Vote Write In for Ron Paul 2008

The Campaign for Liberty

2008-11-10T13:53:00.000-08:00

Join Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty today!

4-8 years of the Obamanation will give us true-blue constitutionalists a huge opportunity to expose Obama, Clinton, Bush etc as seperate heads of the same New World Order dragon. This dragon will be slayed by the great swordswoman that is Lady Liberty! Hoorah!

Art Bell Says "Fox News Sucks...What the Hell are They Afraid Of?"

2008-01-07T07:58:00.000-08:00

"Fox News sucks...That's what I think....You know, this is just ridiculous! Ron Paul, a man I've interviewed many times, got more of a percentage by a lot, than Rudy Giuliani, but Fox News won't let him in the debate. What the hell are they afraid of?"

Full audio:

Muckraker Report's Ed Haas: Writing in Ron Paul

2008-01-01T15:57:00.000-08:00

We're starting to see more people catching onto the Ron Paul write-in movement. Ed Haas, of the stellar publication the Muckraker Report, has written a brief article indicating his intentions to vote for Ron Paul via write-in vote, in the event he doesn't win the Republican nomination, as well as valuable "How To" info you'll need to know in order to Vote Write In.

December 24, 2007 – Presidential hopeful Congressman Ron Paul does not need to win the republican nomination to earn my vote. He does not need to win the nomination to earn your vote either. I am voting for Ron Paul for President of the United States regardless of whether he wins his party’s nomination or not. Imagine that! It’s called the Ron Paul Factor! The fools at Fox News might want to take note. They just cannot stop the Ron Paul vote.

Many in the corporate media, most at the direction of their handlers, have attempted repeatedly to write Congressman Paul out of the script. First they tried to ignore him, hoping he would just fade away. But as his support grew, the corporate media knew that its bias would be seen as obviously blatant if they did not cover the Paul campaign. So they conceded, and proceeded to cover the candidate almost always in a negative light. CNN’s Glenn Beck, much to my surprise, recently proved to be an exception to the rule by conducting what I thought was a fair and thoughtful hour-long interview with Ron Paul. On the other hand, the obnoxious bore, or boar if you prefer, Tim Russert from Meet the Press is the latest Ron Paul interviewer that did his best to portray Paul negatively.

Click here to continue article...

Glenn Beck Says Ron Paul Movement Hijacked by Anarchists

2007-12-14T11:38:00.000-08:00

Here's the transcript of George Noory's interview of Glenn Beck on Coast to Coast AM which aired November 23rd.

George Noory: See, I get emails from people who say you attack Ron Paul supporters...

Glenn Beck: Let me take the Ron Paul supporters. You know me George!

George Noory: Of course, I know you well!

Glenn Beck: I'm probably THIS CLOSE to Ron Paul in opinions. You probably don't have a major talk show host that is close to Ron Paul in ideology as me.

Here's what happened. First of all, I never said that. A GUEST said that! The second part of that is, I stand by what I did say!And that is, I believe this Ron Paul campaign has been hijacked by radical elements on the left and the right! People that are ANARCHISTS. Now that doesn't mean that the average Ron Paul supporter is that. By no stretch of the imagination do I believe that! But there are those elements.

And it's not just the Ron Paul movement. Quite frankly, there are members of this kind of movement in the Democratic party as well. We just have to be very, very careful of aligning ourselves with ABSOLUTE ANARCHISTS or RADICALS. Now, that doesn't mean, and I've tried to make this very clear as well, that, I don't think Ron Paul is a radical, I don't think Ron Paul is wanting anarchy, and I don't think the average Ron Paul supporter does! But you can't tell me that there aren't those that are hiding behind Ron Paul that want that!

FBI Raids "Liberty Dollar" Company Offices - Confiscates All "Ron Paul Dollars"

2007-11-15T06:54:00.000-08:00

I just received an email (9:30am EST) from http://www.libertydollar.org, the makers of those beautiful "Ron Paul Dollars" made of pure gold & silver.

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:

I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.

For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank accounts.

We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money.

But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been taken.

This in spite of the fact that Edmond C. Moy, the Director of the Mint, acknowledged in a letter to a US Senator that the paper certificates did not violate Section 486 and were not illegal. But the FBI and Services took all the paper currency too.

The possibility of such action was the reason the Liberty Dollar was designed so that the vast majority of the money was in specie form and in the people’s hands. Of the $20 million Liberty Dollars, only about a million is in paper or digital form.

I regret that if you are due an order. It may be some time until it will be filled... if ever... it now all depends on our actions.

Everyone who has an unfulfilled order or has digital or paper currency should band together for a class action suit and demand redemption. We cannot allow the government to steal our money! Please don’t let this happen!!! Many of you read the articles quoting the government and Federal Reserve officials that the Liberty Dollar was legal. You did nothing wrong. You are legally entitled to your property.

Let us use this terrible act to band together and further our goal – to return America to a value based currency.

Please forward this important Alert... so everyone who possess or use the Liberty Dollar is aware of the situation.

Please click HERE to sign up for the class action lawsuit and get your property back!
If the above link does not work you can access the page by copying the following into your web browser. http://www.libertydollar.org/classaction/index.php

Thanks again for your support at this darkest time as the damn government and their dollar sinks to a new low.

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect

Don't Buy Me X-Mas Gifts - Donate To Ron Paul Instead

2007-11-13T10:27:00.000-08:00

Mom, Dad, Sister, Brother; This year for Christmas, please don't buy me any physical gifts for Christmas. Instead, please donate a few bucks to the Ron Paul for President campaign at RonPaul2008.com on December 16th, 2007 (Tea Party "Money Bomb").

As you already know, our Constitutional Republic is in danger of being completely destroyed by pig-demon beauracrats, feeding on our sacred Bill of Rights, our ever-dwindling bank accounts via the ridiculous Federal Income Tax & Inflation Tax, and ushering in a North American Union by letting illegal immigrants pour into our nation, weakening our national security by design.

At this point Ron Paul presents any & all real hope in restoring our great nation. Let's make Christmas 2007 something to remember.

Ron Paul on the NBC Evening News (Video - October 19th)

2007-10-22T07:05:00.000-07:00

Fox News GOP Debate #2 (Video - October 21st)

2007-10-22T05:47:00.000-07:00

Debate Footage:

Hannity & Colmes Interview:

Ron Paul on PBS News Hour (Video - October 12th)

2007-10-17T14:47:00.000-07:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

CNBC "Feels the Wrath" of the Ron Paul Revolution (Video - October 16th)

2007-10-17T08:30:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul on the Fox Business Network (Video - October 16th)

2007-10-17T08:18:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul Mania @ Grand Central Station (Video - October 13th)

2007-10-16T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Beatles were to Rock n' Roll in the 60's as Ron Paul is to American politics in the 21st Century!

Ron Paul in NYC (Video - October 13)

2007-10-15T08:44:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul: A New Hope

2007-10-15T08:31:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson (Video - October 10th)

2007-10-12T05:55:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul CNBC Debate Highlights (Video - October 10th)

2007-10-10T07:01:00.000-07:00

Debate Clip 1: Congressional Authorization for War

Debate Clip 2: Iraq

Debate Clip 3: Confidence in the Economy

Debate Clip 4: Supporting the GOP Nominee

Debate Clip 5: Unions

Debate Clip 6: Transfer of Wealth

Post Debate Interview: Kudlow

ABC News: The Ron Paul Grassroots Sensation (Video - October 6th)

2007-10-07T13:35:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul Calls for an End to the 'War on Drugs'

2007-09-28T07:04:00.000-07:00

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com September 28, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul called for an end to the Drug War and a repeal of "most" Federal drug laws last night during the PBS Republican Presidential Debates hosted by Tavis Smiley.

"We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 70s and it's wasted money. Prohibition didn't work; prohibition on drugs doesn't work."

Ron Paul cited the unfair disparity between the relative percentage of black drug users and blacks imprisoned for drug use. He called for equal justice under the law, giving example to the system's race-based "punishments."

"Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36% of those arrested are blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are blacks. This has to change. We don't have to have more courts and more prisons, we have to repeal the whole 'War on Drugs'-- it isn't working," Paul said.

While many other candidates admirably agreed that blacks were treated unfairly under existing drug laws, many of their solutions included suggestions for new courts, arbitration and rehab programs, not a scaling-back of the failed and hypocritical 'War on Drugs' or a repeal of drug laws.

"So we need to come to our senses...it's a disease. We don't treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease and we should orient ourselves to this," said Ron Paul.

Paul was also asked about his support for the death penalty in regards to waning public opinion. He again cited unfair prosecution in the justice system.

"You know, over the years, I've held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidence, there's been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty"

Ron Paul Slams Bernanke For Dollar Meltdown

2007-09-21T05:31:00.000-07:00

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, September 20, 2007

Ron Paul has slammed Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for deliberately depreciating the value of the dollar to artificially bail out Wall Street while poor and middle class people lose their homes and have their living standards lowered.

