Rapture Ready Hates Ron Paul

So, I was informed that, apparently, there's this forum called Rapture Ready, and it officially hates Ron Paul. Well, they don't call it "hate" they call it, "anyone who isn't a neocon isn't welcome here." Never mind that they're a Fundamentalist Christian board, not a political one. As such, their only rule should be that you have to have the viewpoint of a Fundamentalist Christian, eager to be raptured away while the rest of the world burns. Political views should not be censored. They act like the only way you can be a Christian is to be a neocon! I'm a Christian (though not a Fundamentalist, I suppose) who supports Ron Paul proudly, I know tons of Fundamentalists who support Ron Paul proudly (check out Chuck Baldwin), and I know lots of Democrats who are Christians as well, but they don't support Ron Paul. I know a ton of Libertarian and Constitutionalist Christians, and even Socialist and Anarchist Christians. Even Ron Paul Forums won't throw you out for disagreeing with them. They'll just refuse to support you and wind up dividing themselves...

So, I decided to take a look at the reasons why Ron Paul is now being censored by Big Brother over at Rapture Ready and debunk what it says, just in case someone wants to know the difference between a real conservative and a neocon. This could get long, so let's first take a look at the new rules on this board.

1) We are a conservative board. Paul is Libertarian, not a Conservative. Paul won't be a major part of this political board.

Apparently, Libertarians are not Conservatives because they yeild to the Constitution of the United States and the philosophies of the Founding Fathers. At any rate, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.

2) DO NOT insert Paulian politics into existing threads. They are different from conservative political thought and muddy the waters. If you must, OPEN A NEW THREAD. I am not above deleting individual posts.

So, debate isn't welcome. Instead, they must be kept in a different thread. I wonder how long before those other threads then become "hijacked" by the neocon mindset?

3) DO NOT hijack existing threads. This is already a rule. Rule #2 is considered hijacking a thread.

Oh good! This clears up my thoughts regarding #2. And here I thought the moderator had a big stick up his/her rear end and would be policing these other threads and "hijacking" them, too. No problem, though, since real conservatives love to debate the neocons.

4) There have been serious problems with Paul people in the past election. A new election season is coming up. We WILL NOT have a problem in this one.

Propping up a political agenda, are we? "You cannot be 'one of us' and vote your conscience!"

And here's the last thing:

RR does not offer a platform for conspiracy discussions. There are plenty of sites on the net where such discussions are welcomed. It the same thing with Paulianism and Libertarian issues. There are plenty of other sites, RR will not be one of them.The rules have been changed, its official now.[13] No liberal left wing libertarian political agendas, pacifism, socialism,

Ignoring the blatantly bad punctuation error at the end of this, I have to say that I feel sad. Just a little while ago they said that the RP people could post his viewpoints on seperate threads! Contradiction galore! And since when is Libertarian known as "left wing" and "pacifism"? Oh yeah, ever since these people decided it should be. I don't believe I have ever seen this kind of association before. How sad.

So that was pretty amusing, I think. Let's look a bit more at this thread. You gotta love how the fascists on that board locked the thread so no one could post a reply.

RP is unable to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished, he will never vote on the best bill possible; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect.

Do I want to know what this poster calls "the best bill possible"? Maybe not. It's probably the Patriot Act or some other oppressive bill. On that note, a lot of people are coming around to Ron Paul's side. I guess, though, that unless your the majority, you're obviously not worth wasting time on.

Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive.

Of course! We all just go with the flow and not set any examples! Hurray for collective mindset! "There is no such thing as a wasted vote," as were the words of someone I can't remember. Besides, the inability for those forum members to bend speaks volumes for their flexibility.

RP’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. He may have the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. His policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," once said Benjamin Franklin. I'll see you in the Fema camps. After all, who needs terrorists to take away our precious rights when our own government can do it without any opposition? On that note, we were never lacking in intelligence, rather, as Ron Paul put it, we need intelligent people to interpret the intelligence we manage to get. This mindset is classic Orwellian. In the book 1984, the government knows that people are ready and willing to give up their freedom in order to save themselves from their enemies. I wonder if the government's kool-aid tastes good?

