Why Conservatives Cannot Support Rand Paul for 2016

There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of Rand Paul running for President in 2016. Given that Ron Paul has been working as a junior United States Senator for Kentucky since 2011, he doesn't have a whole lot of experience in politics, especially when it comes to executive experience. America elected Obama twice. Obama who was a junior senator from Illinois with very little experience to be President. Do we really want to have another inexperienced politician to be our President? 

Another reason we conservatives and the Republican Party should not allow Rand Paul to get the GOP nomination in 2016 is because he flop flops on his political orientation. Sometimes he claims he is a conservative, sometime he says he's a libertarian. Libertarianism and Conservatism are not the same political philosophy. Which political philosophy does Rand Paul really believe? I don't know and I suspect most people don't know either. More importantly, do we really want to elect someone who flip flops on his political views and philosophy? Ron Paul wasn't a conservative. Neither is Rand Paul. Neither one of them are really conservatives. They are both conservatives in name only (CINO) and Republicans in name only (RINO).

The most important reason why Republicans and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul it is the same reason why people didn't support his father Rand Paul. Ron Paul has a well documented history of associating with known racists, anti-semites, conspiracy theorists and Neo-Nazis. 

For example, people couldn't get behind Ron Paul because had published newsletters that spewed bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism. Ron Paul initially denied writing those newsletters but later admitted that he did but claimed that he only wrote the non-offensive parts. Do you really believe that? I don't.

Another reason why people couldn't support Ron Paul is due to the famous photos of Ron Paul with Don Black, who is a well known White Supremacist and also posed with Don Black's son, Derek Black. If you don't know who Don Black  is, you should. He's the founder of the white supremacist website stormfront.org. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul also accepted donations from a white supremacist group and refused to return the money. Two well known White Supremacists endorsed and supported Ron Paul in the 2012 election.

It appears that Rand Paul is no different than his father, Rand Paul, when it comes to associating with questionable people who are known to be racists, bigots and ant-Semites. For example, the famous hacker group called “Anonymous” broke into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information which showed that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are intimately connected with the American Third Position Party and Stormfront. Here's a sampling of what this Annonymous found:

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account
was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and
other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the
neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P
member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul.
I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much
more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner
of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.
12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul,
newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on
WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because
of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together,
and we are really gathering some quality here.”
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb5_1372379074#gGo5pQjIqIrAwTw8.99

Other excerpts show A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso (whose email account was one hacked by the collective) coordinating meeting between Paul and other members of A3P such as corporate lawyer and chairman of the neo-Nazi group Paul. “I’m going to go to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with Bill Johnson,” reads an email to an A3P member dated January 2011. “Bill and I will be meeting with Ron and Ran Paul. I have a teleconference call with Bill (and Ron Paul) tonight. Much more later. Things are starting to happen (thanks to folks like you).”
 

In another passage, Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, wrote: “I’ll be at CPAC from Feb. 9 to Feb.12. I’ll send back reports to you from personal meetings with Ron Paul, newly-elected Senator Rand Paul and many others. It’ll be here on WhiteNewsNow, a place that is really starting to get interesting because of the presence of folks like you. Birds of a feather flock together, and we are really gathering some quality here.” (emphasis added by author of this blog)

The Annonymous document dump also revealed that Ron Paul has held meetings with A3P and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party — the notorious UK fascist group with neo-Nazi roots:

Griffin from the British National Party was also involved in these meetings. "We'll be meeting up with Nick Griffin on Wednesday night... a few of us," Kelso wrote to a member of AP3. "I let Nick know about the CPAC going on Thurs. and Fri. at the Marriott Hotel north of the White House," he said. "Ron Paul will be there Fri. afternoon. Want to meet up with him?"

If Rand Paul's alleged connections with these racists groups isn't bad enough, there's his former association with Jack Hunter, who was an aide and co-author of Paul's 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington. However, the Washington Free Beacon revealed that Hunter used to be a neo-Confederate shock jock called the Southern Avenger, a columnist who compared Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein, and the former chairman of the Charleston, South Carolina, chapter of the League of the South, a secessionist group. The League of the South has been classified as a hate group by the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Of course, Rand Paul has tried to distance himself from Jack Hunter by parting ways with him. Rand Paul has also distanced himself by stating that Hunter's earlier writings "stupid" and said he was not aware of them when he hired him. (Right....) Despite Rand Paul trying to distance himself from Jack Hunter, both men were spoke at an event that was organized by his father Ron Paul. Not surprising, Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

The Republican party as well as conservatives should steer clear of Ron and Rand Paul. The more people learn about these two men, the more we find them in a tangled alliance with those who promote bigotry, racism, homophobia and antisemitism that has been well documented. These men have a long history of associations, communications and support from the dark side of society. Fortunately, Ron Paul has retired from politics.  But Rand Paul hasn't. 