During a Banking Committee hearing on Capitol Hill today, the Texas Congressman confronted Bernanke and accused the Fed of trying to solve the problem of inflation with more inflation by creating artificially low interest rates that have no effect because of the dollar's weakness.

Watch the video.

Paul questioned how it could ever be morally justifiable to deliberately depreciate the dollar and pointed out the fact that the dollar collapse was a deliberate policy on behalf of the Fed.

Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Alan Greenspan have all been busy bad-mouthing the dollar over the past few weeks even as major players like China and Saudi Arabia consider dumping US treasuries, a move that would immediately trigger a dollar meltdown.

Ron Paul identifies the true culprits of the planned economic implosion while the establishment media and the yuppies celebrate the hollow "solution" of an interest rate cut that has no substantive benefit and only increases the risk of another depression by sinking the dollar to historic lows and ensuring foreign holders of US debt run for the door at breakneck speed.

SeattlePI.com's Joel Connelly: GOP's Ron Paul Wants All Troops Home

2007-09-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

by Joel Connelly
P-I COLUMNIST

Amid a lineup of what ought to be called "big government conservatives," Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stands out like the Lonesome End on Army's 1950s football teams.

Asked his policy on U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the Texas congressman, now serving his 10th term, replies: "I would get them home as soon as possible."
And U.S. troops in Europe?

"I would get them home," Paul said in an interview Tuesday. "Having them stationed abroad doesn't serve our national interest, and that goes for forces in Japan and Korea.

"We should only send U.S. forces abroad when our security is directly threatened. Right now, nobody threatens our national security."

Such sentiments make Paul the odd man out in GOP debates. Other candidates have been seen smirking as he speaks.

Although described as a libertarian, the physician-politician is a throwback on stands that used to define "conservative" in America -- defense of individual liberties, a minimalist federal government and freedom from foreign entanglements.

"I call it a non-interventionist, constitutional foreign policy," he said Tuesday. "We should have a strong national defense. But we should stay out of other countries' internal affairs. Our role is not nation building, and not to be world policeman."

In Paul's view, the U.S. invasion of Iraq worked to encourage al-Qaida. "The motivation by suicide terrorists is that we have invaded territory that is not ours," he argued.
Paul will spend a hectic Friday in Seattle this week.

The events on his schedule range from a public lecture on the U.S. Constitution, set for 1:30 p.m. Friday at Seattle University's Campion Tower Ballroom, to a $2,000 private briefing scheduled for 3:30 p.m. at the College Club. Then a $1,000-per-person reception at the Westin reception will be followed by a 7:30 p.m. rally in the Grand Ballroom.

If you missed the movie "Twister," the Republicans' 2008 field offers lots of blustery, changing winds. Mitt Romney has reversed past stands on abortion and gay rights. Fred Thompson is trying to explain how he gave legal advice to a pro-choice feminist group. The thrice-married Rudy Giuliani is seeking to court the religious right.

Paul is not a man for campaign conversions -- even on a week that takes him to three liberal West Coast cities.

"My message is exactly the same wherever I go," he said. "If it is a liberal city where I am speaking, I try to teach them the virtue of economic liberties. If it is a conservative religious town, I try to stress why individual liberties are important."

Paul was a lonely Republican vote against passage and reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. He feels the landmark post-9/11 law violated the Fourth Amendment, which provides Americans with guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure of their property.

If elected, said Paul, "I would do everything I can to repeal it. ... We do not need to spy on the American people to provide for our national security."

Born in Pennsylvania, Paul served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon, and moved to Texas to practice obstetrics and gynecology near Houston. He was drawn to politics when President Nixon severed the connection between the dollar and gold in 1971.

He would radically downsize the federal government. "I don't think there is any need for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or particularly the monstrous Department of Homeland Security," he said Tuesday.

Asked what role he sees for the federal government in education, Paul replied: "None. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a federal role."

Paul would seek to divest the federal government of its vast landholdings in the West. "I would always move in the direction of moving those lands to the states, except in special circumstances such as national parks."

The Paul campaign has taken in about $3 million as of midyear, a fraction of money raised by the Romney ($43.5 million) and Giuliani ($35.4 million) juggernauts. In the West, Paul registers among donation leaders only in Montana and Wyoming.

Yet, the physician-politician has become a hit on the Internet. He is the candidate of voters, left and right, who would otherwise fill in "None of the Above" on pollsters' questionnaires.

Paul relishes being apart from the field, especially in talking about two favorite subjects -- Iraq and individual liberties. Of Democrats, he said: "They were elected to do something last fall, and they've done nothing. They've identified themselves as the party of civil liberties, and done nothing."

Nor does Paul have any sympathy for Republican "conservatives" who stress economic liberty but see nothing wrong with a government that pushes around its citizens. "You cannot have a Supreme Court that protects economic liberties and not individual liberties," he said.

On assisted suicide, talking as a physician, Paul said: "Taking someone's life is not something I want to get involved in." Yet, he describes legalization as "a state issue."

"I don't support abortion, but I don't want to pass any federal law to regulate it," he added.

In Texas, it is possible to run simultaneously for Congress and president. Paul intends to file for re-election to his House seat.

Has he seen any other Republican candidate he could support for the White House? "So far, nobody," he replied.

P-I columnist Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or joelconnelly@seattlepi.com. Follow his political blog at blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics.

AmericanChronicle.com's Mike Warner: Will Ron Paul or Tyranny Prevail?

2007-09-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

by Mike Warner

Ron Paul has emerged as the lone wolf of the Republican Party, speaking out against the war in Iraq. Standing up for the constitution, he is dismissed by the rest of the Republicans running for President in 2008 as nothing more than a crack pot. In a speech given at the Reagan Library (posted on my site), Dr Paul clearly lays out how the American peoples wallets and bank accounts are being raped by our own government. Yet, do Americans pay any attention to the Ron Paul message?

A large percentage of Americans no longer even vote. A right our forefathers fought and died for. Many Americans are dissatisfied, feeling that it no longer matters who gets voted into office. I have talked to many citizens of this great country and have been told many times, "it does not matter who gets into office, they are all crooks." When we look at the corruption and ineptitude of the last seven presidencies, one must wonder. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Nothing from those seven presidencies indicates otherwise.

In the upcoming elections, every candidate with the exception of one, has flip flopped on major issues, been involved with corruption, pandered to special interest groups and, or sold their votes to the highest bidder. Not willing to run with the rest of the pact and wallow in their corruption, Ron Paul stands as a lone wolf. With support ranging across all party lines from Democrats to Republicans to Libertarians to Independents, the dedicated supporters cheer the good doctor on. They spread the word that an honest man, a man with integrity, a man who believes in the ideals that America was founded on, is willing to lead our country.

Will Americans recognize and become invigorated by this honest man? Will America enter into a new age of peace, and prosperity as intended by our founding fathers? OR Will the Neo-cons be enabled to continue their quest for empire building and world domination? Or will the lefts socialist agenda move forward?

One thing for certain, the next year will be an exciting one in the world of politics. The future of world wide power hinges on the United States Presidential Election of 2008. Americans must be awakened to this realization and be encouraged to once again, participate in the election process.

Thomas Jefferson said, "When the Government fears the people, we have Liberty...when the people fear the Government we have Tyranny!" Will we live in tyranny and by virtue of complacency force that tyranny on the rest of the world?

Mike Warner attended the University of Maryland and Central Texas College. He's a combat veteran of Desert Storm, with the U.S. Army. A former construction company owner. A father and husband. The owner of The Political Coffeehouse.

Faux News (Fox News) Republican Debate: Completely Unbalanced

2007-09-06T05:43:00.001-07:00

Last night at the Republican debate it was very clear the good people behind Fox News (ie-The Neo-Cons) were out to destroy Ron Paul. Not only did resident slime-ball Chris Wallace throw loaded questions at Dr. Paul, but they left Rudy Giulani's microphone on during Ron Paul's answers; Giuliani openly laughed out loud (you can tell it was him, as even his laugh has a speech impediment) like the disrespectful punk that he is.

Ron Paul footage from the debate:

And, the best part, the results of the Fox News poll "who won the debate"? I think we all know who won the debate (note Hannity in the backround in obvious pain, like a wounded little girl).

Related Story: Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate: Claims "Paulites" flood voted to skew text poll, yet only one vote per phone number was allowed. Click here for more.

Tyranny at the Texas Straw Poll (Video - September 1st)

2007-09-02T15:34:00.001-07:00

Yesterday at the Texas Straw Poll the GOP prevented Texas delegates who paid their fee to vote and obtain "credentials" were blocked from entering the building to cast their votes. Conservative estimates show that 250 Ron Paul delegates may have been forbidden from entering the building and casting their vote.

