Fantasy, fallacy and factual fumbles from the Republican insurgent.
Summary
Ron Paul doesn't have much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination, but he persists with his well-funded campaign and even talks of turning it into a permanent "Revolution" that will continue far beyond 2008.
We've given his statements little attention until now. But here we look at some of his more outlandish claims:
Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.
Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.
Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.
Analysis
Ron Paul’s candidacy is something of an enigma. His impressive fundraising and his legions of dedicated volunteers suggest that he could be among the front-runners in contention for the Republican nomination. Yet his national poll numbers hover consistently just above the margin of error, and on Super Tuesday, he finished last in 17 of 21 contests, including California, where he lost to a candidate who had already withdrawn from the race. He admits he has little hope of winning the nomination.
"Ron Paul" is the most searched term on our site, and until recently, those searches revealed only that Paul had participated in a whole lot of Republican debates. We applied our efforts to candidates with odds of becoming the nominee.
Yet Paul says he will not drop out of the race, and indeed talks of a perpetual campaign. In a message to his followers Feb. 8, he said:
Paul: If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked.
So, given the ardency of Paul’s supporters and the scores of e-mails requesting that we write about him, we decided to take a look at Paul’s claims. Here’s some of what we found.
Paging Fox Mulder
According to Paul, a secret organization run by unaccountable government figures is in league with foreign corporations who are all bent on usurping American sovereignty. That's not from the script for a new X-Files movie. (Or not that we know of.) It's the gist of Paul's description of a supposed "NAFTA Superhighway." Paul describes it on his Web site as "a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside." And that's not all. According to Paul, the ultimate plan is to form a North American Union with a single currency and unlimited travel within its borders, all headed up by "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments" that together form the shadowy "quasi-government organization called the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ or SPP."
The problem with Paul's claim is that there are no plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway. Or a North American Union, for that matter. And while the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America does exist, it’s just a boring bureaucracy.
Like many conspiracy theories, this one is a mixture of fact and fiction. That scary-looking map, with lines that rumor suggested were drawn to scale, is the product of an actual group called North America's SuperCorridor Organization (NASCO), which is a consortium of public and private entities. But contrary to conspiracy theorists, the map does not show a new highway. Those bright blue lines show only I-35 and I-29 – interstates that already exist. On its Web site, NASCO says it and some of the local governments along I-35 have been referring to that route as the "NAFTA Superhighway" for years. NASCO advocates improvements to existing roads, but is not lobbying for, or planning to build, any new thoroughfares. From the NASCO Web site:
NASCO: "NAFTA Superhighway" - As of late, there has been much media attention given to the "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway". NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway - it exists today as I-35.
In terms of new roads, there are, in fact, plans for a Trans-Texas Corridor, a road that would be (in spots) several football fields wide. And the road would be financed by a private company (which is partially Spanish-owned) that would then charge tolls to recoup its investment. But the TTC was approved by the Texas Legislature and the governor of Texas. It is a state initiative, but it is not part of a NAFTA Superhighway, nor is it the product of a shadowy federal conspiracy.
Indeed, Ian Grossman, a spokesman with the Federal Highway Administration told the Los Angeles Times, "There is no such superhighway like the one [Paul is] talking about. It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else."
The other parts of the conspiracy are much the same. The SPP – that "quasi-government organization" – is really an actual government organization, organized through the White House. According to David Bohigian, an assistant secretary of commerce, the SPP is a bureaucratic dialog staffed by mid-level officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico who work to synchronize customs, security and regulations. "Simple stuff," Bohigian toldThe Nation last August, "like, for instance, in the U.S. we sell baby food in several different sizes; in Canada, it's just two different sizes." Not exactly cloak-and-dagger stuff.
The SPP has a factsheet on its Web site that attempts to put to rest all the tall tales surrounding it. And if that isn’t enough, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, Newsweek and the urban legend site Snopes.com all have previously debunked this particular bit of conspiracy-theorizing.
Of course, maybe they’re all in on it, too.