If Rand Paul were to win the Republican nomination, he would be easily slaughtered by a Democratic candidate. Imagine Rand Paul going up against a seasoned and political candidate like Hillary Clinton. The Republican party would suffer a massive defeat at the local, state and national level. The Republican Party would suffer a PR nightmare for having allowed Rand Paul who has strong connections with bigoted people. 

I know 2016 is a long way off. However, time will fly by and before we know it, 2016 will be here. It is crucial that the Republican party and conservatives prevent Ron Paul from successfully competing in the 2016 election. There are so many reasons why the Republican Party and conservatives cannot support Rand Paul. However, I think the best and strongest reason is the Paul's connections to these people.

Based on Rand Paul's history and associations with his father and their mutual connections to bigoted people, he should not be associated with the Republican party. He should not receive any support from conservatives in 2016 because Rand Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian and has said so many times. Rand Paul really should be in the Libertarian party which is where he really belongs. He is not one of us. That's why conservatives should not and cannot support Rand Paul in 2016.

the League of the South is a hate group.

the League of the South is a hate group.Jack Hunter is also connected to Ron Paul since Hunter was a campaign blogger for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential primary bid.

Mitt Romney Is Not Running In 2016

Mitt Romney appeared at the University of Utah today to meet with students at the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016.

Romney also made it clear to the overflow crowd of students, faculty and business leaders gathered to hear his 45-minute speech that he was done running for the White House after two unsuccessful tries.

"I've had two bites at the apple. Three strikes and you're out," he said.
Romney, who received hearty applause after a questioner thanked him for his 2008 and 2012 presidential races, jokingly suggested his wife, Ann, or son Josh — who lives in Utah — would be better candidates next time around.

Before the speech, Romney said he was "feeling bad I'm not in the White House," calling it a "great thrill to run for president" and an honor to have had the support of Utahns.

"The country faces real challenges, which unfortunately are not being addressed in the way I'd hope they'd be. A lot of people are hurting. A lot of people across the country can't find work," he said, including new college graduates.

I knew that Mitt Romney would not be running again in 2016. Its not that I had any inside information but I knew that he just wasn't going to run. I don't think he wants to become like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who have ran for President in multiple presidential elections. I also think he wants to move on and do other things whether it be in business or politics. 

There are many people (I am not one of them) who want Mitt Romney to run in 2016. There's even a Facebook group called Mitt Romney for President 2016 that has already been set up to promote that idea. Even though I am deeply saddened that Mitt Romney lost and I believe he would have made a great president, he made the right choice not to run again. 

As far as 2016 goes, I would like to see the following people throw their hats into the ring for that Presidential election: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Robert McDonnell, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts, Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Former U.S. Representative Allen West and former Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan. 

I also don't want the following people to run in 2016: Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, John Huntsman Jr., and Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee.
 

Do you think it was right for Mitt Romney to decide not to run in 2016? Who do you think should run in 2016?

Will Mitt Romney Add "Audit The Fed" To The GOP Platform?

Recently, Rick Santorum has asked conservatives to stand with him in preventing Ron Paul supporters from changing the GOP platform. According to Rand Paul, Mitt Romney has agreed to at least adding one item to the GOP platform: 

You know, I try to look for commonalities, areas where we agree and, you know, Governor Romney, I’ve had a meeting with him. We’ve talked extensively about audit the Fed, which is very important not only to me but my father and to his supporters and I think there’s a very good chance we get it in the platform. There has been an announcement in the House that we’re going to get a vote in the House and I’m working with both Republican and Democrat leadership to try to get a vote here, but some of my dad’s supporters don’t realize that if you call people names and call them evil, they’re less likely to allow you to have a vote on something you really want to pass.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You’re saying that Romney may put audit the Fed into the platform?

PAUL: Well, the Ron Paul supporters are going to be — about 2 or 300 delegates there are going to help him to do that, but he has already said publicly that he’s for audit the Fed. That he has said many times. As far as the specific bill –

GLENN: That’s fantastic.

PAUL: — I would like him to endorse the specific bill but — that my father has introduced that will be voted on, but publicly he’s already stated that he is in support of auditing the Fed.

Personally, this might be the one issue where I would have no objections to adding this issue to the GOP platform. However, I would have major objections if Ron Paul or his supporters try to add anything else on the GOP platform such as their positions on war, drugs, abortion and marriage.  

Auditing the Federal Reserve is an issue that Ron Paul and his supporters are very passionate about. Mitt Romney's position on this issue is that he has repeatedly said that the Fed does get independently audited by various government agencies. He also doesn't support abolishing the Federal Reserve because he would  rather have an organization that is accountable to someone rather than having our currency managed by the politicians in Congress who are accountable to no one:

BLITZER: Governor Romney, is there anything you disagree with -- with -- with Governor Perry on that point?

