Ron Paul: Diplomatic Relations with Cuba Now

by Alana Semuels
LA Times
January 27, 2012

Ron Paul took a risky position in Florida in Thursday’s debate, calling for communication and diplomatic relations with Cuba, saying that people’s positions have changed dramatically over the last few years.

Paul said that Cuba isn’t going to invade the U.S. any time soon, and that Americans weren’t looking under their beds anymore, worried. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich followed by pledging to continue the economic embargo on Cuba and to take any action short of military invasion to upend the government of Raul Castro.

Paul’s position is a potentially dangerous one in Florida, a state with a influential voting bloc of conservative Republicans from Cuba who have long favored aggressive policies toward Havana.

But a study of Cuban American voters in Florida suggests that Paul might be right, and that voters’ opinions about Cuba are changing. Support for tightening the embargo dropped by roughly half between 2004 and 2008, according to a study by Benjamin Bishin, a UC Riverside professor.

Cuban Americans’ support for easing the embargo increased to 43.4%, from 26.7% in 2004, and support for easing travel restrictions increased to 47.4% from 32.9%, Bishin found.  “Cuban Americans’ attitudes on issues of U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba seems to be in transition,” he wrote in a 2009 study.

Ron Paul: “Corporations Run the Media”

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 20, 2012

“We are dangerous to the status quo in this country”. That was the opening line with which CNN decided to present presidential candidate Ron Paul last night before the start of the South Carolina debate. The thing is, not even CNN could expect what happened later. Mr. Paul did it again. During his introductory statement, Paul reminded people that the media frequently questions the candidates’ record and makes up rumors without having a solid base for those rumors. He said although it was undesirable that corporations ran political campaigns, the question that should be asked just as often was: How to avoid having corporations run the media.

Needless to say that this earned Ron Paul a massive round of applause before the shock and awe that such a truthful statement generated on the other candidates and the host John King. Mr. Paul wasted no time and went after Newt Gingrich’s record as a conservative religious man. Paul said that although the criticism from the media is sometimes baseless, it is important to set up standards and that he was proud to spend spend his life with wife for the past 54 years. As many of us have learned, Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne, came out of ABC news to denounce what she called Newt’s lack of moral standing to run for president.

As Marianne Gingrich publicly testified, Newt asked her to open their marriage to a third or more people, in other words to have an open marriage. At the time, she questioned Newt’s intentions and refused to accept his request to let him see other people while married to her. Both the traditional and alternative media have reported the Newt Gingrich left Marianne after learning that she had cancer, and started a life separately with his current wife. Gingrich adopted this lifestyle while leading an investigation [as the Speaker of the House] over Bill Clinton’s sexual encounters which caused the them president to publicly apologize for his dreadful behaviour.

After questioning the main stream media legitimacy, Ron Paul went right to work. The first question regarding how could the government help the people get back to work, Mr. Paul responded with a very familiar proposal. “Most of the things that the federal government could do to get people back to work is to get out of the way”, also followed by a good round of applause. Paul went on to point out that having a healthy currency, cutting income taxes to near zero and reducing the size of government would be some of the best ways to help the economy rebound. “Unemployment exists because we have a flawed financial system that causes financial bubbles. The bubbles burst and then you have the unemployment:, said Paul.

See Ron Paul’s full highlights in the South Carolina debate below:


Ron Paul tied with Obama in General Election Poll

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 17, 2012

U.S. president Barack Obama has managed to remain in the mid forties in the latest  CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday. Both Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are tied with the president, with Paul making the most gains since this type of polls began to be conducted and published. While Mitt Romney is just a point above Obama, 48 to 47, within the margin of error, Mr. Paul trails Obama by two points, 48-46, also within the margin of error.

With Ron Paul gaining more and more ground among independent voters in the last few polls, the most recent poll results would be good news for the Paul campaign as the number of independent voters grows larger by the week, and many of those voters show their preference for Mr, Paul over president Obama.

According to the poll, interviews were conducted with 1,021 adult Americans, who were contacted conducted by telephone by ORC International on January 11-12, 2012. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Polled voters include 928 interviews among registered voters.

When it comes to registered voters, in a direct match between Paul and Obama, the republican candidate has gained one percentage point from an earlier poll conducted by ORC on December 16-18, while Obama has lost 4 percentage points against the Congressman from Texas. Meanwhile Mitt Romney has gained 3 points against Obama, who has lost 5 points. The rest of the candidates lose to Obama by margins that go beyond the margin of error, with differences between 8 and 12 points.

