9 Presidential Traits That Make Dr. Ron Paul the Most Electable Candidate

18 09 2011

Americans need to elect a president in 2012 who is a self-made person with a track record of doing more than throwing empty words and money at problems. No more smooth-talking, self-serving presidents surrounded byWall Street types and lobbyists. We are going on 20 years of electing two lawyers (Clinton for eight years, our current president for three years) and the son of a wealthy man (Bush for eight years). The U.S. needs to elect a true public servant who has the honorable character, wisdom and experience to serve America’s well-being.

Here are the top 10 presidential traits our next president must have.

10. He is not a lawyer. (This eliminates Bachmann,Romney, our current president and Santorum, who are all lawyers.) He is not a Wall Street insider. He is not in the running due to an extremely wealthy and connected father who pulled strings and paved the way for him. (This eliminates Romney for a second time, andHuntsman.) He has a background in business and education and a track record of spending less than he makes and responsibly managing a budget. This leaves us with Rick PerryDr. Ron PaulNewt Gingrich,Gary JohnsonHerman Cain (if his tenure on the Federal Reserve Board doesn’t disqualify him) and Buddy Roemer.

9. He has served in a branch of the military. Protection of the U.S. is one of the most important duties and if soldiers are to be sent overseas, the president should know the reality of that. Applying traits 10 and 9, this leaves us with only Rick PerryHerman Cain and Dr. Ron Paul.

8. He has been faithful to his spouse. Fidelity in a marriage shows honor, self-discipline and the ability to keep a promise. Sex and money are big temptations in positions of power. He needs a track record of being able to keep his word in the face of pressure and temptation. If married, the spouse is someone who would also serve the public well.

7. He has a track record of public service, so she understands how our country and government work. He will follow the U.S. Constitution and not assert hers or her party’s agenda onto citizens, yet at the same time, she would explain and make the difficult changes that might seem unnerving at first.

6. He has strong personal values that are consistent with his voting records as well as his public and private conduct. We Americans know who we are getting when we elect him.

5. He will reverse Roe v. Wade or support defunding Planned Parenthood. He will have the courage and wisdom to initiate intelligent, rational, creative and effective research and discussions that identify the root causes of unwanted pregnancies and develop approaches that lead to reduction and prevention of them in the United States.

4. He does not have a chip on his shoulder or something to prove. He has a calming influence and seems like an ordinary person. Your mind and body feel relaxed listening to him, not on guard trying to catch tricks, evasion or half answers. He is not hypnotic, overly charismatic or charming; this type of person is often not genuine.

3. When you watch videos of him or see her on TV, He is easy to understand and makes sense. He wants to empower others rather than confuse them and keep them dependent, he is like the good teacher you had growing up who made the material understandable.

2. He has a clear written plan for the U.S.’s financial stability, economic recovery, energy independence, spending cuts, social issues, legal immigration and border protection. He eliminates self-dealing and corruption while empowering Americans through self-sufficiency and independence. He has a history and track record of follow-though, integrity and honor in his matching words and actions. He is able to identify root causes of problems and present viable solutions.

1. He is honest, forthright and a true public servant who serves America, his citizens and does not serve himself and his inner circle. You feel comfortable trusting him with your life, the lives of your family members, your security and your money — because that is exactly what you are doing when you elect the president.

Dr. Ron Paul meets nine of these 10 traits – more than any other candidate, including our current president.

Take the time to read their bios and view their campaign sites. Who would best serve the country best based on these 10 criteria?

“In the circumstances, alarm is justified. The man who isn’t alarmed simply doesn’t understand the situation — or he is crazy. But alarm is one thing, and hysteria is another. Hysteria impels people to destroy the very thing they are struggling to preserve.”
Harry Truman





CNN’s Jack Cafferty Slams GOP Frontrunners: Why Are Americans ‘Allergic To Brains?’ by Kstreet607

29 08 2011

Kstreet607

When I lived in New York for the first 50 years of my life, in the 70′s and 80′s I used to watch Jack Cafferty on our local ABC affiliate.  I can remember him being opinionated way back then.  Since he’s been on CNN, I think they’ve  given him an even longer rein to “express” himself…

Mediaite

Cranky CNN commentator Jack Cafferty lit into Republican superstars Sarah Palin (R-FNC), Gov.Rick Perry (R-TX), and Rep. Michele Bachmann(R-MN) on Wednesday’s The Situation Room, comparing them to The Three Stooges (sansShemp), calling Perry’s instant burial of Mitt Romney in the polls “a little scary,” and asking, “When it comes to presidential politics, why does America seem to be allergic to brains?”

Tell us how you really feel, Jack.

Since becoming a national media figure, Jack Cafferty has become known for this kind of Howard Beale-meets-Abe Simpson venting, and last night’s rant was vintage Cafferty. He blasted Bachmann’s promise of $2 gasoline, called Perry and Bachmann “whackjobs,” and derided “former half-term dropout governor of Alaska” Sarah Palin by sarcastically calling her a “Mensa member.”

Cafferty went on to praise candidates like Ron PaulNewt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman as examples of “the other end of the intellectual spectrum.”

Part of Cafferty’s critique had to do with the amount of attention being given to “Larry, Curly, and Moe” (as he calls Perry, Bachmann, and Palin), but people like Jon Huntsman have been getting tons of air (especially compared with his poll numbers) for trying to inject some sanity into the proceedings, to little effect. Cafferty can’t hang this on the media, but he’s dead-on when he asks why Americans are “allergic to brains.”

It’s tempting to see this as a strictly conservative problem (their contempt for academia and journalism certainly enabled it), but the media and the Democratic establishment have long played along with the modern American idea that intellect is a political liability. Many would trace the phenomenon to the Al Gore-George W. Bush race, but this “who would you rather drink a beer with?” garbage has been around for as long as I can remember.

The silver lining to Cafferty’s critique is that the American allergy to brains will become a significant asset when the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse arrives.





Reporting Fox News to the FCC for Committing Election Fraud, Using Fraudulent Data, False Polling Reports to Sway Voter Opinion

19 08 2011

The Ron Paul Campaign should sue Fox News for False Light Publication, Defamation, and Fraud, and we should all contact the FCC and other national and local broadcasting companies and news outlets and make them report on what Fox News just did.

Here you guys go, use this link
Submitted by buddharoger on Fri, 08/12/2011 – 15:39.
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=&id=d1e664
report it !

As we all clearly witnessed, and as we can still see online (until Fox removes its original polls from online which it soon will to hide the truth as it always does) Ron Paul won a landslide victory in all online polling following the debate. Fox did not like the results of the 50 or more online polls following the debate that all showed that Ron Paul won by a landslide with margin of 2 to 3 times greater the number of votes of all the other contending candidates. So what Fox did was post a fake fixed poll that had already had Newt ahead at the time of posting. Fox posted this new fake fixed poll even though Paul was and is still winning and in first place and getting 2 to 4 times the number of votes that Newt was getting in every single other online poll. The new fake fixed poll had about 900 fabricated participants while all the other polls that showed Ron Paul winning by a landslide nationwide had roughly 20,000 real online participants or more. Then Fox said they would report on the winner in an hour using the fixed poll of about 900 people, giving noone any time to respond to the new fixed poll. In addition, I’m sure more people voted for Ron Paul even in the fixed poll, but the problem is that on the fixed poll the numbers are locked so that with every vote for Paul the computer automatically adds 1 to 3 votes for Newt within 2-3 minutes later.

If Ron Paul’s Campaign does not sue Fox News and we do not report Fox news to the FCC and all other national and local news outlets I think we are all making a terrible mistake and consciously allowing evil to persist. The next time Ron Paul gets on Fox News and other news outlets for interviews Paul should ask Fox News on the air why Fox News did not show him as the winner following the debate polls (when he was clearly winning in all of them and he should cite 10 or more of the 50 or more polls he was and is still winning in), and he should ask why Fox instead introduced a fake fixed poll with less participants and reported on that.

Suing Fox News or sending a letter to Fox News to retract their statement that polls indicate that Newt won the debate would take money and time, and the Ron Paul Campaign has both. Also, bringing attention to the matter would draw additional media attention and controversy… Clearly reporting that the polls indicate that Newt won the debate is a knowing publication of false statement of fact, which has a direct effect on Paul’s ability to win the presidency.

Grounds for the Defamation per se lawsuit by Ron Paul Campaign:

1.) That Ron Paul did not come in first is clearly a false statement of fact.
2.) Fox clearly published false statements of fact on purpose ignoring their prior polls.
3.) The purposefully misleading reporting of the polls clearly is “adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade” that is Paul’s ability to win the presidency.

Defamation: also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Defamation per se: The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

There is broad protections for commenting on political figures and public figures, and especially broad protections for political speech; however, you cannot lie about political figures or public figures regardless. This is why celebrities (who are public figures) often bring defamation suits against the media and win. Even though they are public figures, if they can prove the statements are a lie they win. Fox has armies of general counsel and in house counsel, and of course their attempt is to make the reporters couch their false statements of fact as opinion rather than statements of fact (opinion is protected). However, poll results are statements of fact!!! Although polls may be asking people’s opinion, the results of polls are facts, that must be accurately reported. Purposefully leaving out polls in favor of others, and reporting only on the other fraudulent polls is defamation. If you are reporting on poll results, the results of these polls are facts. Leaving out more reliable and participated in polls with true and accurate results, and posting the result of only one other smaller poll that can be proven to have been made with the intention of misleading voters, and which is clearly fixed and inaccurate is defamatory.

Paul needs to get candid and straightforward not only with his politics but also about the dirty tricks that are being perpetrated against him instead of acting as if these fraudulent tactics aren’t being used and allowing news organizations to continue to lie about him, step all over him, commit fraud against him, and treat him like crap. Pointing out Fox News lies and deceptive and manipulative reporting would draw a ton of attention and controversy and any media attention is good attention, especially when it draws attention to the truth, as Ron Paul always does.

David S. Chesley, Esq.
http://www.chesleylawyers.com
(818) 922-5433








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.