RP is an isolationist and is against free trade, his “Libertarian” policies are not some great new idea but hark back to the old and flawed ideas of individual-anarchism and right-wing “Libertarianism” which have been argued over and refuted many times in the last 150 years

When was Ron Paul against free trade? Ron Paul consitently argues for free trade! You're allowed to disagree, but to outright lie? And when was Libertarianism refuted? Where did this person get their information? The talking heads on MSM?

RP is a conspiracy nut. His supporters are the Jesse Venturas, John Birchers, and others who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional

Ron Paul is not a conspiracy nut. Name one instance where he says that he believes the government staged the moon landing, 9/11, or any of those other things. Wait, he says 9/11 should be reinvestigated! I forgot that doing a thorough search for information without a propoganda bias is wrong! We musn't forget that our government is totally honest, very thorough when it comes to terrorism, and a Godly entity. Anyone who says differently is unAmerican. So he might have some radical supporters. Big deal. Did you know that Sarah Palin wants a reinvestigation as well? 9/11 truther!

Let's keep going, since the thread goes even further when they define their definition of "conservative".

a good conservative president would:

Preserve and uphold the US constitution, no attempts to change

Because we all know that Ron Paul insists on rewriting the Constitution. I jest. Ron Paul is more dedicated to this task than anyone else in Washington!

Strong national defense, support of Israel

Again, Ron Paul is definately for a strong nation defense. However, given that this is a neocon we're dealing with, I need to elaborate.

First of all, placing our troops all over the globe doesn't do anything for our national defense - it actually weakens it. Look at what our government has done throughout history. We prop up tyrants and tear down democracies, pretty much whatever suits our political agenda at the time. We place sanctions on people, install curfews, and even throw children in concentration camps.

On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (Ambassador to the UN) appeared on a 60 Minutes (before 9/11, remember). Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it." If you were a citizen in Iraq at that time, would you have thought it was worth it? Would you hate the US? What if China came over here and placed sanctions on us, policed our streets, etc.? Would you want to drive them out? Put yourselves in other peoples shoes, would you?

A strong national defense means keeping our soldiers on our borders, not taxing us to run around the world and playing it like a chess board. Get rid of all those bases, which were only meant to be temporary after WW2 anyway, and come home! This isn't an isolationist policy! It's a common sense one! You don't want people to hate you, you leave them alone! It's none of our business anyway.

On that note, most people are unaware that the reason America was not stationed all over the world previously was because the Founding Fathers expressly forbid it. It's not rocket science to look through history and find that great empires simply collapse when they overspend on their military and run all over the world! It ruins the currency, bankrupts them, and ultimately brings them down!

Then again, I don't think that these people like the Founding Fathers. They'd be rolling in their graves to hear these people speak.

"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace." George Washington – Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has extended her dominion over them all, Africa, Asia, an America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit." Alexander Hamilton on Colonialism, The Federalist Papers 1787 - Kind of like the US now, isn't it?

"My ardent desire is to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none." George Washington (Letter to Patrick Henry, October 9, 1795)

There's more, but there's a few memorable quotes. I would like to touch on the supporting Israel thing. I argue that since Christ has already come, God no longer blesses those who stick by Israel, the nation that openly rejects His Son. God did not save Israel when she was destroyed before, and I do not think He means for us to stand by her now. As such, the current Israel is not the Israel that existed in the Bible; it is not Abraham's Israel. At any rate, regardless of how you interpret scripture, it doesn't change the fact that support of Israel is a religious viewpoint, not a political one. It has nothing to do with being a political conservative.

Considering that two of Ron Paul's brothers are pastors (bet the RR people didn't know that!), I'm sure Ron Paul knows what to do when it comes to Israel. It's not like Israel benefits much from us, anyway. She cannot make war on her own, cannot declare peace on her own, and is essentially the red-headed step-child of the Middle East. Our politicians, as it currently stands, do not support Israel because of their piety, but because she gives us a foothold in the Middle East where the oil lies. Our government doesn't flow with righteousness, but with selfish desires.

Small government, tax breaks for small businesses, support free market

Again, where does Ron Paul disagree with this?

Rehabilitating the prison system

You just said that a conservative president would uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the president the authority to do this, it is for the States. They do believe in States' rights, don't they?