About That Trillion Dollar Empire
In debates, Paul has claimed the U.S. spends a trillion dollars on a "foreign operation" each year to maintain an "empire":
Paul (Jan. 30):So, yes, this money should be spent back here at home. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire. That's where the money is. You can't keep borrowing from China. You can't keep printing the money.
One should be suspicious of this number right away. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects total spending for the current fiscal year to be about $2.9 trillion. President Bush's proposed fiscal 2009 budget would top $3 trillion for the first time. In fiscal 2008, a total of almost $1.8 trillion goes to mandatory spending on programs like Medicare and Social Security and to interest on the debt. That leaves just under $1.1 trillion in total discretionary spending, of which $572 billion goes to defense spending. Even if we called the entire defense budget an overseas cost of maintaining an empire – and then kicked in the entire $50.6 billion budget for the State Department and international programs – Paul is still $378 billion short.
When we asked the Paul campaign for some documentation for the $1 trillion claim, it directed us to an opinion piece by a fellow at the libertarian-leaning Independent Institute. The article argues that in 2006, the U.S. actually spent just under $1 trillion on defense. To arrive at that figure, the study included a number of items that one might generally not think of as defense spending, including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, one-third of the funding for the FBI and half of NASA’s funding. The numbers also include medical and retirement pay for veterans and a large portion of interest on the debt.
So it turns out that what Paul says is a trillion dollars for a "foreign operation" includes a lot of things that seem pretty domestic to us. For example:
The entire U.S. Border Patrol
Every military base in the United States and all the 1.4 million full-time military personnel (not just those serving overseas)
Background checks for new immigrants
Inspections of incoming cargo
All airport security programs
The issuing of U.S. passports
The FBI's counter-terrorism unit
92 percent of the interest payments on the national debt
Obviously Paul isn't advocating defaulting on U.S. Savings Bonds or doing away with border security, or even closing all U.S. embassies overseas. But that makes it all the more misleading for him to suggest that cutting out this "foreign operation" could save $1 trillion per year.
A Flipper on the Gipper
Ron Paul Ad "The Only One"
Narrator:Who among these men has never supported a tax increase? Never supported an unbalanced budget? Never supported wasteful government spending?
Narrator:Congressman Ron Paul: The taxpayer’s best friend.
Narrator: We need to keep him fighting for our country.
Ron Paul:I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.
In a recent television ad titled "The Only One," Paul claims to be the only candidate never to vote for a tax increase, pass an unbalanced budget or support wasteful government spending. The ad closes with the narrator saying, "We need to keep him fighting for our country." The words are attributed to Ronald Reagan. Paul uses a longer version of the quotation on his Web page: From Ron Paul Web site:“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.” – Ronald Reagan
Paul's embrace of Reagan's legacy represents a significant change of heart. Actually, it's the second time that Paul has changed his mind about Reagan. After endorsing Reagan for president in 1976 and again in 1980, Paul became disenchanted, leaving the Republican party in 1987. The following year, he told the Los Angeles Times:
Paul (May 10, 1988):The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.
Paul's disaffection started early in Reagan's presidency. "Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats," Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. "It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes."
Sometime between 1988 (during Paul's run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan's legacy. The New York Timesreported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas "to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements."
We were unable to document Reagan's endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was "a little more focused on positive things." The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either.
Introduction to Logic
We close with a final point, though this one is directed at Ron Paul supporters. Recently, we’ve received a barrage of e-mail containing variations on this theme: "Am I to assume that by making no mention of Rep. Ron Paul in your synopses of GOP candidates, you found his statements meritorious?" The similarities between the messages led to a bit of searching, and we found what we suspect is the cause: A post at DailyPaul.com alleges that because the author found no instances where we called out Paul for misstatements, "FactCheck.org shows that Ron Paul is truthful."
We realize that DailyPaul.com is not officially affiliated with Paul’s campaign. But the error is egregious enough that it merits discussion. Here’s the basic argument from DailyPaul:
If FactCheck.org writes about a candidate, then that candidate makes some inaccurate claims.
FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul.
Therefore Ron Paul does not make inaccurate claims.
That argument might sound appealing, but, in fact, it is a logical fallacy (philosophers call this one "denying the antecedent"). Consider a different argument that has exactly the same logical structure:
If it is Thursday, then I have to go to work.
It is not Thursday.
Therefore I do not have to go to work.
We wouldn't recommend trying that argument out on your boss – unless, of course, you have a job that requires you to work only on Thursdays. And that’s the problem with the DailyPaul.com argument. It works only to the extent that you assume that we write about every single inaccurate claim uttered by every single political candidate. We don’t. We just hadn't gotten around to mentioning many Ron Paul flubs.
The internet inquisitors over at FactCheck find several faults with Paul's recent statements, but the most egregious seem to be Paul's conspiracy theory claims regarding a NAFTA Superhighway. Apparently, Paul has augured that a spooky consortium of foreign corporations and quasi-governmental organizations are plotting to establish a North American Union. The means of this nefarious scheme is to erect an enormous highway: "a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optics cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside."
Of course, it just ain't so. Nor is his assertion that the U.S. spends $1 trillion / year on "foreign operation to operate our empire" - a foolishly absurd number amounting to over 1/3 of total 2008 U.S. spending. Ron Paul's tendency to exaggerate the truth an infinitum, and always in the direction of sci-fi lunacy, might provide the reason so many voters mistook the libertarian Congressman for a cult-leader or disgruntled extra from the X-Files.
"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." Larry Elder
In terms of new roads, there are, in fact, plans for a Trans-Texas Corridor, a road that would be (in spots) several football fields wide. And the road would be financed by a private company (which is partially Spanish-owned) that would then charge tolls to recoup its investment. But the TTC was approved by the Texas Legislature and the governor of Texas. It is a state initiative, but it is not part of a NAFTA Superhighway, nor is it the product of a shadowy federal conspiracy.
Oh no, the FACTS the FACTS....................
"Good fences make good neighbors."-Robert Frost "Too BAD!!"-Glenn Beck
Well at least Fact Check got some facts right.Oh,these so great MSM articles.
WHAT'S WITH ALL THESE CLUELESS CHRISTIANS?
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
"For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." Mark 13:22 (KJV)
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." II Thessalonians 2:11 (KJV)
What's with all these clueless Christians? How is it that people who have the benefit of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the warning and insight of the Sacred Scriptures--not to mention a rich Christian heritage here in America--can be so ignorant, blind, and naïve? Yes, the majority of evangelical Christians seem to be all of the above. The problem has passed being serious: it is catastrophic!
How is it that we have drifted away from being an informed, active, knowledgeable, and dedicated group of highly motivated Christian patriots to a group of impotent and anemic sheep? Our Christian forebears must be turning over in their graves, because we are in the process of squandering the greatest human sacrifice--save that of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ--ever made: the sacrifice of America's Founding Fathers.
The problem is manifold, of course. For the most part, our pastors have become glorified politicians and business executives. As attorneys are not schooled in the Constitution, today's ministers are not schooled in the Scriptures. They are motivational speakers, salesmen, and business managers. The Bible is only used as a side reference, if at all. It is not taught or preached literally. Pastors go through the Bible the way people go through a salad bar: gleaning a few sweet-tasting morsels and rejecting everything that appears the least bit distasteful.
Then there is the "fit-in-with-the-brethren" mentality. The politicos in Washington, D.C., have nothing on many pastors' fellowship groups. Fitting in with the denomination seems to be a far greater priority than being an independent man of God. And, of course, let's not forget the importance of not "making waves" with the deacons, elders, or church trustees. In a word, today's pastors have been very effectively neutered.
Another problem is the way our pastors and churches have become "success" driven. Churches used to focus on truth and discipleship. No more. The church-growth movement of the last three decades has produced a generation of Christians much more concerned about crowds, buildings, and activities than they are fidelity to truth. Church has become a numbers game where success is measured by attendance and offerings.
