Ron Paul takes the lead

For months now we have been getting press about this or that GOP candidate who was going to be the big winner. Bachmann started it off when she came in #1 in the Iowa straws, then fell fast; Rick Perry, who did
not even bother to attend the Iowa caucus, suddenly started off like a Texas messiah; he too fell fast after people questioned the sagacity of having a leader who could not finish a sentence; then Romney appeared to take the lead, but was hit hard with the fact that he does not stay true to issues; Newt Gingrich crawled out of a swamp and in some reptilian way started to outrun the hare, only to be undone by his own infidelities and inconsistencies. So yesterday's New York Post and New York Times were weighing the possibility, as we put forth here, that Ron Paul would wait and pace himself and despite the lack of press, emerge in the fore. Geoff Earle in the Murdoch owned Post, writing in an article titled "Newt's lead evaporates", was forced to note that a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Paul seizing the top spot, with 23%, Romney getting back up to 20%, and Gingrich falling to 14%. But leave it to Murdoch accolyte Rich Lowry to bash Mr. Paul; he writes that in 2008 the surest way to get applause in the GOP was to excoriate him. So what? Then he tries to dig up some material that Paul did not write that appeared in a newsletter years ago. And leave it to Murdoch to bash his opponents with anti-Israel views, which Paul does not have. Paul's warning about the CIA taking over the US military are then brought up, and if Lowry had a brain he would have given Paul much credit for this. Let us look at reality here, let us examine history...the CIA has ties to companies like Bechtel, which in WWII was instrumental in undermining the military in the Pacific by getting milions of tax dollars spent on useless projects in Alaska when money was needed for Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc. Tens of thousands died or were wounded while Bechtel used the war as an excuse to make money. And look at its relationship today to the Bushes, Halliburton, etc. Look at how in Vietnam Philip Habib suppressed genuine intel reports about Hanoi and US soldiers, left unprepared, were slaughtered. Habib, in an account by former DIA intel agent Mark Philipps, was more powerful at the White House than was Reagan in the Reagan years; third he was, according to Philipps and his co-author Cathy O-Brien, to George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Anyone who is well versed in the history of the CIA would see the pattern of it using the troops for rich idiots and failing to gather real intelligence; in yesterday's NYT there was also the story about the total lack of intelligence about Korea, which goes about building nuclear weapons and destablising the region - where is the CIA when you need it?
One answer could be - in the newsroom, trying to bring America to its knees by supporting stupid, hapless candidates who will do their bidding while trying to suppress an honest and experienced one who knows what is really going on...and another answer might be Dallas, shooting a president who tried to keep Operation Northwoods from going forward. Long would be this post if I were to explain such a stupid and evil plot that involved killing US military men and civilians to start another war-for-profit, so I will leave the reader to exercise their fingers on the google machine.
But getting back to Ron Paul and yesterday's coverage of him - Lowry belittles his fellow Americans when he closes his piece with this: "Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominting process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again."
That from a man who works for a corporation known for aiding and abetting murderers and child molesters, and suspected of hacking into 9/11 victims' families' phones.
So not surprising the Murdoch press should attack Ron Paul. Nor does it surprise that the NYT follows, somewhat lightheartedly, by trying to associate him with racists in an article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard A. Oppel Jr. The New York Daily Mail did not cover this issue much, with its attention focused on the funeral of a policeman gunned down in the line of duty by a career criminal who was let out by some liberal judge, and then the man who set fire to a woman who had tried to help him; both of which atrocities show us the lack of leadership in America today and why, if we care, we need to get Ron Paul in and the clowns out.
So we watch the debates and see how the press will react, and hope that Ron Paul wins.

No news is no news

I haven't blogged for a while. There seems to be no news on Ron Paul, while every day Herman Cain
gets about a full page; Perry and Romney get almost the same. Why? For lying? For suddenly not being able to remember your words mid-sentence, or not knowing the voting age or the right date of election day in America?

All of which means that bad candidates get free press. Lazy journalists love it, they have lots to write about, but the voters do not get much information about sensible candidates.

In the meantime, much press has been given to the OWS movement, which is headed by rich kids who spend $700 a night on hotel rooms and eat luxury organic food. Another waste of time. 

