By In Politics

Ron Paul on Abortion

LA Times reports:

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

Speaking at the Iowa Family Leader’s presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul, an obstetrician and a Christian, explained that he disagreed with the popular belief that to be a Libertarian means having a laissez faire attitude of “it’s the woman’s body; she can do whatever she wants.”

“Life comes from our creator, not our government,” Politico reported Paul as saying. “Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”

Paul’s stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than “Jane Roe” from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the ’70s.

“Roe,” whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. “I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade,” McCorvey said. “He has never wavered … on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.”

When Paul accepted the endorsement he said, “As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount.”

Read more

By In Politics

Was Obama Stampede Into War?

Was Obama Stampeded Into War?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Wednesday – April 13, 2011

“NATO is moving very slowly, allowing Gadhafi forces to advance,” said rebel leader Abdul Fattah Younis, as the Libyan army moved back to the outskirts of Ajdabiya, gateway city to Benghazi.

“NATO has become our problem.”

Younis is implying that if NATO does not stop Libyan soldiers from capturing Ajdabiya, the rebels may be defeated — and NATO will be responsible for that defeat.

And who is Abdul Fattah Younis?

Until six weeks ago, he held the rank of general and interior minister and was regarded as the No. 2 man in Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.

Yet his military assessment does not appear too far off.

Last week, Gadhafi’s forces were again on the offensive, after having been driven by U.S. air and missile strikes all the way back to his hometown of Sirte.

What gave the Libyan army its new lease on life?

The Americans handed off the war to NATO and moved to the sidelines, restricting U.S. forces to supporting roles.

As of today, however, it appears that if the U.S. military does not re-engage deeply and actively in this war, the Libyan uprising could go down to defeat. And we will be blamed.

How did Barack Obama get us into this box?

Last week, Sen. Jim Webb questioned Gen. Carter Ham, head of the U.S. Africa Command.

As neither the United States, nor its citizens, nor any U.S. ally had been attacked or imperiled, Webb asked, what was the justification for the U.S. attack on Libya, whose government, Gadhafi’s government, the State Department still recognizes as the legitimate government of Libya?

“To protect lives,” was Ham’s response.

Yet, as last week brought news of the slaughter of 1,000 civilians by gunfire and machete by troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara, the man we recognize as the legitimate president of the Ivory Coast, a question arises: Why was a real massacre in West Africa less a casus belli for us than an imagined massacre in North Africa?

Was Obama stampeded into war by hysterical talk of impending atrocities that had no basis in fact?

That is the issue raised by columnist Steve Chapman, that ought to be raised by a Congress that was treated almost contemptuously, when Obama launched a war without seeking its authorization.

On March 26, over a week after he ordered the strikes on Libya, hitting tanks, anti-aircraft, radar sites, troops and Gadhafi’s own compound in Tripoli, 600 miles away from Benghazi, Obama told the nation he had acted to prevent a “bloodbath” in Benghazi.

“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte — could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”

White House Middle East expert Dennis Ross reportedly told foreign policy experts: “We were looking at ‘Srebrenica on steroids’ — the real or imminent possibility that up to 100,000 people could be massacred, and everyone would blame us for it.”

A hundred thousand massacred! And our fault? But that is seven times the body count of Katyn, one of the Stalinist horrors of World War II. Was Benghazi truly about to realize the fate that befell Carthage at the hands of Scipio Africanus, at the close of the Third Punic War?

How did the White House come to believe in such a scenario?

In this low-scale war, the cities of Zwara, Ras Lanuf, Brega, and Ajdabiya have changed hands, some several times. Misrata, the only rebel-held city in the west, has been under siege for seven weeks.

Yet in none of these towns has anything like the massacre in the Ivory Coast taken place, let alone Srebrenica. The Guardian’s Saturday report read, “Fierce fighting in Ajdabiya saw at least eight people killed.”

Yemeni President Saleh’s security forces killed six times that many civilians just to break up one rally in his central square.

True, on March 17, Gadhafi said he would show “no mercy.” But as Chapman notes, he was referring to “traitors” who resisted him to the end. And Gadhafi added, “We have left the way open to them.”

“Escape. Let those who escape go forever.” Gadhafi went on to pledge that “whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected.”

Perhaps Gadhafi is lying.

But there is, as yet, no evidence of any such slaughter in any town his forces have captured. Nor do the paltry forces Gadhafi has mustered to recapture the east — Ajdabiya was attacked by several dozen Toyota trucks — seem capable of putting a city of 700,000 to the sword.

With the Libyan war now seemingly a stalemate, and pressure building for the United States to renew air and missile strikes, and train and equip rebel forces, Congress needs to learn how we got into this mess.

Was Obama stampeded into this war by the panic and hysteria of his advisers? Because, quite clearly, he did not think this thing through.

<>seo студии харьков

Read more

By In Politics

Remembering Chalmers Johnson

Sheila Johnson remembers her husband…<>техническая поддержка а этозаказать рекламу а

Read more

By In Politics

Lybia War Benefits Obama

Chris Minion writes:

Obama went to war to split the Republican Party in anticipation of the 2012 elections. He has succeeded. He has sundered the GOP not only from its base, but from the Constitution (pacethe well-argued assertions that there was never a serious ligature to sever). Hard-core Bush supporters, especially the Big-Money types who profit so much from endless war (viz. Dick Cheney’s fan club), will be hard-pressed to “oppose the troops,” who will undoubtedly be on the ground until the elections are over — nor will they want to lose their incomes.

But what about Obama’s Left-wing supporters? They are “anti-war” in name only. All they want is power, and he’s grabbing plenty of it — and “spreading it around” like he is our money. In that, they are like their cousins on the Old Left, the Neocons, who now cheer Obama the liar, who broke all his campaign promises so he could remake the country in his own sordid image. (Kid Kristol welcomes this, of course: with his pathetic smirk he welcomes Obama as a “Born-Again Neocon,” bragging that Obama might even have consulted him about Libya).

This is the sad reality. In a sense, Obama has already secured his second term.

 

<>поддержка интернет аметро радио реклама

Read more

By In Politics

Rand Paul: Obama is Hypocritical

The Huffington Post quote Rand Paul as saying:

“We are engaging in a third war at a time when our country is struggling under an enormous debt and involved in two other wars,” he said, according to The Hill. “I will be very interested to see whether other senators support the candidate Barack Obama or now the hypocritical version that has become our president.”

<>наполнениеopencart seo cms

Read more

By In Politics

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul on Wars and the Fed

<>наполнение контентапоиск позиций а

Read more

By In Politics

Ron Paul is Right on Lybia

‎”It is my opinion that we should NOT…. go into Libya and impose a No Fly Zone. You have to remember, a No Fly Zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya? …. There’s no constitutional authority for a President to willie nillie go and start placing No Fly Zones over countries around the world.”

Source<>копирайтингкак работать в яндекс директ

Read more

By In Politics

Ron Paul lead the pack in the Tea Party Patriots

Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain led a presidential straw poll among Tea Party members released on Sunday, with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin trailing in third place.<>продвижение а статьями

Read more

By In Politics

Campaign for Liberty

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Across our nation, Campaign for Liberty’s 150,000+ members are taking action, educating their fellow countrymen, and making a considerable impact on the political landscape. Together, we unapologetically champion the principles that made our nation great: sound money, a constitutionally limited government and foreign policy, and respect for individual liberties.

These ideas transcend traditional boundaries and draw Americans (and like-minded people across the globe) from all backgrounds to the liberty message.

Many Republican leaders, however, continue to believe that principle must be sacrificed on the altar of attaining political power, despite the devastating defeats a “win-at-all-costs” philosophy brought their Party last November.  And, as you will see below, it is the liberty message that has all the momentum.

This past weekend at a South Carolina Republican convention, Senator Lindsey Graham adamantly defended supporting those who choose political expediency over substance. “We’re not going to build [the Republican Party] around libertarian ideas,” he told his audience. “[Ron Paul] is not the leader of this Party,” he emphasized.

Click on the image below to see these widely-circulated remarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy48BKd-1TI

Senator Graham claimed his view as being that of a Ronald Reagan Republican, but Reagan’s own words in a 1975 Reason interview remove any endorsement of the Senator’s statement.

“If you analyze it,” said Reagan, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

What about principle vs. politics? (Emphasis in the following mine)

Reagan said: “I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph… I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.”

South Carolina’s junior Senator, Jim DeMint, spoke after Graham and echoed Reagan, commenting about the Senate that he, “[w]ould rather have 30 Republicans who believe in the principles of limited government and free markets and free people than 60 Republicans who have no beliefs at all.”

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford also defended the freedom movement, remarking, “Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment. That is the distinguishing characteristic of our Republic, and frankly what’s made it great… I’ve been accused of being a libertarian, and I would say I wear it as a badge of honor because I do love, believe in, and want to support liberty.”

Click on the image below to watch Governor Sanford’s remarks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikqJ_KB66WQ

In his speech, Senator Graham noted that those who don’t think winning matters should head for the Party’s exits.

Of course winning is important. But when that becomes your ultimate focus at the expense of everything else, you throw away the integrity our Founders believed crucial in order to be involved in government.

The time has come to make it clear that we will no longer tolerate the rampant trashing of our Constitution by our representatives or their constant shifting on the issues. No matter what political party you belong to, you should have the courage to stand firm on your beliefs.

As our efforts with HR 1207 are demonstrating, you don’t have to cast aside principle to achieve success. A clear, consistent stand on a philosophy of freedom will find supporters, and from there real, lasting change can be effected.

To those in all political parties who wish to maximize freedom and prosperity, we invite you to join us in our efforts. To all those who would sell out our Constitution and their beliefs in pursuit of power, we turn Senator Graham’s words back on him and you by saying, “There’s the exit sign.”

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

<>раскрутка а в соцсетях

Read more

By In Politics

How to explain Ron Paul to a friend or family member?

This new website is made exactly for that purpose. It offers in Ron Paul’s own words a perfect introduction to our hero.

Check out: http://www.ronpaulintro.com/ <>game onlineраскрутка ов портфолио

Read more