Need advice, converting a Neocon boss..

Ask him to proof read this speech that our local group has been giving to the area. We need more eyes on it to get it finished.

1) Most people agree that Paul is the one who is most loyal to the US Constitution, Oath of Office, and fiscal responsibility. Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Paul is the champion of sound currency, liberty, private contracts, property rights, civil rights, states rights, and gun rights(A+ GOA rating). Paul is the only veteran running. Paul is a doctor. He’s a statesman who debates issues not personalities. Paul is consistent and trust worthy. Ron Paul’s voting record for the U.S. Constitution is unmatched in the history of the United States. All the other candidates have voted for unbalanced budgets and cast unconstitutional votes. Why trust them now to uphold the Constitution if they’ve demonstrated unconstitutional acts in the past?
2) There are 2 areas of concern I hear about Dr. Paul.
First, Can he beat Obama? He gets independents and Democrats at a 3 to 1 pace to date in the primaries. The GOP needs a candidate who draws Independents and Democrats. Paul is that guy. He does very well in polls against Obama. CNN has Paul tied head to head with Obama.
Second, foreign policy questions. This is the big sticking point for certain GOP voters.
a) It’s important to understand the distinction between military and defense spending. We give military aid to the Middle East at a 2-1 ratio over Israel. That money isn’t used defending our borders. Its military spending used to influence the actions of foreign governments.
b) Isolationism vs non-interventionist. Paul has been incorrectly portrayed as an isolationist. Definition of ISOLATIONISM: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations. For example, current U.S. policy with Cuba.
Definition of NONINTERVENTION: the state or policy of not intervening in the affairs of other countries. Example, Our Founders were non interventionists. http://www.merriam-webster.com
c) CIA blowback definition: “an unforeseen and unwanted effect, result, or set of repercussions” An example is the Overthrow of Iranian Premier Mossadeq in 1953 by the CIA. The Shah(a dictator) was installed, it led to a revolution, our hostages in 79, the Iran/Iraq war, and Kuwait.
d) Robert Papes work: His DoD funded research is the expert source on suicide terrorism. Watch Prof. Robert Pape on "Dying to Win" YouTube 95 % of suicide terrorism occurs when foreign militaries are present and is almost non existent when the foreign military exit. This is the official findings of the DoD funded research. Research paid for by the Rumsfeld DoD. This is the solution for suicide terrorism. 95% of the attacks can be stopped with policy changes. Dr. Papes work is the reason why the Navy has been proposing the policy of offshore balancing.
e) This next point needs to be understood in context. This is not a bash against our military. It’s a disagreement over the use of our military. Our soldiers are making the greatest sacrifice a human can make when going to battle. Google “Covert United States foreign regime change” You will find hundreds of documented cases of assassinations, coups, dictatorships, false flags, and militarization of rebels who eventually turn on us. General Smedley Butler ,the most decorated Marine in history at his death, published a book detailing the misuse of our military around the world. “War is a racket” published in 1935.
f) Paul will only commit troops with a Congressional declaration of war. Only kings and tyrants commit troops without congress. Last declaration was WWII. Last war won was WWII.
g) If Paul is so wrong on Foreign Policy. Why does he get more money from active duty military than every other candidate combined? That’s every Democrat & Republican. A 10-1 ratio over Romney, a 100-1 over Santorum. His top three sources: Active Duty Army, Navy, and Air Force.
h) Ron Paul views national defense as one of the most important roles of the Federal Government. His goal is to station our troops at home to protect this county. Why continue guarding South Korea instead of South Texas? Every dollar we spend protecting other countries is a dollar used in economic competition against us.
Bottom line. A vote for the others is a vote for the status quo of the last hundred years. It’s a continuation of overseas adventures, entitlements, loss of civil rights, and most importantly it’s a vote for bankruptcy. This isn’t about Republican or Democrat. This is about our survival as a nation. I plead with you to grab this chance in history and support Ron Paul. Otherwise, May God help us all as we enter insolvency.

How do you plan to pay for it? Be specific. Will you implement a war tax? What will you cut to pay for the war expenses? How much will the deficit grow as a result of the war? Will you go to war with Iran if Congress does not declare war? And how will you define winning? Is it enough to destroy their nuclear capability or should we strive for regime change? How many countries' regines do you want to change?

and I'd really like to discuss that with you. But I've done so with many other people only to find that they were so entrenched in a belief system that we would never be able to find common ground between us so, if you don't mind, I'd like to present you with a scenario and a question. Depending on your answer, I'll know whether or not talking about this would be a complete waste of time. OK? (Okay he says).

Now here's the scenario, I am an average American with all rights to do so, I have embarked upon a hobby of collecting guns...guns of all sorts and ages...built for many purposes. In my efforts I have now more than 100 guns in my collection.

I have a new neighbor who has moved in next door. He doesn't have any guns nor has it been his design to get one...what he likes is drums and to make matters worse for me, he has a constructed a stone pentagram in his back yard and every Saturday he goes outside with his drums and chants to Satan for an hour which he can do given religious freedom and since the "peace laws" allow for noise between the hours of 8 am and 9 pm.

It doesn't take long before the drumming drives me nuts and I really don't like the whole Satan thing at all as I think that is evil and wrong. So, I finally get Fedup ;-) and decide to take matters into my own hands.

I grab one of my collector shotguns, a Mossberg 500, and go out and shoot the crap out of his pentagram, kick in a few of his drums, and then I point my shotgun at him and tell him to listen to me and stop doing what is doing as I don't like it at all. I was just trying to scare him. Ya know?

Instead of listen to me, he continues with his activities and the next Sunday in Church, my neighbor on the other side of the "drummer witch" tells me that the guy had asked him where was a good place to buy a gun!

So, I go to a gas station, fill up a 5 gal. can and jimmying his basement window, I pour it into his basement lite it and run. The house bursts into flames and the guy and his family, including his six kids, his cousin and their four kids and his mother also...die in the fire...which I didn't intend of course.

So here is the question...I am claiming self-defense...you are on my jury...will you acquit me of all charges?

Its not just a matter of style.

Start where you agree, the economy. ASK 50 questions about this area and LISTEN. Find all the points of agreement.

Then LISTEN SOME MORE.

Then, when the time is right, ask if Freezing the Military budget, (for economic policy reasons) is a good idea.

Then LISTEN.
See if you two can agree the biggest danger is the DEBT and an Economic meltdown. ONCE THERE....

Then suggest that you are "find with Dr Paul because freezing the military budget at 2006 levels SOUNDS reasonable to me".

My dad is pretty set in his Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, O'reilly ways. I found this on DP today and sent it to him. This guy speaks pure truth. Go check out the comments as well:

Mark Levin's GOP can't survive much longer

Submitted by Shamus_McMises on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 23:27
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum

I scan the right wing radio shows when at work once in a while and a couple weeks ago i actually heard Mark Levin ranting that "Ron Paul can't pick and choose what parts of the constitution he supports"...

This post would take three days to read if I listed all of Levin's anti constitutional and philisophically challenged positions from supporting NDAA and the Patriot Act, defending foreign aid for despots and welfare states like Israel, to attacking Jack Hunter for his positions on Abraham Lincoln. At least Obama and the liberals tell everyone that they dont really like the constitution. Mark Levin talks about the constitution like he wrote it, then endorses a candidate that calls constitutionalists reckless individualists!

What morons.

The only reason Rick Santorum is even still in the race is to take the engaged but uneducated christian votes from Dr Paul and pretend to be a constitutional conservative so that Levin and Hannitty can endorse someone that isnt Mit Romney, and some how, apparently just because someone is extra religious with his/her politics this makes one the "conservative alternative".

When did more war become the preference of the Christian constituency?!?!

Somebody get Levin and Santorum the battle plans to invade Iran and a bottle of lotion so they can take it in the bathroom and keep themselves occupied for a while.
And will someone please tell all of these clowns that free trade is the polar opposite of isolation!!! Calling a free trader an isolationist is like calling Mark Levin a gift to the limited government movement. Throw a speech impediment on it Levin so even your dumb ass audience can tell when you're being retarded.

He's an idiot, but unfortunately these postitions are incredibly well funded and they are also the initial opinions heard by those that are just starting to examine the principles of limited government. We just need to keep spreading the word on the unbelievable hypocrisies of people like Levin, Limbaugh and Hannity. The people that are intelligent enough to continue to study until their eyes are opened to the philosophies that these right wing radio hosts work so hard to keep people from digging up are exactly the kind of people that we want. People like all of the subscribers to the "Daily Paul" have already proven themselves capable of finding truth and we are exactly the kind of people that it takes to create a new paradigm and relentlessly preach America into her new age of enlightenment. These idiots can only rant for so long after their radio shows lose popularity and profitability.

Be careful, you don't want to lose your job, lol.

If you're sending him videos...here's three suggestions and they're all EXCELLENT.

Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM&feature=youtu.be

Ron Paul Amazing "What if?" Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Here's the reasoning that I've refined over the last few months - parts may not apply to your situation...

- Reasoning

What if you're wrong, [name here]? What if the CIA is right about blowback? What if our actions over the past 60 years threw gasoline on the smoldering and once dwindling fire of Islamic radicalism? What if the increasing scale and influence of Islamic radicalism is, in large part, due to our repeated hostilities and interventions on their land?

I used to believe as you do, but then I researched the matter and put myself in their shoes. It turns out that isn't a very hard thing to do - we're already in their shoes to some degree, as fostered by 9/11.

Even more important than the questions above is this one: What if our current expansive national "defense" (aka aggression) will lead us only to insolvency, where we'll end up without the ability to pay for any defense at all? We're following the same path to failure as most empires throughout history - perhaps you've noticed.

- Videos

If he is/was a fan of Bush, this is a great video that shows him in 2000 echoing Ron Paul's foreign policy...

George Bush Foreign Policy in 2000 Presidential Campaign (3 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM

These are the videos that helped to convert me...

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy (13 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

Adherence to the Oath (2 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxJ1XUGLR0

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! (3 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Good luck!

If it's foreign policy he's worried about, focus on that. Since neocons don't care about the morality of foreign policy, focus on the fiscal side of the issue. Simply put, we can't afford it and the day of reckoning is coming soon. I've written about this in articles before so I've already done all the work for you:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article8231-ron-paul-2012-the-star...

As America borrows more and more money for domestic spending and for war, it devalues the currency. The lender, which is now primarily China, will eventually demand a higher rate of return on its interest in order to offset the inflation. If America does not offer a sufficient rate of return on its bonds, China could dump them and cause a hyperinflationary collapse. Gregory Zerzan was Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of President George W. Bush. In his October 2009 article entitled "Dollar is a National Security Issue", he wrote

The ability to cripple the U.S. economy by massively devaluing the dollar is the type of "asymmetric warfare" that the People's Liberation Army has discussed openly in recent years. This is not to suggest that the People's Republic wants to destroy the dollar, nor that doing so would come without cost. But such power would clearly give China tremendous leverage.

Ron Paul has sounded the alarm bell on this issue earlier. In a piece titled "The End of Dollar Hegemony" from February 2006, he said

"In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

...

Dr. Jerome Corsi reported on a 2010 Joint Operating Environment report released by the United States Joint Forces Command concerning America's debt

The JOE 2010 correctly noted that the unfunded obligations constituting the nation's $70.7 trillion negative net worth are a result of the U.S. baby-boom generation coming of age to receive entitlement benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while the underlying working population that pays to support the programs is declining as a consequence of both demographics and unemployment.

With regard to national-defense implications of the deteriorating U.S. economic position, the JOE 2010 worried that should China demand higher interest rates as an inducement to continuing to buy the U.S. Treasury debt needed to finance continuing trillion-dollar U.S. federal budget deficits, the U.S. could suffer a "hard landing" that could increase the perception the U.S. no longer controls its financial future.

Noting President Obama's warning that the U.S. economy will add $9 trillion debt over the next decade, the JOE 2010 warned the result could be "a decreased ability of the United States to allocate dollars to defense."

...

http://www.nolanchart.com/article9322-how-ron-paul-can-effec...

And make no mistake, America's day of reckoning is fast approaching. In 2020, 17 percent of all federal spending will go towards paying interest on the national debt. GAO data from 2007 shows that by 2040, nearly every dollar the government collects in taxes will be needed for Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt. A report by the Bipartisan Policy Center released in November 2010, well after the financial crisis of 2008 occurred and after the Obama deficits, has a much more pessimistic view. The group, co-chaired by a former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board and consisting of former government officials across the political spectrum as well as business leaders such as the former CEO of Kellogg, wrote that "by 2025, federal revenues will be completely consumed by the combination of interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Treasury will have to borrow money to finance all of its other obligations – including defense, homeland security, law enforcement, food and drug inspection and other vital operations."

But that doesn't mean America can afford to wait until 2025 or 2040 to fix the problem of debt and oncoming inflation. The healing must begin now. Sounding much like Ron Paul or his former economic adviser Peter Schiff, the Bipartisan Policer Center's report went on to warn about the risks of rapidly rising interest rates, the plunging value of the dollar, and the risk to national security if the debt issue isn't dealt with:

These projections are based on fairly moderate assumptions about future interest rates. The nation’s outlook will grow far more ominous if America’s creditors lose confidence in the federal government’s commitment to address its debt problem – which will increase interest rates. A loss of confidence in the markets could also send the value of the dollar plunging overseas, which could trigger runaway inflation and still higher interest rates.
Rising debt and rising interest costs could evolve into a “death spiral,” with the two feeding off one another in an ever-more vicious cycle. No one knows when such a catastrophe might occur, but no prudent nation would put itself at such risk.
Even without a crisis, rising debt will increase our reliance on foreign lenders, raising a host of other economic and national security issues. Already, more than half of U.S. federal debt is foreign-owned and China is the largest foreign holder.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate with a serious plan to tackle the deficit, calling for $1 trillion in cuts the first year of his presidency and a balanced budget by year three. CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer was recently interviewed by reporter Jan Helfeld and stated that unlike Ron Paul's actual spending cuts, the other GOP candidates "would have reductions in the projected increase" in spending. In other words, the debt and the borrowing would increase under Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum, just not as much as is currently projected. Sarah Palin said that Ron Paul "is the only one who has been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets – $1 trillion a year, he’s been specific about until we get our hands around this – I respect that”. Senator Jim DeMint stated "the libertarian principles are the conscience of the Republican Party... We're going to end up with less military than Ron Paul wants if we don't get our budget under control back home... I'm very comfortable having give and take with libertarians. But I'm not comfortable having a debate and compromising with people who think we need to spend more and grow the government. There's no room for so called moderates and liberals when a nation is 15, 16 trillion dollars in debt".

...

This article contains some information your boss might not know about Paul:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article9181-the-wmd-ignored-by-all...
BTW, an updated version of this article has been published in the book "Voices of the Revolution":
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/voices-of-revolution-a...
which I found thanks to Tom Woods: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/ron-paul-writing-contest/

Paul believes that the military should be used strictly for defensive and retaliatory purposes and not for pre-emptive strikes. This ideology is reflected in his voting record. When America was attacked on September 11 by Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda cohorts, Paul voted in favor of using military force to go after the terrorists and Paul even authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which authorized “the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.” On the other hand, Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq on the grounds that Iraq posed no serious threat to America. In His best selling 2008 book The Revolution – A Manifesto, Paul wrote that there was no sufficient evidence that Iraq had WMDs, which has been proven correct, and that Iraq was an extremely weak enemy that he called “an impoverished Third World nation that lacked an air force, antiaircraft weapons, and a navy”.

Paul also noted in his book the burdening cost that the Iraq War would have on the American people. He wrote:

In early 2006, Harvard's Linda Bilmes and Columbia's Joseph Stiglitz estimated the long-term costs of the war, including care for our maimed soldiers, at $2 trillion. By the end of the year they were saying that the $2 trillion figure was too low.

It isn't just the Iraq war that busts the budget - it's our overseas military presence as a whole. We have reached a point at which it now costs $1 trillion per year to maintain. One trillion dollars. The proposed Pentagon Budget alone was $623 billion for 2008. "What's remarkable about this year's military budget," wrote one military analyst, "is that it's the largest budget since World War II, but, of course, we're not fighting World War II.

...

In an article titled “Ron Paul: You Want Him”, NorthwestMilitary.com reported that Paul, who served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force and the Air National Guard, raised more money for campaign donations from active duty military personal than any other candidate in his 2008 presidential run and that he repeated the same feat in 2011. Quoting campaign manager Jesse Benton: "Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders. They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously, and who will fight to ensure that we don't misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country".

...

In 2008, Americans were hoping for change but got more of the same. Barrack Obama brought to the table the same aggressive and bankrupting foreign policy of George W. Bush. He significantly increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and continued the Bush failed nation building policy, and all the while Afghan president Hamid Karzai was proclaiming "If I had to choose sides today, I'd choose the Taliban," over the United States.

...

And finally, give this one a read to compare Ron Paul to the other 3:
"If Ron Paul isn't Electable, Just Who the Hell is?"
http://www.nolanchart.com/article9233-if-ron-paul-isnt-elect...

I agree with previous comments that warn about labeling and mixing politics and work.

Keeping with the "shock him awake" strategy, I recommend to unaffiliated Paul videos that lead people to the Good Doctor on their own:

1. The New American Century - http://youtu.be/p-ONhpNeWQA - This film shows that the entire Cable News/Talk Radio terrorism paranoia was planned decades ago by none other than marxist college professors.

2. The Burzynski Movie - http://youtu.be/jRua3NLg-Z8 - Nothing like finding out that the 1.5+ million cancer deaths in 2011 were completely preventable.

If he is just ignorant but teachable, he will respectfully listen and learn.

If ignorant and unteachable, then ask him to explain the good points of bombing all the middle East countries! All the good things about the other candidate's foreign policy!

Or in the alternative, have him explain to you specifically why Ron Paul's foreign policy is bad, and make sure he gives you the references for his argument!

Guaranteed... he will cave if you ask him to explain anything!

They know nothing of the facts, of history, of truth, or of anything which can be made into a cogent argument by any one on the debate stage, let alone anyone in the general public.

He will panic freeze, give a deer in the headlights stare, then stutter something even he knows comes from the back end of grandfather's four legged pasture neighbors!

Usually by then they will be so glad you took over the conversation, that they actually start listening!

They have been so geared to spouting cable news tripe and slogans, thinking in slogans and talking in bullets, that they never contemplated actually having to think, and after having thought, speak!

just go easy.

it'll happen.

maybe grab a few youtube videos of select, brief alex clips where he talks about ron paul on the military donations, and foreign policy. find the best ones you can on youtube.

put them on a usb stick or dvd and give them to him.

firefox plus "flashgot" extension, can download the videos from youtube.

VLC for windows (a free software program) will play them.

d

is "What could be more detrimental to the national security of our Nation than the debt crisis we face?" Then I ask them "Which is more important? Continuing these wars that are breaking our backs or getting our economic house in order? Then I finish with.. You can't do both with 17trillion in debt.

Honestly, I have always been on the boat with his FP. I am 21 though so my natural instinct is to love first and listen to music and support money bombs, not real ones =D. This video is such a neocon killer it's not even funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

so many do. Be patient, tolerant, and respectful.

Sounds to me like your on the right track. I wonder, however, what it was that got him to see Fall of the Republic? That conversation should get you some ideas on what to throw his way next but do it in a way that he doesn't feel like your educating him. Let him save face and awaken by himself with your quiet giudance and then watch as he blossoms into a true supporter. If he found, watched and liked Fall of the Republic, he is probably developing doubt with his Fox news, Rush and Hannity. Also point out the interwoven ties between the economy and foreign policy. Would he be able to defend his own home and family if his personal economic situation failed?

Maybe speak to him with the Word. That may involve you reading the bible (idk how that works for you since you didn't say that you were Christian).

It just always amazes me how some Christians seem to want to use FORCE.

Did Jesus use FORCE? Did Jesus go to Pontius Pilate and ask that he FORCE the Jews and Romans to live as he?

Besides the Golden Rule (which has been flying around lately), what about when Jesus said "How can you talk about the Splinter in someone else's eye, when you have a Log in your own?"

How can we act as if we are better than other nations, in the sake of "spreading democracy," when we can't even take care of your own Citizens?

How about when Jesus said "Even if you have Faith as small as a Mustard Seed, that is Surely enough."

How about we PRAY for Peace and PRAY that other nations will have Democracy, rather than killing people and using FORCE.

Stay away from labeling him. No sheep, sheeple, neocon...nothing of the sort. Stay away from why or who questions. Ask him what he thinks about this or that...if he's a reasonable thinking human being...he'll discover that he agrees with Dr. Paul a lot more than he realizes.