View Full Version : VOTE "RON PAUL" 2008

09-17-2007, 02:04 PM

09-17-2007, 02:05 PM

09-17-2007, 02:07 PM

09-18-2007, 11:48 AM
http://img.youtube.com/u/O3Zc0OAo1OKjyyKdUuqT-g/profile_header.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom)

09-18-2007, 11:58 AM
WHY RON PAUL WILL WIN 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pda-rT1sf2M&mode=related&search=)

09-18-2007, 11:59 AM

09-18-2007, 02:04 PM

09-18-2007, 03:11 PM
Watch the Ron Paul Revolution

09-18-2007, 03:18 PM

09-18-2007, 03:28 PM

09-18-2007, 03:54 PM

09-18-2007, 04:06 PM


09-18-2007, 04:20 PM

09-18-2007, 05:16 PM
I have not yet begun to fight!

09-19-2007, 11:12 AM



09-19-2007, 11:13 AM

09-19-2007, 11:15 AM

09-19-2007, 11:17 AM

09-19-2007, 11:21 AM

09-19-2007, 11:27 AM

09-19-2007, 11:29 AM

09-19-2007, 11:39 AM

09-19-2007, 11:50 AM

09-19-2007, 12:08 PM

09-19-2007, 02:57 PM

09-19-2007, 03:02 PM

09-19-2007, 03:25 PM


09-20-2007, 11:19 AM
Jimbo wrote:

From: Ron Paul 2008

September 20, 2007

Dear friend,

Our American way of life is under attack. And it is up to us to save it.

The world's elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they succeed, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ol' USA will only be a memory. We cannot let that happen.

The UN wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.

Our right to own and use property is fading because bureaucrats and special interests are abusing eminent domain.

Our right to educate our children as we choose is under assault. "No Child Left Behind" is seeing to that. And our right to say "no" to forced mental screening of our school-aged children is nearly gone.

The elites gave us a national ID card. They also gave us the most misnamed legislation in history: The Patriot Act. And these same people are pushing to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and erase our national borders.

Record government debt is putting a burden on our children and grandchildren that is shameful.

Yes. Our American way of life is under attack. And it's understandable that many are concerned, even discouraged, about the kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit.

But we must never let discouragement become surrender.

One reason I am NOT discouraged is because I know I am not fighting alone. Each day I head out I know that you and thousands of other patriotic, freedom-loving Americans are right beside me, standing brave and true for what is good and right.

I need your help now, more than ever, to save the country we love...for the people we love.

My wife Carol and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary early this year. We are proud parents of five children and 18 grandchildren. We love them very much, as I know you love your family.

As a U.S. congressman, I always think about the well-being of my family and of all the families of our great nation when I cast a vote or introduce legislation. I also remember that I have sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

For me, upholding that oath is the first and best way to preserve and protect the blessed American way of life for our children and grandchildren.

And now you know why I'm running for president of the United States.

I ask for your help. Please send your maximum donation today by going to https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/



Paid for by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.


I’ll say more later, but for now I can say that I just try to keep up like everyone else. I have been reading sites like “rense.com (sightings.com), & infowars.com” for over 10 years now, if not more. When people, which a lot still do, question the information I give them, they used to say, like some still do, that “no, that’s never is going to happen here. That’s just “bullshit”.” But here it is. It is happening right before our eyes. As an individual you can only contribute individually, & as people we can have a greater impact. Use your imagination. Certain things you are better off not saying them out loud.

We shouldn’t waste our times arguing w/ one another, & trying to correct people & how they think. That’s why I try to just point out & indicate the information which might awake people up, as it awakes me when I read it. There is no time to waste. Every bit of contribution towards a free world do count, just like “every grain of sand” has its purpose w/in all of the “sands of the world.”

We have to keep seeing good where no one else sees good in people. Help those you can help. Give them knowledge & information. Lend a hand if you can lend a hand. If you cant’, well you just can’t. Do what you can.

I believe in the love & the eternity of the spirit. That will never die. We’ll go on. This world of matter will remain for those attached to this world. Love, knowledge, & wisdom come directly from spirit. Your soul is always connected to you & the universe. The majority of the time, we just focus on this reality, but we are always connected to spirit from within, & not without. That connection is unbreakable. No one can harm it, except our negativity towards ourselves & others. Those who harm others will suffer the consequences & harm themselves by loosing their spiritual individuality. Those will never know the meaning of eternal life. This life will pass & eternity will rein. We just have to be patient, do what’s right, do what is expected of spirit, & eternity will unfold before our eyes.



09-20-2007, 01:09 PM
The Last American Patriots in Action

09-20-2007, 01:20 PM
New York REVOLution!

09-20-2007, 02:54 PM

You are not alone.

http://files.meetup.com/516078/Ron%20Paul%202008%20Poster%20-%20Vote%20for%20Freedom.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mRQP0lu42w)

09-21-2007, 01:07 PM
Ron Paul OWNZ South Carolina!

09-21-2007, 01:24 PM

09-21-2007, 02:05 PM

09-21-2007, 02:20 PM
Peace Sells and Ron Paul is Buying!
http://files.meetup.com/556357/RonPaul4PEACE.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twSGJfb6aGw)

BUSH SELLS (BUT WHO'S BUYING?) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwBtjPYBWo)

09-21-2007, 02:51 PM

09-21-2007, 03:27 PM

1) Screw the New World Order.

2) Screw the War in Iraq.

3) Screw the Federal Reserve.

4) Screw the IRS.

Here's how...

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dissent_fist.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn_fAQ1iiMs)

09-21-2007, 04:06 PM
http://www.giftedtwisted.com/rpimages/tiles/RonPaulSeal.jpg (http://www.giftedtwisted.com/)

09-22-2007, 09:29 AM
BlueAngel wrote:
That's a little strange.

Don't you think?

Look, I'm just providing links so people can become informed and raise support for Ron Paul.

This is a big issue.

It's going to take a powerful forward thrust of the people's will to drive home the point.

It's time to fly the Flag, people!

We're launching off the deck and kicking in the afterburners!

We are rumbling & galloping into 2008 with both guns blazing!

We are connecting onboard output/input sockets!

We are building a superconductor for dynamic, energetic Change!

This is the Ron Paul REVOLution!

We are powering up the Locomotive Engines!

We are penetrating people's minds!

We are turning people on to the Truth!

We are ripping through the veils of deceit!

We are re-opening the Gates of Individual Liberty!

We're going into Washington, DC!

We will come out on top in Victory!

http://www.giftedtwisted.com/rpimages/tiles/RonPaulSeal.jpg (http://www.giftedtwisted.com/)[/quote]

09-22-2007, 02:25 PM
This is a call for all the old, burnt out, filthy hippie, ex-vietnam Baby Boomer Protest Frieks from the '60s & '70s!

Now listen up! We're gonna kick it with some Credence for you guys, ok!

So I'm asking all of you to put down your bongs for a moment, put down your meth and heroin needles and get out there and support Ron Paul!

We need your vote in 2008!

I might even play some Springsteen. I haven't decided yet, ok!



09-22-2007, 02:47 PM
Ok...so here's some 'home grown' support!

It was recorded with the best ghetto storage-shed hydroponic technology available...

So here's how this thing is goin' down, ok: Spin the record, drop a vote, and everything's groovy cool...

Who'll Stop the Rain? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkF4oL0udB8)

And remember...every cloud has a silver lining...man.


09-24-2007, 09:32 AM
Confessions of a Ron Paul Junkie!


:-o :-D

Wow...people, things are getting nasty out there.

This is going to be the muddiest election in US history.

When you have Christian Fundies uniting with Hippie Pot Head Whale Savers over Ron Paul...well, you know times are a changin'.

What is the Ron Paul Revolution? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ca9e5WKipnU&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 09:55 AM
Cow Town USA loves Ron Paul!


Let's do the Freedom Train!

http://www.all-railroads.com/instock/freelogo.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-xwd6ysn3g&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 10:52 AM
'BAMA LOVES PAUL! YASSA! That's Sweet Home Alabama!

RON PAUL BECOMES MORE POPULAR! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNmUW1HgkDY&mode=related&search=)

Alabama Straw Poll Interview (R. Paul mopped up in Alabama!)


09-24-2007, 11:10 AM
Attention: Ron Paul MeetUp Group Under Surveillance!!!!


