Ron Paul

An email from a reader about envy driven politics

A reader emails:

Hi Cam,

Listening to Cunliffe since becoming leader of the Labour party it has become clear that labour plan to win the election by dividing the nation on the battle lines of class. The Labour and Green block has become increasingly driven by the ‘green-eyed monster’ of envy. It’s envy, not vision or empirical evidence that drives Labour/Green policy solutions. The policy of the left seems to be more concerned with harming the justly wealthy solely because of their success than it is with actually helping the less fortunate in society, labour policy to impose a capital gains tax and close charter schools are just two example of this.

The following is an Essay written by U.S presidential candidate Ron Paul that I believe sums up the issue perfectly.

“Envy is the painful awareness of another’s good fortune. It is usually associated with the desire to bring an end that good fortune through some means. Thus is it worse than jealousy, which is wanting what another has. Envy seeks to take away what another has out of spite and hatred, and is driven by the desire to destroy. It is an extremely destructive emotion, one that cannot bring personal happiness and is sure to bring social harm. The exercise of envy only ends in satisfying a kind of lust for bad to come to others. All the world religions condemn the impulse. It is one of the seven deadly sins. It is something we train our children not to feel. No good can come of it.

I raise it in this context because envy is?one of the driving forces of redistributionist politics?in the United States, an emotion and motivation endorsed every day on the editorial pages. It is the secret motivation behind the unrelenting attacks on the rich heard every day inside Washington, a town whose population includes some of the most well-to-do people in the entire country.?The emotion that is behind the attacks on the justly rich, and the emotion that such seek to stir within the population, is envy. ? Read more »

A new Godwin’s Law?

We all know what Godwin’s law is…leftists usually are the first to break it, but now it is thought there is a new Godwin’s law.

Samuel Johnson once said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Patriotism, and bad analogies.

For the uninitiated,?Godwin’s Law?is one of the cardinal rules of the Internet. Coined in 1990 by Internet law expert Mike Godwin, the principle — confirmed by countless contentious comment threads across the web — is that the longer an online discussion persists, the greater the odds become that someone will make a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler, to the point of near-inevitability. Nothing ends a debate faster than the hyperbolic unsupported counterfactual: “You know who else did [INSERT SUBJECT OF ARGUMENT HERE]? Hitler!”

We get this all the time…usually from teachers unions…they used it against Anne Tolley and are yet to deploy it against Hekia Parata…only a matter of time though.

But Hitler and the Nazis aren’t the only recurring straw men used to end debates. Over the past 12 years, it’s become clear that the longer a national security debate persists, the more likely it becomes that someone will try to end it by suggesting something — some policy, some person, some technology — “could have prevented 9/11.”? Read more »

Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones – a reader’s thoughts

A reader emails regarding the gun control debate and in?particular?the Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones.

So yeah.. just got through reading the reporting about this and finally got time to watch the full broadcast:

To be honest, after watching that, I think most pro-gun advocates need to let that one slide. I’m sure the pro-control crowd, given time to see more than just the highlights and soundbits, will want some distance.

You don’t have to print what I’m saying here, but you’re welcome to if you like -?if you want to blog it, that’s your call, cut and paste as you see fit.. grab what you need. If you’re re-printing, just include the statement from myself that I try to live, act and comment from a neutral position – I’ll hear out both sides then make my own judgement. I don’t comment from the left, right, or center, nor do I subscribe to their mailers – only what I personally believe, regardless of political fanboi-ism.

I’ve wavered on my (very ‘not matters much at all considering I don’t have a US citizenship’) opinion of the whole US firearms debacle. I don’t believe that civilians have a “need” for firearms like the “civilian” modified AR-15. I’m highly aware that 70-odd% of firearms violence is caused by hand-guns, not Assault Rifles. I’m well aware that considering it’s political and historical ramifications, the 2nd Amendment must be upheld.

But what exactly are the ramifications of that 2nd Amendment; what did those founding fathers mean; and what do those sacrosanct passages really entitle a gun owner to?

The full debate between Alex and Piers uncovers a lot – and it’s not the conspiracy about?serotonin?re uptake?inhibitors.. or any other crackpot idea that Jones can make some money off now that Ron Paul isn’t being fucked over for his financial benefit.

In case you missed it.. “INFOWARS DOT COM!!!”