Ron Paul ended up coming in 3rd place with 217 votes (17%) behind Fred Thompson with 266 votes (21%) and Duncan Hunter who won the straw poll with 534 votes (41%).

This has rightfully infuriated Texan Ron Paul supporters, taking to the internet to voice their disgust.

Let Freedom Ring: Texas Straw Poll (Video - September 1st)

2007-09-02T11:39:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul Manhattan Meetup Group Featured in AP

2007-08-31T12:55:00.000-07:00

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!

Tucker Carlson: Ron Paul Will Be Folk Hero of This Election (Video - August 29th)

2007-08-30T14:47:00.000-07:00

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."

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse

2007-08-29T10:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Combat Vets Support Ron Paul (Video)

2007-08-29T10:05:00.000-07:00

Which would explain why Ron Paul has received the most military campaign contributions amongst the Republican candidates.

Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year

2007-08-28T14:19:00.000-07:00

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."

Ron Paul Supporter Forced To Remove Campaign Sign (Video - August 24th)

2007-08-28T06:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Ron Paul: Hope for America (Video)

2007-08-24T09:07:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul on CNBC: IRS & Unconstitutional Income Tax (Video - 2004)

2007-08-24T08:49:00.001-07:00

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.

8 Minutes of Sanity with Dr. Ron Paul (Video)

2007-08-23T09:42:00.000-07:00

A Picture is Worth 1000 Words

2007-08-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

Ten Reasons Why Ron Paul Can’t Win (Satire)

2007-08-21T09:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Establishment Media Ignores Ron Paul Straw Poll Success

2007-08-21T09:37:00.000-07:00

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.

New Ron Paul Postcards by Joe Alexander

2007-08-17T06:43:00.001-07:00

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!

Evidence Suggests Ron Paul May Have Been Cheated at Iowa Straw Poll

2007-08-14T14:47:00.000-07:00

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:

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.

Comedy Central's Indecision 2008

2007-08-13T10:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Iowa Straw Poll Wrap Up

2007-08-12T14:31:00.000-07:00

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:

Negative Campaign Ads of The Future (Video)

2007-08-11T17:14:00.000-07:00

If you ask me, Ron Paul should run this Orwellian negative campaign ad targeting Hillary Clinton ASAP!

Ron Paul : When in the course of human events... (Video)

2007-08-11T08:59:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul TV Spot for Iowa Straw Poll (Video - August 8th)

2007-08-08T05:47:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul campaign television commercial created specifically for the Iowa straw poll this Saturday, August 11.

Paul Levinson To Include ABC's Mis-Reporting in Future Fordham University Curriculum

2007-08-07T14:18:00.000-07:00

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)

2007-08-07T12:01:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-07T05:52:00.000-07:00

Desperate debunkers resort to attacking Congressman on amount of money he requests for shrimp research, while Giuliani's rampant corruption is ignored

Paul 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

2007-08-07T05:36:00.000-07:00

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:

“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.

Fox News Attempts To Smear Ron Paul After Debate

2007-08-06T05:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Ron Paul Wins Drudge Report Iowa GOP Debate Poll

2007-08-06T05:31:00.000-07:00

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

Ron Paul Answers Correctly in Iowa; Wins Big! (Video - August 5th)

2007-08-05T15:34:00.001-07:00

Correct Answer #1

Correct Answer #2

Correct Answer #3

Correct Answer #4

Correct Answer #5

Correct Answer #6

Ron Paul Interviewed by Student After Iowa Debate (Video - August 5th)

2007-08-05T13:31:00.000-07:00

Iowa Republican Debate (Video - August 5th)

2007-08-05T13:12:00.000-07:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

The Time is Now

2007-08-04T15:43:00.000-07:00

Music by Pokerface

Produced by the American Patriots at Bedfan.

Over the Rainbow

2007-08-04T15:10:00.000-07:00

Operation Mockingbird Controlled Associated Press Alters Ron Paul Article

2007-08-03T10:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Bob Novak on Ron Paul: "I'd like to see him as President"

2007-08-01T12:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Szandor Blestman of AmericanChronicle.com on Ron Paul

2007-07-30T12:55:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul and the War on Terror
Szandor Blestman
July 30, 2007

Nearly six years ago, on September 11th, 2001, a criminal act occurred in New York, New York. It was broadcast around the world. I remember that on that day I called my mother and told her to turn on the TV while I could only listen to the radio because I was at work. I remember telling her that we were at war. It was a very frightening day I’ll never forget. Many people will never forget that day. A couple of days later President Bush declared a war on terror. As of this moment, it looks like a war that will never end.

Continue Article...

Washington Ron Paul Meetup Group Featured on MSNBC.com's First Read

2007-07-24T21:10:00.000-07:00

A PEEK AT RON PAUL'S SUPPORT
From NBC's Andrew Merten

As First Read noted last week, GOP dark horse candidate Ron Paul now has more cash on hand than once-supposed frontrunner John McCain. While the Texas congressman hasn’t held nearly as financially demanding nationwide schedule as McCain, he has developed a grassroots following that aids in spreading name recognition and raising money. We, at the NBC Political Unit, were interested in Paul’s grassroot support -- which has been dubbed “The Ron Paul Revolution” -- and decided to attend an organizational meeting/pizza party here in Washington to see how the group operates.

Continue Article...

NY Times Ron Paul Article

2007-07-23T10:03:00.000-07:00

Originally published on July 22nd, 2007.

The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul

CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
NY Times
Monday July 23, 2007

Whipping westward across Manhattan in a limousine sent by Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” Ron Paul, the 10-term Texas congressman and long-shot Republican presidential candidate, is being briefed. Paul has only the most tenuous familiarity with Comedy Central. He has never heard of “The Daily Show.” His press secretary, Jesse Benton, is trying to explain who its host, Jon Stewart, is. “He’s an affable gentleman,” Benton says, “and he’s very smart. What I’m getting from the pre-interview is, he’s sympathetic.”

Click here to continue...

Sean Hannity Outsmarted by Ron Paul Supporter

2007-07-19T05:45:00.000-07:00

Neo-Con shill Sean Vanity, errr Hannity, has a knack of hanging up on callers who support Ron Paul on his radio program. Normally Paul supporters come right out of the gate, guns blazing, confronting Hannity on Ron Paul related issues (also known as common sense).

This time was different. This Ron Paul supporter disguised himself as a man un-decided on which canditate he'd support, going so far as to calling Hannity a "great American" like most of his boot-licking audience tends to do upon introducing themselves. Little did Hannity know, he was in store for a Ron Paul sucker punch.

Official Song of the Ron Paul Revolution?

2007-07-18T09:22:00.000-07:00

This song by Chris de Burgh (you may remember his song "Lady in Red," one of the best ballads of the 1980's) entitled "Revolution" would make a great official song for the Ron Paul Revolution. Often used by Alex Jones as an intro to his outstanding radio show on GCN Live (where Ron Paul is often a guest & who's listeners have contributed a very significant amount of cash to the Ron Paul campaign), it's the perfect song to rally the troops.

Barry Manilow: A Ron Paul Fan?

2007-07-18T07:39:00.001-07:00

According to the New York Times Contributions to Presidential Campaigns Search, the one and only Barry Manilow gave the Ron Paul campaign the maximum contribution of $2300 in the 2nd Quarter of 2007. This would probably be a much bigger story if he hadn't also given Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Joe Biden the maximum contribution of $2300 as well, which he did.

So, Barry, who's it gonna be man?

Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?

2007-07-17T06:46:00.001-07:00

Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."

Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

Continue Article...

Citizen Tube Interviews Ron Paul (Video - July 13th)

2007-07-16T05:24:00.001-07:00

Citizen Tube, YouTube.com's video blog (vlog) interviews Ron Paul.

Candidates @ Google : Ron Paul (Video - July 13th)

2007-07-15T12:20:00.000-07:00

Google executive Elliot Schrage interviews Ron Paul in front of packed room of Google employees:

Ron Paul More Popular Google Seach Term Than Paris Hilton, iPhone (Video - July 13th)

2007-07-15T11:18:00.000-07:00

KVUE (Austin, TX) segment on Ron Paul revealing that the Texas Congressman and presidential candidate gets more Google search queries than Paris Hilton or the iPhone. Paul's runaway popularity is growing every day and his chances of beating the other frontrunners are getting more and more realistic by the minute.

Google Employees applaud GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul

2007-07-14T17:01:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul, the Texas GOP congressman and long-shot candidate for president, credits a rabid Internet following with spreading his staunch libertarian and anti-war message into the mainstream media.

So you might think the unlikely Web phenom, who got an enthusiastic reception when he spoke Friday to about 250 Google employees, plus 100 sent to an overflow room, would be the technology industry's best friend.

Not so.

