Ron Paul and His Many Liberties with the Truth

by lewwaters

It seems every election cycle, politicians come before us speaking in glowing terms of themselves and all too often, making promises they have either no intention of keeping or are unable to keep once in office and reality smacks them up side their heads. We have come to expect candidates to “stretch things a little” as each goes on voyages of disinformation, embellishing their record or ripping apart the candidate they are running against.

Most voters see it for what it is and either discard it or if egregious enough, call them on it. But not all see through the distortions and questionable claims.

Ron Paul is one who frequently goes on that voyage of embellishment, fantasy, revision of history and twisting of a truth to make it appear entirely different, not unlike Michael Moore’s many fantasy “documentaries” where truth is distorted until it fits the view he desires to be imparted upon those present.

In spite of being revealed many times, Paulbots, the more militant wing of Ron Paul supporters, casts aside any and all exposing of their messiah and clinging to his words as if listening to Jesus speaking the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, some have equated Ron Paul to Biblical Prophets.

But unlike Ron Paul, neither Jesus nor the Prophets found in the Bible ever felt the need to distort or embellish upon the truth.

A few examples of Ron Paul taking “liberties with the truth” can be seen at FactCheck.org, such as his “16,500 armed bureaucrats from the IRS to enforce the mandate that everyone have health insurance,” and the “NAFTA Superhighway” conspiracy theory.

There is also his and his supporters many claims of only Ron Paul is the “true heir to legacy of Ronald Reagan,” totally ignoring and casting aside Ron Paul’s 1987 resignation from the Republican Party, completely distancing himself from Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Recently we have seen news releases from his campaign touting being endorsed by County Republican Party treasurers, city council members and just about anybody drinking his kool-aid. Included in one such newsletter was the claim “2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul bests President Obama in a head-to-head matchup in the key swing state of Ohio according to a new Fox News poll.”

Left out was that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney both polled higher against Barack Obama in the poll than did Ron Paul. Only Newt Gingrich polled lower. Many see that as “lies of omission.”

We keep reading how Ron Paul leads in individual, cherry-picked polls while completely ignoring and making no mention that in National Polling he remains virtually dead last!

Moving on from there, we see his ludicrous claim, “Ron Paul Is The Choice Of The Troops,” based upon another technical truth of his receiving more donations from those identifying themselves as Military than the other candidate.

Again, a little further inspection reveals what a gigantic stretch it would take for Ron Paul to even reach 4.4% support of the Troops. Equally cast aside was his dismal performance recently in the first primary election of a state with a heavy Military population where exit polling revealed Ron Paul received the least amount of Military votes of any of the 4 Republican candidates reported in both the New York Times and Fox News.

Just today, February 21, 2012 sees yet another new release from the Ron Paul campaign with the dubious statement, “Paul Tied with Obama in Key Swing State of Virginia” in regards to the upcoming primary election in that state where only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will appear on the ballot.

And again, another glaring example of a “lie by omission,” the Ron Paul campaign glosses over and ignores from within that poll, “Romney Leads Obama By 3 In Statistical Tie,” and gives the summary findings of,

1. Nearly six in ten Republicans and Independents are not satisfied with the choices of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the Republican primary ballot and would like to see other candidates on the ballot.
2. Romney leads Paul in the Republican primary 53%-23%.
3. Obama trails Romney and Santorum, beats Gingrich, and ties Paul; struggles with support from independents.

Looking back towards the “racist newsletters” bearing Ron Paul’s name, Politifact rates Ron Paul’s claims of “only about eight or 10 inflammatory sentences” as “false” as they easily found “nearly three dozen.”

Ron Paul favors and his supporters often chant “end the fed,” calling on the elimination of the Federal Reserve. That is an easy one for people to fall behind as much of the blame for our economic failures is often tied to Federal Reserve Policy, even if that is not the cause of the downturn. As shown in the Bloomberg book review, “End the Fed? Ron Paul Is Wrong for All the Right Reasons,” following Ron Paul’s advice would plunge backwards to even more severe economic upheavals that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

In yet another example of Ron Paul’s taking liberties with the truth, Politifact rates his claim of “The federal income tax rate was 0 percent until 1913” as Half-True, indicating his “disregarding two pre-1913 efforts to impose an income tax, one of which was in place for a decade.”

Ron Paul faced a lot of scorn in his 2008 campaign for basically indicating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were because of we have our Troops in the Middle East. He lauds a policy of “non-intervention,” basically the same “Isolationism” policies that left us prone and susceptible to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor that plunged us into World War Two.

Again, he calls upon a questionable knowledgeof American History in claiming that our founders practiced and believed in “non-interventionism.” He continually ignores example after example in our history of where foreign ventures were engaged to protect our interest or shores.

This is by no means an exhaustive revelation on the foibles and fallacies of Ron Paul. His hypocrisy over earmarks, lack of resolve in dealing with Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, the anti-Semitic views expressed by both he and his militant supporters and so many more are not even addressed here.

What is shown is that Ron Paul not only would be a horrible president, not that he really stands a chance of winning, but Ron Paul is in absolutely no position to label others like Rick Santorum as “FAKE.”

To me, a Vietnam Veteran, Ron Paul’s labeling others “chickenhawks” because they did not serve during the Vietnam war, and standing on his short service as an “Air Force Flight Surgeon” as qualifying him as the “ONLY Veteran running” while not opening his Military Record to clear up discrepancies seen or to show what, if any Command Experience he has to qualify him for the presidency is what borders on “FAKE.”

81 Comments to “Ron Paul and His Many Liberties with the Truth”

  1. Paulbot? Really…..normally I enjoy your articles. This is not one of those times. The name calling is weak sauce. I may not be a Romney fan but I’m not going to call his supporters names.

    Like

  2. Did you not read that “Paulbots” are the more militant wing of his supporters?

    I have always maintained the difference between a Ron Paul supporter and a Paulbot.

    Like

  3. Based on numerous things you have said, not just from this one article; you are lying by naming your blog “Clark County Conservative”; because you are more of a moderate, stop kidding yourself.

    Like

  4. LOL, Just because I don’t fall within your redefinition of conservative to fit Ron Paul’s version of Libertarianism does not make you right.

    By the way, since when does a “conservative” rely on bending the truth to build a platform on?

    Like

  5. Lew you certainly devote a lot of blog-space to a candidate whom you repeatedly state has no chance of winning! Why is that?

    Like

  6. “A lot of blog space,” Tom? Since the beginning of December 2011, I have posted 91 posts, 6 of which concern Ron Paul.

    With our state not holding a presidential primary this time and instead relying on caucuses, caucuses that Ron Paul supporters have announced plans to stack with Ron Paul supporters, his record and candidacy is as open as anybodies to critique.

    Maybe I should should put it back to you that what is wrong with looking behind the claims he and his supporters make of him?

    Peel away the veneer and you might find something a lot less than you thought was there.

    Like

  7. Thank you Lew for your fact checking article.
    I appreciate Ron Paul and Rick Santorum’s gut felt passion toward the state of our Union. I believe that this display of passion is what is attractive to the masses. We want our leader to care and in order to feel that they do we need to visually see it. I must agree with you that Ron Paul lacks the common sense and obviously the integrity as well to effectively run this great country. I also agree that all candidates are going to be flawed as they are all human. I am not looking for Jesus to run my country as my president. He already has a job and fulfilled it well. I do however want a president that has demonstrated a clarity for the vision of the future if certain regulations and entitlements and even entire programs continue on the current path. I want someone who has shown the moral and ethical ground he or she stands upon. I want someone who can communicate between parties. I want someone who isn’t trying to be God but rather live godly and honorably. They need to be prioritizing for our safety physically, economically, and for our true liberty.
    I think that is Rick Santorum.

    Like

  8. Thanks, Carolyn.

    To me, anytime a candidate’s supporters begin equating them to Jesus or Bible Prophets, it gets frightening. None could ever come close.

    None of the candidates are perfect, I realize that. But I do expect a degree of honesty in their claims, not cherry picking polling to suit their whims while ignoring the overall results of that same poll.

    I also agree with you that Rick Santorum is appearing more and more as who will best be able to communicate to congress our need to begin changing. Provided that we also keep Liberal Democrats out of the majority.

    It took a very long time to get as bad off as we are today and it won’t change over night. But we must start and I prefer someone who hasn’t spent years fabricating a platform based upon embellishments, conspiracies or untruths.

    Like

  9. Rick Santorum? I certainly hope you plan to give him at least the level of scrutiny you’ve given RP. Note that during his time in the Senate, Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, voted to double the size of the DOE via the ill-advised the “No Child Left Behind” bill, voted for Medicare Part D thus creating huge new unfunded liabilities, voted to pass massive new federal gun control regulations, voted against a National Right to Work law, voted for sending $25 million in taxpayer dollars to North Korea, and voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley disaster. RP has a pretty clean voting record, being, for example, one of only three to vote against Sarbanes-Oxley. How can Santorum claim to be a true conservative with his voting record? Oh, that’s right, he opposes abortion.

    Like

  10. Carolyn, Rick Santorum is a racist POS that would have us all live in a theocracy; not just A theocracy, but HIS theocracy.

    ““I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

    And, In a 2008 speech…Santorum said Mainline Protestants — about 45 million Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists and others — are “gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

    This is your man of god?

    Like

  11. Tom: Correct. He opposes abortion (which I agree with), but then dictates that contraception is evil.

    Wise man, there. Not.

    Like

  12. Oops. That might not have been real clear in the way I phrased that. I also oppose abortion.

    Like

  13. How can Ron Paul be seen as a “True Conservative,” given his record of dishonesty and distortions of the truth?

    How is Ron Paul can claim “Support of the Troops” after voting with Democrats to deny our Troops the right to proactively defend themselves in hostile zones?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/77_of_democrats_and_ron_paul_voted_against_rules_of_engagement_that_protect_our_troops.html

    And please don’t tell me you buy into Ron Paul’s claims of fighting against earmarks, not after he is known to insert more earmarks than any other Republican, only vote “no” knowing full well the bill will pass and then justify accepting the earmark money as he is only returning his constituents money to them.

    No, Santorum is not perfect, but he is far from the fallacies of Ron Paul that I note in the post.

    Like

  14. Honestly, I think Romney’s the only one who can pull us out of the tank; his business experience is unmatched.
    Ron Paul is right on so many things, but he’s a crackpot in so many others.

    Like

  15. Again, just a clarification: I don’t support either RP or RS. Don’t know exactly for sure, but leaning toward Romney.

    Like

  16. Greg, you are sounding an awful lot like those who say Obama is putting us under a Caliphate, which might have a little more shred of truth.

    Please explain what is wrong with Black people having the opportunity to succeed? Or, are you one of those who think Blacks are too stupid to make it and must have “whitey” taking care of them?

    So he has a religious belief, don’t all candidate express a religious belief? Even Obama has taken to quoting scripture, even if out of context, to support his views.

    Is he too putting us under his form of theology?

    You can do better, Greg.

    Like

  17. Greg, yes I too oppose abortion but have always wondered about that logic. How can you rationally oppose BOTH abortion AND birth control? Something does not compute !!

    Lew, Santorum’s voting record shows without a doubt that he’s a million miles away from a true conservative, other than giving it lip service.

    Like

  18. Even though I am leaning more towards Santorum, I’d accept Romney over Obama or Ron Paul.

    While Ron Paul is right on a couple things (even a broken clock is right twice a day), I don’t believe he has a clue or the ability to affect any relevant change on them.

    Like

  19. And Ron Paul’s strong Libertarian record show he too is not a “True Conservative.”

    And is it that Santorum is totally against birth control? Or having us pay for others birth control?

    We’re opposed to the bill here in Washington mandating health insurance companies pay for abortion, but don’t mind if those same insurance companies pool our money to pay for contraceptives? Granted, I’d rather see contraception over abortions, but that is wrong with going back to teaching a little bit of morality?

    And yes, the only 100% effective means of birth control is abstinence. As soon as you begin engaging in sexual relations, there is always a very slim chance of pregnancy.

    And in reality, what chance do any of them have on overturning abortion or birth control?

    Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced his “We the People Act,” that would “let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex.”

    http://illuminate.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/14/10408147-ron-paul-vs-birth-control

    And now Ron Paul and supporters condemn Santorum for stating his view on health insurance should not be mandated to pay for contraception?

    Like

  20. Anybody on the Republican side would be better than the Bozo currently in the White House. Period.

    Like

  21. Birth control is between you and your God; if you pray about it and find it’s what you feel prompted to do, then it’s not the government’s job to either provide or withold it; get government out of the day to day mundaneness of my life. Outlaw the morning after pill and any other abortifacients and deal with Roe v. Wade on a state level vs. a federal level…where it never should have rested.
    If Santorum feels that he has to work to outlaw birth control outright, I think he’s going to go down in flames.

    Like

  22. What with Ron Paul’s efforts expressed in the “We The People” act, it appears to be Ron Paul who has actually taken measures that could outlaw birth control.

    I don’t believe Santorum was announcing a plan to actually go after banning birth control, but was stating his view on whether or not health insurance should be mandated to pay for it.

    That is how I perceive his comment.

    Like

  23. Gotcha; my misunderstanding. The more I learn of Paul, the crazier I think he is.
    I have a feeling he’s laying the groundwork for his son to step into his shoes–in a much less nutty role, and hopefully go far.

    Like

  24. From what Rand has said in the past, he is in agreement with Ron’s views, but has decided to repackage them in a more palatable manner.

    He was asked on the Alex Jones’ show concerning his Dad Ron’s views, “You’re basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?” He replied, “I’d say we’d be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.” Rand Paul on Alex Jones, 5/21/09

    Like

  25. Jeanetta: Rick Santorum wants to eliminate prenatal screenings and believes birth control to be evil.

    He basically would be moving this country backwards culturally and scientifically.

    I don’t support abortion; however, birth control reduces abortions and prenatal screenings help physicians understand necessary precautions in the birthing process and reduce complications.

    If Rick Santorum can’t understand basic science and correlation, then what other, more complex issues does he fail to understand?

    Like

  26. Santorum is still way better than Obama in any case. So is Ron Paul.

    Like

  27. I think someone caught Jack on video:

    Like

  28. Poor Greg, still can’t win an argument…

    Like

  29. Breathe deeply, Greg, you’ll feel better soon

    Like

  30. Oh c’mon guys….that was funny…..

    Like

  31. Rick Santorum has a weak chin. Even Mamoud Ahmadinejad could knock him out. We need someone with a great chin – like Romney! Obama has a pretty good chin too, but puny arms. Forget about Golem…I mean Ron Paul.

    Seriously though, I don’t understand Santorum’s wacky view on prenatal care. He claims it leads to abortions and is only there to increase the doctor’s billing. And how can he be opposed to contraception and abortion at the same time?

    Like

  32. Greg, so you’re saying that Santorum DOES want to restrict contraceptives? I’m personally against them for “family planning”, as well as abortion for all but the direst situations, but I do see the medical benefits of contraceptives and regardless of what *I* think, people have to be able to choose for themselves, and should have the ability to do so.
    As for Rand, I guess I like his packaging of the issues then, because he sounds way saner than his father.

    Like

  33. Again, Romney is a RINO that may as well list himself as a Democrat. Even though Romney is just another “John McCain”, he would still be much better than Obama. And that ain’t sayin’ much.

    Like

  34. I don’t understand the term “RINO” when applied to establishment Republicans like Romney. There has always been a moderate to liberal wing of the Republican party. Maybe a more appropriate term would be “TPINO”.

    More important to me than ideological purity (which would make me lean towards Santorum with a side of Paul), I want someone who can make Barack Obama a one term president. I think Romney, unlike that disastrous McCain, can win the White House.

    Like

  35. Wow, Lew, so much to comment on but so little time. So I’ll narrow my scope to one issue so you can’t cry about everything that I ignored. I thought you had learned by now that Republican blogs are not good places for math lessons. Though I doubt you own any, try using a textbook to back up your claims next time. Your local library will have plenty, but I can save you the trip by letting you know that none of them will agree with the “intellectual conservative” about the inferences one can make from Paul’s military funding. The conclusion of the post is that, despite the fact that Ron Paul has raised more money than any other candidate, “When you look at the numbers alone and apply a little logic you see that less than 5% of active duty military personnel support Ron Paul at best.”

    This is actually an impossible conclusion to make. It’s been explained why elsewhere, but I wouldn’t want anyone to miss out so here you go again: “Seriously. It’s not as simple as dividing up all the money and pretending like everyone just gave a dollar. You need calculus. And confidence intervals. Do you know how large of a random sample size you would ACTUALLY need for a confidence level of 95% in a +/- 5% interval for a sample size of, I dunno, say, 1,456,862 active personal? Try 384. That’s .026% of active personal.” Again, the conclusion listed above is impossible.

    As a military man yourself, how much this pisses you off really is hilarious. I’m actually quite tempted to sit back and snicker at how stupid you are for not double checking the veracity of this — especially after you’ve already been smacked around with the paddle of truth like a little school girl — or even taking the time to rationally consider that supporting Paul is quite popular with 18-34 year olds, perhaps even more so for people who care about living. Oh boy, you better clear the area of anything expensive before you read this gem about how only 1/3 of post-9/11 veterans think the wars have been worth it: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/us/war-attitudes/index.html

    Now, in accordance with your general formula of only courting the opinions of today’s brightest and most influential minds (15 year old Facebook commenters on the websites of bankrupt newspapers: https://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ron-paul-john-the-baptist.jpg), I will take on that onus myself and raise you one — or 1500, of your favorite people to talk about, Veterans who support Ron Paul, rallying at the White House a couple of days ago (get your blood pressure medication ready for this one): http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-pro-con/2012/feb/22/ron-paul-choice-troops/

    Like

  36. TJ, your first mistake, of many, is to consider this a “Republican” blog.

    The “conclusion” reached was based on if you took the total of donations received at that time and counted each dollar for one person in the Military. That is the overly generous 4.4% at the maximum was reached. Left out of Ron Paul’s boasting is a common ignorance of Military in that many Military not only keep their politics to themselves, don’t list their profession if they donate or if they have their wife contribute, should they be deployed. But, since when does facts interfere with Ron Paul’s twist?

    If you think your delusional comments, or other distortions of truth from fellow Paulbots “slapped me around like a little girl,” you only show your own lack of discernible thinking.

    Your link to CNN polling to claim the Troops feel the war wasn’t worth it is very amusing, considering they only polled 712 who served after 9/11. Or did you not read that far into it? Hate to tell you, many Vietnam Veterans did not feel it was worth at the time, but as the years wore on and they began looking back, 91% say we were glad we served. http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

    But again, why let truth enter into Ron Paul’s support.

    Did you miss the link to the Daily Paul? I doubt they are only “15.” But another prime example of how Ron Paul and his devotees feel they are entitled to distort truth.

    Your “1500” Veterans is just another distortion. Do you ever read what you post? The very article you link to says “1,500 supporters” and “400 active duty or retired military members” among them. That’s almost a third less than you claim and very the very source you supplied. And, in that number, did they verify they served? Or was their word just taken for it?

    By the way, I watched the videos. They neither knew how to properly give the command “Present Arms” nor did many even know what the command meant or how to properly execute it.

    But that doesn’t stop the distortions from you, does it?

    I do thank you for stopping by and proving the point of my post for me. It is greatly appreciated.

    Just remember, the only thing worse that beating a dead horse is to place bets on a dead horse.

    Have a pleasant evening.

    Like

  37. Gee Lew, the arrogant little smartasses sure come out of the woodwork at times, don’t they? It’s fun watching you slap the little bitch down.

    Like

  38. Some make it all too easy, Jack 🙂

    Like

  39. And if ever there was any doubt on how ridiculous the militant Paulbots can be, how about their outrage over Rick Santorum doing the dastardly deed of shaking Ron Paul’s hand?

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ron-paul-fans-outraged-at-hearty-post-debate-hands

    Like

  40. You see Lew, the difference between you and I is that I can admit when I’m wrong. I had seen upwards of 1000 veterans listed elsewhere (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2012/feb/21/veterans-active-military-march-dc-ron-paul), but misread the figure about veterans vs. supporters. Again, my mistake — I take full ownership of it. If my intention was actually to “distort the truth,” then I wouldn’t have provided a source to let people see for themselves.

    “Again, a little further inspection reveals what a gigantic stretch it would take for Ron Paul to even reach 4.4% support of the Troops.”

    It has been pointed out twice how this statement is egregiously false. But you continue to make it, so this undeniable distortion of the truth is obvious. Your first distortion is not informing the reader that this month-and-a-half old claim is false today. In fact, this number has increased by over 200%. That’s worth mentioning, don’t you think? This is the oldest trick in the book. Here’s how the 4.4% was calculated:

    $65,270/1,468,364 = 4.4%

    So that’s the total Paul received from those identifying as Army, Navy, Air Force by January 6th 2012 ($65270) divided by the active troops in September 2011 (1,468,364). Let’s bring this up to date with CURRENT figures from 2/21/12:

    US Army $81,423
    US Air Force $60,739
    US Navy $58,267
    TOTAL $200,429

    $200,429/1,468,364 = 13.6%

    The 13.6% will only increase and it’s easy to see why. More time = more money = higher percentage. Your omission of time’s effect on the numbers you keep using lacks serious integrity.

    Your second distortion of truth is called equivocation: “It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).” Let’s take a look at the quote in context:

    “Moving on from there, we see his ludicrous claim, “Ron Paul Is The Choice Of The Troops,” based upon another technical truth of his receiving more donations from those identifying themselves as Military than the other candidate… Again, a little further inspection reveals what a gigantic stretch it would take for Ron Paul to even reach 4.4% support of the Troops.”

    So, the argument is: How can someone be the choice of the troops if it would take a gigantic stretch to even reach 4.4% (er.. 13.6%) support?!

    Oh puh-lease. The equivocation is when you use the word ‘choice’ in “Ron Paul Is The Choice Of The Troops,” to mean the same thing as ‘support’ in “even reach 4.4% support of the Troops.” In the first sense, ‘choice’ is used to mean the “popular support,” but in the second sense you use ‘support’ to mean “financial support.” But those are quite different; why would you use a percentage about financial supporters to debunk a claim about popular supporters? That’s like assuming that everyone who supports a candidate also sends them their money. And while every candidate wishes this were true, everybody knows that it’s not. You were very naughty this post Lew.

    Your third distortion is your fundamental lack of understanding about how representational sampling works. When you have a number as large as 1,468,364, you only need the opinions of .026% to get a representational sample of the opinions for ALL of them. That’s 384 people. This is why all of your 4.4% claims are hilarious. It’s also why you sound like such an idiot when you say things like:

    “Your link to CNN polling to claim the Troops feel the war wasn’t worth it is very amusing, considering they only polled 712 who served after 9/11. Or did you not read that far into it?”

    Look at the chart that you pasted in from realclearpolitics.com. You see the column with the heading “sample”? That’s how many people they interview in each poll assess the opinion of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! So, trust me, 712 is plenty. Here’s a tool to check yourself for the future: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html. You’re welcome.

    Like

  41. LOL @ too easy Lew!!! Boy, you got your work cut out for you!

    Like

  42. You see Lew, the difference between you and I is that I can admit when I’m wrong. I had seen upwards of 1000 veterans listed elsewhere (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2012/feb/21/veterans-active-military-march-dc-ron-paul), but misread the figure about veterans vs. supporters. Again, my mistake — I take full ownership of it. If my intention was actually to “distort the truth,” then I wouldn’t have provided a source to let people see for themselves.

    “Again, a little further inspection reveals what a gigantic stretch it would take for Ron Paul to even reach 4.4% support of the Troops.”

    It has been pointed out twice how this statement is egregiously false. But you continue to make it, so this intentional distortion of the truth is obvious. Your first distortion is not informing the reader that this month-and-a-half old claim is false today. In fact, this number has increased by over 200%. That’s worth mentioning, don’t you think? This is the oldest trick in the book. Here’s how the 4.4% was calculated:

    $65,270/1,468,364 = 4.4%

    So that’s the total Paul received from those identifying as Army, Navy, Air Force by January 6th 2012 ($65270) divided by the active troops in September 2011 (1,468,364). Let’s bring this up to date with CURRENT figures from 2/21/12:

    US Army $81,423
    US Air Force $60,739
    US Navy $58,267
    TOTAL $200,429

    $200,429/1,468,364 = 13.6%

    The 13.6% will only increase and it’s easy to see why. More time = more money = higher percentage. Your omission of time’s effect on the numbers you keep using lacks serious integrity.

    Like

  43. Your second distortion of truth is called equivocation: “It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).” Let’s take a look at the quote in context:

    “Moving on from there, we see his ludicrous claim, “Ron Paul Is The Choice Of The Troops,” based upon another technical truth of his receiving more donations from those identifying themselves as Military than the other candidate… Again, a little further inspection reveals what a gigantic stretch it would take for Ron Paul to even reach 4.4% support of the Troops.”

    So, the argument is: How can someone be the choice of the troops if it would take a gigantic stretch to even reach 4.4% (er.. 13.6%) support?!

    Oh puh-lease. The equivocation is when you use the word ‘choice’ in “Ron Paul Is The Choice Of The Troops,” to mean the same thing as ‘support’ in “even reach 4.4% support of the Troops.” In the first sense, ‘choice’ is used to mean the “popular support,” but in the second sense you use ‘support’ to mean “financial support.” But those are quite different; why would you use a percentage about financial supporters to debunk a claim about popular supporters? That’s like assuming that everyone who supports a candidate also sends them their money. And while every candidate wishes this were true, everybody knows that it’s not. You were very naughty this post Lew.

    Like

  44. Your third distortion is your fundamental lack of understanding about how representational sampling works. When you have a number as large as 1,468,364, you only need the opinions of .026% to get a representational sample of the opinions for ALL of them. That’s 384 people. This is why all of your 4.4% claims are hilarious. It’s also why you sound like such an idiot when you say things like:

    “Your link to CNN polling to claim the Troops feel the war wasn’t worth it is very amusing, considering they only polled 712 who served after 9/11. Or did you not read that far into it?”

    Look at the chart that you pasted in from realclearpolitics.com. You see the column with the heading “sample”? That’s how many people they interview in each poll to assess the opinion of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! So, trust me, 712 is plenty. Here’s a tool to check yourself for the future: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html. You’re welcome.

    Like

  45. LOL, you back for more?

    Representational sampling is a canard if a certain region known to be favorable to the desired results is targeted. You cn make a poll say anything you want when doing that, and many today do just that.

    You’re such a moron you still haven’t figured out the 4.4% at best was an analogy of equating the total dollars claimed by Ron Paul to each dollar representing one member of the Military. That would be the absolute most he could get and let’s face it, it’s overly generous.

    But, as I also wrote, those claiming affiliation with the Military in South Caroline, the first state to have a primary with a strong Military population and Ron Paul receiving the least amount of votes from them speaks tons more. And, as I told you, many of us also had strong feelings at the end of Vietnam and today, fell entirely different, another little fact you glossed over. When you find Veterans that know how to properly give the command “present arms” and others who know what it means and how it is properly executed, get back to me. The use of wannabes without a clue is a well known tactic going all the way back to John ‘F’in Kerry.

    You’re spinning your wheels and blowing a lot of smoke. Every single poll Ron Paul has sent out in news releases this week claiming he is ahead of or equal to Obama has also shown both Romney and Santorum even further ahead of Obama. Now why not mention that little fact?

    Go back to the campaign and and have them send someone worth my time. You’re much too easy.

    Thank me very much.

    Like

  46. Got my work cut out for me? Not until they send someone much smarter than you

    Like

  47. Poor boy, you forget that Ron Paul received the least percentage of votes from voters in South Caroline, the first state primary that has a significant Military population.

    Please tell them to send someone worth my time.

    Like

  48. You’ve already exposed yourself as a liar and a hypocrite, but, you know, way to dodge the points about fudging the facts, equivocations that mislead the reader and leading off with gems that continue to show how little you understand about statistics:

    “Representational sampling is a canard if a certain region known to be favorable to the desired results is targeted.”

    LOL says the guy who loves quoting polls.

    “as I also wrote, those claiming affiliation with the Military in South Caroline, the first state to have a primary with a strong Military population and Ron Paul receiving the least amount of votes”

    OHHH like, South Carolina, which was the only state that Gingrich won… who doesn’t have a shot… CLEARLY they’re on page with the rest of America…

    “Every single poll Ron Paul has sent out in news releases this week claiming he is ahead of or equal to Obama has also shown both Romney and Santorum even further ahead of Obama.”

    I thought we weren’t allowed to talk about polls??? MAKE UP YOUR MIND LOL

    “And, as I told you, many of us also had strong feelings at the end of Vietnam and today, fell entirely different, another little fact you glossed over.”

    Too bad they couldn’t poll the ones who were dead. Wonder what they would’ve said. Apples and oranges, anyway, but here’s a test: let’s reinstate the draft every few years, lose a war that lasts 20 years, and see how many times it takes for the people to finally get tired of doing the same damn thing every time. The cycle never ends.

    “”You’re such a moron you still haven’t figured out the 4.4% at best was an analogy of equating the total dollars claimed by Ron Paul to each dollar representing one member of the Military. That would be the absolute most he could get and let’s face it, it’s overly generous.”

    For every Paul supporter who does give money, there are 10 that don’t. It’s not like servicemen have TONS of cash on hand. It’s about who they want as President, and Paul would bring them home alive instead of fight in a war that won’t end up mattering… just like Vietnam.

    Like

  49. Oh Thommie, why do you enjoy getting your ass kicked so much?

    The only liar n distorter of truth is Ron Paul who thinks he can fool more people than idiots like you.

    Quoting Ron Paul’s polling to show his lies and omissions is what I do.

    That Gingrich doesn’t have a shot is irrelevant. The fact remains, Ron Paul received the least number of Military votes in the very first state with a heavy Military population. It’s comical that you gloss over that and try to deflect attention to Gingrich. But, since you don’t have a leg to stand on, your type will always try to piss up a rope.

    And again, showing how Ron Paul distorts the truth in polls is what I do.

    Fool, you’re blowing smoke out of your nether regions again. Bring them home? You mean tie the Troops hands behind their backs, kill off even more and then pull them out before the job is done and look upon them as victims? Or, do you forget it was Ron Paul who voted against the amendment to ROE’s that would have allowed the Troops to better defend themselves?

    Unless you are willing to show your 214, you have no say on the Troops. You speak for no one. I have mine displayed publicly, where is yours?

    As I said, run away with your tail tucked between your legs. Tell the campaign to send someone with at least a 3rd grade level of education or who can act like it. Morons like you are just too easy.

    Like

  50. let me level with you lew: jefferson’s right about paul. youve twisted the situation pretty poorly but must just be santorum fever LOL.

    the truth is you can’t quote a number about a candidate without comparing it to everyone else’s number. if ron’s 4% then any other candidate is 1 or 2% at best and the point goes down the crapper. so the only one blowin smoke here is you.

    sad to see your santorum tilt undermine your integrity. the boys have made their choice and personally I don’t blame them.

    no need for all of that anymore. our dads and their dads fought “the war(s) to end all wars” so that the kids wouldnt have to. that’s why it was honorable. vietnam was supposed to be the last chapter. now the cold wars over and the kids don’t know what theyre fightin for. paul’s the only one with enough perspective to see through the BS.

    Like

  51. And you too fail to see the claim was that at that time, the absolute best Ron Paul could claim, based off of donation he claims to have received and assigning one dollar to represent one Military person, 4.4% was the best he could claim. It’s an analogy because anyone can see that while a few Troops support him, he does not have the full support of the majority of the Troops. You too ignore his dismal performance by those claiming affiliation with the Military in South Carolina.

    That speaks louder than anything.

    Ron Paul does not excite or motivate any but a small minority. His “vision” is pure folly and has been rejected by voters before. While he may have misled a few more, it is being rejected again, evidenced by his “strategy” to stack caucuses and get delegates that way.

    If he had the support he tries to claim in the multitude of news releases every day, there would be no need for stacking caucuses and he would be leading in delegates and primaries won.

    His “constitutional scholarship,” as Chuck Baldwin described him, is highly questionable. He also forgets that he is not the lone arbiter of the constitution.

    He does not speak or offer what voters are looking for and having the militant Paulbots try to strong arm voters will continue to backfire.

    note: your second comment, identical to this will be deleted. Your comment went to spam as I have the spam filter set to send any post with 2 or more urls to it.

    Like

  52. you still fail to see how your logic doesn’t work out. you can’t just say “oh well his supporters are enthusiastic” and quickly dismiss the fact that he’s demolishing everybody else in the totals. if the others had more support then their numbers should be at least as high, but they’re not. not even close.

    that exit poll you keep blowin smoke about of 400 people in SC claiming military is hardly representative either. that’s one corner of the country and none of the responses were from abroad. 400 South Caroline homefries don’t speak for everybody.

    his policies are much more closely aligned with the constitution’s than any other candidates, and for every Chuck Baldwin there’s a Ventura, Gary Johnson or even Huntsman. we can name names all day.

    correction — he doesn’t speak or offer what MEDIA outlets are looking for: war-mongering politicians with a “vote or else” message and a “christian vs. muslim” subplot (santorum has mastered this). that gets people tuned in, not a history or economics lesson which is what paul gives. its also what the country needs.

    and since when is anything wrong with rallying voters to go to caucuses? being enthusiastic is hardly strong-arming… but like another paulbot said you are rather lukewarm

    Like

  53. each state is its own theater, and wide-ranging differences in how much each candidate spends in advertising in each state has a large enough effect to take into consideration.

    this is not a coincidence:

    “Romney spent the most per vote in South Carolina. Along with the pro-Romney Super Pac, the second-place finisher doled out nearly $30 per vote. Gingrich and his supporting Super Pac spent the least per vote, about $20.56 for each of the 243,000 South Carolinians who voted for him.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/biggest-spender-in-gop-primary/story?id=15422999#3

    Like

  54. Good point, Robert. In fact, people in SC who were military were just as likely to vote for Paul as if they weren’t military. The only statistically significant difference in the military vote was less support for Romney. The rest voted exactly how non-military South Carolines voted…

    …Which has been different from every other state thus far.

    Like

  55. Robert, spin doesn’t get it here. Ron Paul and his supporters make the claim that the Troops chose Ron Paul. South Caroline proved they do not, regardless of who spent what.

    By the way, of those claiming affiliation with the Military in South Carolina the first state primary with a significant Military population, the exit polls showed,

    Have you ever served in the U.S. military?
    Total Paul Gingrich Romney Santorum
    Yes
    21% 12% 39% 32% 16%

    Like it or not, Ron Paul received the least amount of vote from the Military of all. Spin efforts fall flat compared to facts.

    If Ron Paul had half the support you think, or wish he had, money wouldn’t really matter.

    Like

  56. MY POINT EXACTLY! So it’s rubbish to make any conclusions about Paul’s stand with the military based on an exit poll where those claiming military and those not claiming military voted the same way.

    The only conclusion is that South Carolines will vote the same way for Paul whether or not they’ve served in the military LOLOL

    Like

  57. Other news outlets are unfair to RP too – and sometime they get caught!

    Like

  58. Wheres the no vote Lew??? No spin my ass.

    Have you ever served in the U.S. military?
    Total Paul Gingrich Romney Santorum
    Yes
    21% 12% 39% 32% 16%
    No
    79% 13% 39% 27% 18%

    LOL he earned fewer votes in SC period! It didn’t matter if they were military or not!

    Like

  59. The conclusion of this little exercise is that SC didn’t chose Paul, and the military in SC voted the same way as everyone else. 1% difference falls in the margin of error.

    …and this shows how military home and abroad actually feel:

    Like

  60. Thanks TJ, Tom and Robert!!

    Like

  61. You still trying, Thommie?

    It’s pure spin with Ron Paul receiving the least number of votes of those claiming affiliation with the Military. Plain and simple!

    Do you know how to read polls?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/south-carolina-primary-jan-21/exit-polls

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/south-carolina/exit-polls

    You can also see: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-military-support-awol-south-carolina-exit-polls-say

    How many articles were boasting of Ron Paul surging in South Carolina, until the votes came in?

    Funny too how you and Tom are relying on uber liberals for news of support. Mother Jones and Lawrence O’Donnell? LOL.

    As for David French, his article is meaningless as once again, the results shown in South Carolina showed otherwise, AFTER he penned his article.

    Ya’ll can spin, yell, scream or stomp your feet, the results show Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination or the presidency. He has not won a single primary and if you feel you must stack caucuses, you know too he doesn’t have the support.

    Like

  62. there’s no point to be made, Lew. the stateside military in SC voted for Paul the same way non-military voted.

    “The only conclusion is that South Carolines will vote the same way for Paul whether or not they’ve served in the military LOLOL”

    plain and simple

    Like

  63. I must concur with the Paul supporters on this one.

    If there was a difference between the military and non-military voting for Paul then you’d have a case. And you would’ve posted the “No” vote above because it would have helped it.

    But there is no difference and you didn’t include the no vote because it’s uh, kind of relevant, and it sinks your case

    Like

  64. Oh Puleeze, robert, “stateside?”

    Does it escape you that a large number of those also deployed prior to now?

    Sorry, your boy has been exposed. As I said, the breakdown of those who served or are serving showed Ron Paul received the least amount of their votes.

    So much for Ron Paul being the choice of the Troops.

    Oh, and on those donations? How many were civilian employees on a Military base? He tried that too in 2007/2008 and failed. We also know, back in the Vietnam days, how many of the anti-war cretins imitated Veterans and many today still fabricate documents to gain Veterans benefits they are not entitled to.

    Ya’ll are not convincing anybody. Maybe you are just trying to convince yourselves?

    Your enthusiasm is wasted.

    Like

  65. I gave you links to exit polls. All that was asked was whether or not they voted for Ron Paul and served.

    I don’t know about you, but I consider votes for others to be a “no” vote for Ron Paul.

    If you don’t know how to read polls, not my problem.

    The spin of Ron Paul fails here.

    Like

  66. Hand in the cookie jar! Dishonest or just stupid, one of the two.

    It really is rather odd that you keep defending the point.

    Like

  67. I saw the exit polls. I saw the SC results. There’s no difference, so no conclusions can be made.

    Like

  68. However, in the other “56 states” Ron Paul is falling “flat”. I really doubt there are enough zealots in America to make Ron Paul the candidate.

    Like

  69. Crystal, you post all of the graphs you please, the bottom line remains that Ron Paul does not have near the support he wants you to think he does.

    This shit was tried by him last tie and he got what, 38 or so delegates? Pathetic.

    Since when is defending the truth “odd?”

    Robert, obfuscation doesn’t fly.

    1. Ron Paul and supporters make a big fuss that “the Troops” want him. Not some, not part of them, but “the Troops.”

    2. 21% of those claiming to be affiliated with the Military in South Carolina, the first state primary where there is a heavy Military/Veteran population voted in the primary.

    3. Of that 21%, only 12%, the lowest number of any candidate voted for Ron Paul. That means that 88% of those claiming to be Military/Veteran voted for someone else.

    4. Claiming they are just “stateside” is a smokescreen. Do you know for a fact that So. Carolina does not use absentee ballots in their primary? I don’t.

    5. And finally, if Ron Paul had anywhere near the support you claim he does, he would not have to rely on trickery, smokescreens or any obfuscation of facts & truth to try to sway people that he who voters want.

    Voters rejected him in 1988 and 2008 and will again. His message is not what voters want. So, on the off chance that by some fluke he did get in, what do you intend to do, send out his “brown shirts” to force people to what he says is right?

    You people are doing exactly what Obama and his Democrat cronies want you to do, split the votes and put Obama back in. Just like Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996.

    Like

  70. Comment received by email from Jeff T longliveliberty@yahoo.com, February 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    lew, (feel free to post this as a response, i didnt feel like signing up for google)

    My, how gracious of you to grant me permission on what to post on my blog. That’s mighty white of you.

    in your post about ron paul; you sound very unlike a conservative, at least not a historically knowledgeable one.

    Sorry, but I am a conservative. That I do not fit the Ron Paul Libertarian redefinition of conservative in an effort to fool conservatives that he is one is not my problem,

    ron paul is the only veteran and that is true, but his leadership credentials dont come from his air force service but from his courageous championing of american liberty on the floor of the house for decades against the odds.

    Most of us when we see claims of being a “Veteran” think have served in harm’s way. Since Ron Paul makes the claim, it is incumbent upon him to open his record and allow us to judge his qualifications based upon his claim. That you now throw out a smokescreen saying, “his leadership credentials dont come from his air force service” is immaterial and meaningless. He makes the claim, he should back it up and clear up discrepancies noted.

    That he makes the claim and his campaign does not respond to several calls to be open and transparent is very telling. Several people I know of have contacted the campaign asking for him to be open and transparent, none have received a reply.

    as for the “truth-meter” type stuff; for less than 10% of our history prior to 1913 did we have any income tax, AND WHEN WE DID IT WAS EXPLICITLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL !! in other words, void… marbury vs madison.

    Article 1 Section 8 – Powers of Congress: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,,,,,,,”

    Article 1. Section 9 – Limits on Congress: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken….”

    Income tax is an “indirect tax,” it is not taxing the money, but the transaction which results in the transfer of wealth.

    The argument of an income tax being unconstitutional, even as much as I too dislike income tax, is lame and dead wrong. Regardless of what the 16th Amendment said, from day one, Congress had the power to “lay and collect” taxes. Claims of the 16th Amendment not being legally ratified are also erroneous as Article 1 Section 8 grants Congress to power to tax.

    An argument of the income tax not being uniform might b a better argument, but that is not what Ron Paul or you claim.

    as for santorum, to label him as anything other than a big government neo-con would be ridiculous.

    Yawn. What do I care what you say about Rick Santorum? Have I endorsed or posted in support of him yet? I have said I lean towards him for now, that is all. Taking digs at Santorum does not make Ron Paul any more appealing.

    he is the same as gw and primarily the same as obama when it comes to over-bearing over-sized government.

    Yawn, see my comment above.

    as for those supposedly racist newsletters… theyre old, nobody can prove ron supported them; plus rons whole life and even his campaigning seems to suggest that he is far more mild tempered than to make such comments in that way even if he did believe them… HOWEVER, i have read the comments, and while they are abrasive in tone; where are the factual flaws ?? they are basically representative of the truth of our countries race and cultural problem that is constantly downplayed daily; see “suicide of an empire” by pat buchanan(or check his website).

    The newsletters are relevant in more than one way. He sent them out himself. Or, others sent them out under his name with his knowledge and permission. Or, they were sent out under his name by his people with him having no clue, which would be the worst thing he could claim as it indicates he has no control nor does he monitor what is done under his name. Do you really want someone at the helm of the nation who doesn’t have a clue what is being done? I don’t.

    Pat Buchanan has never impressed me.

    for instance, the basketball shoe riots in florida this week; the orlando sentinel listed about 4 or 5 “rioters” that were present. one had an italian sounding name and the rest were clearly hispanic names; not one mention of a black or even the mention of a black sounding name; leading one to conclude that the incident was primarily hispanic with perhaps a few whites… REALLY ??

    And what is the importance of injecting race? Florida has a lot of Hispanics and Italians who moved down from New York. It also has had a lot of Jewish people over the years as well as Puerto Ricans. Several in my High School class were Jewish and we only had 3 Blacks during my senior year. Oh, did you not know I am a native Floridian?

    Orlando has a Democrat mayor and is a large city best with the problems of all other large cities.

    Sorry, but I look upon people by what character they display, not race, religion or gender.

    Your race baiting does nothing here, just makes you look smaller.

    IN A RIOT FOR BASKETBALL SHOES ?? REALLY ?!?!? in a city with a large black population there is a riot over shiny gaudy basketball shoes that requires a hundred police, police dogs, and 2 helicopters; and there werent any blacks present ?? maybe that is because mexicans are disproportionally represented in college and pro basketball, right lew ?? or is it whites ?? maybe pigmys ?? midgets ?? im sure they were all rioting there too, but not any blacks, correct ??

    As I said, race baiting does not fly here. That some idiots went crazy over a stupid pair of shoes is no different than when they went crazy over Cabbage Patch dolls in the 80’s, or mobs flooding into stores for the latest release of whatever goodie Sony, Apple or whoever else releases.

    Your racism impresses me not.

    as for soldiers of which you are one; there is a difference between support from people who are active in politics from any group; and just the voting members of a group that really dont vet any of the questions before they vote.

    Duh.

    you can be pretty certain that the majority of those contributing to the various campaigns have given a serious look at the history of the wars we have lately been involved in. in fact, many of the young soldiers that support ron paul have made eloquent and factual utube videos explaining their support of dr paul.

    Yes, I’ve seen the small number of videos produced for Ron Paul, including those of Adam Kokesh who reminds me more of John ‘F’in Kerry and his Merry band of mostly phonies claiming to be Veterans than any I can recall.

    Funny thing too, I watched the videos of the so called Veterans March in D.C. for Ron Paul. Hilarious seeing they not only did not properly know how to give the command “Present Arms,” but many did not seem to know what it meant or how to even execute it. Only a handful did.

    That is the most basic command a soldier learns.

    and lastly, the federal reserve:
    the income tax and the federal reserve were established at the same time … 1913. what have we had since ?? constant war and constantly growing government.

    I suggest you study the economic upheavals seen through the 1800’s and the deep recession of the early 1900’s.

    The world has seen many, many wars long before America was formed and the fed was created. Even the 20th Century saw several wars America was not even involved in.

    The 1800’s saw several internal wars besides the Civil War. Ask the Indians.

    but lew, dont take my word for the evils of international bankers, check your founders strong beliefs unless you think that santorum and obama are smarter than madison, washington, jefferson, and franklin. since santorum(and the rest) and obama agree on the “value” of international bankers and our founders explicitly put bars in the constitution stopping anybody but congress from having the authority and control over money.

    Thank you, I won’t.

    I guess it escapes you that Congress showed they could not properly manage our money, which contributed to the formation of the Federal Reserve? I suggest you actually do some research and stop listening to Ron Paul, Alex Jones or Louis McFadden.

    http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

    franklin in his autobiography said that the revolution was fought because the “international bankers” took away the colonies right to issue their own money which caused unemployment and discontent.

    You don’t read much, do you? If so, how is it you can quote Benjamin Franklin from his “autobiography” with a quote not in it? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

    jefferson said if there were one change he could make to the constitution it would be to take away the governments ability to borrow money.

    Funny thing about Jefferson and borrowing, he was in debt most all of his adult life and it took his grandson 2 decades to pay off his debts after his death. http://www.neatorama.com/2011/07/22/great-moments-in-presidential-debt/

    As president, Jefferson borrowed money from Britain, at 6% interest to make the Lousiana Purchase. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm

    Oh well, you can’t win them all.

    washington said, and demonstrated, that we should have open dialogue with all of our enemies and that we should seek peace and trade WITH ALL and that we should have entangling alliances with NONE.

    Neville Chamberlain thought that too. If that was Washington’s view, why did he lead an Army against the British and not seek “dialogue?”

    madison asked the country to pray that God would animate the hearts of our enemies(the british of 1812) to seek(negotiate/dialogue) peace so that the war could be ended and so that we could re-establish commerce with the british; he did not ask God to help us completely destroy and take over great britain while he threatened to indefinitely detain anyone who spoke to a british citizen.

    Madison penned his Prayer of Peace and Fasting in July 1812. After the British invaded Washington, D.C. and the Capitol was burned in September 1814 he wrote, “Whereas these proceedings and declared purposes, which exhibit a deliberate disregard of the principles of humanity and the rules of civilized warfare, and which must give to the existing war a character of extended devastation and barbarism at the very moment of negotiations for peace, invited by the enemy himself, leave no prospect of safety to anything within the reach of his predatory and incendiary operations but in manful and universal determination to chastise and expel the invader..” http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3624

    There is also, “When Britain and France went to war in 1793, the U.S. was caught in the middle. The 1778 treaty of alliance with France was still in effect, yet most of the new country’s trade was with Britain. War with Britain seemed imminent in 1794, as the British seized hundreds of American ships that were trading with French colonies. Madison believed that Britain was weak and the United States was strong, and that a trade war with Britain, although risking a real war by the British government, probably would succeed, and would allow Americans to assert their independence fully. Great Britain, he charged, “has bound us in commercial manacles, and very nearly defeated the object of our independence.” As Varg explains, Madison discounted the much more powerful British army and navy for ‘her interests can be wounded almost mortally, while ours are invulnerable’.”

    Then too, there is also, “Congress repealed Jefferson’s embargo shortly before Madison became president.[59] America’s new Nonintercource policy was to trade with all countries including France and Britain if restrictions on shipping were removed. Madison’s diplomatic efforts in April 1809, although initially promising, to get the British to withdraw the Orders in Council were rejected by British Foriegn Secretary George Canning. By August 1809, diplomatic relations with Britain deteriorated as minister David Erskine was withdrawn and replaced by “hatchet man” Francis James Jackson; Madison however, resisted calls for war. After Jackson accused Madison of duplicity with Erskine, Madison had Jackson barred from the State Department and sent packing to Boston. Madison during his first state of the Union address in November 1809, asked Congress for advice and alternatives concerning British-American trade crisis and to prepare for war. By Spring 1810, President Madison was specifically asking Congress for more appropriations to increase the Army and Navy in preparation for war with Britain. Together with the effects of European peace, the United States economy began to recover early in Madison’s presidency. By the time Madison was standing for reelection, the Peninsular War in Spain had spread, while at the same time Napoleon invaded Russia, and the entire continent again descended into war.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

    Really, you need to actually research and study, stop blindly clinging to Ron Paul talking points.

    so again lew, who takes the positions that are in line with the brilliant men who founded our country ?? there is only one man— dr ron paul.

    Really, Jeff, study real history.

    santorum, gingrich, romney, obama… merely fish of a different color of the same school; not different fish in any meaningful way.

    And yet, the country continues rejecting Ron Paul. Sure a good thing we have you to tell us what we should think, just like liberals like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and so many more.

    ron paul agrees with the founders on every critical point listed by them above, and all of the rest of the presidential field beg to be entangled with israel and also preach incessantly that the founders are wrong on every point made above.

    Ron Paul believes in what he believes the founders stood for and believed, not what they actually did or said. Just like his bogus claim of be the rightful heir to Ronald Reagan’s legacy, in spite of his rejecting Reagan in 1987. He picks and chooses what he thinks will tickle the people’s ears. Not what I look for in a leader.

    ron paul EXPLICITLY agrees with our founders on every one of those points. i trust ron paul because he is not a flip-flopper like all of the rest; but i also trust OUR FOUNDERS who were each far smarter individually than the aggregate wisdom of santorum, newt, romney, and obama put together.

    Yes, Ron Paul doesn’t flip flop, other than in the 2008 Values Voter Debate he said he would defend Israel if she were attacked and now wants to cut ties. And, in 2008 and earlier, Ron Paul accepted Man Made Global Warming as a sufficiently established scientific fact and now he says there’s considerable doubt about MMGW. And, in 2008 and earlier, he defended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but when it recently came up for a vote, he voted to repeal it and said he had no problem with gays serving openly in the military. And, his previous support of the Defense of Marriage Act, yet today he is all for overturning it.

    No need to list more, you get the message. And, we cannot forget his waffling on immigration, once wanting to allow illegal aliens in and now, wanting strict federal border enforcement, although the constitution grants no federal right to do so, it too was found to be “implicit” by the courts, the very thing he rails on about against others points he deems “unconstitutional.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihDoUYaqhgM

    so since i trust ron paul to do what he says because he ALWAYS does; and since i trust the FOUNDERS policies, which ron paul is merely copying and that i believe he will stick to; there really isnt any other choice for me; and i must honestly question the intellect of someone that seriously thinks that our current crop of presidential politicians(minus ron paul) are smart enough to trust on policy over and above the explicit genius of the 4 great founders mentioned.

    Yes, unless you look at where he actually has flip flopped. But, why let facts get in the way, right?

    i am hoping lew, that you are merely not as educated on these subjects as would be nice. i would suggest following judge napolitano, alex jones, brother nathaniel kapner(realzionistnews.com); and a man by your name, lew rockwell. of course, this only ad-mixed in with your reading of our founders to provide the proper context.

    Your condescending tone earns you no endearment. In fact, it leaves looking very uneducated yourself, considering how many things you are wrong about in history. Perhaps you can join Ron Paul in actually getting an education. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/12/a-history-lesson-for-ron-paul/

    and why ?? because lew, we would welcome you as a partner in the cause of american liberty.

    Sorry, I already wear 3 Overseas bars on my sleeve and 4 campaign stars on my Vietnam Service Ribbon, compared to Ron Paul’s, what, zero? Ron Paul would decimate the country if he succeeded in putting any of his views into place. He already gets no support from fellow congress critters, what makes you think he would if he got in the White House?

    I’ll fight the real fight for American Liberty, not do Obama’s bidding to split the Republican vote to keep Obama in power. The last thing we need is a dictator like Ron Paul would have to be in order to do as he wishes.

    Sorry Jeff, you and the small band of Ron Paul worshippers been sold a bill of goods.

    Like

  71. Update – latest Rasmussen poll shows either Ron Paul or Mitt Romney beat Obama (43/41,45/43). Santorum and Gingrich lose:

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2012/02/27/poll-ron-paul-defeats-obama-for-the-first-time-nationally/

    Like

  72. Congratulations, you finally got a daily poll.

    But, Ron Paul is still behind Romney, isn’t he?

    We’ll see how long it lasts. Funny thing about daily polls, they often change day from day 😉

    The only polls that really matter is the ballot at the voting polls.

    Like

  73. What’s more interesting to me, is that RP appears to have much broader support among the general voter population that he does among Republican party regulars where he typically polls around 18-20%. That’s why he should be on the ticket, perhaps running as VP with Romney. That would be an unbeatable ticket imo.

    Like

  74. Also in the Rasmussen article, “Paul has the biggest gender gap of any GOP hopeful. The libertarian congressman leads by 13 among men and trails by eight among women. Paul also picks up 15% of the vote from self-identified liberals.”

    “Paul now joins Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Santorum and Gingrich as front-runners who have led the president in a single Rasmussen Reports poll. However, it remains to be seen whether Paul can do what those others have not accomplished and lead the president more than once. So far, the only GOP candidate to do that is Romney.”

    His support is not all that great at this time.

    As for VP, it is being assumed Ron Paul sold out to Mitt Romney in order to get Rand on the ticket, which would explain Rand’s mysterious statement of how he would be honored to be asked to be VP when his name has not been floated.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_deal_between_romney_and_paul.html

    With Michigan’s primary so soon, Rasmussen is also reporting, “The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters in Michigan, taken Sunday night, finds Romney with 38% support to Santorum’s 36%. Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich remain far behind with 11% and 10% of the vote respectively.”

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/2012_michigan_republican_primary

    In Arizona, also holding a primary tomorrow, Rasmussen reports, “The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Arizona Republican Primary Voters finds Romney leading Santorum 42% to 29%. The survey, taken after the last scheduled debate of the GOP candidates, finds Romney up three points and Santorum down two from a week ago when it was a 39% to 31% race.”

    “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich earns 16% support, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul trails with eight percent (8%), marking virtually no change for either man from the previous survey.”

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/arizona/2012_arizona_republican_primary

    Like

  75. That is very interesting Lew. I saw Santorum’s complaints on Meet the Press, but hadn’t heard of the Rand Paul as VP idea. He’s a little green to pull that off in my opinion, but we’ll see.

    Like

  76. No confirmation, as you know. And yes, Rand is green, but so was Obama and he didn’t settle for VP.

    I would think any sort of alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt would prove disastrous for Ron Paul in claims of being different.

    Daily Paul lends credence to the theory, http://www.dailypaul.com/216834/the-ron-paul-mitt-romney-rom-paul-alliance-will-be-the-only-thing-to-save-the-gop

    I find that quite odd when considering they also promote “nobody but Ron Paul.” Commenters react as I would expect.

    It will be interesting to watch in the days ahead. Hopefully it will be proven or clearly disproved.

    Like

  77. I think we’d all be better off if the GOP was replaced by a Conservative Party. The GOP is it’s own worst enemy.

    Like

  78. Dylan Radigan, a highly respected financial journalist, makes the case for End the Fed (or at least drastically clip its wings):

    Like

  79. The same Dylan Ratigan that writes for Michael Moore.com?

    The same Dylan Ratigan that supports the Occupy group and called the war on drugs “Racist?”

    The same Dylan Ratigan who went on Rachel Maddow’s program and complained capitalism made him get fatter and start smoking?

    The same Dylan Ratigan who condemns crony capitalism, but joined in with the rest of MSNBC in remaining silent about Solyndra?

    The same Dylan Ratigan that advocated a National Internet Tax?

    The same Dylan Ratigan who thinks we have a “multi-TRILLION dollar” defense budget and would gut our defenses?

    The same Dylan Ratigan who says America’s Justice system is more abusive than the Chinese?

    Like

%d bloggers like this: