Posts tagged Ronald Reagan

The Secret History Of Western Education – Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

0
YouTube Preview Image

H/T to http://wchildblog.com

Posted by BelligerentPolitics

6-16-2013 12-21-38 PM

The Secret History Of Western Education – Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

 

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt – The Historical Untold Truth Of Western Education and the purposely done Scientific Destruction of young children’s minds.

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms.

Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War,
and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.

Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America’s Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

References:

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlott…

Deliberate Dumbing Down: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

—–Deliberate Dumbing Down of America – E Book download is NOW FREE TO ALL!!!—– http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/…

Ron Paul on The Laura Ingraham Show – 5/3/12

0
YouTube Preview Image

Ron Paul was on The Laura Ingraham Show today, and he spoke with her about Afghanistan, federal spending, the Chen diplomatic issues President Obama is having, and why he thinks Mitt Romney is only “marginally” better than President Obama.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who predicted and warned against the economic crisis, who understood and explained the reasons for it, and who offers a viable solution.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who really means it when he says he wants to bring our troops home and scale down our unsustainable and unreasonable empire.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is serious about slashing spending and eliminating taxes.

Even though others are now trying to sound like him, there is only one Ron Paul. And there is only one candidate who can beat Obama: Ron Paul.
Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.

During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”

####

[CIM]

The time is NOW to take back our personal liberties and freedoms!
Ron Paul 2012: Restore America Now

http://www.ronpaul2012.com

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!

Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)

0

Source: http://www.dailypaul.com

By Tom Mullen on Mon, 03/05/2012

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)

Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)Heading into “Super Tuesday,” many conservatives lament that they do not like any of the remaining Republican candidates for president. Romney is too moderate, Gingrich too much a “Washington insider,” and Santorum both an insider and a guaranteed loser against Obama thanks to his willingness to bare his soul about some of his more outlandish socially conservative views.

That leaves Ron Paul, who would seem to be the ideal conservative candidate. Paul’s Plan to Restore America actually cuts $1 trillion from the federal budget in his first year as president, including eliminating the Department of Education that Ronald Reagan promised to abolish.

 

Paul is the only candidate that actually disagrees with President Obama in principle on “spreading the wealth around.” Paul doesn’t just nibble a few pennies away from financially insignificant welfare programs. He actually has a funded plan to let young people opt out of Medicare and Social Security. This is really a plan to responsibly end these programs. Government-mandated programs only survive because people are forced to participate. If conservatives really do oppose socialism, they should agree with Paul on this. Where do they think Social Security got its name?

 

For a large group of conservatives, they are with Paul right up until he explains his foreign policy. Suddenly, not only does the courtship end, they stop taking calls and change their phone numbers. That’s unfortunate because most conservatives make this decision upon a completely distorted view of Paul’s foreign policy.

 

All of Ron Paul’s policy decisions are based upon the same underlying principle: the libertarian principle of non-aggression. As he stated during my own interview with him last year (about the 7:30 mark here), “That’s the moral principle. The legislative principle is really in the Constitution.” Based upon this principle, the government is never allowed to initiate force against the innocent. That means that it cannot redistribute wealth, it cannot stop you from harming yourself with drugs or other vices, and it cannot start a war with another nation.

This is not some new age idea from the early libertarian movement of the 1970’s. This is the foundation of the founders’ philosophy of government. Thomas Jefferson made it explicit when he said, “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”[1]

Jefferson’s first order of business upon reaching the White House was to cut military spending dramatically. His goal was a military establishment adequate to defend the nation but inadequate to the imperial designs of Federalists like Alexander Hamilton. However, when the Pasha of Tripoli declared war upon the United States, Jefferson did not hesitate to send in the Marines for a quick and decisive win.

The confusion starts when Paul’s policies are described as “dovish” or “soft” on Iran or other supposedly belligerent nations. People unfamiliar with libertarian ideas may honestly misunderstand them. Others deliberately distort them. Let there be no confusion. Non-aggression is not pacifism. Libertarians hit back.

Indeed, Paul has said that if the people really do want to go to war, then he would ask the Congress for a declaration of war. He rarely gets time to explain why this is important. The declaration of war involves a debate about whether a state of war already exists. That’s why it’s so important. The declaration of war power doesn’t authorize Congress to start a war. It allows them to direct the president to end it. Check the language of every declaration of war that Congress has ever made. They all support this interpretation.

Active duty military seem to understand this implicitly, which is why they overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. They are ready to risk their lives for their country, but only when their country is truly in danger. Why don’t most conservative voters agree with them? They decorate their vehicles with stickers saying “Support Our Troops” but do not support the candidate that the troops want to be president.

It is no accident that the United States has never really won a war since Congress stopped declaring them. Instead, we send our troops into some far-off land for decades at a time with no clear definition of victory. Their hands are tied with confusing rules of engagement that keep them from winning and prolong the war. This is good for those who profit from war but bad for the troops who risk or lose their lives.

None of this happens in a Ron Paul presidency. Instead, war is far less likely to come at all, which is a good thing. If it is forced upon us, Ron Paul will have it properly declared by the Congress and then will fight it to win. Make no mistake. Of all of the Republican candidates for president, only Ron Paul will win the next war.

[1] Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Francis Walker Gilmer June 7, 1816 from The Works of Thomas Jefferson edited by Paul Leicester Ford G.P. Putnam’s Sons New York and London The Knickerbocker Press 1905 pg. 533-34

 


 

Santorum’s Anti-Libertarianism is a Recipe for Big Government

0

Source: http://www.ronpaul2012.com

Writes Philip Klein at The Washington Examiner:

Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum’s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism…

(Santorum’s) been coming under fire for his many votes to expand government. He took earmarks, voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and backed No Child Left Behind. He pushed dairy subsidies, steel tariffs and sided with unions over workers.

As Cato’s Gene Healy noted in his Washington Examiner column on the topic this week, Santorum explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

This is a stark departure from Ronald Reagan, who had this to say to the libertarian Reason magazine in a 1975 interview:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism… The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Ever since that time, Republicans have gotten into trouble when they have veered too far from libertarianism. If Santorum had a modicum of respect for libertarian philosophy, he would have been reluctant to embrace big government Republicanism during the Bush era. Instead, he cast votes that will make it harder for him to consolidate conservative support in the weeks and months ahead as his record undergoes more scrutiny…

####

[CIM Comment]

Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!

‘Presidential Secrets’–Former Operative Chip Tatum Speaks (Full Length UnCensored)

0
YouTube Preview Image

This video presents one of the most provocative interviews ever conducted by Ted Gunderson, a retired FBI Senior Special Agent in Charge; it is with Gene “Chip” Tatum, a former CIA Black Ops Assassin who was also an Iran-Contra and OSG2 NWO Insider. In this video, you’ll hear Chip discuss his involvement in Operation Red Rock, Task Force 160 and OSG2. Hear him reveal the names of high profile officials who were integrally involved in these CIA covert killing sprees and/or narco-trafficking, directly or indirectly: Oliver “Ollie” North, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. You’ll learn from an “insider” about outrageous U.S. government felony crime and corruption and the impending New World Order destruction of America. You’ll hear his amazing insight concerning the Nixon Administration and the dirty politics of the Vietnam War. This is the last interview prior to his sudden disappearance in 1998.

LATEST UPDATE: Chip’s tortured body was reported to have washed up on a beach in Panama in early 2007. See the other video interview with Chip Tatum called ‘Black Ops Interview’ posted on Youtube.

[CIM Comment:]

I have no wishes to control the votes of others, your vote is your job knowing what is really going on.  I will tell you where mine is going based on years of study.

Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!

 

Gingrich 1997: “There is No Place for Torture”

0

Source: http://www.ronpaul2012.com

Let me be perfectly clear: If the life of my mother, father, child, friend, or basically anyone I loved could be saved by doing horrible things to some horrible person, I would do it. In fact, most normal people wouldn’t mind hurting some bad guy to save the lives of good guys.

The question of torture is not whether in some Hollywood-style, almost-never-happening life-or-death scenario, we should use it. Those who view the issue of waterboarding in this absurd light—an interrogation method everyone from Ronald Reagan to the United States military during World War II has rightly called torture—are being completely unreasonable in their general premise.

The most basic question concerning torture is whether, as a general rule, it should be endorsed. The question is whether it actually works as an interrogation tactic, which most experts say it doesn’t. The question is whether or not torture should be an acceptable rule of thumb for any civilized society.

The question is whether or not torture should be the official policy of the United States.

For most of our history, that answer has been an emphatic “no!”

