As Predicted Mitt Romney Not Handling the Democrat Fire


Both sides of the political aisle have considered Ron Paul a “radical” and the media has either ignored him or attempted to make him look the fool.  Whatever he proposes is based upon the foundation of the Constitution of the United States.
Constitutionalists are now “radicals”?

I did not vote for Romney because I saw him for what he is: a poster boy for the GOP establishment who could not stand the heat the last time he tried for the presidency – and it looks like this same problem is now. I am certainly recognizing that Mr. Romney is a fine person and has business savvy – but he tends to want to please everyone, and then makes voters suspicious when his VP produces more tax returns (tax years) than he has thus far – two years. While it is true that Harry Reid is just being malicious in his statement that Romney hasn’t paid taxes in ten years; but even conservatives are wondering why he hasn’t posted ten years of tax returns in retaliation to such absurd remarks to get it off the floor and discuss what must be done. The American voter wants transparency, like what Obama promised – not smoke and mirrors; and Romney is certainly not giving the voters a warm and fuzzy feeling by not responding to allegations concerning his tax payments – imagined or not. On the other hand, Harry Reid has done well as far as wealth during his time in Congress. Where did his money come from and where is his tax returns? He didn’t show any when being elected as Speaker, not sure about when he was elected as senator.

Mitt Romney hasn’t a clear cut plan, like Dr. Paul and other constitutionalist congressional members in this election.The GOP establishment made him their poster boy, much to the delight of the media manipulators who knew that he could not stand against the Obama propaganda machine and character assassination thugs. Sadly, the main theme is that Romney is bad because he is wealthy and uses legal deductions on his income tax forms – something that would not be an issue if Congress had performed their job in 2002 and accepted a replacement or at least a reformation of the income tax system.
The Democrats are reaching low into the cesspool of smut and making Romney look like a felon and the Florida congressman, Allen West, as a man who beats up senior women. (see previous article)
Ron Paul is squeaky clean and responds quickly and factually when confronted with Democrat/media maliciousness. Mitt Romneydid not have it last time nor this time, despite some improvements. His attempt to please everyone has made him appear indecisive and a fair-weather politician.
At Policymic, Robert Taylorwrote an excellent piece entitled 5 Issues That Prove Ron Paul is Ahead of His Time. All through Ron Paul’s political career going back to the 1980s, off and on, has predicted things that came true – and still is not listened to. It is mostly because much of his ideology is Libertarian; but his base is always the Constitution.

Here are five issues on which Ron Paul is simply ahead of his time:

1. The End of the Federal Reserve System
Paul entered politics in the 1970s after taking an interest in  economics, schooled by Austrian greats like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard.  Paul knew that President Nixon’s closing of the gold window in 1971 was a  recipe for financial disaster, and ever since then, has argued the case  for sound money and balanced budgets against fractional-reserve banking  and deficits. Not since Andrew Jackson shut down a central bank almost 200 years ago has someone done so much to make  people aware of the consequences of fiat money. Ten years ago, Fed  Chairman Alan Greenspan was the maestro, waving a magic wand of easy credit. Now Paul’s speeches get interrupted to chants of “End the Fed!” and audits are being passed in the House. With $15 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Paul may have a point. History is on his side. The average fiat currency only lasts a few decadesbefore stumbling into a fit of hyperinflation and worthless paper.  Given that this August 15 will make it exactly 41 years since the U.S. cut the dollar from all ties to gold, perhaps Paul will be proved  correct in sooner than a decade. That’s why Paul advocates legalizing alternative currencies and competition, like gold and silver, to help save people’s purchasing power as the dollar continues  to plummet in value.

