Just in case Ron Paul's presidential plans happen to fall short... Ron has a back up plan!
Selling cookbooks!
Unfortunately, the book also includes Carol Paul’s “The American Dream” which briefly recounts the history of Ron Paul and the Paul Family. Always the promoter, Ron managed to "campaign in your kitchen" when all you really wanted was a good meatloaf recipe.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
LMAO is that for real? well I guess if people want a Paul family cookbook you might as well want to know who the Pauls are
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I'm not much of a cook so feel free to buy it and let us know how the recipes are
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I'm not much of a cook so feel free to buy it and let us know how the recipes are
I LOVE to cook. I haven't read any of his recipes, but judging by his politics, his dishes would: Offer NO CHOICE! Offer little protection (FDA) from food borne pathogens and Paul's menu would only be appealing to a very very limited fringe group of foodies.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Gerald Celente endorses Paul, scary stuff though if you watch the whole thing.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"Ron Paul released a brutal video that attempts to expose the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich. (Somewhere Mitt Romney is smiling. )
(From NPR:) "The ad uses several instances where Gingrich either aligned himself with liberals... It also bashes Gingrich for engaging in the kind of Washington insider behavior he has criticized in others, like his being paid at least $1.5 million by Freddie Mac, one of the troubled mortgage giants."
"If you're on the DNC/Obama email lists, you notice that the other team doesn't bother attacking Newt. This isn't complicated. They worry about Romney. They don't worry about facing Gingrich."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Des Moines Register latest poll ... Paul 2nd at 18%
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich has carved out a clear lead in what’s become a three-candidate race in Iowa, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul has risen into second place, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has slid to third with just over a month before the Iowa caucuses kick off voting in the presidential nominating process.
Gingrich has support from 25 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers, Paul is at 18 percent and Romney at 16 percent.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann ties with retired Georgia business executive Herman Cain at 8 percent.
The poll was conducted before Cain suspended his candidacy on Saturday.
Huckabee Debate: Is Ron Paul a Constitutional Hypocrite on Social Security?
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem Sunday, 04 December 2011 00:00
When Fox News' Mike Huckabee hosted a forum for the GOP presidential candidates December 3, few expected that Texas Congressman Ron Paul would field what may have been the toughest question for a constitutional purist: Why would he say Social Security is unconstitutional and at the same time say that as a constitutional purist he would vote to continue the program?
The question posed to Paul during the December 3 forum seems impossible to answer, since the U.S. Constitution fails to enumerate a power of the federal government to create anything remotely resembling an old-age pension fund for all Americans. Panelist and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked Paul: "Congressman, you are very clear. You think they are unconstitutional. Why would you sign a budget you think contains something unconstitutional?"
Paul responded: "Because you have two choices. You either can work our way out of this, or you have to wait until it collapses and we have to rebuild it."
But the question remains: Is Rep. Paul succumbing to practical politics? Is Rep. Paul a hypocrite for claiming he'd continue to pay Social Security recipients while at the same time claiming to be a strict constitutionalist?
Actually, no, he isn't.
While there's no explicit (or, for that matter, implicit) authority under the U.S. Constitution to create a Social Security or Medicare program, once a federal commitment to pay a benefit in exchange for a fee is made, another provision of the U.S. Constitution comes into play: Congress has the power and duty under Article I, Section 8 to "to pay the debts ... of the United States." Social Security includes an implied contract with people who have paid into Social Security for many years. Cutting Social Security payments would be analogous to cutting the pension of a federal employee who had worked for an unconstitutional agency, or cutting bond payments to Treasury bill owners who helped deficit finance the TARP bailout plan.
Rep. Paul stressed in the debate that he intended to propose to Congress major spending cuts in his first year. "If we want to save this country, we have to cut. So I have a plan to cut $1 trillion." He also tried to stress that the federal commitment to pay existing Social Security recipients doesn't mean the constitutional approach means keeping the program as is forever. "To cut that off and think you can do that over night," Paul told Cuccinelli, "no, you can't do that. So you have to have a transition program."
So here's the verdict: Rep. Paul remains constitutionally pure.
Paul responded: "Because you have two choices. You either can work our way out of this, or you have to wait until it collapses and we have to rebuild it."
truth is right in the open and the masses refuse to get rid of the elephant in the room.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