ROMNEY: Well, my own view is that, quite simply, that the Federal Reserve has a responsibility to preserve the value of our currency, to have a strong American currency, such that investors and people who are thinking about bringing enterprises to this country have confidence in the future of America and in our currency. People will not invest in this country and create jobs in this country for the American people if they don't have belief in our currency.
Of course we should see what the Fed is doing. There should be some oversight to make sure that it's -- it's acting properly.

But at the same time, we recognize that we need to have a Fed. Why -- why do I say that? Because if we don't have a Fed, who's going to run the currency? Congress? I'm not in favor of that. I'd rather have an agency that is being overseen rather than have the United States Congress try and manage our currency.

In doing my research (that includes watching a bunch of YouTube videos of Ron Paul supporters asking Mitt about his position on this issue), I have found that Mitt Romney has been consistent in his position on not abolishing the Federal Reserve and has given the same explanation every time in that he'd rather have the Federal Reserve be an independent agency rather than have our currency be managed by politicians. 

Many Ron Paul supporters have criticized him for not being aggressively critical of Ben Bernanke's leadership. However, Mitt Romney has said that he wouldn't keep him in office and given that Bernanke's term as chairman expires in January 2014, whoever wins the 2012 election gets to choose who the Chairman will be. And if Mitt does win in 2012, we have some idea who the new chairman might be:  

Asked in October who he would pick, Romney said he had made no decision, but then suggested his top two economic advisers - Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia University's business school, and Harvard professor Greg Mankiw - would be good candidates.

2012 is an extremely important election and it is imperative that Mitt Romney wins. Who ever wins in 2012 will get to pick at least three Supreme Court Justices, a new Federal Reserve Chairman, and determine the health of our economy. As a result, we must unite and make sure Mitt Romney is the next President of the United States.

Ron Paul Concedes The Race To Romney & Rand Paul Endorses Mitt

Back in January of 2012 when the Republican primaries were just about to get started, Ron Paul has admitted that he couldn't see a victorious path to the White House. Despite the slim chance that he would win the Republican nomination, he still stayed in the race. Ron Paul did not win a single state in the 2012 primary election and picked up a small amount of delegates. 

Even when Ron Paul semi-suspended his campaign, he still encouraged his supporters to become delegates at local meetings so that he can pick up more delegates. His supporters insisted that Ron Paul had more delegates than what was being reported in the media. They were sure that they could secure his nomination through other means despite the fact that Romney was amassing delegates and eventually won the nomination at the Texas primary. 

Today, Ron Paul has admitted that he doesn't have enough delegates to win: 

In an email to supporters yesterday, Paul acknowledged that he was far short of the number of delegates needed to capture the GOP nomination. But he said he had far exceeded expectations and would arrive at the national convention in Tampa with far more delegates than the pundits are now predicting — up to 20 percent of the total.

“When it is all said and done, we will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the convention floor,” the libertarian lawmaker from Lake Jackson said in his email. “That is just over 20 percent! And while this total is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!”

Paul noted that his campaign “will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.”

The Texan also tried to tamp down the enthusiasm that has led to confrontations at several recent state conventions, most recently in Louisiana over the past weekend.

“Our delegates’ presence must be felt both in Tampa and in years to come,” Paul declared. “Stand up for what we believe in. Be respectful. And let the establishment know that we are the future of the Party and of the country.”

Ron Paul was never in the race to win. He was in the race to remake the GOP party in his image. He was only in it for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.Furthermore, he admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party on matters he considers important. 

I understand this to mean that Ron Paul's campaign is officially and completely over. Moreover, Ron Paul knows that he doesn't have enough delegates to cause any shenanigans at the GOP convention or have enough delgates to remake the GOP party into his image. Sure, he's started something but I suspect that it will fizzle out.

Ron Paul is retiring from politics after the 2012 election is over, he has long term political aspirations for his son and is setting the stage for Rand Paul's future presidential run. However, Rand Paul has endorsed Mitt Romney tonight. Watch Rand Paul's endorsement below: 

This endorsement doesn't sit well with alot of Ron Paul supporters. Despite the fact that they are unhappy about it, I doubt that his endorsement will hurt him if he decides to run for President in the future because they will support him anyways. Rand Paul's endorsement will be something they will either choose to ignore or willingly forget.

Why I'm Not Excited About Rand Paul's Endorsement Of Mitt Romney

Many people are excited about Rand Paul's announcement that he's endorsing Mitt Romney in this election. Lets look at Rand Paul talking about Mitt Romney on Fox Business Channel:

Not everyone is excited about this endorsement. A lot of people who support Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are not thrilled about it. Personally, I'm not thrilled with this announcement either. I am strongly opposed to Ron Paul because of his questionable and controversial background, his racist news letters which he initially denied writing but ultimately admitted to writing it, his endorsements from known racists Don Black and Lew Rockwell, and his foreign policy positions such as refusing to kill Osama Bin Laden or confronting Iran. Ron Paul is someone that conservatives and independents cannot support. 

