All Wars.
Do you want to know what global military adventurism got us? Do you want to know what entangling alliances bring? Sit down and pour yourself a cup of coffee - it's time for a history lesson.
WWI was an unneccessary and illegitimate war. It all started over the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand), someone no one even liked, by an unaffiliated group of anarchists.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b3/WWIchartX.png/300px-WWIchartX.png
Now, at the time, all of those countries - Italy, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, France, Brittain, and the Ottoman Empire, were wrapped up in a web of treaties, alliances and mutual-defense pacts so huge, that this one murder of an almost insignificant character caused the dominoes to fall and the entire region erupted into war.
The United States had no horse in this race, but racist jerkoff (http://www.reason.com/news/show/33906.html)Woodrow Wilson decided to join in. In the end, we won, but at what cost? The Treaty of Versialles, which was almost completely fashioned by Wilson, put nearly all the blame and all the punishment on Germany, even though they had nothing to do with the start of the war.
This threw Germany into a tailspin of economic and social destruction, which created the perfect atmosphere for a strong and charismatic leader to step in and promise to ressurect Germany's greatness as a world power.
Enter Adolf Hitler.
So, we had another war, more alliances, and the rise of Communism and the Cold War. How many lives did Wilson's involvement in WWI cost the world? At least 20 million, more if you include Stalin's reign of terror.
But back to the Roundup. We'll stick with foreign policy, though, because that seems to be the topic du jour. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickenson, who interviewed (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17323345/ron_paul_a_republican_takes_the_lead_against_the_w ar) Dr Paul (see yesterday's Roundup) has added another bit (http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/11/15/ron-paul-on-cakewalk-ers-doom-and-gloom-predictions/)of unpublished gold from our man. This time, it is the answer to a question of what happens if we "cut and run" from Iraq:
Everything is much worse if we stay. Right now they're very content to bleed us in Iraq. Bleed us financially and by killing Americans. We lose lives, we spend money we don't have, it furthers our financial crisis. The longer we're there, the stronger Al Qaeda gets. Our being there is the greatest incentive *conceivable to help Osama bin Laden. The evidence is very clear. There's more Al Qaeda now than before. Which means we're in greater danger of being hit by terrorists than before.
Besides, who are the people telling us there'll be problems if we leave? The same ones who said it would be a *cakewalk. What kind of credibility do they have?
None whatsoever. Now for some good news. Reuters is reporting (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN149494320071115?sp=true)on Ron Paul and his electrifying campaign:
"With Ron Paul there's a freshness about his willingness to defy Republican ideas, a Republican who takes on the Republican Party," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University.
"There's also a certain sense of authenticity to him that young people seem to be flocking to, not that he is going to win, but there's a level of attraction of a true libertarian who runs on it, who defends it, who's not embarrassed by it."
Paul said in the interview his ideas represent a philosophy Republicans long abandoned, but he has no interest in pursuing a third-party candidacy as he did in 1988 when he was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate.
He said he takes inspiration from Samuel Adams, an 18th-century politician who helped foment the U.S. revolution.
"He was the agitator behind the scenes," said Paul, who has angered many in his own party by suggesting U.S. foreign policy contributed to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
"Terrorists don't come here because we are free and prosperous. Terrorists come here because we are in their face, we are in their country, building bases in their land and stealing their oil," he told the Dixville Notch voters.
He said he has been surprised by his support on college campuses. New Hampshire, with its official motto of "Live Free or Die" and libertarian bent, provides a natural setting for him. But he said he's also focused heavily on Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, all important early nominating states.
Nick Gillespie, editor of reason magazine, has alerted (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123555.html) us to Ron Paul's latest endorsement - eponymously named son of proto-libertarian Barry Goldwater:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today gained a public endorsement from Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.
"America is at a crossroads," said Mr. Goldwater. "We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America."
"Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job," he added.
Mr. Goldwater is the son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, Jr. served in the House of Representatives for six terms with Texas Congressman Paul, and is currently on the Board of Directors of the Goldwater Institute. After representing northern Los Angeles County in Washington, D.C. for 14 years, Mr. Goldwater retired from politics in 1983 to pursue a successful career in business and humanitarian ventures.
"The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater's endorsement," said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater's father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President."
The late Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. sparked the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.
