Monday, January 23, 2012

Gingrich: Feel Free to Ask Questions, Probe and Judge My Extra-Marital Affairs, Just Not on National TV


Apparently Gingrich feels it is perfectly OK to ask about his affairs and marriages, except when they are in the national spotlight. Then it’s not OK

by Larry Simons
January 23, 2012

Not only is it despicable that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich received thunderous applause [from a so-called “religious” South Carolina audience] at the opening of the GOP debate on January 19 after laying into CNN anchor John King for opening the debate with questions about his extramarital affairs, it was also quite hypocritical of Gingrich to do so.

Gingrich appeared on a radio program in March of 2011, two months before he announced his presidential bid for the 2012 election, and stated to talk show host Bryan Fischer that asking questions about his marriages and affairs is a perfectly legitimate thing to ask someone who is seeking to be the leader of the country.

Gingrich said:

“First of all, it’s legitimate to have those concerns. That anybody who would seek to be your leader and have a job with the power and the responsibility of the Presidency, you should feel free to ask any question and to probe and to render a judgement about the total person.”

watch the clip


He adds:

“I have not sought to excuse any of my behavior. I have said that it was wrong. That I had to seek forgiveness. I didn’t seek explanation, I sought forgiveness. And I think that’s the only way you can approach that, uh, with a sense of integrity.”

My oh my, what ten months can do to a person’s integrity.

Last Thursday night, CNN’s John King opened up the debate by asking about Gingrich’s extramarital affairs. It seems that ole’ Newt has long abandoned his stance that “you should feel free to ask any question and to probe and to render a judgement about the total person”.

King asked Gingrich specifically about the fact that one of the former Speaker’s ex-wives, Marianne, alleged that Gingrich proposed to make their marriage an “open marriage”. Just incase anyone does not know the meaning of the term, it is better known as “swinging”. This did not sit too well with Uncle Newtie.

Gingrich hammered King by saying:

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

watch the clip


At this the “religious” South Carolina crowd erupted in thunderous applause. Oh but wait, Newtie. I thought it was “legitimate to have those concerns” and to “ask any question and to probe and to render a judgement about the total person”? I guess if there are millions of people watching, the rules change.

Gingrich then adds, “To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine”.

No, what is despicable is the fact that you are a flip-flopping hypocritical fraud Newtie. Two months before announcing to run for President, it was quite OK to ask about your extra-marital affairs, wasn’t it? But, once you get on a stage and millions of people are watching, then it is suddenly not OK to question your would-be leaders huh?

Gingrich claimed at the start of last Thursday’s GOP debate that the story is false. The problem with this is the fact that Gingrich admitted the story was true in 2007 during an interview with Focus on the Family. His ex-wife Marianne has stated it is true. Why would she lie? There is absolutely no motivation for her to make it up.

Gingrich is a true-blue scumbag. The people of South Carolina have God and religion stuck so far up their asses, that it has occupied the space where their brains should be. These fucksticks would invite O.J. Simpson to carve their Thanksgiving turkey if he simply claimed he found God.

Jon Stewart has a hilarious insight to this story as well

Friday, January 20, 2012

Debate Audience Protests CNN Attempts To Exclude Ron Paul


Crowd boos and jeers, demands Paul be allowed to answer

Steve Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
January 20, 2012

A remarkable scene unfolded during last night’s CNN hosted South Carolina debate when not once but twice, the audience had to intervene to ensure that Ron Paul be included in questions, as host John King [pictured, above] attempted to skip over the Congressman following answers from the other three candidates.

Even more remarkable was the fact that both times the questions were related to medical issues and Ron Paul is the only qualified doctor among all the candidates.

Between the sideshow of Newt Gingrich’s infidelity and yet more mudslinging and circus like back and forths between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, Ron Paul did his best to speak on real issues such as cutting foreign military spending, protecting the borders and the need to reform the government-run health care system.

