Ron Paul 'Stood with Reagan,' but not long | iWatch News

This is a very informative article. "Paul told the Los Angeles Times in 1988, 'I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.'" It appears there's plenty of word-gaming going on and selective memory/false propaganda. When will a completely honest leader step up? We have not seen one yet, including Ron Paul! So, don't kid yourselves.

In a  letter of resignation  to the chairman of the Republican National Committee in the spring of 1987, Paul wrote that "Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking and the attack on our personal liberties and privacies." Paul  ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

via Paul 'Stood with Reagan,' but not long | iWatch News.

So, why is he afraid to stand by his 1987 statement? Ron Paul obviously hasn't change one iota in terms of ideology. The reason he's afraid is because he wants the Reaganites' votes right now. That's weak! That's not the kind of leadership the US and world needs. Where are the real leaders?

What did Ron Paul say about all of this? He said Reagan's message was great but that Reagan in the 1980's spent too much and the like. Ron Paul handled it with kid gloves rather than calling Reagan a total hypocrite and political operator/manipulator. That's what I mean.

He was afraid of alienating Reagan worshipers: dupes. It's not being forthright enough.

Ron Paul told the audience in a pleading voice that they needed to be honest about it. Well then, be honest, even if it means losing votes and not becoming the President of a bunch of deniers.

Let's not forget Iran-Contra. Reagan's denial about having known about it and authorizing it was not credible. Technically, he should have been impeached and removed for that alone.

Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy where it would send a strong racist signal to then current and former Dixiecrats.

Reagan chose his dates for major events after consulting Hollywood-type astrologers.

There's still the issue of the October Surprise where it is strongly suggested that to ruin Jimmy Carter's chances for reelection, Reagan's campaign (via Henry Kissinger) made a secret deal with Iran {part of a secret arms deal through the Zionists (Israel)} to hold the American hostages until Reagan was elected.

The list of negatives about Ronald Reagan is extremely long. He even called for a "bloodbath" on college campuses where college students were protesting the Vietnam War, which was based upon the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin, among many other lies.

Ron Paul doesn't want to be pressed on these historical aspects concerning Ronald Reagan because the Republican Party has stupidly attempted to elevate Reagan to the level of Franklin Roosevelt (who was far from perfect, especially on foreign affairs, but who was a far sight better than Ronald Reagan particularly domestically).


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.