Ron Paul, Newsletters From the Past


Should Ron Paul be president? No! He has accused Israel of bombing the Trade

Ron Paul

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Center and refuses to take questions on that. Had he had his way, slavery would not have ended in America when it did.

At first I thought Ron Paul had some good ideas on economic policy, but the more I learn about him, the less respect I have for him. He accused Michele Bachmann of hating Muslims when she has said nothing to indicate that this is true and he does not want to answer questions concerning his own position on the issues. For example, concerning newsletters that went out in his name in the eighties and early nineties, this is how he responds:

Though the newsletters were published under several names — including “Ron Paul’s Freedom Report,” “The Ron Paul Political Report,” “The Ron Paul Survival Report” and “The Ron Paul Investment Letter”— the Texas congressman has insisted that he knew nothing about the offensive remarks made in the newsletters.

“I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time, and I disavow them,” he said before unclipping his microphone.

We do not need a president who will not accept responsibility. I have not read the Newsletters since I have not found them yet, but he should not be president if he allowed them to go out in his name without reading them.

Here is something I did find. He seems to take responsibility for the Newsletters when he isn’t running for president. Ron Paul – 1995

Ron Paul, in the newsletters, stated that Lincoln should have “phased out” slavery rather than fought the civil war. Did he not realize that this would have caused slavery to continue for years keeping people in bondage? Also, he seems to have forgotten that states had seceded from the Union. We would not be fifty states had there been no Civil War. How do you phase out slavery if a number of states have seceded? Ron Paul’s thinking is frightening. He should not be president and his followers are encouraging him to believe that he could become the leader of the free world.

His comments during the debate indicate that he would be a disaster on foreign policy.

His faithful followers need to take a closer look at Ron Paul.

Advertisements

About jlue

I am a grandmother of seven and I like to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family. I am not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country.
This entry was posted in Election 2012, government control over daily life, Racism, Republican Primary, Ron Paul and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Ron Paul, Newsletters From the Past

  1. Pingback: Say It Ain’t So Ronny! – Ron Paul’s Keynote Speech ~ 50th Anniversary of The John Birch Society | The League of Aggressive Progressives

  2. Pingback: Radical Ideas Resonate With the People « Grumpa Joe's Place

  3. smijer says:

    Of course a Ron Paul supporter will claim that this is a liberal media attack that must mean Ron Paul is doing well, give reasons not to believe that Ron Paul had any control over or knowledge of the newsletters, and hint darkly that the newsletters were postmarked from Chicago (whether or not this factoid is true).

    Why doesn’t Ron Paul get the type benefit of the doubt that Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich would get?

    Like

    • jlue says:

      If you are asking why I do not give him the benefit of the doubt, it is because he must accept responsibility for whatever is in the newsletters be it racial or not since his organization put them out in his name. Here is what he has said, which makes some good points:

      Rosa Parks is one of my heroes. Martin Luther King is a hero. Because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, non-violence. Libertarians are incapable of being racist because racism is a collectivist idea, you see people in groups. A civil libertarian sees everyone as an important individual, it’s not the color of their skin that is important like Martin Luther King said. What is important is the character of the individual. You know what is really interesting though? And this could be behind it. Because I as a Republican candidate, probably am getting the most number of black voters and black supporters.

      Herman Cain got the benefit of the doubt because the sources were anonymous OR offered no real proof and actually still haven’t. I do think that by now he should have offered proof that the affair with the last woman did not happen even though the burden of proof should be on her, not him. Since he did not, I am beginning to wonder. Of course, this is a double standard of behavior our country holds for Democrats and Republicans. When Clinton did something that was proven while in office it was excused as his personal life and none of the public’s business, but that is neither here nor there. I want our leaders held to a high standard.

      Back to Ron Paul. He is not a Republican. He is running on a Republican ticket in the Republican primary and I just do not think he is right on many issues. The Newsletters were published in his name, but I cannot find copies to actually read them.

      His foreign policy is frightening. He would ignore a country that wants to wipe both us and Israel off the map and that is very dangerous. Of course we are already in trouble. While we have been allowing Muslim radicals to take over countries like Egypt, Iran has been developing nuclear weapons for the past how many years?? If Paul is elected, Iran will not change their position and those who hate us will not suddenly begin to love us because we elected Ron Paul. Sometimes I wonder why anyone wants to be president!

      Like

      • smijer says:

        Ok – for a different set of reasons than you, I don’t like Ron Paul either. I don’t like him any more than I do Cain or Gingrich or Obama for that matter. But let’s forget all that for a moment.

        My question is this… If someone had written similarly damaging comments in an old newsletter of Herman Cain’s organization, and done it under his name, can you honestly say that you would have responded the same way? Can you honestly say that you would not have instead written something much more similar to this response from Paul’s supporters.

        Yes, that defense of Paul is transparently partisan – it is clear that it is motivated more by prior favorable views of Paul than by the merits of the case. But, I have seen Cain, Gingrich, Obama, and Bush supporters all offering defenses of their candidates that were no less transparently partisan and facile.

        What methods do you carry out when evaluating such arguments to avoid the pitfalls that are so common when evaluating political figures?

        Like

      • jlue says:

        Perhaps I should have said nothing since the Newsletters are not posted, but I did see a video where Ron Paul accepted responsibility for them back in the nineties and now he is saying he isn’t responsible for what is in them. That, to me, is unacceptable and that was when I decided it was time to make a decision to speak out against his candidancy.

        As for methods, I have watched and listened to every debate and read what I think is least biased on-line. I try to find the original documents. As for Cain, what happened to him is totally unlike what happened to Paul. The attacks against him were personal attacks against his character while Paul’s attackers are using materials and quotes from his past, much as Gingrich’s enemies do. The difference I see in the two: Newt has accepted responsibility for everything he has said and explained what he meant. Paul did not do that. He removed his mic and left the interview.

        I am trying to use caution in deciding for whom I will cast my little vote in November. I had decided on Cain and I probably favored him because he is not establishment and he has had so much business experience. I had come to like him by listening to him host talk radio programs and decided way back that he would make a good candidate. I liked his brave willingness to take on the IRS. I still believe he may have been taken out by the “powers that be”. We will probably never know for sure. The doubt was planted in the voting public’s mind, and that was all it took. I hope he is not a ‘womanizer’, but he may be. Would that keep him from being a good president? Maybe not, but I would not want to vote for a hypocrite. That is why I wish he would offer evidence to the contrary just for those of us who trusted him. I know the burden of proof should not be on him, but I would want to clear my name if it happened to me. If someone paid the women to destroy his reputation and take him out of the race, they are evil and I hope they will be discovered.

        Like

  4. smijer says:

    As for methods, I have watched and listened to every debate and read what I think is least biased on-line. I try to find the original documents.

    Do you think that the author of the pro-Paul link does not pay attention to the debates, or does not read the things he perceives as unbiased? It is hard to find anyone who is motivated by politics who does not pay close attention to the debates, or who does believe that the sources they seek out are unbiased. How do we know that those methods of countering our own cognitive biases are effective?

    Like

  5. Jan says:

    Actually, from reading bloggers, I don’t think everyone watches the debates. I think Republicans and those who plan to vote in the Republican primary watch them. It seems, from what I read, that many people just listen to sound bites and what others are saying about the candidates.

    There is no way to know for sure, but I do think that looking at what a person has done in the past, his past voting record if he has been in politics, plus check out how what he is saying now lines up with what he says he has always stood for, is one of the few ways we can know. We need to stop listening to the political opponents and sound bites so much, but sadly, this makes or breaks many politicians. If a candidate has written books, that makes it easier. If a candidate is transparent and opens his past records to the public, that helps. There is not a ‘fool’ proof way to decide other than seek out accurate info and/or having divine guidance.

    Citizens who want to know about Newt Gingrich should be able to determine very well who he is if they choose to know and have time to research. There is much first hand information out there. Also, he is very articulate and doesn’t rely on speeches that someone has written for him. Having been a college professor, he has defined himself as an expert in history, the constitution, and international affairs. Still, he will have a hard time getting his message out due to the billion dollar political machine that he is running against. The average American doesn’t have time to sit and research candidates and young people do not remember him. Far too many depend on sound bites.

    Like

  6. smijer says:

    Ok – so how do you avoid ignoring, playing down, or disbelieving your favored candidate’s negatives, while boosting criticism of your disfavored candidate’s negatives, as the human brain is wired to do?

    Here’s a hypothetical – and before you answer, remember that I was in the living room when Bill Clinton’s shenanigans were discussed… If Barack Obama had payed a visit to his dying wife in her hospital room and used the opportunity to discuss divorce terms, so he could marry the young intern he had been cheating on her with, how would you interpret that in terms of his character and fitness to be President? Would you downplay or ignore it? Would you consider criticism of him on that account to be inflated by partisan hatred against him? How do you consider Jackie Gingrich’s account of Newt’s history? She isn’t anonymous, and at the time of her statement, no one disputed it. Are you more skeptical of her story or Newt’s version? Are you more skeptical of Ron Paul’s statement that he did not write or read the newsletter articles, or of Gingrich’s account of his divorce?

    Do you understand the modes of human cognition that give rise to disparate treatment of evidence against one’s own position and for it? Do you know of methods for defeating those modes of cognition in order to avoid error?

    Like

    • jlue says:

      How do you consider Jackie Gingrich’s account of Newt’s history? She isn’t anonymous, and at the time of her statement, no one disputed it. Are you more skeptical of her story or Newt’s version?

      That is hard to answer since I did not hear either version until after I heard that his wife had not died and that she had actually asked him for the divorce. Also, I heard him say that he had made mistakes and that he deeply regretted how he had handled some personal things in his life, so even after I read what his daughter had to say, I was glad that he sounded repentant.

      IF his wife had really died and his daughter had not set the record straight, I can’t really go back and say how I felt at the time because I barely remember the story. I remember thinking that something rotten was going on, but I did not get emotionally involved at the time and I did not spend any time trying to figure out who was guilty. I think I had some personal things going on in my own life that kept me from caring about what was happening in WA. How I would compute that with Obama if he did the same thing or if he were accused of it. Probably, at this point in my life, I would pay a lot more attention and be much more disgusted.

      I haven’t been able to get through to you what I am saying about Ron Paul. It makes no difference whether or not Ron Paul wrote or read the articles. The point is, he should have. He wasn’t being responsible when he did not do that. A responsible person would know what is being put out in his name.So it doesn’t matter whether or not he is lying, I am not happy with his explanation. I would not vote for him anyway since he is too ‘libertarian’ to suit me.The same thing with Obama. I am glad that he is a seemingly good family man, but his socialist leanings and his lack of experience as a leader prevents me from considering voting for him.The reason I wanted a businessman like Cain, I hoped he would be responsible in the area of budgeting.The president is supposed to submit a budget each year just as a responsible businessman budgets in order to succeed. While I believe that a man’s personal life is important, I do not know of any candidate at this time who should be ruled out due to personal indiscretion?

      Like

      • smijer says:

        IF his wife had really died and his daughter had not set the record straight, I can’t really go back and say how I felt at the time because I barely remember the story. I remember thinking that something rotten was going on, but I did not get emotionally involved at the time and I did not spend any time trying to figure out who was guilty

        Why is it that when someone makes controversial claims in support of someone you like, it is “setting the record straight”? Do you uncritically accept stories that contradict negative narratives about politicians you dislike, too? Again, if this were Obama’s daughter, coming out many years after the fact, only when it became politically opportune, to give a defense that was very short on facts…. would that be a case of “setting the record straight”? Or would you see her as engaged in a political defense? And would it matter if Obama’s wife survived her cancer or not?