However, when it came to two key questions it was left to the audience to remind the CNN anchors that Ron Paul was up on the stage and that voters wanted to hear him speak.

The first instance occurred when King somewhat reluctantly threw Ron Paul the question “would you repeal Obamacare?” following answers from the rest of the field.

To wild ironic cheering and whooping from the audience acknowledging that Ron Paul had finally been included in the question, the Congressman exclaimed “PHEW, I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and the doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something!”

watch the footage:


The second instance of CNN completely ignoring Paul occurred when King attempted to switch subjects from the issue of abortion without asking for Ron Paul’s thoughts.

“All right, let’s take another question,” King said after hearing from the other three candidates only. “Let’s take a question now from social media…”

Only when the audience began to boo and jeer, asking for Ron Paul to be afforded the opportunity to answer, did King allow the Congressman to speak.

“…before we move on, you want in on this issue?” King said to Paul, “They want you in on this issue…” King added, addressing the audience.

“John, once again, it’s a medical subject. I’m a doctor,” Paul protested, drawing cheers from the crowd before giving his thoughts.

watch the footage:


The blatant attempt by King and CNN to bypass Ron Paul, represents yet another example of the mainstream media downplaying and sidelining the only real anti-establishment candidate.

With Rick Perry having dropped out earlier in the day, there were just four candidates left on stage, yet Ron Paul was STILL afforded significantly less speaking time than his GOP rivals.

However, Paul still gave a strong performance, topping all the post debate analysis polling.

Following the debate, Congressman Paul sent an email to his supporters regarding his debate showing.

“My debate performance tonight is already turning heads.” Paul wrote. “What the crowd saw tonight was my opponents savaging each other over and over in a desperate attempt to defend their Big Government records. Me? I wasn’t touched once. Because quite frankly, I can’t be. I’ve spent 30 years fighting against establishment politicians – like my opponents – to finally put an END to politics as usual.”

watch all of Ron Paul’s answers below:



Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Ron Paul is Booed for Suggesting “Golden Rule” Foreign Policy in South Carolina, a State Tied for First in Highest Church-Attendance


South Carolina audience rejects “golden rule” foreign policy suggested by Ron Paul by booing him. Seems the pulpits in SC are spreading the gospel of “bomb the fuck out of your neighbor

by Larry Simons
January 17, 2012

In last night’s FOX News debate, Newt Gingrich and went head-to-head with Ron Paul on the topic of what should be done to America’s enemies. As Newt was trying to make his point that killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do, he brought up Andrew Jackson’s early service in the Revolutionary War.

Gingrich said:

“[Jackson] was sabered by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear cut idea about America’s enemies…kill them.”

At these words, the so-called religious South Carolina crown erupted with applause and several people were seen putting their fists in the air as to say, “yeah…kill them!”.

Ron Paul is then allowed to speak and begins to utter very strange words to a so-called religious South Carolina crowd…a suggestion to adopt the golden rule when it comes to foreign policy.

Paul said:

“My point is, if another country does to us what we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy.”

Here, a strange thing occurred. Right after Congressman Paul talks about a golden rule, the crown erupts with boos. That’s right, from the highest church-going state in America, South Carolina…boos for the golden rule. Wow. Then, within 20 seconds, the same crowd that just booed Ron Paul begins to cheer!

Paul continues:

“Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want have them do to us. So, we endlessly bomb these countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us? And yet, it continues on and on and on. This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy then all we have to do is start another war? I mean, it’s warmongering, building up for another war against Iran. People can’t wait to get into another war…this country doesn’t need another war, we need to quit the ones we’re in, we need to save the money and bring our troops home.”

At this, the crowd applauded. These South Carolinians are off their rocker. They boo the Biblical principle of the golden rule and applaud ending wars and bringing troops home.

A 2006 survey shows that South Carolina is tied for #1 for church attendance, yet Ron Paul is booed for suggesting that the United States develop a “golden rule” foreign policy. Why would the #1 church-attending state boo this?

