All kinds of mainstram publications today picked up an AP article featuring Avery Knapp, our fearless Ron Paul Manhattan Meetup group leader.
Click here to check it out!
Tax Season Is Almost Here
16 years ago
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tucker Carlson: Ron Paul Will Be Folk Hero of This Election (Video - August 29th)
Tucker, a self-professed fan of Ron Paul discusses liberty with former stripper Michelle Shingal. Hillary is regarded as the candidate of big government intervention, while Ron Paul contrasted as the "candidate of freedom."
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse
Ron Paul says martial law provisions in place to deal with economic discord
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says that attempts to rescue an ailing stock market last week, during which the Fed pumped in billions in liquidity, were merely a stop gap measure - and that an economic collapse is all but inevitable.
"They think that they can control it but eventually they can't, as powerful as they are eventually the markets are more powerful," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.
"The dollar can't be kept in check because eventually it will come unwound," he added.
"But I think the most significant figure we've heard in the last few weeks is the measurement between 2000 - 2005, the clear cut admission that real income has gone down, which is a reflection of the dollar."
Paul explained that recent attempts to pump liquidity into the markets are only a temporary fix and that the long-term effects of doing so spell disaster for the economy.
"The dollar is plunging no matter what you read and hear about and no matter how hard they work to keep the bubble going the only way they can do that is creating more money....causing the dollar to go down even faster, the market seems to be reassured - there's a contrivance to try to hold this together....but it won't last, eventually it's going to collapse," said Paul.
The Texas Congressman cited the repeal of the Insurrection Act as opening the door to a declaration of national emergency and martial law which could be instituted for any number of reasons, including civil disobedience in the event of an economic downturn and a run on the banks.
"If in 6 months or a year there is total chaos who knows what they might try to do," said Paul.
The presidential candidate also slammed the abolition of Habeas Corpus as a "very dangerous sign" that plans were being laid for martial law.
"Why would they change them (the laws) if they didn't plan to use them," concluded Paul.
Suspicions were raised last week when a mystery trader risked billions of dollars after buying 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, in effect a speculation that the market would crash by a third before September 21st.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says that attempts to rescue an ailing stock market last week, during which the Fed pumped in billions in liquidity, were merely a stop gap measure - and that an economic collapse is all but inevitable.
"They think that they can control it but eventually they can't, as powerful as they are eventually the markets are more powerful," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.
"The dollar can't be kept in check because eventually it will come unwound," he added.
"But I think the most significant figure we've heard in the last few weeks is the measurement between 2000 - 2005, the clear cut admission that real income has gone down, which is a reflection of the dollar."
Paul explained that recent attempts to pump liquidity into the markets are only a temporary fix and that the long-term effects of doing so spell disaster for the economy.
"The dollar is plunging no matter what you read and hear about and no matter how hard they work to keep the bubble going the only way they can do that is creating more money....causing the dollar to go down even faster, the market seems to be reassured - there's a contrivance to try to hold this together....but it won't last, eventually it's going to collapse," said Paul.
The Texas Congressman cited the repeal of the Insurrection Act as opening the door to a declaration of national emergency and martial law which could be instituted for any number of reasons, including civil disobedience in the event of an economic downturn and a run on the banks.
"If in 6 months or a year there is total chaos who knows what they might try to do," said Paul.
The presidential candidate also slammed the abolition of Habeas Corpus as a "very dangerous sign" that plans were being laid for martial law.
"Why would they change them (the laws) if they didn't plan to use them," concluded Paul.
Suspicions were raised last week when a mystery trader risked billions of dollars after buying 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, in effect a speculation that the market would crash by a third before September 21st.
Combat Vets Support Ron Paul (Video)
Which would explain why Ron Paul has received the most military campaign contributions amongst the Republican candidates.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year
Presidential candidate says Neo-Cons waiting for right opportunity
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that an attack on Iran is highly likely within a year and that the Bush administration is simply waiting for the right opportunity, or event on which to blame Iran, before launching the assault.
"If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show today.
"The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity."
"The radical Neo-Cons are still there - they may have been diminished a little bit but they're still very very influential and very very powerful and they have the President's ear so I think they're just laying the plans, waiting for the opportunity," said Paul.
" I don't think the opportunity presents itself right now, I don't think we're gonna wake up tomorrow morning and have it happen unless they can blame the Iranians for something else - of course they're setting the stage for that by declaring that their Guard unit over there is a terrorist organization, so anything now is possible and they'll blame it on the Iranians and and make that excuse."
The Presidential candidate said he had "Talked to some military people and historians who knew the region," and they they told him "it would be the most disastrous thing we could do for our own sake," jeopardizing the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq and trapping them from getting out of the Persian Gulf.
Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past few days, and President Bush himself stoked the flames further today when he warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.
In a speech Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also dismissed Sarkozy's warning, calling the French premiere "inexperienced" and labeling his comments as purely "for the consumption of his inner circles."
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that an attack on Iran is highly likely within a year and that the Bush administration is simply waiting for the right opportunity, or event on which to blame Iran, before launching the assault.
"If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show today.
"The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity."
"The radical Neo-Cons are still there - they may have been diminished a little bit but they're still very very influential and very very powerful and they have the President's ear so I think they're just laying the plans, waiting for the opportunity," said Paul.
" I don't think the opportunity presents itself right now, I don't think we're gonna wake up tomorrow morning and have it happen unless they can blame the Iranians for something else - of course they're setting the stage for that by declaring that their Guard unit over there is a terrorist organization, so anything now is possible and they'll blame it on the Iranians and and make that excuse."
The Presidential candidate said he had "Talked to some military people and historians who knew the region," and they they told him "it would be the most disastrous thing we could do for our own sake," jeopardizing the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq and trapping them from getting out of the Persian Gulf.
Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past few days, and President Bush himself stoked the flames further today when he warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.
In a speech Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also dismissed Sarkozy's warning, calling the French premiere "inexperienced" and labeling his comments as purely "for the consumption of his inner circles."