Scared Illuminati Secret Governement can't stand it and flies over with black (and white) helicopters!


http://www.16sparrows.com/shop/images/top-secret.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MwvUxqicSk)


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200701/r123217_398706.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frMMeYTtHT4)

YOU CAN'T BRING ME DOWN! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2RskJVFUoQ&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 12:15 PM
A Passionate Advertisement For Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts6ZYdYeBf4&mode=related&search=)

Ron Paul is Not Going to Happen
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/images/gstw_5.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ywngi3i-0&mode=related&search=)

RON PAUL -- CRAZY LIKE A FOX! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSF019BbWRw&mode=related&search=)


"George Stephanopoulos is also a member of the Bilderberg Group.

During his tenure in the White House, Stephanopoulos was known to arrive at work by 6:00 AM every day.[citation needed]

After leaving the White House, he became a political analyst for ABC News, as a correspondent on the ABC Sunday talk program This Week, World News Tonight, Good Morning America, and various special broadcasts. In September 2002, Stephanopoulos became host of This Week. In December 2005, ABC News officially named him Chief Washington Correspondent."

09-24-2007, 12:30 PM
The Corn Husk of the world, and one of the greatest states in the union, Iowa, proudly supports Ron Paul for president 2008.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/1/1d/IowaSign.jpg/300px-IowaSign.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiUKobKhwrg&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 12:57 PM
New York loves Ron Paul!

Le's hear for Ma'ha'eeeeen!

New York City REVOLutionized!


09-24-2007, 01:31 PM
One World Government? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qBK_NhT-LM&NR=1)

New World Order is here! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo&mode=related&search=)

Ron Paul -- Karma Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buNNdElvokg&mode=related&search=)

Annihilation (The revolution is now) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edoSZnVvDBM&mode=related&search=)

RON PAUL 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEf9Jj-gkf8&mode=related&search=)

Why I Like Ron Paul's Positions on the Issues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlh1fiY2JLw&mode=related&search=)

Start Spreading the News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKZ5qhXBnIA&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 03:46 PM


09-24-2007, 04:12 PM
I Still Believe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ6jw_-5UfY&mode=related&search=)

Hero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWlS8Oerx8o&mode=related&search=)


09-24-2007, 04:18 PM
We Don't Need Another Hero

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/3/4776861_8378a73db1.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IV9an1EE9M)

09-24-2007, 04:28 PM
We Can Change the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZcQK8zmUqU&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 04:57 PM
America the Beautiful!

09-24-2007, 05:28 PM
http://a937.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/40/s_dc3a4afd84a4e4568e867c7819317bf0.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERXZLJLJkdQ&mode=related&search=)

09-24-2007, 05:31 PM
They say a hero can save us...

http://www.thisischurch.com/images/eaglefly.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDq63wCsQ2M&mode=related&search=)

09-26-2007, 06:08 PM
George_Bush wrote:


Who are the Rainbow Warriors? do you refer to the green peace ship?


10-01-2007, 12:25 PM
redrat11 wrote:

George_Bush wrote:


Who are the Rainbow Warriors? do you refer to the green peace ship?


Who are the Rainbow Warriors? Well, this is an interesting question.

I can tell you what the Christian significance of the Rainbow Warrior is. As for the rest out in shadow land somewhere, well we'll just say that prophecies are a dime a dozen these days.

What I would simply like for people to understand about the 2012 craze of the day is that if enough people believe in a consciousness polar shift in 2012 it very well may happen. Beliefs, aspirations, and hopes change consciouness. Consciousness effects behavior. Behavior begets experience. Experience defines World View.

As I have said before, a polar shift is coming, but not as the world thinks. This will not mark the end of Christianity as many hope. It will simply be the next PARABOLIC bycoming; the next step, if you will.

And what is the next step? It is the step right after this one. And what time is it? The world had better check its aeonic clock. For remember the eternal words of Christ Jesus, "Then at the Midnight hour a cry went forth, 'The bridegroom is coming!'" And so it happens even as it was foretold to happen. In the mind of God it was finished before the foundation of the earth.

Oh yes, there is a Rainbow Warrior. His sound is like a roaring lion. He stands on earth and sea. A little book he holds in his hand. The rainbow is upon his head. And what is the rainbow? It is the covenant between God and all creation. For St. John must prophecy once again. But when that Angel begins to sound his Trumpet, then is finished the Mysterion of God as he swore through his servants the prophets.

The world no doubt will have its Rainbow Warriors. This is no matter, for there is that which comes in Truth.

10-01-2007, 07:19 PM
That is interesting. :-o

10-02-2007, 11:49 AM
redrat11 wrote:
That is interesting. :-o

You may begin to learn how to read the times more accurately if you will keep in mind this one thing: Every prophecy of scripture is always shadowed and manifested among the world through the spirits of darkness -- whether angels, demons, or humans.

Why does this happen? Because these spirits of darkness and the humans who consort on earth with them are practicing occultation against the light of the truth.

For example, if Solomon says, "As a man thinketh so is he," the spirits of darkness will attempt to cover and wrest this truth by some equivolant negative and false statement in the attempt to lead men from the truth, such as, "You are what you eat," or something along those lines.

Then one might be curious to know why Christians would be working toward certain ends in regard to manifesting a prophetic Truth during these times of 2012 prophecies and Rainbows Warriors and other such ideas. It is because of this: Christians understand the Parabolic Progression of Aeons. At this time the spirits of darkness are working overtime trying to keep man's focuss on 2012, pagan religions, meso-american prophecies, Illuminati conspiracies, cares of the world, wars and rumours of war, false Messiahs, hidden codes, new pseudo-gospels, and what not.

I think it was Justin who described some of these beings as having divinitory abilities. For example, there are some principalities of darkness which are able to race ahead of time/space and see into the future. Well, I should to say rather that they may race ahead of man's future. They are able to do this because they are not limited as is man. Some of the spirits may forecast the decades. And it is good to remember that although so many are working along with the Adversary by works of iniquity and inspiring evil men with the darkened scientia, there are as many or more who work through godly men toward the greater good of God and his people.

So where are we on the Parabolic scale at this time. We are in something of a limbo, or a stalemate. What will break this stalemate?

Well, now, that is the kicker, isn't it?

10-02-2007, 01:15 PM
I'll give you another example of how a negative spirit may work in consortion with man. When George Stephanopoulos asked Ron Paul, "What is success for you in this campain," Ron Paul said, "Well, to win." Immediately Stephanopoulos replied, "That's not going to happen."

Therefore, in electronic circuitry, how could we describe the energy of this event? We might say that the positive flow of currency was met by a resisting factor, yes? Indeed. But in what realm and by what medium was this event manifested? Was it not through words? Yes, it was through words.

And what are words? Words are written or spoken symbols; outwardly manifested glyphs of thought and idea. The flow of thought therefore travels through words. But not only written words, but Word as a concept in itself. I mean here that concept of LOGOS, which is the very idealic concept of Word in itself, free from subjective manifestation. One might then recognize that man has that thought of LOGOS within him.

Notice how Stephanopoulos created a 'mold' in his question to Ron Paul. This 'mold' inducted Ron Paul into an idealic realm/space. Therefore, we might learn that a question may be thought of as an inductor force for psychological currency and energy flow. Ron Paul's question was his inductance of energy traveling along the 'line' of Stephanopoulos' inductor (i.e.,his LOGICAL framework of a question). Then as Stephanopoulos controlled Ron Paul's inductance, he immediately introduced a 'resistance' to that inductance.

What does this imply? It implies that Stephanopoulos was coming from an angle from the beginning and that his intent was malefic. His question was toward an end of entrapment and resistance. And to think that this much power went for from one simple (seemingly innocent) question in a 'casual' interview, on a 'normal' Sunday morning talkshow.

What gives Stephanopoulos such power? Surely if some stranger came up to Ron Paul in a cafe and simply told him that he was not going to win, Ron Paul would simply laugh and brush it off. But Stephanopoulos' is not so. Why? Because that power PSYCHO-LOGICAL is amplied millions of times over through Airwaves. Stephanopoulos' statement is magnified and for all practical purposes 'mass produced' in one instant.

Therefore, why might television or radio broadcasting hold such sway over PSYCHO-LOGICAL currencies of peoples and nations? It is because one statement by one simple broadcaster might have more 'apparant' power than millions of voices without that same broadcasting/amplification power.

One must think of it this way, there may be 30 million Ron Paul supporters, but one must not forget that if 30 million people with 30 million televisions are watching ONE Stephanopoulos, there is not ONE Stephanopoulos at all, but rather 30 million Stephanopoulos's all at the same instant, all with the same negative PSYCHO-LOGICAL bomb exploding with sudden impact. Or in other a resistance designed to short-circuit the loadflow.