The answer is clear: Religious people, above all others, make up the majority of those in this country who have the most warped concept of people in other countries and their different religions. It is Christians, above all, who want other religions wiped out and non-Christians bombarded with bombs. There is no other explanation for the reason why Ron Paul was booed about this issue than the one just provided.

watch the clip

Saturday, January 14, 2012

RTO Destroys Blog Post Linking Ron Paul to White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis


[above picture, Ron Paul, the "racist", with a black woman laughing]

Lie infested blog post is a litany of implicative, guilt-by-association propaganda jammed-packed with omissions, distortions and absolutely zero refutations. I debunk every single one

by Larry Simons
January 14, 2012

I ran across a blog page yesterday that included an article called, "Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters". It is written by yet another anonymous blogger on the site CafeMom.com who goes by the name "Kissy". Not surprisingly, she does not allow free commenting to her stories. You have to become a member. Her profile on the site is also set on private. Shocker.

After I began belly-laughing at the title of the story, I immediately went into debunk mode, because I knew it would be as easy scratching an itch on my ass.

The story includes 10 people who range from white supremacists and Neo-Nazis to cold-blooded killers, in whom "Kissy" miraculously ties to Ron Paul.

Also not surprising, what I found absolutely hilarious about this page is the fact that the writer, after each person's synopsis of why they are either racist or a nut, fails to mention either why some of the beliefs held by the person are erroneous, or fails to mention how the individual's obvious toxic ideologies are connected to Ron Paul.

It does not even take an educated person to spot how poor this article is written in the standpoint of defending her claims. The article is nothing but omissions of proof of her claims, guilt-by-association accusations and implications of certain beliefs about historical events to be offensive without informing her readers why the belief she is condemning is offensive.

Let's get to them, shall we? I will post the names she mentions, and include her text in dark red [in italics] and then my response will follow.


1. Under Willis Carto she says:

"Willis Carto is a holocaust denier, Hitler admirer and a white supremacist. A former campaigner for segregationist candidate George Wallace, Carto founded the National Alliance with William Pierce, the author of the “Turner Diaries,” which is credited for inspiring Timothy McVeigh. Carto founded the Populist Party in 1984 and ran David Duke as a presidential candidate."

God knows what all of the above has to do with Ron Paul, the writer omits that.

"Carto also founded the American Free Press, which is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), where Paul’s column runs."

I guess if the SLPC calls someone a hate group, that means they are. I have debunked them many times on my site.

"Paul has not sued Carto for running his column or explained how it wound up in a white supremacist publication."

Maybe he didn't know it was there????. What would the lawsuit be for?? Exactly what?

"The New York Times writes that Paul used the subscription list to a white supremacist publication of Carto’s to solicit donations."

Well, there you have it, the truth tellers NY Times have spoken! So it must be true!

Under Chuck Baldwin she says:

"Chuck Baldwin is a neo-Confederate New World Order conspiracy theorist who praises the confederacy and its leaders, Robert E. Lee andStonewall Jackson, and calls the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.”"

The writer fails to explain what exactly the bad thing is here. Baldwin is correct. The South was right. Notice how the writer does not refute it, but simply just lists the belief and its implication that it's erroneous??

The writer also omits the fact that one major belief among those who despise Lincoln is that Lincoln was a major racist who did not free one slave and wanted all blacks out of the country. That's fact. Lincoln's hero was Henry Clay, President and founder of the American Colonization Society, who wanted all blacks shipped to Liberia. Odd that Baldwin would be racist if he hates the racist Lincoln, huh?

"Baldwin writes a weekly column on the white supremacist site Vdare and is a proud supporter of American militia movements."

He writes it for the site or the site just posts his columns? Again, that is omitted. Also omitted is the fact the militias are permitted in our Constitution. We would not have established our country without militias. Why militias are bad...also omitted.

"Baldwin is also an Islamaphobe and homophobe."

The proof is omitted.

