This has been one of the most unusual presidential campaigns in modern history;but Hope is Still Alive in some conservative circles, and We the People of the Conservative GOP can still envision a brokered convention that overcomes all of the injustices, potential fraud, corruption, lies, and muddy money thrown at the honorable Statesman, Patriot, and still most qualified to lead and defeat Obama...Newt [You can count on me to support any GOP candidate provided it is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE choice, and not a Mirage]. Our path to VICTORY is simple. For the balance of the primaries, we must rally support behind our former opponent, Dr Ronald Earnest Paul, and here's why: quite simply, he is the only one left with money, machine, and zero debt, to #StopMitt.  #RonPaul cannot likely make 1144 at this point either, but with help from a #NewtRevolution coalition, neither will Mitt Romney.
Last Week, Texas Politico Polling showed Newt within "Striking Distance" in Texas with 45% to Romney, 35% to Newt, and 14% for Ron Paul. If that Poll would hold, then Paul would normally get ZERO delegates from his home state,since he got less than required 15%, and Newt and Mitt would divide them up. However, Newt's suspension of the campaign is big game changer, and, the all too soon unconditional surrender by Randy Evans, Gov Rick Perry, and other surrogates whom quickly endorsed liberal Romney, assures us that the 35% Poll numbers will not hold for Newt, but will plummet to inconsequential levels.
However, Ron Paul is still very much alive on the campaign trail, with money in the bank, zero debt, and a great story to tell. He has already reportedly made an alliance with Santorum followers in Colorado and other places to address injustices and corruption within the party.They are there. No use continuing to be in denial. But we the people still can do something about it.
My main opposition amongst conservatives is worrying about Ron Paul. First of all, this is not about Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney. They all have great personalities, or they would not have the big crowds, speaking of which, Paul's crowds have been competing with Obama in size. Yes, i still have problems with Paul on Foreign Policy,but he appears to be trying to mainly get back to putting more war decisions in hands of Congress, vs one man, the presidency.All that said, I AM STILL #WITHNEWT, Period [although I would support any TRUE CONSERVATIVE with a Proven Record and not a Mirage}.
As Conservatives, our goal is NOT "Anybody But Obama". We are NOT against Obama as a person. Rather, we stand against the ideas, philosophy,and policies that are shipwrecking our great country. Newt has always said it best, that this conservative battle is a battle for IDEAS, and that IDEAS MATTER.  The Left in the GOP is begging Paul, Newt, and Santorum supporters to UNITE and to be UNIFIERS, because they want to nominate Mitt Romney, since, if Mitt does manage to beat Obama, the end result is still the same...THEIR IDEAS WIN. To replace Obama with an Obama look alike is ridiculous, and certain suicide for the true conservative cause.
If those with Santorum and Newt will rally behind Ron Paul now, he will gain an amazing number of delagates, and #STOPMITT from ever getting 1144. But Ron Paul will not likely get to 1144 either, at this stage, however, at an Open Convention, everything will be on the table without any outside, disingenuous influence from Democrats in Open Primaries or ballot shenanigans. We the GOP will decide whom our candidate will be, not the liberal and moderate GOP Establishment, not Fox News, CNN, or the lame stream media.
Right Now, I hope you will join me, and the many others whom understand that this could be the Newt's [and Tea Party Patriots'] finest hour; for,  while he may have thought he left the race, truth is, the Spirit of his IDEAS is still very much alive. It is for those IDEAS, and the common cause of defeating the wrong ideas, that I and many others enjoin our efforts with Dr Ronald Earnest Paul, to Save the Republican Party from destroying itself by nominating a self proclaimed "Progressive" (Mitt Romney Video on YouTube,"I'm a non-partisan Republican and a Progressive"], which by definition is "soft communism or socialism".  [ See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism  ]

Zionists: What if Ron Paul is Right about Iran?

I love Israel. I love my country, and the land that God gave my family. I would fight and die for this place. I live here. I am not a peace activist. Nor am I a warmonger. I don’t believe in peace treaties with anyone whatsoever, nor do I believe in going to war under shaky pretenses.

I’m 28. Much of my high school and college career occurred during the end of Oslo and Arafat and Barak’s meeting at Camp David, and the subsequent outbreak of the brutal and bloody 2nd Intifadah murder spree. Watching every single suicide bomb on the news right after it happened, as a high school kid, drove me mad with rage against Islam and “terrorists” and Arabs. I hated them for their method of murder and killing my Jewish family. It is hard for me to describe the dehumanizing emotions I had.

The emotions were so strong that any attempt to attach “motives” to “terrorist” actions made me react impulsively and with disgust at whoever suggested that terrorists even had “motives”. I just wanted them dead and out of my country. These are classic “neocon” feelings. We’re good, they’re evil, that’s it, end of story, if you even try to explain anything you’re getting us all killed.

Now, if you identify with these feelings, let me ask you a few questions. Try to clear your head and see things from above for a second.

Were any of America’s wars since World War II necessary? What did any of them accomplish? How many people did they kill? Did America have to go into Vietnam? Why? Did they have to go into Korea? Why? Did they have to go into Iraq? Why? Did they have to prop up the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia? What about Egypt? Was involvement there necessary? Did we really have to overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 in order to install the Shah?

WHY? Why did America have to do that?

What is the point of all of this? What has it accomplished? What would the world look like today if none of this ever happened? Would September 11th have happened? Would there be a “War on Terror?”

What the hell IS the “War on Terror”? Who is “Terror”? How does the war end?

The answer to this is actually pretty simple. The standard reaction is “America did all this for her security.”

I used to believe that. But I no longer do. America is not secure. She is a nation teetering on the biggest bankruptcy in world history, and running on the fumes of borrowed Chinese money. Her citizens are poorer and more dependent on handouts that they get from a government running on borrowed Chinese money.

In the last debate on December 15, every Republican presidential candidate talked about how they were going to A) Cut the budget and B) Massively expand the military. None of them realized the apparent contradiction here. Why? Because there is no substance to any of these war hungry power driven men with no souls. They fight not because they believe in something. They fight because it gives them power. Saying they’ll cut the budget will give them power. Saying they’ll massively expand the air force and the “modernize” the navy while at the same time dealing with a $15 trillion debt, this is just mad. It’s simply mad.

I wonder now if any of them are even conscious of the words that are coming out of their pandering mouths. These smiling, grinning, nonsensical people convinced that America has to put a no fly zone over Syria now and other such EXPENSIVE nonsense that CHINA  is running out of money to FUND.

Ron Paul’s strongest point in the debate was when he asked Mitt Romney, the guy talking about cutting the budget while  massively expanding the air force, the following question:

“How are we going to do that? We don’t have any MONEY!”

For those who can see the humanity in Ron Paul, who aren’t brainwashed by fearmongerers like Bachmann who say that if he becomes president Iran will nuke the US, you could read the horror in Paul’s face. “How am I on the stage with such…people? Is there anyone behind any of these shiny veneers? Do they even realize they are not making ANY SENSE?”

Every candidate, including Obama, is drunk on power. They go to war not for security, but because, as president of the most powerful country in the world, they can’t resist playing with their toy armed forces. And they CAN’T RESIST coming over here, to Israel, and telling us exactly how to make peace with our neighbors.

What if Ron Paul is right? What if September 11 really did happen because America simply can’t mind her own business? What if none of these undeclared wars ever had to happen, and 2 million vietnamese and Iraqis were still alive today?

If you ponder that question seriously, and it flicks a light on in your head and you recognize the possibility of it for even a fraction of a second, you can do one of two things:

1) Shut that recognition down immediately and go back to thinking America has no blame in any of this

2) Allow yourself to ponder further, ultimately culminating in a sudden rush of remorse that millions had to die for this pointless nonsense and you just didn’t realize it.

Whether it’s War Making or Peace Making, America feels they have to be in it all. What if Ron Paul is right? Imagine if he were president. Would he have forced Arafat and Barak to sit down and pretend to be friends at a meeting that was destined to explode in a murderous intifadah? Would he, like Clinton, pressure Israel to invite Arafat back into Israel to “make peace” with him? Would the second Intifadah have ever broken out? Would the first one? What if America simply left us alone to handle our own issues? Would any of the death and murder that drove me into a rage in high school ever have happened?

I remember when Obama ran and said something about talking to Iran. I thought it was a really really bad idea because I was a neocon back then. But I also never trusted Obama for a second and knew he was just saying this to get power. I knew he was just as fake as the rest of them and I didn’t believe in his “change” nonsense. I saw right through it. There was no human being there. Just a political veneer.

