Tag Archive | "2012 election"

Ron Paul vs. the Media and Lobbyists


With the arrival of 2012, the American Presidential election is sure to be a topic which is on many people’s minds, both in America and abroad.

Among the candidates, there is one person in particular who seems to earn the anger and vitriol of the media, special interest groups, and lobbyists.  That person is none other than Dr. Ron Paul, the 76-year old physician and congressman from Texas.

It seems every time there is a news story on the mainstream news regarding his campaign, it is almost always negative.  In contrast, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the media gushed over Barack Obama, and the media coverage of his campaign was almost entirely positive.  What can only be described as an all-out attack on candidate Paul in the media, by both neoconservative and far-left pundits, should be very telling indeed.  While the media is consistently lambasting Ron Paul for supposedly “racist” newsletters published in his name, they hardly ever bring up Obama’s association with a black supremacist church.  Then again, if observation tells us anything about the way that the media operates, the more vociferously the media clamours against something, the better the chance is that there is something half-way decent about that something.  And, when the “left” and the “right” (for the lack of better terms) start agreeing on who to hate, that something might be a very decent thing indeed.

You may already be familiar with some of these criticisms.  On the left, people criticise him for being a “racist” and an “isolationist” who opposes illegal immigration.  They also dislike his views regarding civil liberties, because he would apply civil liberties equally to all American citizens, including European-Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans.  Of course, this isn’t good enough for social liberals, who believe that human rights only apply to certain groups.  But while we’re at it, neoconservatives aren’t helping Paul either, citing, among other things, his refusal to become a hard-liner with respect to Iran, and lack of support for Israel (disregarding that he’d end all foreign aid) as a key reason why he is “too extreme” to be a viable candidate.  Even the more liberal wing of the Republican Party seems to think that Paul is “too conservative”.

Ron Paul: Visionary or dangerous man?

It’s far from the purpose of this essay to endorse any candidate in a democratic election.  Moreover, here at RidingTheTiger, we’re far from being libertarians, although we might agree with Ron Paul that the government wastes too much time and money with things that are ultimately non-issues.  However, in one respect, Dr. Paul does deserve credit.  He has been consistent, and stands up for what he believes in.  And he comes across as being an honest man.

Te way that the media, as well as certain non-government agencies view Ron Paul is revealing.  The current front-runner, as the Iowa Caucus would have us believe is Mitt Romney.  But, Romney, it turns out, is not that different from Obama.  His record as governor of Massachusetts was far from what might be called “conservative”.  The American Spectator reported that in 2008, despite his attempts to cast himself as a right-of-center conservative, he had “previously staked out liberal positions on abortion, guns, immigration and a litany of other issues”.  Santorum, who came in second place in Iowa, was originally projected to get only half as many votes as Paul, causing some people to suspect voter fraud.

It is a known fact that most of the media favors the Democratic party.  Because of this, a weak Republican candidate would be seen favourably to the media, if only because it would make Obama look stronger.  For instance, some observers had noted that the choice of McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 was a blunder, which allowed Obama to more easily win the election in that year.  But leaving aside party-politics for a moment, to those who pull the strings on Capitol Hill, if Obama’s not going to win, his opponent should at least be someone who is not that different.

One group has a vested interest in smearing Paul (besides the obvious suspects at the Federal Reserve) seems to be the Zionist lobby.  As the Forward reports, the far-left ADL accuses Paul of having “extreme views on U.S. aid to Israel” and having “racist and homophobic but also anti-Israeli” views.  It should come as no surprise that these are the same accusations being made in the media by both the “mainstream” sources, as well as those who consider themselves more “conservative”.  Meanwhile, a more recent Forward article praises Romney and Santorum for being “professed Israel-lovers,” while hinting that Republicans should jump ship and vote for Obama, in the event that Paul should get the nomination.  The reason for the ADL’s hostility is clear.  Paul’s ideas do not benefit Israel exclusively.  And it follows that the media, which is closely linked, politically speaking, to the ADL is being used to slander him at every possible opportunity.

People who are aware of their situation in America are tired of having their Constitutional rights violated.  Many people have also begun to realise that the liberals and neoconservatives are both two sides of the same coin, and are no longer surprised by any revelation of the government’s hypocrisy or crookedness. Ron Paul, at least in his rhetoric, and to a large extent in his voting record, has shown that unlike the other candidates, who are willing to circumvent the Constitution to either the bankers or foreign interests, he is at least willing to defend the Constitution.  On the other hand, the candidates championed by the media all promote the expansion of Federal power and cater to every possible definable special interest.  Ron Paul clearly opposes such an abomination and the media, as well as special interest groups (namely AIPAC and the ADL) support it.  This is the fundamental difference between Ron Paul and other candidates, and why the media and special interest groups go out of their way to denounce Paul much in the same manner that the Soviet commissars would denounce dissidents.  The great danger for the lobbyists and the special interest groups is that to the average person, Paul represents something of a bye-gone era of American common sense.

So, in perhaps what can only be described as a “Bizarro-like,” down-is-up (or politically speaking, “left-is-right”) fashion, we’re being told that Ron Paul would destroy America, and is somehow going to be bad for us if he wins.  It may ultimately be true, as others have noted here on this site, that America’s collapse is not too far ahead.  While it’s sad that those who choose to vote are voting for the lesser of two evils, I doubt that if Ron Paul wins, it could be any worse than another term of Obama, or a term of Romney or Santorum.  The fact is that if the liberals and neoconservatives are free to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior through social engineering, this process will be far more painful than it already is.   Nearly a century of bad politics have shown that their manifesto is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad ideas which have done more to harm Western civilisation than anything else.

However, for those who believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than the Freudo-Marxist welfare state that America has become.

Ron Paul, however imperfect he may be, is miles ahead of the other candidates.

Posted in Current Events, North America, PoliticsComments (0)

Mr. Obama of Amerikwa and Dr. Ahmadinejad of Iran


As the 2012 elections approach, the candidates of both American political parties are lining up to see who can best appease their masters.  A big issue, especially for certain lobbyist groups such as AIPAC, is how the next President of the United States will deal with Iran.  The major candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, have already endorsed the position that military conflict with Iran may be necessary.  The Obama regime has not hidden its hostility towards Iran, by imposing sanctions in an effort to further cripple Iran’s economy, or by supporting anti-Iranian terror brigades.

So as Barack Obama attempts to run for a second term, it is only fair to compare to his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad or Obama: Who represents the interests of his people better?

In 2010, the Indian press reported that Obama would spend nearly 200 million a day on a visit to India.  During that visit, he was accompanied by a staggering 40 aircraft and six armoured cars.  Obama’s private car, a black Cadillac had the ability to launch nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks at the press of a button.  Furthermore, Obama booked all 300 luxury suites and 27 deluxe penthouses of the five-star Taj Mahal Hotel, at a rate ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 Indian rupees (450 to 900 USD) per night, and arranged a private excursion to the Taj Mahal.  James Corum, an American military historian pointed out, that the trip was largely a lavish publicity stunt, complete with an entourage that would dwarf the armed forces of even large nations.

On an earlier trip to Spain, Michelle Obama was criticized as being a “modern day Marie-Antoinette.”  During her vacation, an entire beach was closed for Michelle Obama and 40 close friends, for a price that cost US taxpayers a staggering $100,000 a day, not including the $147,563 which it cost to fly Air Force Two to and from the destination.  The American Conservative reported that:

Americans have come to expect Michelle to wear $500 sneakers and carry $2,000 purses while dining on lobster and caviar prepared by her personal chef and traveling to five-star hotels on the Spanish coast. They are used to her wastefulness — and her hypocrisy, considering the lavishness that occurs while the Obamas ask Americans to make sacrifices for the good of the nation, vacation on oil-stained beaches off the Gulf of Mexico, and have patience while the president socializes the economy against the will of the people.

Obama’s inauguration, the most costly in the history of the United States, cost the American taxpayers a whopping $170 million USD.  His other expenses include a black-tie Super Bowl party, dinners consisting of $100/lb Wagyu steak, and flying in a personal chef to make his pizzas.  And, in 2008, Obama hosted a series of 28 parties with over 50,000 guests.

All this while Obama oversees three wars, sending the working poor to die on false pretenses, and a crippling deficit of 14.6 trillion dollars, and while six million Americans lost their jobs during the Obama’s first year in office and retail sales fell 6.2 percent for 2009.

Enter Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the son of a humble village blacksmith, and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  A civil engineer by profession, he gained popularity during his tenure as the mayor of Tehran by working to improve the traffic system and placing an emphasis on charity by setting up free soup kitchens for the disadvantaged.  Even as President of Iran, a nation of some 74 million citizens, he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move. Ahmadinejad had the antique Persian carpets in the Presidential palace sent to a carpet museum, and opted instead to use inexpensive carpets.  African leaders, impressed by Ahmadinejad’s humility in daily affairs, noted that he refused the V.I.P. seat on the Presidential plane, and that he eventually replaced it with a cargo plane instead.  While Obama wears suits costing $1500 and up, Dr. Ahmadinejad, a former University professor, dresses in modest clothing, and insists on driving to the Presidential offices in his own car.

As president, he vowed to “putting the petroleum income on people’s tables,”, meaning tht Iran’s oil profits would be used to benefit the citizens.  Under Dr. Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran’s real GDP reflected growth of the economy, while inflation and unemployment have also decreased.

With all this, we might be prompted to ask – who is really a man of the people?  Which one is a true leader, and which one is merely an extravagant figurehead with no real concern for his citizens?  If being a competent leader who has a genuine concern for his fellow man and living a modest life is any indication, then the answer is clear.

Posted in Middle East, Politics, SocietyComments (1)


    Leave a Comment

  • Stay up to date

  • Subscribe to the RSS feed
  • Subscribe to the feed via email
  • Follow us on Twitter!

Find us on Facebook

Traditionalist Books


More books...