IMackGroup

Math + Quant Finance

Contact us ←

Biography: IMackGroup provides mathematics edutainment and quantitative finance products and services.

My Social Profile

Breakdown of Candidates for President: Dr. Ron Paul Gets Best Review

February 18, 2012 0 Comments

Final Breakdown of the Republican candidates for President

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 · POSTED IN NEWSOPINION
http://1787network.com
 

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are cut from the same cloth as Bush and Obama.  If one of them were to be elected president, they would undoubtedly maintain the destructive status quo and add to it in their own “special” ways.  If you’ve watched the republican debates and have more than cursory, mainstream media knowledge of them, you know this is true.  Their records prove these men cannot be trusted.  And, beyond the trust issue, if you examine their records and positions closely, they are downright scary.

It’s also important to mention that only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are able to be on the ballot in all 50 states.  Essentially, if you vote for Gingrich or Santorum you very well may be throwing it away from a delegate standpoint.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is a “politician” in the worst sense of the word. As his past has demonstrated, he will do and say just about anything in order to get elected. The positions he has taken during this campaign season have been carefully calculated to help him win both the Republican nomination and the general election.

That is why so many call Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper.”   Romney will take just about any political position if he thinks that it will help him. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, once made the following statement about her husband: “He can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s really believing his argument, but he’s not.”

Bottom line: Romney cannot be trusted, and that alone should be enough to dismiss his candidacy.  Even his own party (the GOP establishment) doesn’t want him.  They’ve made themselves a laughing stock by propping up numerous “anti-Romney” candidates (Pawlenty, Bachmann, Cain, Perry) with hopes that one of them will stick, only to see them all fall.

Mitt Romney is trying to claim that he is looking out for the American people, but those claims simply are not true.  Here are some reasons why:

- In a recent republican debate, Romney said he would have signed the unconstitutional NDAA.  Romney’s record shows he does NOT have, as he puts it, “sufficient character to not abuse the power of the presidency.”  Besides, anyone signing or claiming they’d sign such legislation is not fit to be President of the United States.

- Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress. Mitt Romney says that he would repeal Obamacare (Why should we trust him?  Has he earned it?), but the reality is that Romneycare was what Obamacare was based on. In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare.

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft Obamacare.

Mitt Romney continues to defend Romneycare, but the reality is that it really is a total nightmare for Massachusetts:

• Everyone must buy health insurance or face tax penalties equal to 50% of cost of standard policy.

• Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent.

• Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion per year to more the $9 billion.

• Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

• Businesses with 11 or more workers that do not offer insurance must pay a fee of $295 per employee.

All of that certainly sounds a whole lot like Obamacare. A debate between Romney and Obama over mandated healthcare would be a very short and funny joke.

- Republicans are pounding Barack Obama on the Solyndra fiasco, but while Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts also picked some winners and losers with energy subsidies.  And, like Obama, some of the companies Romney’s State invested in came out on the losing end.  If the federal government shouldn’t be betting on one company rather than the other, then neither should the state of Massachusetts.  Where do the similarities between Obama and Romney end??

- Mitt Romney’s record shows he is NOT a defender of the 2nd Amendment.  As usual, he has flip-flopped on this is issue.  As Governor of Mass., he had a solid record of pursuing gun control measures.  He stated that his views did not line up with the NRA.  When he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he made the following statement:

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts - I support them…I believe they help protect us and provide for our safety.”

However, after initiating his Presidential campaign in 2007, Governor Romney joined the NRA with a lifetime membership. He asserted in a taped speech that he supported 2nd Amendment rights for all legal purposes, including the common defense.  Romney will say anything to get elected.  He cannot be trusted.

- Romney is very hawkish on foreign policy.  More accurately: he’s a “chickenhawk” who avoided the draft through “deferments” during the Vietnam War – happy to send you and your children to die in unjustifiable wars designed to make the rich even richer, but he made sure he never went and would never send his children to go.  Aside from the moral implications of his behavior, we cannot afford endless wars, and Romney will surely continue the same Bush/Obama destructive foreign policy.

- During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. According to a CBS News article, Romney’s efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million.  The same article also notes that Romney substantially jacked up “fees and fines” on Massachusetts taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.  Peter Nicholas, the chairman of Boston Science Corporation, says that “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.”

Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Mitt Romney.  An advocate of smaller government he most definitely is not.

- Mitt Romney had a horrible record of creating jobs while governor of Massachusetts.  Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends writes, “according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth.  Fourth from last.  The only ones that did worse?  Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana.  In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane. ”

- Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts.  When the time comes for more Wall Street bailouts it seems almost certain that Romney will bail them out again.

- According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney has raised more money from lobbyists than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

- Mitt Romney’s administration destroyed emails, purchased hard drives, and otherwise obliterated all digital records of his time as governor of Massachusetts. This happened as Romney was leaving the state to campaign for president (the first time), and observers immediately speculated that the systematic destruction was politically motivated to hide embarrassing data.  What the hell was this guy trying to hide??