The circus grinds on, fools are in fashion and clowns rule. Somewhere in the background a sensible candidate
is calling for the abolition of government red tape and for American farmers to grow hemp. And a tree falls in a forest. We hear nothing, we see nothing. Then we ask why it is all falling apart.

Occupy Wall Street is not into 30 days...and it is coming soon to a park near you.

This weekend it came to Times Square, after finding Washington Square Park

last week. Mayor Bloomberg tried to have it leave Zucotti Park, which he said

needed cleaning, but that failed. The campers stayed happy in their sleeping bags,

still getting free pizza and bagels and lox...and of course, taking their anti-capitalism

rant into McDonalds.

Which irony Drew Grant, writing in the NY Observer, was quick to point out in a large feature

article, pp.18-20 in the 17 October issue.

Grant was also quick to point out that there were no Ron Paul sympathizers: "We spent all day looking for a possible Tea Party member or Ron Paul sympathizer and can up empty-handed."

Funny, the Ron Paul people had the biggest banner there, it took three men to hold it up on the East side of Zucotti Park. And I was there on the west side promoting this blog and hemp (which Ron Paul supports). I asked another protester, or 'occupier' as Arnie likes to be called, and he just laughed; he'd seen plenty and he was not even looking; maybe Grant is blind. Or a total liar. I'm not calling him a liar, but I am pointing out that he may be a liar. Fine line between pointing out the truth here and getting sued for, well, pointing out the truth. Did I say he was a liar?

If I did so what....

The New York Times on Sunday, 16th (which for some reason actually came out after Grant's article of the 17th) seems to go to lengths to put down Ron Paul in an article by Matt Bai, who alludes to the 'radical isolationism of Ron Paul.'; no mention of Dr. Paul's actual popularity and his presence on the House Banking Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Nor any credible example of this 'radical isolationism.' A page or two later, quoting some lobbyist named John Freehery, Bai talks about Republicans having to sort out their 'Ron Paul problem." Excuse me? Ron Paul 'problem'? 

Ron Paul is one of their only credible members. One does not read his name in exposes like the Trance-Formation of America or Rolling Stone articles about banking fraud. So maybe, since he does not go in for sexual predation and embezzlement, as do some Republicans, he is a problem. One may have to put this statement into context.

A piece in the New York Post a while back basically admitted that journalists avoided Ron Paul. And one wonders why? Is it because common sense is anathema to the media and political elites who ripped off America? Yes it is. And let them sue me if they want.

But first they have millions of protesters on their hands; Arab Spring has become Western Fall...and the protesters, or 'occupiers'  as Arnie prefers to call them, are not just going to go away. 

And among them there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters. Their website is

www.RonPaul2012.com 

Wall Street is my occupation

The protests are growing like starfish that have been chopped up by angry fishermen. The massive arrests only made things worse. It this the start of something really big? It seems so.
Tomorrow I will meet my friend Arnie and join the throng. One thing I wish to accomplish is the founding of the Centrist Party.
And if this kick off well, we will be asking Ron Paul to join it. I am no fan of the GOP, which ripped off money from me via a Wall Street banker years ago.
So who knows....this is of course an ambitious post. It could fade into obscurity or it could be a bit of history. We shall see...stay posted.
For anyone wishing to join this new party, get in touch with us at thecentristparty@hotmail.com

Herman Cain beats Perry

While it would be hoped that Dr Paul would have come in first in the Florida straw poll, there is some joy in seeing at least that Rick Perry has not; rather, Herman Cain placed first. So much for the papers saying that
there were really only 3 main GOP contenders, Bachmann, Perry and Romney. Bachmann, by the way,
only got 1.5% of the votes. Maybe this time she did not have funds to bus in voter, basically bribing them with free hotel stays and food.
Perry seems a bit meteoric. He rose on the word of journalists, and fell on his own word like a soldier falling on his sword. Even the far rigth John Podhoretz was quick to shoot the fallen horse.
Cain has been very supported on this site, but given his total lack of any experience in political office, we have slotted him for VP. Experience is a big issue. Personality is one thing, but when it comes to getting a job done, we all know that experience is key.
And Dr Paul has that.
Some are heavily backing Romney now, but who wants a president who contradicts himself on major issues? Consistency is another issue, and again, Dr Paul has that.
When will the press wake up?