"Not only did Baldwin endorse Paul for president in 2007, but Paul returned the favor, endorsing Baldwin, who he calls his “friend,” for president in 2008."

Again, omitted is the fact that there is nothing wrong with this comment.

"While Paul was quick to criticize Michele Bachmann for her Islamaphobia, he has said nothing about Baldwin’s, the man he endorsed for president."

But where are the Islamaphobic statements? Omitted.

"Here are some choice quotes from Baldwin:

I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law."

One does not have to be homophobic to believe this. This could be a person's moral belief completely independent of being "homophobic".

"I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist."

Again, implied that this belief is wrong, yet the refutation of it is omitted. Baldwin is right, the South was right. They obeyed the Constitution.

"I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government and big business to steal America’s independence."

Again, another implication this is erroneous while the refutation is omitted.

"The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception."

This is true---but then again, all religions practically are. It's not an Islamaphobic statement.

Under Don Black she says:

"Don Black is a former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, a current member of the American Nazi Party, and the owner and operator of the white supremacist site Stormfront."

And?

"Black regularly organizes “money bombs” for Ron and Rand Paul and has even taken a picture with Ron Paul, who refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront even with the political tradition of not accepting donations from people who seem unfit."

Can Ron Paul control who endorses him? That means Ron Paul has the same beliefs as them?? Holy piss.

Ron Paul knew who Don Black was when posing for the picture? Is Ron Paul suppose to ask everyone before a photo is snapped, "Who are you and tell me everything you believe?" Insane.

Any proof that the money was donated under "STORMFRONT" rather than Don Black who RP may never have heard of? NOPE. NO proof. That is omitted.

"Black, who was sentenced to three years in jail for trying to overthrow the Caribbean country of Dominica in 1981, supports Paul through his Twitter account and on message boards for Stormfront."

What exactly is RP supposed to do about this? Assassinate the Twitter founder?

"Black told the New York Times that it was Paul’s newsletters that inspired him to be a supporter"

And? First of all no proof is out there that RP wrote them. Even if he did, is the writer suggesting that the source of inspiration should be the one charged with a crime? Then why did police not arrest and jail J.D. Salinger instead of Mark David Chapman for killing John Lennon? Chapman claims he was inspired by "The Catcher in the Rye".

Again...OMITTED.

Under Lew Rockwell she says:

"Lew Rockwell is a close friend and adviser of Paul’s who served as his congressional chief of staff between 1978 and 1982, worked as a paid consultant for Paul for more than 20 years, and was an editor and alleged ghost writer for his racist newsletters."

Proof? Omitted.

"Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship with."

This institute is about Austrian Economics! What is the implication about that? Where's the bad thing? OMITTED.

"The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is listed by the SPLC as a neo-Confederate organization. They also add that Rockwell said that the Civil War “transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order” and that the Civil Rights Movement was the “involuntary servitude” of (presumably white) business owners."

All true. Notice the writer fails to refute one word? [because they can't]

"Rockwell was listed as one of the racist League of the South’s founding members but denies membership."

Proof that it's racist? Omitted.

"Rockwell regularly posts articles on his website, attacking a New World Order conspiracy."

Again, the implication here is that this belief is wrong, but the refutation...omitted.

Under David Duke she says:

"David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Duke is also a New World Order conspiracy theorist who believes that Jews control the Federal Reserve."

Actually many do. Again, the implication that NWO conspiracy theories are bad...no refutation...it's omitted.

"On his website, Duke proudly boasts about the endorsements and kind words that Paul gave him in his newsletters and in turn endorses Paul for president"

Exactly how does this prove RP is racist?? Omitted.

Under Thomas DiLorenzo she says:

"Thomas DiLorenzo is another neo-Confederate who believes the South was right in the the civil war and that Abraham Lincoln was a wicked man who destroyed states’ rights."

They were, he was and he did. And once again, the writer does not refute this.

"DiLorenzo is listed as an affiliated scholar with the racist League of the South, which promotes segregation and a new southern secession."