Ron Paul Supporter Forced To Remove Campaign Sign (Video - August 24th)
A supporter of Ron Paul in the Orlando, Florida area was forced by his local city to remove the sign, violating his Constitutional rights. The local news, Fox 35, covered the story.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Ron Paul on CNBC: IRS & Unconstitutional Income Tax (Video - 2004)
In a blast from the recent past (2004), Ron Paul appears on CNBC with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the IRS and the Federal Income Tax.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Ten Reasons Why Ron Paul Can’t Win (Satire)
It always perturbed me that the wide variety of neocon commentators on television regularly pronounce with such fury and unison that Ron Paul "can’t win" but never give any reasons why he couldn’t win the presidential race.
At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paul’s inauguration day. And why shouldn’t I assume that? The pundits probably don’t give any reasons he can’t win, I thought, because there aren’t any.
Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul can’t be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul can’t win, in the format of David Letterman’s Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill O’Reilly would say, "you can’t even argue it."
10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans don’t vote for people who are that popular. It’s true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 – just barely – but that was a fluke. Bush’s popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25–35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didn’t even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So it’s a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply can’t win if he remains that popular, and there’s no reason to believe people will begin to hate him.
9. He’s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. It’s great that Ron Paul’s official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it won’t do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesn’t need to spend it on local campaigning, because he’s already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesn’t need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply won’t help.
8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates – who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. It’s not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So don’t think that the other candidates won’t cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paul’s campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups. Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign ‘fairness doctrine’ to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.
7. Ron Paul tells the truth. Ron Paul has a 20-year career in Congress of always voting the way he’s promised, even sometimes on positions that could hurt him politically (See reason #5 for more on this). He’s honest even when it hurts him, and that’s great. But let’s face it, Americans long ago tired of electing honest presidents. They very much prefer presidents who will lie to us "for your own good." This explains why they elected George "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, and most recently, George "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone" Bush. Need I elaborate more? The American people long ago tired of honesty! Honesty just doesn’t sell.
6. He’s for lower spending AND lower taxes. Most Americans want lower taxes, so Ron Paul’s halfway there, but they don’t want to cut spending. Americans want a candidate who talks about lower spending but actually increases spending. This explains the Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton and George "compassionate conservative" Bush presidencies. Of course, Americans also want balanced budgets … and Ron Paul’s philosophy would give them both lower taxes and a balanced budget. But I still think the American people would settle for another candidate who promises to enact a balanced budget precisely four years after the end of his last term – four years after any influence he has over spending ends.
5. Ron Paul is a man of principle. Ron Paul is known for voting against pork even for his own congressional district. He voted against the Iraq war even when the American people were backing it in polling by three-to-one margins. He’s the "1" in more 434-1 votes than all of the rest of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives put together. He doesn’t take congressional pay raises or participate in the generous congressional pension system. While that might lead some people to think it would attract voters to his candidacy, it actually hurts him. Despite the fact that his campaign rallies regularly draw more supporters than any other candidate, these huge crowds have made him a very, very lonely man. Crowds are isolating psychological phenomena. Getting the biggest crowds at rallies only exaggerates the loneliness that people always have in crowds. Psychologically speaking, he can’t take any more of the loneliness of those crowds. No one could. That’s why the other candidates have limited themselves to smaller crowds of mostly salaried campaign officials and government employees.
4. Ron Paul has peaked. He wins first or second place in all of the online polls, so his expectations have been raised too high for him to win a primary. Ron Paul has already lost the expectations game, unless he can somehow pull out 274.8 percent or more of the total vote in the Iowa primary. I’m no mathematical expert, but my accountant tells me it’s mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to pull in that kind of a vote.
3. He’s been against the Iraq war from the start. You might think that taking a position against the Iraq war from the start would help a candidate in a campaign where the American people oppose the war by a two-to-one margin or more. But the truth is, the American people don’t want a know-it-all candidate who has demonstrated foresight. They want a dumb bumbler that they can make fun of; it’s the same social phenomena that caused people to watch the old Jerry Springer show. They want a president who can’t pronounce "nuclear," preferably one who physically resembles a simian.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, the troops are about to pull out a dramatic victory from Iraq. Not with the current surge, but with the post-surge surge. The fact that Ron Paul is raking in more campaign contributions from veterans than any other candidate should not be taken as a sign that the troops want out of there. The troops aren’t voting with their wallets, they’re just getting tanned, rested and ready for the final surge. The campaign contributions are a diversional maneuver designed to draw out al Qaeda fighters, and those weapons of mass destruction Sean Hannity says were secretly stored in Syria. The post-surge surge will also expose the mystery behind Area 51, end world hunger and cure male-pattern baldness. This issue will be a loser for any anti-war candidate in short order. Just wait and see.
2. Ron Paul’s a medical doctor, OB/GYN, and a graduate of Duke Medical School, but not a government health care management professional. Therefore, no American could possibly take him seriously when he gives his opinion on medicine. It’s a good thing that Dr. Paul has not been given an opportunity to comment on any question about health care in any of the Presidential debates, because the other candidates’ expertise on medicine would blow him away. It’s only a matter of time before they embarrass him.
Other candidates like Mitt Romney have experience as part of a "management team" capable of delivering a "wide range of services." Ron Paul has only ensured proper health care for a few thousand individual people. The other candidates know that government policy can deliver much better health care for less cost than country doctors. Take, for example, Boston’s "Big Dig." The Big Dig, the depression of Boston’s central artery, is the largest public works project in history at $15 billion and counting. This could never have been accomplished by the private sector, and the Big Dig construction is almost finished after 10 years and going only 800 percent over budget. It’s true the Big Dig has already killed a motorist who was crushed by the falling three-ton concrete blocks used as ceiling tiles. (How could anyone possibly have foreseen such an outcome from an innovative design of precariously fastening concrete ceiling tiles?) But the truth is that we need government to bring the same cost controls and safety controls of the Big Dig to health care. Ron Paul just doesn’t understand this vital macroeconomic point.
1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can’t win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but that’s because he’s the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clinton’s election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you don’t have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004.
Let’s face it, the evidence against a Ron Paul victory is overwhelming. Dr. Paul will never be the "front-Ron-ner." At least, not until he takes his oath of office at his inauguration.
August 21, 2007
Thomas R. Eddlem [send him mail] is a radio talk show host, and a writer for Pro Libertate, AntiWar.com, and – of course – LewRockwell.com. He is also Legislative Action Director for RightSourceOnline.com. And he’d probably be a Ron Paul backer if he thought Dr. Paul had a chance to win.
At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paul’s inauguration day. And why shouldn’t I assume that? The pundits probably don’t give any reasons he can’t win, I thought, because there aren’t any.
Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul can’t be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul can’t win, in the format of David Letterman’s Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill O’Reilly would say, "you can’t even argue it."
10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans don’t vote for people who are that popular. It’s true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 – just barely – but that was a fluke. Bush’s popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25–35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didn’t even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So it’s a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply can’t win if he remains that popular, and there’s no reason to believe people will begin to hate him.
9. He’s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. It’s great that Ron Paul’s official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it won’t do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesn’t need to spend it on local campaigning, because he’s already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesn’t need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply won’t help.
8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates – who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. It’s not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So don’t think that the other candidates won’t cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paul’s campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups. Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign ‘fairness doctrine’ to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.
7. Ron Paul tells the truth. Ron Paul has a 20-year career in Congress of always voting the way he’s promised, even sometimes on positions that could hurt him politically (See reason #5 for more on this). He’s honest even when it hurts him, and that’s great. But let’s face it, Americans long ago tired of electing honest presidents. They very much prefer presidents who will lie to us "for your own good." This explains why they elected George "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, and most recently, George "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone" Bush. Need I elaborate more? The American people long ago tired of honesty! Honesty just doesn’t sell.
6. He’s for lower spending AND lower taxes. Most Americans want lower taxes, so Ron Paul’s halfway there, but they don’t want to cut spending. Americans want a candidate who talks about lower spending but actually increases spending. This explains the Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton and George "compassionate conservative" Bush presidencies. Of course, Americans also want balanced budgets … and Ron Paul’s philosophy would give them both lower taxes and a balanced budget. But I still think the American people would settle for another candidate who promises to enact a balanced budget precisely four years after the end of his last term – four years after any influence he has over spending ends.
5. Ron Paul is a man of principle. Ron Paul is known for voting against pork even for his own congressional district. He voted against the Iraq war even when the American people were backing it in polling by three-to-one margins. He’s the "1" in more 434-1 votes than all of the rest of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives put together. He doesn’t take congressional pay raises or participate in the generous congressional pension system. While that might lead some people to think it would attract voters to his candidacy, it actually hurts him. Despite the fact that his campaign rallies regularly draw more supporters than any other candidate, these huge crowds have made him a very, very lonely man. Crowds are isolating psychological phenomena. Getting the biggest crowds at rallies only exaggerates the loneliness that people always have in crowds. Psychologically speaking, he can’t take any more of the loneliness of those crowds. No one could. That’s why the other candidates have limited themselves to smaller crowds of mostly salaried campaign officials and government employees.
4. Ron Paul has peaked. He wins first or second place in all of the online polls, so his expectations have been raised too high for him to win a primary. Ron Paul has already lost the expectations game, unless he can somehow pull out 274.8 percent or more of the total vote in the Iowa primary. I’m no mathematical expert, but my accountant tells me it’s mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to pull in that kind of a vote.
3. He’s been against the Iraq war from the start. You might think that taking a position against the Iraq war from the start would help a candidate in a campaign where the American people oppose the war by a two-to-one margin or more. But the truth is, the American people don’t want a know-it-all candidate who has demonstrated foresight. They want a dumb bumbler that they can make fun of; it’s the same social phenomena that caused people to watch the old Jerry Springer show. They want a president who can’t pronounce "nuclear," preferably one who physically resembles a simian.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, the troops are about to pull out a dramatic victory from Iraq. Not with the current surge, but with the post-surge surge. The fact that Ron Paul is raking in more campaign contributions from veterans than any other candidate should not be taken as a sign that the troops want out of there. The troops aren’t voting with their wallets, they’re just getting tanned, rested and ready for the final surge. The campaign contributions are a diversional maneuver designed to draw out al Qaeda fighters, and those weapons of mass destruction Sean Hannity says were secretly stored in Syria. The post-surge surge will also expose the mystery behind Area 51, end world hunger and cure male-pattern baldness. This issue will be a loser for any anti-war candidate in short order. Just wait and see.
2. Ron Paul’s a medical doctor, OB/GYN, and a graduate of Duke Medical School, but not a government health care management professional. Therefore, no American could possibly take him seriously when he gives his opinion on medicine. It’s a good thing that Dr. Paul has not been given an opportunity to comment on any question about health care in any of the Presidential debates, because the other candidates’ expertise on medicine would blow him away. It’s only a matter of time before they embarrass him.
Other candidates like Mitt Romney have experience as part of a "management team" capable of delivering a "wide range of services." Ron Paul has only ensured proper health care for a few thousand individual people. The other candidates know that government policy can deliver much better health care for less cost than country doctors. Take, for example, Boston’s "Big Dig." The Big Dig, the depression of Boston’s central artery, is the largest public works project in history at $15 billion and counting. This could never have been accomplished by the private sector, and the Big Dig construction is almost finished after 10 years and going only 800 percent over budget. It’s true the Big Dig has already killed a motorist who was crushed by the falling three-ton concrete blocks used as ceiling tiles. (How could anyone possibly have foreseen such an outcome from an innovative design of precariously fastening concrete ceiling tiles?) But the truth is that we need government to bring the same cost controls and safety controls of the Big Dig to health care. Ron Paul just doesn’t understand this vital macroeconomic point.
1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can’t win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but that’s because he’s the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clinton’s election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you don’t have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004.
Let’s face it, the evidence against a Ron Paul victory is overwhelming. Dr. Paul will never be the "front-Ron-ner." At least, not until he takes his oath of office at his inauguration.
August 21, 2007
Thomas R. Eddlem [send him mail] is a radio talk show host, and a writer for Pro Libertate, AntiWar.com, and – of course – LewRockwell.com. He is also Legislative Action Director for RightSourceOnline.com. And he’d probably be a Ron Paul backer if he thought Dr. Paul had a chance to win.
Establishment Media Ignores Ron Paul Straw Poll Success
Press lauds Romney's victory in meaningless Iowa contest, yet barely acknowledges Texas Congressman's sweep of Alabama and New Hampshire
Prison Planet August 20, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The establishment media has sought to bury and scoff at Ron Paul's dominating success in the Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls, while exalting the meaningless Iowa contest as a bellwether benchmark of national sentiment simply because their stooge Mitt Romney was the winner.
The Texas Congressman completely demolished the opposition in the Alabama straw poll, achieving 216 votes (81%) compared to Romney's 14 and Giuliani's 7.
He also trounced the contest's only southerner, Mike Huckabee, by a clear 210 votes.
The Alabama state primary will play a very prominent role in next year's presidential election because it is expected to be moved forward and become one of the first.
Ron Paul was also victorious in New Hampshire this weekend after garnering 73% of the vote at the Strafford County GOP straw poll.
All the candidates had representatives in New Hampshire and Paul easily beat off Tancredo and Huckabee, who were there in person. A PR attempt on behalf of the Romney campaign to place signs all around the venue got a return of just 26 votes.
The significance of straw polls can be debated back and forth, but what can't be argued is the fact that Mitt Romney received lavish coverage from the media after his success in Iowa - despite the fact that the Iowa straw poll has historically proven to be meaningless - yet Paul's victory in Alamaba and New Hampshire was met with muted dismissal. "Now, granted, Alan Keyes won the last contested GOP straw poll in 1999, followed by Orrin Hatch, with eventual nominee George W. Bush coming in third," writes Outside the Beltway's James Joyner , "But Pat Robertson won the Iowa straw poll in 1987 and the press still pretends that contest is meaningful. Indeed, the winner in Ames has only gone on to win the nomination once. George H.W. Bush won the poll in 1979 and went on to lose the nomination to Ronald Reagan. Then, Bush lost the poll in 1987 (to Robertson) only to win the nomination. The other George Bush won in Ames in 1999, though, and also won the whole thing. So they're 1 for 4!"
If the race was on a level playing field and the establishment media afforded as much attention to Ron Paul's success as they gave Mitt Romney after the Iowa straw poll, the Texas Congressman's campaign would be given unstoppable momentum, which is why at every turn the press have sought to dismiss, ridicule and ignore the only Constitutional candidate on the roster - Congressman Ron Paul.
Prison Planet August 20, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The establishment media has sought to bury and scoff at Ron Paul's dominating success in the Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls, while exalting the meaningless Iowa contest as a bellwether benchmark of national sentiment simply because their stooge Mitt Romney was the winner.
The Texas Congressman completely demolished the opposition in the Alabama straw poll, achieving 216 votes (81%) compared to Romney's 14 and Giuliani's 7.
He also trounced the contest's only southerner, Mike Huckabee, by a clear 210 votes.
The Alabama state primary will play a very prominent role in next year's presidential election because it is expected to be moved forward and become one of the first.
Ron Paul was also victorious in New Hampshire this weekend after garnering 73% of the vote at the Strafford County GOP straw poll.
All the candidates had representatives in New Hampshire and Paul easily beat off Tancredo and Huckabee, who were there in person. A PR attempt on behalf of the Romney campaign to place signs all around the venue got a return of just 26 votes.
The significance of straw polls can be debated back and forth, but what can't be argued is the fact that Mitt Romney received lavish coverage from the media after his success in Iowa - despite the fact that the Iowa straw poll has historically proven to be meaningless - yet Paul's victory in Alamaba and New Hampshire was met with muted dismissal. "Now, granted, Alan Keyes won the last contested GOP straw poll in 1999, followed by Orrin Hatch, with eventual nominee George W. Bush coming in third," writes Outside the Beltway's James Joyner , "But Pat Robertson won the Iowa straw poll in 1987 and the press still pretends that contest is meaningful. Indeed, the winner in Ames has only gone on to win the nomination once. George H.W. Bush won the poll in 1979 and went on to lose the nomination to Ronald Reagan. Then, Bush lost the poll in 1987 (to Robertson) only to win the nomination. The other George Bush won in Ames in 1999, though, and also won the whole thing. So they're 1 for 4!"
If the race was on a level playing field and the establishment media afforded as much attention to Ron Paul's success as they gave Mitt Romney after the Iowa straw poll, the Texas Congressman's campaign would be given unstoppable momentum, which is why at every turn the press have sought to dismiss, ridicule and ignore the only Constitutional candidate on the roster - Congressman Ron Paul.
Friday, August 17, 2007
New Ron Paul Postcards by Joe Alexander
Created by artist Joe Alexander, these new "Ron Paul for President 2008" postcards are pretty cool!
On the back of the postcard, Joe Alexander explains the picture this way:
"The Ron Paul bandwagon takes off, hauled by those two sturdy reliable horses, Aurum and Argent. The sheep and asses stuck inside the fence aren't paying attention, but those clever independent cats sure do like the music!" --Joe Alexander.
Also listed on the back of the postcard, Joe lists why Ron Paul Must be elected President in 2008, citing his virtually flawless Congressional voting record.
The postcards, sure to become collectors items in the futrue, are available in quantities of 25 for $5.00 plus S/H. Call 1-877-817-9829 or 1-573-378-6049 to order today!
