The establishment media is losing its power to sabotage the march of liberty .
The sheer desperation of the establishment in its efforts to topple Ron Paul are staggering to behold. Everything from bitter former employees of the Paul campaign, to ludicrous You Tube videos of crying women, to the re-hashed debunked 15-year-old smears about ‘racist’ newsletters, every single piece of dirt imaginable has been thrown at Paul – but nothing has stuck.
This phenomenon once again illustrates the fact, as we saw during Rand Paul’s senatorial campaign, that the corporate press is now so distrusted by a significant portion of Americans that their coordinated smear attacks, which used to have the power to sink candidates almost overnight, are now rapidly losing influence.
It also highlights the fact that the smear attacks against Paul have been completely hyped and exaggerated out of all proportion.
Whereas Herman Cain’s adventurous sex life cost him the frontrunner’s position and forced him to drop out of the race altogether, likewise with Gingrich when the exposure of his true political inclinations decimated his commanding lead, the so-called scandals about Ron Paul are so transparently weak and have been distorted out of all rational proportions, that their impact has been non-existent on the polling figures.
That assertion is proven by the numbers – which show Paul’s lead in Iowa has held firm.
A new Public Policy Polling survey shows Ron Paul at 24% with Romney in second at 20% and Gingrich in third at 13%. That’s a one percentage point increase in Paul’s lead compared to the last PPP poll conducted ten days ago.
“Paul continues to have much more passionate support than Romney. 77% of his voters are firmly committed to him, compared to 71% for Romney. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up Paul’s lead expands to 7 points at 28-21. If Paul’s lead holds on through next Tuesday it appears he’ll have won this on the ground,” reports PPP.
In addition, the New York Times’ primary projection shows that Paul now has a 60% chance of winning Iowa compared to Romney with a 31% chance. Last week, the two candidates were level by this measurement but now Paul has pulled ahead.
If there’s anything that frightens the establishment as much as Ron Paul gaining the kind of momentum that could catapult him into the frontrunner position in other primary states, it’s the fact that the corporate press and all their simpering hangers-on no longer have the power to dictate reality.
The smear attacks have failed – Ron Paul is still on course to win Iowa and his momentum will continue to build.
*********************
http://www.infowars.com/smear-attacks-have-no-effect-ron-paul-still-on-course-to-win-iowa/ Why do neoconservative and neoliberals despise Ron Paul's policies?
Anti-war, anti-NAFTA and and-occupation.
By being openly opposed to U.S. military intervention overseas, Ron Paul has made enemies with the military weapons contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc...) that profit off taxpayer money for their never ending "war on terror".
By being openly opposed to free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO, the source of poverty and landlessness in many third world nations (U.S. agribusinesses flood their markets with taxpayer subsidized corn/rice/grain/etc... and force the local farmers out of business and are coerced into migration to the U.S.), Ron Paul has made enemies with large agribusiness corporations (ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, etc...) that profit from undocumented immigration as slave labor. furthermore, the same NAFTA/WTO free trade agreements forced small farmers in the U.S. off their land also, being absorbed by the agribusiness monopolies.
By being openly oppossed to the so-called "war on drugs" that uses incarceration to force lifestyle choices on indiviudals, Ron Paul has made enemies with the prison-industrial complex that profits from mass incarceration of people who use drugs. The Libertarian position on drug use is that individuals above 21 have the legal right to ingest into their bodies whatever substance they want (except for overt suicide attempts) and that the state has no right to deprive an individual of their freedom for this provided that they harm nobody else in the process.
This results in Ron Paul's positions on major issues being oppossed to the central goals of the military weapons contractors (or military-industrial complex), agribusinesses and the prison-industrial complex. These three groups are usually the top choices for lobbyist campaign contributions, and thus politicians are beholden to them before and after the election. Going against these three powerful lobbyist groups and running mostly on the generosity of supporters is bound to get any candidate in trouble, thus we witness the smear attacks of "racist", "isolationist", "terrorist symathizer" (from Rudy Giuliani last primary) being used against Ron Paul just as he gains the lead in Iowa. Before that sudden gain in the polls the corporate media acted as if Ron Paul was the "Invisible Man". Not so hidden now!
Ron Paul on NAFTA;
"Ron Paul co-sponsors HR 4759 to REPEAL NAFTA!
Yes, Ron Paul is opposed to illegal immigration, but at the same time he is also for withdrawing from NAFTA. This would allow the people of Mexico the ability to exert more control over their own economy. This is an extremely important point within the immigration debate, and it is something not even the Democrats are willing to admit because they are just as guilty of selling out the Mexican and American working class in favor of cheap labor as much as the neo-cons and Mexican elites are. Don't kid yourself when they speak of being sympathetic to the plight of immigrants when they are not working to end the subversive trade deals that are causing these people to get up and move in the first place!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/128522 I see Ron Paul has already signed on to this bill.
Call your congresscritters today and ask them to please co-sponsor this bill.
As a factory worker in Ohio I will tell you first hand that NAFTA has been a total disaster for American small and mid sizes industry.
HR4759 - Full Text at Open Congress.org
111th CONGRESS, 2d Session
H. R. 4759
To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 4, 2010
Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.
(a) Withdrawal of Approval- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Notification of Withdrawal- On the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA.
(c) NAFTA Defined- In this section, the term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?235411-Ron-Paul-co-sponsors-HR-4759-to-REPEAL-NAFTA!
"End the War on Drugs"
by Ron Paul
"We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.
Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.
Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check IDs and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!
If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.
My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/ 12/21/2011
"Ron Paul Challenges His Party’s Mindless Militarism"
Jacob Sullum
"Reporters routinely describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “isolationist” because he opposes the promiscuous use of military force. This is like calling him a recluse because he tries to avoid fistfights.
The implicit assumption that violence is the only way to interact with the world reflects the oddly circumscribed nature of foreign policy debates in mainstream American politics. It shows why Paul’s perspective is desperately needed in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
As the Texas congressman has patiently explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy and cultural exchange. Furthermore, he supports military action when it is necessary for national defense — in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.
The inaccurate “isolationist” label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be safely ignored. Given the dire consequences of reckless interventionism, that clearly is not the case.
This week, the U.S. officially ended its war in Iraq, nearly nine years after launching it based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to us because he had weapons of mass destruction.
The war, which replaced a brutal dictator with a corrupt, wobbly elected government that may not be able to defend Iraq’s borders or maintain peace in a country riven by sectarian violence, cost the U.S. $800 billion and nearly 4,500 American lives. More than 100,000 civilians were killed during the invasion and its aftermath.
The regime installed by the U.S. in Afghanistan to replace al-Qaida’s Taliban allies is even weaker and more corrupt than the one in Iraq. Ten years after the invasion, we still have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, and so far the war has cost about $500 billion, 1,800 American lives and thousands of civilian casualties.
The United States would have avoided both of these costly nation-building projects if Congress had listened to Ron Paul — or even to George W. Bush circa 2000, who (as Paul frequently notes) ran on a promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would not aim to solve all the world’s problems. Now that the same people who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are portraying Iran as an intolerable threat to national security, some Paulian skepticism surely is appropriate.
That is especially true at a time when the federal government borrows 36 cents of every dollar it spends, racking up a debt as big as the entire U.S. economy. At the Nov. 22 debate, Paul corrected Mitt Romney, who complained that the Obama administration is “cutting a trillion dollars out of the defense budget.” Actually, Paul said, “they’re not cutting anything”; rather, “they’re nibbling away at baseline budgeting and its automatic increases,” and “people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because … the budget isn’t going up as rapidly as they want it to.”
Rick Santorum illustrated that attitude at the Oct. 18 debate by proudly declaring, “I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending.” The U.S. has military personnel in about 150 countries, has nearly doubled its so-called defense budget in the last decade and accounts for more than two-fifths of the world’s military spending. But somehow there’s not a penny to spare.
Alone among the GOP presidential contenders, Paul challenges this sort of mindless militarism. “We have an empire,” he bluntly noted at the same debate. “We can’t afford it.”
For 35 years, Ron Paul has been speaking truths that the foreign policy mavens of both parties prefer to ignore: that the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war, that unjustified interventions breed resentment that undermines our security, that there is a difference between military spending and defense spending, that foreign aid rewards autocrats and their cronies and that economic sanctions are an “an act of war” that hurts people in the name of punishing the governments that oppress them. If there really is no room for these arguments in the Republican Party, that is the party’s fault, not Paul’s."
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/ron-paul-challenges-his-partys-mindless-militarism