RON PAUL 2012

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul Campaign Welcomes Constitutional Law Heavyweight Bruce Fein as Senior Advisor


Commentator, analyst to consult on legal issues
August 23, 2011 12:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time

LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced today that constitutional and international law expert Bruce Fein will join the campaign as senior advisor on legal matters.

“Bruce Fein’s participation adds to our campaign’s already intellectual heft, enabling us to more broadly engage the conversation about constitutionality, civil liberties and the dangers to national security of an increasingly interventionist foreign policy,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

Mr. Fein served as associate deputy attorney and general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan. He served as Research Director for Republicans on the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran, and on the American Bar Associations Committee on Presidential Signing Statements. He has been a Visiting Fellow for Constitutional Studies at the Heritage Foundation and an adjunct scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He has advised numerous countries on constitutional reform, including South Africa, Hungary and Russia.

Mr. Fein graduated from Harvard Law School with honors in 1972. He has worked in and out of government in Washington, D.C. for 39 years, and penned a weekly column for The Washington Times for more than two decades. He is a frequent witness before Congress.

Mr. Fein is the founding member of Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc., and is a principal of a public advocacy organization, The Lichfield Group.

He is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire Before The Fall.

About his appointment, Mr. Fein stated: “I am honored to advance the Republican presidential aspirations of Ron Paul. He is the only candidate in the field who understands and practices the constitutional principles and philosophy of the Founding Fathers that made this nation a government of the people, by the people, for the people. He is the only candidate who knows that limited government and war are antonyms, not synonyms. He is the only candidate who repudiates aimless, endless wars at extravagant expense. And Dr. Paul is the only candidate that recognizes that the glory of a Republic is liberty, not domination.”

Source: http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110823006316/en

[DejaVu]

11 Reasons Why Ron Paul Would Defeat Barack Obama In A One-On-One Debate

August 16, 2011

1. Ron Paul is a honest and humble man who keeps his word. Barack Obama is an egoistic liar, a traitor and a betrayer who will say anything to get elected. The American people have seen through the Obama facade so it is less likely that he will pull the wool over their eyes in 2012 as he did in 2008.

2. Ron Paul is against the criminal and unconstitutional War on Terror and War on Drugs, while President Obama is for both. Numerous polls show that over 70 percent of the American people want both wars to end, especially the younger generation.

3. Ron Paul’s economic policies will save Social Security and Medicare. Even though he is ideologically against such government programs because of his libertarian philosophy, Paul has said that he would end the wars to help pay for Social Security and Medicare so seniors get the money that rightfully belongs to them. However, Paul has said that he would allow the younger generation to opt out of Social Security and Medicare if they want.

What is President Obama’s economic plan? Let the treasonous banks on Wall Street, the evil Federal Reserve and the military-industrial complex burn the place down and destroy Social Security and Medicare. Also, the Obama administration and the new Super Congress will impose austerity measures on the American people, leaving millions of people homeless, jobless, and hopeless.

Obama’s gullible political base have no idea that their leader’s economic policies will destroy Social Security and Medicare, and ruin the American middle class.

Obama is not a president of the people, he is an assassin for the banks and corporate looters.

4. Ron Paul is not a political candidate, he is a revolutionary in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. He is not running a political campaign, he is trying to liberate and save America.

The political, financial and media establishment in the United States is the modern version of the British Empire and King George III. If the media traitors on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC were alive in 1776 they would’ve called George Washington a domestic terrorist and demanded his head.

Barack Obama is a **** for the establishment who wants to protect the evil status quo, not a man who wants change as he falsely advertised in his 2008 presidential campaign.

5. A CNN poll from May 2011 showed that Rep. Paul has the best chance among Republicans of defeating President Barack Obama in a head-to-head election. An excerpt from the article:

Continued here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/11-reasons-why-ron-paul-would-defeat-barack-obama-in-a-one-on-one-debate.html

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul Asks If Libya Is Indeed "Mission Accomplished"

08/29/2011

Ron Paul has released the following extended rhetorical inquiry on what the utility of the recent expansion (through very military means) of US and European interests in Libya has been, which more than anything exposes US hypocricy when it comes to foreign national interests. To wit: "Gaddafi may well have been a tyrant, but as such he was no worse than many others that we support and count as allies. Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements.  Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than before the US invasion.  Will Libya be any different?" And he follows up: " With the big Western scramble to grab Libya's oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?" Unfortunately, we will get the answer to this question quite soon, especially if a counter revolution in Libya, as many expect, does occur.