This was meant to demoralize the Ron Paul supporters. And it has a certain power too, because thought is chaotic in that within the neural network of the brain thoughts work according to the butterfly effect. One thought leads to another thought. Given enough time, if the Ron Paul supporters keep thinking along the lines of 'That's not going to happen', it could effectively short-circuit all of the positive energy that made them believe in and support Ron Paul at the beginning.

In order to win, Americans are going to have to be committed absolutely to doing this one thing -- voting for Ron Paul no matter what they see or what they hear. We do have an advantage this year however-- youtube. Ok, so it does not yet have as much apparant amplification as television or radio, but you know it is something and it is better than no amplification at all. How effectively we are able to use such power time will tell. But at last what it will come down to is the people having a stronger currency of will power than any PSYCHO-LOGICAL resistance that they may encounter. I believe that this is quite possible, because the Ron Paul supporters that I have seen are for the most Paul quite able to do their own thinking.

10-02-2007, 02:06 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
Stephanopoulos' words only have power over Ron Paul, if Ron Paul allows them to.

Ron Paul isn't going to win and even if he did, it wouldn't make a difference in the NWO agenda.

Why do you think Stephanopoulos' words could only have power over Ron Paul if Ron Paul allows them to?

What evidence do you have to support your precisely stated major proposition that A) 'Ron Paul isn't going to win' and your precisely stated minor proposition that B) Even if he did it wouldn't make a difference in the NWO agenda?

[NOTE: We will use BAs statements above as an example of how to dismantle illogical assertions. Notice that as she attempts to provide 'reasons', we will be able to logically disolve them all. This will be a good clinic to learn the first principle of Logic -- Sound Argument. In the science of Logic this may be defined as: "Of or relating to an argument in which all the premises are true and whose conclusions are valid."]

10-02-2007, 02:31 PM
Now that we have waited 10 minutes and BA has presented no evidence to support her major and minor precisely stated assertions, therefore we are to dismiss her assertions as being invalid. For she has not demonstrated her assertions with evidence and therefore they cannot be judged as logical arguments.

Therefore BAs comments are Unsound and Illogical.

10-02-2007, 02:58 PM
Now we will turn to the positive evidence that supports a view and assertion that Ron Paul may well win the nomination and the presidential election in 2008.

Poling data, albeit subjective, does indicate that Ron Paul has won on several counts by a significant lead.

Consider the article on Prison Planet for example

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
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, September 6, 2007

Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressman's runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to "Paulites" flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.

Ernest Raposa, a viewer in New Bedford, MA, decided to text in his support for Ron Paul and received a message back stating, "FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results."

"As the show progressed, it became obvious, as we have seen previously, that Ron Paul had the most support, hovering around 33 per cent," writes Raposa. "Around 11:25pm EST Hannity declared that though Ron Paul had DOUBLE the support of the tied for second place Giuliani and Huckabee it was clear that the "Paulites" were simply dialing in over and over again, devaluing his lead."

Aiming to test Hannity's theory, Raposa attempted to text in a second vote for Ron Paul from the same cellphone. He received a message back saying, "You have already voted on tonight's debate. Thank you for your participation."

Only one vote per cellphone was allowed, therefore Hannity's contention that Ron Paul supporters were "were simply dialing in over and over again" was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman's widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Here's the nuts and bolts in a You Tube clip.


Debunkers continually claim that Paul's success in text message and internet polls is merely a result of a small group of supporters zealously "spamming" or "flooding" the polls when in fact votes are limited to one per IP address and one per cellphone number.

Such dirty tactics from Neo-Con stooge Hannity and Fox News were merely a continuation of Fox's policy to attack Ron Paul throughout the broadcast.

Despite the fact that the New Hampshire audience broke out in spontaneous wild applause at almost everything the Congressman said, Fox News deliberately boosted the microphones of the other candidates when Paul was speaking, making sure the snickers of Giuliani, Romney and the rest were clearly audible.


Establishment darlings were once again afforded shed loads more time and even nobodies like Huckabee and Brownback got twice the amount of questions compared to the Congressman. Paul got the chance to answer just three direct questions in a 90 minute debate.

Fox News moderators weighed in with glee in an attempt to ruffle, smear and sidetrack Ron Paul. His first question revolved around a purposeful misquote of the Congressman's position on allowing pilots to be armed and it only went downhill from there.

"The second question though revealed the unbelievable bias of Fox News," writes Anthony Wade. "In response to a question about Iraq and troops, Paul reiterated that we needed to pull the troops home, period. He has consistently said that we need to address the entire foreign policy and start protecting our own borders and our own country. In response to the false notion that there would be a “bloodbath” if we just pulled out, Paul quickly reminded everyone that the same people speculating that there would be a bloodbath are the same people who said Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and a “slam dunk.” He then correctly pointed out the faulty logic that says we need to stay for stability when it is widely reported that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula is what prompted the attacks of 911. The response from Chris Wallace was to pose his own follow up question which was, “So you are saying you would take your marching orders from al Qaeda?”

"Are you kidding me? The inherent bias in the question was disgusting during a debate forum and Chris Wallace revealed himself as nothing but a whore for the machine and not a credible newsperson. Thankfully, Dr. Paul was up to the task by responding that he would take his marching orders from the Constitution."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD9nO0c328&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Fartic les%2Fseptember2007%2F060907%5Fhannity%5Flies%2Eht m

The last question was another manufactured "hypothetical" in which Iran had nukes and was threatening to use them on Israel. Fox News were sure to go to Ron Paul first in order to have the other candidates gang up on him after.

As soon as the debate was over, Giuliani and Hannity were busy attempting to mock Congressman Paul with more sophomoric barbs.

The desperation of the Neo-Cons and the establishment to ridicule Ron Paul again highlights the sheer terror that they are experiencing in light of the fact that a real candidate communicating about real issues is putting the rest of the shills to shame.

By continuing to smear, lie about and dismiss the Congressman, Hannity, Fox and their ilk are nervously praying that they can keep the lid on the Ron Paul Revolution and prevent the Texan from breaking into the vaunted "top tier" and obliterating the bought and paid for competition.

Now this is no illusion. These results were and are real! 33% of the vote went to Ron Paul. That is why I say that not only the word on the street but the actual substantive EVIDENCE supports Ron Paul growing support and popularity for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008.

10-02-2007, 03:26 PM
Next, consider the following article on how major media corporations may skew the polling data on Ron Paul. This should not discourage Ron Paul supporters at all. In fact, it should encourage them all the more. If the media are this scared of him, then they must know that he has ovewhelming support among the populace. Then what to do? Keep on marching -- all the way in to Washington, DC. This is the Ron Paul Revolution. And we will win.

Clear Media Conspiracy
Against Ron Paul
By Carl F. Worden

... (The) conspiracy to ignore and marginalize presidential candidate Ron Paul is not a theory. In this case, a jury would have to conclude a conspiracy against Dr. Paul by the corporation-controlled media exists.

First, MSNBC reported that Ron Paul scored the highest positive votes in both Republican debates he attended. That means he beat out Romney, McCain and Giuliani. There was no mention of these poll results in the major media.
Dick Morris, political pundit and former Clinton buddy, wrote an opinion piece that appeared in many media publications 5/7/07, in which he claimed John McCain had won the debate, and I could find nowhere in his piece that Ron Paul had even attended.

CNN's Glenn Beck, an alleged conservative (my fanny) ran a tiny clip on his show that tried to make Ron Paul look like a blithering idiot. He then went on to ask, "How did this guy get in the debate at all"?

Even WorldNetDaily, a prominent, conservative Internet news provider, has largely ignored Ron Paul's candidacy.

When a candidate wins two debate polls in a row that are reported by the likes of MSNBC on its own web page, that is news, especially since the winner of both polls allegedly had no chance to win the nomination. The media normally jumps on that kind of news, because people in America love underdogs, but not this time.

No, this is a concerted effort.

Please review below what Representative Ron Paul stands for, and far more importantly, what he has done. Among other things, Ron Paul is the only congressmen who got up and demanded Congress declare war before attacking Iraq.

Carl F. Worden

About Ron
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.

During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Congressman Paul's consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."
May 05, 2007 Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll
Highest Positive, Lowest Negative
In the MSNBC.com rating window of 72,419 votes at 8:10 PM EDT, Friday, May 4, Ron Paul not only had the highest positive rating:
32% Paul
30% Romney
26% Giuliani
21% McCain
14% Huckabee
9% Brownback
9% Tancredo
8% Hunter
8% Thompson
6% Gilmore

...but he also had the lowest negative rating:

29% Paul
35% Romney
37% Huckabee
40% Giuliani
42% McCain
43% Gilmore
43% Hunter
45% Thompson
45% Tancredo
46% Brownback
Posted on May 05, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink
May 04, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll
Ron Paul steps into national spotlight

May 4, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA * Congressman Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last night held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Dr. Paul received 43 percent, beating the second-place finisher by five points, and crushing the rest of the field.
"Last night, Americans met Ron Paul and loved what they heard," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul's message of freedom and limited government resonates with Republicans hungry for a return to their party's core values."
"Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP race. Americans saw that last night," continued Snyder. "The campaign looks forward to further debates and opportunities so even more Americans will discover Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity."

