Ron Paul Knowledge Base
Ron Paul??? There are so many people out there that mostly agree with Ron Paul on a few subjects, especially Libertarians. Like Glenn Beck, John Stossel, or someone like Judge Napolitano. John Mayer was even filmed talking about how cool Ron Paul is. Why don't these people endorse him? His support could go up so much and there could actually be hope for this country. Also, what could be done to ask them to endorse Ron Paul?
ron paul........? dose ron paul have a myspace, facebook, bebo, imeem, youtube acount, or a tagged please reply asap thx :)
Ron PAUL?? Who is voting for Ron Paul....and why does an independent NEVER get choosen..i mean come ON people..he is obvoiulsly the best candidate!!..what do you think?? :) thanks
Why does yahoo not post many Ron Paul articles like they do others? I have always been a yahoo supporter but the AP never runs Ron Paul articles regardless of internet interest in him. Google show him leading in searches, straw polls show him winning and he won the micigan debate, but nothing from yahoo. I am switching completely over to google if I don't see some change in yahoo or unless someone has a valid reason why yahoo doesn't show Ron Paul. I understand it is AP and not yahoo, but why is it that google has hundreds of articles and more streaming constantly from other outlets and nothing coming in to yahoo.
Ron Paul!? Am I the only person on the web who thinks this whole Ron Paul conspiracy is complete bullshyt? All these people claim that there is a mass conspiracy against Ron Paul and that people are rigging the election on a big time scale. In my opinion, it is impossible to rig an election in such way the Ron Paul conspirators claim. Another thing Ron Paul said on CNN that if we leave Iraq terrorists will leave us alone. That is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Please post your thoughts on this matter.
Is the Ron Paul campaign moving into position for a big upset after winning big in the latest straw polls? After finishing 5th in Iowa and 3rd in Illinois, Ron Paul dominated the New Hampshire straw poll, capturing 73% and the Alabama straw poll with over 80%. Ron Paul keeps gaining support and is quickly becoming the cinderella story for the upcoming primaries. These straw polls are run by the state republician parties and are open to residents of the state which is hosting. If they are meaningless as the detractors claim, why did Romney spead a ton of money to win in Iowa?
Who feels that Ron Paul could quite possibly be the closest candidate to an ideal president? I have been doing research and cross-referencing on all of the candidates, and I find myself quite intrigued with Ron Paul. I would like to hear any and all positive reasons why Ron Paul should/could be the next president. Links are welcome. Thank you very much. If you want to bash Ron Paul, I suggest you move along to another question; if you don't answer the question, you will be ingnored. This question is for Ron Paul supporters or those who are leaning towards Ron Paul only. Obviously hedgehog can't read a question.
Why is Ron Paul afraid to go on the radio with Glenn Beck? You Paulites are yelling about how the media doesnt give Ron Paul the attention he deserves. Yet he continually blows off and ignores requests from Glenn Beck to appear on the show? Why is Ron Paul afraid of talking to a libertarian leaning conservative? Of course Glenn has a negative view of Ron Paul. He is the only candidate that has bailed on him. He promised to be on the show and then bailed. And Glenn is someone who thinks integrity is a big deal. Knowing Glenn personally, the man is one of the most sincerest and humble people i know of. The man is going to be honest with you. Of course he is going to be tough with Ron Paul. he has been tough with every single candidate that has been on his show! I am just amazed that you Paulites will call up Glenn's show telling him he should invite Paul on. When Paul is too afraid to go on! You guys complain that the media wont give Ron Paul a chance and then totally blow off a guy who has no problem letting Ron Paul on to get his message out. The fact is Ron Paul is a phoney. He is a fake. He is playing you guys like a fiddle.
Ron Paul??? Why does everyone liberal and conservative alike, love ron paul. Does anyone even know about him. He is for one not a libertarian, he's a conservative. He doesn't support abortion, gay marriage, or stem-cell, but more importantly (and might I add in distinct contrast with libertarian philosophy), thinks they should be illegal, (does anyone else already hear the footsteps of the feds. at your door). Secondly, his fiscal policy is, in my oppinion, nuts. We get it Ron, Capitalism Works, but so does stricter environmental regulations on oil companies, and more socialized healthcare services. Ron Paul, isn't right for America. You may think that his viewpoints are the same as those of our founding fathers but they're not. And even if they were, times have changed. And on more question? Why is it that whenever a Republican or Libertarina says Governent sucks, everyone applauds. But when a moderate, or liberal, or independent, says that gov. sucks, but that it can be good. Everyone boos?
Ron Paul...? Whats the chances Rep. Ron Paul gets some media attention for his run for the Republican presidential nomination?
What are the arguments against Ron Paul being elected for President? I never really found any good arguments for him not running. All I find are people that say he is a lunatic or he can't get elected. Those are really just extremely shallow statements. I want real arguments with facts and the works. I will pick the best argument against Ron Paul. I support him, but I like to debate with facts. Thanks.
Ron Paul?? For those of you here with an interest in politics, what are your thoughts on Ron Paul? I recently got wind of him and I kinda like his stance on most issues. Alot of democrats seem to be keen on him as well. However, I can't believe he will actually become a candidate. What are your thoughts on him?
How is Ron Paul going to implement his plan? I wonder alot on how Ron Paul is going to implement his plan? How is he going to make it affordable for poor people to buy gold? Gold is like 800.00 you know. Can you imagine a poor person trying to buy Gold just to buy bread? What about giving out change at your local circle k store? Do you think they are going give you change for an 800.00 dollar gold bar even if a poor person could afford it. Explain on how this is going to happen? How come Ron Paul does not go into the nitty details?
What is the difference between Ron Paul and other candidates? What is the difference between Ron Paul and other candidates regarding removing the troops from iraq? I have heard that Ron Paul would do it immediately, and the others will not. However, when listening to the Democrates speeches, this does not seem like this is possible.
Who is willing to become a delegate for Ron Paul? I am wondering who is willing to become a delegate for Ron Paul? Anyone can get involved as I understand it. He is still in the race, I've noticed a lot of bias reporting being done around the news lately about him dropping out. This is not true.
What is the difference between Hilliary Clinton and Ron Paul staying in the Presidential Race? Hilliary is trying to seek power. She has no message, only pandering. Her views change depending on who she speaks to. Ron Paul is in the race to educate the message of freedom to the populace. Ron Paul has held his views for the last 30 years and hasn't changed. Pied, that is NOT the point as I have been very clear on this. My Lord, If you don't like the Bill of Rights than you can get out.
Can Ron Paul organize his own 3 hour show to the Amercan Public? How could we get Ron Paul on TV for 3 hours telling us more about him as well as where he was able to take some questions!! How much money would this cost? I am an Independent - I have not made up my mind yet - but this is definately one man who I have listened to and makes sense. We need to bring him to the television in an unformal atmosphere to let us know about him.
Is it even statistically possible for Ron Paul or Huckabee to win? Please note that the question is not "Do you think Ron Paul or Huckabee will win?". I am not asking whether or not you like either of them. I am not asking you to bash either of them or talk about how much you love Hillary, Obama, or McCain. Is it statistically possible for any of the other Republican candidates to beat McCain with the number of delegates that are left and with the number that McCain already has? Could someone who actually knows WTF they are talking about answer?
Who think that Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who gets it? When I say "it", I mean "everything." At one of the debates, Paul was trying the explain the idiocy behind the "They hate us for our freedom" argument. Anyone who actually believes that is a moron. Paul was NOT defending the terrorists. He was explaining their motives. They hate the US because of our crappy foreign policies in the Middle East, and the US's meddling in their countries. Ron Paul, unlike the other Republican candidates, understands that you can only push people so far before they start pushing back. search_rescue_ranger, that has got to be the most ignorant thing you could have said. RON PAUL IS NOT A HIPPIE! He is a Vietnam War Vet, and maybe the reason he wants peace is because he's seen war firsthand. It looks like that's something you need to. well, ranger, it seems I spke too soon, but it's wrong to accuse anyone who fought in Vietnam and then later opposed it of being a hippie.
Where do candidates besides Ron Paul get money for their campaigns? Ron Paul, on a single day, raised 6 million dollars over the internet from the individual donations of over 50,000 people However, this is not even half of what some other candidates have been able to raise. How do candidates like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani secure millions upon millions of dollars for their campaigns?
Why is Ron Paul Seemingly so popular yet he is not a front-runner? Why is presidential hopeful Ron Paul so seemingly popular on the internet and even with many people outside the interent with signs and all soppurting him,but i've been told he won't last in the election too long.Is it because most of his soppurters are under the age of 18?
Is Ron Paul the least hypocritical candidate out there? First - let me say, I am planning on voting for a Democrat - namely Obama. But... Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to connect the dots that "war" and "abortion" are synonymous in the context of Christianity... Many politicians before him have tried to sell Christians on the idea that homosexuality and abortion are murder but War is somehow not... Ron Paul wants to allow for "civil unions" (instead of gay marriage but still giving equal rights that are associated with marriage) and he is pro-life.... AND he wants to pull out of Iraq... Whether or not you agree with these policies as the best course of action - at least he's not a hypocrite!
Why does not the the shrinking base of the Republican party vote for Ron Paul? Does anyone believe the polls are accurate in regard to Ron Paul when you can look at his fundraising to know their wrong? Are these base Republican so pro war that they can not vote for Ron Paul? He has all the qualities they want as far as being pro life and they could not get a candidate with better morals. So why are they not Ron Paul Fans? Why is Fox News so against Ron Paul?
Why are Ron Paul and Mike Gravel still in the presidential race? Why are Ron Paul and Mike Gravel still in the presidential race for the Republican and Democrat parties? Shouldn't they both have suspended their campaign awhile ago since they are so far behind? Are either expected to try to expect nomination from a third party?
Why is Ron Paul being unfairly treated by the mainstream media? It seems like major television networks and other media outlets have given him little to no coverage. When they do give coverage, it often portrays him in a negative light. They never give credit to this political ideas. They want him to be seen as some lunatic who needs to be silenced so "mainstream" people can talk about the issues. Ron Paul is mainstream. He's for liberty and freedom. He's for lower taxes and economic responsibility. He wants people to have more power over their own lives. How is this anti-mainstream?
Do you agree that Ron Paul is the most dangerous candidate for conservative principles? Ron Paul can't run on any other party ticket, even Independent, according to national election laws. He has said his intention is to urge all his supporters to vote Libertarian next fall. This has been his intention all along. He only runs as a Republican so he can keep his seat in Congress. He had tried previously to win the seat as a Libertarian and was defeated by the Republican easily, so he changed his party affiliation only to assure his seat. He does not deny his support of the Libertarian Party.
How many people have actually researced Ron Paul & his voting record? Ron Paul is a very honorable man, and his views and voting record can be valued by both conservatives and liberals. All I ask is that you do a quick yahoo or google search on him, and not let the media help guide you in who to vote for. Use your brain in voting, not your eyes.
What is Ron Paul going to do with all the money he raised? He raised a tremendous amount of money, millions. In fact he broke the record for most raised in a single day. I don't know the rules, I don't think it's like congressional money, he can't just keep it all. McCain has it locked, and I don't think he's running as a libertarian. Will he run as an independent, will he donate the money? Seriously what's going on. And Ron Paul is pretty cool by the way.
Is Ron Paul the Rose Perot of 2008? Can his growing influence swing the election for the Democrats? It is well documented that without Rose Perot, Bill Clinton would not have won the election. If Ron Paul grows to a substanial precentage of voters at the polls, will it damage the Republicans enough to hand the White House to Mrs. Clinton? I'm serious. For instance, he fails to win the Republican nomination, but then runs as a third party choice. It is very possible. How would that affect the election? For the question, assume he does run as an Independent, then what will it cause? Remember, he has a rapidly growing grassroots and highly energized support base. Personally I think it is very possible he can swing the election but not win it. What do you think?
Is there a formal list for voters to register their Ron Paul support? Considering that the media will not report the true levels of Ron Paul support, is anyone tracking that? It seems there would be no other way for the world to know the extent of the Ron Paul support. I wish to add my name and address to that list. Does such a list exist for on-line registration?
