-11 votes

Kelly Clarkson: "I Never Endorsed Ron Paul!"

I was disappointed to hear that Kelly Clarkson sang at Obama's inauguration today.

Clarkson had supported Ron Paul during his campaign. She said lots of good things about him.

But then her liberal fans jumped down her throat and gave her grief for supporting him.

They said things to her like "Oh, you hate gay people?" AS THOUGH THAT'S wht Dr. Paul stood for???

And so, in a total about face, Clarkson not only voted for Obama, she SANG at his big deal today on top of it.

A question thus presents iteslf:
HOW can you go from supporting a liberty-candidate like Ron Paul to a NON-liberty, European-style socialist candidate like OBAMA???

I UNDERSTAND not supporting Romney - I sure didn't. But even though I hated Romney and the RNC/establsihment GOP with a purple passion, I sure couldn't vote for a socialist democrat either.

If Kelly Clarkson had a clue as to what Dr. Paul was all about, she would have written him in, voted for a 3rd party (protest vote) candidate, or just abstained.

WHAT A SPINELESS SELLOUT CLARKSON IS.

It would have been better if she had NEVER supported Dr. Paul, than to abandon him when the cock crowed 3 times (ALA the disciple Peter denying Christ in the garden).

Here's a link to Clarkson shamelessly disavowing herself from Ron Paul:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/03/09/kelly-clarks...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

She knew he wouldn't win

She knew he wouldn't win because his forthrightness would prevent his getting the nomination. So she said she'd vote for him only if the impossible happened.

Relax.

This isn't something to get panties in a twist. It is a non-story.

Compromised and

sold out.

Only way to make it in show business.
I wouldn't wish that life on my mortal enemies.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

We tend to do this a lot....

Jump on the bandwagon when a public figure says one nice thing about Ron Paul, or against Obama, even when that doesn't mean they agree with Ron Paul on hardly anything; Clarkson, Fiasco, Kucinich, Ventura, Brewer. We are just looking for the next celebrity endorser, because we are caught in the media's entertainment machine just as much as anyone else.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

who cares

who cares

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

You wanna know why Clarkson supported Obama?

Sodomite Rights! Read it yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/23/kelly-cla...

You know why she didn't support Romney? She claims "we can't be going back to the fifties" - whatever that means.

I saw quite a few young RP "supporters" who claimed to have voted for Obama on Ron Paul's FB page right after the election. Pat Buchanan is right. A Ronald Reagan can't turn this country around at this point (and neither can Rand Paul). What America needs is a St. Paul. When voters care more about whether or not a candidate believes the state should grant marriage licenses to their "gay" friends than how that candidate will protect their liberties and benefit the economy, this country is sunk!

Not a St. Paul, we need a St.

Not a St. Paul, we need a St. Augustine.

Southern Agrarian

maybe the young RP supporters

should not be put in the situation where they have to choose between those two things.
College students do not understand taxes and the economic issues since they have not yet experienced getting a job and seeing large chunks of their paychecks getting deducted and handed over to the government.

It is a lot easier for younger voters to figure out the evils of the bigoted stance the majority of Republicans have on social issues, and the Republican war-mongering, than it is for them to figure out the dangers of the Democratic socialism platform. (That is not to say that the Republican party does not also promote socialism, or that the Democrats are not also war-mongers.)

If you really value liberties and the economy over social issues, then maybe a better approach would be to quit offending and alienating the younger voters who care about their gay friends, by referring to their gay friends as "sodomites." Kelly Clarkson was attacked for supporting a "homophobe", and comments like yours only adds credibility to these accusations. No wonder she had to back down, right?

You don't seem to understand. This isn't just about homosexuals.

These college-trained products see history the same way socialists and neoconservatives see history - like a ladder. They're taught to value equality above self-determination. The CRA and VRA acts get in the way of self-determination, but, they enhance equality. The same goes for tax-paid birth control. Therefore, Ron Paul is a "racist"because he puts self-determination above equality and a mysoginist because he doesn't support forcing employers to provide bc to female employees. Likewise, he is a "homophobe" because he supports DOMA and does not believe the federal government has any right to force the free and sovereign people of the states to legalize same-sex marriage against their will.

If anyone thinks Ron Paul would have won the 18-30 year old vote against Obama, they're kidding themselves. Why? They'd tell you it's because Ron Paul doesn't believe in equality. Until the Equality Cult is met head-on, cornered, tackled, and neutered, the Democratic Party will win every national election until this country looks like Greece. (I've been there - the news media doesn't do that stunted economy justice.)

DOMA is not just about "states rights"

It also states that the Federal Government will not recognize same-sex marriages. For example, if a man and woman are married, the federal government will not apply inheritance tax to the surviving spouse. If one member of a same-sex marriage (i.e., legally married by that state in which they reside, in a state that allows it) dies, the surviving partner will not have to pay inheritance tax at the state level, but they will get slapped with a big inheritance tax at the federal level.

DOMA was one of two issues where I have had a lot of trouble selling Ron Paul as a candidate. On the one hand, Ron Paul claimed that government should not get involved in marriage; yet he voted in favor of this law which explicitly regulates marriage, and worse yet, at the Federal level - even though Dr. Paul tries to claim that he is a constitutionalist. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government should be defining marriage? To any person arguing against Ron Paul, that vote for DOMA was always something that I would have to concede. If Dr. Paul were truly against government involvement in marriage, he would have ABSTAINED rather than voting for this bill.

By the way, there is a huge difference between demanding employers to provide birth control pills, vs. supporting something like DOMA.

By that line of reasoning, if Ron Paul had been in Congress

when the inheritance tax loophole was created for widows and widowers, Ron Paul should had voted against it because that would be "interfering in marriage." Never mind the fact that it gives a relieves a huge tax burden from widows who sometimes still have children at home without a father to provide for them. If Ron Paul opposed the inheritance tax loophole just because it deals with marriage, he would be slammed for hypocrisy since he claims to always support lower taxes and is known as the taxpayer's best friend in Congress.

and likewise, DOMA prevents a tax loophole

for same sex couples. By voting FOR DOMA, Ron Paul voted AGAINST allowing same sex partners to fall under the same tax loophole as opposite sex couples. In other words, here was a case where Ron Paul did NOT support lower taxes. Yes?

The point of my initial post however, is that equality and civil liberties + economic prosperity, do not need to be mutually exclusive. The difference between the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party, is that the former always tends to figure out ways to offer both, whereas the Republican Party is happy tossing equality out the window. In the case of marriage, Libertarians will argue that government should be out of the business of regulating marriage, but IF it does recognize marriage, that it should not do so in a discriminatory manner. And any Libertarian would indeed vote for the tax loophole for inheritance, even though they would most likely prefer that there is no inheritance tax at all.

The moral of the story is: If you are going to create a dilemma for young voters to choose between equality and economic prosperity, don't be shocked if many of them select equality. I know that there are a lot of people on this board coming from the perspective that Ron Paul can never make a mistake, but sorry, I view his vote for DOMA as the biggest black mark on his voting record. If Ron Paul was afraid of offending all the religious zealots in the Republican Party, then abstaining would have been the appropriate action. Dr. Paul could have easily voted NO on this like he has on so many other pieces of legislation. He has a reputation for it. Nobody would have batted an eyelash.

That's not even logical.

To say that Ron Paul would be voting against a tax loophole by voting for the widow/er deduction in the inheritance tax is ridiculous. (After a bit of googling, I couldn't find when that loophole was enacted.)

You may think any two people living together could and should qualify for "married" and more than 51% of the population now holds that view unfortunately. But, the fact is it wasn't necessary for the government to enact a law giving it the authority to recognize marriage as the union between a man and a woman - that's what marriage IS and what it has always BEEN in Western Civilization (you know, that lost civilization that enabled the creation of the United States of America?). That's the real reason why Ron Paul didn't support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He saw it as unnecessary. However, if the government is to recognize two homosexuals as being married, it DEFINITELY needs a law to do so because there are no legal precedents in neither the U.S. or English Common Law recognizing such relationships as marriage.

So, to say that supporting the widow/er inheritance loophole means you're against a tax cut because it excludes homosexuals is ludicrous because granting a widow/er tax cut to homosexuals whose partner deceased was never on the table. To deprive little old ladies of their deceased husbands' inheritance because of the fact that young, able-bodied men whose partner died of AIDS can't get the same benefit is a terribly twisted way of thinking.

Equality and liberty ARE mutually exclusive. This is proven by the fact that the equality crowd prefers the Democratic Party over the Libertarian Party because the LP refuses to embrace economic equality. It naturally doesn't make any sense to use the government to equalize socially, but, not economically. The gay marriage garbage that the LP has peddled for forty years to get the hippie and later the neo-hippie crowd hasn't accomplished anything but alienate most fiscal Conservatives.

"If Ron Paul was afraid of offending all the religious zealots in the Republican Party, then abstaining would have been the appropriate action."
DOMA was more than forbidding the recognition of homosexual relationships at the federal level as marriages. It protected the states from having to legalize homosexual marriage just because the state of Hawaii decided to expand the definition of marriage.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities in the several states." - Article IV

People who put issues like "equal rights" ahead of everything else are incredibly bored (might partially explain our high unemployment) and usually pretty pissed off that they can't force others to believe in equality like they do - thus crap like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act. How can you have a reasonable discussion with someone about the principles of self-government, Constitutionalism, or Austrian economics when all they care about is whether or not Jim and Jo get to have a marriage license in their top drawer while they make out? Ironically, most people who support "gay marriage" will be the first to tell you they think marriage is becoming obsolete.

I think you are confused about the "equality crowd"

because there is a large spectrum of equality expectations. There is a huge difference between demanding the government to actively make things equal, vs. simply asking the government not to pass laws that favor one group over another.
Many people believe that it should not be the role of the government to make policies that favor one religious group over others, i.e., namely Christian. Creating a tax loophole for people who comply with religiously defined "marriage" is not an example of treating everybody equally .. because not everybody in this country is Christian.

It's just that simple. No, I don't think that the government should MAKE everybody equal, but I do think it should TREAT everybody equally. The Republican Party has done a lot to repel people who hold the latter viewpoint, and has done a great job creating the image that it is just a social club for rich old white men. DOMA was a law about exclusion, which is what the Republicans need to stop doing if they want to change their reputation.

Rich old white men?

I'm not sure what that has to do with marriage, anyway...

Refusing to recognize any marriage other than real marriage between a man and woman is not discrimination. Discrimination would be refusing to let a particular race of people marry. Homosexuals, just like adulterers are not a race or ethnic group of people.

If the Republican Party ever fielded a candidate that supported redefining marriage to fit the whims of perverted hedonists who are psychologically disturbed regarding their own sexual orientation, a third party would be formed and the Republican Party would lose to that third party in most states where it's now strong. It would be suicide for the GOP to take that route. If 51% of Americans (although exit polls showed it to be about 48%) don't want a president who rejects the notion of treating homosexuals as a separate race, then, they can just get accustomed to having a globalist, regulatory, tax-and-spend, statist welfare government.

Reagan was a phony

Reagan was just as much of a big gov loving, war mongering authoritarian as the rest of 'em. The only difference is that he hid it behind slicker rhetoric than most.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard49.html

A signature used to be here!

Judging Reagan

based on what we would like him to have been is like judging the American colonies for not outlawing the slave trade during the 17th century. When judging anyone or any nation, it's better to judge them compared to their peers since most of both are shaped by their peers and their times.

Consider America's degression: Hoover-Roosevelt-Johnson-Nixon-Carter. Sure, Reagan could and should have done much, much more. But, he did have a Democratic Congress to work with most of his term.

She just said nice things

She just said nice things about him so some of you would buy her music. I knew that was the case at the time.

yep

And the people here who called it back then were insulted and down voted into oblivion...naturally.

A signature used to be here!

fair-weather fan

sounds like she would have voted for Ron Paul over Barack Obama in a general election. ALSO sounds like she could be convinced again if someone else came on the scene with the same principles.

Let her retreat as a fair weather fan, that's to be expected. Just like any hardcore fans, obviously we resent the fair weather fan, like the elder brother resents the prodigal son or like one might resent Peter for having betrayed Christ and coming back to be the prince of the Apostles, but in things that are so much more important than sports such as this, there's no reason to alienate them. anyone that ever imagined Kelly Clarkson was deep in the ideological vein of the movement would've been being quite obtuse and wishful thinking. she was obviously one of those people Dr. Paul would explain by simply saying "freedom is popular".

she was never involved in the engine of the movement, she just would've been a willing passenger. let's keep her in mind and invite her aboard the next train. it's too bad she hopped off but I appreciate the fact that she ever hopped aboard in the first place, and I get the sense she'd be very receptive to an invitation to hop aboard the next time.

now i shall end this overloaded-with-metaphors post.

Lupe Fiasco

Meanwhile, rapper Lupe Fiasco, who never claimed to be a Ron Paul supporter but voices the same blowback message, was removed from the stage of an Obama inauguration rally for saying less than supportive things about President. In 2011, Lupe noted, “My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama and the United States of America. I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism.” “You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/21/report-rapper-lupe-fiasco-...

I suggest reading the wikipedia take on Lupe's upbringing and outlook and then watching "Bad Bitch" on Youtube in which he critiques and links modern rap culture's effects on the black community with earlier blackface entertainment. He also accepts responsibility, as a rapper, for having contributed to the mayhem. Jesse Ventura liked him. Lupe takes responsibility and doesn't compromise for the sake of his career either. If the Obama people put Lupe on a stage to buy him, it didn't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3m3t_PxiUI

Not surprised...

The authoritarians on the left are bullies. To them, being an individual is second to the collective. Collectivism is the basis of racism. The thought is, you are not a person--you a blank person.

So, if Kelly or anyone else wants to be a part of their team you must push aside your original thoughts and beliefs for carbon copy propaganda.

Money and Fame have power

Money and Fame have power over certain individuals...

Southern Agrarian

Seriously, it sounds like you

Seriously, it sounds like you need to quit putting so much stock into your image of celebrities. They are just regular idiots like us. It should not surprise you one bit when they do things like this.

Talk about embarrassing...

...her latest iTunes collection was personally purchased after she supported the great Dr. Paul. Her music has never been my genre but thought the favor could be returned to her. Maybe now's the time to write a scathing review of her pop poop.

JJ

Poop Pop! Indeed.

But I gave her a pass last year.

Not anymore.

Poop pop is all it ever was anyway.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

celebrities matter less and less these days

let's not embarrass ourselves fawning head over heel over a celebrity endorsement, and more importantly, let us not flip out like an idiot when they back off alleged endorsements. naturally, cutting off on the first step would save you the embarrassment from the second.

I never cared less about Kelly Clarkson until I heard she had...

...supported Ron Paul last year.

Then, I figured, it was great because so many sheeples blindly follow the stars of the day that she had a large following and that could have helped Dr. Paul's campaign.

So don't blindly assume I was some big Clarkson fan. I'm not and don't even know her tunes.

This had everything with her publically supporting Ron Paul and the reaction to it and her subsequent disavowing him.

That's all.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

ConstitutionHugger's picture

She never really understood what he was talking about

same as lots of people. Don't be so hard on her.

I down-voted my own post too.

To add -1 to whoever started it.

I agree it is disgusting.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul