"Obama Has Neutralized the Anti-War Left"

I came across this video from Time magazine: “10 Questions for Ron Paul” that’s worth sharing. Dr. Paul puts his finger on the problem with Obama’s foreign policy: it neutralizes the anti-war left. (I’ll be discussing this on the show this Saturday–9pm on 750am). I would go further than Dr. Paul, though, and say that it was the plan of the power elite all along to give the people an anti-war, anti-Bush candidate who in the end would follow orders when in the White House.
I believe that’s why Hillary, like the anti-war left, had to be neutralized: because she proved in her time with her husband in the White House that the Clintons could not be counted on to fall on their swords for a cause if it meant jeopardizing a second term. Health care and the ongoing wars are two areas I believe Hillary might have felt she had to tread lightly–Bill gave up on the healthcare plan when the Democrats lost big time in his first midterm election, and Hillary might have been expected to do the same. Not so, Obama, who mysteriously came out of nowhere a few years ago to defeat the heir apparent. He fit the bill perfectly: he had no independent power base in D.C. and had never proven to be his own man.
10 questions with rp

Ron Paul’s Delegate Hunt

Since we’re on the topic of Ron Paul, here’s an interesting article about the Congressman’s delegate strategy. Normally I don’t like getting down and dirty, but I admire these guys trying to beat the filthy establishment at its own game. The problem with giving the government all the power is that access to the power make the power-hungry stop at nothing to get it, while the good people effectively forfeit by remaining gentlemen. The Ron Paul team aren’t even breaking the rules, but the establishment is shocked that the principled idealists have any practical skills and are willing to use them. Funny thing is, Ron Paul, afraid of no one, doesn’t even hide his pragmatic tactics–he said all along he was going for the delegates.
Paul’s Georgia Partisans Grab Gingrich Turf

Latest Show Excerpts

Here are some excerpts from February 25’s show.
In the first excerpt I talk about what a stud Governor Gary Johnson is, how our power elite is more aligned with the international power elite than with us citizens, and that no matter how greedy business is, government gives them the weapons to exploit us. (Toward the end of the clip you will hear me say “it’s all the businessmen” but I misspoke, I meant to say, “It’s all the government.”)
In the second excerpt I mention speaking at the Ron Paul Rally in Marietta. That happened this past Sunday, February 26. You can watch my speech here.
Monica Perez discusses big government, the power elite & Governor Gary Johnson
Monica Perez talks to a caller about being neither dove nor hawk.

Ron Paul Rally Video–I Hope My Mother Doesn't See This!

This is the video from yesterday’s Ron Paul Rally in Marietta Georgia. It was a great day. Ron Paul supporters are so cool: enthusiastic, nice, mellow–it was just awesome. At around 18:30 in this video I tell the story of my becoming aware of Ron Paul complete with a little imitation of my mother… [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE6h6XTwqUU&feature=related]

Ron Paul Highlights from Arizona Debate (2/22/2012)

My favorite moment in the debate was when John King asked Ron Paul why he called Rick Santorum a fake and Ron Paul looks into the camera, cute as a button, and says, “Cause he’s a fake!” It was downhill from there for Santorum. In case you need some evidence that Santorum is a fake, check out my recent blogpost: Will the Real Rick Santorum Please Stand Up?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJIENYEhkJ4]

Excerpts from Last Week's Show: Republicans Better Wake Up to the Ron Paul Movement!

Don’t miss the Monica Perez Show Saturday nights from 10pm -12m ET on 750am News/Talk WSB or listen to it streaming live at showtime from here. In the meantime, here are a couple of excerpts from last week’s show. Monica Perez: Republicans Better Wake Up to Ron Paul Monica Perez Discusses Ron Paul with Callers

Ron Paul Newsletters: "Reality Check"

The New Yorker is the latest publication to attack Ron Paul for his newsletters. Over a brief period of time in the early 1990s, a handful of Ron Paul’s thousands of newsletters contained offensive passages. It’s highly unfortunate that some short-sighted and opportunistic people sullied Ron Paul’s name this way and it was totally negligent (or similarly opportunistic) of Dr. Paul to let material go out under his name that did not reflect his own views.
Should Dr. Paul be forgiven this transgression? It has been almost twenty years since this misstep and neither before nor after that time have Dr. Paul’s own words or actions shown any sign of the attitude that was presented in these newsletters. As a matter of fact, a video from around the time the controversial newsletters were published clearly shows that Dr. Paul viewed the newsletters as financial and economic in nature with a focus on monetary policy in Washington. The voters must decide the seriousness of the matter and its relevance to Dr. Paul’s candidacy. The media, of course, would like this issue to be a deal-breaker for the Ron Paul campaign–after all, Dr. Paul is not their friend.
The January 27th New Yorker piece by Alex Koppelman, Ron Paul’s Filthy Lucre, claims that Lew Rockwell, “who remains close to Paul,” wrote the offensive articles. Koppelman bases this claim on speculation in a 2008 reason magazine article, Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters? It is hard to believe, however, that Koppelman has not seen the recently revealed photocopies of the main newsletter in question, which clearly shows Lew Rockwell not to be the author. Of the six newsletters that contain offensive statements, one in particular contains most of the incendiary language. This newsletter, though widely cited and reprinted, had always appeared without a “by line,” as if the author were unknown. As early as January 5th, however, the author was revealed: James B. Powell. Although several sites claim this is the same James B. Powell who is a senior editor at Forbes and a fellow at the Cato Institute (and this seems most likely), there is another James B. Powell who is a publisher of investment newsletters even now. I have not found any definitive evidence as to which of these two James B. Powells wrote the newsletters, or if it was a different James B. Powell altogether. In any case, the author is most definitely not Lew Rockwell, nor Ron Paul.
Should Koppelman be forgiven for being negligent or perhaps opportunistic in his article? Perhaps his career should be over. After all, he is a journalist who knowingly or negligently reported something misleading. (I’m going to put a note in my calendar to bring this up again in twenty years, especially if Koppelman keeps his nose clean and turns out to be a good guy, assuming our politics are still different.)
For a more complete version of the Ron Paul Newsletter story, check out the following video, “Ben Swann Reality Check,” which lays out a more complete picture of the Ron Paul Newsletter controversy before the byline was revealed. The second video is a follow up discussing the byline.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU]
And here’s Ben Swann’s follow up after the James Powell byline was revealed.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DOS9WwKAqA]

Ron Paul Enjoys Luxury at Taxpayers' Expense?

I woke up this morning to find a laughable article on Yahoo, Ron Paul’s First-Class Airplane Trips: Do as I Say Not as I Do, criticizing Ron Paul for splurging on first class flights from Houston to DC. I laughed because of the relatively minor amount of money in question: “he spent $25,000 more than he should have.” After all, Ron Paul returned over $140,000 of his Congressional budget last year alone, and John Murtha, God have mercy on his soul, spent $150,000,000 of taxpayers’ money on an airport he had built and named for himself. But the real kicker here, is that the story isn’t even true! Ron Paul upgrades using frequent flyer miles! Ends up this story was based on a total fabrication by Associated Press and had already been debunked by MSNBC by the time Yahoo published its story. Here’s the whole story:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IJQYY9dx4]

What Is Really Going On in Iran?

There is an article in today’s Wall Street Journal titled The Mortal Threat from Iran, by Mark Helprin, which begins with this line: “To assume that Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz is to assume that primitive religious fanatics will perform cost-benefit analyses the way they are done at Wharton.” If that didn’t get my propagan-dar pinging, nothing would. Dehumanizing the target and terrifying us with death threats are classic earmarks of war propaganda. Given that not a single dissenting voice on this issue can be heard from the mainstream media–the left-dominated TV arm and the right-dominated radio arm–one wonders why the Wall Street Journal is coming out so strongly on this. I mean, of course this country of 70 million people is working to develop a bomb they will gleefully pop off at Israel so they can cheer wildly as they watch 300 missiles rain down on themselves in retaliation–they are irrational, primitive, religious fanatics, after all, every one of whom would love to commit suicide as soon as possible. Why even bother pounding the drums, let’s just wipe them off the face of the earth and be done with it already. Oh, but what is that kooky Ron Paul always on about? “Maybe there are people over there” or some such nonsense–hmm. I know it’s a silly waste of time, but before I paint my face and grab a flag, I just want to see if there’s any possible explanation for Ron Paul’s weird position. (I mean, what kind of freak applies the Golden Rule to foreigners anyway?)
So, just for giggles, I went to Foreign Policy Journal online for an alternative viewpoint on the subject and I found one from none other than the always outspoken and never politically correct Paul Craig Roberts. This is it:
The Next War on Washington’s Agenda
by Paul Craig Roberts
Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.”
Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack Iran.

Continue reading this article at Foreign Policy Journal.
For another view, watch Col. Shaffer on Freedomwatch:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrX9t9v3rY]