I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's son either Rand Paul since the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. For example, Ron Paul is well known for his opposition to Israel despite his attempts to deceive people into believing he supports Israel. Rand Paul uses the same strategies as his father does by attempting to deceive people that he isn't against Israel.

Given how Ron Paul feels about Israel, its not surprising that Rand Paul advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel as a way of reducing our national debt. The problem with this argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 

The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent. 

Its not just Rand Paul's views on Israel that bothers me. If you look at Rand Paul's views on foreign policy, he's just like his father. He's an isolationist. He opposed Senator Rubio's attempt to have the country of Georgia be admitted into NATO.  He wants us to get out of Afghanistan, opposed implementing sanctions on Iran

However, the old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows is true. There were rumors that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul formed an alliance with each other during the 2012 primary elections. There may be such an alliance with Rand Paul as well given his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Lets not forget that Rand Paul  never attacked Romney during the 2012 primary but attacked other candidates like Rick Santorum.

Whether the alliance existed then or that Ron and Rand Paul can see the writing on the wall that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee, its an alliance its an alliance that should not be forged by Mitt Romney and his campaign because Ron Paul has admitted that he isn't in the race to become President but that he's in the race for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.Furthermore, he admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party on matters he considers important.

Mitt Romney should not negotiate with Ron Paul or his son Rand Paul under any circumstances since it would be detrimental to the Republican party and for conservatism. Libertarians already have a political party in which it supports libertarian policies and Romney should not allow Ron and Rand Paul to hijack the Republican party just so it can adopt their domestic and foreign policy views.

Furthermore, given that Ron Paul has semi-suspended his campaign and is retiring from politics after the 2012 election is over, he has long term political aspirations for his son and is setting the stage for Rand Paul's eventual run for President. As a result, any negotiation that takes place with Mitt Romney and either or both Ron and Rand Paul in this 2012 election is only helping the Pauls remake the Republican party into the Libertarian party. Besides, if Rand Paul is thinking about running in the Republican party in 2016, he's gonna have to do it on his own without trying to remake the Republican party into a different political party.

Like many Ron Paul supporters, I'm not happy with Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul supporters can agree on one thing: Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012.

Ron Paul Suspends His Campaign

Today, Ron Paul has done something that I can actually support and get behind. He's suspended his campaign. I literally jumped up and down for joy at this news. However, I am not completely thrilled with this news because even though Ron Paul isn't running any more, he's encouraged his supporters to still go to the local conventions and become delegates. 

Obviously, the Paul campaign will continue with its strategy of urging supporters to swamp state conventions and get themselves elected delegates to the national confab. As we’ve written before, this is a clever, cheap way of using complicated delegate-allocation rules to Paul’s advantage.

What the Texas libertarian may be doing is amassing “stealth delegates” – delegates bound by primary or caucus vote to Mitt Romney, or one of the withdrawn GOP candidates, who are personally in favor of Paul. It’s hard to count how many such delegates there are – or whether they’ll abstain in the first round, or otherwise cause some sort of disturbance, in Tampa.

Ron Paul was never in the 2012 race to become President. There were two reasons why Ron Paul jumped into the 2012 race.

The first reason is that Ron Paul wants influence the Republican party platform. Earlier this year, he admitted that he isn't in the race to become President but that he's in the race for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.Furthermore, he admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party on matters he considers important. 

However, if that is his goal, Ron Paul has only has 104 delegates as of today. In contrast, Mitt Romney will soon win the GOP nomination since he has 973 of the 1,144 delegates and only needs to secure more 171 delegates to formally become the GOP's nominee. Mitt Romney will get those delegates at the next primaries next Tuesday in Nebraska and Oregon. If not, he'll get them the following Tuesday in Arkansas and Kentucky. By May 29th, he should have the nomination wrapped up in Ron Paul's home state of Texas. After that, we will have the the final primaries will set in California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah.

Even with all the dishonest and deceptive tactics used by his supporters to become delegates, it won't disrupt or hurt Mitt Romney at the national convention in Florida: 

Massachusetts aside, the Paul campaign has mainly flexed its muscles in states where Romney didn’t do well — and where Rick Santorum succeeded, such as Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, and probably Missouri when they hold their fourth or fifth event that will actually select delegates.  The net effect of the Paul conversion will be to weaken Santorum’s influence, not Romney’s.  Romney will win enough bound delegates from primary states to secure the nomination on the first ballot.

Even though Ron Paul has told CNN’s Newsroom that he doesn't support or like the idea of disrupting the GOP convention, he wants to do what ever he can to insert his political agenda and beliefs into the GOP platform. However, by the time the GOP convention rolls around, he won't have enough delegates to accomplish his short term goal of influencing the GOP platform. Ron Paul will be in a inferior bargaining position in attempting to negotiate with the Republican party into adopting  his views on the national platform. 