Paul did call the Internet "rather miraculous," as he pitched his free-market, small-government mantra to the employees, many of whom came in shorts and even one in bare feet.

Continue Article...

Tucker Carlson Interviews Ron Paul (Video - July 11th)

2007-07-12T06:05:00.000-07:00

Google Invites Ron Paul to Speak at Googleplex

2007-07-10T05:41:00.000-07:00

Originally broken by the Lew Rockwell Blog, and subsequently confirmed by the Ron Paul campaign, Google has invited Ron Paul to the 'Plex.

July 06, 2007
Ron Paul at Google
Posted by Lew Rockwell at July 6, 2007 04:38 PM

At the invitation of that great capitalist enterprise, Ron Paul will tour the Google campus on Friday, July 13, make a YouTube, and deliver a company-wide address to all employees, in person and by streaming video around the world. It is rumored that after Hillary Clinton's unfortunate appearance, the Paulists at Google--apparently a huge group--asked for Ron. Of course, he has by far the best record in DC on protecting the web and web companies from federal meddling. I'll be tagging along, and will live photoblog from this historic event.

George Stephanopoulos: Looking for a Ron Paul Knuckle Sandwich (Video - July 8th)

2007-07-09T13:58:00.000-07:00

Bilderberg Group member and resident boot-licker, George Stephanopoulos, interviews Ron Paul on ABC's "This Week."

We took this interview footage to a leading Catholic demonic possession forensic video expert/exorcist found in the Vatican City yellow pages. We wanted to find out if George Stephanopoulos was indeed the spawn of Lucifer. The results, we found, were deeply disturbing (play video down below for test results):

Ron Paul: Leading the Cause of Freedom in Iowa (Video - June 30th)

2007-07-08T09:06:00.000-07:00

Excellent video from the "Celebration of Life and Liberty" party last week, June 30th.

Steve Dore: Kickin' Out the Ron Paul Jams

2007-07-06T06:23:00.000-07:00

Head over to MySpace and check out Steve Dore, a patriotic musician creating some really great songs focused on Ron Paul. Click here to kick out the jams.

LibertyDollar.org Strikes Ron Paul Gold!

2007-07-05T06:12:00.000-07:00

LibertyDollar.org has minted some really cool Gold, Silver & Copper coins featuring none other than Ron Paul!

Given Ron Paul's stance on taking back control of our monetary system by getting rid of the foreign controlled Federal Reserve and going back to the Gold Standard, these coins are absolutely appropo.

For myself, being a "Gold Bug" newbie, these individually numbered collector coins are pretty damn irresistable. Click here for details.

Ron Paul Celebration of Life and Liberty Party (Video - June 30th)

2007-07-02T09:58:00.000-07:00

This past Saturday, June 30th, Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance held their Presidential Candidates Forum, which intentionally excluded Ron Paul & Rudolph Giuliani (Giuliani for good reason, Ron Paul; not so much).

So, in response to the controversial exclusion, the Ron Paul campaign rented out a room right next to the forum and had a "Celebration of Life and Liberty" party! The party was a huge success, attracting at least 600 people as reported by the mainstream media, or as many as 1000 as reported by actual people who attended the party. Who do you trust?

Either way, Ron Paul showed his competition that his supporters aren't basement dwelling, 20-something losers living with their grandma. The "Celebration of Life and Liberty" party was a bigger draw than the forum accross the hall featuring 6 other Republican candidates, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Ron Paul Revolution can't be written off. Deal with it.

Here's the footage of the event:

Part 1 of 8

Part 2 of 8

Part 3 of 8

Part 4 of 8

Part 5 of 8

Part 6 of 8

Part 7 of 8

Part 8 of 8

Freedom is Popular (Video - June 15th)

2007-06-30T09:09:00.000-07:00

A stirring Ron Paul address made in Kansas City, June 15:

Ron Paul Leads Republican Candidates in Traffic to Official Website

2007-06-29T08:59:00.000-07:00

In line with the Wordtracker analysis I've compiled detailing estimated daily searches for each candidate in the major search engines, ClickZs' Kate Kaye has done a study showing similar results in actual traffic to each candidates official websites according to Hitwise, a tool often used in the Internet Marketing field.

Clinton Surpasses Obama in Site Traffic Race, Paul Rockets to First
› › › ClickZ News
By Kate Kaye June 27, 2007

Hillary Clinton overtook Barack Obama in May, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani held steady and Ron Paul rocketed from fifth place to first. That's according to Hitwise data showing the ebb and flow of traffic to the official sites of the Democratic and Republican presidential primary candidates.

Click here to continue...

Neil Cavuto, Looking for a Ron Paul Knuckle Sandwich (Video - June 26th)

2007-06-28T13:48:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: What Can Search Engines Tell Us About The Presidential Candidates?

2007-06-28T13:29:00.000-07:00

Here's an update of my May 17th analysis that looked at how many daily searches each Presidential candidate's name get's in Google, Yahoo Search & MSN Search.

While the estimated daily searches before were based on data from February 17th through May 17th, this new analysis looks at data from March 28th through June 28th.

As you can see, Ron Paul has shot to the top of the Republican candidate list and now holds the #2 position for both Republican & Democratic candidates, just 8 searches per day behind Mrs. Clinton:

To find out how the "Predict" number is calculated, click here.

Excellent, New Ron Paul Interview

2007-06-28T06:10:00.000-07:00

An Interview with Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul
June 28, 2007
By Joseph Murtagh

Muckraker Report: You seem to have a stronger anti-war stance than even many of the Democratic candidates: unlike Hillary Clinton, for instance, you voted against the Iraq war. In terms of foreign policy, what would a Ron Paul presidency look like?

Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it certainly wouldn’t involve going to war with countries that pose no threat to us. The 2002 Iraq war resolution transferred the authority and responsibility for waging war from the legislature to the executive branch, which is a total breach of the principles of the U.S. Constitution. James Madison pointed this out in 1798, that because the executive is the branch of government most interested in war, the question of war must be vested in the legislature – “with studied care,” I believe his exact words were. You can’t have presidents waging war willy-nilly for reasons that are fundamentally at odds with the basic interests of the American people. I voted against that resolution because I believe strongly that we should avoid getting entangled in foreign alliances and instead seek peace and trade with all nations. This is a reflection of the wisdom of the Founders, who advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy, the most eloquent expression of which can be found in George Washington’s Farewell Address. So to answer your question, if I were president, I would do my best to follow in the footsteps of the Founders by abiding by the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution, which means limiting the power of the executive to wage war.

Click here to continue...

Campaign Growing Pains

2007-06-26T14:20:00.000-07:00

Looks like the Ron Paul Revolution is having some of those adolecent growing pains we all had growing up (a very, very good sign). As an American concerned with the future of our great Republic, it's not hard for me to donate to Ron Paul, "Champion of the Constitution," as our civil liberties are eaten away by the globalist, neo-con virus that's been absolutely decimating the USA. It's my hope that you feel the same way, and show it by donating to the Ron Paul Revolution (something I've been doing as often as humanly possible)...

From the Ron Paul Campaign news desk:

Help! More room needed.
Good news (actually, great news): The Ron Paul 2008 campaign is growing!

Bad news: We’ve run out of space to work.

The Ron Paul 2008 campaign started in the corner of a one-bedroom apartment. It then moved to a small office of 348 square feet, which is where we are now. But our present office has become too small to accommodate the fast-growing campaign...and we need your help to expand.

Our present office is so small that we can't hire the much-needed additional staff for a national campaign. We even have to turn away volunteers because we simply don't have room for them.

Office space in the D.C. area is expensive, and landlords expect tenants to sign at least a three-year lease; preferably a five-year lease. But after we canvassed the area by foot and called numerous leasing agents and watched the local classifieds and checked CraigsList each day, we found a place! It's a sub-lease situation with flexible terms that we just couldn't pass up.

We will have the second floor of a modest, older, two-story building in Arlington, Virginia. It's only two blocks from a Metro station, making it convenient for staff and volunteers. The office is on a busy street; across from a very busy grocery store. Large windows will be perfect for a "Ron Paul 2008" banner! But most importantly, the new office will give us the space to build a national campaign.

However, office space here is expensive regardless of how modest the building is. And most landlords require political campaigns to pay the total rent in advance.

So we need your help.

We plan to move on July 15th. To do so, we will need to give the landlord a check for $54,000.00.

Will you help us write that check?

Enthusiasm for Ron Paul's bid for the presidency grows by the day. Our goal: put Ron Paul in the White House. And we all know why.

Help us write that check. Donate today by going to https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Thank you!

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008

Papa's Got a Brand New Bag!

2007-06-25T14:50:00.000-07:00

Really funny Ron Paul video:

Ron Paul Get's the Infamous Colbert Bump! (Video - June 21st, 2007)

2007-06-23T17:52:00.000-07:00

Ron & Ronald

2007-06-21T11:48:00.000-07:00

A couple great pics of a much younger Ron Paul with Ronald Reagan.