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Evidence Suggests Ron Paul May Have Been Cheated at Iowa Straw Poll
Ron Paul's fifth place in the Iowa Straw Poll questioned due to voting machine failure, fuzzy figures and conflicts of interest
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
A host of curious events at the Iowa Straw Poll at the weekend has raised questions as to whether there was some kind of tampering with the final vote count, with evidence to suggest Ron Paul may have been wrongly placed in fifth position behind Mitt Romney and three second tier candidates.
It was reported by local TV news stations before the event that upwards of 45,000 Republicans would arrive to meet candidates and cast their votes, however this number was dwindled down to between 30,000 and 33,000 according to the Iowa GOP's projected figures.
The number of voters then decreased by another sizable margin to around 26,000 the next day, only for the final figure to drop EVEN FURTHER to 14,302 actual votes cast.
Even if the immediate figures of 45,000 and 33,000 were wrong and the Iowa GOP grossly overestimated the figures, with only 26,000 tickets being sold, this still does not account for the other 12, 000 tickets that suddenly disappeared. One has to ask the question why did 12,000 people buy tickets at $35 each and not vote?
In 1999 the Straw Poll, which was won by George W Bush, attracted 23,685 voters, an incredibly similar figure to the 26,000 tickets sold this year.
As we reported yesterday, it has come to light that the voting procedure was overseen the Story County Auditor's Office, the head of whom happens to also be a member of Mitt Romney's "Leadership Team".
When the electronic voting machines inevitably malfunctioned, many immediately became wary.
According to some reports 4500 ballots had to be re-run and the announcement of the poll results was delayed by over an hour.
Earlier in the week a group of Ron Paul supporters had attempted to block the vote based on concerns over insecurities in the Diebold machines, yet the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to join an injunction against the vote.
It hasn't helped Romney's case that swirling around the blogosphere are rumours that previous to the straw poll he was "joking" out loud that his team were going to "stuff the ballot box".
The plot thickens with further analysis of the figures. A reader to popular website Whatreallyhappened.com writes:
Though it was reported that "there were nothing but Ron Paul signs in the crowd" and that his campaign signs lined the highways and streets leading into Ames, Iowa, Paul came in fifth place behind Romney, Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo.
Some exit polls also suggested that Ron Paul had actually WON the poll outright, before the final result was announced.
The Ames Straw Poll's results are non-binding and have no official effect on the presidential primaries. However, the straw poll is frequently seen as a first test of organizational strength in Iowa by the news media and party insiders. At the very least an investigation should be conducted to determine how significant an effect on the vote the Diebold machine malfunctions had and also why 12,000 tickets were not translated into votes.
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
A host of curious events at the Iowa Straw Poll at the weekend has raised questions as to whether there was some kind of tampering with the final vote count, with evidence to suggest Ron Paul may have been wrongly placed in fifth position behind Mitt Romney and three second tier candidates.
It was reported by local TV news stations before the event that upwards of 45,000 Republicans would arrive to meet candidates and cast their votes, however this number was dwindled down to between 30,000 and 33,000 according to the Iowa GOP's projected figures.
The number of voters then decreased by another sizable margin to around 26,000 the next day, only for the final figure to drop EVEN FURTHER to 14,302 actual votes cast.
Even if the immediate figures of 45,000 and 33,000 were wrong and the Iowa GOP grossly overestimated the figures, with only 26,000 tickets being sold, this still does not account for the other 12, 000 tickets that suddenly disappeared. One has to ask the question why did 12,000 people buy tickets at $35 each and not vote?
In 1999 the Straw Poll, which was won by George W Bush, attracted 23,685 voters, an incredibly similar figure to the 26,000 tickets sold this year.
As we reported yesterday, it has come to light that the voting procedure was overseen the Story County Auditor's Office, the head of whom happens to also be a member of Mitt Romney's "Leadership Team".
When the electronic voting machines inevitably malfunctioned, many immediately became wary.
According to some reports 4500 ballots had to be re-run and the announcement of the poll results was delayed by over an hour.
Earlier in the week a group of Ron Paul supporters had attempted to block the vote based on concerns over insecurities in the Diebold machines, yet the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to join an injunction against the vote.
It hasn't helped Romney's case that swirling around the blogosphere are rumours that previous to the straw poll he was "joking" out loud that his team were going to "stuff the ballot box".
The plot thickens with further analysis of the figures. A reader to popular website Whatreallyhappened.com writes:
FUZZY MATH #1
So we know from the state Auditor that one ‘problem’ machine contained 500 votes. Assuming most machines contained a similar pattern of use, then they should also contain about the same number of votes. 60 (machines) x 500 = 30,000 votes. That is more than TWICE as many as the official count. Based on a total vote count of 14,301, if all machines were used about equally, then the average number of votes per machine SHOULD have been 238 {14,301 (total votes) / 60 (machines) = 238 votes per machine}. What are the odds that one of the machines that ‘malfunctioned’ and actually gave up an audited vote tally would contain TWICE as many votes as the ‘average’ machine? But it gets worse…
FUZZY MATH #2
State Auditor David Vaudt (who unofficially certified the vote count) said that there were only 2 machines out of the 60 that were inconsistent (paper printout vs. electronic tabulation) and needed to be recounted. Mary Tiffany of the Iowa GOP said that a total of approximately 1500 votes were re-fed into the Diebold machines. Since we know that there were only two machines that were a problem and one of them contained 500 votes, then the second machine must have contained about 1000 ballots, which is more than FOUR TIMES what the ‘average’ machine should contain based on a total vote of 14,301. It seems more likely that there were actually 3 problem machines, and the true average per machine was about 500 votes, which would have resulted in a total vote of about 30,000 which is twice the official total vote count.
Though it was reported that "there were nothing but Ron Paul signs in the crowd" and that his campaign signs lined the highways and streets leading into Ames, Iowa, Paul came in fifth place behind Romney, Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo.
Some exit polls also suggested that Ron Paul had actually WON the poll outright, before the final result was announced.