2. NDAA
After the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 was passed by  Congress and signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve with little  attention, Paul took to the House floor and immediately denounced the  legislation. It nullifies civil liberties that go back to Magna Carta,  Paul noted, to give the President the authority to use the military to  arrest and detain U.S. citizens without trial. President Obama has said that he wouldn’t use this power (and he would never lie, right?), but  even if we take him at his word, this authority will be transferred to  the next President. And given the frequency of legislation that has been  passed in the last decade which essentially abolishes the Bill of  Rights, the claimed power will either remain or grow. Just imagine a President Romney or President Hillary Clinton having the power to make  people disappear. Given that public protests and movements will likely grow as the effects of debt and inflation really kick in, it might be only a  matter of time before enforcing “law and order” is the norm, not the  exception. The Pentagon openly admits that it has prepared for war with the American people if they express their right to petition their government a little bit too emphatically. Every campaign stump speech Paul gave during his 2012 presidential run included vehement opposition to the NDAA which will undoubtedly be seen as prophetic.

3. Obama, Democrats Are Not “Socialists”
Conservatives  and Republicans like to call President Obama a socialist, and deride  ObamaCare as government-run medicine. Paul, on the other hand, saw the legislation for what it was: corporatism, welfare for politically-connected corporations and industries. Health care before Obama was a heavily socialized mess already, Paul argues, and it’s hypocritical to oppose ObamaCare so that you can replace it with RomneyCare. It is an injustice to the public that the mainstream debate is framed  as “big government Democrats” and “free market Republicans.” In  reality, they are two parties devoted to the same basic philosophy and  only quibble over what kind of socialism and corporatism we should have.  Paul has used his principled understanding of economics to help peel  away the myth that the American economic system even remotely resembles a  free market and the contradictions of the left-right divide. Because of Paul, millions have abandoned this false choice of Republican corporatism or Democrat corporatism, and with time, that can  only increase.

4. The Follies of Empire
Paul has given so many House floor speeches and written so many articles about the terrible consequences of military interventionism overseas and non-defensive wars that there is an entire book dedicated to them. Paul is still the only presidential candidate who openly opposes President Obama’s incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, targeted assassinations, “kill lists,” and secret drone warfare.  America is supposed to be a commercial republic, Paul argues, a shining light and example of peace and economic prosperity to a world that desperately needs it. Lead by example, not by bombs and bribes. Paul was largely dismissed by conservatives for these views, even being booed in South Carolina during a Republican debate for espousing Christ’s Golden Rule. But Paul will be proven right even though the American people didn’t want to hear it. Whether or not one is convinced by Paul’s arguments in  favor of a strong defense and diplomacy, there is simply no  possible way that the U.S. Navy can continue to police every ocean, that  the Army can support 1,000 foreign military bases, or that we can  continue to wage multiple hot wars forever. The U.S. is borrowing almost  half of every dollar from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea to  maintain this empire, and eventually the troops will have to come home. A decade from now, many Americans will probably be wishing it was  done in 2012 by President Paul out of choice and not out of financial  collapse and necessity.

5. The Liberty Movement is Here to Stay
Paul’s presidential campaign stump speeches and his tone in general, tend to express a slight sense of despair and frustration. This mentality, however, is only out of legitimate concern and is always tempered by a long-term positive outlook about the future of liberty and the country. Paul, quoting Samuel Adams, knows that “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in  people’s minds.” With the rise of the Internet and the spread of free and cheap information, Paul’s shouts from the rooftops now have a megaphone and a printing press. Thomas Paine had pamphlets, the libertarian movement has the web and the power to circumvent the mainstream media narrative and poke holes in propaganda. Combine that with the grassroots, decentralized organization of national delegates and Paul supporters inside state and local offices around the country, and the movement that he reluctantly led is just getting started.

Thanks to the media bias/manipulation, Ron Paul is primarily out of the picture, except for some places in cyberspace. However, he has gained much more support than he did the last time he tried for the presidency. He apparently has not given up, just changed his tactics. At the least, if Romney wins, Dr. Paul should be accessed for substantial and wise advice. He has not been wrong about predictions concerning what government has been doing in the past fifty years, leading to what now is a dangerous crossroad amidst a crisis. If we do not return to the path of constitutional law, it can only lead to a catastrophe – following suit of European nations.
The Examiner just noted that Ron Paul was not on the list of speakers for the 2012 RNC.
Who speaks at the RNC is a matter of politics. It is interesting that Sarah Palin declined being speaker or was she just not chosen?