Most of this year’s Republican presidential candidates care little to nothing about such questions because they know little to nothing about history, know or care little to nothing about our conventional Judeo-Christian Western morality, they know even less about the history of the conservative movement, and most seem content to try to look “tough” in front of GOP primary audiences by explicitly endorsing the use of torture, or, excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” This view on torture extends to these Republican candidates’ extremely anti-conservative views on civil liberties, recklessness concerning the constitutional powers of the Executive branch, and these candidates’ general dismissal of some of the most basic concepts and precepts of American law.

Newt Gingrich—who does know history and yet now refuses to call waterboarding “torture” or to strongly denounce it—nevertheless expressed the traditional conservative view on torture in 1997, after meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Gingrich’s language here is plain, simple, conservative…

And absolutely right—in the deepest American sense:

“There is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions… the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend.”

Today, for most of the GOP presidential field, including Gingrich, this “foundational American value” of opposition to torture has become a mere “passing priority” and “temporary trend.”

God help us.

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!

Conservatism, Libertarianism and Ron Paul

0

Source: http://www.ronpaul2012.com

A current CBS News headline reads “Paul blends conservatism, libertarianism in pitch to voters,” reporting:

“Paul’s fiery libertarian rhetoric drew warm reaction at Orlando’s Conservative Political Action Conference Friday as he offered a scathing critique of the federal government and promised to ‘restore the greatness of America.”

If judging him by the Goldwater-Reagan legacy which has historically defined the American conservative movement, then Ron Paul is unquestionably the most conservative candidate currently running for president. But as CBS News notes, he is also a libertarian, and blends such language with conservatism in his message.

The Goldwater-Reagan tradition represents first and foremost a critique of the modern state, or what we often call big government, or what CBS News rightly calls “a scathing critique of the federal government.” While there are certainly ideological particularities that make conservatism and libertarianism distinct, it is also true that one cannot be a conservative in the traditional Goldwater-Reagan sense without also being a libertarian.

Who thinks this?

National Review founder William F. Buckley referred to himself as a conservative and a libertarian interchangeably throughout his entire career. I’m currently reading his 2008 book “Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater” in which Buckley constantly recalls that he wondered if the Republican Party of the early 1960’s was ready to embrace the explicitly “libertarian” message of Goldwater’s famous book “The Conscience of a Conservative.” Similar to Buckley’s view of the Arizona Senator, FOX Business’ Judge Andrew Napolitano dedicated his last book to Barry Goldwater, who he calls the father of American libertarianism.

But perhaps Ronald Reagan made the obvious connection between conservatism and libertarianism most clear, or as he said in 1976—the same year Ron Paul was one of only four GOP Congressman to endorse Reagan for president:

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is…”

Added Reagan: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

The Case for Ron Paul

0

Source: http://communities.washingtontimes.com

With the presidential race heating up, there have been many questions raised about Texas Congressman, Ron Paul, with many of these questions emerging from rumors or false information. Democrats are not alone in questioning who Ron Paul is, as Republicans and Independents are known to wonder as well.

Is he really anti-Israel?

Is it true that he’s pro-choice?

Unfortunately, there are some who are so desperate to keep this man out of the White House that they continue to promote these distortions. Therefore, the record must be set straight and a case must be made for the doctor from Texas.

The first and most common problem that conservatives have regarding Ron Paul is the assertion that he is weak on national defense. These individuals might need to be reminded that out of all the leading candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who has served in the military. He spent five years in the Air Force and the Air National Guard as a flight surgeon and reached the rank of Captain.

This was enough to impress Ronald Reagan who campaigned and endorsed Ron Paul when he ran for Congress.

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” Reagan said.

Out of all the candidates running for President, Dr. Paul is the only one to receive an endorsement from the late conservative icon, who would not have endorsed a weak man.

After he left the military, he went back to practicing private medicine.

As a ob/gyn, he has delivered over 4,000 babies. It was during this period where Paul was convinced that a fetus was a living human being who’s life should be protected, and since this time, he has always been pro-life.

Many social conservatives believe that he doesn’t share the same values as they do, and feel uncomfortable voting for him. They need only look at his personal life to be reassured. Paul is a practicing Baptist, and has been married to the same woman for over fifty years. He has five children and over a dozen grandchildren.

There can be no better example of a man with family values.

(more…)

Go to Top