Odd that DiLorenzo would be pro segregation when he devotes several chapters in his books to how racist Lincoln was. Odd for him to be racist whilst hating a racist. Hmmm.

"Paul invited DiLorenzo to testify before congress about the Federal Reserve and is close friends with Paul and works for the Ludwig Von Mises Instiute. Paul cited DiLorezno’s book when telling Tim Russert that the North should not have fought the Civil War."

Again, no mention at all of what is wrong with this, and zero refutation...zero. It's all just implication...devoid of refutation.

Under James Von Brunn she says: [This is the funniest yet]

"James Von Brunn was a white supremacist and anti-Semite who opened fired at the Holocaust museum, killing an African-American security guard. Von Brunn was an avid Paul supporter who posted a message on the Ron Paul Yahoo Group, saying, “HITLER’S WORST MISTAKE: HE DIDN’T GAS THE JEWS.”

Proof he was an avid RP supporter? The proof? OMITTED. Why would he say Hitler didn't gas the jews?? He DID!

"In 1983, Von Brunn was convicted of kidnapping members of the Federal Reserve Board, a common target of Paul’s, and was sentenced to six years in prison."

So he did this for Ron Paul, even though Paul has never said one, single solitary word about harming them? He only speaks of auditing them. I love how they use the phrase "target of Paul's" to create imagery to suggest RP would advocate Von Brunn's using force. Complete propagandised, psy-op bullshit.

Under William White she says:

"Bill White is a neo-Nazi who is a former member of of the neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Movement and founder of his own Nazi group, the National Socialist Worker’s Movement. He has called for the lynching of the Jena 6 and the assassination of NAACP leaders. White previously campaigned for Pat Buchanan and the Reform party. This year, White was convicted of threatening a juror but then freed by a judge who called the threats free speech. White is a former Ron Paul supporter who became disenfranchised with Paul, when a Paul spokesman called white supremacy “a small ideology.” Here is what White wrote about Paul on a popular white supremacist website:"

[the writer posts a long quote saying he has seen RP and his aides with members of stormfront and is mad that RP could call it a "small ideology]

What is hilarious about this is the writer basically answers their own question. The writer first admits White became upset at RP and White turns around and makes up claims that he has seen RP with these racist people.

Gee, did it ever occur to the writer that White wrote these words to denegrate RP for calling his movement "small"???

Nahhhhh.

Under Richard Poplawski she says:

"Richard Poplawski is a neo-Nazi from Pittsburgh who regularly posted on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Poplawski would post videos of Ron Paul talking about FEMA camp conspiracy theories with Glenn Beck."

Why is this Ron Paul's fault? Looks like another J.D. Salinger/Mark David Chapman guilt-by-association tactic again. I guess the writer has never heard of the fact that the camps exist. Ask Oliver North, who wrote the plans for them. Look up "Rex 84" on wikipedia.

"Polawski was afraid of a government conspiracy to take away people’s guns and wound up killing three police officers who came to his house after his mother made a domestic dispute call."

What exactly does that have to do with RP? Nothing.

Under Jules Manson she says:

"Jules Manson was a failed politician from Carson, Calif. Mason was also a big Paul supporter who would write, “I may be an athiest, but Ron Paul is my God,” on Paul’s website. Manson would also write, “Assassinate that n*gger and his family of monkeys,” of President Barack Obama."

I would like to hear what Manson's reaction was to RP saying Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are two of RP's heroes. Hmmm?? So, is the writer implying that if Manson uses the word "n*gger", he got it from RP? He may have got it from Mark Twain--he used the word in Tom Sawyer...why is no one blaming Mark Twain? No evidence RP ever used the word. Omitted.

"This is not guilty by association."

Are you fucking shitting me? This whole fucking page is guilt by association!

"Ron Paul has spread white supremacy on conspiracy theories for years in his newsletters."

The writer provides zero proof of this. Zero. NONE.

