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]

Does the Government Target People Because of Their Political Views and Actions? I Sure Hope Not!

I have been noticing increasing incidents of government overreach, government abuse of power and even witch-hunts through which the government goes after people for political reasons. In this podcast I touch on a few recent examples. Please comment or email me with more as you notice them. I’d like to make this a regular part … Read more

Will the Real Rick Santorum Please Stand Up?

    On the show yesterday I played four clips. Here they are. The first video shows Santorum saying how much he dislikes and works against Libertarian tendencies and Tea Party influence in the Republican Party, the second clip is more freedom-bashing as called-out by the Great Judge Napolitano on Freedom Watch, and the third and fourth clips come from the last video (Santorum’s CPAC speech) where he claims to love freedom and be a Tea Partier! Isn’t lying a sin Mr. Holy-Than-Thou?
    Santorum saying he has a problem with the Tea Party…
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc]
    Santorum saying the government should NOT stay out of our bedrooms…
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhtep2_Mw9Q]
    Rick Santorum at CPAC calling himself a Tea Partier (between 3:00 minutes and 3:30) and saying he wants to keep government out of our lives (between 10:00 minutes and 10:30). Oh and as an added bonus he starts the speech saying that conservatism hasn’t failed the country, rather conservatives failed conservatism. Sorry to let you down, buddy.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pdy09iQrNw&feature=related]

Where Does Eric Holder Get Off?

I have been fascinated by the grotesque disregard for human life the ATF showed in executing Operation Fast & Furious, and am further amazed that this is not blowing up like Iran-Contra. I read the Wall Street Journal cover to cover each day and rarely see even a mention of this shocking scandal. What’s worse is the self-righteous arrogance with which Attorney General Eric Holder treats Congress–it’s downright shocking! The media has the power to expose this sick operation but simply is not making it a top story. The Watergate scandal was fully revealed before the 1972 election and Richard Nixon still won in a landslide–the people just didn’t care–but the media wouldn’t let it go and ultimately Nixon resigned. The media has the power to move this thing into the spotlight and expose the murderous methods of law enforcement in prosecuting the Drug War. I’m beginning to wonder if there’s some reason even those on the right don’t want the lid fully blown off this thing. Or maybe they are just waiting until they have all the evidence they need–or perhaps until the election is closer on the horizon. I don’t know, but Congress and the media need to turn over every rock in this investigation until it’s clear what the DOJ, the ATF, the DEA and the rest of them are up to.
Here is the latest video of Eric Holder mouthing off to Congress:
Eric Holder treats Congress with contempt (again)
Here is Greta Van Susteren interviewing Congressman Darrell Issa, the man leading the charge on the Operation Fast & Furious investigation.
Greta Van Susteren interviews Congressman Darrell Issa on Operation Fast and Furious
For the full horrible story, listen to my podcast from November–shockingly, the investigation hasn’t progressed much since then!

Letter to the WSJ: It IS Too Easy Being Green, But Why?

There was an article this weekend in the Wall Street Journal called It’s Too Easy Being Green, by David Owen. Here’s the letter I wrote to the editor in response–maybe they’ll publish it, maybe they won’t, but in any case, I can share it here.
Dear Sir:
David Owen, in his article, It’s Too Easy Being Green, points out the paradox of trying to be green in a consumption-driven world and cites the ease and push to consume as the real problem. I agree with Mr. Owen that over-consumption is a problem (though my concern is more for the wasteful and rapid use of finite resources than fear of global warming.) In any case, Mr. Owen failed to cite the real reason driving and flying are so cheap, and why fuel itself is so affordable: government policy.
Governments build roads and airports socializing the cost of infrastructure and removing that part of the equation from end-user consumption decisions. By building ever-widening networks of highways, the government encourages developers to build further out of town and allows workers to make farther commutes; by building more airports, the government subsidizes airfare allowing businesses and families to budget for more travel. (Many believe private transportation infrastructure is impossible but all airports used to be private and before the Civil War there were over 400 private road companies in the U.S.)
Another way the government promotes energy use is by employing America’s military to ensure that Middle Eastern oil is in friendly hands. These costly adventures, while greatly increasing the ultimate tax burden on Americans overall, greatly reduces the cost of fuel to the individual consumer.
Finally, government itself is responsible for the low cost of polluting, having decided more than a century ago not to allow strict interpretation of property rights to interfere with pollutants spewed onto private property from factories.
We don’t need government solutions to government-driven problems–take government down to its true function of protecting people and their property and the market will limit consumption and pollution.
Sincerely,
Monica Perez

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]