But Ron Paul is a real person. When he speaks to you at a debate, it’s a bona fide human being talking there. Imagine if we had one of those in the White House. Do you think the Ayatollah would chill out just a bit? We could back off each other, get some perspective? The White House could back the heck off of me in Israel and leave me alone? And if we feel like Iran is a threat over here, to let us deal with it how we want to deal with it without calling him up and asking permission like a lapdog?

What the heck does Iran have to do with America? Are they going to cross the Atlantic in the aircraft carrier that they don’t have and nuke Manhattan? Are they going to use their intercontinental ballistic missiles they don’t have and bomb Washington DC?

No. What America has to do with Iran is this: America thinks it runs the world. And there’s an annoying brat in Persia that America thinks has to be put in line. But it’s really none of America’s business. Leave Iran alone. All America is doing by threatening Iran is endangering me in Israel. Let us deal with it if we have to, but stay in your own hemisphere.

Don’t you think the world would be a much less scary place if there was a HUMAN BEING in the oval office?

What if Ron Paul is right?

What if?

http://settlersofsamaria.org/ron-paul-right-about-iran-and-israel/#comment-599

This post consists of a series of responses I posted to Jack Hunter's OPINION piece in the Daily Caller regarding Ron Paul's foreign policy. The piece is full of inaccuracies, fabrications, and paranoia. I countered Mr. Hunter on points of defense spending, and the attempt by the Ron Paul movement to redefine Conservatism into something that resembles anti-war Libertarianism.

ReaganGirl: 

First of all, the concept of limited government does not belong to Ron Paul. Conservative Republicans have always embraced the limitations placed on the government via Constitutional principles. The Ron Paul movement is deceptive and people need to pay attention to what is underneath those superficial layers of constitutionalism and smaller government and federalism. Ron Paul and his followers have a deep contempt for the United States Military. They call us "murderous," "conquerors," "terrorists," and "nation builders." Their defining belief is that it is our foreign "interventionism" in Middle Eastern countries that brought about the attacks of 9/11. Ron Paul himself has intimated that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Bush Administration was "gleeful" that it occurred. Paul has accused Michele Bachmann of "hating Muslims." His refusal to consider the defense of Israel an important foreign policy matter smacks of Antisemitism. His followers accuse the United States of targeting Arabs, of murdering millions of civilians in unjust wars, and of an ineptness that makes the rest of the world hate us. Ron Paul also appeals to young, anti-war, legalize marijuana Occupy Wall Street types. The recent hysteria from his camp about the Defense Authorization Bill had him and his followers teaming up with the ACLU, Democrats in Congress, and citing the Huffington Post as a credible news source. It all looks suspiciously like an infiltration by the Left into the Conservative wing of American politics. Many Ron Paul supporters lack the basic Patriotism and love for country that defines Tea Party Conservatives. I have compiled comments from several Ron Paul supporters regarding our military actions overseas. They are truly shocking and can be read at http://reagangirl.com/?p=23633

Please refer to the following visual from the conservative Heritage Foundation to see that our defense spending in not "unlimited." http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending. The reality that the total defense budget is only about 1/5 of the entire federal budget. Hardly unlimited. Mr. Hunter is not a reporter, but a hack who incites hysteria through his use of hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric. Call it "isolationism," call it "non-interventionism," a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Ron Paul's foreign policies are naive, ill-informed, and extremely dangerous. You cannot simply ignore an ideology which represents an existential threat to Israel and the United States. Pulling out of foreign wars will not make Islamic Terrorists go away, it will invite more of them here. Mr. Hunter's statistics regarding the opinions of veterans are fallacious. But the Ron Paul movement has adopted strategies that used to be exclusive to the Left. Calling our Military "murderous," and "nation builders," lying about issues, fabricating information, and making the Ron Paul movement look as if it is larger than it is in actuality through a concerted and obsessive strategy of overwhelming polls and concentrating their numbers in places like Iowa. Watch out for this movement. It is deceptive and dangerous.

