q: how many Ron Paul loyalists does it take to screw in a light bulb? a: thousands so far say it isn't in the budget, but they earmarked it for their districts anyway.
In his interview on Meet the Press, Ron Paul compared earmarks to tax credits
image to left is the Ooompa Loompas in the Federal Reserve. Imagine all those Ron Paul people who thought it was the Elders of Zion and the Rothchilds
the biggest conspiracy of all is that there are no checks and balances in the finance system because of incompetence on the part of the electorate to get anything done on a systematic level. Paul's biggest fear would be no evil to be found.
In the past Ron Paul has never been on my radar. Sure there were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today's congressional standards.
Ron Paul is believed to be a "fiscal conservative" and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is make sure that he earmarks that he wants are put in a bill, and then votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.
In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives. (source: Open Secrets):
Last April Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you're a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. It reminds one of the Gangster Big Julie, a character in the musical Guys & Dolls, who best line in the play was
"Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I've gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!"These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to "is this the most efficient place to house this program?" Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone district of a different congressman.
Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn't have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. When I saw them at CPAC, Paul supporters reminded me of those wide-eyed cult members that used to panhandle at airports. That wasn't particularly bothersome, after all people should have some passion. Problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a "drooling crazy" type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.
thanks for keeping it real Sammy.
as a college kid of the early 90s the first attempt to indoctrinate me into his cult was around 1992.
(1) there are better ways then the Gold Standard to bring a realistic and fair market that is not virtual.
(2) his personal attacks on Israel are disturbing. one argument that the Paul people bring up is that the earmarks a very small part of our economy. They are correct... they are... in fact those earmarks are greater then the money given to Israel to help America fight terrorism. This is a correlative that is rarely brought up.
(3) as for the FED... that is right... we don't know what is going on. if we did... we would panic. that is why it is set up the way it is. I'm all for accountability, but obviously there needs to be a certain economic clergy who are also scrutinized systematically. our government is all about checks and balances. That doesn't always mean it is completely transparent.
a so called isolationist arbitrarily wants to have free trade with Iran? I might support him if he were consistent... but he isn't.
"While some of Ron Paul's supporters tried to claim that he would leave Israel, because he believes in respecting the sovereignty of other countries, in fact he attacked Israel for going after its kidnapped soldiers, something that was not taking place inside US borders. Essentially Paul was making the same argument then that Obama is making today, that Israel's actions affect the US, which gives him the right to demand that Israel stop defending itself."
not exactly a non interventionist either. just orchestrated prejudice.
his son Rand Paul has endorsed Adam Kokesh, which means getting in bed with Code Pink, a radical left wing org tied to Obama and Hamas of all things.
and strangely Paul is on Russian TV all the time. is he getting paid by foreign interests? I can't prove it, but free trade with Iran sounds like someone is paying him something under the table.
forget all the hogwash and the theory... the Gold Standard was proven wrong by Ronald Reagan and there are better non virtual stabilizers.
forget all the racist papers written in his name that we are to assume that he was just naive.
forget the pictures with Stormfront's Don Black and family
forget it all and you still have a hypocrite who pushes a double standard on http://xrl.us/Earmarks
a so called isolationist arbitrarily wants to have free trade with Iran? I might support him if he were consistent... but he isn't.
"While some of Ron Paul's supporters tried to claim that he would leave Israel, because he believes in respecting the sovereignty of other countries, in fact he attacked Israel for going after its kidnapped soldiers, something that was not taking place inside US borders. Essentially Paul was making the same argument then that Obama is making today, that Israel's actions affect the US, which gives him the right to demand that Israel stop defending itself."
not exactly a non interventionist either. just orchestrated prejudice.
his son Rand Paul has endorsed Adam Kokesh, which means getting in bed with Code Pink, a radical left wing org tied to Obama and Hamas of all things.
and strangely Paul is on Russian TV all the time. is he getting paid by foreign interests? I can't prove it, but free trade with Iran sounds like someone is paying him something under the table.
forget all the hogwash and the theory... the Gold Standard was proven wrong by Ronald Reagan and there are better non virtual stabilizers.
forget all the racist papers written in his name that we are to assume that he was just naive.
forget the pictures with Stormfront's Don Black and family
forget it all and you still have a hypocrite who pushes a double standard on http://xrl.us/Earmarks