And finally, at OpEdNews.com, a liberal is saying (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_mej_071115_ron_paul_3a_the_pragma.htm) why a vote for Ron Paul might not be such a bad thing:
Of the multitude of mainstream 2008 Presidential candidates, there are only three who are truly antiwar. Two of them are running as Democrats, one as a Republican. The two Democrats have little money in the bank, are polling in the low single digits and are clearly headed nowhere fast. The antiwar Republican was in much the same boat as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the first few weeks of his Presidential bid.
But now his campaign has started to gain momentum: he has broken through the media wall of silence with recent fundraising success and his poll numbers are moving up in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa.<SPAN> That candidate's name is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas...
...The first point I would to make is that even if antiwar liberal's plans on voting Democratic in the General Election, it does not hurt the Democrats chances in November, 2008 to switch over and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. The defection of large numbers of Democrats to vote for Paul would send a very clear and unambiguous message to the eventual Democratic nominee: take an antiwar stance or risk losing liberal votes to a Third Party candidate.
The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy. Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security. He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits. Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009. As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (11-16-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=329187784&Mytoken=D4A98750-FD5D-424E-B3D74AABA38C40C131408208)
Hello Freedomphiles! Today's Roundup is full of shady political dealing, suspense, intrigue. It's gonna read like a Tom Clancy novel. So, let's get started, shall we?
We'll begin with some breaking news (http://www.nysun.com/article/66542?page_no=1)out of the New York Sun. I almost included this in yesterday's Roundup, but I wanted it to develop a bit, see if it was true, before I mentioned it. Well, it seems as if the offices of the Liberty Dollar were raided:
Federal agents, in a move that could have an impact on the presidential race, raided the Indiana office of the issuer of a private currency known as the Liberty Dollar — and seized tens of thousands of coins bearing the likeness of a presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul.
Overall, agents on Wednesday hauled away more than 2 tons of copper coins and 500 pounds of silver coins, as well as records and computers, the founder of the currency system, Bernard von NotHaus, told The New York Sun by phone from Miami. Although not present in Evansville, Ind., for the raid, Mr. von NotHaus said he has been told that the government agents left business cards from the FBI and Secret Service. Neither agency would confirm or deny the raid when contacted by the Sun.
But why? Well, it appears for counterfietting?
The reason behind the raid is unclear. The Justice Department's position, according to a year-old consumer alert on the Web site of the United States Mint, is that using Liberty Dollars "as circulating money is a federal crime." Mint officials said the Liberty Dollar looks similar to legal tender, with inscriptions that say, "Trust in God" and "USA."
It's not clear, however, what the Justice Department's view is on the legality of possessing the coins for novelty or as protection against the declining value of government notes.
Mr. von NotHaus said he suspects the raid is in response to "the competition" his currency poses to the U.S. Mint. His Liberty Dollars, whose value is the price of the coin's metal, have proven a better investment in recent years than government issued notes, whose value has plummeted in relation to the price of gold.
"This is an example of Bernanke trying to protect his own nest because he knows it's got holes in it," Mr. von NotHaus said, referring to Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. "He can't have something like the Liberty Dollar running around competing with his currency. It points out the fallacy of the fiat monetary system. They had to do something. Their currency is losing and we're going to the moon."
So, is revenge a motive? I don't know. But here is exhibit A for the defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwvlDJgJbM
I'll keep you updated as more develops. If you'd like to examine the FBI's case, here's (http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/meckdeck/pdfs/USAVLibdoll.pdf) a pdf of their affidavit.
Speaking of videos, according to National Review Online, this supporter-created Rudy spot includes (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODRkMDQzMDc1YjRiYjc2ZTM2YWJlZWQ5NmI1YzMwMWM=) Ron Paul with Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as villainous enemies of America:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2259061911820027671&pr=goog-sl
In other Ron Paul news, the JTA is reporting (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105349.html) that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is demanding Ron Paul distance himself from extremist groups:
Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas, has come under fire for the support his campaign has enjoyed from leading white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.
His campaign reportedly has accepted a donation from Don Black, the owner of the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. Sites for several extremist groups also feature prominent links supporting Paul's candidacy.
ADL's assistant director of civil rights, Steven Freeman, told JTA his organization planned to communicate with Paul privately and urge him to distance himself from those groups.
"If he doesn't do that, then we will decide what we're going to say publicly about it," Freeman said.