10-02-2007, 03:50 PM
Ron Paul Support is a Conspiracy, claims National Media
July 20th, 2007 . by Micah

Major media outlets have denied fund raising reports, rally attendance, and record breaking internet support as the work of a small secretive group of Ron Paul supporters conspiring to defraud the public. Is it time for them to give up this conspiracy theory before they lose credibility?

It has been revealed that fourteen percent of republican presidential campaign donors in the second quarter, donated to Ron Paul. He has placed first and second in many national online polls with respondents numbering into the tens of thousands. He has more money on hand than John McCain. His grassroots campaign boasts twenty thousand members and he has over 20,000 videos dedicated to him on YouTube.Com, dwarfing all other republican candidates. He sells out rallies wherever he attends and has won a straw poll in crucial New Hampshire. In fact, there is only one metric which measures his support to be on the same level as second tier candidates, national polls. National polls ask small groups of people, often less than one thousand, who they plan to support for the White House. In July of 2007 how can this be taken as a metric of anything besides name recognition when the election is over 12 months away.

Many pundits have taken his online popularity to be the work of “spammers”. One can only assume that these pundits have gone to the Ted Stevens’ school of Internet Learning. Spamming is when a small group of people with multiple IP Addresses, forged identities as it were, send unsolicited emails. Online Polls are soliciting a response from individuals, and most reputable ones filter attempts from forged IP Addresses. Winning an online poll means your campaign was the best capable of identifying the poll, disseminating information to your supporters, and motivating your supporters to participate. Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign has proven to be more agile and effective than any of the manufactured enthusiasm from other campaigns. The sheer volume of videos produced about the congressman, the amount of personally written comments on Ron Paul related news articles, and the number of unique hits received by his campaign’s website all rule out the idea that his support is the work of a small number of dedicated internet users. Ron Paul’s legitimate supporters have put Ron Paul’s war chest in third place among republicans, second place if you exclude Mitt Romney’s personal investment in his campaign. More Military and Veterans donated to Ron Paul than any other candidate. Most of his money came from small personal donations- the work of the many, not the few. These figures do not take into account the average five unpaid hours a week the Ron Paul supporter spends making signs, distributing literature, and operating phone banks.

For those who would still question Ron Paul’s chances due simply to national polls, consider this. National polling agencies only poll landlines. Many Ron Paul supporters do not use landlines, they are cell phone and VoIP users. No national polling would ever reach them. When Fox News had its post debate cell phone text message poll, Ron Paul came in second with twenty-five percent, trailing only Romney with twenty-nine percent. Many personalities on air stated disbelief in the accuracy of this poll, but surely they would not suggest that Ron Paul supporters had the thousands of extra cell phone plans and phones needed to skew a poll of this size.

Perhaps the lack of legitimate support reported by the media is an internal belief rather than an objective reality. Many in the media, such as Michelle Malkin, have claimed Ron Paul supporters are overzealous conspiracy theorists. It is Ironic that they then attribute all of Ron Paul’s support to a small group of people meeting in secret, rigging polls and colluding against the mainstream candidates. George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times have stated that Ron Paul “Will not be the next President”. Is this their opinion or their stated goal? Have they set themselves up for another “Dewey Defeats Truman” moment?


Fox News Text Poll:


Q2 Fund raising “Straw Poll”:


Ron Paul Spam Allegations:


Ron Paul 20/20:


ABC Host Tells Ron Paul he has No Chance to Win:


10-02-2007, 03:56 PM
Here is the latest report on Dr. Paul's fundraising efforts from the Wall Street Journal. And these funds are snowballing daily. The power is growing. The energy is increasing. America is demanding Ron Paul for president 2008.

October 1, 2007, 7:11 pm
Ron Paul’s Fund-Raising Takes Off

Mary Jacoby reports on the 2008 presidential campaign.

Rep. Ron Paul is bucking trends in the political money race.

While both Democrats and Republicans in the presidential race are finding it more difficult to pass the hat as their big donors hit federal giving limits, the trajectory for the Texas Republican keeps climbing.

The antiwar libertarian raised more than $3 million in the third quarter, up from $2.4 million in the second quarter and $641,000 in the first three months of the year.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, Paul out-raised old Washington hands including Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who took in $1.5 million, and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who raised just under $2 million.

For the year, Paul has collected around $6 million. He remains stuck in national polls at around 5% or less — about the same level of support as another Republican dark horse, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor.

The well-spoken Huckabee placed second in the Ames, Iowa, straw poll this summer and is a favorite among Beltway pundits. But so far, his campaign is staying mum on his third-quarter fund-raising numbers, suggesting that they haven’t dramatically improved from the $766,000 Huckabee raised in the second quarter.

10-02-2007, 04:29 PM
Paul ‘Revolution’ rally draws 800 Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:06 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: 2008, Ron Paul

From NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli
Even a half hour after Ron Paul's "Revolution" rally ended in downtown Manchester, there was a crowd larger than other candidates could only hope to draw. The campaign estimated that as many as 800 people showed up as the Texas congressman kicked off a canvassing effort in New Hampshire's three largest cities.

The campaign gave out buttons asking: "Who is Ron Paul?" But who are Ron Paul's supporters? "I think they're new to the process," said Paul's son, Rand Paul. "We definitely have Democrats that are crossing over, Libertarians crossing over, Independents crossing over. And I think the people that come out are definitely gonna vote."

Rand Paul said that every day he's surprised at "how big" his father's campaign has gotten. Last week, they asked supporters to raise $500,000. "They passed that in three days, and now we're asking them to raise a million," Rand Paul said. By Sunday, they had done just that. And Rand Paul said his father might end the third fundraising quarter with more cash on hand than most of the other Republicans. "We may have more money on hand than Romney if you subtract what he's given himself," he said.

Paul rejected a comparison to Howard Dean's Internet fueled 2004 campaign, which fizzled by the time votes were actually cast. "My dad has been going around the country for 30 years, and has a following," Paul said. "It's definitely a committed core. Howard Dean didn't have that cohesive message and a philosophy." What Dean and Paul have in common is their anti-war message. And Paul said his father's stance makes him the Republican with "the best chance of getting independent voters over."

10-02-2007, 04:36 PM
Misunderestimating Ron Paul's Support
by Rick Fisk

The media, neoconservatives and some Democrats just don't understand why Ron Paul's supporters are so excited, dedicated and diverse. At the most recent PBS debate in Baltimore, the camera panned to catch the first African-American female fighter pilot in U.S. history applauding enthusiastically when Dr. Paul suggested we should bring the troops home from Iraq and every other country they currently occupy. Neoconservative bloggers are aghast at Ron Paul's increasing success as are the neoconservative gatekeepers. This is a truly satisfying result since it was the neoconservative hijacking of the Republican Party which has helped to further decimate our once-great Republic.

In one comment, written as a response to a post at the quintessential neoconservative and freedom-hating blog, Red State, a reader unsupportive of Paul points out the obvious for most neoconservatives, that Ron Paul's ability to raise a million dollars in seven days is "[expletive deleted] scary."

The neoconservative movement is now officially in its dying throes and yet neoconservatives do not take notice. A good example of this can be witnessed in Newt Gingrich's threat to join the crowded field of GOP Presidential candidates. (Eye of) Newt has been touting his ability to bring together a goodly number of intellectuals who will help solve America's problems. What is at the forefront of those problems? Why, it is the threat of Islamic law being instituted in the United States if we were to pull out of Iraq. Seriously, that is what he's saying.

The neoconservatives are banking on a strategy that has worked for them since 1994 (and all governments since the dawn of civilization). If they just pull the kids 'round the campfire and tell them a scary enough story, the kids will flock to their skirts and demand protection. If the story isn't scary enough, then it has to be modified until it becomes sufficiently scary. But at some point, the story becomes so far-fetched that even the true believers have to scratch their heads.

With Ron Paul's entry into the field of Presidential contenders, that tactic is no longer going to work. Ron Paul's early support was made up of those who were either never fooled by this claptrap or have come to understand that they were being manipulated. It only becomes more apparent to them with every utterance by neoconservatives that the scare stories have no basis in reality. Rather than offer something truly different, the neoconservatives are simply upping the ante and labeling it "different." They have discounted Ron Paul's support by claiming that it is much smaller than it appears. This is just another side of the same reality-denying tactic that is killing their movement. Because they cannot acknowledge reality, their influence will completely wither away, sooner rather than later.

Ron Paul's grass roots support is growing daily. Each time he is given a national forum in which to speak, a new flood of supporters joins the cause and his coffers grow (as opposed to Mitt Romney who's coiffeur's coffers grow). In the spaces between these national appearances, the growing body of supporters reaches out to their neighbors and spreads the word.

The neoconservatives on the other hand, believe that they are the keepers of all intellectual truth and that they have enemies both domestic and foreign. The domestic enemies are "liberals" or those whom they label so. The list of "liberals" keeps growing however and their blindness to reality prevents them from realizing that a list of enemies, increased by spite and action and drawn from a static pool of voters, is causing the number of "allies" to dwindle.

If you are thinking that I'm giving away some secret that will tip off neoconservatives and cause them to mend their ways long enough to torpedo Ron Paul's candidacy, don't worry. As Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret.) told the San Diego Tribune recently, "this administration is immune to good advice."

The neoconservatives are immune to good advice. Their arrogance and hubris knows no bounds. Even if they were to read this, they would discount it as irrelevant nonsense from a wacko Paul supporter. Since it is only they who have the answers to America's problems, there are no qualified observers who can offer worthwhile advice. Their inability to give criticism any serious consideration is the source of their failures in every policy. Iraq is a great example of this but there are others that can be pointed out such as FEMA's reaction to hurricane Katrina.

We are at the "fight" stage in Gandhi's oft-quoted statement. The neocons are beginning to fight, but they are using the very tactics that do nothing to diminish support for Ron Paul and everything to decrease their own ranks. They think that non-neoconservative voices emanate from brainless liberals, but this isn't why their ranks dwindle. They are incapable of honest self-assessment – the very thing of which they accuse their enemies – thus, neoconservative influence continues to wane. Their knack for projecting their own problems onto others is similar to their knack for projecting U.S. military power all over the globe. It is not "terrorists" who would convert the U.S. to a nation ruled by draconian dictates but the neoconservatives themselves.

Ron Paul's support grows because he is the anti-neoconservative candidate. Where neoconservatives deride those who don't buy their solutions, Ron Paul always assumes the best of both detractors and the merely ignorant. When Bill Maher asked him "Why are Americans so stupid?" he responded, "We're Americans," to point out that all Americans aren't stupid and his task is to inform and enlighten rather than make enemies. What a concept. The most obvious truism for a politician is that he should be expanding his influence rather than alienating voters. This is lost on neoconservatives.

Ron Paul refuses to convert disagreements into personal arguments which create animosity. His tactic is to merely present his side of the argument while acknowledging that this is part of his core belief system and not an indication that those who disagree are stupid or evil. This has trickled down to his supporters who, for the most part, avoid political arguments and instead implore the uninitiated to simply discover for themselves what Ron Paul is saying. This tactic has worked brilliantly. Ron Paul's message is genuinely compelling and his defense of these views has been consistent and dogged over the past 30 years; no matter what obstacles are thrown before him. That is the basis for his supporter's enthusiasm. He truly means what he is saying. Unlike his counterparts, he does not have to waste any words explaining why his votes do not match his rhetoric. His supporters do not have to suffer the nagging feeling that something different would occur if they were to elect him. He has always voted in a manner that matches his speech.

The neocons have no candidate in the race remotely showing the same level of integrity though they appear to be certain that nobody will notice this. They prove by their actions that any talk of truth, honesty or values is just empty, pandering, rhetoric. The number of Paul supporters is increasing because, contrary to neoconservative belief, Americans are not stupid. They just haven't had a decent alternative in 30 years. Well....now they do.

October 1, 2007

10-02-2007, 04:43 PM
Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul
posted October 2, 2007

Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.

It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google "Medicare expansion" for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father's or grandfather's GOP.

There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.

It isn't his status as the leading advocate of limited, constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)

Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.

Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.

If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)

If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.

Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.

Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.

Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.

Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.

Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it's obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible.

Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won't be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no "Law and Order" writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary.

When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.

Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?

Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.

Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.

Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.

Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....

Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent ... now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.

The Ron Paul Revolution has begun.

Joe Dumas

10-02-2007, 04:51 PM
The YouTube Interview with Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w)

10-02-2007, 05:02 PM
The Ron Paul Nation
by Jay Roberts
October 2, 2007

A frequent topic of discussion is about how Ron Paul is ignored or dismissed by the smug MSM and other establishment elites. This is all true, and is clearly at their peril, but not only for the specifics of Ron Paul's message or the number of his supporters. The fact that the campaign seemingly materialized out of thin air and promptly began registering real world accomplishments is the first shot in what will prove to be a protracted evolution of the mechanisms of governance. The organization of the Ron Paul campaign is demonstrating that the corporate and government monopoly on, well, corporatism and governance, is weakening. The general population has just now been armed with digital weapons that allow them to challenge anointed power structures and the Ron Paul campaign is evidence that they aren't wasting any time getting to work.

As CTO of a small startup, I spend a lot of time thinking about what people will do with software in the future. Some years ago, I convinced myself that virtual/digital entities will arise that parallel much of the function of traditional geographic sovereign entities. Ultimately, these will conflict and lead to political and social realignments on the order of the Reformation. Clearly, this will be played out over years and decades. So for the past 10 years, I've been looking for glimmerings that support this conjecture; the RP movement seems to be the first significant digital entity fitting this pattern.

So the big question in this story is not why Ron Paul is gaining traction – his ideas have been out there for decades – but rather why now and not ten or fifty years ago. The answer is simply that the technology just now exists for like-minded individuals to form geography independent groupings that are capable of effective action at very low overhead and that do not rely upon any of the state or establishment apparatus.

Since the early days of the web, the population has been training itself how to develop collaboration and trust across the internet. This took a big jump a couple of years back with the emergence of social networking applications. This demonstrated and conditioned millions of users of the validity of online social organization and shared, trusted interactions with strangers. The final and absolutely vital ingredient has been Youtube and similar applications over the past 1.5 years; the supremacy of video for propaganda purpose is undeniable and seems to be in the genetic programming of human beings.

So we are just now, over the past year or so, at the juncture where people can frictionlessly organize and have informational tools that rival those of their complacent masters. Add a corrupt, bloated government that has been relying on its now broken monopoly on social organization, and voilà, instant slave rebellion. The Ron Paul movement, or something similar, was scripted to happen as soon as it could and is now doing so with enabling tools and social acceptance of those tools that really is only a year or two old. The fact that the first digital nation formed around Ron Paul as a cause rather than Obama or banning transfats is a good early indication that perhaps digital nations will tend towards libertarian-friendly. Certainly, the internet at large tends in that direction.

But what should truly hearten freedom lovers everywhere is that the genie can't be put back into the bottle. Even if Ron Paul fails at his Presidential run, there will be another Ron Paul, then another, a relentless series of assaults on the establishment by the grassroots. Each time, the challengers will grow much stronger because they are just now teaching themselves how to run a digital nation, fight this sort of battle. Plus, the enabling tools progress in the very non-linear leaps and bounds typical of software. The next digital nation will make the current high-tech campaign seem like musketry. Government can't really fight back by shutting down or seriously restricting the internet, as that would hobble themselves and business while stimulating creation of alternate internets. The pattern already emerging will be governments, in their typical reflexive mode, playing defense with traditional means, innovative digital nations on offense with a constantly renewing arsenal of weapons and organizational tools.

Can Ron Paul win? Sure, it would be nice to have Ron Paul as President, but it would be much nicer to be governed in a manner similar to that by which the Ron Paul campaign is being conducted. This sentiment, whether or not consciously expressed, seems to drive many Ron Paul supporters. So while the campaign and message are important news and should not be ignored, another big story is that the workings of the Ron Paul campaign is the first demonstration of a viable digital nation taking effective action, what social organization is going to look like in the future, and all the negative implications this holds for traditional governmental entities.

In this story, Ron Paul has already won, in a very real sense.

10-05-2007, 09:49 AM
Will $5 million make Paul more than an asterisk?
10/04/2007 @ 3:24 pm
Filed by Nick Juliano

News orgs mixed in sizing up GOP candidate's blockbuster fundraising

For much of this year, Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign seemed little more than a distraction -- or annoyance -- to most of his Republican competitors as well as the pundits and journalists covering the 2008 election.

