"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C. S. Lewis
Why is anyone surprised that the upcoming "debate" in New Hampshire - co-sponsored by the GOP and Fox News - would exclude Ron Paul? Such a decision only adds evidence for the proposition that the major political parties and mainstream media are a unitary system employed by the corporate-state establishment to maintain its authority over the nation. Their function is to generate support for an ever-increasing array of "problems" to be addressed by ever-expansive state powers; their role is not to question the arrangement. In furtherance of this singleness of purpose, political parties have embraced the virtue of "bipartisanship," while the media boast of their "responsible" forms of journalism.
Boobus Americanus could be counted upon to reject the inclusion of so-called "third parties" into political debates - ignoring the fact that the Republican Party, historically, was the most successful of third party offerings. Thus were the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Socialist Party, etc., kept in the wings; their alternative policies and philosophies marginalized. Tweedledum and Tweedledummer were the only voices allowed to be heard in a supposedly "democratic" system.
Press Release from the Paul campaign on the unfair and unbalanced Faux (Fox) News move to exclude Ron Paul from the upcoming New Hampshire debate:
Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, issued a press release this afternoon about Fox News' presidential candidates forum scheduled for January 6. His release is below.
We thank Mr. Cullen for his statement today and for his efforts with Fox News.
***** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: December 31, 2007
Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party
NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS
CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:
“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”
“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”
“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”
A new law in the state of Minnesota which is effective January 1 2008, requires all US flags sold in the state to be of American manufacture. Violations of the law, will be punished by a $1,000 fine or 90 days in jail.
I am glad I live in a state that protects me from foreign made flags and the criminals that would sell them.
I am glad the state is protecting me from:
The terrible effects on society from foreign made flags?
The dangers of saving money on my flag purchases and having more money to spend on other things?
The danger of making a poor choice in my flag buying decision. I mean if the government didn't make the choice for me, who would? Would I have the vast knowledge, training, experience and the concern of the government?
I just know if the government and our fearless elected leaders made this decision it MUST be in our best interest. After all the politicians really care about you and me. That is what they always tell me.
Yeah right! I hope someone violates this law and takes it to court.
The law is supported by the Flag Manufacturers' Association of America (shocking I know), which has complained about a flood of foreign-made U.S. flags, valued at $5.3 million in 2006. Gee I wonder if they lined the pockets of some of our wonderful legislators?
From an Op Ed in the December 30, 2007 New York Times:
In Bethesda, Md., in a squat building off a suburban parkway, sits a small federal agency called the Office for Human Research Protections. Its aim is to protect people. But lately you have to wonder. Consider this recent case.
A year ago, researchers at Johns Hopkins University published the results of a program that instituted in nearly every intensive care unit in Michigan a simple five-step checklist designed to prevent certain hospital infections. It reminds doctors to make sure, for example, that before putting large intravenous lines into patients, they actually wash their hands and don a sterile gown and gloves.
The results were stunning. Within three months, the rate of bloodstream infections from these I.V. lines fell by two-thirds. The average I.C.U. cut its infection rate from 4 percent to zero. Over 18 months, the program saved more than 1,500 lives and nearly $200 million.
Yet this past month, the Office for Human Research Protections shut the program down. The agency issued notice to the researchers and the Michigan Health and Hospital Association that, by introducing a checklist and tracking the results without written, informed consent from each patient and health-care provider, they had violated scientific ethics regulations. Johns Hopkins had to halt not only the program in Michigan but also its plans to extend it to hospitals in New Jersey and Rhode Island.
From an article on AntiWar.com by David T. Beito and Scott Horton:
Those who think that Paul's noninterventionist outlook somehow amounts to a "weakness" on the terrorism issue might examine the view of the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer – the man whose team gave the Clintons 10 separate opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before Sept.11.
After a debate last May when Congressman Paul tangled with former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani over his view that we're threatened by suicide terrorists due to our bombings, occupations, and support for dictatorships in the Middle East, Scheuer released a statement defending Paul.
"Of [all] presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Dr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter." He continued, "[Y]ou can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Dr. Paul's frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda's one indispensable ally."
Terrorism is a tactic adopted by weak actors. Having limited resources with which to wage war, groups like al-Qaeda resort to a sort of foreign affairs judo, using the enemy's power against itself – in this case, us. The action for them is in the reaction. Al-Qaeda's strategy is to recreate the old Afghan jihad against the USSR: hit the U.S. and our allies hard in order to provoke invasion and occupation to bleed our treasury and military dry. They celebrate our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as steps toward our eventual total withdrawal from the region.
Scott Pearson Saturday, December 29th, 2007 Scott Pearson, Asst. Professor, Business Management and Economics, Washington College; President, Value View Financial Corp.
“There are many reasons to like Ron Paul - commitment to life, his efforts toward lower taxes and controlled spending, and not least, his stance against endless, no-win wars. But in these days when the dollar is dropping like a rock, it is his position on monetary policy that is most timely.
“Dr. Paul is admirably addressing issues that the other candidates aren’t even aware of.