Have any registered democrats switched to being a republican to support Ron Paul? I am just curious to know. It seems to me that Ron Paul's foreign policy would resonate with many democrats. the rue paul thing is overplayed....never was funny and oddly enough, its less funny now. ashley, So if you knew of a candidate that you agreed with more than anyone else (even your own party) you wouldn't support him solely based on his party affiliation? Why don't you think about supporting the individual rather than the party? Ron Paul is more of a libertarian or traditional republican...not a neo-con or most of today's republicans. Ron Paul is for states rights. He is a constitutionalist who wouldn't impose his views on the states. He wants less power to come from the federal gov't. and so states would make more choices. He wouldn't abolish roe vs wade at the federal level, he would let the states decide.
Ron Paul??? what r the chances of ron paul winning? Can he do it?
Ron Paul?!?!?!?!?!? I am planning on voting for Ron Paul, I like his ideas but I was wondering why he isn't in the media much. All over my community are his signs and posters but that's all I ever hear of him besides email and websites.
Ron Paul?? When I heard Ron Paul speak, I learned more from him in a 2 hour session than anyone ever. He is honest, a staunch constitutionalist, a doctor and a statesman which we have not had the likes of in many many years. He is my political hero. But Why?? Does he not get the media attention that he deserves.. finally a candidate comes with enough knowledge to lead a country.. but not everyone recognizes him?
Ron Paul?? Does anybody REALLY think the nut job Ron Paul can win an election??
Ron Paul?!?? Who will benefit most if ron paul is elected? Lower class, middle class, or the rich??
Ron Paul?? When I heard Ron Paul speak, I learned more from him in a 2 hour session than anyone ever. He is honest, a staunch constitutionalist, a doctor and a statesman which we have not had the likes of in many many years. He is my political hero. But Why?? Does he not get the media attention that he deserves.. finally a candidate comes with enough knowledge to lead a country.. but not everyone recognizes him?
Ron Paul?????????......? How sad is it that the media decides who becomes president. They mislead the viewers to think only a few candidates have potential.Its sad not more people found the right candidate. Look up Ron Paul, a great mind who could have molded our country into a better one.
Ron Paul?? Does Ron Paul stand a chance? i really like him and he is the only candidate i can see myself supporting but i'm afraid he doesn't have much of a chance
Ron Paul?!?!?!?!? I would like to know why you are/are not supporting Ron Paul? Please be specific I am writing a paper on the subject of long shot candidates Thanks
Ron Paul??? Anyone else hoping Ron Paul wins the elections? http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8 I'm really hoping for this guy to win!
Ron Paul?? Is anyone tired of Ron Paul getting bashed. This is the only guy that knows what he is talking about in the GOP Party.
ron paul????? after this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/ what are your thoughts on ron paul
Ron Paul....? Does anyone else have the feeling that the people promoting Paul on here have been hired by his campaign (either paid or volunteer)...? Most of their answers are the same; they always use the same word choice... After all, his whole campaign has basically been online.
Ron Paul?? Given that a libertarian is one who upholds the principles of individual liberty and limited government, can one claim to be a libertarian and oppose women's right to choose? I know he's running as a Republican, obviously, as no third-party candidate stands a snowball's chance in Hades. But he has claimed to be a libertarian, and was wondering if this is entirely consistent with his positions on abortion rights. Fripp, I would like to point out that a true Constitutionalist would likely find ample reason for federal protection of abortion rights, as did the sitting court of Roe v. Wade. From the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", to the privacy clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a much stronger case for protecting citizens' reproductive rights than abolishing them, regardless of the official platform of the "Constitutional" Party. And, in a more general sense, the "left to the states" idea is not being utilized correctly. There is no EXPLICIT right to not be raped in the Constitution, but bodily ownership and individual freedom IS mentioned. Abortion rights represent the same principle.
Ron Paul....? i just have to ask the mature and well-informed 'Answers' gang... tell me why you don't like him or why he's not the right candidate for you. if you would please. :)
Ron Paul ? What do you think about him? "A man who thinks the world would have been better off if we hadn't fought the Nazis in World War II is not the type of person I trust running anything." Proof?
Ron Paul?? Does anyone know how good he is doing overall? does anyone think he has a chance to be a candidate in this election? the media completely ignores him :(
Ron Paul?? who plans on voting for him??? I'm curious because I only know a select few who have actually heard about him and like him. I'm definitely voting for him!! I can't wait till bush is out!!!
Ron Paul......? Ok we all know he is the BEST candidate but with most of the big media pretty much hating him and all that stuff does he actually have a REAL chance at winning? Steven C-It's actually Dennis Kucinich you can't even spell his name right and you want to promote him?PSHHH And when I say we all I'm talking about people who have brains. For those who ask who is Ron Paul?Well just in case your being serious http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ ^^^ that is Ron Paul anybody who doesn't know who he is go to his website watch his videos and you will see he is the BEST choice!
Ron Paul??? Who will be voting for him? I think that he's a great candidate. I wish he was one of the main candidates. How is he a racist? His beliefs sound like a liberal's I want the troops pulled out... Not everytihing you hear is true. I don't think he's a racist. He has a lot of liberal views man.
Ron Paul ? I like him on every issue, but can he win?
Ron Paul ? Can someone give me an UNbiased answer on what he believes and what party he belongs to?
Ron Paul??? i need 3 sentences about each topic wht does he say about the war in iraq what does he say about education wht does he say about terrorism wht does he say about the economy
Ron Paul.......? I was hoping to vote for him, I had hope.....I was undecided for a long time and when I finally made a choice it seems with super Tuesday that all hope is lost how can i vote for Hillary, another corporate America puppet? McCain, the guy who wants to stay in Iraq another 150 years? obama, romney? I don't see it as a waste of my vote if RP is still in for Texas, it's stupid to just go for the ones who have a chance of winning, just to tell people you voted for the winner!! wohooo great job america, we'll die soon enough anyways, with this politics we...or you guys support. McCain doesn't really want to stay in Iraq that long, but he would if they'd give him the chance, he would if America still had the money. Im disgusted by the majority of your answers not only because you are supporting someone else. and by the way just because we 'can' stay there doesn't mean we have to, how much longer will be able to afford our current bases outside the U.S.A ? how much longer before the 1% gets a hold of the WHOLE economy? and the middle class is no more? how much longer before the world abandons the U.S currency and the EURO is the leading currency...... huckabee ? so far as i've seen him in debates, he is about the same as McCain, only a little better, just a little....
Ron Paul???? Seriously. Is he serious? i head him say the other day that we shouldnt have stem cell research because the founding fathers never mentioned it... Is that seriously a political view? If so someone just kill me now
Ron Paul...........? Or RUPAUL? Personally, I think the latter would do a better job in the white house. And do you suppose they are related? What’s your thoughts?
Ron Paul...? What's so good about him again? He's nowhere near the top,... I have no idea what's so good about him, but by "what's so good about him" i do not imply that he does not have "anything good", only that i have no idea, literally, what he supports. Anyone care to brief me? Thanks
RON PAUL leads in Polls of people who have heard him ? take a look :? Ron Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak by Jennifer Haman by Jennifer Haman DIGG THIS After the first three debates on National television, three mainstream news channels featured polls asking the American people who won. After the first debate on May 3rd, MSNBC ran a poll obtaining over 72,000 responses showing Ron Paul was the most convincing candidate receiving 45% of the vote. His nearest competitor was Mitt Romney who received 18%. Fox news ran its own poll after the second debates on May 15, and with over 40,000 votes Ron Paul came in second with 25% of the vote. Watching Sean Hannity's face was priceless as while he was saying that Ron Paul's chances were over in this election, Fox's polling numbers flashed across the screen and had Ron Paul in the lead. He immediately did his best spin to claim the polls had been rigged. MSNBC also ran a poll about that debate and discovered Ron Paul was, again, the most convincing candidate with 64% of the over 25,000 responses. After the third debate on June 5, CNN's poll of over 25,000 respondents showed Ron Paul won with 60% of the vote. One would think with such a strong showing on the online polls for a "second tier" candidate that the mainstream media (MSM) would have discussed this phenomenon at length and on the front page. However, no such stories appeared. In fact, MSM pundits did their best to ignore these figures and instead focused mainly on who they deemed to be the top three choices; effectively, taking control of the election and deciding quite undemocratically who was a "real" candidate. Even though the MSM is largely ignoring him, Ron Paul is taking the Internet by storm. His name leads in searched terms ahead of even Paris Hilton, his YouTube videos have been viewed over one million times and he has more Meetup groups than all other GOP candidates combined. Poll after poll conducted on the Internet shows Ron Paul winning or at least in the top three. Yet, these polls are completely discounted and Ron Paul's tremendous Internet support is sloughed off by the MSM. Occasionally, the MSM will grant some notice of the huge grassroots support online but then discount it by saying "he may be doing well online but he is only polling at 1 or 2 percent." Doesn't anyone see a disconnect between those two clauses? Who do they think is on the Internet? Pet mice running around in tubes? The Internet, for those who seem confused, is a link of people who write things and have ideas and OPINIONS. The 300-plus Meetup groups he has across the country are also attended by people. The MSM is trying to get us to believe that Ron Paul is only polling at 1% because that is what was said on a few polls and the fact that he is polling much higher on the Internet does not count. It is as if they believe that the people on the Internet are not real, their opinions do not count, and the Internet polls could not possibly be correct. The argument is absurd, insulting and designed to keep Ron Paul out of the mainstream public's eye. The MSM ignores his success because of the misguided concept that people do not want to "waste" a vote. It is never a waste to vote for what you want: indeed, nothing could be more wasteful than voting for what you do not want because you think it the lesser of two evils. Voting for evil is always a bad idea. Not only is the MSM staying mum to keep you from seeing Ron Paul as a legitimate candidate but there have been active attempts to hide information about his successes. After the third debate CNN not only ran a poll, but also asked viewers to voice their opinions about the debates. Comments started pouring in supporting Ron Paul, along with all the votes. The next day CNN removed the comments from their webpage. Clever supporters found these lost comments through Google's cache (a technology that takes a virtual picture of a webpage on a certain date, so you can see if it has changed). When silence does not work, biased pundits accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming" the votes (that is voting over and over for their candidate) and claim that this huge show of support is really being done by a few campaigners. This claim is specious for several reasons. First, if it was so easy to spam the polls, all the candidates would do it and online polling numbers would look more like an American Idol session with tens of millions of votes cast. Second, anyone, who understands that the Internet is not a series of tubes, knows that it is easy for a web designer to develop a poll that prohibits more than one vote per person. In fact, most of the online polls do restrict you to voting only once and if you attempt to vote again, even weeks later, you get a polite message that your vote will not count. Finally, along with the polls themselves, people leave comments, thousands of individual comments. So let's look at these polls and their methodologies. Many online polls have tens of thousands of responses, especially the ones done by the MSM immediately after the debates, while old-fashioned telephone pollsters only get responses from hundreds. Yet, only the old telephone polls are reported on by the MSM. We are asked to accept that a poll with 600 persons responding is more accurate than a poll with 70,000 respondents. For example, a much-cited Zogby poll admits that they only targeted 500 interviews and drew their samples randomly from telephone CD's of a national listed sample. (In that poll Ron Paul has a 3% lead). A recent Washington Post article cited its own telephone poll that only reached 1205 adults, and that was used to say Ron Paul is only receiving 1% support. Instead of citing polls that have 70 to 100 times more respondents, the MSM still sticks to old-fashioned telephone-polling methods. The world has changed. We no longer need to depend on poor polls that only call a few hundred people, nor should we be relying on them to tell the whole story. Some say random telephone sampling is more effective just because of its randomness and therefore there is no self-selection bias as in the online polls in which one chooses to partake. However, elections are also based on self-selection and are only won and lost by those who choose to go to the polls: so shouldn't the self-selected polling methods be more accurate? The good news is that of those who have heard Ron Paul speak (if only for the 5 minutes or so he gets in the debates) he is leading by a landslide; unfortunately, not enough people are getting to hear about him. This race would look much different if the leading headlines the days following the GOP debates were (in order of the debates): 1. Ron Paul takes GOP by surprise and WINS the debate. 