Dr. Paul brings the Groovy!...

Lone Star: Ron Paul Article from The American Conservative Magazine

2007-06-19T12:46:00.000-07:00

Excellent cover-story article about Ron Paul in the latest issue of The American Conservative magazine:

Lone Star

Maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul finds that being right is the one thing his party won’t forgive.

by Michael Brendan Dougherty

At first glance, he looks like every other congressman in the Canon Building. His suit is dark. His tie is striped. He is convivial with his colleagues, who genuinely like him. But there is something different about Ron Paul.

You can hear congressmen when they walk down the hall, strutting their own importance. After all, there are regulations to be implemented, special interests to serve, a teetering American Empire that would collapse without their management. They wear black or cordovan leather shoes—captoes, wingtips, and brogues—clacking down the hall, their bellies full of medium-rare steak from Capital Grille. They are surrounded by ambitious interns and legislative aides. They fiddle with their BlackBerries. You can’t miss them tromping out of the elevators.

Ron Paul is easy to overlook. He takes the stairs; he does not have an entourage. You can’t hear him coming because he’s wearing plain black tennis shoes. In a bag he carries a can of soup that he will heat for himself in the microwave in his office. Beneath pictures of Austrian economists Frederick Von Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, he will eat his lunch alone and in peace.

What is the purpose of Ron Paul’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States? Some longshots run because their egos demand it. Others want to raise their lecture fees. Some run because they have plenty of money and nothing better to do. Following a flood of viewer requests, the Texas congressman recently appeared on Fox News to explain himself. His answer was buoyant though laconic: “I want to be president because I have this dream. I’d like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” His answer was also revolutionary.

Paul’s doggedness in advancing the causes of individual responsibility and limited government could intimidate almost anyone who clings to the label “conservative” or “libertarian.” Perhaps that is why he avoids those abused designations and calls himself a “constitutionalist.” His philosophy is simple: “no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations.”

Naturally he opposes almost everything Congress does. The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.

When Paul does propose legislation, it is simple, direct, and radical. He’s compiled an impressive list of bills that remain ignored to this day. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

His cheerful consistency doesn’t end there. Paul not only votes against nearly all government spending, he has refused to be the beneficiary of it as well. As a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, he has delivered over 4,000 babies. He accepted no money from Medicare or Medicaid, often working for free for needy patients. With his support, his five children finished school without subsidized federal student loans. He has refused a congressional pension.

Monetary policy is the issue that brought Paul into politics in the ’70s. Having read deeply in the Austrian school of economics, he was incensed at Nixon for going off the gold standard and ran in a special House election in the 22nd district of Texas.

It still preoccupies him. Paul gave a thrill to surviving goldbugs in the first GOP debate this year when he referred to “sound money.” Since bimetallism and William Jennings Bryan shuffled off the political stage, widespread passion about monetary policy has been in short supply. But for Paul, the issue is still one that pits the people against the Beltway: “I think it’s very convenient for them [politicians] not to worry about it—whether they are spending money they don’t have for a war, whether you are liberal and like big welfare or a neoconservative and you like entitlements. They know somehow or another if the taxes come up short, there is a system, of course they know we borrow it and they complain about that, but I complain about the printing to pick up the shortfall. It’s such a serious problem.”

This is what he refers to as the “inflation tax.” With a paper currency, Paul says, “You get too many bubbles. And people suffer. Whether it’s the NASDAQ bubble or the housing bubble. It’s also the reason people are poor. … There is this transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle class to the very wealthy. And it leads to conflict. There are lots of people in this country who haven’t had an increase in real wages in 30 years. The Republicans deny it. And the Democrats say, ‘Well we need more taxes on those who have too much.’ They tax productivity to give it to others. I would not immediately close the doors on the Federal Reserve. But the doors may get closed if there is a monetary crisis. There are no paper currencies that last for a long period of time.”

While he lost his first re-election to a Democrat, Paul came back to win in a 1978 rematch, then won again in 1980 and ’82. He later lost a 1984 Senate GOP primary to Phil Gramm. Not wanting to be a lifelong politician, he returned to the practice of medicine full time. Tom DeLay won his seat.

Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988, “just to talk to about the issues” in his own recounting. He drew a meager 0.47 percent of the vote but found an enthusiastic following.

In 1995, he decided to run for the 14th Congressional district, which had been redrawn to include his home in Lake Jackson. His opponent, Greg Laughlin, despite being a recent Republican convert, received the support of the party establishment, including then Gov. George W. Bush. Paul’s return to congressional politics was based on the results of the ’94 Republican Revolution: “I thought, ‘Maybe they are serious and they will shrink the size of big government.’” Paul sighs recalling that burst of optimism, “but there was no truth to that.”

His second go-around in the capital focused on many of the same issues that animated his first tour. His principles never changed, though some of his libertarian supporters have been dismayed by his stands on trade deals and immigration.

While Paul considers himself a staunch free trader, he opposed CAFTA and deplored its predecessor, NAFTA. Paul explains, “I was on the side of the protectionists, and I’m not a protectionist. It’s not true free trade. It’s special-interest trade. It’s managed trade. … I didn’t like the trade deal because it was another level of government and a loss of sovereignty.”

On immigration, Paul finds himself on the side of restrictionists. On LewRockwell.com, Paul outlined a six-step approach: 1) Physically secure the border. 2) Enforce current visa laws. 3) Reject amnesty. 4) End welfare state incentives to immigrants. 5) End birthright citizenship. 6) Standardize legal immigration rules and waiting periods. When questioned by Reason about what he’d say to libertarians who disagree with him, Paul was brusque: “If they don’t agree, they’d have to be anarchists, and I’m not. — I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position.”

Increasingly, foreign intervention has come to dominate the political discourse. “I had concentrated on monetary policy,” Paul said. “Over the years I’ve learned to tie that in with the war policy. You can’t fight wars without inflation. You never have a war without inflation. … The ’70s were hectic times. We had 15 percent inflation, interest rates went to 21 percent, we had the highest unemployment since the Depression. It came as a consequence of the philosophy of guns and butter. And of course the same thing exists today, except one thing is a lot worse: there are many more dollars circulating around the world, and we’ve lost our manufacturing base.”

Paul believes the Republican Party lost its way by not remaining the peace party. Recently, when speaking to a group of skeptical conservative journalists, he pointed out in his grandfatherly tone, “In 1952, Eisenhower ran as a peace candidate. In 1968, Nixon ran on obtaining peace with honor.” Paul also mentions that Bush won, in part, by touting a “humble foreign policy.” Even warmongers won elections that way: “Wilson ran on peace. FDR, same thing.”

When he is inevitably asked if he is running in the right party, Paul states plainly, “I don’t think the Democrats have any intention to change our policies in the Middle East. I want the antiwar position to be traditional, conservative, and constitutional and not only for the far Left. I don’t object to the Left being opposed to the war. But that Michael Moore image is not going to persuade housewives. I think a lot of Republicans have forgotten their traditional position of being antiwar.”

Making the antiwar message broadly appealing may be difficult for Paul because of his temperament. The exchange between Paul and Rudy Giuliani in the South Carolina debate raised Paul’s profile nationally but was thought to have been the moment when Giuliani won the debate. After Paul explained that terrorists attack the U.S. not because they hate our freedoms but because they hate our policies, Giuliani rephrased his answer to suggest Paul thought America “invited” the attacks. He said he’d never heard such an idea and declared it “absurd.” Paul didn’t back down, but he gave a technical response about “blowback” that, while correct, didn’t connect with the audience emotionally. He was hit hard, and while he didn’t drop to the mat, he didn’t hit back.

At a press conference later, Paul presented a list of books to inform Giuliani that, indeed, policies do have consequences. On the list were the 9/11 Commission Report, Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, and Dying to Win by Robert Pape. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris appeared alongside Paul. The press conference underscored both the strength and weakness of Paul’s personality as a candidate: his professorial approach makes it difficult to dismiss his views as “loony,” but the academic style doesn’t motivate people to rally to him. His manner is always refreshing but rarely stirring.

When asked how he would confront his opponents’ charges, Paul’s answers are as straight and flat as a Texas highway. “The media would love it if you got real, real personal. But I just have trouble drifting from the issue itself. … I’m challenging them to think about policy. Nobody, liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats wants to challenge overall Middle East policy. It is sacred. There’s oil. There’s the neocon idea of spreading democracy. There’s Israel. You just shouldn’t dare challenge our eternal presence in the Middle East. So they attack the messenger in a personal way.”

When asked if any Republican constituents who had initially supported the war have thanked him for his foresight, he shrugs and says, “Some, but not too many. Someone told me once: ‘They never forgive you for being right. They’ll always forgive you for being wrong if you apologize.’”