“He is undoubtedly, our best hope for the future, and I endorse his candidacy for president without reservation.”
Ian M. Keogh Thursday, December 27th, 2007 Ian M. Keogh, Academic Dean, North Florida Institute
“When politicians bring up the Constitution in conversation, my ears perk up a tad bit. This is because the Constitutional issues that are discussed usually deals with amending our document to fit whatever political scheme they deem necessary, be it defining marriage or issues with cracking down on crime. At times, I become very defensive about such “do-gooder” politicians who feel the prime purpose that an amendment serves is to discriminate. This makes me very uncomfortable thinking that an oath was taken by these same politicians to defend the Constitution – as it then becomes painfully obvious to me they probably haven’t read the thing.
“I believe Ron Paul has actually read the Constitution. Even more shocking, he actually understands it. The Constitution is a document of the people – the contract that spells out, in salient detail, what our government do, and more importantly, what it cannot do. My support goes to any politician who speaks of the Constitution not as a set of chains to the potential power they can wield, but instead will go to the politician who speaks with a sense of awe and amazement at the power that the Constitution itself wields.
“Thus far, only Ron Paul has had the courage to do so.”
Brian Mark Weber Thursday, December 27th, 2007 Brian Mark Weber, Adjunct Professor of English, Anne Arundel Community College
Official Endorsement for Ron Paul for President
“After careful consideration of many other candidates, I have found that Ron Paul’s vision for our country is my vision as well. I want an America with a strong military that protects our nation, but does not police the world. I want the Congress to do its constitutional duty and declare war, not leave it up to the president to send our troops overseas on a whim. I want the federal income tax eliminated in order to control the size and power of the federal government and, moreover, to restore my right to keep the fruits of my labor. I want America to retain its sovereignty and not become subservient to the United Nations, the North American Union, or other political entities other than those under our own Constitution. I want immigrants to become legal citizens, learn our language and our culture, pledge allegiance to our flag, and fulfill the American dream as full participants in our society. I want federal judges who will rule based on a reasonable and strict interpretation of the Constitution, not to serve their own personal political agenda. I want America to build solid relationships with other nations without becoming entangled in their politics. I want an economic policy that will benefit America and will not erode its sovereignty or financial strength. I want an America that feels obligated to follow the Constitution because its ideals are so grand and so necessary for our people to remain free. This is the America of our Founding Fathers, and it can only be realized again if Ron Paul is the next president of the United States. Therefore, I hereby officially endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States.”
Dr. Nael Aly Tuesday, December 25th, 2007 Dr. Nael Aly, Dean of the College of Business at California State University, Stanislaus
Dan Endsley Monday, December 24th, 2007 Dan Endsley, Co-Founder, Home Education League of Parents (HELP)
“Ron Paul’s long-term, consistent support of a family’s right to homeschool is only one of many reasons I support his candidacy to become our next President.”
David B. Collom Monday, December 24th, 2007 David B. Collum, Professor of Chemistry, Cornell University
“Ron Paul is the only economically literate politician on the national scene–a true fiscal conservative. While others actively avoid third rails of politics, he actively embraces them. Ron Paul received the first political campaign contribution that I ever made. He also received the second.”
Dr. Murray Sabrin Sunday, December 23rd, 2007 Dr. Murray Sabrin, Professor of Finance, Anisfield School of Business; Executive Director, Center for Business and Public Policy, Ramapo College of New Jersey
“Ron Paul is an authentic American hero who has the courage to speak the truth about the big government polices that are undermining our liberties, weakening our economy, destroying our currency and damaging our nation’s standing in the world. A Ron Paul presidency would return America to a free, prosperous and peaceful society. We must help Dr. Paul win the GOP nomination.”
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Friday, December 21st, 2007 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., President, Ludwig von Mises Institute; Editor, LewRockwell.com
“Ron Paul is the most extraordinary statesman in American history. His peaceful revolution is undoing a century of statism and war.”
Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo Friday, December 21st, 2007 Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Professor of Economics, Loyola College in Maryland; Senior Faculty Member, the Ludwig von Mises Institute
“This election may be our last chance to save America as a free society, and Ron Paul is the man of the hour. He is the Jefferson of our time.”
Dr. Mark Thornton Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 Dr. Mark Thornton, Author, Former Economic Advisor to the Governor of Alabama, Senior Fellow Ludwig von Mises Institute
“Ron Paul’s call to return to the Constitution of limited government is the only thing that can save this country from economic decline and further losses of liberty for all Americans.”
American blues guitarist, singer and former member of the the Fabulous Thunderbirds Jimmie Vaughn (older brother of Stevie Ray Vaughan) talks about his support for Ron Paul:
Peter Schiff is a stock broker, financial analyst and author who is a frequent guest on CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg Television and is often quoted in major financial publications. He is the president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc.
Ron Paul speaking before the U.S. House of Representatives on May 2, 2007
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers' efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents' comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers' access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.
Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects!