Ron Paul and his followers are trying to redefine Conservatism into something that resembles the anti-war, pro-marijuana protesters of the 60s and 70s. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who adopted the Republican label simply to gain traction in his campaign, so don't tell me he is a principled man. He holds fast to Libertarianism. Conservatism holds many Libertarian viewpoints such as a constitutionally limited government, Federalism, individual liberty, etc. But Conservatism is strengthened by the component of morality. We do not believe that government should legislate virtue at the national level, but we do believe that government, especially state and local government, has a role in protecting its citizens from the greater evils of the world. Conservatives believe that the government should protect the helpless, such as the unborn and the disabled. Conservatives believe that the law should exemplify virtue through placing limitations on harmful influences such as pornography and drugs. Libertarians tend to eschew the moral boundaries that Conservatives believe are essential to a healthy and free society. Ron Paul appeals to young anti-war, pro marijuana Occupy Wall Street types because they feel comfortable with an ideology which omits moral restraints. They have replaced traditional morality with their "anti-war" morality which defines any act of aggression (or self-defense for that matter) on the part of the United States as "immoral." It is time for thinking Conservatives to step back from the deceptive Ron Paul phenomenon and remember that it is reason, morality, patriotism, and a strong national defense that makes us a great nation.

Core Conservatives need to pay heed to the nature and purpose of the Ron Paul phenomenon. Their positions are often contrary to those principles and qualities we hold dear as Conservatives, especially the portrayal by some Ron Paul supporters of our Military as "murderous," "conquerors," and "terrorists." 

Ron Paul has always been a peculiar political creature. He is like a two-headed dragon with one side sporting the features of a constitutional purist, and social conservative. The other side is the face of a leftist, embracing the leftist foreign policy of appeasement, and the devil-may-care attitude of many important social issues such as the legalization of pot, and the "War on Drugs." But a two-headed anything is also two-faced and it is dangerous to trust a two-faced political creature of any party.

Ron claims to be a Republican but his approaches are more Libertarian. He rides on the coattails of the GOP because he otherwise would never have even a ghost of a chance of winning the presidential nomination. There is what I call a "ornery cabal" of disgruntled activists who adore Ron Paul, and who through no measure of reasoning, will closely scrutinize their two-headed dragon. Their strategy is instead to pick apart every little imperfection they see in every other conservative candidate from Herman to Mitt to Michelle. They challenge the good conservatives now in Congress who are up against a bulwark of decades-old big government policies and practices that cannot be hammered away overnight. And yet they cite Constitutional precepts when their goals are not met within a few months after an election. They think that in 2011 we can govern like it was 1787.

This ornery cabal would not be a problem if they were not so dangerous. The danger lies in their knee-jerk tendency to run Independent candidates against any Republican who does not live up to their expectations of Constitutional purity and the superhuman ability to remake a dysfunctional Congress into a well-oiled machine working within an ideally balanced triumvirate government, overnight. Despite the fact that it will take a majority of conservatives in both houses of congress, and a strong conservative president many months, if not years, to redirect the course of America's economy, national defense, and social issues, some Ron Paul supporters rail against the very steps that are being taken by our majority in one house of the congress, which is but one branch of three, as if the current Republicans in government we the scourge of the planet. Their vitriol is so unreasonable that they will embrace Independents who are much more liberal and big-government oriented than the Republicans with whom they are so dissatisfied.

Now to the question of Ron Paul's Antisemitism: He has been accused by at least two iconic Jewish Conservatives of cold indifference for the well-being and fate of Israel, if not outright contempt for the Jewish people.  In one of the following video clips David Horowitz describes Israel as "a tiny Democracy surrounded by Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East." He asks Ron Paul rhetorically, "isn't that in itself worth defending?" Yet Ron Paul adheres stubbornly to his isolationist policies. Policies which, by the way, are disastrous not just for Israel, but for all of our foreign allies and, ultimately, for the security of the United States.

David Horowitz: Ron Paul's Antisemitism

Ben Stein on Ron Paul's Antisemitism

Ron Paul supporters, I ask but two thing of you. First, examine your adored leader with the same eye of scrutiny with which you study every other GOP candidate. Second, remember that if Ron Paul runs a third party campaign it will guarantee another 4 years of Barak Obama, Obamacare, overstretched and undefined military actions, social decline, economic catastrophe, and the death knell to our precious Constitution. If you run Ron Paul you will get exactly the opposite of what you think he stands for.

This is a post I copied from Facebook. It's something that has always irked me but something I haven't seen mentioned much before and never with actual numbers. The author said it was okay to repost this:

If we the people are genuinely the ultimate judges of these debates the media must stop manipulating the format to favor establishment favorites.

This is an interesting breakdown of the last debate (Fox News/Google).

