If you're sitting there, shivering from having sat out in the cold for so long, here's a little holiday cheer!
Remember when Ron Paul was caught at one debate with his eyebrow rug slipping? Maybe he was merely channeling his inner Don Ameche, and was planning on a fake mustache that ended up high and outside?
So, here at Proof Positive, we're all about putting things right. Hence, we moved the fake eyebrow to a spot under his nose, where it clearly belonged:
Neoliberal is a term I don't remember having heard before. When Jeffrey Lord was quoted by Doug Ross as saying...
The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present.
...it resonated with something I had been contemplating for the last week or so, namely, how fervent Paul supporters are nearly indistinguishable from liberals when they visit conservative websites. Liberals and Paulbots are about the only two groups in the nation that lump all conservatives indiscriminately under the same label, as "Neocons", a term which they use (inaccurately) with great derision. Aside from the fact that I doubt more than a mere fraction of them actually know what a "neoconservative" is, they think using it makes them sound more intelligent. It doesn't.
Secondly, liberals and Paulbots, after they have insulted us liberally (pun intended), go on to tell us how crappy all of our candidates are. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And in the marketplace of ideas, if some people choose to insult their opponents in lieu of actual arguments, that's their choice.
And third, they all seem to cling to the same cookie cutter Conservative caricatures rather than address the substance of what is being discussed.
I have long thought it odd, however, just how insulting Paul supporters have been towards conservatives, rather than trying to convince them to join their cause. More flies with honey than vinegar, don'tcha know?
But, divide and conquer is as old as mankind. If say, a George Soros type wanted to fund a fringe candidate, and encourage him to run whether or not he received the nomination of his party. And let's say you send out your followers to attempt to split the conservative vote, but not by supporting anyone who actually has a prayer of a chance of beating your liberal candidate next November,how exactly would that look any different from the campaign Paul is running now?
Now, I'll throw in the following disclaimer. I am in no way saying that there is a conspiracy or that the Ron Paul campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, I'm just asking if it was, how would you tell the difference?
Fox News took a poll of Republican presidential candidates:
Newt Gingrich 23% Mitt Romney 22% Herman Cain 15% Ron Paul 8% Rick Perry 7% Michele Bachmann 6% Jon Huntsman 3% Rick Santorum 2%
I mention this, in part, because I hear that certain individuals are claiming that Ron Paul somehow is polling in first place. The phrase "in your dreams" comes to mind!
Newt Gingrich has catapulted to the front of the race for the 2012 Republican nomination while Herman Cain has lost ground with GOP primary voters. Mitt Romney, once again, is holding steady.
A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows Gingrich’s support doubling in the last three weeks. He stood at 12 percent in late October -- before the Cain harassment allegations and Rick Perry’s “oops” debate. Now the former House speaker is at 23 percent, essentially tied for the lead with Romney, with 22 percent.
Remember Pimping for Paul? The brothel in Nevada that featured a two for one special to raise money for the soon to prove impotent (pun intended) Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign:
Now, the fund raising effort, Pin Ups for Paul, revolves around less skin and presumably, fewer "happy endings".
Since we hold no hard feelings, and failed Presidential campaigns cost money too, here's what you might expect from a Pin Up for Paul calendar. (Note: If the cover is a Photoshop, it's not mine, though I question the wisdom of the frilly shirt.)
I heartily recommend that all you Paul supporters buy a calendar. That way, when your candidate fails in the primaries, you'll know what day to stay home on, come election day.
Some people are going to characterize my last post as an "attack" on Paul. The last time I criticized Paul, one of his defenders said it was obvious to him that I just didn't like Paul, and I should be more honest and just "right" (sic) that.
Do I like Paul, personally? Yes. His views on the Constitution as they apply to domestic policy and the deficit are first rate. I have praised him for his stance defending the Second Amendment. So why the criticism? I like Ron Paul, but I love my country.
Whether or not I like Ron Paul has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is qualified to be the next Leader of the Free World. Although he says he would bring the troops home to strengthen our borders, he has exhibited a very dismissive attitude in our allies defending theirs. He characterizes Israel's fight for survival as a "squabble" with their enemies.