Paul thus far has refused to return the campaign contribution from Black. In response to a question from a reporter for Reason magazine, a campaign spokesperson said, "If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss."
I can understand the desire to just checkout from the gotcha politics and not give any legitimacy to the underhanded "guilt by association" game that plays out in so much of modern politics, but maybe he ought to just give that money back.
JewishJournal.com has joined the fray (http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=18512), reporting on Paul's Jewish supporters. But before I get to that, I wanted to point out a line from their introduction to the piece:
Paul's candidacy was dismissed early on due to his support from white supremist, Libertarian and other fringe groups, but the campaign has begun to pick up steam on college campuses and on the Internet, in part due to his staunch anti-war stance.
Okay. Thanks for lumping libertarians in with white supremecists, you asshats. Anyway, here's what they had to say about Paul's Jewish support:
Still, Paul commands a loyal, albeit small, Jewish following. This Jewish support has followed the same pattern as Paul's backing from other groups -- coming from out-of-the way places on the Internet and taking mainstream media and political organizations by surprise.
In addition to Perry's Jews for Ron Paul, there is Zionists for Ron Paul -- an outfit launched by Yehuda HaKohen, an American immigrant to Israel, and some of his friends back in the United States.
Some of Paul's Jewish supporters believe that it would be best for Israel if the United States kept out of Jerusalem's affairs. There are also those who believe that American aid to Israel is dangerous because it feeds the perception that Jews wield too much influence over U.S. foreign policy.
"Many of us believe the current relationship between the United States and Israel is a very unhealthy relationship, like that of a man and concubine, or a slave and master," HaKohen said.
While traveling from Washington to New Hampshire to campaign earlier this month, Paul provided a statement to JTA explaining his position on Israel.
"I support free trade and friendship with all nations, meaning that my administration would treat Israel as a friend and trading partner. Americans would be encouraged to travel to and trade with Israel," Paul said.
"Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war."
In fact, combined U.S. aid to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and other friendly Arab nations is roughly commensurate with the $2.4 billion military aid package Israel currently gets.
"We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington," he added.
And that's the truth. But sticking with the critical, let's go to Real Clear Politics, where Kevin Sullivan is attempting to dissect The Realism of Ron Paul: (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/11/ron_pauls_realism.html)
This isn't merely a "pre-9/11" mindset, but rather, one that pre-dates even the Cold War. Conflict in the Middle East is a trifling matter to Paul, one that he sees the U.S. playing no substantive role in:
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.
Americans have historically looked towards their president for some kind of global vision at times of war and global uncertainty. President Roosevelt eased domestic fears during times of economic upheaval, and rallied America to defend the world from Fascism during World War II. President Reagan, assuming the presidency at a time of domestic uncertainty, challenged Americans to be proud of their accomplishments, and stood resolutely against the Soviet Empire and their catastrophic ideology.
Would President Paul inspire in a similar fashion, or does a Paul candidacy instead find its appeal with a frustrated and war weary electorate? Less ambitious, and apparently lacking in vision, Paul offers an unrealistic comfort to those who believe America, and indeed the world, is safer when America folds in on herself. It appeals to the most isolated and irresponsible tendencies of the American makeup. An unlikely candidate in past years, Ron Paul's global non-vision has provided the perfect storm to a portion of the electorate burned out by six years of war.
You couldn't be more wrong, Mr Sullivan. You don't have to go back to before the Cold War - you have to go back before The War to End All Wars.
Do you want to know what global military adventurism got us? Do you want to know what entangling alliances bring? Sit down and pour yourself a cup of coffee - it's time for a history lesson.
WWI was an unneccessary and illegitimate war. It all started over the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand), someone no one even liked, by an unaffiliated group of anarchists.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b3/WWIchartX.png/300px-WWIchartX.png
Now, at the time, all of those countries - Italy, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, France, Brittain, and the Ottoman Empire, were wrapped up in a web of treaties, alliances and mutual-defense pacts so huge, that this one murder of an almost insignificant character caused the dominoes to fall and the entire region erupted into war.
The United States had no horse in this race, but racist jerkoff (http://www.reason.com/news/show/33906.html)Woodrow Wilson decided to join in. In the end, we won, but at what cost? The Treaty of Versialles, which was almost completely fashioned by Wilson, put nearly all the blame and all the punishment on Germany, even though they had nothing to do with the start of the war.