        Frankly, this process of evaluating the narratives with bias is the one I was asking how you managed to avoid… But it doesn’t appear to me that you have managed to avoid it well. I don’t mean that as criticism. Our brains are simply wired to pay attention to the evidence and narratives that support us, and to “interpret”, downplay, and ignore those that go against us. The scientific literature on this point is very interesting. Even when partisan politics and other emotional subjects are not at issue, we have a very strong urge to selectively accept evidence that supports our prior conclusions and explain away, ignore or distort less convenient evidence. (One study showed that people who initially formed an opinion about *other people’s* ability to judge whether or not a suicide note was genuine based on observations of actors pretending to make those judgments – even after learning that it was all faked by the experimenters, still favored the abilities of the actors they originally judged well.) In light of how easy it is to make this type of mistake even when there is no emotional “stake”, it seems to me we would be extremely well served to find methods to avoid making it in the emotionally intense realm of interpreting political propaganda.

        Like

      • smijer says:

        Also, concerning Ron Paul … I imagine you would have said about the same thing concerning “he should have read / known” if a similar issue had come up concerning Herman Cain… but knowing that he isn’t too “libertarian” where it regards foreign policy for you, and that you supported him ardently, I think that you would have said that and then segued into “but he has come out and disavowed those statements, and it is unfair for the liberal press to be using them to attack him now,” or something along those lines. Can you honestly say I’m wrong about that?

        Like

      • jlue says:

        The point that you are making is that we are happy to accept any evidence that supports what we want to believe in the first place. That is human nature and of course it is true. It makes it much easier to vote for Gingrich, if I decide to do that, knowing that his wife did not die as the liberal media predicted and the fact that their daughter doesn’t condemn him. It really would not make any difference whether I believed an opponent that I never planned to vote for. Obama lost me with the platform on which he ran. His socialist leanings did not help any and his acts while president have made it impossible for me to ever support him, so I don’t really think much about anything he accused of doing or not doing. I have some questions about his past that float around in my head, but I do not feel compelled to reach conclusions since voting or not voting for him isn’t an issue.

        Would I have overlooked Cain not accepting responsibility for what was written had he allowed his name to go on documents that were published, possibly. It would depend on what he was accused of saying. Not if he accused Israel of being behind the bombing of the Trade Center! That would have to be not only explained, but evidence would have to be presented that he did not have anything to do with saying something like that. Did Ron Paul say that? I don’t know and I am not really looking into it that much since I never planned to vote for him anyway. I actually look at the people I plan possibly to vote for much closer than I look at those I know have already been ruled out. Ron Paul lost me right away with his own words so the documents are merely something that I hope will convince others to stay away. I hope he doesn’t run on a third party ticket.

        Like

      • smijer says:

        It would depend on what he was accused of saying. Not if he accused Israel of being behind the bombing of the Trade Center!

        I’m asking about what would have happened under the exact same circumstances – so in that case you wouldn’t have enough evidence to know for sure that he did or did not accuse Israel of being behind the bombing. So let me re-iterate… with Cain, I do not believe that you would have decided that these circumstances and evidence would warrant such a firm conclusion: “he accused Israel of being behind the bombing“. I do believe that you would have avoided such a straightforward conclusion on it, and adopted one that included significant doubt – and then offered Cain the benefit of that doubt. Again, can you honestly say I am incorrect about this?

        Like

      • jlue says:

        Honestly, I am not trying to say you are incorrect. Who knows? They are different people and I have supported one for years and have never supported the other. I would probably try harder to keep supporting Cain, since now, considering his personal problems, I tend to believe that the current administration did not want him in the race, rather than that he is guilty. But I cannot say that conclusively, because I have doubt about his character. His withdrawal keeps me from having to decide. 🙂

        With politics and the machines that are behind the candidates, one cannot be totally sure of anything. We do our best at making wise decisions. The platform on which a candidate chooses to run is important. Obama has been very pro-abortion in spite of his words prior to election. I thought he would be because that is the platform of his party. They dress it up with ‘women’s rights language’, but it means the same thing. Some people say there is no difference in the parties. There are some differences.

        I do try to find the candidate whose actions will be close to what they profess to believe and I am not totally ‘party’, but Democrats lost me when they chose to be on the wrong side of certain issues (in my opinion).

        Like

  7. smijer says:

    By the way, I don’t think everyone watches the debates either. But I do think a large proportion of people who are highly motivated by politics do. And I haven’t noticed them faring much better at avoiding errors than their non-watching counterparts.

    Like

    • jlue says:

      We don’t really know how people vote in regard to who gets information in what ways. The debates don’t give much time for answers, but there have been a lot of debates this year and that has helped. Huckabee has interviewed most of the candidates. He does a great interview. Do you watch his show and do you watch the debates?

      Like

      • smijer says:

        Not this time around no. I’ve decided to invest my attention in areas that I hope will have a better shot at accomplishing a positive – or at least neutral – purpose. I’m afraid I’m not cut out for the kind of work that is necessary to become a responsible consumer of political propaganda.

        Like

      • jlue says:

        The best way to avoid falling for media hype and propaganda is hear the candidates speak. No, they do not always tell the truth, but you are much more likely to learn facts from them than from biased media reports and sound bites. Context matters!

        Like

      • smijer says:

        What makes you believe this is the best way? How can you tell that it works? What evidence do you have that it has worked for you?

        Like

  8. jlue says:

    I suppose the only evidence that I have is that if I could go back and vote again the only vote I would change would be the one I cast for Jimmy Carter. That one I regretted.

    Like

  9. TheSkunk says:

    Interesting discussion between Jlue and Smijer. You both covered so much territory I don’t know where to begin first!

    In general, let me start with media and information or disinformation if you will. There are no unbiased media outlets. All “news” is created and presented in a way to sway opinion. Yes, we live in the propaganda era and always have no matter what age anyone still living happens to be.