Alex Jones is the Alexei/Lucia Maria of US Gun Politics. He’s the example of the absolute worst of the argument, that level that Colbert doesn’t even reach in his satire. The problem is that one side uses reason, the other froths at the mouth- and because the former engages the latter, the latter is enabled.

I’ve spent time among the Ron Paul crowd, arguably the most Republican of the GOP. I’ve spent time among the Obama people, who are the Clinton people, who are the Carter people. And to look at both of their arguments, I see the flaws in both.

The Democrats are reacting, which they should, but in the wrong areas: I personally think they’re on the right track with universal background checks, particularly in the area of mental health, and closing loopholes like the “Gun Show Loophole”. But they’re reacting too late, to political footballs that are simply a hot topic to earn a vote.

The Republicans are reacting, which is, I guess, all they can do.. defend the 2nd Amendment, and?manoeuvre?around that basic premise. The problem is that their current argument (see Wayne LaPierre’s comments and their notorious press release) falls apart when they compare themselves to other countries – ie: video game consumption per capita.

I think the issue, that nobody wants to address as a potential political landmine, is the question of “Why are Americans so much more prone to deciding to go out in a ‘Blaze of Glory’ by shooting up a school before they top themselves? Is our national culture a bit… ‘fucked’?”

Ron Paul acts to remove so-called Gun-Free School Zones

Ron Paul is the first politician to try to do something in the wake of the school shootings in Connecticut:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has introduced a bill in the House that would allow teachers to carry firearms onto public school grounds. Gun-control groups call it an “extremist” bill.

H.R. 2613,?the Citizens Protection Act of 2011, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and remove all?federally created criminal safety zones.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act makes it ?unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.?

Paul?s office did not return calls or e-mails for comment to, but the group Gun Owners of America said the Citizens Protection Act is needed for self-protection purposes.

In a news release, the group argued that the Gun-Free School Zones Act protects criminals, asserting that such attacks as Columbine, Virginia Tech and Fort Hood ?all occurred in government facilities where the private possession of firearms was prohibited.?

?It?s time to say NO to criminal safe zones,? the release said. ?And a great place to start is the blatantly unconstitutional Gun-free School Zones Act.?

Gun control groups oppose Paul?s bill. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) said the bill would threaten the safety of American families.

?It?s a horrific piece of legislation that will present a direct threat to public safety,? ?CSGV Communications Director Ladd Everitt told in an e-mail.

??Gun-free zones,? despite the gun lobby?s propaganda, are far and away the safest places in our country,” said Everitt.

Riiight…so tell that to the families suffering after their kids were killed in the “safest places in our country”

Good on ya Jesse

? Jesse Ventura Facebook

Politicians are useless bludgers and usually f*ck everything up. Jesse is smart enough to realise this applies to all politicians, including himself and Ron Paul.

We need to start believing in our own personal capacity to change this country and stop hoping someone else will do it for us. The belief that somehow all will be fixed the moment Dr Paul or myself became President is ludicrous and downright dangerous. This is your country. Stop pushing the responsibility to enact change onto public figures or symbols. Stand up and do it yourself. The leader you are truly searching for, the leader who will change your world for the better, is not the one you see on TV but the one you see everyday you look into a mirror. Stop following, start leading. Renounce the slave mentality that has been drilled into you.

Ron Paul surging?

? the tipline

A regular reader sent in his take on the Republican nomination tussle. I’m a regular reader of several American blogs and he seems to be right in saying the MSM are ignoring the movement of Ron Paul in attempting to hoover up delegates.

Just read the expected Gingrich drop out news on Stuff – normal copy-paste job from Reuters.

Of course, no mention of the fact that Ron Paul is sweeping US state delegates all over the place. I don’t expect NZ media to have the foresight to pick up on it, but Mainstream US Media is refusing to admit that he has closer to 400-500 delegates and rising (as opposed to the 80 or so they list him with), and a nearly certain name on the candidate list at the the GOP’s Tampa Convention. The only way Romney will have the 800+ delegates they’re forecasting him with is if all Gingrich’s delegates go to him – and people are saying his delegates would go 60/40 – Romney/Paul. Santorum’s delegates always stood against Romney so they’re are switching to Ron Paul, and the ‘bound’ delegates that support Ron Paul, but are bound to voting for Romney, are going to (legally) abstain from voting in the first round of voting at the GOP Tampa Convention, which means they then becoming unbound in the second round – they’ll then be voting for Ron Paul in the second round. He’s going to wind up as the next US President at this rate, and nobody is willing to admit it.