- Mitt Romney is a big time Wall Street insider.  It is estimated that Romney has a personal fortune of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and Wall Street money is being absolutely showered on his campaign.  Mitt Romney is getting far more money from the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup) than all of the other Republican candidates combined.  It is quite obvious that the “establishment” is in love with Mitt Romney.

- During his time at Bain Capital, Romney made millions upon millions of dollars practicing what many consider to be “vulture capitalism” – buying up companies and tearing them down for profit, putting a lot of people out of work and destroying a lot of lives.  This controversial documentary claims to accurately chronicle some of those pursuits.  It’s said that vulture capitalism is a necessary part of business, because it “cleanses” the system.  That may be true, but one must wonder what type of person it takes to do that job.  Is a person capable of that kind of emotional detachment and cold disregard for the American worker what we want in a President?

- In a recent CNN interview, Romney said, “I’m not concerned with the very poor.”  He went on to say there is a safety net in place for them, and if there are holes that need repairing, he’ll take care of it.  He said his primary concern is with the middle class.  It’s nice that Mitt wants to help the middle class, but why does he make a distinction?  If he wants to create an environment conducive to job creation, doesn’t he think everyone could and should benefit?  His comments insinuate that either the very poor are content to stay at the bottom of the safety net, or they are doomed to remain there regardless.  Doesn’t he understand that there are many hard-working Americans in this country who are a paycheck or two away from being very poor?  Doesn’t he realize that there are many very poor people who would love nothing more than to work their way out of their circumstances if given the chance?  His comments remind me of the $10,000 bet he tried to make with Rick Perry during one of the Republican debates.  Romney is clearly out-of-touch with the average American.  His rhetoric is ignorant at best and quite insensitive at worst.  He just doesn’t get it.

Who is Mitt Romney??  Where does he truly stand on the issues?  No one really knows, because he flip-flops so often.  What we do know is if the American people elect Mitt Romney, they will get someone:

  • who is willing to sign NDAA into law,
  • who has no backbone,
  • who will say anything to get elected,
  • who is manufactured to maintain the rotten status quo – just another fake polished phony,
  • who lacks integrity, principle and consistency,
  • who blows with the political winds like a weather vane,
  • who will keep us perpetually at war,
  • who believes in big spending, big government, bank bailouts, health care mandates, gun control laws, burying the truth and making things as comfortable for the fat-cats on Wall Street as possible.


Newt Gingrich

Where to begin with this “serial hyprocrite”

With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt Gingrich is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.  Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.  Gingrich is a big time Washington insider who believes in individual health care mandates, who supported the bailouts, who was instrumental in cramming NAFTA down the throats of the American people and who is either soft or wrong on just about every single issue that conservatives care about.

His personal life has a history of being a mess, his finances have a history of being a mess and his campaign was such a mess a few months ago that most observers considered his candidacy to be completely dead.  He has a reputation for erratic, inconsistent and unpredictable behavior.

Newt the “historian” wows them on the debate stage at times.  He loves riling up the crowd by pseudo-intellectually deflecting, distracting or avoiding giving direct answers and presenting himself as a poor widdle media victim.  The man is a disingenuous, pompous, slippery, hypocritical, dangerous megalomaniac.  It really boggles the mind that anyone would fall for his act and truly consider voting for someone with such a nightmarish track record.

Some facts about Newt you may have forgotten

Highlights:

- In college, Gingrich began admiring the works of Alvin Toffler, a futurist who believes the American Constitution is outdated.  Gingrich has continued to admire and promote Alvin Toffler throughout his career, even putting Toffler’s book, The Third Wave, on a book list he recommended for members of the House when he became Speaker.

- Gingrich was Southern Regional Director of the Nelson Rockefeller Presidential campaign in 1968.  Rockefeller supported big-government, socialist programs.

- Gingrich avoided the draft during the Vietnam war and was later accused of draft-dodging, which he denies. Fact is, like Romney, he is another “chickenhawk.”  He’s eager to send others off to die in unjustifiable wars, but he would not go himself.  This exchange between Gingrich and Ron Paul at one of the Republican debates says it all.

- In the 1980′s Gingrich voted, numerous times, to raise the debt ceiling.  Gingrich loves to engage in anti-bureaucrat, anti-tax, conservative rhetoric, but his words never match his record.

- In 1987, Gingrich co-sponsors H.R. 1934, to implement the infamous & unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine”.  Gingrich now claims he only wanted the Fairness Doctrine to hinder left-wing networks.  Ronald Reagan ultimately vetoed the legislation.

- In 1988, Gingrich wanted Republicans to move away from Reaganism.  Gingrich now repeatedly mentions Ronald Reagan positively, to improve his standing among conservatives.  Um…yeah, to get the nomination!  Here’s what Gingrich really thinks of Reagan.

- In 1993, Gingrich preached NAFTA and whipped Republicans into supporting it.  Gingrich later said NAFTA was good because it created jobs in Mexico, not the U.S.

- In 1994, Gingrich supported the GATT Treaty, surrendering sovereignty to the U.N.

- Newly sworn in Speaker Gingrich speaks positively of FDR and his socialist New Deal.  Gingrich has repeatedly called FDR the greatest President of the 20th century.