The poll becomes biased when it comes to comparing Obama’s characteristics and qualities with the two candidates, because it only asks about Obama’s and Romney’s leaving out the opinion of the voters with respect to Ron Paul. This is a common trend in polls conducted by main stream media, where only the incumbent and the establishment candidates are fully evaluated, while marginalizing others. Aspects addressed by this section of the poll include values, leadership, personality, the candidate’s skill set to deal with the economic depression as well as a candidate’s changing positions on the issues. This last two aspects are key, because Ron Paul’s record on the issues throughout the past 30 years would easily beat Obama’s and Romney’s combined. Ron Paul is also the only candidate with full understanding of the causes of the current financial meltdown and what measures need to be taken to reverse it.

It is not wise for CNN or any other mass dinosaur medium to include Ron Paul in that part of the poll, because the results would be devastating for both the president and Romney.

Another interesting caveat that comes out of the poll is that when asked whether voters see either Romney or Obama as agreeing with their concerns, being able to fix the economy or caring about the issues the voters care about, neither Obama nor Romney poll much higher that 53%. This number would probably be much lower had they included Ron Paul in the questionnaire.

When asked whether Mitt Romney is in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans, the leading presidential candidate barely hits 41%, while Obama gets 53%. Another aspect in which Obama polled high was when voters responded if they felt that Obama changed positions for political gain. There Obama polled the highest with 56%. But Romney polled even higher here with 61%. In other words, people are clear that both Obama and Romney will say and do whatever it takes to get the votes of Americans next November.

Given the fact the poll excludes Ron Paul from this important part of the questionnaire, the detailed results of the poll simply reflect what we all know. Both Obama and Romney are seen as dishonest candidates who the public not only do not trust, but also who would be incapable to bring confidence to the Americans, help fix the economy or create jobs for the millions of Americans who have lost it.

Otro Falso Conservador Muerde el Polvo

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
16 de enero de 2012

¿Cómo sabes cuando alguien es un político conservador falso? Cuando él se retira de la carrera presidencial y da su apoyo al mismo candidato sobre quien expresó dudas en la campaña. Ese candidato es Mitt Romney, la opción número uno de los banqueros, y el hombre que John Huntsman ha optado por apoyar al retirarse de la carrera presidencial republicana.

Huntsman fue uno de los críticos más ávidos de Romney, y continuamente habló sobre sus dudas en cuanto a la capacidad de Romney para ser presidente. “Él no ha presentado una razón … una razón para confiar en él”, dijo Huntsman a ABC la semana pasada. Según un informe citando a un portavoz de la campaña Huntsman, el candidato no quería estar en el camino de Romney.

La causa de la caída de Huntsman de la carrera parecen ser sus pobres resultados en las dos elecciones primarias en Iowa y New Hampshire, así como su bajos números de la próxima primaria en Carolina del Sur, donde aparece con solo 6 por ciento. Sin embargo, también es cierto que la campaña de Huntsman tiene la intención de dar un impulso a Mitt Romney, lo que hace que uno se pregunte, ¿por qué siquiera se molestó en participar, si él cree que Romney es el mejor hombre para ganar la carrera? Además, ¿por qué si en su opinión Romney es el hombre para ganar este lo atacó públicamente y cuestionó su capacidad para ser el líder del movimiento conservador? Simplemente porque todo lo que los candidatos de segundo nivel hacen es trabajar como distracciones, para que el público no se de cuenta del record de los candidatos apoyados por las corporaciones y su falta de capacidad para crear planes que ayuden al país salir del agujero negro azabache donde se encuentra ahora.

Una presidencia Mitt Romney no sería mejor que un segundo mandato de Obama. Romney se ha comprometido a continuar con muchas de las políticas que Obama inició y otras que continuó de la desastrosa presidencia de George W. Bush. Como el público se ha enterado a través de los debates, Romney es el padre de cuidado médico socializado, más conocido como Obamacare. Romneycare se estableció en Massachusetts bajo la tenencia del gobernador Mitt Romney. El mismo también apoyó a amplios sectores de HillaryCare. Romney también se ha comprometido a hacer cualquier cosa que se necesite para impedir que Irán continúe con su programa de energía nuclear porque cree que lo que los iraníes están haciendo en realidad es trabajando en una bomba nuclear. Este escenario no ha sido confirmado por ninguna organización creíble o documento oficial, pero se ha planteado como una situación posible para hacer frente si alguno de los candidatos republicanos fueran elegidos este año. Sólo Ron Paul ha expresado su interés en una solución pacífica a las discrepancias militares, económicas y políticas mediante el uso de la diplomacia y hablando con sus adversarios, dejando la opción militar como último recurso. Los otros candidatos, incluyendo a Obama quiere hacer uso del poder militar estadounidense como la primera opción.

No es una sorpresa que un hombre [John Huntsman] que sirvió al gobierno de Barack Obama como embajador en China decida apoyar a Romney para la nominación republicana, porque Romney sirve a los mismos intereses que su ex jefe [Obama] sirve. Mientras que el candidato presidencial Ron Paul consigue la mayoría de las donaciones de hombres y mujeres militares, Romney obtiene la mayoría del dinero de las corporaciones y los bancos de Wall Street. En caso de que no hayan entendido, Romney es Obama en 2012. ¿Qué podríamos esperar de dos Obamas como las opciones para la presidencia en 2012? El doble de las guerras, el doble de la corrupción, el doble de la hipocresía, el doble de la cantidad de violaciónes de la Constitución, el doble de la cantidad de violaciónes a los derechos y libertades de los estadounidenses en ese país y ciudadanos de todo el mundo pues los poderes que gobiernan seguirán dirigiendo a Estados Unidos a cometer más violaciones en todo el mundo. Una presidencia Romney o un mandato de Obama seguramente significará un ataque a Irán, Siria y graves enfrentamientos con China y Rusia, pues la tecnocracia occidental se esfuerza por mantener el poder mientras libra una batalla contra las mafias del este.

Según el periódico Estado de Columbia, “el Sr. Huntsman es un verdadero conservador, con un registro y una plataforma de reformas económicas audaces, directamente de la Biblia del libre mercado, pero es un realista, cuyo objetivo es también conseguir hacer las cosas”. Y continúa: “Bajo su liderazgo, Utah fue líder en la creación de empleo, y el Centro Pew clasificó el estado como el mejor administrado en la nación.” ¿Por qué un verdadero conservador aprueba y endorsa a un hombre que obviamente no tiene nada conservador en él? Acaso el “hacer las cosas” significa continuar entregando el país a las corporaciones para las que Romney realmente trabaja? Acaso significa hacer como Obama; trabajar para las corporaciones que operan desde paraísos fiscales q quienes se entregaron miles de trillones de dólares del rescate pagado por los contribuyentes estadounidenses?

Si Mitt Romney está completamente fuera de contacto, como Huntsman dijo a principios de este mes, ¿por qué lo aprueba? ¿No es esto una locura? Según informó ABC la campaña Huntsman había comenzado una serie de sitios web con contenido que atacaba el record de Romney. Después de que Huntsman decidió darle su voto, los techies Huntsman han eliminado gran parte de la crítica. “Hemos eliminado a un montón de cosas en el sitio web como la mayoría de las campañas hacen cuando han terminado”, dijo un portavoz de la campaña de Huntsman. Por lo tanto, por la campaña de John Huntsman, Romney no es apto para servir. Él no ha mostrado ninguna razón para ganar su confianza, no es un candidato conservador, está fuera de contacto, pero de alguna manera Huntsman ha decidido que lo aprueba.

El pasado sábado, Huntsman acusó a Romney de disfrutar el despedir a la gente de Bain Capital, una compañía para la cual Romney trabajaba. Cuando se le preguntó acerca de si había sido contactado por la gente del Partido Republicano para frenar los ataques, Huntsman dijo que “cuando se tiene un candidato que habla sobre el disfrute de los trabajadores, sobre como disfruta los documentos enviados a los despedidos, que hace un comentario que parece ser tan separado de los problemas que los estadounidenses se enfrentan hoy en día, eso le hace más o menos inelegible. Y yo digo, queremos un candidato que realmente puede ir a ganar. Esa es la cuestión … el problema más grande es la elegibilidad. “Pero todas esas dudas en la cabeza de Huntsman parecen haber desaparecido en la actualidad.

John Huntsman es el cuarto aspirante presidencial a morder el polvo. Fue precedido por Michele Bachman, Tim Pawlenty, y Herman Cain.

Another Fake Conservative Bites the Dust

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 16, 2012

How do you know when someone is a fake conservative? When he drops out of a presidential race and endorses the very same contender he expressed doubts about. That same candidate is Mitt Romney, the bankers number one choice, and the man who John Huntsman has chosen to endorse as he exits the Republican race for president.

Huntsman was one of Romney’s most avid critics, and continuously questioned his capacity to be president every time he talked about him. “He hasn’t put forth a reason… a reason for us to trust him,” said Huntsman to ABC last week. According to a report citing a Huntsman campaign spokesman, the candidate did not want to stand on Romney’s way.

The cause of Huntsman’s drop from the race seem to be his poor showings in the previous two primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as his low numbers for the next primary in South Carolina, where he appears with single digits. However, it is also true that the Huntsman campaign mostly intends to give Mitt Romney a boost by leaving the race, which makes one wonder, why did he even bother getting into it, if he believes Romney was the best man to win the race? Also, why if in his opinion Romney is the man to win it has he publicly attacked him and questioned his capacity to be the leader of the conservative movement? Simply because everything the second tier candidates look for is to work as distractions, so the public remains unaware of the establishment candidates poor record and his lack of capacity to create plans that help the country get out from the pitch black hole where it is now.

A Mitt Romney presidency would not be better than a second Obama term, as Romney has pledged to continue many of the policies Obama instituted or continued implementing from George W. Bush’s two-term disastrous presidency. As the public has found out through the debates, Romney is the father of socialized medical care, better know as Obamacare. Romneycare was established in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney’s governorship. He also supported broad sections of Hillarycare. Romney has also pledged to do anything it takes to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear energy program because he believes what the Iranians are really doing is working on a nuclear bomb. This scenario has not been confirmed by any credible organization or document, but has been posed as a possible situation to deal with should any of the Republican candidates were elected this year. Only Ron Paul has expressed his interest in solving military, economic and political discrepancies by using diplomacy and talking to people, while leaving the military option as a last resort. The other candidates, including Obama would make use of American military power as the first option.

It is not a surprise that a man [John Huntsman] who served the Obama administration as an ambassador to China decided to endorse Romney for the republican nomination, as Romney himself serves the same interests Huntsman’s former boss serves. While presidential candidates like Ron Paul gets the most donations from military men and women, Romney gets the most money from corporations and Wall Street banks. In case you haven’t understood, Romney is Obama in 2012. What could we expect from two Obama’s as the choices for president in 2012, should Romney get the nomination? Double the wars, double the corruption, double the hypocrisy, double the amount of violations to the constitution, double the amount of violations to the rights and freedoms of the United States and citizens from around the world as the powers that be continue to steer the United States into more abuses around the world. A Romney presidency or an Obama second term will surely spell an attack on Iran, Syria and serious confrontations with China and Russia, as the western technocracy struggles to keep power against the mafias of the east.

According to the State paper of Columbia, “Mr. Huntsman is a true conservative, with a record and platform of bold economic reform straight out of the free-market bible, but he’s a realist, whose goal is likewise to get things done.” And it continues: “Under his leadership, Utah led the nation in job creation, and the Pew Center on the States ranked it the best-managed state in the nation.” Why would a true conservative endorse a man who obviously has nothing conservative in him? Does “getting things done” mean handing the country over to another corporate creation who as Obama will work for the off-shore corporations, handing bailout monies paid by the American tax payers?

If Mitt Romney is completely out of touch, as Huntsman said earlier this month, why endorse him? Isn’t that insanity? As reported by ABC the Huntsman campaign had started a number of websites with content that attacked Romney’s record. After his endorsement, Huntsman techies have removed much of the criticism. “We’ve removed lots of things from the website as most campaigns do when they are over,” a Huntsman campaign aid said. So, by John Huntsman’s campaign, Romney is unfit to serve. He has shown no reason to gain their trust, is not a conservative candidate, is out of touch, but somehow Huntsman himself has decided to endorse him.

Just last Saturday, Huntsman accused Romney of enjoying firing people at Bain Capital, a company Romney worked for. When questioned about whether he had been approached to republican establishment people to slow down the attacks, Huntsman said that “when you have a candidate that talks about enjoyment in firing people, talks about pink-slips, who makes a comment that seem to be so detached from the problems that Americans are facing today, that makes you pretty much unelectable. And I say, we want a nominee who can actually go on to win. That’s the issue … the bigger issue is one of electability.” But all those doubts in Huntsman head seem to have disappeared today.

John Huntsman is the fourth presidential hopeful to bite the dust. He was preceded by Michele Bachman, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain.


Related Links:









Partner Links