"The racism and conspiracy theories have driven some people to violence. Not only have Ron Paul’s racist supporters endorsed him and his views, he has endorsed them through his positions on the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, without disavowing the support he gets from racists. This is guilt by racism."

By being correct about the Civil War and that Lincoln destroyed states' rights and acted as dictator and invaded the South over an issue [secession] that the Constitution permits??

And as far as the Civil Rights movement goes, the writer is just plain ignorant on this issue. Ron Paul is not against Civil Rights. He is against government regulating hate, because it can't be done.

This is best summed up by someone who posted a comment under Andy Ostroy's article in December 2011:

"The Civil Rights Act is a Federal law which says no private business can discriminate. Paul's and any libertarian or freedom-concerned citizen's stance is that this is a violation of the constitutional right of what the Federal government can do. Can the government tell McDonald's to stop selling french fries to children? Can the government tell a small business owner that they can't open a cigar shop because it's discriminatory towards people who don't smoke? The government has NO right to tell a private business what they can do with their business or who they serve. The free market will decide who survives and who doesn't. If you hate a business owner because they are racist, just don't be their customer. Removing the Civil Right Act will no more make people more racist than legalizing drugs will make all people drug addicts. Laws cannot make people less racist. Individuals decide that on their own.

What business owner in their right mind would refuse to serve a large portion of potential customers? It's in their self-interest to make as much money as possible, otherwise, their competitors will put them out of business. And with Yelp, everyone can find out about such prejudices faster."

The writer omits this as well.

There you have it. All 10 debunked.

This might just be one of the worst articles I have ever read. It has nothing to do with the fact that I just diagree with 99% of it. It is because the writer makes accusation after accusation with absolutely no shred of proof. It is a smorgasbord of omitted facts, implication and guilt-by-association garbage. She would be the worst lawyer that ever lived if she took this exact same article into a courtroom.

If this is the lengths that people have to go to in order to smear Ron Paul, then it is very clear that there are truly people out there that abhor the Constitution and the sovereignty of this country [and not to mention just plain 100% brutish].

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Crooks and Liars Criticizes Ron Paul for Saying that Entitlements are Not Rights


It just so happens, Ron Paul is correct, and once again the writers on Crooks and Liars do not understand the Constitution……shocker!

by Larry Simons
January 10, 2012

A Crooks and Liars writer, who just goes under the name “David” [another chickenshit afraid to post their actual full name], has once again, ironically, lied in a story posted on Sunday titled, “Ron Paul: 'Entitlements Are Not Rights'”. The story points out that during Sunday’s NBC debate, Ron Paul, when asked by Andy Hiller, “In your opinion, what services are Americans entitled to expect to get from government?”, Ron Paul responded:

“Entitlements are not rights. Rights mean you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.

“Earlier on here, there was a little discussion about gay rights. I, in a way, don't like to use those terms: gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right: It's a right to your liberty.”

Then he added: “No, they're not entitled. One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys, the rich people, they get the entitlements, the military-industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.”

“David” then resorts to referring his readers to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of the word “right”, which is “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract”.

What “David” fails to grasp is the fact that this completely flies in the face of what the founders saw as a right. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano puts it brilliantly in his book, “It Is Dangerous to be Right, When the Government Is Wrong” when he says, “A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity.” These rights include “the right to life, the right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, the right to worship or not worship, the right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our property as we see fit and our right to be left alone”.

In other words, the government does not give us these things, so they cannot take them away.

Napolitano continues, “A right involves a sphere within which we are free to make our own decisions without any interference from the government, individuals or entities. If the government were to regulate any of our rights, we would lose our personhood. Rights ensure such a result will not happen”.

Social Security and Medicare are social programs provided by the government, therefore they, by definition, are not rights. Rights are not provided, so therefore rights cannot be taken away. They are, however, entitlements. They are entitlements because of the fact that [clarifying what I said above] American taxpayers actually pay into these programs so the government really is not providing the program, they are just regulating and micromanaging them.