I’m guessing you’re up with the play, but if not, check out, and the Doug Wead blog. Rachel Maddow is also calling it true, check out YT vids.? They’re about the only places that aren’t burying their head in the sand over what’s happening. The establishment doesn’t want him, but they’re not gonna be able to vote-rig fast enough to keep him out for much longer. Ron Paul will make huge waves at the convention and probably win it through his delegate strategy. He’s a far superior candidate to beat Obama in the general election. Romney simply can’t beat him.

It’s gonna make all mainstream media look like completely inept idiots, if not corrupt, when it all comes to a head. Sorry for the rant, but considering Ron Paul (if he can get Congress to work with him) will stop the war-mongering and start fixing the economy (and thereby helping our own), New Zealand should be up with the play here.

4 more years of Obama or Romney is 4 more years of NZ soldiers fighting their war, and I’ve lost enough friends in that.

Mitt Romney has a bad day at the Office

Mitt?Romney?has had a really bad day at?the?office losing two and possibly three primaries.

Santorum has been?declared?the winner in Missouri and Minnesota. In Minnesota, Romney is currently?trailing?Santorum by almost 30 points and Ron Paul (!) is ahead of Romney by 10. Santorum is also?ahead?in Colorado, but very few votes have come in thus far. Josh Marshall?finds?no silver lining for Mitt.

Rick Santorum won Missouri and Minnesota convincingly, in Missouri he won every county. The turn out is low though and so Santorum cannot claim much other than a moral victory.

Easy win for Romney in Nevada

Mitt Romney won the Nevada caucus easily. Nate Silver blogs:

Although the exact margin has yet to be determined, Mitt Romney has been declared the winner in the Nevada caucuses tonight.

It appears that Mr. Romney may slightly outperform some expectations.?Exit polls?showed him winning about 55 percent of the vote in Nevada, versus hisFiveThirtyEight forecast?of 51 percent. So should Representative Ron Paul, who may get closer to 20 percent than the 15 his percent projected by the forecast.

Ron Paul’s boy mans up

Rand Paul has the same principled approach to politics as his father. He beat the establishment to win the Kentucky Republican Primary, then one the senate seat. Now he is returning unused taxpayer money saved from running an efficient office.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul today announced that he is returning $500,000 to the United States Treasury ? money unspent from his official operating budget. The total amount being returned is more than 16 percent of Paul?s original office budget. As far as is known, no U.S. Senator has returned as much to taxpayers.

?I ran to stop the reckless spending,? said Paul. ?And I ran to end the damaging process of elected officials acting as errand boys, competing to see who could bring back the biggest check and the most amount of pork.?

At a press conference today in Louisville, Paul presented taxpayers with an ?over-sized check? for $500,000, representing the money being returned to the Treasury.

?I hope this sets an example for the rest of government ? at all levels,? said Paul. ?We can carry out our duties in a fiscally responsible way. Government can be both smart and efficient. We are proving that ? and trying to convince the rest of Washington.?

Paul achieved the savings while also having the most active office for a freshman in the U.S. Senate. In his first year, he introduced more legislation and amendments than any other freshman legislator, often teaming-up with fellow Senators to support legislation.

Paul has offered spending cut amendments to nearly every bill. And he has stood up for Kentucky, offering bills in support of the Commonwealth?s bridges and ports, and working to stop the Environmental Protection Agency?s war on coal.

Paul?s office was one of only three in Washington to produce an entire fiscal blueprint for the federal government, a promise he made while campaigning in 2010. His plan, introduced in the first few weeks of his term, would balance the federal budget in five years.

Paul also kept his promise to work to reform Social Security. His proposal, introduced with Sens. Lindsay Graham and Mike Lee, would fix the entire system for 75 years. Later this month, Sen. Paul will introduce a plan to save Medicare.

It is a pity we don?t have politicians who want to offer spending cut amendments to nearly every bill.

Readers should start following Rand on Facebook. He will inherit his father’s formidable campaign machine and Ron?s fanatical supporters. Rand running for president could be a lot more successful than Ron.?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Negative campaigning working

Newt Gingrich got a boost in the polls. So his opponents started telling the truth about him in ads. Ads described as negative, although they told the truth. Now his campaign is in trouble.

Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there’s been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich’s image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has ‘strong principles,’ while 43% think he does not.