There is yet another problem: today's churches are completely enamored with power. No, not the power of God. They are completely infatuated with the power of men. Rich men. Popular men. Influential men. Celebrities. Politicians. Millionaires. Sports stars, etc.
Yet, listen to what God tells us about rich and powerful men. "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?" James 2:6 (KJV)
Historically, it has always been the super-wealthy, super-powerful elements of society that have brought tyranny and persecution to God's people. It is the political and business elite who have trampled people's freedoms and liberties, enslaved their children, and ravaged their lands and properties.
Nothing has changed: the super-elite in the United States and Europe are continuing to do what they have always done. Both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by those who desire to create a globalistic society in which they will control the world's materials and peoples.
Both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush have contributed to the tyrannical goals and ambitions of the super-elite. So has Bill Clinton. If John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected, they will follow in the globalist footsteps of their predecessors.
The Christian professions of our political leaders mean nothing. Absolutely nothing! Putting an "R" behind his or her name also means nothing. Neither does calling oneself a "conservative" mean anything. Our political leaders are mostly walking in lockstep with the evil designs of the super-wealthy. Ditto for the executives who control our major media.
And our Christians and ministers seem to be absolutely clueless.
James Dobson endorses Mike Huckabee, as does Jerry Falwell, Jr., while Gary Bauer endorses John McCain. Yet, the truth is, one is as bad as the other. In fact, Huckabee is posturing himself to be McCain's running mate after McCain wins the nomination. Does anyone really believe that Mike Huckabee would turn down an invitation from John McCain to be his running mate? Get serious! Mike Huckabee would support the liberal, Big-Government John McCain with all of the enthusiasm he could muster. Why? Because Huckabee, himself, is a Big-Government liberal who has joined ideological forces with the super-elite who run both parties.
And no one within the Religious Right seems to get it. Say you are "pro-life" and "pro-family" and you are "in." Forget the Constitution. Forget national sovereignty and independence. Forget the principles of sound money. Forget the Bill of Rights. Forget "Just War" theory. Forget non-interventionism. Forget protecting American jobs and manufacturing. Forget putting America first. It's all about getting along with the establishment, having a seat at the table, and enjoying the perks of power.
Christians are supposed to be different. We are supposed to think differently. We are clearly commanded to "be not conformed to this world."
In addition, as Americans, our heritage and history is that of being "non-conformist." We loved liberty, freedom, and independence. We recognized no sovereign authority, save that of Jesus Christ. We believed in self-reliance and hard work. We didn't expect government handouts or charity. We believed in disciplining our children and did not expect that they would learn their values from government schools. We viewed human government with deep suspicion and demanded that it be held in check by powerful Bible preaching and by the constraints and restrictions of the U.S. Constitution.
Remember, it was the political and business elite who killed the Old Testament prophets, persecuted the early church, and crucified the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the political and business elite who oppressed our Pilgrim forebears. It was the political and business elite who tried to stamp out liberty and independence from the American colonies. And it is those same political and business elite who are forcing globalism, socialism, and fascism upon the American people today.
And our pastors and churches seem to be absolutely clueless.
Furthermore, when someone appears from outside the elitist mainstream, someone such as Congressman Ron Paul, he is ostracized, ignored, and even lampooned by the very people who should embrace and support him most: evangelical Christians.
The truth is, America is in the doo-doo we are in because of the cluelessness and cowardice of today's Christians. Or, has the elect been deceived? Have they succumbed to delusion? The result is the same either way.
Fantasy, fallacy and factual fumbles from the Republican insurgent.
Summary
Ron Paul doesn't have much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination, but he persists with his well-funded campaign and even talks of turning it into a permanent "Revolution" that will continue far beyond 2008.
We've given his statements little attention until now. But here we look at some of his more outlandish claims:
Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.
Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.
Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.
Analysis
Ron Paul’s candidacy is something of an enigma. His impressive fundraising and his legions of dedicated volunteers suggest that he could be among the front-runners in contention for the Republican nomination. Yet his national poll numbers hover consistently just above the margin of error, and on Super Tuesday, he finished last in 17 of 21 contests, including California, where he lost to a candidate who had already withdrawn from the race. He admits he has little hope of winning the nomination.
"Ron Paul" is the most searched term on our site, and until recently, those searches revealed only that Paul had participated in a whole lot of Republican debates. We applied our efforts to candidates with odds of becoming the nominee.
Yet Paul says he will not drop out of the race, and indeed talks of a perpetual campaign. In a message to his followers Feb. 8, he said:
Paul: If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked.
So, given the ardency of Paul’s supporters and the scores of e-mails requesting that we write about him, we decided to take a look at Paul’s claims. Here’s some of what we found.
Paging Fox Mulder
According to Paul, a secret organization run by unaccountable government figures is in league with foreign corporations who are all bent on usurping American sovereignty. That's not from the script for a new X-Files movie. (Or not that we know of.) It's the gist of Paul's description of a supposed "NAFTA Superhighway." Paul describes it on his Web site as "a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside." And that's not all. According to Paul, the ultimate plan is to form a North American Union with a single currency and unlimited travel within its borders, all headed up by "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments" that together form the shadowy "quasi-government organization called the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ or SPP."
The problem with Paul's claim is that there are no plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway. Or a North American Union, for that matter. And while the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America does exist, it’s just a boring bureaucracy.
Like many conspiracy theories, this one is a mixture of fact and fiction. That scary-looking map, with lines that rumor suggested were drawn to scale, is the product of an actual group called North America's SuperCorridor Organization (NASCO), which is a consortium of public and private entities. But contrary to conspiracy theorists, the map does not show a new highway. Those bright blue lines show only I-35 and I-29 – interstates that already exist. On its Web site, NASCO says it and some of the local governments along I-35 have been referring to that route as the "NAFTA Superhighway" for years. NASCO advocates improvements to existing roads, but is not lobbying for, or planning to build, any new thoroughfares. From the NASCO Web site:
NASCO: "NAFTA Superhighway" - As of late, there has been much media attention given to the "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway". NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway - it exists today as I-35.
In terms of new roads, there are, in fact, plans for a Trans-Texas Corridor, a road that would be (in spots) several football fields wide. And the road would be financed by a private company (which is partially Spanish-owned) that would then charge tolls to recoup its investment. But the TTC was approved by the Texas Legislature and the governor of Texas. It is a state initiative, but it is not part of a NAFTA Superhighway, nor is it the product of a shadowy federal conspiracy.
Indeed, Ian Grossman, a spokesman with the Federal Highway Administration told the Los Angeles Times, "There is no such superhighway like the one [Paul is] talking about. It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else."
The other parts of the conspiracy are much the same. The SPP – that "quasi-government organization" – is really an actual government organization, organized through the White House. According to David Bohigian, an assistant secretary of commerce, the SPP is a bureaucratic dialog staffed by mid-level officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico who work to synchronize customs, security and regulations. "Simple stuff," Bohigian toldThe Nation last August, "like, for instance, in the U.S. we sell baby food in several different sizes; in Canada, it's just two different sizes." Not exactly cloak-and-dagger stuff.
The SPP has a factsheet on its Web site that attempts to put to rest all the tall tales surrounding it. And if that isn’t enough, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, Newsweek and the urban legend site Snopes.com all have previously debunked this particular bit of conspiracy-theorizing.
Of course, maybe they’re all in on it, too.
About That Trillion Dollar Empire
In debates, Paul has claimed the U.S. spends a trillion dollars on a "foreign operation" each year to maintain an "empire":
Paul (Jan. 30):So, yes, this money should be spent back here at home. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire. That's where the money is. You can't keep borrowing from China. You can't keep printing the money.
One should be suspicious of this number right away. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects total spending for the current fiscal year to be about $2.9 trillion. President Bush's proposed fiscal 2009 budget would top $3 trillion for the first time. In fiscal 2008, a total of almost $1.8 trillion goes to mandatory spending on programs like Medicare and Social Security and to interest on the debt. That leaves just under $1.1 trillion in total discretionary spending, of which $572 billion goes to defense spending. Even if we called the entire defense budget an overseas cost of maintaining an empire – and then kicked in the entire $50.6 billion budget for the State Department and international programs – Paul is still $378 billion short.
When we asked the Paul campaign for some documentation for the $1 trillion claim, it directed us to an opinion piece by a fellow at the libertarian-leaning Independent Institute. The article argues that in 2006, the U.S. actually spent just under $1 trillion on defense. To arrive at that figure, the study included a number of items that one might generally not think of as defense spending, including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, one-third of the funding for the FBI and half of NASA’s funding. The numbers also include medical and retirement pay for veterans and a large portion of interest on the debt.
So it turns out that what Paul says is a trillion dollars for a "foreign operation" includes a lot of things that seem pretty domestic to us. For example:
The entire U.S. Border Patrol
Every military base in the United States and all the 1.4 million full-time military personnel (not just those serving overseas)
Background checks for new immigrants
Inspections of incoming cargo
All airport security programs
The issuing of U.S. passports
The FBI's counter-terrorism unit
92 percent of the interest payments on the national debt
Obviously Paul isn't advocating defaulting on U.S. Savings Bonds or doing away with border security, or even closing all U.S. embassies overseas. But that makes it all the more misleading for him to suggest that cutting out this "foreign operation" could save $1 trillion per year.
A Flipper on the Gipper
Ron Paul Ad "The Only One"
Narrator:Who among these men has never supported a tax increase? Never supported an unbalanced budget? Never supported wasteful government spending?
Narrator:Congressman Ron Paul: The taxpayer’s best friend.
Narrator: We need to keep him fighting for our country.
Ron Paul:I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.
In a recent television ad titled "The Only One," Paul claims to be the only candidate never to vote for a tax increase, pass an unbalanced budget or support wasteful government spending. The ad closes with the narrator saying, "We need to keep him fighting for our country." The words are attributed to Ronald Reagan. Paul uses a longer version of the quotation on his Web page: From Ron Paul Web site:“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.” – Ronald Reagan
Paul's embrace of Reagan's legacy represents a significant change of heart. Actually, it's the second time that Paul has changed his mind about Reagan. After endorsing Reagan for president in 1976 and again in 1980, Paul became disenchanted, leaving the Republican party in 1987. The following year, he told the Los Angeles Times:
Paul (May 10, 1988):The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.
Paul's disaffection started early in Reagan's presidency. "Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats," Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. "It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes."
Sometime between 1988 (during Paul's run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan's legacy. The New York Timesreported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas "to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements."
We were unable to document Reagan's endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was "a little more focused on positive things." The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either.
Introduction to Logic
We close with a final point, though this one is directed at Ron Paul supporters. Recently, we’ve received a barrage of e-mail containing variations on this theme: "Am I to assume that by making no mention of Rep. Ron Paul in your synopses of GOP candidates, you found his statements meritorious?" The similarities between the messages led to a bit of searching, and we found what we suspect is the cause: A post at DailyPaul.com alleges that because the author found no instances where we called out Paul for misstatements, "FactCheck.org shows that Ron Paul is truthful."
We realize that DailyPaul.com is not officially affiliated with Paul’s campaign. But the error is egregious enough that it merits discussion. Here’s the basic argument from DailyPaul:
If FactCheck.org writes about a candidate, then that candidate makes some inaccurate claims.
FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul.
Therefore Ron Paul does not make inaccurate claims.
That argument might sound appealing, but, in fact, it is a logical fallacy (philosophers call this one "denying the antecedent"). Consider a different argument that has exactly the same logical structure:
If it is Thursday, then I have to go to work.
It is not Thursday.
Therefore I do not have to go to work.
We wouldn't recommend trying that argument out on your boss – unless, of course, you have a job that requires you to work only on Thursdays. And that’s the problem with the DailyPaul.com argument. It works only to the extent that you assume that we write about every single inaccurate claim uttered by every single political candidate. We don’t. We just hadn't gotten around to mentioning many Ron Paul flubs.
The internet inquisitors over at FactCheck find several faults with Paul's recent statements, but the most egregious seem to be Paul's conspiracy theory claims regarding a NAFTA Superhighway. Apparently, Paul has augured that a spooky consortium of foreign corporations and quasi-governmental organizations are plotting to establish a North American Union. The means of this nefarious scheme is to erect an enormous highway: "a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optics cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside."
Of course, it just ain't so. Nor is his assertion that the U.S. spends $1 trillion / year on "foreign operation to operate our empire" - a foolishly absurd number amounting to over 1/3 of total 2008 U.S. spending. Ron Paul's tendency to exaggerate the truth an infinitum, and always in the direction of sci-fi lunacy, might provide the reason so many voters mistook the libertarian Congressman for a cult-leader or disgruntled extra from the X-Files.
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Patsy, You keep believing your delusions that the TTC is not part of a bigger plan while sitting behind your computer trying to dig up media coverups on this project. I have an idea... why don't you ATTEND a TTC hearing? THEN gather your facts and draw your conclusions. Otherwise - you have NO idea what you're talking about. The TTC will utilize PORTIONS of existing road - however it will also include 1000's of acres of farmland to house rail, tollways for trucks AND tollways for cars, hotels, gas stations etc... it will be impossible to enter or exit except at various points on the road throughout Texas.
Why did the TTC ORIGINALLY PLAN on traveling up through Oklahoma - and then when the OK elected officials stated publicly - if this road is built in Texas - IT ENDS IN TEXAS.... you know what? IT WAS REROUTED to Arkansas!
February 12, 2008 - Maryland and Virginia Primary Preferences
Maryland
Democrats
Feb 8-9
Feb 10-11
Clinton
37%
38%
Obama
55%
55%
Someone else
2%
2%
Undecided
6%
5%
In Maryland, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton among men 58% to 32% (42% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads Clinton among women 53% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 39% (59% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 81% to 16% (38% of likely Democratic primary voters). 17% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.
Virginia
Democrats
Feb 8-9
Feb 10-11
Clinton
38%
40%
Obama
56%
57%
Someone else
2%
1%
Undecided
4%
2%
In Virginia, Obama leads Clinton among men 60% to 37% (45% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads Clinton among women 54% to 42%. Among white voters (67% of likely Democratic primary voters), Clinton leads Obama 52% to 46%. Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 81% to 14%. 16% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary and 14% say they would never vote for Obama in the primary.
For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.
Maryland
Republicans
Feb 8-9
Feb 10-11
Huckabee
25%
27%
McCain
50%
53%
Paul
11%
11%
Someone else
6%
6%
Undecided
7%
3%
In Maryland, John McCain leads Mike Huckabee among men 50% to 26% (56% of likely Republican primary voters), with 12% for Ron Paul. Among women, McCain leads Huckabee 57% to 28%, with 9% for Paul.
Virginia
Republicans
Feb 8-9
Feb 10-11
Huckabee
32%
39%
McCain
54%
47%
Paul
5%
4%
Someone else
4%
2%
Undecided
5%
8%
In Virginia, McCain leads Huckabee 51% to 31% among men (55% of likely Republican primary voters), which is down from a McCain lead of 61% to 23% in the February 8-9 survey. Among women, Huckabee is at 48% and McCain is at 43%. In the February 8-9 survey, McCain was at 45% among women and Huckabee was at 44% among women.
For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.
February 8, 2008 - Wisconsin Primary Preferences
Democrats
WI
Clinton
50%
Obama
41%
Someone else
1%
Undecided
8%
Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton among men 51% to 43% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads Obama among women 57% to 33%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 52% to 39% (90% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 75% to 19% (6% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 57% to 37%.
17% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 9% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 29% of men and 7% of women say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary. 12% of women and 6% of men say they would never vote for Obama in the primary.
For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.
Republicans
WI
Huckabee
4%
McCain
51%
Paul
7%
Romney
29%
Someone else
1%
Undecided
8%
With Mitt Romney's name included in the ballot question, John McCain leads Romney 47% to 31% among Republicans and 61% to 25% among independents and Democrats likely to vote in the Republican primary. McCain leads Romney among men 45% to 37% and McCain leads Romney 57% to 21% among women.
For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls.
January 20, 2008
Bush Job Approval Ratings
1/19/08
Approve
Disapprove
Undecided
Overall
34%
59%
7%
Economy
29%
63%
8%
George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has improved slightly from December even as 49% of Americans say their household financial situations are getting worse. Details from the nationwide survey conducted January 16-19 are available at The National Economy.
January 13, 2008 - National Presidential Preferences
The following results are based on nationwide telephone samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters and 600 likely Republican primary voters (those saying they will definitely vote in a primary or participate in a caucus in 2008) conducted January 9-12, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for each sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time.
Hillary Clinton continues to lead the Democratic field. Clinton leads Obama 43% to 28% among men and 50% to 27% among women. Among Democrats (82% of likely national Democratic primary voters), Clinton leads Obama 50% to 25%. Among independents, Obama leads Clinton 37% to 32%, with 17% for Edwards.
National Primary
Democrats
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Biden
2%
3%
3%
2%
4%
5%
5%
4%
5%
ni
Clinton
36%
39%
39%
38%
36%
39%
45%
46%
41%
47%
Dodd
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
ni
Edwards
19%
19%
13%
16%
16%
15%
13%
11%
13%
13%
Gravel
-
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
-
-
-
-
Kucinich
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
1%
Obama
24%
22%
19%
25%
21%
21%
20%
21%
22%
27%
Richardson
2%
2%
5%
3%
7%
5%
3%
4%
3%
1%
Undecided
14%
11%
16%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
10%
11%
Question wording: If the 2008 Democratic presidential preference primary/caucus were being held today between (names rotated) Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote?
John McCain leads among Republicans. While men are tied (McCain 23%, Giuliani 20%, Huckabee 19%, and Romney 19%), McCain leads among women with 28% (with Huckabee at 20% and Giuliani and Romney at 15% each). Among Republicans, McCain is at 23%, Giuliani at 20%, Huckabee at 19%, and Romney at 18%. Among independents, McCain is at 38% and Huckabee is at 20%.
National Primary
Republicans
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Giuliani
27%
28%
24%
30%
27%
24%
24%
25%
21%
18%
Huckabee
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
4%
6%
6%
21%
19%
Hunter
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Keyes
ni
ni
ni
ni
ni
ni
1%
1%
-
-
McCain
23%
24%
20%
14%
13%
14%
14%
12%
18%
25%
Paul
-
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
5%
5%
Romney
12%
8%
10%
10%
16%
9%
15%
21%
16%
17%
Tancredo
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
ni
Thompson
9%
6%
15%
17%
16%
23%
16%
17%
6%
4%
Undecided
14%
13%
11%
11%
14%
15%
17%
12%
11%
11%
Question wording: If the 2008 Republican presidential preference primary/caucus were being held today between (names rotated) Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote?
ARG's Electoral Vote Calculator has been updated to reflect the 2004 results. Assign states to the Republican or Democrat for 2008 and watch it calculate
Subscribe to Topics
According to Paul, a secret organization run by unaccountable government figures is in league with foreign corporations who are all bent on usurping American sovereignty. That's not from the script for a new X-Files movie. (Or not that we know of.) It's the gist of Paul's description of a supposed "NAFTA Superhighway." Paul 
One should be suspicious of this number right away. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
Following up on 