- Never a champion of the 2nd Amendment, Gingrich earned a “D” rating from the Gun Owners of America in 1996 for his support of the Lautenberg Gun Ban among other such legislation to curtail 2nd Amendment rights.

- In 1997, a Republican congress fined Gingrich a record $300,000 for ethics violations.  Gingrich eventually left the Speakership “under a cloud.”

- In 2005, Gingrich calls for the DNA testing of all US citizens.

- In 2008, Gingrich says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.

- Not only has Gingrich been a long-standing proponent of a federal health insurance mandate, he clearly and unequivocally called for it as part of the White House health reform initiative in May 2009.

- Gingrich has been married three times.  He allegedly committed repeated adultery with younger women during his first two marriages.  He allegedly divorced his first wife while she had cancer. Source  He allegedly divorced his second wife while she had multiple sclerosis.  Source

- After leaving his first wife, Gingrich has been accused of refusing to pay alimony and child support to speed up the divorce process.  His wife had to take Newt to court to get money out of him, and her Baptist church needed to take up a collection to get his kids food and prevent the utilities from being cut off. Source  I am unaware of Gingrich ever having issued an apology for this behavior.

- Newt, when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on family values: “It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered.  “People need to hear what I have to say.  There’s no one else who can say what I can say.  It doesn’t matter what I live.”
Source: John H. Richardson. “Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican.” Esquire.com. 8/10/2010.

Newt the “Lying Corporate Lobbyist”

There are few things any current candidate has done more hypocritical than Newt’s corporate lobbying work for the mortgage giant Freddie Mac.  You see, Newt has publicly attacked Freddie Mac for years, blaming it for the 2008 housing crash.  Then we found out that they paid him $1.6 million, as he went around and tried to convince Republicans to vote for Freddie Mac’s favorite bills (and against regulations on them).  Newt denies he was lobbying — because his work didn’t meet some technical definitions of lobbying — and claimed, ridiculously, that they paid him to be an “historian.”  No historian in history has earned $1.6 million.

Newt didn’t report to Freddie Mac’s director of history (Spoiler alert; no company has one).  He reported to Craig Thomas, who was in charge of lobbying for them (and a registered lobbyist himself) and paid Newt $25,000 per month.  On January 24, 2012, Newt finally released his contract.  Guess what is not described in his services?  History.  In fact, Newt admits that he only talked to Freddie Mac staff for about one hour per month.  At $25,000/ hour, that’s a lot of history for a mortgage lender.

And, Freddie Mac is not the only company Newt lobbied for.  He had dozens of corporate clients who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his “services.”  He promoted his health care clients to legislators in Georgia or Florida who were considering changes in health care laws.  He talked up projects that his clients IBM and HealthTrio were working on, to federal officials.  He pushed for changes to Medicare that would enrich other clients of his.  And, one client, drug maker Novo Nordisk, described Newt’s work this way in their annual report: “Such activities are often referred to as lobbying.”

A handy, dandy timeline:

04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine
10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
03/—/1993 – He voted for sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
04/25/1996 – He voted for the single largest increase in Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
04/10/1995 – He supported Federal tax dollars being spent on abortions.
06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat Constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.
09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanding a life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”

…but wait, there’s more!

11/29/2006 – He called for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil.”
08/03/2010 – Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.
08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.
11/15/2010 – He defended Romney-care
12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. tax dollars to Egypt.
03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.
04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter accounts to appear as if he had a following.
10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

01/—/2012 – He said he’d spend billions of dollars to build a lunar colony, which could eventually become the 51st State, when that money could be used to help people suffering here on earth.  Some considered it merely a political ploy to appeal to Florida voters, but either way he brings new meaning to the word luna-tic.

Newt Gingrich doesn’t just have skeletons in his closet – he has a whole graveyard.  Many of his ideas are scattered and off-the-charts wacky.  He has a volatile, unstable, megalomaniacal personality, and his personal and professional choices reveal serious ethical weaknesses.  He would be annihilated in the general election.  Hopefully the American people will realize that Newt Gingrich would be an absolute disaster as president.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum seems to ooze an eagerness to use the power of the State to force his religious values and sense of morality on the rest of us.  Even if he has never said it outright (not sure on that one), his statements show that he is against the separation of church and state.  There is no doubt he would make the U.S. a Theocracy, based on his religion, if given the chance.  He fervently warns of Islamic jihadists, yet he is a hypocritical Christian Right Wing zealot obsessed with violating our personal lives and privacy.

I don’t believe I have ever witnessed a candidate who is so against the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it was drafted to protect.  He scoffs at personal liberty and limited government.  He says the “pursuit of happiness” is harming America.  He does not believe “people should be empowered to do what pleases them the most.”  He has said the State has the right to “limit individuals’ wants and passions.”  He’s against gay rights.  He’s against women’s rights in the following ways: no exceptions for abortion including rape & incest or life of the mother.  He wants to dictate to unmarried couples regarding what they can and cannot do in the bedroom.  He’s against contraception.  He would make adultery illegal if he could.