Total Talk Time:
Romney 12:09
Perry 11:10
Huntsman 07:41
Santorum 07:06
Cain 06:23
Bachmann 06:13
Gingrich 05:44
Ron Paul 04:33
Johnson 04:10
Total 1:05:09

% of Total Talk Time
Romney 18.65%
Perry 17.14%
Huntsman 11.79%
Santorum 10.90%
Cain 9.80%
Bachmann 9.54%
Gingrich 8.80%
Ron Paul 6.98%
Johnson 6.40%

Turns Talking
Romney 15
Perry 13
Santorum 9
Huntsman 9
Bachmann 8
Gingrich 7
Cain 7
Ron Paul 6
Johnson 5
Total 79

#Questions, #Responses, #Follow-ups
Perry 8 - 4 - 1
Romney 8 - 5 - 2
Bachmann 7 - 1 - 0
Gingrich 7 - 0 - 0
Cain 7 - 0 - 0
Santorum 7 - 1 - 1
Ron Paul 6 - 0 - 0
Huntsman 6 - 2 - 1
Johnson 5 - 0 - 0
Total 61 - 13 - 5

Avg Time between Talks
Johnson 14:05
Ron Paul 09:31
Cain 08:16
Gingrich 07:56
Huntsman 07:11
Bachmann 07:10
Santorum 06:43
Romney 04:46
Perry 04:37

It's enough to make me spit nails. There is a better way."

This gentleman is absolutely right and we can't let the media lead us like this. I've thought this ever since Perry entered the race as the hands-down favorite when most of America had no idea what his stance was on anything.

From the desk of: - Marshall Frank -  on July 11, 2011

Before everyone gets too excited about Ron Paul - I would like all of you to please take a look at this last Bill that went throught Congress.

Ron Paul voted NO!!!!!!

PLEASE!!! KNOW YOUR CANDIDATES - WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE ANOTHER LIKE THESE LAST FEW YEARS!

In a remarkable bipartisan show of support for Israel and condemnation of the purveyors of hate within the Gaza and West Bank areas, the U.S. Congress just passed Resolution 268, by a whopping majority of 407 votes “For”, and only 6 “Against.” Another 13 voted “Present” thus taking no stand one way or the other, tantamount to a vote “Against.”

The resolution calls for the suspension of Foreign Aid to Gaza/West Bank Palestinians until they agree to acknowledge Israel and to finally agree to sit at the negotiating table to begin genuine peace talks.

Yes, the U.S. gives foreign aid to Gaza/West Bank Palestinians. It’s not even a country. Depending on what source you subscribe to, and what year (2009 or 2010), they generally rank 7^th on the list, behind Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt and Sudan. In 2009, that amounted to almost $1 billion of American tax dollars. Meanwhile, we can all access the internet and watch their mobs in the street scream “Death To America!”

True, the money is designated for humanitarian assistance, but we all know how that actually works. Rarely, does foreign aid in any of these countries end up where it is meant for.

This vote not only shores up support for Israel as an ally and partner in world peace, it sends a powerful message to our president that we, the people of the United States, are not prepared to make unreasonable and disastrous demands upon Israel until the Palestinians show good will in recognizing Israel’s right to exist. President Obama’s recent announcement demanding Israel’s return to the 1967 borders has blown up in his face.

There were a total of 19 congressman who did not vote for the resolution. In other words, these 19 congressmen and women, in my view, basically sided with Hamas. Here are their names:

Voting against:

Dennis Kucinic, D – Oh

Nick Rahall, D – WV

Ron Paul – R – Tx

Walter Jones, D – NC

Eral Blumenauer, D – Or

Justin Amash, R – Mi

Voting Present: (all Democrats)

Lynn Woolsey

Barbara Lee

Fortney Stark

Maxine Waters

Andre Carson

Chellie Pingree

Donna Edwards

Keith Ellison

Betty McCollum

Eddie Johnson

James Moran

James McDermott

Gwen Moore

Five were unable to vote, i.e. Gabreille Giffords, etc.

For more information, access these links:

Click here: GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H. Res. 268:

Click here: United States foreign aid – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here: U.S. House passes resolution threatening to suspend aid to Palestinians

SOURCE:

 http://www.marshallfrank.com/articles/2011/07/bipartisan-congress-votes-to-cut-aid-to-palestinians/