He has said he will treat all countries equally, which, if we take him at his word, would mean that we would trade with North Korea, Iran and China identically to the way we trade with Great Britain, Canada and Israel. A Neo-isolationist is not one who cuts off all trade, but one who seeks to retreat behind a fence and and trust that the rest of the world will not deteriorate or mount a world wide threat that would be too massive to stop if we wait until it is on our doorstep.
America is the de facto leader of the free world. We can lead by example and by taking proactive measures when they are prudent and called for. Does this mean we need every military base we currently support around the globe? Probably not. Does this mean we don't need any? How naive can one get?
We give preferential treatment to our allies. We share military technology with them and give pledges of mutual aid because we have mutual goals. We don't depose dictators with overtures of friendship.
Will Rogers said that diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" while looking for a large enough rock. Ron Paul doesn't seem that fond of rocks.
Aside from the distraction of waiting to see of his eyebrow would slip and fall again, I listened to Chris Wallace's interview with Ron Paul on Fox News Sunday. Aside from his glossing over the isolationist charges against him by narrowly focusing only on trade, he revealed how the US would "intervene" in foreign affairs in a Ron Paul administration.
He doesn't want to use predator drones, because he claims that collateral damage "creates ten times as many enemies" for the US than they take out.
He doesn't want to use troops, but rather bring them all home. All of them.
He doesn't want to use sanctions, because, as in Iraq, "little kids couldn't get medicine".
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Back the truck up! This is the same argument liberals used back when Uncle Saddam was in power, to try to get the US to lift sanctions against Iraq, and it was a lie then, too.
In those days, most of the reporting in Iraq came with a price. Aside from the cash that "journalists" would pay for access to the country, a representative of Saddam's repressive government would accompany any journalist or documentarian and monitor the answers to any questions asked. This was also a time when the rape rooms and Abu Ghraib were run by people who genuinely tortured and killed the prisoners there. So, the sampling was "skewed" to say the least. People did not tell the truth for fear of their lives. Even CNN bravely admitted (after the dictator was gone) that they had censored themselves lest Saddam proclaim them persona non grata.
But let's examine the leftie lie that Ron Paul seems to have bought into, that "little kids couldn't get medicine". Was it that there was no money to buy medicine for children? U.N. Security Council Resolution 986 allowed Iraq to sell enough oil to buy medicine. We know that Uncle Saddam, dear grandfatherly Uncle Saddam, had millions of dollars to build and furnish lavish new palaces. Millions for luxury but not one thin dime for sick children? This was a political calculation of a ruthless and heartless dictator. He used the suffering of sick children, giving copious access to allow photos and video of sick children to leave the country, to tug on the heartstrings of the West and try to manipulate the West into lifting sanctions. (Videos of suffering children may have been Iraq's second biggest export during the sanctions.)
Was it that there was no medicine to be found that could be made available to sick children? After the liberation of Iraq, there was at least one warehouse that was found stacked to the rafters with medicine set aside for Saddam's so-called Republican Guard.
*Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished...
*Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.
*Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas.
Saddam Hussein’s priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq’s resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.
There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government
*Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.
*Saddam’s priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq’s citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq’s resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.
This ain't bean bag, Mr. Paul. If you want to strengthen your flaccid reputation on foreign policy, you might want to start by getting your facts straight. How much "medicine for little kids" could you get for the price of 47 of those 48 palaces? If children did not have medicine in Iraq, it was because a brutal dictator denied it to them. A dictator who was removed, by the way, by the use of force, by those troops you never would have sent. But, according to you, you would have traded with Saddam and would have been his "friend". Yeah. That would have worked!
You can't have it both ways, Congressman. If you want to tug on our heartstrings about little kids who can't get medicine because of our big mean sanctions, how about we mention the kids' mothers who were raped by Saddam and his sons, their fathers who were killed because they did not toe the tyrant's line, and their playmate who were gassed because they were born to the wrong parents?
The report card on Ron Paul still stands: Domestic policy A+, Foreign policy F- .
My apologies to all you Ron Paul fans out there, but cold hard facts are cold hard facts.
You know, I missed the Republican debate the other night. In case you did too, the most significant part of the debate, evidently, was...Ron Paul's vanity.