 

Santorum presents himself as a good Christian, yet seems perfectly willing to break the 6th commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” by wanting to aggressively pursue a worldwide war on Islam.  Santorum was a vocal cheerleader for war against Iraq and voted for the authorization to use force, which left the final decision of whether or not to go to war in the hands of the president.  Now, he has China and Iran in his cross hairs.  That’s right, Santorum completes the chickenhawk trifecta.  Attacking Iran without just cause or provocation could lead to retaliation from countries like Russia and China, but what does he care?  He won’t be fighting.

Obviously Santorum isn’t against guns.  I mean, how could we wage war on Iran without guns?  Oh yeah, he’s pro-gun as long as law-abiding American citizens have difficulty acquiring them.  Much of Senator Santorum’s recordshows support for gun control.  In 1997, he voted for an omnibus spending bill that included the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban.

Santorum is a holier-than-thou, terribly repressed, judgmental buffoon who has no grasp of American history and believes the Bush policies are worth continuing.  To top it all off, he was voted among the most corrupt politicians in 2005 & 2006, and while Senator from Pennsylvania, he demonstrated a penchant for big government hypocrisy which is why he lost re-election.  Pennsylvanians were unequivocal in their rejection of Santorum.  He lost by 18 points, the biggest loss for a sitting U.S. Senator since 1980.

Santorum fancies himself the conservative alternative to Romney or whomever for that matter.  Not so fast Rick.  Here’s a sampling of Santorum’s “Liberal voting record”:

- Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times.

- Santorum voted and strongly supported legislation that doubled the size of the Department Of Education, including the introduction of Ted Kennedy’s infamous “No Child Left Behind.”

- Santorum supported the largest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960s, the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which added a $16 TRILLION UNFUNDED LIABILITY to the national debt.

- Santorum largely supports foreign aid, the process by which the U.S. government borrows money from countries like China and uses it to bribe and prop up foreign governments (including China’s), while taxing Americans to pay interest on the loans.  Basically, taking money from the poor in a rich country and giving it to the rich and powerful in a poor country.

- Santorum sided with big labor unions in opposing a national right-to-work law that would have protected workers from being forced to pay union dues.

- Santorum supported Federal housing programs and Government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie and Freddie, which inflated the housing bubble.

- Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer with this: S Amdt 3230 – Gun Lock Requirement Amendment  

- Santorum voted for H J Res 47 – Debt Limit Increase Resolution – Key Vote 

- Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

- Santorum voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

- Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed:

  • Allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed.

 

  • Repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

- Santorum voted for the protection of Abortion Clinics.

This list just scratches the surface of Santorum’s career-long liberal voting record.  As Senator Rand Paul said of Santorum to CNN:

“He voted to double the size of the Department of Education… He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it’s come down.”

Courtesy of santorumexposed.com, here are an assortment of reasons Pennsylvanians consider Santorum “the biggest loser” and why American voters should not make him the Republican nominee or POTUS (perish the thought!):

Santorum was improperly spending tax dollars on HIS family.  He took $100,000 from a struggling PA public school district to pay for his children’s “cyber” education program.  Unfortunately, Rick and his family were living in suburban Virginia then, so they were not entitled to those funds.  And, when exposed in the press, Rick wouldn’t pay back the money, so the school district had to go to court to get it back — which cost us even MORE money.  Pretty hypocritical, since Rick won his first congressional race by attacking the incumbent for living in VA instead of PA.

Santorum voted against raising the minimum wage 8 times, but he did vote to allow his own pay to be raised by $8000.  When he did propose a small minimum wage increase, he excluded 10 million workers who live on tips, and even tried to end overtime pay beyond the 40-hour work week.  And, who would have benefitted from that?  The owners of big chain restaurants like Outback Steakhouse and big hourly employers like Wal-Mart.  No wonder Rick took the Wal-Mart corporate jet to Florida for his fancy political fundraiser with Outback Steakhouse executives. (And oh, by the way, that was the same trip as Rick’s infamous visit to Terry Schiavo’s hospice when other events had been canceled out of “respect” for the Schiavo family).

- Santorum said not only would he raise the retirement age to “at least” 70 — he “would go even farther” if he could.  (How about 90, Rick?)  Then, he flip-flopped on Social Security and said, “I don’t believe we should raise the retirement age…”

Santorum voted with big Pharma and against seniors getting lower cost prescription drugs.  He sided with the big drug companies by voting to increase their profits and keep seniors from buying low-cost prescription drugs from Canada.  No wonder the drug lobby gave Santorum committees a half-million dollars.

- Santorum isn’t interested in protecting other people’s rights to compensation if they are victims of medical malpractice, but that position didn’t keep his wife from suing a Virginia chiropractor for a half-million dollars in “pain and suffering.”  Instead, Rick voted to prevent Americans from getting just compensation for their pain and suffering caused by medical malpractice.  And, his wife suing a chiropractor for $500,000 is even more hypocritical since his own legislation capped such damages at half that amount.

Rick calls their own lawsuit a “private family matter,” but doesn’t seem to think everyone else’s family deserves the same rights and respect.  In fact, Rick has said that Griswold vs. Connecticut was wrongly decided, that there is no right to privacy and, therefore, the state has the right to regulate even the use of birth control by married couples.

- Santorum thinks that public schools should teach the beliefs he holds.  He wants public schools to teach the faith-based “intelligent design” theory as an equal alternative to Darwin’s scientific theory of evolution.

Santorum voted to cut billions in loans that help middle class students afford college, but he voted to give oil companies an additional $2 billion in new tax breaks.

- Santorum made some convoluted and disturbing comments about homosexuality, incest, bigamy, adultery and man-on-dog sex to the Associated Press during an interview (Even the AP interviewer was stunned).  Of course, the preservation of inequality and the restriction of Constitutional freedoms are the through-line of everything this man espouses.  I really think he needs to free himself from this psychological cage, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of his future constituents (should he have any).  Unedited excerpts of the taped interview were released by the Associated Press, and they are still available online.

- Some consider Santorum a hypocrite on abortion.  Others can’t have one to save the life of the mother, but his wife can.  His family is different.  Read the story here.

And, it goes on and on with Rick Santorum.  Please explore the santorumexposed.com site for many more reasons why Santorum should be laughed out of politics altogether.

Here’s yet another source for more in-depth information about Santorum’s special brand of corrupt, big government hypocrisy.

To sum it up, Rick Santorum is a “frothy” mixture of hate, hypocrisy, corruption, bigotry, stupidity, insanity, fear, paranoia and danger that America doesn’t ever need.  He is, of course, entitled to his beliefs, religious or otherwise.  That’s not the issue.  The issue is Santorum wants to use the power of government to force his beliefs on us and control our behavior.  Rick Santorum shouldn’t even be allowed to enter the White House as a guest.

___________________________________________________________________________________________


Dr. Ron Paul

There is only one honorable and principled candidate who opposes all of the above: Dr. Ron Paul, “The Champion of the Constitution.”  He is the imperfect messenger with the perfect message: LIBERTY & PEACE.

This short video, made when Ron Paul was running for Congress for the second time, gives one a more intimate understanding of the man and why he chose to run for public office in the first place.  The information in this video is easily transposed in support of Ron Paul’s candidacy for president, because, philosophically, he’s the same now as he was then.  That’s one of the things that makes Ron Paul so popular: his incorruptible consistency.

Foreign Policy

Some criticize Ron Paul on foreign policy, yet he receives more donations from active military personnel than all of the Republican candidates and Obama combined.  Here’s why.  The fact that Ron Paul honorably served his country in the Air Force goes a long way with veterans.  By the way, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate vying to be Commander-in-chief who has actually been in the military.  Ronald Reagan said it best:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.  We need to keep him fighting for our country.”  

Officials like Senator Jim DeMintSC State Senator Tom Davis, national security expert and former CIA Bin Laden hunter Michael ScheuerRetired Army Col. Douglas MacGregor and writers like Bruce Fein and Tom Woodssupport Ron Paul for a variety of reasons.  However, they all agree that Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy is superior, not only because of the economic and constitutional implications, but because concentrating our armed forces close to home will ultimately make our defenses even stronger and our citizens safer.

It bears repeating that we did not have to go to war in Afghanistan in an attempt to bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice for 9/11.  Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.  Unfortunately, our Government used the fear, pain and suffering of 9/11 to rally support for an unjust war.  Why?  As mentioned earlier, Afghanistan plays a part in a larger oil strategy; the same applies to Iraq (a war Dr. Paul did not vote for).

Demonstrating a strong sense of morality, military acumen and fiscal responsibility, Dr. Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 to Congress.  H.R. 3076 would have sent “privately armed and equipped persons and entities” on a specific and narrow mission to take out bin Laden and al-Qaeda.  In all likelihood bin Laden would have been captured or killed long ago had we passed H.R. 3076 in 2001.  Unfortunately, Congress, in all of their “wisdom,” shot down H.R. 3706.  What would H.R. 3706 have saved us?  As of this writing, this is what we have lost (the links below will give you updated figures):

And for good measure, let’s include some Iraq statistics:

Total Cost of Wars to the U.S. Since 2001almost 1.3 Trillion dollars.  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer… and dying.  Perhaps the above statistics make it a little clearer why Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist.  The costs of war are just too dear.  We should not go to war unless there is a legitimate threat to the U.S. and all efforts at a peaceful, diplomatic solution have failed.

A recent Department of Defense report supplies more evidence that Ron Paul is right about Iran.  This article sums it up nicely and provides a link to the DoD report.  The gist: Iran is not interested in developing nukes to bomb America as Santorum would have us believe; it’s about discouraging attacks from “regional powers such as Turkey or Israel,” because they’d think twice about attacking a nuclear Iran.  That’s not to say Ron Paul isn’t worried about a nuclear Iran.  Of course he is; he’s said so many times.  However, a costly war with Iran is simply not justified at this time.

If we let Israel take care of itself, if we allow it be the sovereign nation it claims it wants to be and control its own destiny, Iran would not be a threat to us:

“My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own.” – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress, May 24, 2011.

Israel can defend itself militarily.  It’s ranked 10th in the world on “global fire power.”  Iran is ranked 12th.  That’s not even factoring in Israel’s nuclear capability.  When you do that, there is no contest between Israel and Iran.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the predominant reason we are in the Middle East is to control the oil.  Until our foreign policy changes in that regard, we will be inextricably linked to Israel, we will remain in the region and the oil wars will continue.  It’s also worth considering the role Israel and her sympathizers may play in the central banks of the world.

Also, as mentioned earlier, the main reason we are the target of terrorist organizations is the blowback phenomenon.  It’s because the American government relentlessly meddles in the internal affairs of sovereign nations to further the spread of empire.  Ron Paul frequently uses the China example to illustrate this point.

Ron Paul gave a very powerful speech on the floor of Congress.  It’s famously referred to as his “What If” speech.  It chillingly criticizes America’s foreign policy and illustrates the horrors of war.

The Economy

Out of all the candidates running for president in 2012, including Obama, Ron Paul, hands down, has the greatest and most sophisticated knowledge of economic matters.  Long before the shit hit the fan, Ron Paul made uncannily accurate social and economic predictions regarding what was to come in 2007- 08.  MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough was stunned at how accurate his predictions were.  Clearly, this demonstrates Ron Paul’s wisdom and intelligence in this area.  Some rather illustrious authorities on economics agree.

The late Milton Friedman was an American economist, statistician, and author who taught at the University of Chicago for more than three decades. He was a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and is known for his research on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and the complexity of stabilization policy.  The Economist described him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it.”  Here’s what he had to say about Ron Paul:

“I strongly support Ron Paul.  We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom.” 

The late Murray N. Rothbard was an American author and economist of the Austrian School.  Mr. Rothbard wrote over twenty books and is considered a centrally important figure in the American libertarian movement.  He wrote theforward to one of Ron Paul’s books called, Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency. Here’s an excerpt:

“Ron Paul is a most unusual politician…he really knows what he’s talking about…he is familiar with the most advanced and complex economic insights on the true nature of inflation, on how inflation works, and how inflationary credit expansions brings about booms and busts. And yet Ron has the remarkable ability to take these complex and vital insights and to present them in clear, lucid, hard-hitting terms to the non-economist reader. His economics is as sound as a bell.

“But, even more important, Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he doesn’t simply pay lip service to moral principles. He believes in moral principles in his mind and heart, and he fights for them passionately and effectively. High on his set of moral principles is the vital importance of individual freedom, of the individual’s natural right to be free of assault and aggression, and of his right to keep the property that he has earned on the free market, and not have it stolen from him by confiscatory taxes and government regulations. 

“Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together.”

In a recent CNBC interview, when asked who would be the better outcome for president, bond king Bill Gross of Pimco said, “I’m a little Ron Paulish…” essentially saying that Ron Paul is the candidate who would create an environment for real long-term investment in the U.S.  In his February newsletter, Mr. Gross laments the end of economic life as we know it in this country, “We are witnessing the death of abundance and the borning of austerity, for what may be a long, long time.”  The Ron Paul endorsement… Gross’ bleak economic outlook… When Bill Gross talks, people listen.  One can only hope.

Economics experts like Dr. Iris Mack (Harvard Math Whiz/Derivatives Whistleblower) endorse Ron Paul for President, “because he is the only presidential candidate who understands the current dire straits the economy is in and the only one with a coherent plan to fix things.  She says Ron Paul is the only non-elitist candidate and the only candidate that would put the country back on the road to liberty.”

Economists like Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Bob Murphy also support Ron Paul’s economic plan. Ron Paul’s position on taxes has lead to support for him from the National Taxpayers Union and the National Federation of Independent Business.  The latter of these groups also supports Dr. Paul because he advocates tort reform.

Even establishment NeoCon talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (who are generally not fans of Paul) concede that Ron Paul has the best plan for the economy.

Just recently, Ron Paul prepared a thorough plan to specifically address the economic problems taking place in Nevada.  It was done in preparation for the Nevada Caucus.  If that’s not expertise, nothing is.

“Audit the Fed” & “Sound Money”

Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve and stop them from having the power to print money out of nothing, a practice that leads to enormous debt and devaluation of the currency (paper “fiat” money).  He also wants to end the practice known as “fractional reserve banking” which is a form of banking where banks maintain reserves that are only a fraction of the customer’s deposits. Funds deposited into a bank are mostly lent out, and a bank keeps only a fraction (called the reserve ratio) of the quantity of deposits as reserves.  This practice has led to a whole host of economic/banking problems through the ages.

Regarding currency, he wants to transition to what he calls “sound money or “hard money.”  Hard money is backed by something real like gold or silver or other precious metal, but really it can be anything that is agreed upon by the people.  For example, Native Americans have used wampum (shell beads) as currency.  The main advantage of hard money is it stabilizes the currency and limits what the federal government can spend.  It restricts them which is what we desperately need.  What many people may not know is for most of its history American currency was backed by “hard money” like gold and silver.  However, sadly, in 1971, President Nixon de-linked gold from the dollar.

In order to start the transition to sound money, Ron Paul wants to legalize “competing currencies.”  He’d like to see “a basket of commodities that emerges on the free markets,” gold being among them, to compete with the dollar allowing American citizens to choose which currency among competing currencies works best for them.  So, it’s not about a pure gold standard per se, but rather taking a lesson from the gold standard and attempting to back our currency with something(s) of real value as determined by the free market.  It’s just that throughout history, gold and silver have been the two commodities that have most fully satisfied the requirements of sound money.  Ron Paul inhis own words:

“I recently introduced HR 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act.  This bill eliminates three of the major obstacles to the circulation of sound money: federal legal tender laws that force acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes; “counterfeiting” laws that serve no purpose other than to ban the creation of private commodity currencies; and tax laws that penalize the use of gold and silver coins as money. During this Congress I hope to hold hearings on this bill in order to highlight the importance of returning to a sound monetary system.

“Allowing market participants to choose a sound currency will ensure that individuals’ needs are met, rather than the needs of the government.  Restoring sound money will restrict the ability of the government to reduce the citizenry’s purchasing power and burden future generations with debt.  Unlike the current system which benefits the Fed and its banking cartel, all Americans are better off with a sound currency.”

Ron Paul explains that Article One of the Constitution states that States are prohibited from coining money or making anything other than gold or silver coin legal tender for payment of debts.  He contends that if hard money like gold and silver are mentioned in this way in the Constitution, then we as a nation, on a Federal level, have a right to use it as legal tender.

Two short articles, here and here, further discuss this issue (some info. is redundant).

It’s really important for people to understand that we cannot sustain any more bailouts.  We can no longer afford it, and it’s fundamentally wrong.  Under the current system, the corrupt military-industrial-corporate-banking-political-complex gets richer with money and power while the rest of us lose and lose BIG.  The system needs fixing.  If there isn’t enough money for the bailouts, then those institutions must be allowed to fail.  We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again.  It’s difficult, but it really is the only way in the long run to sustain any semblance of the America of our founders.

Electability

Ron Paul is the most electable of the Republican candidates, because of his cross-over appeal with Independents (of whom I’m one) and disenfranchised Democrats.  He consistently polls very well against Obama in a general election.

Having said that, Dr. Paul’s appeal with Republicans is steadily rising!  In the latest nationwide Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted February 2-6, among Republicans only, Mitt Romney obtained 29% (down from 30%), Ron Paul’s support grew to 21% (up from 16%), Newt Gingrich slipped to 19% (down from 20%) and Rick Santorum rose to 18% (up from 13%).*

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum couldn’t touch the number of votes Ron Paul would get in a general election; compared to Dr. Paul, their appeal is limited to mostly Republican voters.

* Various pundits are attributing Rick Santorum’s recent surge to the Obama administration’s “attack on the Catholic church,” because of Obamacare’s mandate on contraception (not to mention the GOP’s intense desire to prop up the next anti-Romney candidate).  Unfortunately, far too many religious people view Santorum as their Knight in shining armor.  They fall for his schtick.  Truth is, Santorum uses religion to further his political campaign.  I’m not suggesting he’s not a “true believer”; he may be.  I’m saying he reminds me of a televangelist who preaches the word of God and gets very rich doing it.  Also, he’s the kind of person who would fight for his religious freedom, but not so much for yours.  He’s selfish and intolerant.  That’s his M.O. – if it’s his, or for him, then anything goes.  If it’s for you (and happens to go against his values or beliefs), then forget about it.

I believe the most spiritual candidate is the one who doesn’t talk about it so much.  Talk is cheap.  How do you live your life?  What actions do you take?  How do you treat others?  In my opinion, Dr. Paul has it all over Santorum (and the rest of the candidates) in that department, where it really matters.  He has spent the better part of his life helping those in need.  Do you remember when Dr. Paul was booed, at the SC Republican debate, for advocating we follow the “Golden Rule” with respect to our foreign policy?  Boggles the mind…

Ron Paul is a devout man.  It runs deep, it’s precious to him, so he doesn’t feel the need to broadcast it every second.  He doesn’t use his faith to “get ahead.”  Speaking of that, I’m always tickled when Obama switches to his preacher voice whenever he’s talking to a religious African American audience, but I digress.  Probably the most important difference between Santorum/Obama and Dr. Paul when it comes to religion is Dr. Paul respects the 1st Amendment right of all Americans to worship as they see fit, and he’ll defend that right with everything he has.
Some Select Points from Ron Paul’s Platform & Other General Information

Dr. Ron Paul:

- will restore the U.S. Constitution (esp. the Bill of Rights) to its rightful place.

- has the only viable PLAN to address the enormous debt and deficit which is rapidly taking us to a Greece-like state.

- advocates for civil liberties and criticizes abuse of executive authority, torture, warrant-less wiretapping, TSA injustices, basically anything that infringes on the liberties our creator has granted us which our Constitution enumerates.

- is really strong on the 2nd Amendment:

“Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment.” – Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

“No member of Congress pays more attention to Second Amendment issues than Dr. Ron Paul.” – Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights

As a congressman, Ron Paul has never once voted for any piece of legislation that would infringe on gun owners’ rights or weaken the Second Amendment.  The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not only essential to a free society, but it is the guardian of every other right.  During his time in Congress, Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans by:

  • Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”
  • Authoring legislation to end U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”
  • Writing a bill that would allow pilots and specially trained law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers and help prevent future 9/11-style attacks.

With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms.  In Congress, Ron Paul has stood as a champion for law-abiding gun owners, and he will continue protecting your Second Amendment rights as President.

- will decentralize the power of the Federal Government (not eliminate it), allowing the States to be 50 independent social laboratories of democracy and innovation, per the Constitution.  If a new idea turned out to be a bad one, the damage could be limited to the originating state.  If a state generated a good idea, the rest of us could follow suit.

- will return the role of education to the States, local communities, and parents.

Dr. Paul holds the Constitutional view – the federal government has no authority to oversee education. Just look at the mess that the central-planning bureaucracy has gotten us: education costs more than ever and the quality has dropped significantly – two results that are seen time and time again when government gets involved. It is the families’ role to educate their children and all government involvement should take place as close to home as possible.  Dr. Paul wants to stop enforcing “no child left behind” and allow an opt-out of the system:

“If you care about your children, you’ll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids…The goal should be set to get the government out completely…don’t enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It’s not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there’s no value to it. The teachers don’t like it, and the students don’t like it. But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want.”  Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL, September 22, 2011

- has a plan to address the violence, enormous costs, loss of personal liberty and social inequity that the drug laws cause.

- opposes the war on drugs and the death penalty particularly because of how it disproportionately effects minorities.

- will end the unjust wars designed to make the military industrial complex, and the corrupt politicians who support it, rich. And, in doing so, save lives, save limbs and restore families.  If there is a legitimate threat, Ron Paul would defend our nation the Constitutional way.  Congress will declare war authorizing the president to direct the armed forces.  We will have a clear objective.  We will achieve that objective.  And, we will come home.  No endless wars.  No nation building.  No policing the world.  No propping up of dictators.  No unnecessary waste of blood and money.  No empire.

For too long, Congress has abdicated its power to declare war to the Executive, because it doesn’t want to get its hands dirty in the foreign policy arena, and doesn’t want to take responsibility for the decisions that they should be making in that area.  This is shameful.  There are checks and balances in government for a reason.

 

- will save Social Security by cutting foreign policy costs and making the Federal Government run more efficiently (eliminating unnecessary and bloated bureaucracies).  Ron Paul has proposed saving further money through entitlement reforms which may include, but are not limited to:

  • limiting benefits to the rich,
  • supporting Medicare reforms that give senior citizens more control over, and responsibility for, their own health care,
  • allowing the young to completely opt out of Social Security,
  • supporting expanded access to Medicare Health Savings Accounts,
  • block granting Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.  Welfare, food stamps and housing aid would likely all be contingent on work or job training for able-bodied persons.

- will lower the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market.  He’ll allow American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment.  He’ll extend all Bush tax cuts.  He’ll abolish the Death Tax.  He’ll end taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.  He’ll eliminate the IRS, if possible.  If not, he’ll reduce the personal income tax to as close to 0% as possible.

- will not accept more than $40,000 each year for his salary as President, a move which demonstrates absolute compassion and understanding of the average middle class and poor American family.

- is compassionate and giving.  As an OBGYN, he cared for people, delivered more than 4000 babies and offered his services for free to those who couldn’t afford them.  He’s also a dedicated family man – married to his wife Carolfor 55 years.  They have 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 4 great-grandchildren.

- is adamantly opposed to bailouts, corporatism and crony-capitalism.

- seeks a complete audit of the “untouchable” Federal Reserve (or Central Bank), a network of privately owned banks, whose collective monetary policy has engineered the entire financial mess we’re in.  He ultimately wants to “End the Fed.”

- introduced a piece of legislation, on January 18, 2011, to repeal the infamous Section 1021 of the NDAA, quietly signed into law by Obama on New Year’s Day.

- has a principled and consistent 30 year record in Congress.  No flip-flopping.  No deceit.  No political gamesmanship.  He means what he says, and he’s not all talk – he acts on his convictions even when they are unpopular.  Thisvideo shows a sampling of how Ron Paul has been fighting for the American people for decades.  While in congress:

  • He has never voted to raise taxes (Ron Paul has been called “the taxpayers’ best friend ever” by the National Taxpayers Union).
  • He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
  • He has never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership.
  • He has never voted to raise Congressional pay.
  • He has never taken a Government-paid junket.
  • He has never voted to increase the power of the Executive branch.
  • He introduced one of the first bills in Congress to limit Congressional terms.
  • He voted against the Patriot Act.
  • He voted against the TSA.
  • He voted against NDAA.
  • He voted against regulating the Internet (He has been the most outspoken representative against SOPA/PIPA).
  • He voted against the war in Iraq.
  • He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program.
  • He returns a portion of his annual Congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury every year.

No comments for this post

Add a comment

Post categories

No blog categories

Post archives

No blog archives