This threw Germany into a tailspin of economic and social destruction, which created the perfect atmosphere for a strong and charismatic leader to step in and promise to ressurect Germany's greatness as a world power.
Enter Adolf Hitler.
So, we had another war, more alliances, and the rise of Communism and the Cold War. How many lives did Wilson's involvement in WWI cost the world? At least 20 million, more if you include Stalin's reign of terror.
But back to the Roundup. We'll stick with foreign policy, though, because that seems to be the topic du jour. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickenson, who interviewed (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17323345/ron_paul_a_republican_takes_the_lead_against_the_w ar) Dr Paul (see yesterday's Roundup) has added another bit (http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/11/15/ron-paul-on-cakewalk-ers-doom-and-gloom-predictions/)of unpublished gold from our man. This time, it is the answer to a question of what happens if we "cut and run" from Iraq:
Everything is much worse if we stay. Right now they're very content to bleed us in Iraq. Bleed us financially and by killing Americans. We lose lives, we spend money we don't have, it furthers our financial crisis. The longer we're there, the stronger Al Qaeda gets. Our being there is the greatest incentive *conceivable to help Osama bin Laden. The evidence is very clear. There's more Al Qaeda now than before. Which means we're in greater danger of being hit by terrorists than before.
Besides, who are the people telling us there'll be problems if we leave? The same ones who said it would be a *cakewalk. What kind of credibility do they have?
None whatsoever. Now for some good news. Reuters is reporting (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN149494320071115?sp=true)on Ron Paul and his electrifying campaign:
"With Ron Paul there's a freshness about his willingness to defy Republican ideas, a Republican who takes on the Republican Party," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University.
"There's also a certain sense of authenticity to him that young people seem to be flocking to, not that he is going to win, but there's a level of attraction of a true libertarian who runs on it, who defends it, who's not embarrassed by it."
Paul said in the interview his ideas represent a philosophy Republicans long abandoned, but he has no interest in pursuing a third-party candidacy as he did in 1988 when he was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate.
He said he takes inspiration from Samuel Adams, an 18th-century politician who helped foment the U.S. revolution.
"He was the agitator behind the scenes," said Paul, who has angered many in his own party by suggesting U.S. foreign policy contributed to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
"Terrorists don't come here because we are free and prosperous. Terrorists come here because we are in their face, we are in their country, building bases in their land and stealing their oil," he told the Dixville Notch voters.
He said he has been surprised by his support on college campuses. New Hampshire, with its official motto of "Live Free or Die" and libertarian bent, provides a natural setting for him. But he said he's also focused heavily on Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, all important early nominating states.
Nick Gillespie, editor of reason magazine, has alerted (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123555.html) us to Ron Paul's latest endorsement - eponymously named son of proto-libertarian Barry Goldwater:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today gained a public endorsement from Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.
"America is at a crossroads," said Mr. Goldwater. "We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America."
"Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job," he added.
Mr. Goldwater is the son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, Jr. served in the House of Representatives for six terms with Texas Congressman Paul, and is currently on the Board of Directors of the Goldwater Institute. After representing northern Los Angeles County in Washington, D.C. for 14 years, Mr. Goldwater retired from politics in 1983 to pursue a successful career in business and humanitarian ventures.
"The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater's endorsement," said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater's father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President."
The late Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. sparked the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.
And finally, at OpEdNews.com, a liberal is saying (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_mej_071115_ron_paul_3a_the_pragma.htm) why a vote for Ron Paul might not be such a bad thing:
Of the multitude of mainstream 2008 Presidential candidates, there are only three who are truly antiwar. Two of them are running as Democrats, one as a Republican. The two Democrats have little money in the bank, are polling in the low single digits and are clearly headed nowhere fast. The antiwar Republican was in much the same boat as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the first few weeks of his Presidential bid.
But now his campaign has started to gain momentum: he has broken through the media wall of silence with recent fundraising success and his poll numbers are moving up in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa.<SPAN> That candidate's name is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas...
...The first point I would to make is that even if antiwar liberal's plans on voting Democratic in the General Election, it does not hurt the Democrats chances in November, 2008 to switch over and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. The defection of large numbers of Democrats to vote for Paul would send a very clear and unambiguous message to the eventual Democratic nominee: take an antiwar stance or risk losing liberal votes to a Third Party candidate.
The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy. Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security. He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits. Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009. As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg