Updates on my main site: apologus.wordpress.com<>
Ron Paul Podcast # 7- On Education
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (1.3MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
Topic: Stay Away From Our Children
This podcast lasts 5 minutes and 16 seconds.
Podcast Notes:
I could spend the time in this podcast talking about the Ron Paul blimp, which will surely make news in the next few days or I could talk about the Boston Tea Party celebration where Paul supporters will raise over 5 million dollars on the 16th and 17th of December. Since Ron Paul has over 75,000 volunteers (more than any other presidential candidate) and since Paul supporters have more blogs and websites than any other candidate, I am sure they will cover these issues in due time.
What I prefer to do is to talk about what Ron Paul believes; because it is what he believes that most intelligent people care about. In these new few minutes I would like to discuss what Ron Paul believes about education. (more…)
Ron Paul Podcast #6
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (2.8MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
Show #6: Huckabee’s Liberal Record and Paul’s Favoritism
This podcast lasts 3 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.
Program notes:
On this 6th podcast I would like to speak briefly about Mike Huckabee’s liberal economic policies. In a recent article by Robert Novak entitled: The False Conservative, Novak details Huckabee’s impressive and clear abilities to articulate a liberal economic policy of increasing taxes and “big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”
Novak begins his article with the following words:
Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the “Club for Greed”? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender — definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally. (more…)
Bombing holy sites?
Tom Tancredo stood by his remarks on Sunday’s debate. The week before, while speaking to a group of Iowas he said:
If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.
In response, Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”
I confess Tancredo’s positions on Immigration and government limitation is appealing to paleo-conservatives like myself. Nevertheless, the audacity of Tancredo1 is absurd. Tancredo could well be a reasonable choice in the Republican ticket if his positions were not so radical. It appears that his low numbers both on the internet and nationally has led him and his staff to think of creative ways to call the attention of the country. In debates, he has been known to taking every opportunity to go a step further than his opponents. Instead of the typical neo-con calculated candidates, Tancredo utters the obscene. Indeed, second-tier candidates (and Tancredo is truly a second-tier) are free to utter their thoughts however absurd they may seem and– trust me–they are absurd.<>
Quotes from Ron Paul’s: Freedom Under Siege
From his introduction to Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years:
- America is no longer a bastion of freedom, prevailing ideology, grounded in economic ignorance and careless disregard for individual liberty, is nurtured by a multitude of self-serving, power-seeking politicians spouting platitudes of compassion for the poor who are created by their own philosophy. Reelection is paramount in the minds of most of those who represent us, while freedom and constitutional restraint of power are considered old-fashioned and unwise. (more…)
Who defines victory?
Anyone familiar with my official site for the last few years know that I have been a strong opponent of the Iraq War. Since I am unable to do all the research necessary, I have depended on some phenomenal bloggers and intellectual giants such as William f. Buckley Jr. Along the way, my thinking has been shaped more and more around Libertarian thinking, as expressed by the honorable Ron Paul and the great scholar R.J. Rushdoony.
Establishing arguments contra war has not always been as easy as it is today. Nowadays, the most fervent war-supporting Republicans have begun to express serious doubts about the president’s war policy. After all, when the ship has been sinking for so long,1 even the crew will jump, though their captain may wish to die honorably. Of course, there are still those who will die on their loyalty graveyard. They will fight to the end though they may feel their fight is more about status than morality. They will fight to the end at the expense of other children’s blood, not their own.
These die-harders still claim that we need to stay until “victory” is accomplished; “victory” of course, is never defined. This is why I am glad Dan Phillips continues to write stimulating blogs that forces neo-cons to truly define their terms. Dan Phillips argues that supporters of the war will constantly use phrases like “we cannot leave until we achieve ‘victory;’ or “we cannot cut-and-run because that will mean that we have surrendered to our enemies.”I must confess that though I have believed for very long that the concept of “victory” in the lips of neo-cons is always destined to failure, I have not challenged what exactly they meant by the idea and how irrational it really is. Dan Phillips emerges to challenge and reveal the absurdity of it all when he poses these questions:
Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of “Shari’a-observant Islam” or more crudely put, wiping out “Islamo-fascism.” Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer. Instead they resort to talking points and boiler-plate accompanied by foot-stomping and eye-rolling.
The level of political discussion began with talks about WMD’s and now they have turned to “we must not leave, though we admit the war was a mistake.” What keeps us in Iraq is the stubbornness and unconstitutionality of a president who still has not given a definition of “victory” without changing his mind a month later.
Imperialism never admits failures; they persist because as Ron Paul has mentioned time and time again: “War is the health of the state.” If the imperial endeavor ceases, the state then ceases to control your money and your lives. If the state continues to wage war, then your life is back in their hands. So, what is victory anyway but the unstable and rhetorically mindless meandering of tyrants.<>
Paul pulls even with McCain financially
Paul pulls even with McCain financially
Sen. John McCain, Ariz., considers himself to be in competition with GOP candidates riding high in the polls, including Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. But at the end of June, McCain’s remaining cash, about $2 million, was about the same as that of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in polls but has picked up lots of fans online.
Paul, a campaign spokesman said, has $2.4 million on hand. He raised more than $2 million in the second quarter and has spent $520,000. McCain spent more than $20 million in the first six months of the year. Of course, Paul also lacks the campaign infrastructure around the country that McCain has built and is now seeking to streamline.<>