The anti-war libertarian's $5 million fundraising haul in the last three months, though, is forcing campaign observers to sit up and take notice.

"This means Paul cannot be ignored any longer," declared The Note, ABC News' influential daily political tip sheet.

Paul's newfound clout was on full display Thursday afternoon, when he sat down with CNN's Wolf Blitzer for an interview on the Situation Room. It was a far cry from Paul's dorm-room interview several months ago.

"I think the message is popular enough they say, 'Yes we like the idea of freedom, the constitution, limited government, less taxes,'" Paul said explaining his fundraising success. "The numbers are out there. Why it doesn't reflect in the polls, I don't know."

The Texas Republican's third-quarter fundraising puts him just behind onetime frontrunner John McCain, who raised $6 million, and Paul raised five times as much as Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who was treated to a wave of positive exposure after his second-place finish in an Iowa straw poll this summer.

"In New Hampshire, it can carry you a good way in terms of exposure," said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at University of New Hampshire.

With the money he has now, Paul could mount a telelvision ad campaign that, while not quite putting him toe-to-toe with frontrunners Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, would set him apart from the rest of the GOP field's second tier.

"He could be a player. ... There's lots of time," Scala told RAW STORY. "Whether the congressman has a persuasive message, that's another question," but there remain plenty of undecided Republicans in New Hampshire.

The nation's newspapers varied in the coverage assigned to Paul's surprising performance. The Washington Post's print edition dedicated just two paragraphs to the story near the bottom of a political news roundup inside the paper, and the New York Times ran an un-bylined brief on page A23. The Wall Street Journal had the most comprehensive print coverage of the nation's top newspapers, with a 340-word article by Susan Davis on page A6.

Online, the Post dedicated far more ink -- er, pixels -- to Paul's fundraising prowess. An entry on the Post's campaign blog asks, "Is Ron Paul the Howard Dean of 2008?"

Paul's fervent opposition to the war in Iraq has set him apart from the rest of the GOP field, and his calls for an immediate return of US troops from Iraq present a quicker, more aggressive push to end the war than even the top Democratic candidates are presenting.

Such aggressiveness has earned Paul a substantial following online, and more than 70 percent of his recent contributions were gathered on the Internet. Since the beginning of the year, Paul has raised more than $8 million, according to the Associated Press, which also published a lengthy report on Paul's third-quarter haul.

While impressive, Paul still trails the top GOP candidates in fundraising, but the last three months have allowed him to close the gap. His most recent collections are just half of what the best-funded Republicans, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, raised.

The $5 million cash on hand Paul has will allow him to increase his paid staff from 44 to 50, and it will allow him to mount media campaigns in early-voting states, but there is still a deep skepticism that Paul could become a top contender or has much of a chance to come away with the nomination. His support still languishes in the single digits in polls of voters.

The Politico scoffs at the idea that the cash infusion would turn Paul into a "contender," but does allow that he could play "spoiler," especially in "Live Free Or Die" New Hampshire.

The full impact of Paul's fundraising remains to be seen, although the Politico assures its readers that he "won't have enough support to win an early primary or caucus."

However, Republican voters' dissatisfaction with their candidates remains high, and in addition to opposing the war, Paul is for drastically reducing the size of government, and he is pro-life.

“Everything that was wrong with the Republicans in 2006, Ron Paul is an answer to,” David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian CATO Institute, tells Politico. “He clearly is reaching a national constituency.”

The following video is from CNN's The Situation Room, broadcast on October 4, 2007.

Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer Situation Room 10/04 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGFyh92HoCU)

10-06-2007, 03:05 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/assets/images/player/logo-abcnews.gifA Big Boost for the Underdog
Candidate Ron Paul managed to raise $5 million in three months.
10/04/2007 (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3686127)

10-07-2007, 01:04 PM

10-07-2007, 03:28 PM
Let Freedom Ring--RON PAUL 2008!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgCE53OxLAM)

The Ron Paul Factor
What Does The Future Hold For The $5 Million Man?
Oct. 6, 2007

(CBS) This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul announced this week that he raised more than $5 million in the third quarter, a figure that put him in the orbit of Arizona Sen. John McCain ($6 million) and far ahead of Mike Huckabee ($1 million). [The former is considered one of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination, and the latter was identified by former President Bill Clinton as the only "dark horse that's got any kind of chance" for the GOP nomination.]

Not bad for a guy who has generally been treated as a fringe candidate whose only impact on the race would be as a punching bag for more legitimate candidates looking to score political points. For example, in one of the early Republican debates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani attacked Paul for saying extremists "attack us because we've been over there."

Paul is far from a typical Republican presidential candidate: He has been against the war in Iraq from the outset and embraces a libertarian platform that includes dismantling the Department of Education. His support is largely Internet-based, with 70 percent of his donations coming online, according to Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton. His passionate supporters regularly bombard online news stories with comments on why Paul is the only candidate worth considering in the GOP field.

But Paul is little more than a blip on the national radar screen, coming in at just 3 percent support in a Washington Post-ABC News poll out this week. Despite his fundraising prowess, he remains a long shot to win the GOP nomination, and Huckabee dismissed Paul as "anything but" electable in an interview with CBS News this week.

"The Republicans are, frankly, divided up between nine or 10 candidates," said Huckabee. "Libertarians have one guy and they're fanatically loyal to him ... but it's not a Republican crowd, it's essentially either a Libertarian, in some cases, just an anti-war crowd."

Paul now has the money and name recognition to make an impact even if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, however. His campaign staff has grown from 10 to 40-plus over the past few months, and his team is now working on a second round of television ads. Benton says Paul had more than 30,000 donors for the quarter.

But Paul wants to do more than siphon votes from the bigger candidates in the GOP field. And if he is unable to become a legitimate candidate for the Republican nomination, he could potentially become the most serious and recognized presidential candidate in the history of the Libertarian Party.

Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, and Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory says he is welcome to seek the party's nomination this time around. "It was fantastic to see that wide support (for Paul)," said Cory. "It's a positive sign for the Libertarian Party and for liberty in general." Cory said his party does "not want to ride Paul's coattails," but noted that he is encouraged by Paul's success. He says if Paul continues running as a Republican, he hopes "some of his integrity rubs off on his opponents."

There is a potential stumbling block to Paul jumping to the Libertarian ticket: A number of states, including Paul's home state of Texas, have "sore loser laws" that prohibit a candidate who loses in the primary of one party from appearing on the ballot with a different party in the general election. "If Paul were to seek our nomination, he'd have to make sure his name wasn't on those ballots," said Cory. "It would not disqualify him from being our candidate, but would weigh heavily on the minds of our delegates."

Paul has repeatedly said that he will not run on a third-party ticket; this week he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "the system is so biased against a democratic process of allowing competition. You know, we can't get in the debates, it's hard to get on ballots."

Benton, Paul's communications director, echoes that sentiment.

"He has run as a third party candidate before," said Benton. "You spend half your time and two-thirds of your money just getting on the ballot. In his mind, the only type of candidate that could run a successful third party campaign would be a very, very wealthy person that could self-finance."

"You never say never, but it's 99.9999 percent," added Benton. "It's as close to absolute as possible."

By Brian Montopoli
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

10-07-2007, 03:55 PM
The money came from the helpers.


10-07-2007, 04:05 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
You can be evasive, if you like.

The wee little people like to think of it as a grassroots movement.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/7_garden_gnomes.jpg/792px-7_garden_gnomes.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAmTV-Y_Rl8)

10-08-2007, 09:44 AM
Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep.+Ron+Paul%3a+I+advocate+ the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700

10 hours, 53 minutes ago

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

10-08-2007, 11:35 AM
Ron Paul Admits Addictions... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWAcEI1_-qg)

10-08-2007, 11:38 AM
RON PAUL IS GOING TO WIN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ossfov9p-qk)

10-08-2007, 11:50 AM
Congressman: Dollar Could Collapse To Absolute Zero
Presidential candidate Ron Paul warns of coming global economic depression
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, October 8, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has made a dire prediction that the dollar could collapse to absolute zero - precipitating hyper inflation, soaring oil prices and a global economic depression if current policies are continued.

"Once they realize the American people have awakened to the con game that's been going on - I think those people running the banking and monetary system aren't going to be too happy," Paul told the Alex Jones Show on Friday.

The Texas Congressman forecasts that if current policies are prolonged, the dollar could crash all the way to nothing and be forced to start over.
"If Bush is foolish enough to start bombing Iran, that might precipitate such a crisis as oil going to $200 dollars a barrel and really dampening the enthusiasm of the whole dollar," said Paul.

"If they continue what they're doing, it's gonna go to zero, we're gonna have runaway inflation, all paper currencies eventually self-destruct and are ruined, and we're in uncharted waters right now - this is the first time in the history of man you've had no solid currencies around the world and this has been going on for 35 years."

Paul agreed that elitists would seize upon a global depression by posing as the saviors and offering more control, police state and big government as the solution.

"This was the whole thing that started in the last depression," said Paul, "Scare people to death instead of blaming the Federal Reserve for the depression and the financial bubble of the 20's, they said 'well capitalism failed, it was that stupid gold standard', therefore we have to have welfare and of course everything they did prolonged the depression."

Paul said his warnings about the impending collapse of the U.S. economy, which stretch back years, were helping his campaign gain credibility due to the unfolding crises in the market and the credit crunch.

When the people understand how the Fed screws up the economy and causes all the bubbles and all the changes that have to come from that, I'm getting a lot more calls," said Paul.

The Congressman also discussed the continued success of his campaign and the establishment's attempts to stifle its importance.

The presidential candidate said the reason that the Democrats and Republicans are trying to speed up the primaries is because they don't like competition from third party and grass roots candidates and are trying to prevent them from gaining traction.

"The move right now is to try to close the primaries - do you think they're sincere when they say they want to have a big tent and invite new people in? They can invite a lot of new people in but they don't want constitutionalists evidently because they want to make it tough to vote in a Republican primary," said the Congressman.

"It confirms the fact that the control of this whole system has been one party so to speak, it's one group of people that control both parties and right now I think the people are getting disgusted with it and they're starting to wake up," he added.

The Congressman stated that the popularity of his campaign outstripped even his expectations and slammed the establishment networks for attempting to skew Paul as a fringe candidate.

"It doesn't discourage our supporters, it enrages them," said Paul, "They always claimed that there were just a few of us out there that cared and that they were bloggers manipulating the Internet - well you can't manipulate to the point where you get 35,000 new donors who average about $40 dollars a piece and raise $5 million dollars and outpace many of the other candidates."

Paul said the other candidates had initially tried to ignore his platform, before ridiculing it, to the point where they are now being forced to adopt constitutionalist rhetoric in order to compete with his burgeoning popularity.

10-08-2007, 12:04 PM
Ron Paul For Real? On ABC News 'This Week' 10-7-07 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHZmu1D395E)

10-08-2007, 12:06 PM
CAFFERTY FILE: SHOULD PEOPLE LISTEN TO RON PAUL? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFAEDom3j8M)

10-08-2007, 12:47 PM
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/images/freemead.jpg (http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html)

10-08-2007, 02:03 PM
BlueAngel wrote:

Seems the tide has shifted from zero media attention to much media attention.

A new game plan?

No, just that they let the morons out.

10-08-2007, 02:28 PM
George_Bush wrote:
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/images/freemead.jpg (http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html)

A Message to Americans from Ron Paul -- 9/20/07 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Att92W11aFs)

10-08-2007, 03:11 PM
Leonardo wrote:

George_Bush wrote:
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/images/freemead.jpg (http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html)

A Message to Americans from Ron Paul -- 9/20/07 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Att92W11aFs)

Get Together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfHWOGnxZyg)

Doing the Ron Paul 2+2+2... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4442472576529740937)

10-08-2007, 04:34 PM
Librae wrote:

Leonardo wrote:

George_Bush wrote:
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/images/freemead.jpg (http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html)

A Message to Americans from Ron Paul -- 9/20/07 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Att92W11aFs)

Get Together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfHWOGnxZyg)

Doing the Ron Paul 2+2+2... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4442472576529740937)

Ron Paul TV Commercial Ad (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uQlrz1Tzg)

Ron Paul Commercial (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tAMmZmITVk4)

http://files.meetup.com/516078/Ron%20Paul%202008%20Poster%20-%20Who%20Is%20Ron%20Paul.PNG (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

Ron Paul 30 second commercial (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-NbwWeVXQ)

Ron Paul Commercial (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Fsv7iwZRc)

Ron Paul 2008 Commercial 3.5 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cUTdg9gKwcU)

10-08-2007, 05:20 PM
The Revolution has begun - the Ron Paul rEVOLution Worldwide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0b1YKfwlbY)

10-09-2007, 09:43 AM
BlueAngel wrote:
Does Ron Paul believe in rEVOLUTION?

?NOITULOVEr ni eveileb luaP noR seoD

10-09-2007, 10:58 AM
October 09, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

Ron’s Revolution
Could Dr. Paul really surprise us all?

By Dave Kopel

This weekend, I attended and spoke at the Second Amendment Foundation’s annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, which was held at a convention center in northern Kentucky, a few miles away from Cincinnati. What I saw and heard there changed my mind about the viability of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy; Paul is going to far outperform the expectations laid out for him.

First, for some background: twenty years ago, the Second Amendment Foundation (the second-largest pro-Second Amendment group in the U.S.) began sponsoring an annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, in conjunction with other pro-gun groups, including the NRA. For a full working day on Saturday, and half a day on Sunday, the conference features 10-15 minute speeches by writers, radio hosts, group leaders, and other pro-2d Amendment activists.’’

This year, the audience was the biggest ever. At the first conference I attended, in Dallas in 1988, Ron Paul gave a speech on behalf of his Libertarian Party presidential candidacy. I had liked Paul ever since I had met him in 1981, when Paul gave a thoughtful speech to a group of several dozen interns at which I was present (at the time, I was a congressional intern for Pat Schroeder). I voted for Paul in 1988, and in light of the performance of President George H. W. Bush, I’m glad I did.

Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson. (Included among the materials distributed were Romney’s gubernatorial signing statement of the Massachusetts ban on so-called ““assault weapons,”“ and a copy of Sen. Russ Feingold’s letter to Senator Thompson after the passage of McCain-Feingold, with Feingold’s handwritten thanks, claiming that the bill never could have passed without Thompson’s help.)

Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)

I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.

The volunteers loved Paul’s speech, of course, and so did the large majority of the rest of the GRPC crowd. The GRPC activists are very wary of politicians whose pro-gun positions are a matter of convenience or calculation, rather than sincere dedication to the Constitution. The top tier of the Republican field obviously has a problem with candidates whose 2007 positions on guns or other issues are inconsistent with some of their past actions. You have to get down to Mike Huckabee before you can find a candidate who doesn’t have a consistency problem. (Huckabee’s record on the Second Amendment is perfect, and his statements clearly prove that he understands and believes in the issue, and isn’t just reciting platitudes and talking points.)

The people who have been looking for “the Constitution-in-exile movement” can stop searching for the non-existent secret headquarters in The Federalist Society’s offices. Instead, they can just drop in on a Ron Paul rally. Paul’s goal is to restore the Constitution to full strength. Ronald Reagan aimed to undo or temper some of aspects of the Great Society and the New Deal. Paul aims for much more, to demolish the corporate state that was built in the early 20th century and was entrenched by Woodrow Wilson during World War One.

His message contains nothing that is different from that which he’s been saying since he was first elected to Congress in 1976, or that which you can hear every four years from the Libertarian presidential candidate. However, this time the message comes with a serious national field operation. (Run by Dennis Fusaro, who formerly was state legislative director of Gun Owners of America, and knows a lot about how to leverage a group of dedicated and highly ideological activists.) With five million dollars raised in 3Q 2007, it appears that Paul’s message is catching on.

In the handful of campaigns that raised more money in the third quarter, some of the donors were engaging in “pay to play”—raising money from their business contacts in order to buy “access” and influence in case the candidate wins. One can be assured, however, that nobody is giving money to Ron Paul in order to buy 2009 “access” to the Executive Branch. They’re giving money because they want to eliminate about 90-percent of the federal government’s cash and regulatory boodle for rent-seekers.

Undoubtedly Paul is being helped by the Iraq issue, since he is the only Republican candidate who advocates withdrawal. But it would be a mistake to characterize his campaign as single-issue in the sense of George McGovern’s in 1972 or Tom Tancredo’s today. Some of Paul’s fans disagree with him on the Iraq question, but like him enough on other issues to support him overall. His supporters span a broad ideological spectrum, because they can find common ground in our Constitution’s rights and freedoms. How many other Republican candidates are getting Democrats to re-register as Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primaries?

The Republican Revolution of 1994 promised substantial shrinkage of a bloated federal government. The Republicans who were swept into Congress in 1946 had promised the same thing, and they delivered a great deal. The 1994 Republicans delivered much less, were out-maneuvered by President Clinton, and eventually became part of the problem.

But deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.

Like the Ronald Reagan message (and unlike the Pat Buchanan message), the Ron Paul message is fundamentally positive. There may be some anger about the depredations of huge and aggressive government, but the campaign’s theme is “Hope for America” and its premise is that the American people are good people who can achieve the best for themselves, their families, their community, and their nation when the federal government gets out of the way and stops behaving like a helicopter mother.

As with Bill Richardson (my favorite Democratic candidate), I strongly disagree with Paul’s approach to the Iraq War. But I’m thrilled that a candidate with such a strong pro-constitution vision is doing so well.

Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.

Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense, so Paul has lots of room for growth. If he can keep raising enough money to get his message out, then with some strong finishes in the early states, he will start getting earned media. And beyond that, Ronald Reagan is among the many candidates who have proven that many voters will support someone even if they disagree with him on many issues, if they respect his integrity and find hope in his optimistic vision.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGVhODdiZjY5NDljNDA5NWUwYTY1NmJmZDBiOWQzM2I=

10-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Thursday, October 11

Ron Paul; nothing but net.

What are we to make of Ron Paul? …pretty much nothing and everything according to the pig farm press and the low roar of the voices outside the muffled doors of the ruling junta. Ron Paul is doing something that no one else, so far, has been effective at. Dr. Ron Paul has found the pulse of the country and the sleaze-balls who hijacked the ship of state don’t like it one bit.

He won the Michigan debate with numbers of 70 to 80% according to the CNBC poll; so they took the poll off the site. He wins everywhere and he has won everywhere and the money is pouring in. Dr. Paul, barring some- “wink, wink, nod, nod” event is going to be a real factor in the election. Ron Paul looks like he might win.

There are a very few other honest candidates; relatively honest candidates (in my opinion)- Kucinich, Gravel and possibly John Edwards; candidates who would certainly be better than anything we have had to work with for awhile.

Al Gore could have well been one of the best presidents America had but he got gang-raped and neutered by a nasty band of thugs who knew that the whole country was ripe for the same thing. It was an orgy of excess and abuse. They stole everything that wasn’t nailed down and then they sent out for crowbars.

John Kerry was a stalking horse who never intended to win. What they promised or threatened him with we will probably never know but we can take it prima facie that that is what happened.

So far the media has been content to not mention the truth about the numbers and just ignore Ron Paul. Other times they just make up their own numbers and the people nod their heads and migrate for the icebox. If people don’t hear about him then he probably isn’t there. The debate moderators are content to smirk into their sleeves and play chutes and ladders with the process.

The commentators don’t mention him and when they do it’s with a mocking, ‘he can’t win’ contempt. The entire mainstream media is all of a piece, owned and manipulated by a small cabal of neo-con imperialists, centered in Tel Aviv, London and Washington D.C.
At certain periods of history these same slithering reptiles appear again and again. They materialize in periods of confusion and uncertainty and they warp the mass understanding with a calculated series of events that herd the bi-pedal livestock along pre-determined routes. First they stoke their fear, then they grab their minds and their hearts and asses follow.

Whether it’s the sinking of a battleship, a Reichstag Fire or a 9/11- 7/7 series of false flag actions, they manage to facilitate the will of the bankers and fill the coffers with booty while the public is shaking their own.

You would think that people would catch on after awhile. For some reason this formula always works. It’s probably because most people just aren’t very bright. Those that are can be had through intimidation or a piece of the action.

Yes, this Ron Paul is a problem. He is catching the heart of the people and they are responding. Every public poll you see, whether it’s on MSNBC or CNN invariably shows Ron Paul with a massive volume of support. FoxNews says that a small handful of Ron Paul supporters are manipulating the data. A cursory look at the potential for this proves it is a lie and begs the question that if it is possible to do… then… why aren’t all of the other candidates doing the same thing?

There’s no difference between Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush. Her vote on the Lieberman/Kyl bill showed that. Her snuggling with Rupert Murdoch in the cloakroom tells us even more. I used to defend her. I used to hope for something from her. She sold her soul for the wrong kind of power. The same people that own Bush own her.

Obama is a callow poster boy for glamour over substance and the rest of the field doesn’t warrant an opinion.

I do not agree with Ron Paul on all of his positions. However, I am a utopian in a world that will never see it and my views on how things should be and what the right course ought to be are not important. I don’t represent the general views of the American people in any identifiable way. I’m not even an American anymore, if I ever was.

America seems to be blessed with a mysterious protection that brims forth in dark hours. All along the course of America’s short journey to the top of the heap she has been the beneficiary of some serendipity of the right people showing up at the right time. Even with all of the ugliness in her history and the continuous effort to control her for all the wrong reasons she seems to have always found her way forward. I begin to wonder if Ron Paul is not another expression of that.

I don’t know Ron Paul and I don’t trust politicians. Politicians can be expected to behave as long as the constitution is strong and a solid balance of power exists; as long as there is an informed public. I don’t know what Ron Paul plans to do about the pernicious influence of Israel upon American domestic and foreign policy. The biggest problem in the world today is Israel and unless they are brought to heel there is no telling where events may lead.

What I do know is that Ron Paul is most often captured telling the truth. Nothing is more undesirable for the present rise of fascism than truth-tellers. It is far more undesirable that they would seek the highest office in the land. Out of the blue here comes Ron Paul and there is no doubt that he has captured the popular imagination. It will be interesting to see what the criminals who are presently in control are intending to do about him.

Ron Paul appeals across the board to a very wide spectrum of the population. He has managed to position himself on every issue in a way that makes a strong connection with large blocks of voters. He is one scary guy and that’s a very good thing.

These times in which we are living appear like a drunk lurching down the sidewalk. There is no vision and there is no room for honest speech and action. The police are behaving like private contractors. The people have lost their own integrity and replaced it with empty rituals of obeisance to a corporation Jesus or they wander in the flesh-pits of instant gratification. Their leaders are hollow vessels filled with sound-bites and false promises. Ron Paul can only be a good thing by comparison.

Until now there has been nothing that has stoked the fires of possibility with the same power. Most of the people know that 9/11 didn’t happen the way they said it did but that hasn’t come to much. Most of the people want out of Iraq and know that lies led you into it but that hasn’t come to much. Most of the people know that Bush and his handlers are criminals but that hasn’t come to much. Most of the people voted in a new congress that had assured them they would make the necessary changes and that has come to nothing.

Nothing is going to happen until you have the sense to support and vote for honest men and women because nothing can change until there are people in a position to change things. Given what we’ve seen of the swine at the helm I would say that Ron Paul could be in a lot of danger. But maybe, as I said, this is another one of those times where America is the beneficiary of some mysterious force. If that is the case then, America- you have my congratulations. If not, you have my deepest sympathy from a distance.

10-11-2007, 03:49 PM
In Iowa, Rep. Ron Paul Upstages Six Republican Presidential Hopefuls

WHEN TWO IOWA organizations, Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR) and the Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA), planned a June 30 Des Moines forum of presidential nomination candidates, they chose to exclude maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul. The Republican congressman responded by renting the adjacent hall for his own campaign rally timed to begin as the ITR/ICA “Presidential Candidates Forum” ended. Paul—whose bold insistence in previous debates that terrorist attacks against the U.S. are “blowback” resulting from an interventionist U.S. foreign policy—has garnered considerable public support and rattled pro-war Republican leaders.

To the surprise and chagrin of ITR and ICA leaders and a line-up of six candidates for the Republican presidential nomination—former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA)—Paul’s rally drew twice the number of enthusiastic supporters.

During an interview immediately after the rally, this reporter asked Rep. Paul, an obstetrician, former USAF and Air National Guard flight surgeon, and 10-term congressman, what he would do about the crisis in the Holy Land. “I would treat it like the rest of the world,” Paul replied. “I’d want to be friends. I wouldn’t want to interfere. I wouldn’t send money. I would let people sort out their problems. And I think Israel would be better off. I think the Muslims would be better off.”

Asked if he would continue U.S. support for Israel, Paul said, “Not financially, because I think they lose on this, because we tell them when they can defend themselves and when they can’t. We stopped them when they wanted to talk to Syria, and I think they should. If the Arab League wants to offer them treaties, they ought to consider them. So, I think, long term, we undermine the support for Israel by talking over everything they do.…They’ve become dependent upon us. So, I would change that.”

He continued: “I think the general advice of minding our own business, staying out of it, being friends, trad[ing] with people, trying to encourage them to run free markets, that’s the best approach.”

A report in The Des Moines Sunday Register accurately described the Presidential Candidates Forum crowd as “subdued” and the crowd for the Paul rally as “raucous.”

—Michael Gillespie