Ok, I'm about fed up with all the fake liberal feel good crap and mixed with double speak on freedom of speech. 
How many of these POS Chevy Volts do we have to fund?  These cars suck and it's the liberals forcing us to go green by saying "pay for high gas prices or buy the POS cars we say you must buy".  It's total bull shit!  Same with the fake green jobs industry while blocking the trans canada pipeline.  In short liberals are the problem in this country! 

Now we have the take Rush off the air stuff from same groups that ignore the likes of Ed Schultz and "slut" comments by radical progressives.  The liberal left wants to define free speech as speech we approve of not open and free expression of ideas and thoughts no matter how off color it may be.....liberals are the example of offensive speech in this country, the name Bill Mahre ring a bell!

Last we have radical code pink backing Ron Paul.  The crazy crowd backing the forign policy insane crowd....go figure and this guy and his band of loons try and pretend they are conservatives.  Another example of liberals in action lying and hiding who they are to adavnce the agenda at all costs. 

Stand up, speak out and reject these liberal assults on America my conservative friends!

There has been lots of talk about the Ron Paul position on non-intervetion and his supporters rapid defense of it as opposed to isolation as a national position.  Lets clear up how the two work and more so how they are inseperable.

The basic premise of the non-intervention crowd is that we stay out of everyones business and we have no treaties or alliances, this later part is the core of non-intervention.

Isolation is more an economic stance of we produce and live off what we produce and become a self sustaining nation with no trade.

Now that we have a clear simple understanding of the two allow me to explain  what some want to talk about as a outdated veiw of the  world and how it would lead to full scale isolation and the end the end of America as we know it.  The non-intervention model is a choice you can control no matter the flaws in the school of thought.  Isolation can be impossed on you no matter how hard you try to avoid it and this is the part of the discussion they refuse to have.

The world has produced and invented 25% of all goods over the history of man in just the last 10 years..... Why and how is that?  Simple, the technology revolution has lead to an interconnected globe on all levels.  So unlike the steel revolution at the turn of the last century where many global countries did not participate this new technology revolution effects every person on the planet!

That said you can't just choose to not have alliances and treaties anymore, that ship has sailed.  You have to have alliances for travel, for the electronic transfer of money (gold bars being shipped on a boat won't work), for use of vital resources (remember we are not going isolation here) and for the countless other vital needs from food to even water as the planet grows from 7 billion to 10 billion in the next 40 years.

However lets take all that off the table and assume that we do just go without alliances and treaties for a minute.  The second we do the interconected world will cut us off!  They will impose isolation on us as a punishment for pulling out of the global community and just walking away from our alliances and treaties.   We will lose access to oil and resources at a fair market value, we will lose our trading partners (alliances) as they move to other countries that fill the void (China) and worst we will lose our position as the global leader and only true defender of freedom.

The last on that list above means we will be challanged at every point on the globe and worst because we gave up our alliances our military will be rendered useless as countries align against us.  No protecting oil or food, no ensuring terrorist don't start attacking us here at home again and having the global community support us when we are attacked.  Non-intervention is a 150 year old outdated philosophy at best and a sure ticket to forced isolation and the ultimate destruction of America at worst. 

In short non-intervention is a childs view of the world we live in and 100% inseperable with isolation....the two go hand in hand!

More at:  www.victorluebker.com

As we get ready to hear the results from NH it's time we all start to look forward and realize there is no Reagan in the race and we need to look at how the Tea Party plays a role going forward.

Lets all agree that Ron Paul is out of the discussion and to be blunt has no business in a GOP primary with his radical liberal views on national defense and that he also slammed Reagan in the 80's, in short he is an punch line!

Now for the other three, Mitt, Newt and Rick.  Lets agree all have flaws and none are even close to being conservative flag holders by the Reagan standard...so where does that leave the Tea Party?

IMO they need to look at policy and shaping some planks on the GOP platform as well as joining forces to be a legit lobby and influence on the new GOP President.
The Tea Party will get marginalized if they don't start working together as a force developing candidates at the local level and also pushing the GOP to accept major fiscal changes going forward.

To date at best the Tea Party can be discribed as herding cats and very strong willed cats at that and for the movement to progress it's time they look hard at a national combined annual convention that issues a joint policy statement to ensure they are a driving force. 

As we get closer to the nomination is vital we as a Tea Party rally around the nominee, marginalize the radicals on the Ron Paul front and work in unison to shape policy...if we don't the movement will start to erode and lose it's influce in coming elections.  Forget we have no true Tea Party candidate for President and focus on policy I say!

This is the offical ron paul cult training video!!!
Take note of the trial of Nazis and Bin Laden comparison and that very, very flase message.  We killed many nazi ENEMY combatants and those that we caught AFTER hostilities ended we put on trial in a military tribunal.  Again, after the war was over.  We would have killed Hitler in a second with bombs from above if we had is location....Same with Bin Laden and this is where the Ron Paul argument breaks down. 

Well the more that leaks out the more it appears this guy is a real threat to the conservative movement and has some deep closet issues with race.

This recent article from Slate asks some great questions:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/26
/ron_paul_and_extremism_discover_it_again_for_the_first_time.html
I think it's time the media take a deep, hard and probing look at all that is Paul and some of the folks that associate with him.  He has tried to duck, dudge, lie and walk away from the god Aweful things his letters have said and I for one feel if it walks like a duck....it's a racist!

I've hed this guy on our www.attack-watch .com list for some time but it's
high time America get an introduction to the dark underbelly that is Ron Paul and I encourage you to look at all the racist writings and uber liberal forigen policy rants that make up his core values.

It's bad enough being a creepy old man, but wrap that in a david koresh and jim jones style cult following and you have the makings of one of Americas worst political figures!

Folks it looks like the love affair the Ron Paul folks wanted with Tea party members but never happen is about to implode!  His members tried for months to tell us Tea Party members he was "tea", the he created "tea" and that all things "tea" go through Paul.

Fact is he never was Tea Party material and this entire carade was a weak attempt to pander to us to inflate his money bomb empire and fill his PAC with dollars outside the libertarian base that has always been as loyal as they are loud.

Well his Planet Paulbots are now starting an internet forum and facebook fight with tea party Patriots and us in the TP as a whole due to his refusal to ayyend their Presidential tele-townhall.  One such post making the rounds claims a "former" military commando invetsigated TPP and found they are not a real tea party organization.  This is laughable to the normal mind but on planet Paul it's this kind of warped thinking with no basis in fact that plays to the lemming base of about....?????  ummmm 6% I guess.

Fact is the Bogus attempt to highjack the TP early on by Paulbots and claim we got our core values from him set the tone for the utter contempt we hold him and his followers to this day.  His message was overrated in 1988 and remains so today but he does have a very active and hyper-aggressive core base that now seems hell bent on implosion by picking a fight with us in the Tea Party because we don't embrace kooks, wignuts, and uber social liberals.  As conservatives we also don't do well with these same uber social liberals tacting left of Obama on national security while telling us they are the "real" conservatives.  The Revolution as they refer to the Paul movement is about to self destruct is my prediction!

REPOSTED ARTICLE

The Hypocrisy of Ron Paul By David Catron on 9.13.11 @ 6:09AM

"Doctor No" is no man of principle.

Just before last week's Republican debate at the Reagan Library, Ron Paul released an attack ad targeting his fellow Texan and presidential aspirant Rick Perry. It shows a young Congressman Paul posing with the Gipper in a series of photos and features a portentous voiceover claiming that, while Paul "stood with Reagan," Perry was a perfidious, Gore-pimping liberal. This ad is brazenly deceptive, but it does provide an edifying glimpse into the true character of a slippery Beltway operator posing as a man of principle fighting the good fight against the corrupt "prags" of the GOP establishment. It reveals that Ron Paul is a fraud of the first order. The sordid reality is that his loyalty to Ronald Reagan lasted only so long as it was politically expedient and his vaunted libertarian principles have proven to be remarkably elastic.