2. Ron Paul once again a leading contender in second debate, comes in second. 3. Ron Paul wins third debate hands down: other candidates struggling to keep up. If the people were told Ron Paul won the debates, more would learn about him and his support would grow exponentially. In all fairness, the polls that show that Ron Paul is ahead with 98% of the vote are just as inaccurate as the polls that show he is only polling at 1% and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But the largest online polls, the ones taken after the debates, have him receiving somewhere between 45% and 60% of the votes. So, why the big disparity in polling numbers? Some have suggested that Ron Paul has a lot of young supporters who do not own landlines and thus are not being polled. Other explanations come to mind as well: 1. Typical polls will only call a certain type of voter e.g. people who voted Republican in the last election and this will leave out a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom reaches across the aisle and a lot of previously registered Democrats are switching parties to vote for him in this election. For the same reason, many Libertarians and Independents are also going to be voting as Republicans this election. Much of his support also comes from young people who are voting in their first Presidential election and thus would have no previous voting record. 2. Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty is so exciting that people who have decided not to vote in past elections have decided that finally they have someone for whom to vote. 3. Some polls are so biased they do not even list Ron Paul as a choice (coincidentally, in a few of those "other" is leading the pack): Hard to win a poll when your name is not on the list. 4. Ron Paul fights for the individual, not the government, and his message appeals to those who like to be left alone. During this election many individuals have caller ID and often choose to avoid telemarketers and callers they do not know. 5. Some of these polls begin with intrusive questions about a person's gender, religious affiliation, annual income, and other information some see as none of anyone's business. If you refuse to answer the initial questions they will not continue with the questions. The type of person that likes Ron Paul, also tends to like privacy. 6. Sadly, not enough people are getting to hear about his policies. Once they hear him, Ron Paul's supporters are very passionate about his message. A search of Internet "blogs" shows people writing zealously about him. Nothing could be more thrilling than to see an 18-year-old excited about the election process, shouting out support for Ron Paul, begging to hear more information about the Federal Reserve and its implications for the country. Through his campaign, Ron Paul is teaching many the benefits of limited government. There should be no surprise that his message is so well received; it is the one taught to us by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and other founding fathers. It is the message of liberty, freedom, with the basis of a republic, not a democracy. We have been lied to so often, and our Constitution ripped apart at the seams, that when a person comes along speaking basic truths and principles, it awakens a part of us buried for so long. When ignoring Ron Paul does not work, and removing messages about him receives backlash, the next stage is to call his supporters rabid, nuts, crazy, unstable. If you cannot attack the man, attack his supporters. Yet who can blame people who get upset when a life-saving message comes along and the MSM tries to keep it from the public. Ron Paul's message is life-saving. He wants to end the war, he wants to help ease poverty by eliminating the Federal Reserve and its ability to steal through monetary inflation. He wants to end the Income Tax and give those who need it most their entire salaries. The anger you hear is frustration by his supporters at being marginalized, just as they are by so many government actions these days, and fury when all this support is discounted. Of course people are getting upset. They do not like being manipulated and they especially do not like it when a Presidential campaign is being hijacked. The worst part about the MSM treatment of Ron Paul, is that finally the people have a candidate they really love, and a man who would get this country back on the proper course. They have a man who will follow the Constitutional course that served this country so well for so long. Instead of rejoicing and helping the country and the people find their way, corporate media giants are trying to silence his message by ignoring him completely or reporting on only the most obscure, misleading and slanderous articles (could this be because Ron Paul is also against corporate welfare?). Most recently, even the Associated Press got into the "let's lead with misleading statements" game. In reporting on how Dr. Paul decided to hold his own rally after being the only candidate in the debates to not be invited to a Presidential Forum in Iowa, the AP's first line in the article was that Ron Paul has added "party crashing" to his debate tactics. As any ten-year-old knows, to crash a party you have to attend the party. Ron Paul had not announced he would attend the Presidential forum. Instead, he decided to hold a completely separate event immediately following the forum in the same venue. That is not party crashing, that is called campaigning. The article went on to tell the truth about the situation, but that catch phrase was repeated as a headline across the country impugning Dr. Paul's character. See for example this ABC News headline: Republican Ron Paul to Crash Iowa Forum. Just as Ron Paul spoke of blowback in the context of military interference in foreign affairs, unless the mainstream media ends the Ron Paul blackout and misinformation drive, they will lose the next generation who is seeing it as a biased, manipulating, election-fixing force not to be trusted. When Ron Paul gets heard or seen, he is liked. As soon as people who do not own computers are able to see him or read his message his numbers in the national polls will rise just as they have done on the Internet. In general, the American people are saying they want liberty and freedom: Now, if only the MSM would listen. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." ~ John Quincy Adams July 16, 2007 Jennifer Haman
Ron Paul Rocks!!!! : Lewrockwell.com? Ron Paul Rocks! by Karen Kwiatkowski by Karen Kwiatkowski DIGG THIS I am ashamed to admit that I’ve been watching Ron Paul’s recent political acts with fingers and toes crossed, breathless. Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in the possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power. And in doing it, not only survive, but thrive! A famous Orwell quote captures what is happening. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." And while many have been working to prepare ground for truth and freedom in this country, I think we will note that the first shots in this revolution have been fired by Ron Paul. Orwell had glimpsed what would become the modern political state, globally engaged in endless wars, fighting shadowy enemies who constantly change, because they never really mattered anyway. What mattered, and what still matters, is war, with its handmaidens Fear and Public Amnesia. Without fear and amnesia, holding on to domestic political power in the American neoconservative oligarchy becomes risky, uncertain. Ron Paul is speaking truth to the whole world, with patience and patriotism flowing in equally generous portions. Like the young David, he is received by the dogs of war with sneers, self-important snarling, threatening stares. Like David, he seems almost unarmed and even unprepared for the great battle to come. But like David, he is unafraid. Like David, he understands what he believes in and knows it to be consistent with all that is good and just. On the other hand, his political opponents, in both parties, do not truly believe in what they are saying. The neoconservative evangelical Republican Party seeks the 2008 presidency and the neoconservative socialist Democratic Party seeks the 2008 presidency. It isn’t because they believe in something – instead, they seek to access domestic power and maintain the status quo – an enriching and profitable status quo for people and organizations in power, I might add. I’m not just saying this because I am excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy and the possibility of his presidency. Recall if you will, the first Republican debate, when the candidates were asked about National ID cards. Some of the other candidates began to respond, clonelike, each confusing the national ID card with some vague undeveloped ideas they have about security for the country. Their reptilian brains were drumming "Security, Security, Must Look Good on Security." Then Ron Paul gets to answer the national ID card question. It is unnecessary and would have little to nothing to offer in terms of national security. Oh, and then he firmly rejected it. Like a real man! Immediately, the candidates – even some who had already spoken, rushed and stumbled to agree or at a minimum, move toward the Ron Paul position. I recall Giuliani saying something like he would only have a national ID card for aliens. Huh? My mother says if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. Let me then say this: Rudy Giuliani has the biggest reptilian brain of all the candidates. Ron Paul offers real change, and a real way ahead for America that includes not just an embrace of the original constitutional outline of small government, but something we can really partake of each day – free economics, free speech, free will. Further, Ron Paul promises something that is valuable and precious to Americans who belong to a political party – any political party. Ron Paul offers a chance to share a real sense of our country as glorious and honorable, a joyful, fearless land of opportunity and of peace. Because make no mistake, the United States has not been glorious and wonderful, and certainly not free and peaceful, for many decades. I am excited about Ron Paul and his campaign. I have ritualistically voted since 1978, usually as a Republican, later as a libertarian, and last fall I voted for Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat. I’ll ritualistically vote for Ron Paul in 2008, if I can. But far more than that, I am pleased to be humbled by each new day of the Ron Paul campaign – to witness the raw power of ideas and debate – after such a long hiatus of ideas and debate from the American political game. The Greek concept of happiness, eudaimonia, keeps coming to mind whenever I think of Ron Paul as President. It is about faithful and right action, not human exultation or social extremes. It is about the happy and fulfilling marriage of knowledge and virtue. It is about reality over fantasy, faith over existentialism, doing good over doing evil. In other words, Ron Paul rocks!
Ron Paul is a Big Problem for them? 'Ron Paul Is a Big Problem' by Burton S. Blumert "Look, Blumert," the lawyer told me. "There's nothing complex here. Ron Paul is a big problem for you people." So I responded: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BLUMERT: You can’t imagine how strange that sounds. Ron is a problem only to the moribund political establishment, and their cowardly media. At LewRockwell.com (LRC) we revere Ron Paul and regard him as a modern day Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, Ron’s even more principled than Jefferson, and he knows Austrian economics as well. LAWYER: That’s my point. In the past few months, too many articles and blogs at LRC have cast a positive light on Ron Paul, and therefore on his presidential candidacy. LRC, and its parent, the Center for Libertarian Studies, are non-profit entities, and you guys cannot be involved with political campaigns in any way, shape, or form. BLUMERT: The Center for Libertarian Studies (CLS) was chartered in 1975, and we have never been involved with electoral politics. The same is true for LRC, which has been around since 1999. Now, Ron Paul has been a champion for freedom for his entire career, and we have been proud to publish his articles and speeches as important libertarian documents. By doing so, we dramatically raised his internet profile. But that doesn’t mean we are involved with any political campaign. LAWYER: The fact remains that Ron Paul is now a real world candidate for president, and you guys are playing with fire every time you publish a positive article about him. Sure, you might win the argument that you are not political, but you have some powerful enemies, the pro-war crowd, for example. They would love to destroy you, and if they can use the levers of power against you, they will. And by the way, given the way you are legally structured now, you also can’t run articles or blogs that are critical of other candidates. No going after Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain. So here are your choices as I measure them: You can stop publishing articles and blogs on Ron Paul and other candidates (and cross your fingers), or you can shut down LRC immediately. Total closure is what I recommend, and right now. BLUMERT: Abandon Ron Paul? Never. Close down LRC? You might as well cut off Lew Rockwell’s fingers. I’ll pretend I didn’t hear either of your suggestions. Look, LRC is too important to silence. It has become the most significant libertarian website in the world. Literally thousands of people, from all over the world, have told me that LRC has been key to their intellectual development, and a source of sanity in this Age of the Neocon. Of course, we also get hatemail; we’re "anti-Semites" for opposing endless Mideast wars; we’re "traitors" for resisting the omnipotent executive; we’re "pro-terrorist" for fighting the police state; we’re "mean-spirited" for supporting the free market; we’re "conspiracy nuts" for criticizing the Federal Reserve; and we’re "anti-American" for working against the empire. But even our enemies can’t stay away; vast numbers of people visit the site every day, to learn, to cheer, or to boo, because this is where it’s happening – for everyone dedicated (or opposed) to freedom and peace. As to Ron Paul, we have some history here. In 1988 I was chairman of Ron’s first presidential campaign. Lew has been his friend and associate since 1975, and served as Ron’s chief of staff in Congress. We both know him very well, and, like all who know him, think the world of him, as a man of great integrity and as a leader. This is not political; it is supporting the ideas we have loved and promoted for decades. Of course, it’s no coincidence that Ron calls LRC his favorite website. Bail on him? Never. Lew and I have worked all our lives for this moment. And we will keep working. As Ron himself has said, "More important than the man is the message for liberty." And after today’s debates, primaries, and elections, are over, LRC will still be spreading that message. LAWYER: Okay, okay, Blumert, I get the message. To protect both LRC and CLS, and you and Lew, you only have one prudent course of action. You must spin LRC off from CLS. The good news: CLS will stay as it is. The not-so-good news: donations to LRC will no longer be tax-deductible, though it still can be a non-profit educational effort. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There was a certain surrealism in dealing with this tax attorney; profit vs. non-profit; tax-exempt vs. non-tax-exempt. These are state-created categories, and libertarians should never have to deal with such distinctions. Some libertarian purists refuse to use a state driver’s license. Others, on the fringe, don't want to travel a government built roadway. (And after Minneapolis, who can blame them?) Still, Lew has sufficient challenge six days a week, every week of the year, without some bureaucrat peering over his shoulder determining whether an LRC article falls under regulation A (politically acceptable) or B (politically unacceptable). So, on June 30, 2007, LRC seceded (an appropriate word for us!) from the Center for Libertarian Studies, which will carry on its scholarly work. LRC, now to become a 501(c)4, will continue as a popular educational endeavor, operating on a not-for-profit basis, but not tax-deductible. That is, donations to LRC as of July 1, 2007 (Lew’s 63rd birthday), are NOT tax-deductible. Frankly, this worries me very much. (Of course, to know me is to know that everything worries me very much.) Can LRC survive under this new regime? Will people donate to LRC if they no longer can claim a deduction on their taxes? Some people tell me No. Lew says Yes, we can. Frankly, I don’t know. What I do know is that our decision is the right one. Our "Ron Paul Problem" has a price tag. It’s going to cost us at least $15K to set-up our new non-profit entity. In addition, since we started suffering with the lawyers, and stopped fundraising given the uncertainty, we have consumed about $30K of our reserves. Then we need about $25,000 to keep going for the rest of the year, and I’d like to restore our reserve so we are not perpetually on the knife-edge. So that is $70,000 in total. Will you help? You have never failed us. And now LRC needs you more than ever. I know I don’t have to remind you (but I will anyway!) that the neocons are smart, well-organized, and unscrupulous. They seem committed to one bloody war after another: Iraq today; Iran or Syria next; and then maybe China. They control wealthy foundations, powerful mass media, and part of the Bush administration. We have done them damage, so waving bye-bye to LRC as it sank beneath the waves would give them great pleasure. After all, Lew has been fighting these "big-government conservatives," in one way or another, since the late 1960s. In the old days, they regarded him as a small dog nipping at their heels. Today, they fear him. And they really do want him to disappear. Especially now, thanks to Ron Paul. In my 78 years, I have never seen a moment like this. The enemy has done serious damage. But their evil influence is vulnerable to a motivated, educated people in revolt, and using the ideas of Mises, Rothbard, and other great libertarians, Ron Paul has jump-started the revolution against all the statists who threaten us. And Lew Rockwell has been laying the groundwork for 40 years, to be ready for just this time. I believe this is The Moment. Will LRC be able to play its essential role? Or will the neocons be toasting our demise? How I would hate to tell Ron we had to close our doors. Please help. If you want us to keep fighting, please send your most generous donation. Keep LRC going. We have never needed it more. PS: We owe it to the great men and women of our past, to Ron, and to the future, to never give in and never give up. Please help Lew keep fighting. How we need him. August 6, 2007 Burt Blumert
Socialists and Neocons versus Ron Paul? Socialists and Neocons versus Ron Paul Bryan Edds Lew Rockwell.com Wednesday Aug 22, 2007 From my experience, people who attack libertarians such as Ron Paul are often not serious about ideas. I have noticed the individuals who deride Dr. Paul do so mostly with shallow and dishonest attacks. Take the various socialists and welfare-statists who attack Ron Paul. I understand they support nationalizing healthcare while generally being against the occupation of Iraq. Because they oppose the occupation, they should find a powerful ally in someone as principally opposed to it as Ron Paul. Take also the neoconservatives in the mass (minded) media such as Faux News who attack and omit Dr. Paul. I understand they support the occupation of the Middle East but also believe government should be strictly limited in accordance with traditional conservative ideas (right? right???). In Ron Paul, they have a great opportunity to highlight these at least rhetorical parallels while simultaneously expressing reasonable disagreements. Because of these considerations, I believe it reasonable to expect a certain amount of give and take among the three camps, if only for practical reasons. What I have experienced instead has been a surreal and dishonest two-front attack against Ron Paul. No argument seems to be too trivial or irrelevant for the anti-Paulians to make. They seem to be bringing up every possible issue (real or imagined) against Ron Paul in the hopes something – anything – will stick. Consider: While the President gets dictatorial power to spy on and indefinitely kidnap innocent Americans, socialists and neocons speculate wildly about Ron Paul supporters "spamming" internet polls. While thousands of men, women, and children violently die in Iraq and Afghanistan, socialists and neocons misrepresent Ron Paul's refusal to fund stem cell research. While the Bush administration plots to drop nuclear weapons on Iran, socialists and neocons spin every single Ron Paul victory to be meaningless or nonexistent. While people suffer without healthcare because government intervention makes it unaffordable to the poor, socialists and neocons distort a decade-old mishap Ron Paul had with one of his previous ghostwriters. Where they manage to attack Dr. Paul’s ideas directly, they do so with increasingly ineffective arguments. Consider further: While the Constitution is trashed and mocked by all three branches, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's message of rule of law is anachronistic. While government at all levels rob the people blind, socialists and neocons sneer at Ron Paul’s suggestion to get rid of the Federal income tax. While the American economy further implodes due to the boom and bust cycle created by the Federal Reserve, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's anti-Fed proposals are "irrelevant." While the prices of essential goods dramatically increase via inflation, socialists and neocons talk about how Ron Paul's hard-money ideas are unrealistic. While Ron Paul educates Americans on economics, socialists and neocons spread discredited Keynesian and Marxist myths which undermine liberty and prosperity. While Ron Paul plans to help reintegrate America with the world through peaceful trade and foreign policy, socialists and neocons smear him as "isolationist." While Ron Paul gains more supporters every day, socialists and neocons criticize his lack of name recognition in land-line phone polling – yet at the same time groan about how fanatical and pervasive his supporters are... Something isn't right. There is honest disagreement, and then there is demagoguery. There is mutual respect, and then there is mud-slinging. I cannot name one person who Dr. Paul has disparaged as badly as most of his critics see fit to disparage him. This says a lot about all said parties involved. What is it then about Ron Paul that inspires such fevered attacks? I will say what I believe. I believe the battle for freedom takes place not only in the upcoming election, but also in the arena of ideas. In this arena, I believe Ron Paul’s message is more powerful than any political shenanigans that can be put against him. I believe also the embittered detractors have good reason to be up in arms. With every Ron Paul victory, they have found their intellectual weaponry to be unexpectedly brittle and ineffective against the message of freedom.
Ron Paul-Cesar Millan: The Dream Ticket fora good change? Ron Paul-Cesar Millan: My Dream Ticket by Linda Schrock Taylor by Linda Schrock Taylor DIGG THIS I realize that Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer, not having been born in the United States, cannot actually run for VP. But please, do let me dream. Ron Paul should be the presidential choice of every person who loves the United States of America; every person who respects the Constitution, the Republic, the Promises, and the Philosophies upon which this nation was founded; of every person who wants an economically, educationally, Freedom-secured future for themselves and their children. There is no other who can hold a candle to Ron Paul, who is the most intelligent, principled, disciplined man I have ever met. There is no other I would send in his stead. Dr. Ron Paul is a true Statesman; most certainly not a 'politician'. Cesar Millan is my choice for Vice President because---if any nation on Earth is out-of-control; living in a dangerous 'red zone'; gravely in need of Discipline, Boundaries and Limitations, it is today's United States of America. The Constitution must again become the "Leader of the Pack" and everyone --- everyone --- must recognize and respect its Authority. Cesar, a man with astute insights into the behaviors of both creatures and humans; a teacher recognized as a proof-in-the-pudding authority on instilling Discipline, Boundaries, and Limitations, is the individual whose services are desperately needed in these most desperate of dog-eat-dog times. Consider the Presidency: How can the 'leader' of a republic expect or demand any respect from a citizenry that he has effectively gagged, discounted, abused, and minimalized? As we all have watched in horror, this (not)leader further destroys the honor of the office, and corrupts the Rights, Freedoms, and Input of the populace. He is out-of-control with his kingly dictates, demands, and direct orders. He is no leader-of-the-pack and only his blind and faithful few find anything about him, his decisions, about his actions, to be worthy of respect. He is not a leader; he is a bully. He is running off-collar and out-of-control. He is the 'red zone' and so very dangerous to the survival of our pack; of our America. Ron and Caesar, to the rescue! The Supreme Court clearly demonstrates a lack of Discipline, Boundaries and Limitations, as it methodically removes all Discipline, Boundaries and Limitations from a hedonistic, mis-educated, ethically-challenged populace. The Supremes write legislation (not their job!); dictate cultural trends (pushing the culture ever closer to Sodom, Gomorrah and a similar meltdown); give workers' retirement money to children and others who have never worked (Thieves!); condone the slaughter of the unborn (the future taxpayers); and much, too much, more. The Supremes pave the way for Evil while abdicating their constitutionally defined roles. This current system of Checks and Balances has checked our Rights, and put our nation totally out of balance--ethically and economically. The Supreme Court Disease is rapidly spreading, claiming millions of victims. We need Dr. Paul to effect a cure and stem the tide. Congress is completely out of control; a crazed pack, feeding in a frenzy upon the weaker members of the Republic (The taxpayers). There is more to be said about Congress, and endless examples to be sited, but frankly, I do not have the stomach for it. It is incomprehensible that so many citizens have been satisfied to shrug their shoulders and do nothing. America needs the Wisdom and the Discipline of Ron Paul and Cesar Millan. The Department of Education is worse than worthless. It is dangerous. It exists in a red zone of its own creation, The Department serves to destroy hope, potential, skills, scholarship, thought, inventiveness, national literacy, minds...and the lives of the American people. Unfortunately, this animal is beyond help and must be 'put down'. We must move swiftly to euthanize this creature; to make, and keep, America safe. The People must again be free to establish and live in a just and humane society, made up of just, rational, educated, thinking adults acting as leaders should; teaching young people to follow in great footsteps. To refer to the death of the Department of Education as "a mercy killing" would be an understatement of unbelievable proportions. It is imperative that we act to protect the children of America; to treat those who have already been harmed and molested; to insure that never again will a child be 'bitten' by such a destructive, poisonous, inhumane beast. State governments...no longer understand, let alone demand and defend, States' Rights. The individual states allow federal looters (beginning with the current president), as well as their state officials, to rape, rob, abuse, threaten, misinform, under educate, and otherwise harm citizens. When states lack the will and the guts to protect their citizens from beasts on a rampage, those states broadcast proof of their own lack of discipline, boundaries, and limitations. States weaken under threats from the big, bad Feddies. Once upon a time, an honorable, and very enlightened former Michigan Secretary of State refused to ask citizens for social security numbers (under the federal pretense that they were needed for drivers' licenses). She assured the people of Michigan that should she ever need the numbers, she certainly would not pass them on to the Federal Bullies. She fought hard, but eventually lost the battle when the Feds threatened her: if she persisted in her refusal, federal support for Michigan's schools would end. (Wait a minute! That money was ours to begin with! We send our money to Washington, even though the federal government should never be involved in local schooling decisions, then the States must practically prostitute themselves to get any of it back. States have the Right to keep the feds on a short leash, but their knees turn to jelly in the face of federal threats. States have become fearful