    So if you understand and believe that all media is biased, it leads you to listen and scrutinize what you hear and read differently. People hear political pundits, commentators and everyone else under the sun give their opinions and argue why their opinion is the correct one. Most times this results in a distortion of the truth at the very best and at it’s worst, blatant fabrication of a lie.

    Take notice of the coordination of news across any media outlet. Doesn’t it strike you a bit odd that everyone is talking about the same thing? Is there nothing else newsworthy going on to where these “independent” media outlets can source material? None of what gets broadcast whether it is tv or talk radio is done so without serving an agenda.

    Does the fact that the media is reporting these newsletters from Ron Paul’s past publications now raise any questions in your mind or do you hear them, assume they are contextually accurate and believe what they now want you to believe? I’ve listened to the CSPAN video, I’ve read the arguments as to why this should disqualify Ron Paul from consideration but I do not see what others are claiming is there. I, like you, am not privy to the actual letters either, but I can give benefit of the doubt to Ron Paul for two reasons:

    1. Ghost writing as Smijer posted in that link. I don’t know if that is a Ron Paul apologist supporter or not. It sounded like a reasonably objective explanation. Okay, maybe you need more than I did so I ask you, who do you think writes speeches for most politicians, CEOs, etc? It isn’t those individuals. Who do you think writes for their own companies and political websites? It’s not those persons themselves.

    2. Most importantly Jlue as you have stated before, you listen to what the person says. The statements made in those newsletters is so far out of character for anything I have ever heard from Ron Paul it wreaks of something being rotten in Denmark. For good measure, why would a former leader of the NAACP come out and deny that Ron Paul is a racist? There’s nothing for that man to gain by doing so, so help explain that to me?

    Here’s comments from Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder:

    “Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

    Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

    “Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing,” said Linder.

    “Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,” he added.

    Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded “No I don’t,” adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

    So after reading Mr. Linder’s comments, who do you believe? What do you believe? Are both right? Who is wrong? If you had any prior criticism of Ron Paul before this, this “breaking” news just helped solidify in your mind not to consider him any longer and they must be true otherwise it wouldn’t be news. That’s a dangerous cycle that gets repeated over and over again. It’s just what the media wanted to do by bringing this up now.

    If this issue was such an abomination, how on Earth do you think Ron Paul has been able to be a US Representative for so many years? If that’s not enough for you, ask yourself this question. If this was so egregious, how could the media let Ron Paul serve in Congress for so long without vetting this shocker? Is the answer: “well, he was just a US Representative what we’re talking about here is different. We’re talking about the next President of the United States!” Stop and think about that for a minute. How sick would that be? To let egregious conduct go unfettered ONLY until someone runs for President? Now tell me there isn’t a bias or agenda being served here.

    Sorry for the novel. I said you guys got me thinking!

    Like

  10. TheSkunk says:

    I’m not sure where you got the excerpts from newsletters to write what you did below:

    “Ron Paul, in the newsletters, stated that Lincoln should have “phased out” slavery rather than fought the civil war. Did he not realize that this would have caused slavery to continue for years keeping people in bondage? Also, he seems to have forgotten that states had seceded from the Union. We would not be fifty states had there been no Civil War. How do you phase out slavery if a number of states have seceded? Ron Paul’s thinking is frightening. He should not be president and his followers are encouraging him to believe that he could become the leader of the free world.”

    I know where your first thought went to when reading that by your immediate comment thereafter. If you have truly read or listened to Ron Paul and his arguments, you would know that he is a strict believer in the responsibilities assigned to the Federal and State governments by the Constitution. The Constitution is explicitly clear. So when I read your quoted comment from the newsletter, I read that as…Civil War could possibly have been avoided by phasing out slavery to prevent the Southern states from seceding.

    Remember, the Civil War did not start because of slavery. It started because some states wanted to secede from the Union, which was provided for in the Constitution. Their impetus for secession was Lincoln’s election whereby he campaigned against the expansion of slavery. Notice there was no campaign to outlaw slavery. There were other economic machinations at play (like most agriculture and production taking place in the Southern States that the Northern States required). Lincoln, in September of 1862, a full year and five months after the Civil War began, gave his famous Emancipation Proclamation because he did not have enthusiastic support for the war from Northerners. Many Northerners wanted reconciliation so the bloodshed would cease. So Lincoln’s motivation for the Proclamation was not what he is credited with today. It was a political move by a politician. Now, having said all that, I totally agree with other quotes attributed to Lincoln where he questions how All Men can be created equal except for Negroes. To also show his motivations (check out the timing August 1862 and the date of the Proclamation September 1862), here is an often overlooked quote:
    * My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
    o Letter to Horace Greeley (22 August 1862) Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5

    So some Southern States tried to secede from the Union. When their efforts were blocked by those calling into question their right to do so and labeling them as “rebellious”, more states joined the secession movement. Now go back to the way I read the newsletter statement and doesn’t that put a whole new spin on things? (Note: there are vigorous debates even to this day about the supposed “right” of a state to secede but we’ll leave that for another day :P)

    By today’s standards, it is abhorrent to think that we should have “phased out” slavery when thinking in retrospect. But think of it in the context of a possible Civil War. Let states secede, go to war with them OR try to work through a plan that either stopped further spreading of slavery (Lincoln’s campaign strategy) with the goal of eradicating it over time. That is what I read that statement to be. I fear you may be conditioned to think in certain ways by the way information has been presented to you for so long. This is not an attack or criticism of you rather it is highlighting most of us who have been victimized into less questioning of what we are told or here. I have had to undue paradigms etched in my brain for a long time to see through the manipulations.

    You rightfully point out we would not have 50 states if any were allowed to secede, but what you have fallen for is the transformation of how liberty is defined. Your statement equates liberty with the Union when liberty, to the Founding Fathers, was tied to the balance of powers they had built into the Constitution.

    Ron Paul’s thinking is the farthest thing from frightening when you look at things in a Constitutional context. This is how he can stand up and state that his philosophy sees no color because the Constitution represents the rights bestowed upon all men (women) given by the Creator.