Alexandra Petri on the GOP

The New York Post yesterday reprinted Alexandra Petri's column in the Washington Post about the GOP forerunners. She notes that Perry is running 7 points BEHIND Obama, whilst Paul is neck-and-neck. So why all this media hype about Perry? She titles her piece "Beware the Generic GOPer."
This mythical beast is, of course, the best bet.
She continues talking about Ron Paul, referring to him as the Totally Non-Generic Republican. She seems to be leaning towards him: "...say what you want about him, Paul is undeniably real..."
She then reflects more on this Generic Republican and admits he might be ahead - if he weren't real.
A glimmer of truth is out there in the press...how it slipped in I am not sure.
But it's there.
And speaking of Perry, he was here cap-in-hand to solicit Latin votes and Jewish money. The Latin press was not enthralled: Gerson Borrero, writing on 21 Sept. in El Diario/La Prensa tore apart his 'acercamiento a los latinos'. (Getting close to Latin voters, roughly translated into gringo).
He compared the few Latins who supported him to traitors, and opined that the 50 supposed donors ought to 'canceler sus cheques'. No translation needed.
The Latin vote is crucial to this campaign, they are the fastest growing segment of US society. And they will not vote for a Generic Republican. They lean either towards Democrats or Non-Generic Republicans.
Coming soon to this blog - an examination of this by Carlos Reyes who is a commenter here.

AP on Ron Paul/Rick Perry debate

Philipp Elliot of the Associated Press just did a piece on Ron Paul. Here it is:

WASHINGTON — A Texas-sized rivalry is brewing in the Republican presidential contest.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul is calling Texas Gov. Rick Perry "Al Gore's Texas cheerleader" for once working to help elect the Democrat. Perry's team, in turn, is branding Paul a turncoat for once leaving the GOP.
The back-and-forth between two Texans, who never have been particularly close, could spill over into Wednesday's debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., a memorial to the conservative who counseled fellow Republicans not to speak ill about one another.

So far, neither Paul nor Perry is heeding that advice.

Over the past few weeks, both have seen their standing in the GOP field rise. Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican who has a strong legion of die-hard supporters and a big bank account, came within 152 votes of winning an important test vote in Iowa on the same day that Perry, who leads in several national and state polls, entered the race to great fanfare among the party's conservative base.
Since then, Paul has been poking at Perry, seeking to tarnish the governor's image.
Last week, Paul likened Perry to a "candidate of the week" and predicted Perry's poll numbers would fall quickly once voters got to know him better. He told The Associated Press, "Texas has had a lot of changes in these last eight years, not exactly positive either."

This week, Paul rolled out a TV ad suggesting that Perry wants to unravel the Reagan legacy. The ad highlighted Paul's own endorsement of Reagan's unsuccessful bid for the GOP nomination in 1976 and Perry's work on then-Sen. Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988.

The ad said: "Rick Perry helped lead Al Gore's campaign to undo the Reagan revolution, fighting to elect Al Gore president of the United States. Now, America must decide who to trust: Al Gore's Texas cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan."
Perry was a Democrat serving in the state legislature at the time. He switched parties in 1989 and successfully ran for state agriculture commissioner as a Republican.
Paul's ad drew a rebuke from Perry's campaign, which said in a statement, "Like President Reagan, Gov. Perry has cut taxes and freed employers from government regulations that kill jobs."
Perry aides also dug up and distributed Paul's 1987 letter of resignation from the Republican Party.
Video: Chuck’s First Read:  It’s debate time (on this page)
In it, Paul wrote, "I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy."
Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988; two decades later he ran as a Republican.
"Paul thought President Reagan was so bad, he left the GOP," Perry spokesman Mark Miner said, calling Paul's letter a broadside attack on every element of Reagan's record and philosophy.
Paul advisers promised not to shy away from highlighting parts of Perry's record that they say are inconsistent with his campaign pitch.
What to watch in tonight's debate
"We don't think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here," Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said in an open letter to Perry on Wednesday. "The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one."
In 2008, Perry, who previously supported Texans Phil Gramm and George W. Bush for president, backed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani over Paul in the GOP nomination fight.
Asked at the time about Paul, Perry dismissed his home state lawmaker.
"I didn't ever consider Ron Paul," he said. "You get to make choices in life. And I made a choice. Ron Paul is not mine for president. It's pretty simple for me."