and weak, and as Cesar has taught us, weak and fearful animals are the ones most likely to bite. Dr. Paul can stop the bleeding and treat the bites, while Cesar gets those tails out from between states' legs, and attempts to help the 50 animals grow a backbone. Local governments...ignore the wishes and needs of the People, while handing the citizens, their possessions, their Rights, and their security, right over to a far more dangerous beast---the Federal Government. Local governments make rulings and changes without consulting with, nor caring about, those individuals and businesses who will be most affected. City Hall rarely asks what people need in order to learn, live, thrive, be productive. Little-to-no leadership at this level (My Uncle Doug, Mayor, is an exception.) Another dangerous bite threat. Public schools...reward the unworthy; while driving the best from the "jobs project" (Thank you, John Taylor Gatto) by using lies, distortions, and cruelty. Public schools graduate the illiterate and the uneducated back into the culture, thereby widening the circle of ignorance; increasing the number of unproductive citizens; worsening destructive behaviors. Public schools, with their policies, their teachings, and their indoctrination, cloud the eyes of the culture and warp the judgement and self esteem of the nation's children. Public schools feed deviance, and further sicken the society. They are as a rabid dog to the security of this nation. Public schools should be euthanized, with the Federal Department of Education and its 50 clones. Churches are too often uncomfortable and quite unwilling to pass judgement on the most guilty of sinners. Churches should be stating, "This, that, and that other behavior are bad; wrong; illicit; no-no's; "just not done"!" But that role has become a very unpopular one, even though the culture is decaying from a lack of such corrections from proper sources. Churches used to provide the nation, its leaders, and its families, with core values; with sense of purpose; with faith in a power Higher than...advertisements, media, and a "Me, Me" perspective on Life. Churches used to provide moral support, advice, and guiding Biblical references, to parents, to local leaders, and even to Congress!! Yes, Congress once knew better! Churches used to provide moral boundaries for decision making at all leadership levels. Church leaders, once models of decorum, scholarship, honor, have too often been replaced by individuals as lacking --even more lacking---in Discipline, Boundaries, and Limitations---than their parishioners. I know of one who slid into church service one Sunday to show off the new athletic shoes he was wearing! In my home, and as poor as we were, we all still owned "Sunday shoes" that were worn with respect; to places and events worthy of respect and proper behavior. Sports shoes were for noisy gymnasiums, sandy lots, playgrounds, and ballfields. Frankly, I am appalled by most of the clothing worn to church services. If people have so little respect as to enter our Lord's dwelling wearing sleazy, sloppy, ill-fitting clothing, why do they even bother to attend? Scary times indeed---when church officials, leaders, and members are the ones most in need of role models, discipline, boundaries, and limitations. Families are disorganized and fractured. Too many fathers were never taught to conduct themselves with propriety, intelligence, wisdom (Thank you, Dr. Spock. We owe it all to you.) Others have just decided to selfishly ignore the responsibilities of parenting. Immature, undisciplined men provide very destructive role models for children. Immature, undisciplined men swear at umpires; hit wives and children; rage at sporting events. Immature, undisciplined men put their bad upbringing (and their arses) on display for everyone to see. Immature, selfish, undisciplined men refuse to acknowledge that the most attentive eyes, and listening ears, are those of his children. Too many men become hit-and-run fathers, leaving their children to grow up in poverty; in disorganized, discipline-lacking homes where, too often, children train for a lifetime of crime and ...hit-and-run parenting. How can a father teach discipline, boundaries and limitations, when he has none? Such a man is still a child, himself, and needs Ron Paul as a role model and leader; Cesar Millan to take control of behaviors and maintain a tight leash. Immature, undisciplined mothers, even grandmothers, flaunt tattoos, piercings, inappropriate clothing. Immature, undisciplined mothers proudly draw attention to their nasty mouths; rude personalities; to their too-often-unattractive cleavage, and more. Too many mothers, whether attractive or not, have become downright repulsive. They have so little self respect, and no regard for their children, screaming at them in public; dragging them by the hand through stores; failing to teach them to appreciate, respect, and take advantage of Life's opportunities. Shamelessly, immature and undisciplined mothers become pregnant without marriage; hold fathers to no obligations; but expect taxpayers to support their bad decisions; their bad habits. Immature, undisciplined mothers keep disorganized and dirty homes; providing poorly planned meals, if they provide any at all. Too many, and the number continues to grow, just lack the basic instincts of parenting. Observe the animals around you. The animals parent with more wisdom and common sense than a growing number of today's mothers, who lack the character and morals necessary to instill character and morals in their children. Ron Paul most certainly has his work cut out for him, but I have no doubt that he will handle it well. Mrs. Paul is a picture of grace, decorum, and prudence. There is no other I would send in her stead to be the role model for mothers, everywhere. Children...grow up as they have been guided, shaped, and led (or not led) by their families; by their schools and teachers; by the culture as sanctioned by the Supreme Court. The circle reaches its beginning and continues in ever more shocking and depressing steps; in ever more destructive cycles. We all must work together to save the children; to provide them with discipline, boundaries and limitations. If the tide does not turn soon, the United States of America will die out with our older generations, if not before. America will be Nevermore. I do worry so about the future of America. If another socialist like Hillary; if another fear monger like Bush; should win the 2008 election, I fear that ... the grafters; the looters; the entitlement classes; the unwise; the foolish; the stupid, and all those who base their voting decisions upon 30-second TV commercials (Thank you, Jim Trelease), will have chosen the 'leader' that they very much deserve. However, the rest of us do not want, and do not deserve, what the Hillary's, the McCain's, the Bush's have to offer. We deserve Better, and 'Better' is only attainable with Dr. Ron Paul as President. If only Cesar Millan could be his running mate... Possibly President Ron Paul would consider The Dog Whisperer for a Cabinet post. A new position could even be created---Head of Cabinet Heads---and Cesar could start there. What about "Comptroller of Congress and (its cohort in crime---that policy-writing, culture-warping, irresponsible) Supreme Court"? The Dog Whisperer is experienced and successful in handling the most manipulative, vicious, devious, dangerous creatures. He may as well begin at the top to provide the much needed retraining and remediation, then I cannot wait to watch him in action as he deals with Congress, next. Cesar's expense account would be minimal, for he accomplishes wonders using a short leash. Dr. Ron Paul has delivered hundreds, thousands of babies. Planning for; preparing for; then bringing about healthy births is his area of expertise. Let us put him In Charge, then strongly support him as he plans, prepares, and brings about the rebirth of this nation and a return to its Constitutional Republic roots. "Sometimes the slightest things change the directions of our lives, the merest breath of a circumstance, a random moment that connects like a meteorite striking the earth. Lives have swiveled and changed direction on the strength of a chance remark." (Spoken by Peekay in The Power of One, by Bryce Courtenay, pg 60) Dr. Ron Paul's philosophies and goals are far from random; hugely larger than slight; but the changes he will bring about will be remarkable; certainly "like a meteorite striking the earth." Ron Paul is the person to support and elect to the office of President of the United States of America in 2008. He is our chance to swivel and change directions. We must act to support this only foreseeable opportunity to return America to its wise, intelligent, productive, culturally-healthy, freedom-securing Founding Principles. July 24, 2007 Linda Schrock Taylor
Why Ron Paul is misnamed in Iowans (ICA) ?? take a look :? the misnamed Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA) have chosen to exclude Ron Paul from their candidates’ forum on June 30. There is more to report. I’ve received emails from people telling me that the folks at the ICA insist that they had nothing to do with excluding Dr. Paul, and that the blame rests with Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief. (Ed’s not too popular with a lot of people these days, apparently.) Now I have no doubt that there may be some decent people at the ICA, and that they may really believe what they are saying. But that organization cannot possibly be believed when it innocently claims it has nothing against Ron Paul. The ICA has a page on its site that lists all the announced candidates for president. Here is the link. Until yesterday, when I pointed it out on the LRC blog and embarrassed them a bit, there was no Ron Paul. Now look at the list again. Ever heard of Hugh Cort? John Cox? Mark Klein? The people at the ICA evidently have, since there they are on the list. But they apparently hadn't heard of Ron Paul until just yesterday. Actually, though, they did know who Ron Paul was. They even used to have him on their list, as this Google cache shows. But then he disappeared. They also used to have a link to Paul’s YouTube site, along with those of the other candidates, at the bottom of the page, but that’s also been suppressed. So if they thought they could claim that deleting the link to Ron Paul’s campaign site was some kind of innocent mistake, that isn’t going to work. Heck, they even include a list of "potential" candidates. That list includes Al Sharpton. So Al Sharpton merits inclusion, but Ron Paul does not. There is the faith of the apostles, according to the Iowa Christian Alliance. Now let’s return to my other favorite Iowa organization, the Iowans (Allegedly) for Tax Relief. Its executive vice president, Ed Failor, wasn’t happy about my LRC article on Wednesday. Not happy at all. In fact, he called me on Wednesday and insisted that I correct something I’d said – that by replacing Jim Gilmore with Duncan Hunter at the last minute (a fact I discovered by comparing press releases from earlier this month), Iowans for Tax Relief implicitly revealed that the reason they were excluding Ron Paul – that the event had supposedly been organized months ago and was now cast in stone – was bogus, and a lie. Here is the earth-shattering change Failor wanted me to make. Hunter, he said, had been one of the original invitees – man, these guys are just great at picking out the credible candidates, aren’t they? – but failed to respond by the deadline. So when Gilmore dropped out, they went back to Hunter, who accepted. But if they really wanted "credible" candidates, why would they do such a thing? By now even the zombie population can see that Ron Paul is far more credible than Hunter by any measure. The comparison is almost laughable. And since Hunter had his chance to participate but elected not to respond, why not give Paul a chance, since his initial exclusion – on the ludicrous grounds that he was not a "credible" candidate – has subsequently been shown to be a gross misjudgment? Paul seems particularly "credible" given that he came in second behind Fred Thompson in a straw poll that Iowans for Tax Relief itself co-sponsored! Meanwhile, with Failor’s technicality off his chest, he had absolutely nothing to say about 99 percent of what I wrote: he never denied his support for the execrable George Pataki (what non-hack ever supported Pataki for anything, much less for president?), his support for Pataki’s spending increases, or his donations to the McCain campaign, for which Failor is a senior advisor. The humorless Failor appeared on Jan Mickelson’s radio program later that day in order to justify his organization’s exclusion of Dr. Paul; Ron Paul campaign manager Kent Snyder also appeared. You can listen to it here. My favorite part is Failor’s claim that other non-credible candidates weren’t invited, either, so Ron Paul hasn’t been treated unfairly. And which candidates would those be? Why, Hugh Cort, John Cox, and Mark Klein, of course! You cannot make this stuff up. The "Rudy McRomney" moniker is meant to suggest that the establishment’s favorite Republican candidates are indistinguishable from each other, and that they collectively represent the same inoffensive commitment to nothing that characterizes the entire political mainstream. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, electing one of these men means absolutely nothing will change. Of that you can be certain. And that’s just the way Ed Failor, Rudy McRomney supporter, evidently likes it. No Ron Paul revolution for him. Who needs a revolution when you can vote for John McCain and get a slightly more maniacal status quo? This is the man who sits in judgment of Ron Paul? And no, Ed, I don’t buy your phony explanation. Neither does anyone with an IQ over 75. June 22, 2007 Thomas E. Woods, Jr