The Ames Straw Poll's results are non-binding and have no official effect on the presidential primaries. However, the straw poll is frequently seen as a first test of organizational strength in Iowa by the news media and party insiders. At the very least an investigation should be conducted to determine how significant an effect on the vote the Diebold machine malfunctions had and also why 12,000 tickets were not translated into votes.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Comedy Central's Indecision 2008
Look out folks, Comedy Central has just launched their Indecision 2008 website, injecting much needed comic relief into the 2008 presidential race.
Indecision 2008 features all kinds of fun stuff, including high quality video of Ron Paul interviews from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report which will surely convert some blue-state liberals to Ron Paul Libertarians.
Below is the June 4th Ron Paul interview from The Daily Show. In my humble opinion, Ron Paul did a really great job getting his message through the overall humor Jon Stewart likes to sprinkle into the interview process. Contrary to most interviews Jon Stewart does with the awful Neo-Con elitists, there were no hints of negativity or subtle jabs at his belief systems. Ron Paul's voting record is as perfect as you can get, 100% based on the Constitution, and Jon Stewart knew that, providing Dr. Paul with the respect he so rightly deserved.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Iowa Straw Poll Wrap Up
The pre-vote speech Ron Paul made in Ames, Iowa yesterday:
Part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
After the speeches, the votes were cast. The results were supposed to be announced promptly at 7pm, but weren't announced until around 9pm, causing many to think some fishy business was taking place at vote counting. Here are the official results as certified by State Auditor David Vaudt and GOP Chairman Ray Hoffmann.
#1 Mitt Romney
Votes: 4516
Percent: 31.5%
#2 Mike Huckabee
Votes: 2587
Percent: 18.1%
#3 Sam Brownback
Votes: 2192
Percent: 15.3%
#4 Tom Tancredo
Votes: 1961
Percent: 13.7%
#5 Ron Paul
Votes: 1305
Percent: 9.1%
#6 Tommy Thompson
Votes: 1039
Percent: 7.3%
#7 Fred Thompson
Votes: 203
Percent: 1.4%
#8 Rudy Giuliani
Votes: 183
Percent: 1.3%
#9 Duncan Hunter
Votes: 174
Percent: 1.2%
#10 John McCain
Votes: 101
Percent: 1.0%
#11 John Cox
Votes: 41
Percent: 0.1%
14,302 Total Votes
26,000 Total Tickets Sold
After the results were announced, Ron Paul was interviewed by a student Ron Paul supporter:
Part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
After the speeches, the votes were cast. The results were supposed to be announced promptly at 7pm, but weren't announced until around 9pm, causing many to think some fishy business was taking place at vote counting. Here are the official results as certified by State Auditor David Vaudt and GOP Chairman Ray Hoffmann.
#1 Mitt Romney
Votes: 4516
Percent: 31.5%
#2 Mike Huckabee
Votes: 2587
Percent: 18.1%
#3 Sam Brownback
Votes: 2192
Percent: 15.3%
#4 Tom Tancredo
Votes: 1961
Percent: 13.7%
#5 Ron Paul
Votes: 1305
Percent: 9.1%
#6 Tommy Thompson
Votes: 1039
Percent: 7.3%
#7 Fred Thompson
Votes: 203
Percent: 1.4%
#8 Rudy Giuliani
Votes: 183
Percent: 1.3%
#9 Duncan Hunter
Votes: 174
Percent: 1.2%
#10 John McCain
Votes: 101
Percent: 1.0%
#11 John Cox
Votes: 41
Percent: 0.1%
14,302 Total Votes
26,000 Total Tickets Sold
After the results were announced, Ron Paul was interviewed by a student Ron Paul supporter:
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Negative Campaign Ads of The Future (Video)
If you ask me, Ron Paul should run this Orwellian negative campaign ad targeting Hillary Clinton ASAP!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Ron Paul TV Spot for Iowa Straw Poll (Video - August 8th)
Ron Paul campaign television commercial created specifically for the Iowa straw poll this Saturday, August 11.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Paul Levinson To Include ABC's Mis-Reporting in Future Fordham University Curriculum
Paul Levinson BA, MA, PhD (b. 1947) is an highly distinguished American author and professor of communications and media studies at Fordham University in New York City.
Click here to read Dr. Levinson's open letter to ABC News entitled "Did You Remove Comments from Ron Paul Supporters, and If So, Why?" on his official blog, as well as a stinging assessment of ABC News's coverage related to Ron Paul and the Iowa Republican debate this past Sunday.
Romney Supporters Outnumber Paul's?...You Decide. (Video - August 5th)
ABC grossly distorts reality to make it seem like Ron Paul supporters at the recent debate in Iowa were vastly outnumbered by Romney's. It was the other way around.
Fox News Uncovers Ron Paul's Most Shocking Skeleton in the Closet
Desperate debunkers resort to attacking Congressman on amount of money he requests for shrimp research, while Giuliani's rampant corruption is ignoredPaul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Fox News are so desperate to dig up any dirt on Ron Paul, that one of their flagship shows last night resorted to attacking him over the amount of federal funding he requested for shrimp research.
Watch the video here
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year," reported the Brit Hume show.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."
The Texas Lone Star Times also ran with the shrimp hit piece, which originated with an article in the Wall Street Journal.
If Ron Paul's biggest skeleton in the closet is the amount of money his district spends on shrimp research, then the establishment media are going to have a difficult time maintaining their assault on his credibility as they panic in fear at the Congressman's runaway popularity.
Their desperation in scraping the barrel to uncover any dirt on Paul previously yielded the equally shocking scandal of one his aides having written fifteen years ago about crime figures and black people - another feeble jab that fizzled into nothing.
Compare the egregious and rampant corruption of Rudy Giuliani with Ron Paul's shrimp overspend and ask yourself why Fox News isn't running hit pieces on the Nosferatu of the Republican presidential race.