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden-death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
This legislation also addresses the FTC's violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC's standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech should be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.
Madam Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn't we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, gave a speech entitled "Civil Liberties in Wartime" at The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties" conference, June 3, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, in Reston, Virginia.
Here is an excerpt of the speech where he points out that the National Security Agency (NSA) can turn on Blackberries in order to listen to peoples conversations. He also states we need a Ron Paul in the White House.
An excerpt of a speech given by Ron Paul before the House on July 10, 2003. Some excerpts of the text of the full speech were posted on December 21, 2007. For the full text go here.
An interesting article on Lew Rockwell.com. Government regulations and subsidies are responsible for much harm. Here is another example of that harm and how the freedom loving policies of a Paul Administration would help to reduce CO2 buildup in the atmosphere.
I highly reccommend LewRockwell.com as a site to visit on a frequent basis.
A quote from Robert A. Heinlein. Robert A. Heinlein was a science fiction writer. His better known works include The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
Most politicians nowadays fall into the category of those who want to control, this is why they fear and try to marginalize Ron Paul. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians that doesn't want people to be controlled.
Here is a piece done by Harry Browne back on March 31, 2003, just after the start of the Iraq War. Unfortunately it is still very relevant today and will be as long as the neocons/interventionists are in power:
* - Don't miss the surprise twists in these productions, when members of the "Coalition of the Willing" discover they've been targeted by Rule-the-World Productions.
Your Guarantee of Superior Entertainment These great dramas are brought to you by the same talented team that brings you:
Government Health Care Government Education Government drug War Government Welfare Government Foreign Aid Government Farm Subsidies
and our all-time #1 award-winner:
Government Postal Service
The Credits
All produced by the world's largest enterprise:
The United States Government
Remember our motto:
"We're from the government and we're here to help you."
Notice
Due to conflicts of interest, we've had to cancel:
Operation American Freedom
Our Apologies
We apologize that some of our previous epics ended tragically.
Operation Vietnamese Freedom didn't live up to its advance billing.
Operation Panamanian Freedom was scripted to end Panama as a drug conduit, but instead destroyed the Panamanian military - leaving no way to stop the flow of drugs.
Operation Iraqi Freedom: the Prequel was intended to produce an Iraqi uprising and an end to the evil demon, but we changed the script at the last moment.
Operation Kosovo Freedom ended the ethnic cleansing of Albanians, but mistakenly replaced it with the ethnic cleansing of Serbs.
Operation Afghan Freedom enabled the Taliban to come to power.
Operation Afghan Freedom II produced a lot of Rock & Roll and recycled veils, but it also left the country in the hands of feuding warlords and a U.S.-imposed viceroy who fears for his life.
But we promise that you'll love Operation Iraqi Freedom. Unlike the last few productions, we guarantee to kill all the evil-doers - and even more!
[Note: All countries mentioned in the Coming Attractions have been accused by the U.S. government of terrorist connections or are currently designated by Freedom House as "Not free." Most of these governments engage in torture or other human-rights abuses. And you aren't pro-torture, are you?]
Harry Browne (1933 – 2006) was an American libertarian writer, politician, and free-market investment analyst. He was the Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party in 1996 and 2000.
Here is Adam Curry's endorsement of Ron Paul. Adam Curry is a broadcasting and Internet personality well known for his stint as a VJ on MTV and often called the 'Podfather' because of his involvement in the development and promotion of podcasting.
A listing of some veterans who are supporting Ron Paul. This listing can be be found at RonPaul2008.com. Each name provides a link to the personal endorsement from each veteran.
Veterans for Ron Paul
Why has Ron Paul received more donations from active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines than any other Republican presidential candidate?
It's simple. Throughout his career, Ron has proven his patriotism by supporting a strong national defense and fighting for the rights of veterans.
Most importantly, all veterans – and all other citizens – would have confidence that with Paul as commander-in-chief, soldiers would never be put into harm’s way unless America’s national security were at stake. Paul has always stood for military readiness, secure borders, and the fair treatment of our troops – never “nation-building,” crusades for democracy, and “peace keeping” at the behest of the U.N.
Ronald Reagan, who knew a patriot when he saw one, was an excellent judge of Paul’s character: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.”
Read below the testimonials of veterans and military personnel from all branches of the armed services. You'll see why Ron Paul is the choice of more veterans than any other candidate for president!
Will Albenzi, Former United States Marine Corps Corporal
Rob Alexander, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Air Force
Lori L. Bell, CIV AFRRI/MMO
Aaron Book, U.S. Marine Corps Reservist, Stationed at Gowen Field in Boise, Idaho
Steve M. Boscarino, Former U.S. Air Force TSgt (1975 – 1985)
Robert M. Bowen, TSgt, Retired, USAF
Joshua Brannon, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps (1996-2006)
Matt Brennan, Vietnam Veteran (1965 to 1969, mostly with the 9th Cav. of First Air Cavalry); Author, Brennan’s War
Michael M. Brennan, United States Air Force 1967-1971, Southeast Asia 1968-1969
Layne Buck, U.S. Navy Veteran (1991-1997)
David Cary, Infantry Sergeant (1973-1977); CFO of i2 Technologies
Jesus Correa, U.S. Army Sergeant, (1995-2001), honorably discharged
Patrick Coughlan, Former U.S. Marine
Scott Cousland, Former U.S. Army Sergeant (1982-1991. Served as a Senior Satellite Network Controller; Training NCO at the U.S. Army Space Command Fort Meade Detachment during Desert Shield/Desert Storm
Arthur Curtis, Army Staff Sergeant, Bosnia (’97/’98), Iraq (’03/’04), and Afghanistan (’05/’06); Awarded two Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan
W. Harris Dalton, Jr., Navy Korean veteran serving on the USS Sicily with Captain Jimmy Thatch and the Black Sheep Squadron
Lawrence J. Daniel, SPC, B-3/320 FA/BN, 101st ABN (2000-2003)
Warren DeLarme, U.S. Navy Veteran, 1996-2000
Dr. G. C. Dilsaver, Clinical Psychologist; Director, Imago Dei Clinic, Harrisburg, PA; Former Marine Corps Infantry Officer
Ronald J. Dot’o Sr., U.S. Army retired, 37 years active duty and reserves - Active Duty for Berlin Wall, Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Desert Shield/Storm
Dennis B. Drake, USMC VietNam; President/CEO of www.BetterandBetterTechnologies.com
Michael W. Durden, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army Reserve (Combat Veteran)
Bert N. Fall, Iraq War Veteran, former Sgt. in the Ohio Army National Guard
Sarina E. Forbes, 10+ Year U.S. Air Force Veteran (1986-1997)
Dr. James Forsythe, Former Air Force officer and KC-135 Pilot (12 Years Active-Duty Service, 4 Years in the Reserves); Professor at the Air Force Academy
Tom Gabriele, U.S. Army Infantry (5 years); 1988 U.S. Military Academy at West Point Graduate; Police Detective
Bill Gage, Retired US Army Reservist; Small Business Owner
Avery T. Gamble, Pennsylvania Army National Guard
Charles A. Gathers, United States Air Force Veteran, 2000-2006
John W. Gilbert III, Ssgt., United States Air Force (1979-1984)
Gregory Gooch, Captain USMM, U.S. Navy Veteran (1966 -1969) Boilerman [BT]
Taylor Adam Groce, Former US Army Sergent, Served Honorably During the Current War in Iraq
Armando R. Grundy-Gomes, Corporal, United States Army (8 year Veteran), Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran; Small Business Owner
Michael Harkin, Former Captain, United States Marine Corps
William J. Hill, 10-year U.S. Marine Corp Veteran, including during the Iraq War
Patrick Holman, 92nd Bombardment Squadron, SAC, U.S. Air Force (1982 to 1987), Fairchild AFB, Washington
John H. Hutchinson, M.Ed.; Vietnam-Era Veteran
Sholom Keller, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran
Michael Kelly, Lt. Col (Retired), U.S. Air Force
Carroll P. Kemp, Enlisted in 1953, RA 18439393, trained as Mil Pol, earned commission as 2Lt Arty, Korea, 7th Inf Divarty Apr 54-Oct 55, tours in Europe and various stations CONUS, Provost Marshal, Qui Nhon and Pleiku, RVN Jun 66 - Jun 67, retired as Provost Marshal, Ft Huachuca, AZ, Mar 1973
Jon D. Kunsch, Lt. Col, USAF, Retired
Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, Retired
Nathan LaHue, 12-Year Veteran, U.S. Army and Reserves
Roxanne Long, U.S. Navy Veteran (1998-2002), SM3
Mike Macek, Former Captain, USAF
Kevin L. Mackey, O5G Signal Security Specialist, United States Army Security Agency (1975- 1978)
Thomas M. Mangum, Sergeant First Class, United States Army, Retired
Sean Clinton Marshall II, Former Private First Class, U.S. Army, Airbourne Infantry of the 82nd Airbourne Division
Philip Mart, Cpl., U.S. Marine Corps, Two-Time Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran
Lester Martin, Marine Corps Veteran (Corporal), Served in SE Asia and Africa During the 1990s
Joshua Martsch, Sergeant, USMC Active Duty (9.5 years); 2 tours in Iraq and an additional year in Okinawa, Japan
Bob McClure, QM3/c U.S. Navy
James W. McConnell, Colonel, US Army - Retired (Served as 1LT in 173rd Airborne Brigade RVN ’70-’71)
Luckie Jewell McDonald, Florida Army National Guard (1999-present) OIF IV (2005-2006)
Suzanne Stewart McDowell, U.S. Army Veteran
Jesse Neveau, SSG
Tim Odom, Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom
William Ogden, Army Veteran; Military Policeman (1980-1983; Iran Hostage Crisis); Small Business Owner
Jerome M. O’Sullivan, Major Ret. AUS; Former Captain of Marines, Bronze Star, Purple Heart
Christopher Paul, Former Marine Vietnam Veteran
Jeffrey C. Peskoff, SSG, Iraq War Veteran, 12-Year Army Veteran, Medically Retired due to Injuries from OIF
John A. Pfister, Vietnam Veteran 1969-1970, U. S. Army, 1st Inf. Div., SP/5, Awarded 2 Bronze Stars
Victor Lee Pillow, Army Cavalry Scout (Feb ‘00 - Jan ‘05); Sergeant, Iraq (May ‘03 - Jul ‘04)
John Price, Vietnam Veteran- 1st. Calvary Division 1968/69
Karen Raiford, Former U.S. Army Sergeant
Carl Ray, Retired Marine Corporal; Retired Teacher
Daniel J. Reed, U.S. Navy, Petty Officer Third Class
William A. Reiner, Vietnam Veteran
Dale Ritchey, Former Paratrooper and Gulf War Veteran
Jay Roberts, Former U.S. Marine Corps infantry enlistee, U.S. Navy Submarine Officer; Current Candidate for Republican Nomination in Maryland District 8 as part of statewide Ron Paul slate.
A.J. Salim, Former Sergeant USMC Veteran, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (7 Years Active Duty)
Bryan Schaefer, U.S. Navy Veteran July 2001-July 2005 USS Kitty Hawk
Charles F. Schaffstall, Sr., World War II Veteran; Retired Owner, Founder, and President, Schaffstall Manufacturing, Erie County, NY
Royal G. Schoen, 11-Year Military Veteran
Marcus Schuff, Iraq War Veteran, Specialist, US Army Reserves (2001-2007)
Eric Seabury, Army Veteran
Christopher Stone, U.S. Air Force (2001-2007), 1C6
Jeff Szymanski, Cpl. USMC (1997-2004)
Mark A. Taff, U.S. Army Veteran (1990-1991, Persian Gulf War, HHC, 4-37 AR, 1ID Mech.), Honorably Discharged with Rank of Specialist; Executive Director, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Former City Councilmember, City of Colville, Washington; Former Vice-Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Washington State
Whitey "Bo" Thompson, Awarded 11 Purple Hearts
Adam D. Timperley, Minnesota Army National Guard Attached to the U.S. Army’s 1st Calvary Division; Wounded in Combat by Injuries Sustained in Baghdad, Iraq in 2004
William J. Wade, MSgt, USAF-Retired
Joseph Wagner, Corporal, U.S. Marine Corps
Eric Yingling, Corporal, U.S. Marine Corps, Iraq Combat Veteran
Donna D'Errico, model and actress endorses Ron Paul:
Take a look around at this country today. Do you think it resembles the kind of country that the founding fathers aimed to establish? We have land confiscation to be sold to corporations; imprisonment without charges; torture; pre-emptive war under false pretenses; the Federal Reserve's inflation; IRS domestic terrorism; deficit spending financed by China; and a dollar that is continuing a freefall in value. We have loss of sovereignty through GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, the UN. We have a secretive movement to establish a North American Union to integrate the US with Mexico and Canada. We have the government taxing you and I to pay for the welfare of illegal aliens. Meanwhile the government wants to force you to get a National ID Card so that the law enforcement can Gestapo you for your "papers" at a whim.
This is not what the founding fathers wanted for America. But there is only one candidate for president who is right on all those issues. He stands for the Constitution. He stands for personal liberty, as granted us by our Creator. He wants sound money and a humble foreign policy. He wants fair trade instead of managed trade for the benefit of insiders. He wants a small, fiscally responsible government. He wants to get the government out of manipulating your health care. And he supports your right to bear arms. He has been referred to as the founding father of our time. And, John McCain once said -- before he vied for president -- that this man is the most honest man in Washington. The man I am speaking of is Ron Paul. If you want your country back then vote for Ron Paul for president. And let freedom ring, as it did in 1787.
Please visit RonPaul2008.com to read more about the man who is America's only hope, and who is my hero.
From a Parade Magazine interview of Benazir Bhutto:
What would you like to tell President Bush? I ask this riddle of a woman.
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
Next on Fox News. Note the Fox anchor says that Dr. Paul has been "pretty prescient."
On my drive home tonight I heard the local neocons calling for the US to get involved militarily in Pakistan. These warmongers never learn. As Dr. Paul said we have been involved in Pakistan for years sending them billions of dollars. What has it got us? A terrible mess and billions of dollars poorer.
In late October, Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano gave a speech at the "Reason in DC" conference. Napolitano said "George W. Bush has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln."
Napolitano says that Lincoln committed "massive violations of the Constitution. He goes on to list some of the abuses. He states that Lincoln was a "monster and a tyrant."
On December 23, 2007 Ron Paul appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. The following exchange occurred:
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the – that iron, iron fist.
MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
For Tim Russert who thinks the Civil War was all about ending slavery:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.
"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. " The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois" (August 21, 1858), p. 16.
"There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt, returning to their allegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with the Republican party policies but who held them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith.