The government does not even have the right to take our money away from us in order to pay for these programs. Our money is our property [something that cannot be taken away, but our government does anyway, violating our right to our property]. This is what Ron Paul meant when he said, “One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else”. Exactly right. That is what the government is doing. They take our money out of our checks to pay for these social programs which may or may not benefit us, yet the government takes our money [our property] away from us anyway in order to take care of another group who needs it. The taxpayer is robbed of their money even if that particular taxpayer never needs the program itself in their lifetime. The founders would have been vehemently against this.

Basically, in short, if it can be taken away and regulated by an outside entity, it is not a right. Entitlements can be taken way.

Above, I also said that rights are “God given” [quoting Napolitano]. In reality, “rights” really are not a religious issue. Napolitano adds on this subject:

“Nor is…natural rights a uniquely religious concept. The only premise one need accept is that humans are created; it is immaterial whether it is by God or by nature.”

“Just as pregnancy exists no matter how it is explained, the different explanations of the source of Natural Rights, God or rational humanity, do not change human’ possession of Natural Rights upon our entering into existence”.

Ron Paul was correct. Entitlements and rights are not the same thing. An entitlement, whether we feel is our “right” to receive the entitlement, is something that is regulated, controlled or micromanaged by an outside entity, such as a government. A right is that which is ours independent of an outside entity. Nothing can control it, regulate it or micromanage it but ourselves.

“David” should start reading the words of John Locke and abandon Noah Webster.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Ron Paul Doubles Vote Tally, Captures Equal Number of Delegates As Romney & Santorum


Paul runs establishment candidates close despite weeks of vitriolic smear attacks by corporate media

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 4, 2012

Ron Paul heads to New Hampshire having more than doubled his 2008 Iowa vote tally, secured an equal number of Republican delegates as Romney and Santorum, and is projected to beat Santorum into a strong second-placed finish in next week’s primary.



After weeks of intense and sustained smear attacks by the establishment media, during which Paul was labeled everything from “dangerous,” to “disgusting,” to “racist” and even called a “terrorist,” the Texan Congressman still managed to secure 26,219 votes compared to 11,841 votes in 2008 – finishing third behind Romney and Santorum.

Crucially, Paul has obtained an equal number of delegates to both Santorum and Romney – seven in total.

“Paul may actually be the real winner of the first Republican voting contest,” writes Grace Wyler. “That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.”

In comparison to Ron Paul doubling his tally, Mitt Romney received marginally less votes than he did in 2008 despite the millions of dollars his campaign spent in the state. Indeed, as Michael Brendan Dougherty notes, “75 percent of Republican Caucus-goers want someone that isn’t Mitt Romney – a result that reflects polls nationwide.” Romney is also expected to perform poorly in the southern states, where his brand of big government isn’t welcomed.

Saying he was the recipient of “one of three tickets out of Iowa,” Paul noted that Rick Santorum’s surprise showing is highly unlikely to be replicated anywhere else, and that he and Romney were the top two going into next week’s primary.

Santorum received a blow on the eve of voting yesterday when his own nephew penned an op-ed warning that his uncle was “another big-government politician who supports the status quo,” urging people to vote for Ron Paul.

Although Romney is the clear frontrunner in New Hampshire, Paul is currently running a strong second according to the New York Times’s caucuses projection. Paul is forecast to take 19.1 per cent of the vote, with Santorum significantly behind with just 5.2 per cent of the projected vote.

Two recent polls out of New Hampshire also show Paul holding down a strong second-placed finish, with Santorum nowhere to be seen. Paul is also forecast for a 3rd place finish in South Carolina and Florida behind Gingrich and Romney.

“We’ve had success reintroducing some ideas Republicans have needed for a long time. And that is the conviction that freedom is popular,” Paul said in his speech last night. “Let’s go back to to this real old fashioned idea, this dangerous idea: let’s obey the Constitution,” he added, urging his supporters to press on to New Hampshire with renewed momentum.