As we reported yesterday, Fox News attempted to smear Paul by debunking the 9/11 truth movement and then associating it with the Texas Congressman.
Ron Paul Champions Internet Freedom
Speaks out against federal regulation in wake of more liberty stripping net rules
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, August 6, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has stated in no uncertain terms that he is thoroughly against internet regulation and has spoken out against federal rubric of the web in the week after a bill was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee as a pretext towards implementation of universal filtering on the Internet.
Speaking after another victorious Republican nominee debate, Dr Paul told Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman:
The Texas Congressman is co-sponsoring a bill to legalize online gambling along with Democrat Barney Frank.
“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.” Paul continued.
Paul's comments come in the wake of the passing of another bill that represents a greater step towards federal regulation of the internet.
The United States Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill last Friday that would require a review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet, just a week after Senators made a bipartisan call to implement universal filtering on the net.
Free speech groups including the Center for Democracy and Technology have expressed concern that the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 (S. 602) may represent a step toward expanding the FCC's censorship authority to include Internet content.
Other recent bipartisan proposals in the Congress have taken huge swipes at internet freedom by aiming to impose multiple different forms of crippling taxation and restriction on its users. Both Republican and Democrat representatives have joined a chorus of others in demonizing the Internet in attempts to further lead it down a path of strict control.
In previous debates Ron Paul has come out in strong support of internet freedom while all other candidates are in favour of regulation.
During the first Republican presidential debate, MSNBC's debate back in May, the Congressman stated that he trusted the internet "a lot more" than the mainstream media. Paul went on to state:
When compared with other leading candidates on the issue of internet freedom, Ron Paul stands alone. For example, John McCain, on the Republican side, has previously tabled legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a severe distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, for the Democrats, has voiced her support for the so called "Fairness Doctrine" which would effectively suffocate the independent media.
The Congressman has once again proven that where the upholding of liberty and the defence of free speech in the 21st century are concerned, he is the only candidate who can seriously be considered.
Ron Paul emphatically won the post debate polls once again for the fourth time running, yet this still was not enough to prevent Fox News attempting to smear him once again by using Infowars as fodder in a carefully scripted attempt to ensnare the Congressman and insinuate his appearances on the Alex Jones show somehow make him un-American.
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, August 6, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has stated in no uncertain terms that he is thoroughly against internet regulation and has spoken out against federal rubric of the web in the week after a bill was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee as a pretext towards implementation of universal filtering on the Internet.
Speaking after another victorious Republican nominee debate, Dr Paul told Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman:
“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”
The Texas Congressman is co-sponsoring a bill to legalize online gambling along with Democrat Barney Frank.
“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.” Paul continued.
Paul's comments come in the wake of the passing of another bill that represents a greater step towards federal regulation of the internet.
The United States Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill last Friday that would require a review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet, just a week after Senators made a bipartisan call to implement universal filtering on the net.
Free speech groups including the Center for Democracy and Technology have expressed concern that the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 (S. 602) may represent a step toward expanding the FCC's censorship authority to include Internet content.
Other recent bipartisan proposals in the Congress have taken huge swipes at internet freedom by aiming to impose multiple different forms of crippling taxation and restriction on its users. Both Republican and Democrat representatives have joined a chorus of others in demonizing the Internet in attempts to further lead it down a path of strict control.
In previous debates Ron Paul has come out in strong support of internet freedom while all other candidates are in favour of regulation.
During the first Republican presidential debate, MSNBC's debate back in May, the Congressman stated that he trusted the internet "a lot more" than the mainstream media. Paul went on to state:
And I trust the freedom of expression, and that’s why we should never interfere with the Internet, that’s why I’ve never voted to regulate the Internet, even when there’s the temptation to put bad things on the Internet. Regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.
When compared with other leading candidates on the issue of internet freedom, Ron Paul stands alone. For example, John McCain, on the Republican side, has previously tabled legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a severe distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, for the Democrats, has voiced her support for the so called "Fairness Doctrine" which would effectively suffocate the independent media.
The Congressman has once again proven that where the upholding of liberty and the defence of free speech in the 21st century are concerned, he is the only candidate who can seriously be considered.
Ron Paul emphatically won the post debate polls once again for the fourth time running, yet this still was not enough to prevent Fox News attempting to smear him once again by using Infowars as fodder in a carefully scripted attempt to ensnare the Congressman and insinuate his appearances on the Alex Jones show somehow make him un-American.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Fox News Attempts To Smear Ron Paul After Debate
Though Texas Congressman doesn't believe 9/11 an inside job, his broader message should be embraced by all within the 9/11 truth movement.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, August 6, 2007
Ron Paul appeared on Fox News yesterday following the Republican debate in Iowa to discuss a number of issues, including the Texas Congressman's association with Alex Jones, in what was an apparent attempt by Fox to smear the presidential hopeful.
The Texas Congressman was asked directly about his association with Alex Jones as the host insinuated such a connection undermines Paul's credibility. Paul has been a regular guest on the Alex Jones Show for years.
"Just think what it would be like if only I could go on TV stations, the major TV networks, when I knew they agreed with me - all of the major networks agreed with the war - that meant I could never be on any major TV network," said Paul.
"Of course I don't support everything he says but people that I associate with, I don't endorse their views they come over to associate with me to endorse my views or I'm just expressing my views - but there'd be no way I could be on television if that was the litmus test - that I had to agree with everything they stood for and what they promoted - it just wouldn't work," added the Congressman.
Ron Paul's refusal to directly state that 9/11 was an inside job, a topic also raised during the interview, has angered many within the 9/11 truth movement.
But we have to understand that politics is a cutthroat business and the Congressman has decided to run his campaign around a tight message of liberty and real conservatism that will appeal to as much of the voting public as possible.
Dwelling on the 9/11 question, massive though it is, only provides the likes of Fox News with ample opportunity to sidetrack and smear the Congressman and alienate him from Republican voters who have become disenchanted with the direction of the party.
Though we will never agree with Ron Paul on every single issue we recognize that his broader message is unlike anything offered by the establishment candidates and resonates with a huge amount of people, as his growing popularity has proven - which is why we will continue to support Ron Paul's candidacy at every juncture.
In a related story, ABC News were caught editing their poll results yesterday to unfairly strip Ron Paul of votes. At around 10am EST, the Texas Congressman had over a thousand votes but around an hour later and after the debate had finished, he was down to under 500.
Others accused ABC of deliberately underplaying the debate after many expressed their confusion at the fact that it was aired live on a Sunday morning with little fanfare, likely ensuring that it was the least watched Republican debate so far.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, August 6, 2007
Ron Paul appeared on Fox News yesterday following the Republican debate in Iowa to discuss a number of issues, including the Texas Congressman's association with Alex Jones, in what was an apparent attempt by Fox to smear the presidential hopeful.
The Texas Congressman was asked directly about his association with Alex Jones as the host insinuated such a connection undermines Paul's credibility. Paul has been a regular guest on the Alex Jones Show for years.
"Just think what it would be like if only I could go on TV stations, the major TV networks, when I knew they agreed with me - all of the major networks agreed with the war - that meant I could never be on any major TV network," said Paul.
"Of course I don't support everything he says but people that I associate with, I don't endorse their views they come over to associate with me to endorse my views or I'm just expressing my views - but there'd be no way I could be on television if that was the litmus test - that I had to agree with everything they stood for and what they promoted - it just wouldn't work," added the Congressman.
Ron Paul's refusal to directly state that 9/11 was an inside job, a topic also raised during the interview, has angered many within the 9/11 truth movement.
But we have to understand that politics is a cutthroat business and the Congressman has decided to run his campaign around a tight message of liberty and real conservatism that will appeal to as much of the voting public as possible.
Dwelling on the 9/11 question, massive though it is, only provides the likes of Fox News with ample opportunity to sidetrack and smear the Congressman and alienate him from Republican voters who have become disenchanted with the direction of the party.
Though we will never agree with Ron Paul on every single issue we recognize that his broader message is unlike anything offered by the establishment candidates and resonates with a huge amount of people, as his growing popularity has proven - which is why we will continue to support Ron Paul's candidacy at every juncture.
In a related story, ABC News were caught editing their poll results yesterday to unfairly strip Ron Paul of votes. At around 10am EST, the Texas Congressman had over a thousand votes but around an hour later and after the debate had finished, he was down to under 500.
Others accused ABC of deliberately underplaying the debate after many expressed their confusion at the fact that it was aired live on a Sunday morning with little fanfare, likely ensuring that it was the least watched Republican debate so far.
Ron Paul Wins Drudge Report Iowa GOP Debate Poll
Following the GOP debate in Iowa yesterday DrudgeReport.com had their usual poll asking readers who won the debate. Below are the results of that poll which was pulled down sometime between 6:30pm EST and 8:00pm EST.
Poll Results - 12:10pm EST
Poll Results - 12:31pm EST
Poll Results - 12:59pm EST
Poll Results - 1:15pm EST
Poll Results - 3:36pm EST
Poll Results - 4:20pm EST
Poll Results - 6:28pm EST
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Ron Paul Answers Correctly in Iowa; Wins Big! (Video - August 5th)
Correct Answer #1
Correct Answer #2
Correct Answer #3
Correct Answer #4
Correct Answer #5
Correct Answer #6
Correct Answer #2
Correct Answer #3
Correct Answer #4
Correct Answer #5
Correct Answer #6
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Friday, August 3, 2007
Operation Mockingbird Controlled Associated Press Alters Ron Paul Article
If the below article isn't the doings of the fascist Operation Mockingbird program, I'm not sure what is. Looks like the fine Americans at the CIA are concerned about their job security, reminiscent of JFK and his desire to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds" (Ron Paul has expressed his desire to do the same). Two years later, elements of the CIA assasinated JFK.Ron Paul Made the front page of yahoo.com about an hour ago with this story under the title
“GOP’s Ron Paul has Unusual Appeal”
Then, 11 minutes later, the headline is changed to
“Ron Paul remains longshot for GOP nom”
Other than that, the 2 articles are identical.
But notice the incredible difference a headline can make. It looks like someone at Yahoo (or more likely at the AP) decided after the fact to push their own political agenda. The story went from the “Unusual Appeal of the favorite of those looking for a candidate outside the political mainstream” to a marginalized “Longshot”.
Isn’t the power of the written word Amazing? How, in the middle of the night (literally 2:11 am EST), a political hack can turn a positive story negative with just a few keystrokes.
Also note that this was NOT done to get more clicks or attract more visitors to the story. No one with half a brain could argue that “Ron Paul remains longshot for GOP nom” would get more clicks or reads than “GOP’s Ron Paul has Unusual Appeal.” This was 100% politically motivated.
I guarantee you that the word “Remains” in a headline does not sell newspapers. How is it news if something “remains”? Isn’t that the opposite of news? Isn’t it the antithesis of a magnetic headline?
The mystery is - Who made the change? Was it the Article’s Author, LIZ AUSTIN PETERSON Associated Press Writer, Yahoo, an editor at the Associated press . . . Smurfs? Who decided that the “Remains Longshot” title was the better way to paint this story than “Unusual Appeal”?
The above was taken from our friends at the great SEO Blog, SEO Blackhat. Thank you Mr. Jaan Kanellis from the Glass City for the heads up.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Bob Novak on Ron Paul: "I'd like to see him as President"
Bob Novak, probably best known as the man that published the name and identity of Valerie Plame as a "CIA operative" in his Chicago Sun-Times column, has expressed his desire to see a Ron Paul Presidency to a group of conservative bloggers at the Heritage Foundation yesterday. Said Novak:
"He's a very engaging person... I'd like to see him as President... Can you imagine him at the United Nations?"
More, including some entertaining reader comments, can be found at the Washington Times political blog Fishwrap here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)