ron paul is leading the polls at 33%, what do you think about that? http://www.nolanchart.com/article615.html Ron Paul is leading in the national polls! 33% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The result of months of polling actual voters certainly destroys the phone polls the media pundits want you to believe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Robert Werden (Libertarian) The pollsters insist that polls conducted over the phone are the most scientific way of accurately assessing a candidate’s viability. This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. What it all boils down to in the end is votes. On Caucus and Primary day you cannot phone in your vote and for all the Ron Paul supporters you cannot click your vote either. You must show up in person and cast your ballot live. The Ron Paul brigade has proven they can vote. Ron Paul wins every single internet poll as well as almost all cell phone text message polls after network debates. The question media pundits are constantly asking regarding the huge internet voting and fund raising success of Ron Paul is can he translate his tremendous support into Caucus and Primary votes? Well let’s take a look at what that means. To the media, polls are success. Polls determine who gets the most media coverage. Polls determine who gets endorsed by big names in both politics and from Hollywood. The Ron Paul supporters have proven online votes and text message votes, but have they proven votes in person, where you actually have to leave your computer or couch and travel somewhere, listen to a bunch of stump speeches then wait in long lines to vote? The only test of that are straw polls. Straw polls are actually a rehearsal for Caucus and Primary day. They are held in almost every state and require a person to travel (sometimes hours away), sit through speeches and stand in lines to vote. Furthermore straw polls are also GOP fund raisers, so in order to vote you often have to pay about $35 to $55. So now you’re getting to the question the media pundits are asking. The translation to actual votes! There have already been close to 50 official straw polls throughout the country. There is a website that keeps track of these events and tallies the scores just like the Media and pollsters do. Now remember straw polls are the closest you can get to actual voting. There is no spammers clicking on 50 internet polls per day, there is no phone polling to the miniscule reminant of the decimated Republican Party. These are real people taking the day off to go and support their candidate. So without further ado here are the results. Source www.usastrawpolls.com As you can see the candidate with the most number of Straw poll wins is Ron Paul. Also notice that the current break through front runner in the phone polls Mike Huckabee has won only 2 straw polls. Candidate# Wins Ron Paul 25 Fred Thompson 24 Mitt Romney 22 Rudy Giuliani 7 John McCain 5 Mike Huckabee 2 Duncan Hunter 2 Alan Keyes 0 Now here is the really shocking statistic of these real life votes. If you look at the total straw polls and average Ron Paul’s polling percentage the same way phone polls are averaged, the percentages of votes for Ron Paul is 33.02%. Source http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/ 33.02% is the media pundits answer to their question of translation to actual votes. So if you were hesitant to throw your endorsement towards Ron Paul because of the Medias assessment of viability, your likely in a genuine position to justify Ron Paul as your candidate. I say, welcome to the Ron Paul Revolution. DASHLOC4: by the looks of your answer you didnt take the 2 minutes to even read the article or look at the facts , but that happens allot here so dont sweat the truth or facts sailorti... : actually its talking about people going to straw polls compaired with phone polls , straw polls are not jut held near colleges , they are put on by republican partys or republican voters groups, none are really backing ron paul but his supporters come out and vote , just like they will in the primaries Golden : 2 things just because its not your poll doesnt make it a wrong poll. 2 just becuase people dont vote for your canidate ,doesnt mean they stole anything, they just believe in a different canidate than you and the only wasted vote is the vote not cast. (or the status quo)
Ron Paul and The Matrix? Ron Paul and the Matrix by John J. Smalanskas by John J. Smalanskas DIGG THIS I had to wipe Earl Grey tea spray from my computer screen as I laughed and watched the very entertaining Ron Paul is the Matrix YouTube on the Lew Rockwell Breaking News blog. The Matrix–Ron Paul connection is a perfect fit. In The Matrix (in case you live in a duct tape and plastic enrobed house without outside communication), Neo (Keanu Reeves) is given a choice by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) to take the blue pill, wake up in your bed "and believe whatever you want to believe," or, take the red pill and "stay in Wonderland and [see] how deep the rabbit hole goes." The Matrix, as Morpheus explains to Neo, is a computer generated program or "dreamworld" created by artificial intelligence (machines) to keep humanity under control and to use humans as its primary power source. As the story goes, Neo swallows the red pill, battles the nefarious Matrix Agents, and fulfills his destiny as "the one," which was to destroy the Matrix and save humanity. In our present reality, Ron Paul is our Neo; he is "the one" that may be our last and best hope to revive the essence and spirit of our (former) Constitutional Republic. Like a splinter in my mind, to borrow another Morpheus expression, the Ron Paul YouTube video made me recall another interesting aspect of both my past and The Matrix. There is a song on The Matrix soundtrack made (more mainstream) popular by the movie called Wake Up performed by Rage Against the Machine (RATM). The album of that same name (the cover of which depicts a Vietnamese Buddhist monk burning himself to death in 1963 to protest the murder of fellow Buddhists) was released to critical acclaim in 1992. If you have heard it, you understand; if you have not, you may want to check it out. Be warned: it’s a raw, politically-charged, profanity laced, anti-government, anti-establishment tirade that blasts a listener with cold, hard reality. It’s a perfect compliment to The Matrix, and to me, a perfect fit with the essence and spirit of the Ron Paul movement. As the Wake Up lyrics go, we are all "…[s]till knee-deep in the system’s sh**, … I’ll give you a dose but it’ll never come close to the rage built up inside of me, fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy… Whadda I got to do to wake you up, to shake you up, to break the structure up, ’cause blood still flows in the gutter …" Indeed it does and we are seemingly powerless to stop it, unless, of course, Ron Paul really is "the one." I attended the July 1993 Lollapalooza RATM show in Philadelphia when the band took the stage naked but for "PMRC" taped on the band members’ chests and black tape covering their mouths. They did not play that day, but they did stand there naked for 15 minutes to make their point. I was angered, as where many, but at the time, I did not know the whole story. (RATM later gave a free concert to make up for the mute-naked performance). PMRC, the "Parents Music Resource Center" was a censorship committee comprised of the "Washington Wives," Tipper Gore (Mrs. global warming Chicken Little), Susan Baker (wife of then Treasury Secretary James), Sally Nevius (wife of Washington City Council Chair John Nevius), Pam Howar (wife of Washington realtor Raymond Howar). The sickening Washington Wives reference is of course to their husbands’ tentacles in the Federal Government. When I later learned the full story, I was no longer angry. Fast forward from 1993 to 2000: I was at a friends house and I recognized the song "Wake Up" while watching The Matrix for the fist time. I was angry (again) because I believed that RATM had sold out for some Hollywood bucks, but as I watched the movie I realized the song was a perfect complement to the movie’s plot and underlying red pill–blue pill theme. And now in 2007, The Matrix red pill–blue pill theme and RATM’s Wake Up are perfect complements to the strengthening Ron Paul movement. RATM broke up in 2000, but in an interesting confluence of events (in my red-pill world, anyway) the band has reunited and performed several shows this year with more to come. Here’s where it becomes really interesting for those that have ingested the red pill: During a show in Indio, California on April 29 the RATM lead singer Zack De la Rocha gave a speech during Wake Up referring to statements made by Noam Chomsky on the Nuremburg Standards and said: […] If the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II […] every single one of them, every last rich white one of them from Truman on, would have been hung to death and shot – and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be. […] this whole rotten system has become so vicious and cruel that in order to sustain itself, it needs to destroy entire countries and profit from their reconstruction in order to survive. […] Wake up. [As reported by Corey Moss, MTV News]. Later, our blue pill friends Hannity & Colmes (or perhaps Agents) at Faux (alleged) News "discussed" De la Rocha’s statement – while the typically annoying on-screen headline blared – "[RATM] says Bush admin[istration] should be shot." The always charming Ann Coulter (an Agent guest that day) said: "There’re losers, their fans are losers…" I have no cogent defense to Ann’s deep intellectual analysis, but I’d rather be a red pill loser than a blue pill A-hole any day. RATM was not done. During a subsequent concert in New York on July 28 RATM ended their set with Wake Up and De la Rocha fired back at the Faux (alleged) News blather: A couple of months ago, those fascist mother****ers at the Fox News [sic] Network attempted to pin this band into a corner by suggesting that we said that the president should be assassinated. Nah, what we said was that he should be brought to trial as war criminal and hung and shot. THAT'S what we said. […] And we don't back away from the position because the real assassinator is Bush and Cheney and the whole administration for the lives they have destroyed here and in Iraq. […] Wake up. De la Rocha’s delivery and the rawness and radical nature of his message may differ from Ron Paul’s reasoned delivery, but the essence of their message is very similar. Every day, more and more Americans happily swallow the red pill and open their eyes to reality. In The Matrix, there is a scene where Neo asks Morpheus why his eyes hurt. Morpheus explains that it’s because Neo has never really used them. The chicken hawks, hacks, liars, deceivers, and statist filth like Bush, Cheney, Romney, Giuliani, the Clintons, and many others have no clue how to deal with Ron Paul because he delivers truth. Just as they need to mischaracterize and misrepresent De la Rocha’s statements (and their lackey Agents like Faux (alleged) news) they need to attack Ron Paul and attempt to label him a loon. Based on the electric response Ron Paul receives everywhere he goes, Americans are taking the red pill in droves because they fully understand our present reality and that it is leading us all to economic and societal ruin. Unless, of course, you are one of the politically-connected elites that ride our backs like we’re donkeys. The illusion that is the Matrix is beginning to crumble before our eyes and the statists are very afraid. If you have not yet done so, I urge you to swallow the red pill and wake up. It may hurt for a short time, but living in a life of truth, justice, decency, and genuine freedom is far better than living in an authoritarian world of deceit, delusion, illusion, and servitude. August 22, 2007 John J. Smalanskas
Ron Paul Chances ? His the One? Here are some reasons, to be refuted, on Ron Paul's chances. I. Dr. Ron Paul can’t win 1. There's more to life than winning. Even if the Congressman from Texas doesn't win this time, still, he is spreading the libertarian message like pretty much NO ONE else before him. (Yes, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises popularized libertarianism, but none of them did so in the political sphere). Our refusal to support him can't help this campaign. I would think that as a libertarian, we would want to help this effort, whether Dr. Paul wins or not. We should all get behind him as strongly as we can. This is perhaps the best opportunity in a long while to introduce libertarianism to the wider public. 2. Barry Goldwater didn't "win," even though he got the Republican nomination. But, he set the groundwork for Ronald Reagan, who did win, later on. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, if he does well he can set things up for the next libertarian candidate who can potentially attract masses of people to the libertarian message, and then perhaps even "win." We can all help with this initiative. (I'm not a fan of either Goldwater or Reagan, since I don't regard either as libertarians; I'm only using them as an example to illustrate the point.) 3. Don't be sure Ron can't win. No one, right before the fall of the Berlin Wall, or of the USSR, thought that either of these things would happen, even the "experts." No one now thinks Ron can win.... 4. Here's the case for Dr. Paul winning the Republican nomination. The Iraqi "police action" deteriorates even further. Ron is the ONLY Republican candidate who will be no Johnny come lately to the anti-war position. Mitt Romney changes his mind on this, but is dismissed as the waffler he is. The others split the pro–Iraqi war Republican vote. One by one they fall out. (Even at this early date, Ron Paul already has more money in the bank than John McCain. Strange, it turns out that the one Congressman who demands fiscal responsibility of this august body is also the only candidate who is responsible with his own money.) Ron sticks it out until the bitter end. He doesn't need as much money as the others, since his supporters are very committed to him. Let's say, finally, it is Ron vs. Jailiani (aka: Gulag Giuliani, Il Duce, Benito Giuliani, Ghouliani, Gestapo Giuliani.) Then, a new scandal erupts (Rudy did drugs, was divorced even more than we think he was, harassed even more innocent businessmen, whatever). Dr. Paul wins the Republican nomination. In their defense, it cannot be denied, the other Republican candidates will say that the war was not a bad idea but it was badly executed, "and here's how things will be different when I am President." But the American people are not infinitely stupid (even Caplan does not go that far). They have already heard this sort of thing hundreds of times. By the time the primaries are over and the convention begins, they will have heard it even more. Eventually, enough of them will tire of it, particularly as the body bags mount up. 5. Here's the case for Dr. Ron Paul winning the overall election, against whoever the Democrats nominate. Now Ron faces, say, a Hillary–Obama ticket. He kicks their butt, again, over the deteriorating Iraqi war situation. There is no way these war-mongering chameleons will be able to attain the mantle of isolationist foreign policy. With a country heartily sick of U.S. Imperialism, the Republicans hold their noses and vote for Ron against the Hated Hillary. The Democrats desert in droves over the war. It is a super "keep clean for Gene" (McCarthy) scenario. Likely? No. Impossible? Not at all. Ron Paul will actually have a better chance in the general election than in the primaries, much like Rudy. 6. Can't happen? Give me some odds on a bet. (According to some polls, the odds against Ron winning are 200-1). I'm willing to put up $1 against the $200 of all suckers, sorry, I meant takers, that my favorite Texas Congressman will win.
Ron Paul????????????? If you want a Christian president, you would pick one that would stop the killing in Iraq. Let's open our eyes. If you want a president that has dignity, you would pick one that would stop abortion. If you want a president that has brains, let's pick the one that knows how our whole society works and is willing to stop it. We are all going around and around money, it's all there is, clearly. Doctors just keep charging, and charging, and charging, until they drive someone crazy, and that someone commits suicide. Let's pick the one that will SURELY stop it, RON PAUL REVOLUTION '08
ABOUT RON PAUL: Did you know? Ron Paul WILL be getting a nomination, whether it's from the Republican party or not. THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY: LNC resolution to Ron Paul Party congratulates Congressman Paul for his success in spreading a message of peace, prosperity and freedom Charleston, SC – In a meeting of the Libertarian National Committee held this weekend in Charleston, South Carolina, former Congressman Bob Barr proposed a resolution urging Congressman Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination. The resolution passed unanimously and is included below: WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and Congressman Ron Paul share many common principles for liberty and prosperity in America, and WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing, and WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul was previously nominated by the delegates of the Libertarian National Convention to serve as the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate, and WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul, through the efforts of his current presidential campaign, has ignited a renewed passion for liberty across America, and WHEREAS, for over 35 years, the members of the Libertarian Party have continually fought for liberty through activism, education and the political process, and WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and its members have remained respectful, and in many cases, supportive of Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and WHEREAS, the Libertarian National Committee encourages competition in the race for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination and is appreciative of all candidates who make the commitment to run; NOW THEREFORE, in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during Memorial Day weekend of 2008. FURTHERMORE, The Libertarian National Committee congratulates Congressman Paul for his success in spreading a message of peace, prosperity and freedom and also thanks the thousands of activists and supporters across the United States who have made this unprecedented success possible. RESOLUTION ADOPTED unanimously by vote of the Libertarian National Committee, the 9th day of December 2007, in the city of Charleston, State of South Carolina, United States of America. But he did not accept.
The Ron Paul Ultimatum? The Ron Paul Ultimatum by Mark Thornton by Mark Thornton DIGG THIS The latest of three movies about spy/killer Jason Bourne – the Bourne Ultimatum – is the best in the series. There is all the action, chases, fighting, shooting, explosions, and killing, but here we also get the story and it turns out to be a great American story. Here we have a super patriot kid who goes the limit for Uncle Sam. He is betrayed and hunted down by his own country. In seeking his salvation he ends up converting a couple of people from the bad guy camp. They both sensed that Jason is the good guy and they are working for the bad guys, so they risk their own lives to help him. I’m seeing the same sort of conversion happening across our country. People are realizing that President Bush and Vice President Cheney represent evil and then they see Ron Paul and a light goes off – the answer is the US Constitution. Bingo! Government by the rule of law, limited government, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy – that is what made America great. These new converts may not necessarily understand the entire message and may have policy disagreements with Ron Paul, but they realize that our country needs an entirely different direction and it’s the direction of Ron Paul. The specific evil in the life of Jason Bourne is a lawless CIA that uses brainwashing techniques, unlimited secret assassinations, and contract killers to pursue American policy – a good example of the type of thing Ron Paul is fighting against. Ron Paul did support the issuance of letters of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden’s gang, but this was the appropriate measure specified in the Constitution to deal with a confessed killer and threat to the country. The other great thing about the movie is that it shows the CIA as completely inept. It has massive resources, ultra powerful technology, and unlimited power and authority and yet is completely and grossly incompetent in doing its job. This is a theme that Ron Paul has been emphasizing for thirty years. The CIA and other "intelligence" bureaucracies are incompetent, a threat to our liberty and should be done away with as un-American. Government incompetence with law and order is not a new theme by any means. In books and movies it is almost always a private detective or lawyer that solves the crime, while the government police and prosecutors are hopelessly incompetent. Occasionally police solve the crime, but it’s usually an isolated individual who "goes beyond the call of duty" or is expressly disobeying orders. This is how it works in real life – cops don’t solve crimes, people do. If you can stand all the violence and killing go see this movie and be ready to boo and laugh at the bad guys and cheer for the good guys. When it comes to supporting Ron Paul, it is our ultimatum. August 11, 2007 Mark Thornton [send him mail] is an economist who lives in Auburn, Alabama. He is author of The Economics of Prohibition, is a senior fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Is Ron Paul the Gandhi of our time ?? Gary North : I was watching Gandhi recently, as I do every year or two. It is inspirational to me. It tells the story of a man who could not possibly win the battles he chose to fight, but did anyway. There is no doubt that it is a propaganda film, funded in part by the Indian government. It scrambles his chronology. But, on the whole, it got the story right. Mohandas K. Gandhi, a lawyer, was able to transform Indian politics. He did this through force of moral character and shrewd tactics that made every official response either "Damned if we do; damned if we don’t." I read "The Gandhi Nobody Knows" when it was published in 1983, a year after the movie was released. I know the strange side of the man. But he mobilized a huge nation without recourse to violence. That was his great legacy. I also like the movie because it is the story of a failed empire. By 1945, the British Empire had spent itself into near bankruptcy because of two wars. It was a pale shadow of itself. It would soon grow much paler. There are many scenes in the movie that have long grabbed my imagination, but none so much as the one in which Gandhi is seated at a table with a British military official. The official asks rhetorically, "You don’t really expect us just to march out of India, do you?" Gandhi replies, "Yes, that is exactly what I expect you to do." In 1947, they did. What has this to do with Ron Paul, who is running for President? At least this much: he also opposes violence, he also opposes empire, and he also believes in the long run that justice will prevail. So, he does what Gandhi did. He keeps telling the story of how a better society can be built, must be built, and will eventually be built when men reduce their commitment to violence as a way of shaping the world. This includes violence committed by the civil government. They called Gandhi the mahatma: the great self. Ron Paul is the mahatma of self-government. He gains applause from the anti-war Left, small as it is. He gains applause from free market advocates, who are weary of government interference in their lives. And he drives the muddled middle crazy. What was going on? After the second debate, on May 15, broadcast by Fox News, the Fox News website allowed viewers to vote for the nominee. These presumably were hard-core Fox News viewers. Over 40,000 voted. Romney got 29%. Paul got 25%. Giuliani got 19%. . COMMITMENT It is clear to all sides that Ron Paul is the most ideologically committed politician in the country. There has been nothing like him since Howard Buffett retired in the early 1950’s. Nobody remembers Howard Buffett today except hard-core libertarians and his son, Warren. It is Ron Paul’s uniquely consistent voting record that gets him on liberal-left television talk shows like the Daily Show and Bill Maher’s show. The hosts are willing to give him time on camera because he opposed the Iraq war when nobody else did. He has also voted to shrink the state ever since he was elected in 1976. While they don’t share his view of domestic policy, they are respectful to find any politician who just will not toe the Party line. For years, he had a narrow but highly committed audience. Now, after three decades, he is beginning to expand that audience. He speaks his mind, and his mind is informed by a consistent philosophy of limited government, meaning Constitutional government as understood in 1788. The kinds of voters who sit through an evening of bloviating politicos and then go to a web page to vote are the kinds of people he is attracting. These mailing lists, if used to educate people to the principles of limited civil government and expanded self-government, will begin to affect the next generation of voters. It does not take postage to mail e-letters. It does not take printers, ink, and paper. He has been committed to a worldview. No other politician is to the same degree. By being committed at the cost of risking electoral defeat, Ron Paul can now attract people who are looking for their own areas of commitment. If he gets this message to his subscribers, he can help them become active in a movement to shrink the strangling hand of tax-funded bureaucracy. CONCLUSION Ron Paul is convinced that self-government is the wave of the future. Empire isn’t. That was Gandhi’s message in 1915. It did not seem plausible back then. By 1947, it did. It has taken until quite recently for India to move economically more toward self-government and away from Nehru’s Fabian socialism. Sadly, the U.S. economy seems to be moving back toward Nehru. The state keeps getting bigger in the visible affairs of this world. But a great decentralization is taking place: in education, on the Internet, and with technology generally. The wave of the future is not toward Fabianism and its legacy. Ron Paul’s campaign is proof of this
Opinion Polling and Lies?? Go ahead Mr.P. Ron Paul? Ron Paul and Opinion Polling by Lasse Pitkaniemi by Lasse Pitkaniemi DIGG THIS Many supporters have been wondering or even worrying about the weak 1–3% opinion polling support Ron Paul has had. There are several reasons why opinion polling produces these results that most people do not know about. 1) Opinion polls are mostly conducted by using telephone landlines. The reason is that landline numbers are easy to obtain, and they produce a fairly accurate and random result for most questionnaires. As known from marketing, each product has a life cycle, and those who hang on to landline numbers tend to be late adopters of new technology. These late adopters do not use the internet, so they have (most likely) not even heard of Ron Paul. For them the choice is still between Rudy McRomney which is thus reflected on the polling result. Due to this sampling error the real support for Ron Paul is most likely stronger than the opinion polls show. 2) Many opinion polls count answers selectively. They reason that by counting only certain given opinions, uncertainty and randomness will be reduced in the opinion polling results. For example, the opinion polls ask questions such as: are you a registered supporter of the Republican party, have you voted in primaries before, what is your yearly income, when where you born etc. These questions are then used to eliminate groups such as non-registered republicans or young people. Even if this elimination is mostly statistically justified, it reduces the showing support for surprise candidates such as Ron Paul, especially when an important part of Ron Paul's campaign is to mobilize voters who do not usually vote in primaries. 3) In order to reduce the inaccuracy between two polls conducted by the same pollster, vote multipliers are added, which can be based on earlier polls, prior elections, "scientific" analyzes or just simply guesses. Here is how they work. Let's say that a vote multiplier for Rudy Giuliani is 1.2, for John McCain 1.5 and for Ron Paul –3.0. If the pure poll gives Giuliani 25%, McCain 10% and Ron Paul 10% of the vote, the opinion polls are counted to show 30% for Giuliani, 15% for McCain and only 3% for Ron Paul. The chances are that opinion polls for Ron Paul have negative multipliers, since no-one conducting the polls believes that he can win. The same phenomenon has happened in various European countries during the last five years when so-called far right parties (with anti-immigration, anti-EU and fiscal conservative views) have taken many land-slide victories, even if their results in opinion polls have been often either poor or mediocre. 4) Opinion polls are not value free or interest neutral. Even if the opinion polling company would want to conduct a poll on honest scientific standards, they still know that their poll has been ordered by USA Today, NBC, FOX News, the Washington Post or the New York Times. So a polling company's self-interest is to produce a result that the mainstream media likes. These news agencies are not interested in polls that predict a great result for Ron Paul, if they would get one, they would not publish it. This can be seen by just looking back at the polling results from as late as late April. During late April most polls did not even include Ron Paul as a potential running candidate! He only starts to show up regularly after mid-May, where as undeclared 'candidate' Fred Thompson has been included since the very beginning. Opinion polls often lie, just like statistics do. The opinion polling for the Republican primary clearly underestimates Ron Paul's real popularity, which may already be around 10%. For example, sportsbook.com (a betting site – not a pro–Ron Paul site) currently places his odds 5th in the Republican candidate nomination race and 9th in the 2008 Presidential Elections. But let's suppose that I am wrong and the opinion polls do show the real support for Ron Paul. Still, his chances for winning are very good, for the following reasons. 1) As Justin Ptak correctly pointed out, "the national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates." For example Carter was only polling 1% in 1975 and he won the presidency. Back in 1991 Clinton's support was at 2% and he became the president. Joe Lieberman was leading the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, yet he failed to win a single primary. 2) The opinion polls also fail to grasp that the Ron Paul revolution is not only a revolution of ideas; it is also revolutionizing campaign methods. Campaign methods seldom change, but in the US presidential elections they have done so twice in the past. Back in 1825 when John Quincy Adams won the presidency he revolutionized campaigning by distributing buttons and other campaign gimmicks. A second campaigning revolution took place in the 1961 elections when the televised mass media made JFK the president. The Ron Paul revolution of 2008 could be the third campaigning revolution. Earlier it was easier for politicians to lie and get away with it. Today prior speeches and voting records are easily obtainable and thus politicians become increasingly accountable of what they have ever said or done. Furthermore the mass media can no longer determine the election winners. In such an environment the few sincere honest politicians like Ron Paul will win. 3) All conducted opinion polls measure the general opinion on candidates. In elections where half the nation votes, such as the presidential election, the opinion poll results are crucial. In elections where only a minority of activists vote the opinion polling results are unimportant. The primaries are activist elections and despite all attempts to reduce uncertainty and randomness by the opinion polling companies (e.g. by methods mentioned above), the randomness and uncertainty still remain. This is due to the fact, that it is almost impossible to separate the activists from the rest in an opinion poll. For example, in the presidential primaries of 2004 only 7.2% of the Americans voted! The Democratic turnout was 11.4%, the Republican turnout only 6.6%! In these cases straw polling matters more than general opinion polls, since straw polls are conducted in places where only the best-informed and most active voters gather. In straw polls Ron Paul has done extremely well, always placing first or second, once he even made a land sliding victory gaining 65% of the popular support! 4) The opinion polls give out the impression that a candidate needs to gather millions of votes in most states in order to get the party's presidential nomination. As noted above, with only 7.2% of the Americans voting in the 2004 primaries, this is not the case. For example, in New Hampshire with a population of 1,200,000 the size of the voting age population is around 1,000,000. If 20% of the shire folk would vote (an extremely high number for a presidential primary) 200,000 votes would be cast. Half would be democratic votes. Thus even if Ron Paul would race himself against all the other republican candidates, he would win with just 51,000 votes. And this is the pessimist scenario. Most likely the voting turnout will be around 10% and no other GOP candidate will gather more than 30% of the state's votes. In this case Ron Paul will win the New Hampshire primary with only 15,000 votes! As the CNHT straw poll shows, Ron Paul already has 200 votes and judging by some videos, there are at least a thousand dedicated Ron Paulians in New Hampshire. How hard can it be for them to gather 14,000 more votes for Dr. Paul? Using the same analogy, in California, the most populous state of the Union with 36,500,000 people, the GOP primary can be won with only 450,000 votes. Ron Paul will be aided further by the fact that five small states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Maine hold their primaries before Super-Tuesday and every single primary victory will give him an election boost. The smaller the state is, the easier it is to gather a grassroots movement that can influence the election result. In the primary phase of the presidential elections the ingenuity of the Ron Paul campaign will be clearest. All other GOP candidates adhere to some stripe of neoconservatism, which will only attract the support of the old voters (i.e. of those 6.6% of the Republicans that voted in the 2004 presidential primary). The neoconservative message is old and widely hated. Ron Paul provides a culturally conservative, libertarian option with fresh ideas that appeal not only to many old voters, but to thousands of new voters who have never voted in primaries before. He has already succeeded in turning the whole Constitution party, half of the Libertarian party and many, many anti-war Democrats into registered Ron Paul Republicans. Ron Paul is also about to succeed in waking up the elderly Republican voters with the traditional conservative Republican message of life, liberty and property. The neoconservatives cannot beat him. Their individual candidates are all too power hungry to give up the race and join forces under one name in order to defeat Dr. Paul. With the primaries moved closer to each other they have no longer the option to drop out in the middle of the race, meaning that the neoconservative vote will be shattered between a dozen candidates in every, single, state. The Ron Paul revolution has already succeeded. It has brought a lot of attention to the libertarian ideas of peace and a limited government. It has also put a strain on the mass media, who can no longer deliver any information they want in any manner they please. Just like a real revolution the Ron Paul revolution has become a movement everyone wants to join. The real test for the Ron Paul revolution is not the victory over the GOP nomination, the question is how to win the presidency from a Hillary-Obama ticket, which will undoubtedly be seen as a dream team by the academia, the mass media, the special interest groups, the bureaucrats and the politicians. July 14, 2007 Lasse Pitkaniemi
Ron Paul has been endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr. Does this improve his chances to win the nomination? source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/45/ron-paul-endorsed-by-barry-goldwater-jr Ron Paul, the anti-war Republican and staunch opponent of the IRS and just about every other government agency, has been endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr. Back in the 70s, Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater Jr. worked together in Congress to try to reduce the size of government. They both had failed runs for Senate and retired from Congress. Ron Paul would run for president in 1988 (as the Libertarian Party candidate) and return to Congress in 1996. Now, Ron Paul is up to 6-7% in the "scientific" polls (and the pollsters acknowledge that his support is greater than it appears; he is actually ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire) and is the leader in the money primary on the Republican side (even though the special interests won't give him any money). Does this endorsement improve Ron Paul's already strong chances to win the GOP nomination and the White House in 2008?
Ron Paul- People are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them? http://www.mises.org/story/2520 Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights. Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer. If you recognize the line of thinking in this set of beliefs, it might be because you have read the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or James Madison, or examined the philosophical origins of the American Revolution. Or perhaps you have read the speeches and books against FDR's New Deal: the same group warned of the devastating consequences of World War II. Not only does this Paulian view have a precedent in American history; it sums up the very core of what is distinctive about the American contribution to political ideas. The proposition was and is that people are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them. Under conditions of liberty, the result is prosperity and orderly civilization. Under government control, the result is relative poverty and unpredictable chaos. The proof is in the news every day. He takes the ideas of Washington and Jefferson seriously, just as seriously as he takes the idea of freedom itself, and he does so in times when faith in Leviathan remains the dominant political ideology. Ideology is such a powerful force that it has propped up policy inconsistency for more than a century. The Left has a massive agenda for the state at home, and yet complains bitterly, with shock and dismay, that the same tools are used to start wars and build imperial structures abroad. The Right claims to want to restrain government at home (at least in some ways) while whooping it up for war and global reconstruction abroad. It doesn't take a game-theory genius to predict how this conflict works itself out in the long run. The Left and the Right agree to disagree on intellectual grounds but otherwise engage in a dangerous quid pro quo. They turn a blind eye to the government they don't like so long as they get the government they do like. It's one thing for the Left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for a group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice, and equality at home to do the same for people abroad. In fact, I've never been able to make much sense out of left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the idea of socialism, which itself can be summed up as perpetual war on the liberty and property of the people. What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that the same government that is incompetent and dangerous domestically — at least in economic and social affairs — has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade. The freedom to trade internationally is an essential principle. It means that consumers should not be penalized for buying from anyone, or selling to anyone, regardless of their residence. Nor should domestic suppliers be granted anything like a monopoly or subsidized treatment. Nor should trade be used as a weapon in the form of sanctions. Ron Paul has upheld these principles as well, which makes him an old-fashioned liberal in the manner of Cobden and Bright and the American Southern tradition. He has also rejected the mistake of many free traders who believe that a military arm is necessary to back the invisible hand of the marketplace. For Ron Paul, freedom is all of a piece. Ron Paul's singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. In fact, I'm willing to predict that a hundred years from now and more, when all the current office holders are all but forgotten, Ron Paul's name will be remembered as a bright light in dark times (we are in the right side of history).We can't but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul's prophetic words. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations. May this treatise stand as an example of how to fight for what is right even when everyone else is silent. May it always be regarded as proof that there were men of courage alive in the first decade of the third millennium. May public and intellectual opinion someday rise to its level of intellectual sophistication and moral valor.
Are people roping Ron Paul in with "todays" republicans? Because right now I see that as his biggest weakness. Republicans have this huge cloud over there head. Republicans are supposed to believe in the constitution and good values. Isolation, Strong National Defense NOT OFFENSE. The Bill of rights, I think everyone would want some Isolation from the world right about now When you think of republicans don't think of the new Century, think of Reagen and Lincoln, two of the greatest presidents of all time. If you want Ron Paul's position in a nutshell here it goes. If it is against the constitution or the bill of rights he votes against it. Ron Paul is Pro-Life Ron Paul Voted against IRAQ from DAY 1!! Ron Paul does not take money from lobbies Ron Paul is against welfare and its encouragement for unemployment Ron Paul will get us out of Iraq Ron Paul will allow us to get out of social security Ron Paul is against immigration and will end amnesty and welfare for them and the birthright citizenship and anchor babies and last but not least RON PAUL WILL LOWER TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And BTW, Heres a little video for you Hillary Fans http://youtube.com/watch?v=FaAkcXynqLA
Ron Paul...end of the middle east conflict with DIGNITY for all? Ron Paul seems to be at the top regarding our next president for office. Dr. Paul is a RADICAL departure from today's "supposed" conservative canidates as he displays an impecable voting record of honesty & TRUE conservative principles of what our founding fathers envisioned. Could Ron Paul be "THE" person that could lead us out of the middle east conflict with DIGNITY for alll? Ron Paul would certainly be a God sent blessing to America as our commander in cheif during these turbulent times for sure. As our incumbent president, do you beleive that Ron Paul has the ability to pull out our military forces in a way that would not further erode our integrity amongst the nations. A failure in this area could be catastophic regarding foreign relations. As far as domestic policy Ron Paul would prove a winner to all Americans. But, this escalating middle east war is a real stinker to deal with. What's your take on the middle east problem & Ron Pauls generalship in handling this problem?
Did you see that Ron Paul is leading in the national polls? Real Polls from Real People: Released on Dec 12, 2007 National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus http://www.nationalcaucus.com/120707_results_announcement Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%). These are the real results after the GOP debates: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results Ron Paul's Straw Poll Results Updated on December 10, 2007 Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie): Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 41-7-0 Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 32-16-0 Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 32-15-0 Ron Paul v. John McCain 42-5-0 Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 40-6-1 Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 45-1-0 Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 44-2-0 What I have listed are true *unbiased* results. There are many *biased* polls that are paid for by candidates' campaigns. The National Caucus results prove it. Do you think the media will begin to recognize Ron Paul as the national Presidential choice or are they being forced to conseal the truth? National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus -- Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And "Open" Caucuses -- Washington, DC (December 12, 2007) - - On December 7, 2007 in cities and small towns across the country, Democrat, Republican and "Open" Caucus groups formed independently online and Caucused face-to-face on National Caucus Day. The first-ever National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in. Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. http://www.nationalcaucus.com/120707_results_announcement As to strawpoll results after debates, other candidates cannot list them on their sites because they would show Ron Paul as number One nomination for President 2008! Ron Paul has listed his placement after every debate - sometimes he came in last and the results are listed at the link I provided above. Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Ron Paul is currently #1 for President of the U.S. 2008.
Ron Paul- People are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them? http://www.mises.org/story/2520 Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights. Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer. If you recognize the line of thinking in this set of beliefs, it might be because you have read the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or James Madison, or examined the philosophical origins of the American Revolution. Or perhaps you have read the speeches and books against FDR's New Deal: the same group warned of the devastating consequences of World War II. Not only does this Paulian view have a precedent in American history; it sums up the very core of what is distinctive about the American contribution to political ideas. The proposition was and is that people are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them. Under conditions of liberty, the result is prosperity and orderly civilization. Under government control, the result is relative poverty and unpredictable chaos. The proof is in the news every day. He takes the ideas of Washington and Jefferson seriously, just as seriously as he takes the idea of freedom itself, and he does so in times when faith in Leviathan remains the dominant political ideology. Ideology is such a powerful force that it has propped up policy inconsistency for more than a century. The Left has a massive agenda for the state at home, and yet complains bitterly, with shock and dismay, that the same tools are used to start wars and build imperial structures abroad. The Right claims to want to restrain government at home (at least in some ways) while whooping it up for war and global reconstruction abroad. It doesn't take a game-theory genius to predict how this conflict works itself out in the long run. The Left and the Right agree to disagree on intellectual grounds but otherwise engage in a dangerous quid pro quo. They turn a blind eye to the government they don't like so long as they get the government they do like. It's one thing for the Left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for a group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice, and equality at home to do the same for people abroad. In fact, I've never been able to make much sense out of left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the idea of socialism, which itself can be summed up as perpetual war on the liberty and property of the people. What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that the same government that is incompetent and dangerous domestically — at least in economic and social affairs — has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade. The freedom to trade internationally is an essential principle. It means that consumers should not be penalized for buying from anyone, or selling to anyone, regardless of their residence. Nor should domestic suppliers be granted anything like a monopoly or subsidized treatment. Nor should trade be used as a weapon in the form of sanctions. Ron Paul has upheld these principles as well, which makes him an old-fashioned liberal in the manner of Cobden and Bright and the American Southern tradition. He has also rejected the mistake of many free traders who believe that a military arm is necessary to back the invisible hand of the marketplace. For Ron Paul, freedom is all of a piece. Ron Paul's singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. In fact, I'm willing to predict that a hundred years from now and more, when all the current office holders are all but forgotten, Ron Paul's name will be remembered as a bright light in dark times (we are in the right side of history).We can't but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul's prophetic words. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations. May this treatise stand as an example of how to fight for what is right even when everyone else is silent. May it always be regarded as proof that there were men of courage alive in the first decade of the third millennium. May public and intellectual opinion someday rise to its level of intellectual sophistication and moral valor.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers