Ron Paul and those Newsletters

I will preface my comments by saying that I find nothing in the newsletters that were racist. The sentiments in the newsletters were certainly abrasive. I believe that every individuals has the right to criticize other individuals of any race for their moral shortcomings. Further, rational prejudices should be discussed freely regardless of the race of the speaker.




Here is something I wrote over at DailyPaul.com in response to the video above.

Ron Paul needs to realize that not one of those who are bringing up the newsletters actually believes that he is a racist. Therefore, it means that the newsletters mentions are meant to throw him off his game and inject a negative perception in the minds of voters.

Case in point, is Erick Erickson who brought up the newsletters on the Boortz show this morning. After reading what seemed like a prepared piece. Erickson basically said that he didn't believe that Ron Paul was a racist; he just believes Ron Paul is nuts. The obvious translation is that the newsletters are simply for voter consumption, but the actual media announcers who mention it don't believe Paul is a racist. The enemies of Ron Paul are opportunistic in their ploy to stop him.

The way forward is for Ron Paul to preface his answers with the statement that the media doesn't want him to win. His usual answer that he did not write them and disavow them is in order. Further, he should attack the very premise of racism and tie it to how both political parties have betrayed the American people. The sentiment should be that judging someone on the basis of race or political party is an error. The true issue is whether the person is consistent, accurate in predictions and focused.


Finally, he should invoke the words of Christ by saying that as a Christian he is bound to treat his fellow human beings in the same way he would treat Christ. He should also say, "surely all human beings are the wonderful creations of God."

Rush Limbaugh vs Ron Paul

The headlines after the Fox News GOP presidential debate in Sioux Cuty, Iowa had an addition with Rush Limbaugh going after Ron Paul.  One headline read:

Limbaugh Blasts Ron Paul For ‘Running To The Left Of President Obama’ On Iran

Rush Limbaugh never proffered any argument to deflate Ron Paul's sentiment. Rush basically ridiculed Ron Paul's voice and suggested that Paul evaded a question. The claim that Paul is left of Obama on foreign policy presupposes that a Neocon foreign policy of militarism is conservative. However, Neocons have never been conservatives and never will be. The truth of the matter is that being cautious going into war and having a declaration of war is the wisest thing to do. It's constitutional. It's conservative.

Michelle Bachmann desperate for Herman Cain Supporters

The ABC aired GOP presidential debate from Iowa, which was held on Saturday 10th, December was very interesting. Of all the candidates, Michelle Bachmann was the lone person to mention Herman Cain. In fact, she had nice things to say about Herman Cain. Evidently, her invocation of Herman Cain is desperate and in vain effort to wins some of his supporters. Let's just hope that it's too late for Bachmann to garner more support.

Big Dog: Ron Paul 2012

Herman Cain broke Michael Savage's Heart...Aw

During a flight of fancy, I tuned in to the Michael Savage show on Thursday, December 1st. I was amused when Savage admitted that Herman Cain had fooled him. Savage went on to say that as hard as it was to admit, he had thought of Cain as serious and upright. Obviously, Savage is one of those idiots who prefers partisanship to careful observation. The defense of Herman Cain was a knee jerk reaction by some Republican and Conservatives. 

I actually listened to what Herman Cain had to say. I even took note of his debating style or the lack thereof. I was immediately struck by how incoherent, dishonest and defensive Cain could be. Herman Cain is a pseudo-Uncle Tom as I have declared many times. A real Uncle Tom is a black man who is fooled by whites. However, Herman Cain is fooling whites and not the other way around. 

Cain remains one of the most ignorant and disgraceful men to ever run for the presidency of the United States.       

Newt Gingrich for Amnesty

Newt Gingrich recently made a statement that if favors some illegal migrants remain in the U.S.

The punishment for entering or staying in the U.S. illegally is ultimately deportation to one's native country. Newt is saying that he proposes a selective criteria where some illigal migrants are allowed to stay and work in the U.S. Therefore, the punishment for illegal migration is waived for some by allowing them to stay and work in the U.S. The foregoing is the very essence of what an amnesty is.

To suggest that one has good reasons to forgive illegality in no way precludes amnesty. An illegal migrant who has deep ties in the U.S. is considered a sacred cow under Newt's plan. However, anyone who would live in country that does not afford them legal rights is taking severe risks. In short, the U.S. government never promised them a rose garden.

Of course, Newt Gingrich'S proposal of the odious "Red Card" is meant silence the objections of many in the Republican party that fear that immigrants are more likely to vote Democratic if given a chance. The policy of allowing a foreigner to work and pay taxes in the U.s without even the possibility of them applying for citizenship is dubious. In fact, it takes taxation without representation to new heights. Further, it would mean an underclass of residents who would never truly be integrated or even loyal to so-called American values.


The possible problems with the "Red Card" are that the workers would have children who would be U.S. citizens. The workers could also marry Americans and gain legal status that way. The Democratic party or other groups could seek and be successful in modifying the law to allow such workers to vote.


In the end, the worker program that Newt proposes also increases the size of the federal workforce. After all, it would take a few thousands functionaries to police and administer such a program. What kind of conservative openly advocates expanding the federal workforce. You guessed it, a Republicrat flip-flopper.

Mitt Romney for American Imperialism

I watch the CNN national security debate, which was held at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. Mitt Romney responded to the sentiments of the esteemed Congressman Ron Paul. Romney acknowledged the divergent foreign policy ideas of Ron Paul and president Barack Obama, but he also cited what he believed to be similarities. Apparently, Romney believes that Obama is an anti-imperialist, which is nonsensical. How could one compare Ron Paul and Barack Obama? Obama takes orders from NATO and the United Nations while Ron Paul affirms American sovereignty and, eschews involvement in NATO and the United Nations. No comparison.

Mitt Romney says he wants U.S. military dominance through-out the world. Why? He says there are nations that want to oppress others. Now, if one has the strongest military in the world, would that not mean imperialism, which is a form of oppression? The only way to know you have the strongest military in the world is to be an aggressor nation and win wars.

One could have a strong military that is purely defensive as is the case with China at present. The use of submarines, ICBMs, an air force and the like would do the job. The policy of having bases bespeaks an empire and aggressor nation status.

The president of the United States is not tasked with being an imperialist, but the protection of the American people. It's called national defense for a reason.