Moreover, Mitt Romney and the national Republican party will not tolerate any kind of disruption at the convention which is designed to railroad the GOP to adopt Ron Paul's political beliefs. Nor will they  or even sit at the negotiating table with man who is not a conservative and who conservatives won't support.

Ron Paul knows he won't become President or be picked by Mitt to be his VP. I hope they won't even let Ron Paul speak at the convention.

Ron Paul is delusional if he thinks he can influence the GOP. He can try but it won't work. 

The second reason why Ron Paul jumped into the 2012 race is because even though Ron Paul announced earlier this year that when the 2012 race is over, he will be retiring from politics, his son's political career is just starting. Which means Ron Paul has long term political aspirations for his son and is setting the stage for Rand Paul's eventual run for President: 

The elder Paul’s continued presence in the 2012 presidential race is in large part an effort to secure funds and infrastructure for his son’s own possible White House bid in 2016.

“If [Ron] hadn’t stayed in through the last few weeks, he would not have made those trips to the donors on the West Coast, in California,” said the adviser. “That’s 30 percent of his campaign’s income that will help build his movement for years to come. Yes, Ron is 76 years old, but he has a son.”

However, all of Ron Paul's short and long term plans might crumble if there is a brokered convention or if there is disruption of any kind. If that happens, Ron Paul might make it possible for Obama to win a second term and everyone will blame the Pauls for that.

Despite the good news that Ron Paul has suspended his campaign, conservatives still need to be on the alert at their upcoming state conventions in which Ron Paul supporters will still try to be delegates. If you are a Romney supporter in a state that has an upcoming convention PLEASE try to be there. We must NOT let our guard down. We want to end the deceptive shenanigans of the Raul Paul supporters in order to make  sure nothing happens before the GOP convention in Tampa.

Why Conservatives Cannot Support Ron Paul In 2012

The worst candidate of this 2012 election is Ron Paul. He cannot be allowed to win the Iowa caucus or any primary election in this election. Let me explain why.

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further left than Obama. However, at least Obama leads from behind on foreign policy whereas Ron Paul, with his isolationist positions, won't lead at all. 

Since he won't be even be leading from behind, Ron Paul won't protect America. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair explains how isolationism is essentially a choice to do nothing and how it weakens a nation and makes the world a more dangerous place:

In the Middle East, where our strategic interests are dramatically and profoundly engaged, it is unlikely that the effect of a regime going rogue and brutalizing its own people will remain isolated within its own borders.

If Moammar Gadhafi were allowed to kill large numbers of Libyans to quash the hope of a different Libya, we could end up with a pariah government at odds with the international community—wounded but still alive and dangerous. We would send a signal of Western impotence in a region that analyzes such signals keenly. We would dismay those agitating for freedom, boosting opposition factions hostile to us.

This underlines another point: Inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable, but it is every bit as much a decision as acting.

If you look at Ron Paul's record, you will find that he has not made the world a safer place for the United States, our allies or the world.

Ron Paul & Iran

The strongest example of this is his position on Iran's nuclear program. Watch him explain his views on Iran during the most recent Republican debate in Iowa:  

The fact that Ron Paul is fine with Iran having a bomb should be disturbing to anybody regardless if you're on the left, right or in the middle. 

In fact, Ron Paul's isolationist policy means that America will not support people around the world who went to the streets to protest against their government and demanded greater freedoms to the people. For example, Ron Paul was the only person to vote against the House Resolution to support Iranian protesters back in 2009. 

His isolationist policies also means that Ron Paul would not do anything to stop investors from doing businesses in Iran since he  voted against HR 1400, which aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. But then again, why make it harder for foreign companies to invest in Iran's energy sector if he thinks that Iran is using these nuclear plants for peaceful purposes or that the rest of the world should be fine with Iran using these nuclear plants to make nuclear bombs. 

Ron Paul & Terrorism

 He stated that he would not have approved of sending our special forces to kill Osama Bin Laden. He has also voted against  the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

Ron Paul & Israel  

During the Western Republican Debate, Ron Paul said that he would cut foreign aid off to all countries including Israel:

As Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate turned to the topic of foreign policy, Ron Paul said he would cut “all foreign aid.” When asked if such cuts would also apply to Israel, Paul said, “I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally.”

“That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us…They should have their sovereignty back,” Paul reasoned.

“To cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren’t in so many places…We have an empire. We can’t afford it,” Paul asserted.

Its not surprising that Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, shares the same exact views as his family in which he also wants to cut foreign aid to Israel.  

The problem with Ron and Rand Paul's argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 

The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent.

Conclusion

Regardless if you choose to call Ron Paul's position "isolationist" or "noninterventionalist", the  results of his policies are the same: no leadership which results in America taking no action against our enemies at home or abroad. Moreover, if Ron Paul were president, you can imagine that he would have no problem saying no to important programs for national security, counterterrorism, our military or supporting our allies. 

In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.

That is why Conservatives, moderates, Independents or TEA Party people cannot vote for Ron Paul in any other Republican Primary.  He simply doesn't deserve our support at all.

Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul Is Not A Conservative Or A Tea Partier

Today, Rush Limbaugh recieved a call from a caller who thinks people will not support Newt Gingrich but rally around Ron Paul who will  win the 2012 Republican nomination: Here's Rush Limbaugh's response:

All right, once again, let me bring some reason and sanity to all this. We just heard that the Tea Party is gonna support Ron Paul, Santorum, Bachmann, or bust. And this guy is not a Tea Party caller. This guy's a Ron Paul caller. I just went to the Gallup poll, dug deep inside the Gallup poll, the one I just told you that shows Gingrich over Romney 37-22. Ron Paul is at 7% among Tea Party supporters. But there's more than that. The Tea Party is not the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Party, zilch, zero, nada. There is no way that you can back Ron Paul and also back Bachmann and Santorum. The reason is that Ron Paul's foreign policy has nothing in common with Tea Party foreign policy, nothing in common with Bachmann or Santorum foreign policy. Ron Paul did not start the Tea Party. Ron Paul is not the Tea Party.

Now, that caller also said -- and all this is so predictable, it happens every four years. "That two-party system, two party madness, we're not gonna put up with anymore, Rush, and you're part of it. You're part of the two party establishment, we know you." Let me tell you something. If two party madness is the issue, why did Ron Paul leave the Libertarian party to run as a Republican? Ron Paul's not running as a third party; he's not running as a Libertarian; he's running as a Republican. He's involved himself in the two-party system. And Ron Paul has led the way with tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. Ron Paul blames America for 9/11. That's not what the Tea Party thinks. It's not what conservatives think.

Now, there's some Tea Party activists that support Ron Paul, but most don't, as is evidenced by the Gallup polls at 7%. But Ron Paul's foreign policy, there's nobody, no other Republican running on that nomination dais up there in any of these debates that has a foreign policy that's anywhere near Ron Paul's. Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, none of them blame the United States for Iran nuking up. None of them blame the United States for 9/11. I love the way these Ron Paul supporters try to tell us who is or who isn't conservative, when Paul is a Libertarian. Ron Paul's a Libertarian, used to belong to that party but knows he can't win as a Libertarian so he comes over and joins the Republican Party. He says he could relate to and understand the Occupiers. The Tea Party doesn't think that.

"Boy, Rush, now you've really done it. Now you've run around and attacked Ron Paul." I didn't attack Ron Paul. I'm simply telling you what is. There's a big difference here. I was the one who was attacked. My callers are gunning for me today, folks. I am a shaken host here. Not stirred, but shaken. Hanging tough. But none of the GOP, apart from Ron Paul, blames Wall Street for the recession. Ron Paul does. Where is this common ground between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum and Bachmann? Have you seen Santorum's face when Ron Paul's describing his foreign policy? Santorum's waving his arms trying to get in there and respond to it. Who's next? I can't believe what Snerdley is finding out there today.

I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh anymore but he's exactly 100% correct on Ron Paul. This man's political views does not square with either the TEA Party or conservatism. Ron Paul was never a conservative in the first place and he will never be. The kind of people that Ron Paul surrounds himself with and receives support from are not the kind of people the TEA Party want to associate with. Moreover, Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy is not a position that conservatives or TEA party supports nor has it ever been. His foreign policy views are what the far left supports and as such he's well liked by some ant-war organizations and people. If you don't believe me, look at the foreign policy views of his son, Rand Paul. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  

The point is that Ron Paul will never win the GOP nomination or the Presidency. He's run for President twice before and failed miserably at it. He will lose again and then fade into political obscurity after that.

The Only Solution To Reducing The Deficit Is Entitlement Reform

With the political showdown over raising the ceiling, President Obama, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and others would have you believe that best way to get out of the red and into the black is to reduce defense spending rather than reductions in entitlement spending. 

For example President Barak Obama and Ron Paul are in agreement that America ought to withdraw from Afghanistan because of the cost incurred in fighting that war. However, the cost of fighting in Afghanistan is a small drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we spend on entitlements:

Next year the Pentagon plans to spend $107 billion in Afghanistan—this, in comparison to the $3.7 trillion that the Obama team plans to spend overall. Put another way, Afghanistan amounts to all of 0.75 percent of the nation’s $14.1 trillion GDP. So, no—war bonds, scrap drives, and rationing won’t be necessary. Quite the reverse: while the government spends $100 billion on America’s fighting men and women in Afghanistan, it will funnel 20 times that—more than $2 trillion—to its citizen-spectators through Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other varieties of domestic spending.

The amount we spend in fighting terrorists, not just in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya but around the globe is tiny in comparison to the amount we spend on entitlements: 

Despite these facts, the anti-war left and right stubbornly contend that defense spending is the main driver of our national debt. They point to the fact that since 9/11, America has increased the amount of money it spends on defense spending. Here's a chart that gives a visual demonstration of their argument: 

While it is true that we have increased our military spending since 9/11, they neglect to give you a fuller picture of how much money we spend on defense in comparison to how much we spend on entitlements:

The problem with entitlement spending is that that it consumes more than half of what we spend currently and we can't even afford it now since these programs are already set to run annual deficits starting this year until it is completely drained in 2037. Furthermore, the amount we will spend on entitlements will continue to grow until we won't be able to afford it in the future. 

The graph above projects that entitlement spending will consume all revenues by 2052. However, there are other projections that predict that we won't be able to afford entitlements much earlier:

Regardless of the timing of when welfare spending will consume all revenues, the fact remains that while our defense budget has increased since 9/11, it is only a small fraction of the amount we currently spend on and it will continue to be a small fraction of the government's expenses in the future. In fact, we would have to engage in a multitude of wars before defense spending starts to eclipse all the revenue we receive. Conversely, we could eliminate all defense and national security spending, it still wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. 

Even more daring, we could eliminate all spending except entitlement spending and it still won't solve our debt problem.

The truth is that we have been reducing spending on defense while increasing the amount on entitlements since the 1960s:

Ladies and gentlemen, the reality is that defense spending is not something that on course to exceed government revenue. Nor will it ever. Furthermore, defense spending is not on autopilot like entitlement spending is right now. We can control what we spend on wars, weapons, troops, intelligence gathering, research and development and administrative agencies but we can't control what we spend on welfare programs because those expenses are locked in and mandatory. They're automatic. No questions asked.

It amazes me that there are politicians on the left and the right that want cuts in the defense budget despite the mountain of evidence that entitlement spending is the real driver of our deficit and will be in the future. Even the CBO acknowledges this fact.

That means we have a spending problem. Entitlements have taken on a life of its own unless we do something about it. Any denial that entitlement spending is the main driver of our deficit reveals the astounding inability to assess the seriousness of our financial problems and fundamentally skewed set of priorities on what to put on the chopping block. 

We've been cutting defense for a long time now.  We have never made any cuts since the we've started the war on Poverty.  Instead, we've been increasing spending on this war and somehow we're supposed to make more reductions on defense in the real wars we're fighting overseas.  That doesn't make any sense.

Thus, any politician, both on the left or the right, who is too cowardly to take on entitlement reform is not worth remaining on office. Politicians are more concerned alienating the check takers rather than the taxpayers. As a result, they're putting the entire nation at risk, both financially and militarily,  if we do not fix entitlements, just to keep these programs afloat.

The only solution to reducing the deficit is entitlement reform. No other austerity measure will have an impact on shrinking the deficit. The sooner we get on our way to making these reforms, the better our future will be.

Ron Paul Would Not Approved The Mission To Kill Osama Bin Laden

Ron Paul has stated that had he been President, he would not have approved the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound: 

"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"

Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."

"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"

Ron Paul is absolutely wrong in his assertion that Pakistan would have cooperated with the Americans in capturing Osama bin Laden. America intentionally kept Pakistan in the dark about the mission because the goverment couldn't be trusted with the information and were not told about bin Laden's death until after the attack on the compound.  

There is good reasons for not giving Pakistan advanced notice of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. The evidence strongly points to the fact that Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden. For example, we know that a senior Pakistani Army major lived next door to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, the city is filed with many people who work for the military which is not surprising since there is a major military academy just a few hundred yards down the road from Osama's home.

There are additional facts that suggest Pakistan knew he was there. We know that he compound was specifically built for Osama Bin Laden in 2005.  Some people think he may have been living in that compound in Abbotabad for as long as three years or as short as six months. According to bin Laden's wife, she was in that house since 2006. And that house didn't blend in with the community of Abbottabad. It stuck out like a sore thumb. It was the only mansion in town. Moreover, that house had high walls topped with barbed wire.

Let's not forget the fact that Bin Laden was found to have money and some phone numbers sown into his clothing which indicates he was ready to escape at a moment's notice. Perhaps he was prepared in case someone from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) tipped him off that the U.S. was coming for him.

While there is room for reasonable debate whether or not Pakistan was protecting bin Laden or if it was rouge elements within the military and intelligence community that was protecting him. However, it doesn't matter if there was official or unofficial assistance given to Osama bin Laden. The bottom line was someone or a group of people with considerable power was shielding him from the United States. Its clear that had we given advanced notice that we were comming to get Osama bin Laden, that advanced notice would have been passed on to bin Laden. 