Paul understands that electing him president wouldn’t by itself “reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic.” He is a realist: “You just can’t turn one switch and solve every problem. You have to build coalitions. I’d put a lot of pressure on Congress to live up to their responsibilities.” He does know what he can do on day one of the Paul presidency. His first act would be to begin cleaning up the mess we’ve made in the Middle East: “What you could do in ten minutes to send a signal to the world that things were going to be different is tell the Navy to turn around and leave the shores of Iraq. We have two aircraft carriers there, another arriving, and seven ships that just moved into the Persian Gulf. I would just tell them to turn around and leave. Tell the region that this isn’t my approach, and I’m willing to talk. I think that would immediately raise our standing in the world tremendously.”

It’s a vision that will inevitably be ridiculed as naïve by the imperial intelligentsia who helped American into this mess. But it’s also so noble in its simplicity that it is already causing Americans who are tired of the warfare state to look at this mild-mannered physician and see the politician they’ve always wanted: a man of unbending conviction, of proven fidelity to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

After his latest debate appearance, Ron Paul’s name leapt ahead of Paris Hilton in Google searches. Bill Maher, who had given him a tough time weeks earlier on his HBO show “Real Time,” became desperate to invite him back for this season’s finale, declaring “he’s my hero.”

Grover Norquist has said of the good doctor that in Congress “one Ron Paul is grand; and 218 Ron Pauls would be even grander; but 20 Ron Pauls could cripple the party since the usual half-steps toward less government and less taxation might not find support among the more ideologically rigorous.”

Fanatics, dreamers, and constitutionalists long for the day when hundreds of Ron Pauls disinterestedly discuss monetary policy and the philosophy of the founders each morning between the trees that line New Jersey and Independence Avenues. In the afternoon, they can go into the Capitol and maintain the Republic by leaving most of us alone. On weekends, they can fly home. We’ll even let them wear comfortable shoes if they want.

But until the day when scores of Ron Pauls overrun the Capitol Building in sneakers, we have one man who heats his own soup and fights for the Republic, not the Empire. If America elects him president, he’ll sit atop a bucking federal beast that withstood the taming of convinced small-government riders like Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. It would be a wild ride for the thin, unassuming Texan. He might never forgive us for putting him in the saddle.

Ron Paul Now Getting Mainstream Media Attention...FINALLY.

2007-06-19T07:47:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days, the American mainstream press has published a few decent, high-profile pieces on Ron Paul:

1. Washington Post - An Also-Ran in the GOP Polls, Ron Paul Is Huge on the Web

2. San Francisco Chronicle - 'Ron Paul, who?' no longer applies - GOP hopeful big hit in YouTube videos

3. Seattle Times - Ron Paul: nowhere in polls, but everywhere on the Web

Let's hope Ron Paul continues getting the attention he deserves.

INN World Report Interviews Ron Paul (Video - June 14th)

2007-06-19T07:36:00.000-07:00

Check out this excellent Ron Paul interview done by the always interesting INN World Report.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Ron Paul Interview from The Colbert Report (Video - June 13th)

2007-06-14T10:29:00.001-07:00

Here's The Colbert Report footage of the Ron Paul interview which originally aired last night.

Click here for pictures of the rally that took place for Ron Paul just before taping.

Andrew Napolitano says Ron Paul is "The Thomas Jefferson of our day"

2007-06-13T13:40:00.000-07:00

Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, gives a speech entitled "Civil Liberties in Wartime" at The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties" conference, June 3, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, in Reston, Virginia.

-----Part 1 of 4------

-----Part 2 of 4------

-----Part 3 of 4------

-----Part 4 of 4------

The Scourge of America: Meet the Neo-Cons

2007-06-07T09:56:00.000-07:00

It's funny, when George W Bush was campaigning for President in 1999/2000, he preached a "no nation building" philosophy, making him seem more like a true-blue Republican, and less like a Neo-Conservative war monger. Well, it's clear now to anyone with a brain, that he was obviously lying through his teeth as Dick Cheney stood behind him like the Simpons character Mr. Burns, evil smirk and all.

To be honest, we should have seen it coming a mile away. George W. Bush & Dick Cheney were simply pushing their Neo-Con ideology, which includes lying to the public to further their disturbing, un-American cause.

It's time Americans understand what a Neo-Con is, so as to not be hoodwinked again by these fake Republicans. Taken from a Congressional speech made back in 2003, entitled Neo-Conned!, Ron Paul lays it out in full view for America (or at least anyone watching C-Span 3 at the time):

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

I would encourage anyone reading this to check out the full Neo-Conned! address Ron Paul made to Congress in 2003 that apparently fell on deaf ears. Wake the hell up, these people are scary!

Tucker Carlson Interviews Ron Paul on MSNBC (Video - June 6th)

2007-06-07T06:31:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul KILLS in 3rd GOP Debate on CNN (June 5th - Video)

2007-06-06T06:07:00.000-07:00

Vote for Ron Paul in these major "who won the debate?" polls:

1. CNN Poll
2. MSNBC Poll
3. AOL Poll
4. ABC Poll
5. More polls will be added, check back later!

Here's a chart detailing who was alotted what amount of time to speak at the debate last night. Looks like CNN is just as un-fair and un-balanced as the Fox News debate was.

In other GOP debate news:

1. Corporate Media Sidelines Ron Paul Again - Texas Congressman put in shadows while establishment shills lavished with time and attention, yet Paul still wins post-debate polls.

2. 3rd GOP Debate Most Staged Yet - Highly controlled forum lends propaganda to establishment darlings' grandstanding, with prescreened questions and disproportionate time for every candidate.

3. 9/11 Truth Reporter Arrested for Asking Rudy Staffer a Simple Question After Debate - Matt Lepacek of the 9/11 Truth outlet InfoWars.com confronts Rudy Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas in the spin room after the 6/5/07 Republican debate in Manchester. He is arrested; later, his colleague Luke Rudowski is led outside by police. Rudowski is let go and explains what just happened.

Getting to Know Ron Paul (Pt. 1)

2007-06-05T14:46:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

Medical career: Paul began his medical practice in Lake Jackson, Texas as a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology and has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He took over the practice of a retiring doctor and was busy as the only obstetrician/gynecologist in Brazoria County. Paul said of his time as a doctor, "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery."

Dr. Paul did not accept Medicare or Medicaid as a physician; instead, he would do the work for free or work out a lowered payment for needy patients.

That's a whole-lotta babies man!

Speaking of babies, I went and saw the movie "Knocked Up" this past weekend. For those of you who've seen it, I think I'd rather have Ron Paul in the room delivering my baby more-so than that Asian, control freak obstetrician! I wanted to punch that guy in the face!

Ron Paul Not Being Well Represented in "Scientific Polls"

2007-06-05T13:00:00.000-07:00

It's funny; looking at all the major Republican candidate polls, whether it be the major television network polls, USA Today polls, Washington Post polls or New York Times polls, you'd think Ron Paul doesn't have a single supporter in the entire United States of America.

Why is this? It's quite obvious to anyone who uses the internet more than 15 minutes per day that Ron Paul has a large base of support in the 35 and under crowd. Mr. Proloy of USAElectionPolls.com seems to have the answer.

Proloy says "It is not sufficient enough to match up percentages. There is a large number of students away from home in college, many youth do not use a landline, and many voters that were previously disenfranchised with the political process that are likely to flock to Ron Paul."

"The age of land-line phones is setting. More people everyday are canceling their hard-line phones for cellular phones, which could explain a lot" said Anthony DeLelles, founder of VoteWriteIn.com. "If you look at all the noteworthy polls conducted entirely online, Ron Paul is in the top three GOP candidates 99% of the time, often times in the #1 position, blowing the other candidates out of the water. Old-school radio pundits like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh love to say Ron Paul supporters are gaming these polls, and point out their un-scientific backbones. I'd ask them how scientific a Gallup pole that relies entirely on land-line calls is. Not very scientific in my opinion. In the new age of the internet, these dinosaur polling services need to look to broaden their so called scientific means of collecting data."

USAElectionPolls.com is a centralized location for all of the latest national and state polls and is one of the most visited websites of its kind according to Quantcast Internet ratings.

For more on Ron Paul's natural boost, go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-natural-boost.html

To see how Ron Paul has done in all the national and state polls, go to http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

The Daily Show - Ron Paul Rally Pictures (Pt. 2)

2007-06-05T10:44:00.000-07:00

More pictures of the rally yesterday in front of The Daily Show studios can be found here at Meetup.com, including two of myself (brown shirt) with a big, stupid, ideological grin on my face.

Video of the Ron Paul arrival (added June 8th, 2007):

The Daily Show w/Jon Stewart - Ron Paul Interview (June 4th - Video)

2007-06-05T05:35:00.000-07:00

Here's the video footage from The Daily Show Ron Paul interview. 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 deserves.

The Daily Show - Ron Paul Rally Pictures (Pt. 1)

2007-06-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

Today in New York City, Ron Paul pulled up to The Daily Show studios in Midtown to find many an excitied fan awaiting his arrival. As Dr. Paul stepped out of his modest, black taxi, people cheered with huge, freedom loving grins on their faces.

As Dr. Paul made his way through the bevy of supporters, his campaign manager made it clear to The Daily Show security team that Dr. Paul wanted to spend some time talking to everyone before making his way inside for the taping, set to air tonight at 11pm on Comedy Central.

Here are a few pictures I managed to snap off during the impromptu campaign rally:

New Ron Paul Article by Michael Scheuer

2007-06-01T10:06:00.000-07:00

Excellent article by Michael Scheuer, 22-year CIA veteran and former head of the the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. The original article can be found here, care of AntiWar.com.

Rep. Ron Paul and the Founders versus
Our Interventionist Elite
by Michael Scheuer, June 1st, 2007

America’s bipartisan governing elite never expected their common interventionist foreign policy to be damned by a man who has long worked among that august group. But Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) proved himself not only a political maverick, but one of the few elected federal officials who still prizes – indeed, treasures is a better word – his status as an American citizen. Rep. Paul does not view himself as a citizen of the world who deems unrelenting U.S. intervention abroad as the acceptable price the world demands of America for this higher form of citizenship. Rep. Paul rejects that price, which is, of course, enormously expensive in monetary terms, as well as in terms of the blood of American kids, most of whose parents and other kin are seldom if ever found in the country’s governing elite.

In the Republican debate in South Carolina, Dr. Paul had the unmitigated gall to tell his fellow candidates the exact truth: America was attacked by Islamists on 9/11, and untold other times since Osama bin Laden declared war on us in 1996, because of the United States government’s foreign policies and their impact in the Muslim world over the last thirty-five years. Dr. Paul then consigned to history’s trashcan the motivations assigned to bin Laden and his ilk by the Bush and Clinton administrations; the nine other Republican candidates; the eight please-don’t-ask-us-about-what-Ron-Paul-said Democratic presidential candidates; most of the media; and the think tanks, left, center, and right. Quite correctly, Rep. Paul deep-sixed – hopefully forever – the idea that our Islamist enemies are attacking us because of our freedoms, liberties, elections, freedom of speech, and gender equality.

In response to Rep. Paul, Rudy Giuliani – is there a more unctuous, ill-informed, and arrogant man in American politics? – dismissed the idea that we were attacked for being "over there" as, in his opinion, "absurd." Giuliani added that he had never before heard such an analysis, demanded Dr. Paul retract his words, and clearly implied that Dr. Paul was unpatriotic. In other words, Giuliani applied the usual crude denigration reserved for any American citizen who dares question the establishment’s self-serving interventionism.

Sadly for Americans, Giuliani probably was telling the truth, both for himself and the American governing elite. None of the elite’s denizens appear to have heard, read, or even sensed anything that runs counter to the Muslims-hate-us-for-our-freedoms dictum that became revealed scripture on 9/11 and which, in truth, has governed the elite’s perceptions of and actions in the Muslim world for decades. Dr. Paul is right, our governing elite are obsessed with searching abroad for dragons to destroy, especially Islamic dragons; they thereby ignore the Founders’ clear warning that such activity all but assures the ruin of our republic.

Soon after the debate, the bone-deep interventionism of both parties focused on by Rep. Paul was underscored for Americans by the spending bill for the Iraq war passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. The bill allowed the intervention in Iraq to continue until at least September and showed there is no real difference between the two parties; the Republicans want to continue pursuing the military option, while the Democrats argue the military option has failed and there must now be a U.S.-dominated political solution. Neither party wants to leave Iraq; each just has its own view of how the intervention should be managed. And they cynically have stage-managed the next three months so that each will have ammunition – in the form of dead U.S. military personnel – to support their agendas when the next Iraq spending bill is debated. The Republicans will argue that the "surge" has been costly in lives but is succeeding and cannot be given up; the Democrats will argue the surge has failed and the high number of U.S. dead show that we must find a political settlement. Odds are the next spending bill will be signed and leave the situation substantially unchanged because no one – save Rep. Paul – really wants to get out of Iraq. Indeed, there is every chance that the next presidential election will come and go and we will still be in Iraq because the gentleman from Texas is the only presidential candidate who is not a rank interventionist.

Faced with this reality, the struggle to make Americans face facts on foreign policy must be fought now and the spark struck by Rep. Paul fanned into a fire. Make no mistake, the United States is fighting and losing a growing war against al-Qaeda and its allies. And our evolving defeat is not the result of military weakness on our part, or any God-is-on-the-side-of-the-Islamists factor on al-Qaeda’s side. We are losing because we have underestimated the enemy’s strength and motivation thanks to the belief of Mr. Giuliani and our bipartisan elite that Mr. Paul’s assessment of the Islamists’ motivation is "absurd." That belief – which can now be called the "Giuliani Doctrine" – is al-Qaeda’s only indispensable ally and its maintenance is the Islamists only hope for victory.

Our Islamist enemies are motivated by the U.S. policies that have produced America’s military presence in the Muslim world; approval for the repression of Muslims by Russia and China; exploitation of Muslim oil resources; unqualified support for Israel; and a half-century of protecting Arab police states. No American, of course, has to agree with Muslim perceptions of U.S. policies. But perception always is reality, and there is no doubt that most of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims – even those opposed to bin Laden – perceive U.S. foreign policy as an attack on their faith, lands, and brethren. Thus, while our bipartisan governing elite fight a non-existent threat – the freedom-haters and the liberty detesters – the threat fueled by hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy grows broader, deeper, and more visceral among Muslims.

What to do? Take Rep. Paul up on his idea of debating the components of U.S. foreign policy that are at issue, not to denigrate their authors and upholders, but to allow Americans to assess whether the policies are doing the only thing they must do – protect America. In this nation there should be nothing too dangerous to talk about; energy, Israel, and our tyrannical Arab "friends" ought to be on the table for thorough, even vitriolic debate. An honest, wide-ranging debate would do two things: (1) It would destroy the myth that Muslims hate us for who we are and how we think and live, and (2) it would help Americans see that U.S. foreign policy has consequences, good and bad, and that Washington’s current policies ensure war with the Islamists for the foreseeable future, and probably much longer.

Might I suggest, therefore, that the next Republican and Democratic debates focus on a single proposition, and that proposition be taken from the finest book on the history of U.S. foreign relations published in the last quarter century, Walter A. MacDougall’s, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776. In the debates, the proposition before the house for discussion – to adapt the words of Dr. MacDougall – should be:

"Foreign policy defines what America is at home and is the instrument for preserving and expanding American freedom at home. Foreign policy conducted in the form of crusades for democracy or other ideologies abroad belie America’s ideals, violate its true interests, and sully its freedom. The Founders never intended foreign policy to impose their values beyond America’s own land and waters. None of the Founders perceived a mortal conflict between morality and the national interest; indeed, foreign policy is moral when it is in the national interest."

Initially, such a debate would amount to Dr. Paul against all comers, but Dr. Paul would be quickly joined by tens of millions of Americans when they hear the fatuous, theory-stuffed attempts by the seventeen other candidates to justify the profligate waste of American lives, treasure, and security for exactly the kind of ideological crusading – democracy, freedom, human and women’s rights, etc. – the Founders not only warned against, but damned. At debate’s end it would be clear to Americans that their self-appointed, inbred emperors have no clothes. And the way then would be clear to think about a foreign policy that protects American liberty at home and genuine U.S. interests abroad, and one that is not the republic-destroying play thing of our elite interventionists and the interest groups, foreign lobbies, and domestic military industries that fund their election campaigns.

Ron Paul Interview from 'The Dennis Miller Show'

2007-05-31T14:16:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul was a guest on the regular Fox News pundit and former Saturday Night Live faux news anchor, Dennis Miller's, radio show yesterday (May 30th) for a brief interview with the master of obscure analogies and thunderous head ticks.

To stream the interview, or download it for free, click here for more information. Here is the transcript of the interview for those of us who have trouble listening to Dennis Miller's crippling voice:

Dennis Miller: This is Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, 2008 Presidential candidate. Congressman, welcome my friend.

Ron Paul: Thank you, good to be with you.

Dennis Miller: Pittsburgh boy, so am I!

Ron Paul: Oh! That's interesting!

Dennis Miller: So I know a little bit about the cut of your jib. I think I understand Pittsburgh guys to some degree, and I must say, I find that I agree with you on a lot of things, except for when we get to the war. But why don't we go through the other parts of the curriculum [indistinct] and we'll talk about war at the end. What do you believe? Why should you be the President Ron?

Ron Paul: I believe in limited government, I think the purpose of government is to protect liberty and not to run our lives, or run the economy, or police the world. I think you follow the Constitution; that is virtually what we were instructed to do.

Dennis Miller: Is it true that you only vote affirmative on things you can directly site from the Constitution; Is that true?

Ron Paul: That is true. That is my oath of office. Sometimes it bothers me because [chuckles] there are some things I'd like to do, and I can't do because I'm not authorized to do it. But I think you have to follow the rule of law. If you make exceptions for it, there's nothing left of the Constitution, and I'm afraid that's where we are today.

Dennis Miller: I see that in your life, even when you're in politics, you've delivered 4,000 babies! I always think a man who first presents life to the world, almost like a debutante thing with an umbilical cord [laughter]. When you bring life out like that, I always take people that's take on abortion seriously. I saw an interesting quote where you said 'if you abort a fetus on second beforehand it's legal, and one second after it's born it's murder'; and you find that strange right?

Ron Paul: Right. It's so inconsistent in that we're teaching our young people that, so the teenager that throws her baby away is doing something to her that's illogical, and she can be arrested. I think we have to resolve that. A lot of people don't think of abortion as being getting rid of a viable baby one second, or one minute, before birth, and yet afterwards it's considered murder.

Dennis Miller: I also saw an interesting thing that I liked where you said that government should protect property and not divide it up. Some of these eminent domain cases must be driving you up a wall, right?

Ron Paul: It's a bad trend, but I don't think we really own our property. We pay taxes, and it's sort of like paying rent. If you want to use it, you have to get a lot of permits from Washington on down to the local government. So, we don't really have control, yet it's been proven over many, many years that people who own property take a lot better care of the property than governments take care of it. If you look at Socialism, and the extremes of Communism, property wasn't taken care of.

Dennis Miller: Yeah, and it all goes to hell in a hand-basket because nobody has any personal pride.

Ron Paul: Right. And there's every reason to believe that the environment is better protected under private property rights, and you just have to recognize that we as property owners can't violate our neighbors property. We can't pollute their air, or their water, and we can't dump our garbage on their property, so private property rights is a very good way to protect the environment. Yet, too often conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying 'well, let's turn it over to the EPA; The EPA will take care of us. And then we can divide up the permits that allows you to pollute [laughter]'. So, I don't particularly like that method.

Dennis Miller: What about Hilary's quote the other day; send chills up your spine? The thing about the common good? Listen, I'm all for the common good, but that reeked of socialism to me.

Ron Paul: Yeah, the common good is what she wants, not what we want as property owners. She is to define what is the common good [chuckles].

Dennis Miller: Yeah, well you know the thing that bugs me about Hilary is her and Bill's been on the public's dime since day one. They've had all the trappings of wealth without any of the messy earnings that it takes actually. So, you know, whenever I hear her judging about wealth redistribution and that, I think 'well, can it get any more presumptuous than that?'.

Ron Paul: Yeah.

Dennis Miller: Alright, let's get to the war Ron; because here is where you and I go down to the same fork in the road and take the Virgin Pass. Gimmie your stance on it; I guess you just want us out of there tomorrow, right?

Ron Paul: Right, because I never wanted us to go in the first place. So, it's pretty easy to want to quit something that's not going well, when you didn't want it to happen in the first place.

Dennis Miller: What did you think was rotten in Denmark or in Iraq as they say? Why didn't you want to go? Didn't you think it was time to get it on with radical Islam?

Ron Paul: Well, no, not really. We had already been associated with radical Islam, because of the intervention that we had pursued before. We, at one time, were an ally of Osama Bin Laden; one time an ally of Suddam Hussein.

Dennis Miller: Yeah, but things can change in a millisecond, much less a decade.

Ron Paul: This on again, off again thing is what bothers me. It's a Constitutional issue as much as anything. The authority to go to war was transferred to the President; but only Congress should declare when we go to wars, so that bothered me a whole lot. And then the two reasons they gave, I thought, were not valid. One reason was Saddam Hussein was a threat to us, and I never believed that, and proved that he wasn't a threat; he didn't have an army or navy, and they were living in poverty. They couldn't even shoot down one of our airplanes.

Dennis Miller: What about bad intentions? I agree with you; like, we're not talking about looking down the way and seeing Roman Centurions coming at us, but I do think that to have, after 9/11, a sort of Damocles, a bad intention man, a possible expediter of terror. You know how Magic Johnson used to run the break and he was so great a dispersing the ball? I always thought this guy could help in that way. What about that we just had to take somebody who was not playing ball and smack him around to remind the world not to trifle with us. What about that? Isn't it important to look formidable again Ron?

Ron Paul: I think if he felt strongly about that you should go after the people who might have had something to do with 9/11.

Dennis Miller: Bush knows he had nothing. Play that clip, really quick, just to remind everybody. Bush knew there was no connection.

Bush Clip:

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September 11th, uhhhh, were ordered by Iraq.

Dennis Miller: That's just the short of it. It had nothing to do with weapons; it just had, uh; America establishing that at some point there was a line that could not be crossed. That's the way I see it.

Ron Paul: Yes, and I understand the emotions, but the logic isn't there because I did support the authority to go in and go after Osama Bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan at that time, and yet we didn't pursue that, and we still aren't pursuing it, and he's in a so-called friendly country that we subsidize, who has nuclear weapons, and they're a military dictatorship, and that's in Pakistan. So, we ignore Pakistan, and we're over fighting a war that is going so poorly, and at the time there was no connection. Also, 15 out of the 19 (hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia; that government there is a protectorate of ours; we protect that government no matter what! So we went after the wrong people, and we've gotten ourselves really dug into a hole, which is about to spread into Iran. So those are the concerns I have. But the other reason, other than going after the weapons, the other reason given for this authority being given to the President, was the fact that we had to enforce UN resolutions. I don't think we should go to war for UN resolutions, and I don't think we should go to war unless it's declared. It turns out, that if you just look at history since World War 2, that when we go into wars carelessly, and we don't declare them, we do a very poor job in winning them. Here now we've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War 2, and I think it's because of our carelessness in how we go to war.

Dennis Miller: Ron, what if I told you that I believe we're going to be going to war for the next 50, 75, 100 years against radical Islam, and Iraq is the first tentative baby steps just inserting ourselves into the equation? I don't know what you think happens if we just come back here. Now paint the ideal scenario for me. The Mullah’s are mollified? Everything just goes away? Tell me what happens...

Ron Paul: If you understand what motivates suicide terrorism, you'll realize it's not radical Islam. The most motivating factor is that fact they are being occupied by a foreign force. They cannot mobilize, they cannot recruit. So we are serving the interests of Osama Bin Laden by him getting more recruits than ever before. Yes, there would be problems in the Middle East when we leave. Everybody knows we're gonna leave because we're gonna go broke; we won't be able to afford it! All empires end because they eventually go broke. But who knows, there may be a tremendous incentive for them to settle their disputes. Already there's a large number, it's not the majority of them, of the members serving in the Parliament, Sunni's and Shiites, that are talking to each other! And they're getting ready to vote to ask us to leave. The Arab League could fill the vacuum; and they offered some peace treaties with Israel that are very attractive; by recognizing Israel. All kinds of good things can happen.

Dennis Miller: I think it turns into a slaughterhouse.

Ron Paul: After Vietnam that did not happen, which what was predicted; we're trading partners and they're capitalistic now, more so than ever before! So, there's reason to be pessimistic.

Dennis Miller: What if I said that I think it turns into a slaughterhouse that's going to make the killing fields look like a glade in the forest? Let me ask you this; we pull out and within a month we notice that people are starting to be cleaved like a sie through wheat. How do you feel? Does it make you feel guilty, or...

Ron Paul: I would blame it on the people who wanted to go to war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally. They helped create the mess. AND (emphasis added) the people who predict that are the ones who predicted that he had weapons, that it was an easy target, that we'd get the oil, we'd pay all our bills and it'd be over in a couple months! And now, they were completely wrong on everything and now we're listening to them say "well, it's going to turn into a killing field!".

Dennis Miller: Alright, I've got 5 seconds here, I've gotta split. I appreciate your time and I wish you luck in your run.

Ron Paul Most Demanded Republican Presidential Candidate on Eventful.com

2007-05-30T07:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday on CNN's 'Situation Room w/Wolf Blitzer' a story was done about Eventful.com, an event listing website where users can "Demand" that bands, politicians, authors, etc come to their local cities. The story focused on the 2008 Presidential Race, and which of the candidates on both sides of the aisle are most in demand. While Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are the top two candidates, Ron Paul is in 3rd place, making him the top GOP candidate in demand.

Here is the clip from CNN's 'Situation Room':

Ron Paul on Real Time w/Bill Maher (Video - May 25th, 2007)

2007-05-26T09:11:00.000-07:00

Last night Ron Paul made an appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. Screams of support came from the traditionally left leaning audience, proving once again Ron Paul is a Republican candidate even the left can love.