Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Monday, April 23, 2012
Do What Fox News?
This is completely mind blowing. What Fauxnews? As an avid GOPer most of my life I was raised on fox news in many ways. The more I educate myself the more I agree with the democrats that Fox puts out junk, of course I think that for a different reason then they do. Check out the link to the video I just took. I was so irate I couldn't even talk. Ron Paul 2012. rEVOLution.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
CNN Arizona Debate
CNN Arizona Debate
So who were the winners and losers?
Losers:
Santorum –
He got beat up badly, mostly from Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Any chance he would solidify his momentum to a GOP win was lost. His lack of consistency and beliefs were apparent. He defended his vote for NCLB by saying he was voting with the “team” this was a key spot where we all wish John King would have used that age old questions “if President Bush jumped off a bridge would you do it to?” Alas he was much more respectful. Santorum says he will cut a Trillion a year the first 5 years – you know the same thing Ron Paul has been saying the whole thing.
Gingrich –
Gingrich had a good debate, but not a great one. Normally he would have been a winner, in fact many news groups are reporting he was the winner, but this debate effectively ended any chance he had at winning the nomination. He has no money (unless you count his super pac backed by a single Billionaire) and now has no chance. He needed an excellent debate in order to carry himself to wins like he did in South Carolina. He also answered about half the questions with: “I agree with Ron Paul.”
Winners :
Mitt Romney –
If only because Santorum did so poorly and Newt did nothing to move him back into the media’s top tier. He was steady and did a good job defending his record. It is now a race between him and Ron Paul, which if you are following the election you’ve known since New Hampshire.
Ron Paul –
His best spot was after the debate when CNN confirmed his statement that he is #2 in Delegate count – which is how you win the GOP presidential nomination. Newt Gingrich started many of his answers with “I agree with Ron Paul” and the other candidates again failed to attack him. Ron Paul did so well that many of the mainstream media called him a “winner” although they continue to discount his chances.
So who were the winners and losers?
Losers:
Santorum –
He got beat up badly, mostly from Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Any chance he would solidify his momentum to a GOP win was lost. His lack of consistency and beliefs were apparent. He defended his vote for NCLB by saying he was voting with the “team” this was a key spot where we all wish John King would have used that age old questions “if President Bush jumped off a bridge would you do it to?” Alas he was much more respectful. Santorum says he will cut a Trillion a year the first 5 years – you know the same thing Ron Paul has been saying the whole thing.
Gingrich –
Gingrich had a good debate, but not a great one. Normally he would have been a winner, in fact many news groups are reporting he was the winner, but this debate effectively ended any chance he had at winning the nomination. He has no money (unless you count his super pac backed by a single Billionaire) and now has no chance. He needed an excellent debate in order to carry himself to wins like he did in South Carolina. He also answered about half the questions with: “I agree with Ron Paul.”
Winners :
Mitt Romney –
If only because Santorum did so poorly and Newt did nothing to move him back into the media’s top tier. He was steady and did a good job defending his record. It is now a race between him and Ron Paul, which if you are following the election you’ve known since New Hampshire.
Ron Paul –
His best spot was after the debate when CNN confirmed his statement that he is #2 in Delegate count – which is how you win the GOP presidential nomination. Newt Gingrich started many of his answers with “I agree with Ron Paul” and the other candidates again failed to attack him. Ron Paul did so well that many of the mainstream media called him a “winner” although they continue to discount his chances.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Should Homeschoolers Vote for Ron Paul
A well respected, by me and the homeschooling community, homeschool defense lawyer. He recently wrote a piece on Ron Paul and how he was an enemy of the laws that let him help make homeschooling legal, mainly the 14th amendment versus the 10th amendment. Now he is a wonderful Lawyer and has much more legal knowledge then I and I believe he has thoughtfully contemplated the field, so it is important for me to think over what he has said and see what I believe. He has done as much for homeschooling in the US as anyone else, if not more.
He later clarified his original statement and stated that he doesn’t believe Ron Paul would do anything to hurt homeschooling as president and if he understood what he had to do to keep Homeschooling legal that Paul would likely rethinking his stance. So I respect him for clarifying his stance.
So my first questions would be to look worldwide who bans homeschooling in other countries? It is the national government. So this would lead me to think in a long term look the national government changing their position would potentially be a big issue.
I may be wrong, but I’d think that the Federal Lawyers, besides using the Commerce Clause, may be looking to the 14th amendment to make Obamacare Legal. If anyone can comment on that, if I’m wrong or not, that would be very helpful, and I would like to state that this paragraph is purely speculation at this point.
The next question I would have is would it not be better if the State protected our homeschooling rights? Should we not seek that now while it is legally safe and homeschool friendly legislators are in office? If the 10th amendment was given more precedence does anyone believe states would run to make homeschooling illegal? States save $5000-$10,000 for every student who homeschools and are fighting budget deficits. It is highly unlikely any legislators would attempt to pass these laws and if they tried it is highly unlikely they would pass. Would Ron Paul not help form other legislation to ensure the liberties of homeschoolers?
As the world gets smaller, the UN continues to play a major role in American legislation. Obama has given the UN even more power over the US, Mitt would likely continue to give our rights away. The UN is filled with countries that are against homeschooling. If our country continues down this path it is currently on it is likely the Federal government could be the greatest threat to homeschooling. So it is important to get the States to make sure it Homeschooling legality will always be maintained.
So I believe the Lawyer has a very good point, from where he is coming from,and I also believe that he is taking a super worst case scenario to attack Dr. Paul.
In the end I am still endorsing Ron Paul. He will make homeschooling legally stronger, not weaker as President. He is for personal liberty, that is his platform and to make a statement that he would do otherwise would go against everything Dr. Paul has ever fought for and if we know anything about the presidential race is that there is only one GOP candidate who stands for Liberty and who has done so without flip flopping and that is Ron Paul.
He later clarified his original statement and stated that he doesn’t believe Ron Paul would do anything to hurt homeschooling as president and if he understood what he had to do to keep Homeschooling legal that Paul would likely rethinking his stance. So I respect him for clarifying his stance.
So my first questions would be to look worldwide who bans homeschooling in other countries? It is the national government. So this would lead me to think in a long term look the national government changing their position would potentially be a big issue.
I may be wrong, but I’d think that the Federal Lawyers, besides using the Commerce Clause, may be looking to the 14th amendment to make Obamacare Legal. If anyone can comment on that, if I’m wrong or not, that would be very helpful, and I would like to state that this paragraph is purely speculation at this point.
The next question I would have is would it not be better if the State protected our homeschooling rights? Should we not seek that now while it is legally safe and homeschool friendly legislators are in office? If the 10th amendment was given more precedence does anyone believe states would run to make homeschooling illegal? States save $5000-$10,000 for every student who homeschools and are fighting budget deficits. It is highly unlikely any legislators would attempt to pass these laws and if they tried it is highly unlikely they would pass. Would Ron Paul not help form other legislation to ensure the liberties of homeschoolers?
As the world gets smaller, the UN continues to play a major role in American legislation. Obama has given the UN even more power over the US, Mitt would likely continue to give our rights away. The UN is filled with countries that are against homeschooling. If our country continues down this path it is currently on it is likely the Federal government could be the greatest threat to homeschooling. So it is important to get the States to make sure it Homeschooling legality will always be maintained.
So I believe the Lawyer has a very good point, from where he is coming from,and I also believe that he is taking a super worst case scenario to attack Dr. Paul.
In the end I am still endorsing Ron Paul. He will make homeschooling legally stronger, not weaker as President. He is for personal liberty, that is his platform and to make a statement that he would do otherwise would go against everything Dr. Paul has ever fought for and if we know anything about the presidential race is that there is only one GOP candidate who stands for Liberty and who has done so without flip flopping and that is Ron Paul.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Ron Paul and his Problem with Iran
I got a request on how I’d argue against Joel Rosenberg, and others who say Ron Paul’s policy on Iran is dangerous.
Before you say I am for Iran, I think the world would be a safer place if they were a democracy like ours. Their leader was a Christian man with strong principles and so were all its people. Now lets take a look of how Iran is likely feeling right now. Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a few moments as they say.
Iran is making more news as they threaten to close down Strait of Hormuz.
The first thing I would say, is let us look at the human element. Does anyone believe that Iran’s leader is willing to die for his cause? I’m sure he is willing for others to die, but he doesn’t want to be killed. So unless it is a last ditch effort to save himself or he knows he is going to be killed imminently he won’t do anything to upset his position of power and wealth.
Second issue is the missiles they are testing. Well they go about 90 miles, when they work, the US has missiles that go across the world in a matter of hours. It is the equivalent of you building a BB gun while the school bully holds an AR 15 and bazooka to your head. Now you could argue that eventually they will have a better weapon that is why they need to be stopped now. I grew up in a system where you were innocent until proven guilty system of justice, I don’t see how you can justify prosecuting someone from crimes they might commit.
Iran has supplied fighters in Iraq/Afghanistan with weapons. Well if we didn’t invade those countries, which I believe most Americans think we should not have, they wouldn’t be doing that. We are going to spend nearly 3 Trillion dollars on those wars. Well over $6000 per US Citizen, so if you are a family of 4, you owe the US Government $24,000 for the wars – do you think you got your monies worth? Are you willing to spend another $10-20,000 to preemptively attack Iran?
What if that money was home, do you think we would have safer neighborhoods with 4% unemployment or with homeless neighbors who will do anything to feed their family? Do you think that 20,000 could have been better spent over here and we would still be safer?
I like to bring out a neighborhood analogy. You sit in the middle of two houses. A person across town comes over and breaks into your neighbors because he thinks they are evil. You don’t think they are, but you don’t really like them so you don’t do anything about it. Now that same person breaks into your other neighbor’s house, because they are evil. You don’t think they are, but you don’t really like them. While they invade your neighbors, they hint that you will be next, because you are evil. What do you do? Do you help out your neighbor or just wait? After all, the person breaking into these homes is much richer and powerful than you are. You are the bad guy and they are the good guy.
US citizens tend to think that we are the good guys and that everyone else is the bad guys. I have a feeling that most of Iran thinks they are the good guys, and we are the people across town coming to their neighborhood breaking into houses. Iran is responding the same way our Government would respond if something similar was happening over here. At least I pray to God that is how our government would respond. If I thought we were going to be invaded, I’d want our Government to puff up our chest and do anything it took to make us feel secure. That is all Iran is doing.
At least Iran, if you put themselves in their shoes, has a reason to think they are in imminent danger (sanctions, threats) of invasion. While we are speculating on what we think they are thinking of thinking about.
On the Funding Issue, Ron Paul isn’t talking about bringing our Defense budget to 0, just to bring our troops home and closes bases that have been expensive and meaningless since the 80s. Let us put it this way, you are a rich politician in the 1800’s. You have a ranch that is Twenty miles from town. Your mode of transportation is a Horse. You might own your ranch and a house in town, because it is a full days ride to get there and sometimes you need to be there for an extended time period. Now you own a car and you live 20 miles from where you work, it takes 10 minutes to get to town. Do you still need a house next to you office? Does it make sense to maintain it and go bankrupt doing so? That is essentially what our military offices overseas are, are homes that we don’t need, but refuse to give up. Eventually you will lose both homes because you can’t afford to keep both up.
Is America safer with dwindling funds and bases all over the world? Or is America safer with a strong economy and strong bases at home?
Is America safer by invading all the countries we don’t like? Or is America safer by giving other countries respect and no reason to fight us?
If we remember China's rising power used to be scary, but through economic ties we have grown closer to them and their people have become freer.
You can also look at the parallels of the Roman Empire and the US Empire. Traditional thinking is with more land comes more power, but Roman fell because it took too much land and the people of those lands rebelled against them. Roman gave them education, sewer, and roads. They didn’t care, they wanted their own leaders. What does the US do? Well we try and give them education and infrastructure. Can we learn anything from Roman? Are we so arrogant that we think we can do better? Are our leaders studying Roman and other Empires to see what led to their collapse so it won’t happen here?
If you are happy we had the Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraq war and Afghanistan war and how they went then Rick Santrum, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry is you man. If you think we should learn from these wars and look at how we handled the USSR and China then Ron Paul is your man.
Oh and the last time Iran tried to close the Strait, the neighboring countries took care of that problem. Guess what, they would do it again. Not acting is empowering those countries to stand on their own and makes them stronger. Want Iran not to be a threat? Allow those around them to get stronger.
To say the Left or the Right has a strangle hold on good ideas is to say your boss has the only good ideas for the company.
Consider this illuminating exchange between Fox News anchor Bret Baier and Rep. Paul where Paul happily concedes that if he were to win the GOP nomination, he would be
“to the left of President Obama” on the Iran issue.
Maybe for once, being Left of the President is good for US prosperity.
Before you say I am for Iran, I think the world would be a safer place if they were a democracy like ours. Their leader was a Christian man with strong principles and so were all its people. Now lets take a look of how Iran is likely feeling right now. Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a few moments as they say.
Iran is making more news as they threaten to close down Strait of Hormuz.
The first thing I would say, is let us look at the human element. Does anyone believe that Iran’s leader is willing to die for his cause? I’m sure he is willing for others to die, but he doesn’t want to be killed. So unless it is a last ditch effort to save himself or he knows he is going to be killed imminently he won’t do anything to upset his position of power and wealth.
Second issue is the missiles they are testing. Well they go about 90 miles, when they work, the US has missiles that go across the world in a matter of hours. It is the equivalent of you building a BB gun while the school bully holds an AR 15 and bazooka to your head. Now you could argue that eventually they will have a better weapon that is why they need to be stopped now. I grew up in a system where you were innocent until proven guilty system of justice, I don’t see how you can justify prosecuting someone from crimes they might commit.
Iran has supplied fighters in Iraq/Afghanistan with weapons. Well if we didn’t invade those countries, which I believe most Americans think we should not have, they wouldn’t be doing that. We are going to spend nearly 3 Trillion dollars on those wars. Well over $6000 per US Citizen, so if you are a family of 4, you owe the US Government $24,000 for the wars – do you think you got your monies worth? Are you willing to spend another $10-20,000 to preemptively attack Iran?
What if that money was home, do you think we would have safer neighborhoods with 4% unemployment or with homeless neighbors who will do anything to feed their family? Do you think that 20,000 could have been better spent over here and we would still be safer?
I like to bring out a neighborhood analogy. You sit in the middle of two houses. A person across town comes over and breaks into your neighbors because he thinks they are evil. You don’t think they are, but you don’t really like them so you don’t do anything about it. Now that same person breaks into your other neighbor’s house, because they are evil. You don’t think they are, but you don’t really like them. While they invade your neighbors, they hint that you will be next, because you are evil. What do you do? Do you help out your neighbor or just wait? After all, the person breaking into these homes is much richer and powerful than you are. You are the bad guy and they are the good guy.
US citizens tend to think that we are the good guys and that everyone else is the bad guys. I have a feeling that most of Iran thinks they are the good guys, and we are the people across town coming to their neighborhood breaking into houses. Iran is responding the same way our Government would respond if something similar was happening over here. At least I pray to God that is how our government would respond. If I thought we were going to be invaded, I’d want our Government to puff up our chest and do anything it took to make us feel secure. That is all Iran is doing.
At least Iran, if you put themselves in their shoes, has a reason to think they are in imminent danger (sanctions, threats) of invasion. While we are speculating on what we think they are thinking of thinking about.
On the Funding Issue, Ron Paul isn’t talking about bringing our Defense budget to 0, just to bring our troops home and closes bases that have been expensive and meaningless since the 80s. Let us put it this way, you are a rich politician in the 1800’s. You have a ranch that is Twenty miles from town. Your mode of transportation is a Horse. You might own your ranch and a house in town, because it is a full days ride to get there and sometimes you need to be there for an extended time period. Now you own a car and you live 20 miles from where you work, it takes 10 minutes to get to town. Do you still need a house next to you office? Does it make sense to maintain it and go bankrupt doing so? That is essentially what our military offices overseas are, are homes that we don’t need, but refuse to give up. Eventually you will lose both homes because you can’t afford to keep both up.
Is America safer with dwindling funds and bases all over the world? Or is America safer with a strong economy and strong bases at home?
Is America safer by invading all the countries we don’t like? Or is America safer by giving other countries respect and no reason to fight us?
If we remember China's rising power used to be scary, but through economic ties we have grown closer to them and their people have become freer.
You can also look at the parallels of the Roman Empire and the US Empire. Traditional thinking is with more land comes more power, but Roman fell because it took too much land and the people of those lands rebelled against them. Roman gave them education, sewer, and roads. They didn’t care, they wanted their own leaders. What does the US do? Well we try and give them education and infrastructure. Can we learn anything from Roman? Are we so arrogant that we think we can do better? Are our leaders studying Roman and other Empires to see what led to their collapse so it won’t happen here?
If you are happy we had the Korean war, Vietnam war, Iraq war and Afghanistan war and how they went then Rick Santrum, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry is you man. If you think we should learn from these wars and look at how we handled the USSR and China then Ron Paul is your man.
Oh and the last time Iran tried to close the Strait, the neighboring countries took care of that problem. Guess what, they would do it again. Not acting is empowering those countries to stand on their own and makes them stronger. Want Iran not to be a threat? Allow those around them to get stronger.
To say the Left or the Right has a strangle hold on good ideas is to say your boss has the only good ideas for the company.
Consider this illuminating exchange between Fox News anchor Bret Baier and Rep. Paul where Paul happily concedes that if he were to win the GOP nomination, he would be
“to the left of President Obama” on the Iran issue.
Maybe for once, being Left of the President is good for US prosperity.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Why Young Adults should support … for president
In 2008 now President Obama had a message that many of us could stand behind “We are the change we have been waiting for.” We were tired of a large government who didn't care about the little man, who was making it harder to live the American Dream.
Unfortunately the “we” he was talking about was larger government and less control by “we the people.” His policies have given our generation less control of our future, not more. Bailouts to billionaire companies, educational and economic policies have made it tougher for us to grab out boot straps and lift ourselves out of this mess. In 2012 we have the opportunity to get behind a candidate who believes "We" can be the change we are looking for.
A candidate who believes in liberty and that the individual can make a difference, not the government. We can’t be the change we are looking for if the rug is continually being wrenched from beneath our feet. We need the freedom to grow business and make a name for ourselves. This administration, and the previous, has made it harder for us to live the American dream our forefather sought so protect.
Europe has shown us that a centralized government who controls the people and their future does not work. America has started down the same path that is bankrupting Europe. We can still make America great, but we need a president who believe that we can and not Wall Street or the Federal Government.
The only candidate that I can see actually believes in we the people and has since the start is Ron Paul. He believes in us and the “We are the Change we have been waiting for.” He will give us the opportunity we need to make this country great. The rest of the candidates are only echoing his stances and have not been grounded in their beliefs like he has.
If we put our support behind Ron Paul with the same vigor many of us put behind Obama, who failed us, he can win the GOP nomination and put the country back on the right track.
Unfortunately the “we” he was talking about was larger government and less control by “we the people.” His policies have given our generation less control of our future, not more. Bailouts to billionaire companies, educational and economic policies have made it tougher for us to grab out boot straps and lift ourselves out of this mess. In 2012 we have the opportunity to get behind a candidate who believes "We" can be the change we are looking for.
A candidate who believes in liberty and that the individual can make a difference, not the government. We can’t be the change we are looking for if the rug is continually being wrenched from beneath our feet. We need the freedom to grow business and make a name for ourselves. This administration, and the previous, has made it harder for us to live the American dream our forefather sought so protect.
Europe has shown us that a centralized government who controls the people and their future does not work. America has started down the same path that is bankrupting Europe. We can still make America great, but we need a president who believe that we can and not Wall Street or the Federal Government.
The only candidate that I can see actually believes in we the people and has since the start is Ron Paul. He believes in us and the “We are the Change we have been waiting for.” He will give us the opportunity we need to make this country great. The rest of the candidates are only echoing his stances and have not been grounded in their beliefs like he has.
If we put our support behind Ron Paul with the same vigor many of us put behind Obama, who failed us, he can win the GOP nomination and put the country back on the right track.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
View Ron Paul's latest video. You may not agree with everything he say's but you know he means it and you know he has been right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)