There's also another good reason why the United States did not cooperate with Pakistan. There's evidence that Bin Laden's terrorists may have penetrated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military for years.

Even if we accept Pakistan's claim that it didn't know about it but that rouge elements were unofficially protecting bin laden, they couldn't be trusted since their military and intellegience agencies were corrupted by spies for bin Laden. 

Its clear that the information would have gotten out one way or another and Osama bin Laden would have been tipped off about the incoming raid on his house.

Ron Paul is incorrect that we didn't respect our own laws or international laws. Anne Bayefsky debunks that claim:

The United Nations still has no definition of terrorism. Standing in the way of a universally-agreed definition are the 22 members of the Arab League and the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Each of these groups has signed on to an “anti-terrorism” treaty that represents the culmination of their agreed ideology on the subject. The Arab Terrorism Convention, for example, exempts from its idea of terrorism everything from suicide-bombing to slitting the throats of 3-month old babies under the umbrella of “all cases of struggle by whatever means…against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination.” 

As a result, on May 2, 2011 the Security Council issued a unanimous presidential statement on Bin Laden’s death which was very careful to “reaffirm…other applicable international counter-terrorism instruments.” After all, Council members currently include a representative of a terrorist organization, since Lebanon’s government is controlled by Hezbollah. 

As a result, Ron Paul is absolutely incorrect that we didn't follow our own laws or laws of the United Nations. There are no clear international laws on the issue of terrorism since Security Council doesn't have any firm definition of terrorism. What laws were we to follow Mr. Ron Paul?  

Anne Bayefsky also points out that one of the Council members includes a representative of a terrorist nation. However, she forgets to mention that while some nations are controlled by terrorist organizations, there are other Arab nations who sit on the Security Council who use terrorism to accomplish its foreign policy goals.

In the end, Anne Bayefsky explains that the mission to take down Osbama bin Laden was permissable under U.S. and international law: 

Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.

As a result, its hard to take Ron Paul seriously when it comes to the issue of foreign policy. Ron Paul's foreign policy position of isolationism/non-interventionism is not a conservative position. Its a far left position. Its a position that Ron Paul and Barak Obama have in common. Yet, Ron Paul isn't the only Republican who has far left beliefs on foreign policy.  Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson also share these same beliefs. 

It is the same position that far left liberals like Barak Obama have. 

Its also hard believe that Ron Paul can seriously protect our country if he were President United States. He voted against the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.

In the end, Ron Paul and those who share his views on national security and foreign policy are unrealistic and naive in their perspective of how the world works. It is also dangerous. And very foolish.

Rand Paul Wants To Cut Foreign Aid To Israel

Rand Paul has stirred up some controversy by suggesting that America eliminates its foreign aid to all nations including Israel. 

Although every "option" is on the table in terms of reducing the debt, we should be talking about the one and only one reason why America is going broke: ENTITLEMENT spending. 

Social programs makes up the largest bulk of America's government spending as indicated in the pie chart below: 

Not only does the "mandatory" (entitlement) spending dwarfs all other money spent on other domestic programs, entitlement spending will keep growing as our  population gets bigger and older every year. The CBO just released a report about the financial future of entitlement spending and shows how the growing elderly population will have an effect on expenses over the next 10 years:

The CBO also provides a chart for the offsetting receipts:

If you don't understand the charts, the basic conclusion is that entitlement spending programs are set to run annual deficits starting this year until it is completely drained in 2037. Not only are entitlement programs are due to run in the red this year, but entitlement programs are set to consume all tax  revenues by 2052 as indicated by the chart below:

Which brings me back to my point about the talk about reducing the deficit. Cutting all other domestic and foreign programs will not resolve our debt problem. You could slash every domestic program and foreign aid to zero and we’d still be in debt. How is that possible? Look below: 

The idea of putting all "options" on the table is meaningless unless our Congress is serious about dealing with entitlement reform. Various presidential administrations and Congressional sessions have been cutting back on programs, including defense programs, in our nation's history and it still didn't make a dent in the reducing the national debt

As a result, entitlement reform should be the ONLY option on the table given all the facts above.  

However, we both know that entitlement programs will be the last program on the chopping block. All three branches of our government, for one reason or another, is enamored with entitlement programs.

There another reason why we'll never get entitlement reform or eliminating entitlement programs completely: Americans love their entitlement programs. Even TEA partiers who want entitlement reform support the idea so long as its other people’s benefits getting cut and not theirs. 

Yes, the government is part of the problem due to its reluctance to deal with the one and only issue that threatens the financial stability of this nation. But the other source of the problem is the American people. 

We’re too dependent on entitlements now.

Unless Americans are willing to let go of their own entitlement checks, Congress will have no motivation to act on reform or elimination of entitlement spending.