From Ron Paul:

Mission Accomplished in Libya?

Even as a major hurricane hit America's eastern seaboard, the administration is determined to expand the war in Libya while threatening the regime in Syria.  Is there any limit to government's appetite to create more problems for our nation and economy?

Americans may be tempted to celebrate the apparent victory of US and NATO backed rebels in Libya, since it seems the Gaddafi regime is overthrown. But I believe any enthusiasm for our Libyan misadventure is premature.

The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress -- and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate.  It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the US Congress.

Are we better off as a nation by ignoring and debasing our Constitution?  Are we better off having spent more than a billion dollars attacking a country thousands of miles away that had not threatened us?  Are we more financially sound having expanded the empire to include yet another protectorate and probable long-term military occupation?  Are we more admired throughout the world for getting involved in yet another war?

Still, many will claim that getting rid of Libyan ruler Gaddafi was worth it. They will say that the ends justify the means. As the civilian toll from NATO bombs adds up in a war started under the guise of protecting a civilian population, even the initial argument for intervention is ridiculous. We should not forget that there were no massacres taking place in Libya before the NATO attack. The attack was a dubbed a preventative humanitarian intervention.  But as soon as NATO planes started bombing, civilians started dying.

Gaddafi may well have been a tyrant, but as such he was no worse than many others that we support and count as allies. Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements.  Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than before the US invasion.  Will Libya be any different?

We already see grisly reprisals from the US-backed rebels against their political opponents.  There are disturbing scenes of looting and lawlessness on the part of the rebels.  We know that some rebel factions appear to be allied with Islamic extremists and others seem to have ties to the CIA.  They also appear to have a penchant for killing each other as well as supporters of the previous regime.  The tribal structure of Libyan society all but ensures that an ongoing civil war is on the agenda rather than the Swiss-style democracy that some intervention advocates suggest is around the corner.

What is next after such a victory?  With the big Western scramble to grab Libya's oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?

Neo-conservatives continue to dominate our foreign policy, regardless of the administration in power.  They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid. They have set their sights next on Syria, where the US moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the US.  Already the US president has called for "regime change" in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime.  Are US bombers far behind?

Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ron-paul-asks-if-libya-indeed-mission-accomplished

[DejaVu]

Constitutional scholar refutes anti-Paul claims

AUGUST 31, 2011

A good rule of thumb I’ve discovered is that critics who claim Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t understand the Constitution are themselves the ones whose knowledge is deficient.

For example, Scott McKeag, a teacher in the Iowa City School District, came down hard on the congressman in these pages for denying that the federal government has a role in education according to the Constitution. The congressman further believes that education is better managed by states, localities, and parents.

McKeag cites the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause to justify the federal Department of Education, which opened its doors in 1980.

Let’s tick off the problems with this howler.

First, Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 33 that the necessary and proper clause was inserted merely for clarification and did not augment federal power at all. He even said the Constitution would be exactly the same if that clause were “entirely obliterated.” Appealing to the clause to carry the burden of justifying federal involvement in education — which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution — is asking it to do much heavier lifting than even Hamilton, the broadest of constitutional constructionists, thought it could bear.

Second, George Nicholas, future attorney general of Kentucky, told the Virginia ratifying convention (and remember, according to James Madison, it is to the ratifying conventions that we turn for constitutional interpretation) that the clause “only enables it [Congress] to carry into execution the powers given to it, but gives it no additional power.” Many other statements to this effect can be found in the documentary records of the ratifying conventions.

In other words, citing this clause for authority to establish a Department of Education only begs the question, since McKeag has not first established education as one of “the powers given to it.”

Third, in numerous state ratifying conventions, the people were assured the federal government would have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it. Power over education is obviously not expressly delegated.

Fourth, Thomas Jefferson explained in 1791 that “necessary and proper” had to mean really necessary, as opposed to merely convenient, in carrying out the enumerated powers if the clause were not to swallow up the whole Constitution and defeat its very purpose. Because education is nowhere listed among the enumerated powers, it wouldn’t survive even the first stage of Jefferson’s test.

McKeag only makes things worse when he appeals to Jefferson: “President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, championed this idea from his time in the Virginia Legislature.”

Ouch. Here’s what Jefferson actually said: “An amendment to our Constitution must here come in aid of the public education.”

Got that? An amendment to our Constitution. That means federal involvement in education is unconstitutional given the text of the document as it stands. In other words, Jefferson held precisely the view that Ron Paul holds today.

McKeag has no better luck when he tries to claim Madison. Madison warned people in 1792 that if they interpreted the general welfare clause too broadly, we’d wind up with the federal government taking “into its own hands the education of children,” an outcome he considered absurd. Ouch again, Mr. McKeag.

The rest of the article argues from the precedent, “Hey, lots of politicians have thought the people were too stupid to run their own schools and needed to be taxed for the privilege of being bossed around by their Washington betters.” Maybe so, but that doesn’t answer the question: Is it constitutional?

Before filling the heads of Iowan children with any more nonsense, Scott McKeag might consider leaving Ron Paul alone and spending a teensy bit more time reading.

Source: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/08/31/Opinions/24610.html

[Pretender]

Finally media is taking notice?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/08/31/140091512/ron-paul-philosophy-of-liberty-and-the-constitution-has-been-vindicated?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[DejaVu]

Finally media is taking notice?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/08/31/140091512/ron-paul-philosophy-of-liberty-and-the-constitution-has-been-vindicated?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Excellent find Pretender!

I don't think most of the corporate media has a choice, Ron Paul is getting too well known for them to keep on ignoring him. To do that these days says more about "what are they trying to hide?" more than anything else. They will still try and smear him (most of that will come from the Republican party talking heads no doubt) but it won't work because what RP says usually resonates with most of what the country is feeling these days. He will do exactly as he's stated, and completely change the political system of DC using the presidency and the Constitution...and unfortunately that puts a big bulls-eye on his back.

This is the YouTube of the interview on NPR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvIjhmujU0I&feature=feedu

[DejaVu]

A compilation of videos I have collected from veterans over the last five months. As veterans we have a duty to let the American people to let them know that we overwhelmingly support the candidate of peace and the champion of The Constitution. Dr. Paul is The Constitutional candidate for veterans; his foreign policy most closely resembles the policies of our founding fathers. His ideals of non-interventionism and America first foreign policy is the strategy recommended by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural speech where he said ""Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." Dr. Paul is also the most likely to respect what The Constitution outlines as the president's authority in dictating how our military is used. That the president can cannot wage war without a declaration from congress. Paul has proven himself to be a man of peace during his 23 years on Capitol Hill. As veterans we know that anytime he called upon us to perform our duties it would be in a Constitutional manner. He would never ask us to break our oath or put us in a position where it is unclear where our loyalty should lie as we have for the last 10 years. As a veteran himself he understands the words of Douglas MacArthur "The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." Dr. Paul has spoken very directly on his intentions if he were to be elected president. He would call for an immediate cease fire in the illegal and unconstitutional wars that we are currently involved with in with at least five different countries and withdraw our soldiers from areas such as Korea where we have been guarding their border for 50 years. This would significantly decrease the amount of blowback we receive as a nation in the form of terrorist attacks, give us the manpower and logistics to defend our own borders, and strengthen our nation economically by eliminating unnecessary deficit spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP8q7fc7TR4&feature=player_embedded

[DejaVu]

Web Viewers Say Ron Paul Won Debate, But Mainstream Still Touts Perry

September 09, 2011

The mainstream media’s advance coverage of the Sept. 7 Republican presidential debate fed the American people the line that Texas Gov. Rick Perry was an automatic frontrunner—even though many voters outside of Texas hadn’t had much time to learn about Perry’s views before his first-ever debate as a presidential candidate.

Yet at the point when there was more than 205,000 post-debate responses to a poll at MSNBC’s website, as to who was seen as the debate’s winner, the other Texan, Rep. Ron Paul, won it. He had received more than half the votes on the following day. His margin grew from there.

Yet in the immediate wake of this MSNBC/Politico debate among eight contenders for the GOP nomination, held at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., many, and perhaps most top corporate media organs continued spotlighting Perry, while implying that Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are the only ones worth rooting for—as if it’s a given that they’re on the so-called “top tier” and must remain there, when the purpose of having debates and elections, lest we forget, is for the people to decide who they want as president.

The media’s increasingly brazen attempts to pre-decide our political future by narrowing the candidate field on its own terms—which include blatantly downplaying Paul during pre-debate and post-debate reports—is as much of the story as the debate itself. While the media continually look for clever debate “zingers” from the GOP contenders, as if witty remarks are what constitute a good president, the United States is arguably in the most tenuous position it has ever been in: It’s being bankrupted by permanent war; and the economy and monetary system need to be dramatically overhauled, lest the nation implode due to worse-than-reported joblessness, foreclosures and other ongoing traumas.

The people, amid increased surveillance technology hardwired into society, see their retirement hopes on the ropes and live daily with decreased privacy; the business sector, especially small business, needs fewer regulations. And maybe, just maybe, the ongoing wars are losing their sizzle in this 10th year since 9-11.

Paul, who is by no means perfect, and has some explaining to do regarding his views on free trade and monetary policy, speaks to these concerns and it resonates with voters, especially younger ones who look to the future and do not see anything promising at this propitious point in our history. Therefore, the American people have less of an appetite for business-as-usual from a media that’s always trumpeting mediocrity.

Yet many online reports right after the debate (and a Politico story, among others, just before the debate) still gave inordinate verbiage to Perry and Romney. Many online links, after the debate, highlighted photos of Perry standing next to Romney, though, on stage, Paul stood to Perry’s immediate left, so the two Texans were together.

Continued: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=460

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul Raises $1 million In One Day

Constitution Day ‘money bomb’ explodes

Sept 15, 2011

Video
For the second consecutive month running Presidential hopeful Ron Paul netted over $1 million in a single day via the now customary ‘money bomb’ fundraising action events organised online by grassroots supporters.

The total now stands at $1,059,722.17, making this the fifth money bomb in this campaign cycle to pull in more than $1 million one a single day.

“Our campaign continues to grow in strength and numbers, and the success of these truly grassroots events is a telling example of Dr. Paul’s support,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

Continued: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-raises-1-million-in-one-day/


Not bad considering Ron Paul doesn't take money from Corporations or Lobbyists! Go Ron Paul!

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul: Obama's proposed cuts to veteran healthcare 'unjust and immoral'

09/20/11

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul blasted President Obama's budget-reduction proposal Tuesday, saying that the suggestion to raise co-pays for military veterans is "unjust and immoral."

"Failing to meet the promises we have made to our troops would be unjust and immoral," Paul said in an open letter to Obama. "Our military men and women have fought bravely. In exchange, our country made a promise to them, and we must honor it."The Obama plan proposes a $200 annual fee for retired military families who want to continue coverage under a Tricare-for-Life program that supplements Medicare coverage for veterans over 65. The proposal would save the government $6.7 billion over 10 years, according to the White House.

The president's proposal would also eliminate co-pays for mail-order drugs and institute a percentage co-pay rather than a flat-fee for in-pharmacy purchases. The White House says the move will encourage military families to use less expensive prescriptions and save the U.S. $20 billion over 20 years.

The Pentagon has also said that current retirees would be grandfathered in to the program, and would not face proposed cuts to military pension programs.

But veterans groups have opposed the move, and Paul seized on the issue to hammer the president.
RELATED ARTICLES

    Obama's healthcare cuts face criticism from all sides

The candidate used the proposal as a jumping-off point to reiterate his call for the United States to withdraw from wars in the Middle East.

"Cutting the benefits of our Veterans benefits while we subsidize the security of other wealthy nations like Germany and Japan and play World Policeman makes no sense," Paul said. "The money we would save extracting our fighting men and women and our equipment from overseas conflicts and regions will more than offset the savings you seek by upending the manner in which veterans receive care."

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/182607-paul-blasts-obama-for-proposed-cuts-to-veteran-health-care

[DejaVu]

N.H. poll: Ron Paul in second place, leads Rick Perry

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/n-h-poll-ron-paul-in-second-place-leads-rick-perry/#ixzz1Yk5vyrF8

*Scroll down and see the winner of the online poll. Go Ron Paul!

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul Highlights in 9/22/2011 Presidential Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvG8uWT1sq4&feature=player_embedded#!

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul raised $5 million in Q3

By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 9/30/11 8:45 AM EDT Updated: 9/30/11 9:55 AM EDT

Ron Paul raised $5 million in the third fundraising quarter, CNN is reporting.

What's especially striking about the amount is that Paul is likely to be the lone candidate to raise more this quarter, which is traditionally a tough one, than he did in the preceding one. Last time, he raised $4.5 million.
Continue Reading

It also, depending on what Mitt Romney ultimately reports, may end up being half of what the Massachusetts pol raised.

UPDATE: Paul adviser Jesse Benton tells me it will be "over $5 million."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64803.html#ixzz1ZSLB65Ny

Go Ron Paul 2012!

[DejaVu]

[DejaVu]

Ron Paul at NFRA Meeting in DM10-29-11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ro1o6XizNs&feature=player_embedded