I know they say that "image is everything", but false eyebrows? Really??
I don't know if "bushy eyebrow envy" should disqualify anyone from the office of the president, but if SNL doesn't have someone with their fake eyebrows falling off by this Saturday, they aren't trying hard enough!
GOP presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul took first in a presidential straw poll Saturday at the 2011 Values Voter Summit, an annual conference of social conservatives by the Family Research Council.
Paul won handily with 37 percent of the vote — a regular occurrence for Paul, whose supporters often flood straw polls for him. Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain came in second with 23 percent, while Rick Santorum came in third with 16 percent at the weekend summit.
As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is an honest man. Which is why it is somewhat surprising that some of his followers are, shall we say, less than scrupulous when it comes to Internet polls for their candidate? Let's face it. I believe that most of us have seen poll after poll that Ron Paul "won", that in no way reflected the reality of actual support he could count on on election day. I watched one debate back in 2008*, where Paul was the only candidate sounded booed by the studio audience during the debate, who supposedly "won" the internet poll on who won the debate by a large margin.
So, why are they stuffing the ballot box on Internet polls if it doesn't translate to electoral votes? I believe their motive is to make the support for their candidate appear larger than it really is, in hope of growing that support through the "bandwagon" effect. That is to say, one sees a large number of people doing something (or supporting someone) and in seeking to conform to the group, they "jump on the bandwagon" to go the same direction they believe everyone else is headed in.
So, how does this tie a small group of computer literate Paul supporters to the dirty hippies protesting in the streets of New York and elsewhere? People trying to make the movement appear larger than it actually is.
A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.
...TheDC asked that organizer whether he was paying the group to attend the protest, and he conceded that some protesters “aren’t” volunteers.
“Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t,” he explained. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”
Rather than inflating poll numbers, Occupy Wall Streeters are inflating the number of people "spontaneously" showing up to protest with what we used to call "rent-a-mobs". Even many of the protesters who weren't paid really had no idea why they were there. Even one organizer in Sacramento said he was waiting for his "message team" to get back to him as to what they were really protesting.
The Tea party rallies I have attended didn't need to rely on rent a mobs for their numbers. Instead of paying people to attend, many of us shelled out money from our own pockets to attend. I flew to Vegas at my own expense to catch the 2009 Tea Party Patriot rally which kicked off the cross country bus tour. And I guarantee you that every one there who had a sign or a flag, knew exactly what it meant.
They didn't need that much in the way of a police presence to control the crowds either, because the crowds were not out of control. No one took a dump on a police cruiser, nor would it have ever occurred to anyone there, either!
If you are zealous for some cause or candidate, that's not a bad thing. Whenever you have to lie or exaggerate the support for your cause or candidate, it is a tacit admission that either he or it is not as great as you make it out to be.
Rep. Ron Paul scored a decisive victory Saturday in a mock presidential election at the Values Voter Summit, trouncing fellow Texan, Gov. Rick Perry, but an organizer of the straw poll suggested ballot-stuffing may have skewed the results.
In a press conference following the announcement of the straw poll results at the annual Washington gathering of social conservatives, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins all but dismissed the results as irrelevant, citing 600 people who registered Saturday morning and, he said, "left after Ron Paul spoke."
A total of 1,983 ballots were cast. "You do the math," Perkins said.
* As opposed to being booed by the audience in a presidential debate during the present election cycle.
Just briefly, because I really want to understand these things, but a lot is being made of the fact that the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the US.
And Ron Paul has assured us that terrorism is caused because of our presence in their country... so if Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the US, does this mean we have to leave the US?
And if so, where do we go? Hmmmm. That would make for an interesting campaign slogan:
What's the difference between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich? Kucinich has a hotter wife!
Just as you thought Ron Paul could not come up with anything wackier than he's already come up with, he doubles down on "There's-no-way-anyone-can-imagine-me-winning-this-election"!
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.
Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.
For those Paulbots living in a cave somewhere, Kucinich is considered one of the least serious and most flaky members of Congress. And don't get him started on UFOs! Oh, and did we mention he's a Democrat?
If Doctor Paul wants to reach across the aisle to make for a more bipartisan administration, the aisle he wants to reach across should not have been featured prominently in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
Unfortunately for Paul supporters, this is not the first time Paul has been booed in a Republican candidates debate. Fox held one in 2008. As I recall, Paul won the online poll even though he had been booed for his comments at the podium.
Congressman Ron Paul made an all too cutesy point about inflation and the price of silver in tonight's debate. So cute, he thought, that he fought to get in the punch line:
"Did you know that you can still get a gallon of gas for a dime?"
Drum roll, please....."a silver dime!" He went on to try to make a point about inflation.
Okay, but can you really buy a gallon of gas for the cost of a silver dime? I checked two different sites,and found the price of silver in a silver dime to be between $2.97 - $3.01.
I bought gas this afternoon, and in my area, gas was going for $3.859 to $3.97.
Like his performance in the debate, Ron Paul's dime comes up a little short. Like a good politician, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Ron Paul was on Fox News Sunday this AM. On the whole, he said a lot of good things about Obama's Libyan Misadventure and how we cannot know at this time whether or not Quaddafi's successor will be better or worse than he was. Paul goes on and equates all of our foreign policy as if it were the same as in Libya, and this is sadly not the case. And even parts of that he gets wrong.
"The current situation in Libya may be a short term victory for Empire, but it is a loss for our American Republic."
Note the unfortunate and incorrect usage of the word "Empire" (I'm assuming he's talking about the U.S.)
empire: a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
Could I get a list of nations from you, Mr. Paul, of those nations absorbed by the U.S. Empire? Japan, Germany and Italy were conquered by the allies in WWII. We have troops stationed in each of those countries to this day (The wisdom of that can be debated another time.) Are those countries part of our "Empire"? Do they pay tribute to us? Do we rule over them?
Historically, empires seize the resources of conquered nations. That is why to this day, we are pumping American oil out of Kuwait and Iraq. No, wait! We aren't??
Because we are not an "Empire". We have influence around the world and with other countries and I see no problem with that. We support the cause of freedom around the world. We support our democratic allies. But, we have no "colonies", nor are we seeking any. Our military actions, at least in the past, have all come with an "exit strategy". You should look that up, Mr. Paul. Empires don't have "exit strategies" when they invade other countries. They plan for continual occupation. Our strategies of "occupation" have to do with the stability and integrity of the countries before we exit. So when he says things like "We can't afford the Empire", is he serious and mistaken, or merely careless with his words?
Speaking of that, did you note the use of his word "silly"? Speaking of the US dealing with Qaddafi (after he "admitted that his country had been trying to develop a broad arsenal of unconventional weapons, and he promised to dismantle them up and submit to international inspections"-NYT):
"But, why is it that we started doing business with him five years ago? Was that a good thing? I think that was silly, too."
"Silly", Mr. Paul? The lesson Qaddafi learned after the Iraq war, was that dictators with WMDs did not "live long and prosper". After renouncing his WMDs and allowing international inspections, why shouldn't we at least move tentatively to encourage those types of reforms? The fact that he had renounced weapons of mass destruction spoke well for leaving him in place, rather than roll the dice that the next government might be worse and we may have helped to put them there. On this, we agree. But, I shudder to think of our next president standing toe to toe with some foreign leader and telling him "That's just silly". Presidents (and candidates for president) ought not to be careless in their language.
And while we're on the subject, I have mentioned before Paul's use of the word "squabble" to describe Israel's fight for its very survival. I think if I were the Israeli Prime Minister, faced with a Paulian presidency, I would begin to explore options to wage the war more aggressively with my neighbors, knowing I could not count on the U.S. to "watch my back". (Kind of like it is now with Obama, only worse.)
Paul claims that a "telltale" of his support is measured by the volume of contributions from active military duty personnel.
"Because of my foreign policy, I get more donations from active military duty people."
Maybe. Or maybe they, like many others, value your position on the Constitution. Active military personnel have volunteered to put their lives on hold and their lives on the line to uphold the Constitution. They, like you, hold it in high regard. But, unless he has received correspondence from a majority of those contributors saying that it is his foreign policy views that prompted them to give, then perhaps his assumption is unfounded.
I noted another, minor, unfounded assumption in his anecdote about Mises. When asked about a country in economic crisis, Ludwig von Mises was asked if he were the leader of that country, what would he do. He said, "I'd quit". Paul took this to mean "in other words, take your hands off it". Only that wasn't what he said. He didn't say he'd reduce government activity, he said he'd "quit". The most likely reasons are, if he was the leader who was responsible for the disaster that befell his nation, he broke it and should not have the authority to break any more, or that he assumed the office with the country in disastrous financial shape and he wouldn't want to be blamed for it. The most likely explanation was, it was a joke, as in, "Why would I want to take on those kinds of headaches?"
If Mises saw that the solution was less government intervention, and he was in a position to make it happen, why would he "quit"? To borrow a phrase from a prominent candidate for president, that's just silly!
Finally, the scariest part of his remarks go to the heart of the Global War on Terror.
"They (American service personnel) don't want perpetual war, when they are undeclared and you don't see the end and you don't know who the enemy is..."
Mr. Paul: No one wants a perpetual war, declared or not, where you don't see the end and you don't know who the enemy is. But, that is the war that has been forced upon us, it was not of our choosing. Al-Qaeda is not a country with a defined border. We cannot defeat them and give their government our terms of peace. And if al-qaeda were wiped off the map tomorrow, that doesn't mean we would be forever free from fanatical terrorists. It has been said that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom". There's something mighty perpetual in the word "eternal". Just as it applies to our Constitution, it applies to our national security. If we can utilize the military to root out camps and enclaves of extra-national terrorists, then we should do so, and let the host nations know that if they willingly shelter terrorists within their borders, that those actions have dire consequences.
To the extent that Obama's KMA in Libya was an undeclared war, I agree with Paul 100%. But the alternative isn't a wholesale withdrawal to our nation's borders, but rather a judicious examination of our military's mission around the world and eliminate that which does not serve the purpose. But, as long as terrorists fight without uniform or flag, we will not always know our enemy, and we will not see the end in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we give up the fight or make a temporary, and ultimately futile, retreat to our borders. Whenever possible, we must carry the fight to the terrorists, and support our allies in their struggles for freedom and self determination.
Paul has said we will treat all countries alike. I cannot see treating Britain and Israel like Libya or Iran. The battle to defeat Western civilization is a global conflict. No nation on the planet is better equipped than this one to provide leadership in that conflict. It is not the path of Empire, but of preservation. The survival of our democratic allies can aid us in our battle top preserve our values and our way of life. Like the word "empire", I don't think Mr. Paul understands that.
Mr. Paul: I salute your attempts to uphold the Constitution, but your foreign policy? If it weren't so deadly serious, I'd call it "silly", too. But, it remains the main reason you will never be president.
Would you like to??? Do the Republicans need their own "Move On"?
Showing all the class that they are known for, a Ron Paul supporter is adopting the Barack Obama tactic of digging up dirt on one's opponents in lieu of actually having confidence in the superiority of your candidate's ideas.
An Austin Ron Paul supporter has taken out a full-page ad in the local alt weekly newspaper seeking any "stripper ... escort ... or 'young hottie'" who has slept with Rick Perry, part of his single-minded jihad against the presidential candidate.
Robert Morrow describes himself as a "self-employed investor and political activist" as well as a three-time delegate to the Texas state GOP convention.
"Have you ever had sex with Rick Perry?" blares the ad, placed by Morrow in this week's Austin Chronicle. "Are you a stripper, an escort, or just a 'young hottie' impressed by an arrogant, entitled governor of Texas? Contact CASH, and we will help you publicize your direct dealings with a Christian-buzzwords-spouting, 'family values' hypocrite and fraud."
CASH is the Committee Against Sexual Hypocrisy, of which Morrow is president. "Is it a real group? No. It's just me," he told Salon earlier this week.
"Is it a real group? No. It's just me," Too funny! A guy willing to lie about some mythical morality group wants to criticize someone else for their morals...if only he can dig up the dirt. Mr. Morrow: We know you're a liar. Is lying one of your "family values"?
I want all of Ron Paul's supporters to hold their breath until their candidate condemns this ad. They're going to look a lot like that movie Avatar, or maybe the Smurfs.