As to Reagan, the young Congressman who had once been so anxious to be photographed with him scampered like a Texas jackrabbit when the going got tough. In 1987, when Reagan truly needed his supporters to stand by him, Ron Paul suddenly disappeared from the man's side. In fact, he resigned from the Republican Party and blamed Reagan for his disillusionment with the GOP. In a letter that echoed the prevailing Democrat talking points of the day he wrote, "The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism." That letter was not merely an act of breathtaking betrayal -- it actually compares Reagan to Josef Stalin -- its characterization of Reagan's economic policies is utterly absurd.

Moving on to the Perry smear, Paul left an important fact out of his ad: Rick Perry was a Democrat when he supported Gore 23 years ago. And, if that puts you off, remember that Ronald Reagan himself was once a Democrat. Perry and Reagan eventually realized that the Democrat party was drifting ever leftward, abandoning the principles that had once claimed their loyalty. The party of Scoop Jackson had morphed into the party of George McGovern, so both joined the GOP because it more closely matched their ideals and those of the nation's founders. As to "Dr. No," having received fewer than half a million votes as the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, he came crawling back to the party he had so vehemently denounced and was eventually reelected to Congress under the GOP banner.

This pattern of hypocrisy is by no means limited to party loyalty. Paul has consistently represented himself as a principled libertarian, and never tires of reminding us that he is a physician whose medical experience has taught him to be wary of government intrusion in health care. However, the good doctor's voting record shows that he has frequently supported such government intervention. Shortly after the Democrats returned to power in the House in 2007, they introduced a bill calling for the government to "negotiate" the price of prescription drugs bought for Medicare Part D. In this context, "negotiate," is nothing but a euphemism for price-fixing, something that a genuine free-market libertarian would reject out of hand. Nonetheless, Rep. Paul voted in favor of the measure.

This is not the only vote Dr. Paul has cast in favor of government meddling in health care. He has also voted for another price-fixing scheme that every libertarian worthy of the name has denounced -- reimportation of pharmaceuticals from foreign countries with rigid price-control regimens. This, as Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has pointed out, "would import foreign price controls on drugs." Even worse, the Congressional Budget Office has said that drug reimportation would not significantly reduce prescription drug spending. Nor can Dr. Paul's vote be justified in terms of free trade. As Nina Owcharenko at the Heritage Foundation explains, "Such policies would not create a 'freer' market for pharmaceuticals, but would regulate the market even further."

Sadly, the hypocrisy of "Dr. No" doesn't end with deceptive campaign ads about his record and the betrayal of his purported libertarian principles. He is also a downright fraud when it comes to big-government spending. While representing himself for decades as the sworn enemy of overspending, the good doctor has had his snout deep in the earmark trough. In 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported, "The Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research." And this is the man who had the effrontery to berate Ronald Reagan for deficit spending.

Considering this affinity for earmarks, combined with numerous congressional votes that cannot be reconciled with his professed principles, one would think that most libertarians would by now have said "no" to "Dr. No." And some have. Libertarian economist Arnold Kling became disenchanted several years ago: "Many well-meaning libertarians signed on to the 'Ron Paul revolution.' At first, this only required accepting his pro-life and anti-immigrant stances as libertarian, contrary to the leanings of many libertarians.… But to dismiss all doubts about his judgment and his character would be to succumb to a cult." And character is, at bottom, the real problem with Ron Paul. That's what his disingenuous attack ad against Rick Perry tells us. It is the work of a typical Beltway trimmer, devoid of principle or shame.

No one in the Tea Party or with our values would spend the way he has!

One of the new tactics of the Paulbots is to try Reagan comparisons and Reagan quotes and do this cute little thrid party association to the champion of the conservative movement.

Fact is as the story below points out that Reagan would not give Paul a second thought were he here today and Paul in no way is a true conservative.

If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would STRONGLY OPPOSE Ron Paul. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron ”the nutjob” Paul’s playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980′s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, stating that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 95% OF THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS REJECTED RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION!!!! In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

This is a repost of Posted by mikeymike143 (Diary)

Thursday, September 8th at 7:19AM EDT