    You won’t another candidate of any stripe who wishes to have this country return to its Constitutional roots than Ron Paul. That is a true conservative. Republicans today are in name only. They have distorted conservatism for their own benefit and turned it into something equally as bad as was liberals have done.

    I won’t dirty up your post where you express support for Newt. I’ll do that here in my next post. I’ve hopefully saved the best for last and will leave you with one question…Is Newt really a conservative? I’ll show you he is not.

    Like

  11. TheSkunk says:

    Newt’s been getting quite a lot of good press these last couple of weeks/months. What I hear most often is pundits and show hosts giving him credit for the Contract with America. The irony is what Newt accomplished during Clinton’s presidency wasn’t anything close to what you’d think a conservative revival would have. Much of the get back to our roots conservative sounding language was just that…hot air. In short, Newt drug a whole crop of new Republicans eager to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and what did Newt do? He expanded federal government! It’s not really all that shocking if you look back over each administration and Congress. It doesn’t matter which party has been in control of what. The result has been one in the same.

    I can’t explain the specifics better than Steve Farrell who wrote a great article consisting of many chapters on Newt Gingrich. Here is a good starting point http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/01/30/gingrich-toffler-and-gore-a-peculiar-trio-steve-farrell/ . A more detailed breakdown of various parts of the Contract with America are in this link: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/03/08/contract-with-america-the-betrayal-begins-steve-farrell/ .

    I suggest reading all parts. This was first published in January 2010. So no one can say this was written just to tear down Newt’s new found popularity.

    If you don’t want to read those chapters, to find out what any true conservative should know about Newt Gingrich, all they need to do is read about Alvin Toffler and his “Third Way” or “Third Wave” philosophy. Bill Clinton is a Third Wayer, so is Al Gore, but guess who wrote the forward of Toffler’s Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave. http://www.amazon.com/Creating-New-Civilization-Politics-Third/dp/1570362238. Newt liked the book so much it made his recommended reading list he sent out to Congress. Here’s a nice write up from the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v09/09HarvJLTech225.pdf.

    Do enough reading about Toffler, who could be viewed as Newt’s guru, much like Bill Ayers/Saul Alinsky were direct and indirect influences on what Obama became, and you should come to a different conclusion about the man and his goals. Just remember, virtually all politicians have mastered the forked-tongue perversion of double speak. They can say one thing that sounds real good to you and you think it means one thing, but rest assured, they have a totally different meaning to the one uttering those words. It’s how they can go through life as bold faced liars.

    If Toffler isn’t enough for you, does the fact Newt has been associated with the Council on Foreign Relations change your opinion? It should. Supposed non-partisan policy think tank chaired by David Rockefeller. It doesn’t get much further left than that. His senior thesis at Harvard was done on Fabian Socialism. You’ll find the Fabians are in step with the Third Way or vice versa in that they believe in gradual incremental change.

    Does Newt have any ethics violations to consider? And no, I don’t care about his personal marriages. They are just that personal and should have no bearing on his qualifications. But are there any questions surrounding his ethics? Well, before his ousting as Speaker, he was cited for 84 ethics charges. He was sanctioned $300,000 by a House vote. Kind of ironic since Newt led ethics charges against a Democrat Speaker of the House Jim Wright.

    Newt was one of the 450 members of the House guilty of check kiting. For you and me that’s basically bouncing checks, but for our esteemed representatives (Newt), it has a much more devious definition…from Wikimedia: Check kiting is the illegal act of taking advantage of the float to make use of non-existent funds in a checking or other bank account; it is a form of check fraud. It is commonly defined as intentionally writing a check for a value greater than the account balance from an account in one bank, then writing a check from another account in another bank, also with non-sufficient funds, with the second check serving to cover the non-existent funds from the first account.[1] The purpose of check kiting is to falsely inflate the balance of a checking account in order to allow written checks that would otherwise bounce to clear.

    If Newt is so smart, then why did he make a commercial/TV spot with Nancy Pelosi on the effects of man-made global warming? Well, Newt’s a supporter of green conservatism…yeah okay whatever. Conservation I agree with. Man-made global warming…absolutely not. The money trail is too far and too wide to trust any data from the global warming errr, I mean climate change errr…whatever they have to change the name to next after people stop buying that boloney. Not really a conservative plank now is it? I know, that was an easy shot to take at him but it goes to show how consistently he has NOT been a conservative while saying he is.

    You must have heard Newt speak of himself as a Futurist. Aren’t you the least bit curious on where that label takes you?

    For someone who supposedly believes in the Constitution and wants to uphold it, do you find it odd that within the first six months of Newt’s Speakership he introduced 18 Constitutional amendments? Since 1791,when the Bill of Rights was added, there had been a grand total of 16 amendments to the Constitution. Does that sound like someone trying to preserve or change the Constitution? Is that the type of leadership you would expect from a conservative or a progressive?

    Newt was at the helm working side by side with other accomplices in passing the GATT agreement. Following the November 1994 election, incoming Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and prospective Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agreed to an extraordinary session of the outgoing Congress. The politics in this lame-duck session were more favorable to passage than in the incoming Congress.

    In testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Gingrich made some revealing admissions while pretending to have reservations about the WTO:

    “I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.

    “I agree … this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.”

    —Newt Gingrich, House Ways and Means Committee hearings during June 1994.

    The passing of the GATT free trade agreement subjected the United States to unprecedented authority of a foreign body and not the Constitution. The US abides by GATT, GATT falls under the United Nations. Thank you very much Mr. Conservative Newt Gingrich for serving and protecting the Constitution of the United States of America!

    Being a reader of the Bible, would it concern you to learn that Newt converted from being a Baptist to a Catholic? It could have been Catholic to Protestant. Either way is not the point. The question of religious conversion as it pertains to Newt raises some oddities. Usually, Catholics convert to Protestantism and not the other way around. Two very different ideologies no matter which way you go when converting.

    But let me guess, you knew all of what I just wrote because you listened to the candidates in a debate or watched some political news shows on TV. Are you asking yourself why you don’t hear about these things on TV (some in very little pieces perhaps)? You’re not supposed to know the real truth only the truth you are given to believe.

    And all the media can do is try and hang newsletter content, that Ron Paul did not pen himself? After all of these years of being in office, has Ron Paul be censured, reprimanded, fined, convicted of anything? Nope. So why are you not asking the question why are you bringing this up now news and media companies? The simple answer is Ron Paul is challenging the established power base and telling it like it is…corrupt and unconstitutional.

    Hopefully you’ll take another more in depth look at Ron Paul so you can learn what his real foreign policy is and how conservative it really is. This dung being flung about him wanting to dismantle the military and weaken our national defense is absurd. Ask those calling his policies dangerous how they define national defense. We’re doing a lot of defending everywhere BUT here in the United States.

    Anti-Israel, hogwash. Anti giving Israel billions of dollars of tax payer money sure. Anti giving any foreign country billions of dollars. Have you not figured out the private Federal Reserve Bank fleeced the American tax payer by sending trillions of dollars to banks and corporations around the world (primarily Europe)? This is the same private corporation that creates money and inflation thereby successfully debasing the dollar (federal reserve note). Does anyone in the world trust anyone else’s bonds back by full faith and credit? We have no money. We’ve been bankrupt since the Federal Reserve became the central bank by law in 1933. All of our nation’s tangible assets have been given or pledged to the Federal Reserve in exchange for worthless notes.

    Media has created attention deficit disorder for the masses by design. All of what I’ve said in just one of these posts is enough to blow most people’s head gaskets sky high. It is just incomprehensible for most people to understand let alone believe. And why is it so hard to believe? Because government is our friend. Government will do this for me and government will take of that for me. Less personable responsibility means less liberty. Less liberty means less freedom.

    I implore you to read about what powers are given to the Federal (National) government and what powers to the States. Then, read what powers are NOT given to each and after reading what the Federal government does not have power to do, ask yourself, are they doing it anyway? After all of these years, has the Constitution had an end run around it’s authority?

    My first thought of politics was while I was in college. It was just prior to the 1992 elections. My area of study was science and I, for no other reason, chose to support Democrats because they had historically gave more money to institutions that I was likely to go work for upon graduation. Classic me first unprincipled rationale. I remember signing a petition to get Ross Perot on the ballot as an independent but never voted for him.

    No too much later, I found I could not stomach politics as viewed from the left and jumped full steam into right wing support. Trickle down economics (goes into executive level pockets while employees below the iron ceiling receive minimal compensation for doing most of the work), pre-emptive military action, laws to regulate what I didn’t like about the left, etc. Then as I got older, I realized that government wasn’t shrinking in size like Republicans were telling me it was going to, I learned of the actions of our covert operations around the world, CIA, black ops, etc and things started to become very clear to me. I did not live in a representative governed country any longer. Fear has been perpetuated by both political parties for the sole purpose of gaining control over the citizens of this country. Americans have been taught to fear and in doing so they have freely given up many liberties the Constitution was supposed to guarantee. So where were our elected representatives?

    Do I sound like the typical media characterization of a Ron Paul supporter? Kooky college kid who doesn’t know better who just wants to legalize drugs so I can smoke a doobie? Nope, I don’t and the bad news for the mainstream parties and media is most Ron Paul supporters have gone through what I have to arrive at this point of thinking in our lives. To quote The Who ” we won’t get fooled again!”

    To me there is only one possible choice for the Republican nomination and that is Ron Paul. I can only hope he is not lying to us too or gets bought off like the rest. His consistent voting record on issues and consistent stance against the Federal Reserve give me optimism. You can be assured if he begins to deviate from this course he has laid out I will be the first in line to hold him accountable and to say I was wrong. No human being on this Earth is God or an icon worthy of such adulation. Which is another mis-characterization of Paul supporters like myself that the media conveniently likes to spread.

    Jlue, thanks for reading. Enjoy your grand babies and gardening. May we secure a better future for those youngsters!

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Dear ‘Skunk’, How did you choose that penname? : ) Thanks for writing. I read some of what you wrote, but I will have to spend some time before answering. One thing you wrote that I agree with right away about the press, you said:

      Doesn’t it strike you a bit odd that everyone is talking about the same thing?

      I always wonder what Congress is “up to” when media goes on a tangent and we hear about some event for days on end.

      Anyway, I will get back to you.

      Again, thanks.

      Jlue

      Like

  12. TheSkunk says:

    Thanks for reading/listening. The name is derived from a group I used to work in that we affectionately referred to ourselves as the skunk works. There is a good brief explanation of its origination here that explains the gist of what my group did. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Skunk_Works.

    I enjoyed reading the letter you posted that your father sent to the local paper way back when. We want the same things in general so I hope we all come out on the right side of these choices.

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Thanks. Actually, he was my grandfather. I hardly knew him. He and my grandmother divorced when she was very young. Due to this situation, I was extremely pleased to read the letters as they helped me get to know a little about him.

      It sounds as if you had a great job and an important one.

      I still haven’t had time to read all your comments. Our other computer is down and I haven’t had access to this one today as much as usual, but I will get it done.

      Like

      • TheSkunk says:

        That’s quite alright. It’s not a job and I’m certainly no one’s boss! LOL! Sorry for my error. I thought it was your father but was your grandfather instead. The picture reminded me of old pictures I’ve seen of my grand dad when he was growing up in rural Pennsylvania.

        The job was fun and was important but as with most “skunkworks”very little recognition. But that’s not why we did what we did it.To achieve thingsthat were unique wasourreward

        Like

    • jlue says:

      To ‘TheSkunk’,
      I have read your material and found it very thought provoking. Some of it I already either knew or had thought about. Some I had not heard before. I really would like to think we will be able to secure a better future for our children and grandchildren, but I do not feel very hopeful at this time. I am not thrilled with any of the candidates.

      The person I wanted was Mike Huckabee and he isn’t running.

      I understand why some people see Ron Paul as the person who could turn things around for the US. I do not see Ron Paul as electable.His foreign policy stance will prevent most Americans from voting for him. You did cause me to take a closer look and I learned something I did not know. *I thought Libertarians were not pro-life and I was pleased to see on Paul’s website that he claims to be very pro-life.
      Looking at the issues and Ron Paul, I like his:
      Plan to repeal Obamacare and his positive plans for improving healthcare-
      Plan to abolish the IRS and the death tax-
      Support of the second amendment-
      Support of homeschools-
      Reform immigration –
      Plan to eliminate the EPA and begin drilling at home –
      * Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
      I love the fact that he is a Christian.
      The thing four things (other than the newsletters) that bother me about Ron Paul are his age, his not being willing to stand with Israel, his naive approach to foreign threats, and the fact that he is a Libertarian running on the Republican ticket which seems a little dishonest.

      I am still praying and trying to decide what to do. Thanks for taking the time to read what I have written and for writing your own thoughts. Perhaps I will be persuaded to consider Paul after all. The pro-life position is very important to me. I want Barack Obama to be a one term president!

      Like

  13. TheSkunk says:

    “The thing four things (other than the newsletters) that bother me about Ron Paul are his age, his not being willing to stand with Israel, his naive approach to foreign threats, and the fact that he is a Libertarian running on the Republican ticket which seems a little dishonest.”

    Sorry, I’ve had to get back in the swing of life which means work! I applaud you for making an honest effort to learn. It is only through individuals engaging in honest heartfelt discussion that we will be able to begin solving the issues we face.

    1. Age will certainly be a personal concern. You either have one or you don’t. I look at the good doctor as probably being in better shape then most given his age and his knowledge of health in general gives me no cause for concern. I wouldn’t think he would run if he was not up to the rigors of the job should he win the office. No one had any difficulty reelecting Ronald Reagan for his second term at his age.

    2. I understand the impression is given that he would not stand with Israel. This is just a tactical move on the part of media to discredit him. If you look at what he’s said in one piece that we give 3 billion dollars to Israel but 12 billion to her enemies in foreign aid. His position of ending foreign aid period is universal and would actually help Israel. No one seems to ever reveal the fact we send money to questionable governments and have for a long time. Was it okay for the US to prop up the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt for the sole purpose of protecting Israel? Do the Egyptian people qualify as second class world citizens after Israelis? Israel is more than capable of defending herself given her arsenal of nuclear devices. Nukes are deterrents and that’s all. And this taken from an article I’ll ink to quoting Ron Paul: “In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.”

    This is one of the fairer stories I’ve seen written and it was done recently: http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2012/01/02/the_real_ron_paul_stands_up

    3. While there is no question he embodies principles of Libertarianism, I would argue that he has won office in the House as a Republican for a number of terms. I would also argue that he is more of a true conservative in the traditional sense then the modern conservatives we have today. Ronald Reagan, before he succumbed to the new modern conservatism, was a noted advocate of the influences that Ron Paul has had.

    http://mises.org/daily/1294

    Evans: “What philosophical thinkers or writers most influenced your conduct as a leader, as a person?”

    Reagan: “Well . . . I’ve always been a voracious reader—I have read the economic views of von Mises and Hayek, and . . . Bastiat . . . I know about Cobden and Bright in England—and the elimination of the corn laws and so forth, the great burst of economy or prosperity for England that followed.”[1]

    Another good article that outlines what Reagan came into office to do but got derailed. Many sound very familiar to what Ron Paul is running on. The one that most people don’t ever remember is returning the US to a gold standard.

    http://mises.org/daily/1544

    The rabbit hole certainly goes deep but in my opinion, after ferreting through enough holes, Ron Paul appears to me to be the most genuine and consistent choice for conservatism we have in this election.

    My best wishes for you and your family Jlue. May God bless them bountifully!

    Like

  14. TheSkunk says:

    In case you were buying the “surge” propaganda of the squeaky clean Rick Santorum, check out who made the most corrupt list in 2006. No wonder he left in 2007.

    http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/most-corrupt-2006

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Hello Again,
      You know, I think people in Iowa are going through the same process I have been going through. We want someone who will be able to win in November 2012 and actually turn things around for our country. I am seeing Santorum as a “default” candidate in Iowa this morning. Those who do not want Romney or Paul are still looking for the right candidate.

      A lot of people think Ron Paul can’t win in November due to his statements on foreign policy and many do not like Romney. Also, Paul scares people who see Iran and radical Jihadism as a threat to Christians.

      I honestly do not know who I will vote for when the primary election is held in my state. If Mike Huckabee had run, he would be a ‘shoo in’ in my opinion, but he didn’t give us that choice this time around.

      Thanks for all the information you have shared. I must say, however, that CREWS has been said to be a liberal group funded by Soros. I am not sure about that as there are so many lies on the internet, but Soros has been very active politically and according to Glenn Beck he puts big bucks into destroying conservative candidates. What do you know about CREWS that might be reassuring?

      Like

  15. TheSkunk says:

    One of the things I’ve learned is that there are bits of truth everywhere. To automatically disregard something from somewhere limits objectivity.

    After looking further at Melanie Sloan and her background, she definitely comes from a questionable background. The working for Chuck Schumer got my blood boiling but that’s another story!

    We should question everything, then confirm and verify. What I liked about the way the most corrupt list was presented is it states, in my opinion, objective facts and then cites the specific codes that have been potentially violated. The document does not appear to be biased against any one party as both Republicans and Democrats are represented in the list. Good old Maxine Waters D-CA seems to have made every list they’ve ever done! If it were strictly political, Maxine is usually off limits because she’s female and a minority.

    The research presented also lists numerous sources which one can go to and read for ones self to arrive at a conclusion. After reading some of the sources, you can always research further if anything sounds out of context.

    Soros is definitely an evil man who has used his influence and money for nefarious purposes. While I think Beck has done things that have been of service to the population, he is not without spot or wrinkle either. He goes to great lengths to point out valid concerns but conveniently stops when it comes to those on the Right. For as bold as Beck claims to be, I want to know why he did not ask Newt about The Third Way in his recent interview. No one has in the established Right. Not Hannity, Limbaugh or Levin. It’s not surprising in Hannity’s case since one of his favorite guest commentators is Dick Morris. http://www.hannity.com/show/2011/12/07 then scroll down to the bio on Dick Morris which states (note the third sentence):

    Dick Morris (born November 28, 1948) is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.

    Morris became an adviser to the Bill Clinton administration after Clinton was elected president in 1992. Morris encouraged Clinton to pursue third way policies of triangulation that merged traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues to achieve maximum political gain and popularity. He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by convincing the President to adopt Republican policies.[1]

    The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994.[2] Clinton’s communications director George Stephanopoulos has said that “Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president”.[2] Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton’s successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary. He now writes a weekly column for the New York Post which is carried nationwide, contributes columns and blogs to both the print and online versions of The Hill, and appears regularly on the Fox News Channel for political commentary. He is also President of Vote.com, a website which conducts polls on “important public issues and other topics” and then emails results to “important decision makers” in government[3].

    Sorry, I got a little off topic. I guess things aren’t always what they seem and there is truth to some degree in many different places. Being able to discern is the toughest part.

    If someone has acted unethically as a representative of constituents I don’t care which party they are and I don’t care who outs them and tries to hold them accountable. Truth has no political party.

    Beck did some great work connecting the dots of where the money goes and into what front groups. Neoconservatives have their fronts as well. That’s where Beck falls short. I guess I can’t blame him because he would be subject to threats taking on both sides. So it makes me wonder if he is paid to pull punches or just does so for personal protection.

    A pleasure to talk with you as always Jlue!

    Like

  16. TheSkunk says:

    Establishment Republican party not shy about undermining Ron Paul but more importantly, they want to ignore will of voters by any means possible. And if some how he does win, media outlets have already said they will down play it or downright ignore it.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/republican-insider-gop-establishment-planning-to-subvert-iowa-to-prevent-ron-paul-win.html

    http://www.infowars.com/tonights-iowa-vote-count-to-take-place-at-secret-location/
    Iowa GOP moving the ballot counting to an undisclosed location for fear of Occupy protesters. Pretty convenient given the GOP rhetoric against Ron Paul.

    Whether this turns out to be true or not it raises a number of questions. Least of which is who can you trust? Does the party get who they want or do the voters get who they want?

    Like

  17. TheSkunk says:

    Here’s the conservative side of CREWS with their list for comparison. Only Maxine Waters, Laura Richardson and David RIvera made both lists.
    Judicial Watch had 4 Republicans and 6 Democrats with two of those being Obama and Holder.
    CREWS had 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats

    https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/

    Conclusion? Lots of corrupt politicians to choose from!

    Like

  18. TheSkunk says:

    I was reading some comments from a Ron Paul supporter who was at the caucus participating and he stated he saw no irregularities at all. He went so far as to state ballots were hand counted in plain view. So unless counts were communicated in error to the GOP it does not appear they counted anything in a secret location.

    It doesn’t mean people weren’t intimidated before going to caucus but it also means people may not have been intimidated either.

    From the entrance poll data I read, the vote turned out the way I expected it would. The larger blocks of voters were 45 and over and they were reported to be in the Romney and Santorum camps. Paul had the under 45 vote but not enough total voters to make up the difference.

    It baffles me, especially folks that have been around longer can vote for the same old same old and expect a different outcome. Media influence is a wondrous thing to observe. Just look at Santorum with a week’s worth of media hype. People just needed to be told he was electable. Forget the debates. Forget prior opinion by the same voters. They just needed to be led.

    The irony too is Romney is backed by the same financial interests as Obama. Goldman Sachs etc. Some things truly are amazing.

    Like

    • jlue says:

      It certainly is obvious that the news media are not giving Paul the coverage they give to the other four. Gingrich and Perry got more attention with their fourth and fifth place outcomes than Paul did with his third place victory. It is very noticeable and it isn’t fair to Paul.

      It is interesting that the younger generation goes for the oldest candidate because he is saying something that sounds new and different.

      This is a very interesting race and I am trying not to become too emotionally involved. I tend to get very stressed with the thought of Obama being re-elected and that isn’t good for my health. 🙂

      Like

  19. TheSkunk says:

    Since the topic of this page was the newsletters, I came across this Fox News affiliate servicing Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana (Fox19) and a story they had on their site. It has a lot more detailed information then I have found anywhere else thus far.

    http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters

    Like

  20. TheSkunk says:

    Hi Jlue! Hope you’ve been well! I just came across a series of videos that made an impression on me. A young man put a series of 13 videos up on youtube. Just listening to the young man gave me more hope than I thought possible for being generations younger than my own.

    I give credit to the young man for his diligent work because he said so many things that go through my head so concisely that it almost left me speechless!

    I will be sharing this link with anyone I know and anyone I don’t know. I think it’s that good!

    Be well Jlue!

    TheSkunk

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Thank you for sharing this link. I am listening to the entire speech. Did you notice that only 1,148 people have watched this video? Most do not even know what the John Birch Society really is and take for granted that this is “bad”.

      Like

  21. TheSkunk says:

    Perhaps I posted the wrong link? I didn’t see it above. Here it is again in case I pasted the wrong one.

    I may have pasted a part in the middle of the series instead of starting with the first one.

    JBS has spoken a lot of truth over the years. I recently watched a Youtube video of a presentation made on Newt Gingrich. I think this is it. Part 1 of 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02HX5v5Thpk

    Like

Comments are closed.