Tax ratio percentage rate dependent upon income

Or, just get rid of the income tax! Don't get much more conservative than that! And why don't they like RP over there?

Fiscal responsibilities, cut out government waste, reduce salaries, fire all unnecessary government bureaucracies and offices, about 70%

Now I'm laughing. Ron Paul would cut way more than that, yet they still don't like him? No other presidential candidate this past election ever talked about cutting that much except for Ron Paul! Sure, they all talk about how wasteful government spending is, but they don't ever have a plan for cutting it, except a little trimming here and there. Ron Paul should be these peoples' heroes!

No political correctness, global warming, imaginary protection of critters, and all that other liberal garbage

By now Ron Paul should have their vote. Ron Paul is so unpolitically correct, it makes even the Republicans (and the RR people) cringe. What? You mean the US government is a political vessel and not a righteous overlord? What? You mean they really don't hate us for our freedom, but for our domineering interventions? We'd be safer if we didn't give people a reason to attack us? But I thought it all came down to the fact that we're good and their evil! Evil doesn't need a motive! They just hate us because their evil! Where'd this logic come from? That's not politically correct.

Ron Paul also doesn't believe in global warming, so no problems there. As for animal rights and animal welfare (I'm all for animal rights and welfare, by the way), the federal government doesn't regulate that. That's for the States, so Ron Paul's (and mine) own viewpoints are rather irrelevant when it comes to that. In fact, most of that liberal garbage is for the States, not the federal government.

Uphold sanctity of moral principles.

What does that mean? There's no clarification.

Someone else added, before the thread was locked:

uphold the sanctity of marriage

This is, again, a States issue, not a Federal one. Besides, Ron Paul personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Those guys never actually studied out the Federal Government is supposed to operate, did they? Given that they act like Constitution experts, the fact that they believe the president has this kind of power speaks otherwise. What do they suppose the States' governments do?

uphold the sanctity of life

Again, a States right. However, Ron Paul feels very strongly about this issue and has proposed bills in the past to define life as starting at conception, thereby making abortion murder. Unfortunately, the Sanctity of Life Act never passed. You can blame pretty much everyone except Ron Paul for that!

no amnesty shamnesty

Ron Paul is about as against amnesty as you can get, unlike a certain Mike Huckabee.

protect national sovereignty

This is Ron Paul's key issue! He's the only guy who actually would pull us out of the UN! These people should love him!

In the end, it seems that the RR board is full of hypocrites. They kind of remind of the Pharisees, trying to call everyone out on everything when they themselves aren't exactly clean, either.

Pharisees: Don't vote against the Constitution! *They then go vote for someone who is willing to 'bend' and violate the Constitution because their just upholding a cause that said Pharisees feel strongly about.*

Well, here's hoping for more tolerance in the future. Cheers.

Ron Paul on Secession

I'm posting this just because he's recieved so much negativity for practicing free speech. Ron Paul claims that secession discussions should be kept alive for obvious reasons:

a.) The Federal Government may not be so eager to step on State's governments if it were afraid that the State would seceed from the Union.

b.) We did seceed from England, though not in a very peaceful way. The principal is still there.

So, what's everyone doing now, namely CNN (Communist Networking News)? Shouts of, "Treason!" are flowing out of their mouths. What's treasonous about talking about secession? Ron Paul doesn't actually think the Texas governor was serious when he mentioned it in passing, but I agree that it's a good discussion.

My definition of treason: any organization, government, or individual that violates the rule of law as defined by the Constitution and is in blatant contrast to the ideals of America, which is independent of any government or president.

As such, Bush committed treason, Obama committed treason, Clinton committed treason, etc. and we have a right to stand against that treason. Seceeded from a corrupted government is not treason. Here's the video:

Finally! An Update! AKA Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

I've got to catch up, because there are huge things happening in the political world, and it's going to bite us all in the butt. I'm working on some articles to cover all of this, but for now, here's Ron Paul's interview with Glenn Beck this morning. This is a follow-up to the MIAC report I posted earlier.

So Now We're Terrorists

At the Liberty Forest Forums it has finally been confirmed that this is real. A memo was just released to Missouri police stating that, in addition to the usual extremists that one might consider part of a militia, supporters of former Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr could be terrorists. Oh, and all Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and members of the Campaign for Liberty. Granted, any idea can be taken to such extremes as to promote violence, but this is getting ridiculus, particularly since they mentioned these men by name! And how can you generalize all political parties like that?

Basically, said memo (the jpegs in the article) states that anyone who believes in a North American Union, New World Order, or the economic downfall of the United States is at risk for being an extremist. That's overgeneralizing, especially the bit regarding the economy, as lots of people are thinking that another Great Depression could very well be rushing towards us.

Hopefully, more news sites will start to talk about this so I can link to a source that's not so conspiracy centered, but regardless, I ask you to pass this out to everyone you know, especially if you live in the state of Missouri. I believe that Campaign for Liberty has been alerted about this (I'll have to doublecheck), and we'll wait and see what happens.

How Did You Discover Ron Paul?

For you readers (if there are any), who are fans of Representative Ron Paul, then I've got a video for you to answer. You may either comment on the blog, or head on over to the Youtube video and comment there, or, better yet, post a video response explaining why you like Ron Paul.

I'm just so sick of all the bad news lately that I'm trying to find new ways to interact with the blogging community, and also to cheer us all up in the face of this crisis.

Real Change, Dr. Paul Style!

Remember how in my last post I promised to tell everyone what real change would be? Well, I'm going to do that today. This is going to give you an introduction to how Dr. Ron Paul would have done things if he were in charge today.

First of all, people tend to think that foreign policy and economics are two different entities that have very little, if anything, to do with each other. This couldn't be further from the truth. We're currently stationed in over 130 countries around the world, and most of these bases were supposed to be temporary. This is costing us a fortune, and we've had to borrow over a trillion dollars from China just to fund this "Empire" of ours and keep up the War on Terror, which it would seem Obama is still continuing, as outlined in my last post. Currency crumbles and empires fall when they spend too much money overseas. Look at the Soviet Union for example of this.

We also have this problem of inciting hatred in other nations because of our arrogance and the thinking that the world will fall apart if we're not sticking our noses into the business of others. One of the common arguments I recieve from people is that other nations only hate us when we threaten them with bombs if they don't comply to our standards. This isn't true. Most countries actually dislike us because our bases are set up, we're using their resources, sometimes comitting crimes, and generally being a pain. Really now, if Russia or China set up a base on our land to protect their overseas interest, we'd pull out our guns, demand that they leave, etc. Why do something to others if we'd protest it ourselves? It's the Golden Rule!

So, while Obama might not have soldiers parading down towns and holding people at gun point (although Pakistan might say otherwise), we're still making the world angry at us for simply being there. It's intimidating and it'll come bite us in the butt one day...again. We were called the Evil Empire long before Bush came to town, and we'll be called that until we get our military-industrial complex in order.

Another argument I typically come across is, "The world is much more complex today that it was 100 years ago." The world isn't more complex, actually. The technology is stronger, the wars more devastating, but people's thinking is still very much the same. The Middle-East has been in chaos since the beginning of time, and I highly doubt they won't be getting along no matter how many times we urge them to. Politics are politics, no matter what toys you give them to play with.

What needs to happen, then? We need to pack up and come home. Our borders aren't safe anyway. One study (I can't find it right now) suggested that we would be unable to survive a second attack because our military is stretched so thin. Our national defense is weakened when we overdue our military aggressiveness, so we should close down all those bases and have our soldiers actually protecting our borders. This would also solve some illegal immigration problems we've been having!

Second, we need to fix things at home. The best way to promote our way of life is not to force it on others or pressure them in any way, but to lead by example. Democracy doesn't look so pleasing when it means intimidating others and letting our own people pay for it. It's better to make sure our needs are met first, and that isn't happening.

First of all, we need to get the government out of our lives. The role of the Federal Government is to protect our borders and secure our freedom. This will also improve our lives drastically. I won't go into everything, but here's some things that should definately happen.

Firstly, the Department of Education has to go. Everyone seems to think that this will lead to the dismantling of schools, but it's not. What the Dept. of Education does is standardize schools and regulate them. Public schools should be in the hands of their community and their State, not in the hands of beaurocrats for obvious reasons.

A good example of this would be "No Child Left Behind," which, while it sounds good when you hear it, is not practical. In fact, it actually hinders student progress instead of helping it by standardizing tests, placing limitations on schools, and not allowing students to progress at levels comfortable to them. Not everybody is on the same page, and expecting everyone to be there will be a real challenge for some and hindrance for others.

This is really all that the Department of Education does. It regulates, mandates, and takes control away from the States, the parents, and the educators. I maintain very strongly that children belong to their parents, not to the government.

If you sit with a group of children today, you'll notice almost immediately that their levels for reading and writing are atrocious. They have difficulty understanding abstract concepts and are generally unable to apply what they learn in their everyday lives. Not all schools suffer from this, but many of them do, and it's because of these mandates. Teachers are spending their time trying to make sure students pass their standardized tests, and they prowl about searching for the unproven and scientifically void "mental illness" in children. It's not education at all, and it's disruptive to children's learning environment.

We also need to get the government out of health care. Most people will now say, "No one will be insured!" and, "Health care is already unaffordable because of lack of government!" Both of these are completley and utterly false. Does our current health care system suck? Yes! (Sorry for the wording.) This is due to government intervention. Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, the elderly and poor could go to a doctor and get top-quality care, but for either cut costs or for free. Why? Because hospitals were run by churches, charities, etc. not by government. In his book, Ron Paul said, "In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector."

Drug companies also have a monopoly on our health care system, and they are some of the most corrupt businesses in America. A lot of them have government ties, and they have placed a stranglehold on doctors. We face a multitude of problems, and drug companies want to make sure you don't know about alternative treatment programs or natural medicine. This is due to a bunch of HMO laws that they influenced in order to further restrict doctors and to keep profits for themselves. Medicine is now a business and money-making machine for government officials and lobbyists, not a life-saving practice.

If we got government out of health care, the competition would force prices down, not just for hospital bills themselves, but for insurance agencies as well, and we would be spared a bit from the drug company influences.

The last thing I'm going to talk about in this article today is the IRS and Federal Reserve. Yep, you know it was coming, didn't you? We need to give them boot, along with the income tax. If we diminish government spending overseas by bringing everyone home, get the government to stop looking over our shoulders and telling us what doctors to see, what pill to ingest, and what teachers can and cannot do (along with the dismantling of other government programs I've not yet talked about), we'll be able to get rid of this tax and this manipulative Federal Reserve system.

This way, the government will be out of the market and economy, we'll be able to keep our money and spend it, thus improving the economy as a whole, and if we go back to the Gold Standard we'll also have sound money.

"Then Enron will come back! We need government oversight!" I've heard that one too many times. If you really want to know about Enron, read this article.

In truth, however, the problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with your tax dollars, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.

The income tax was also not born out of a growing population. Please see this video to clear up your doubts.

I know, I'm rushing the end of this, but people also seem to be under the delusion that the income tax is the government's only source of revenue. There are many other taxes out there. We pay a tax whenever we buy something. There's also highway taxes, tarrifs, etc. The government can easily afford everything it needs if we cut back on government programs and stop being a bunch of freeloaders.

Free markets aren't the problem, they're the solution. The Federal Reserve has been manipulating our currency and causing bubbles. They've caused every depression and recession we've had in this country, and they constantly insist that the problem is the free market. They create the bubbles, corporation and government subsidies lead to the bad loans, etc., and then we wonder who's to blame! A government-regulated market, especially one who's currency cannot be measured by anything and manipulated, is doomed to failure. The solution is sound money and less government.

Ron Paul on the Auto Bailouts

I don't even have to explain this guy, he's just amazing. Ron Paul has been predicting our economic ups and downs for a long time, and he's also great at foreign policy, too. Thomas Paine once wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." Those words ring true today as we face a nation that now fears its freedoms instead of celebrates them. We give up our civil liberties willing for the sake of security, which is exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us against.

Moreover, we have now embraced a man who waves a sign that reads "Change" while promoting fascist and unconstitutional laws. What happened to freedom? And why is it that the man who knows what he's talking about gets laughed at.

For those of you who may not know who Ron Paul is, please check out the links on the left-hand side of the blog and watch this video.