You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept" From a letter to James C. Conkling of August 26, 1863
For Russert to claim that the Civil War was about ending slavery just shows Russert's lack of knowledge of American History. The ending of slavery was just a side result of the War, it was not the reason for the war. The main purpose of the war was Lincoln's quest to not allow secession of the southern states.
What Ron Paul suggests as an alternative to War actually happened in Washington,DC. On April 16, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, which ended slavery in the District of Columbia. The Act ended slavery in Washington,DC and paid slave owners compensation for their slaves.
The New York Times pulled the smear it published on Monday in its "The Medium" blog. Shortly after pulling the libelous post it published this retraction:
Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash By Virginia Heffernan
A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.
Of course the Times does not retract its insinuation that the very honorable Dr. Paul is a Nazi.
The whole neo-Nazi thing is absurd. Ron Paul is a follower of Austrian Economics. Ludwig Von Mises who is consider the Father of Austrian Economics was an Austrian Jew who fled his native land when Hitler came to power.
Murray Rothbard was an American Jew who studied under Von Mises. Rothbard was an early activist in the libertarian movement and was a friend and supporter of Ron Paul. Rothbard was actively involved in Ron Paul's 1988 campaign for President.
One of Ron Paul's biggest supporters in the current campaign is Lew Rockwell. Rockwell is the founder and President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rockwell was a student and friend of Rothbard.
This smear campaign against Ron Paul is absurd in the extreme. Paul philosophy is the exact OPPOSITE of the Nazi's. Ron Paul whole career has been spent supporting individual freedom.
The neocons are scared of the Paul movement. They are scared that people will wake up to the neocon lies.
Congressman Ron Paul to Speak at NH Liberty Forum December 11, 2007
Nashua, NH -- The Free State Project is pleased to announce that Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul will be the keynote speaker at the closing ceremonies of the upcoming New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Nashua, NH.
Congressman Paul will cap a full weekend of noteworthy speakers including Senator John Sununu and Liberty Dollar founder Bernard von NotHaus. Ron Paul will speak on Sunday afternoon, January 6th.
The recent surge in membership and movers and the ability to attract first rate speakers shows the continuing impact of the Free State Project. Irena Goddard, FSP president noted that "the presidential primary is the main reason for the surge in interest in the FSP. We are very pleased to have a pro-liberty candidate with rapidly increasing popularity as one of our featured speakers. We think it shows how serious our members are about politics and making better communities, a better state and a better country."
Other presidential campaigns have expressed interest in appearing at the forum, though no speaking times have been confirmed as yet.
The Liberty Forum is a 3-day convention focusing on successful political and social action in New Hampshire. Members and friends of the Free State Project will socialize and get a firsthand New Hampshire experience. Locals will learn about the FSP, meet its participants, and get to understand their goals and how they can work together.
There will be multiple program "tracks" covering many interests. Panel Discussions include Media, Jobs, Education choice, 2nd Amendment, Drug Policy, Making the Move, Working with Political Parties and Taxpayer Activism.
The Liberty Forum runs January 3-6, 2008 at The Crowne Plaza, Nashua, NH
Here is life long warmonger Bill Kristol balsting the honorable Ron Paul. Kristol is always itching for another war. Of course he doesn't go and fight in them. A sad little man.
Oh my God America, Look at Ron Paul, this is so big. He looks like one of those founding father's friends They only lie about him because he's winning so many people over They just keep telling Lies about him, LOOK, it's gross Let's take America BACK
I like Ron Paul, and I can not lie other candidates can't deny that When Ron Paul walks into a republican debate and throws the constitution in yo' face we get inspired, make home made flyers He's sparked a political fire. Deep are the truth's he sharin I'm hooked and there's no back steppin Oh-ba-ma I woulda got witcha, but pro war's a label that fits ya I can not vote Mitt Romney because he cheats in Polls, he's such a phony ohh Mrs. Clinton you say you want wars to end well you, see, confuse me, cause you vote for em ARE YOU STOO-PEED They say we got no chance man if you think that's a load of crap man Then SHOUT-OUT WHAT RON PAUL'S ALL ABOUT I'm tired of magazines that don't really report a thing take the average american and ask him Jack Does America got your back say ladies, Ladies. Does Ron Paul impress the Ladies Then turn around and point it out Make the whole damn country shout Let's take America BACK
They like the government big and the elections rigged They just can't help themselves they think that we are animals that won't resist a scandal But I'm in my home gettin UH fired up UH UH I ain't the only one either son that sees that our rights are almost gone We need to read the constitution and realize were in trouble, before we burst the bubble, and our whole economy crumbles. So I'm watchin YouTube Videos National Id Card is at your door ever heard of the Amero We've forgotten what our country stands for A word to the thick headed spinsters I wanna get witchya, I won't cuss or hitchya but I gotta be straight when I say I wanna BOOOO till the break of dawn O'Reilly is such a pawn cant you see what's going on These punks take the truth and spin it Deceiving the USA And it's wrong, come on it's been going on for way to long Hey Fellas, Fellas Are you startin to feel rebellious Let's take this, take this Freedom thing all the way Let's take America BACK
Yeah America, when it comes to this Years Election Front runners aint got nothin to do with the right selection This is just like 1776 ha ha Ron Paul for president in 08
So the media is fighting harder cause our fund raising goes much farther But the Others couldn't do it even if they want to We're gonna get the job done because we got funds son We got a Blimp flyin up the East Coast And the world record has just broke They Media just plays the Hard Role and say that we wont meet our goals So They Breed a lie, and then feed it and hope we're dumb enough to believe it. so Oprah supports Barack, I ain't down with that cause Martin Luther King wouldn't support one thing that is going down in Iraq Giuliani in drag, how embarrassing you it ain't miss thing we need a real man a politician Freedom fighter and an obstetrician. Some knuckleheads try to diss, cause Ron Paul is on my list They had a chance but they chose to bash him We said fine we'll just give him cash then to the tune of 6 mil in a single day just get your butt up out our way or go to Ron Paul 2008.com and defend your country today
Let's take America Back
They fear the constitution we must take it back They fear the constitution we must take it back They fear the constitution we must take it back They fear the constitution we must take it back
Okay, I said I wouldn't post until after Christmas, but I came across this and just had to post it right away. Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com exposes the Smear Ron Paul Campaign, the dirty deeds and the slimey characters involved.
Ron Paul won numerous mentions on the McLaughlin Group's 2007 annual awards show:
Clarence Page awarded Ron Paul "Most Charasmatic."
Eleanor Clift awarded Ron Paul "Capitalist of the Year" for his Internet fundraising.
And last but not least:
John McLaughlin awarded Ron Paul "Person of the Year." "The physician-politician," McLaughland said, "he injected the Presidential campaign with a dose of truth serum. Paul's straight talk on Iraq, and his straight talk on the Constitution, as Buchanan pointed out, and the limits of government have made him an Internet phemonema. In fact, Paul has become an independent force in the nation's life."
From Steve Gordon's Blog, Gordon Unleashed, showing the absurdity of demands that the honorable Dr. Paul return a $500 donation from a white supremacist:
Ron Paul’s a Fag according to this logic, at least. At issue are allegations that Ron Paul is racist because his campaign didn’t return a $500 donation made by an alleged white supremacist. Writes disenter:
Using the logic of the Neocon smear machine (1, 2), Ron Paul is now a certified homosexual! That’s right, this is groundbreaking news exclusively from disinter.
I am gay. My boyfriend and I have both donated the maximum $2,300 to Ron Paul’s campaign, and can you believe it? He hasn’t returned the money! So there you have it folks, there is now no question that since Ron Paul accepted money from not one, but two (gasp!), homosexuals that he is, indeed, a flaming fag. I don’t think he has the drag-queen thing down quite yet though, perhaps Fruity Rudy can help him in the department.
Liberty Maven has uncovered a letter from the office of the “Main Stream Media Czar”. Unfortunately, the letter was not signed by name, only title. We didn’t even know there was such a thing as a “Main Stream Media Czar” prior to discovering this letter. My only reaction to this letter was, “it all makes so much sense now.” Here is the letter itself, transcribed word for word.
We in the main stream media all know that Ron Paul cannot win the presidency because of his extremist views. Given this fact, it is important we don’t allow him the same media coverage as our preferred candidates. It is true that we must give him some coverage, but it is also true that we must adhere to the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” when giving him coverage during this campaign season. Generally, the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” can be summed up in two words:
Marginalize him.
Here are some wonderful tactics to utilize when applying the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule:
Continually label him as a long shot candidate. This is the most important of all the tactics so we list it first. Sure, it is true that Ron Paul has won or placed high in many straw polls across the country but we must never mention it. Instead, in every article or television news story copy we should use one or more of the terms “dark horse”, “long shot”, “barely registering in the polls”, “quixotic”, or “gadfly”. If we can do this consistently, our job is complete.
Attack his supporters. Ron Paul has a stellar personal record with his marriage of over 50 years, 5 children, and 18 grandchildren. His political record is also exemplary with him never voting to raise taxes and always voting in accordance with the Constitution. Because of this, attacking him on his record is a daunting task. The best method to marginalize him is to attack his supporters. This can be accomplished by calling his supporters names like “kooky”, “crazy”, “conspiracy nutjobs”, “paultards”, and the like. This is classic “guilt by association” and works well on the apathetic electorate.
Call him “Libertarian” as much as possible. Continually giving him the libertarian label is a great covert method of Ron Paul marginalization. This reinforces that he’s not really a Republican even though he has held office as a Republican for 10 terms. We find that if you are in radio or television you may even say the word “libertarian” using a negative tone during questions. This perpetuates the extremism inherent in Ron Paul’s policies even though the word libertarian simply means: one who believes in liberty.
Continually ask him if he’s planning on running as a third party candidate. This tactic should be used often. It accomplishes two things. First, it suggests that he is not a serious candidate for the Republican party. Second, it will get him on record as saying he won’t run for a third party. If he should happen to run third party at a later date he can be attacked for changing his position.
Ask him if he would support the GOP nominee if he doesn’t win. Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and wishes to bring the troops home from overseas in order to help stem the tide of government overspending. This makes him different than all of the other Republican candidates who support keeping our troops overseas indefinitely. As media we must make all attempts to not only marginalize his candidacy, but also marginalize his steadfast message of linking the cost of the war on terror to our economic woes here at home.
Focus on his campaign strategy rather than his message. Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace should be overshadowed by talk of his successful grassroots campaign. The more we focus on how he raises money and the types of supporters he has, the less time he has to talk about his message that is sure to resonate with most Americans. We must make all attempts to block or cloud that message. If it were to get out, it could spell doom for our chosen candidates.
Attack him for not returning donations from fringe supporters. White supremacists and prostitutes have donated money to Ron Paul and that is bad. We can use our political correctness and superior morality as a weapon and ask him why does he not return that donation money. After all a white supremacist would do more good with having an extra $500 in his pocket than a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies while preaching peace and equal rights for everyone.
Abolishing the IRS is crazy. Attacking his stance on abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing is also effective. After all most Americans don’t know that we could do without the income tax if we just went back to the same level of government spending that we had in the 1990’s. A great method is to reply to his answer with an incredulous “replace it with NOTHING? How can the government function?” comment. This tactic will scare people into believing in how the government always has our best interests at heart. It will help people ignore the fact that Ron Paul also wants to cut government spending drastically in order to balance the budget.
Label him an isolationist for his foreign policy views. Since he wants to bring our troops home from not just Iraq, but all of the 130 other occupied countries he should be deemed an isolationist. It doesn’t matter that Ron Paul wants free trade and travel with other countries and thus is not truly an isolationist. The people will believe what we tell them to believe.
This directive gives us several tactics to be used in the fight against Ron Paul’s candidacy for president. We should use them all and use them often. After all Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace is antiquated and has no place in our authoritarian world.
From Newsmax, pollster John Zogby gives his opinions on the GOP candidates for President:
Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."
Excerpts from National Review Online columnist John Derbyshire's endorsement of Ron Paul:
Which brings us back to Ron Paul, and the appeal thereof. How on earth did we arrive at this point of vast, bloated, and secretive government, in which the wives of inconsequential federal officials (the office of the vice presidency used to be a byword for inconsequentiality — “bucket of warm p***,” etc.) have chiefs of staff, whose actual staffs and actual budgets are undiscoverable by a reasonably intelligent citizen?
The other day I got an e-mail from a reader. I get lots of e-mails from readers, of course, but this one stood out. A man’s death, said China’s Grand Historian, may be lighter than a feather, or heavier than Mount Tai. I feel kind of the same way about reader e-mails. This one landed in my in-box with an almighty house-shuddering thump. It’s from a reader in the Mile High City.
Mr. Derbyshire,
I saw your post on The Corner that one hundred dollars of the now nearly $16 million dollars Ron Paul has raised this quarter are yours. I’m up to $150 dollars, in twenty five dollar increments, plus another thirty something dollars for yard signs. I donate online and man, do I love hitting that send button.
The first vote I ever cast was for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Today, I look at the Huge Government Republican establishment in Washington D.C., and read its enablers … and I have no idea who these people are, or what happened to the GOP I signed on with.
I’m in construction and get paid by the hour, so a twenty five dollar donation to Dr. Paul is roughly one pre-tax hour of my labor.
So here’s the deal: for every two weeks that Ron Paul is in the race, he gets the fruit of an hour of my time and effort. And every time another member of the conservative intelligentsia disparages Dr. Paul’s campaign for a limited and constitutional government, it will just make hitting the send button that much sweeter.
I don’t know that I can say any more about my reasons for supporting Ron Paul than my reader said right there. I, too, like my reader, have no idea who these people are, and don’t even seem to be able to find out (see above). Probably they are all, like Dick Cheney, very nice people, taken as individuals: but that they are all toiling away in anything I recognize as the national interest, I cannot believe.
From Kimberley Strassel’s piece in the Dec. 14 Opinion Journal:
Paul rallies have with voters waving placards and shouting “Liberty! Liberty!”
Are those supporters crazy, as some colleagues tell me?
Perhaps they are, to be shouting for liberty in 2007, after decades of swelling federal power and arrogance, of proliferating taxes, rules, and interests, of gushing transfers of wealth to politically connected elites from working- and middle-class grunts, of the college and teacher-union scams, of the metastasizing tort-law rackets, of ever more numerous yet ever more clueless intelligence agencies, of open borders and visas for people who hate us, of widening cracks in our sense of nationhood (“Press one for English …”), of speech codes and race lobbies and judicial impositions.
If those people are crazy, though, I want to be crazy with them. I’m for liberty, too. That’s why I’m for Ron Paul. And why do we have 75,000 soldiers in Germany?
The Online NewsHour rode along as the blimp took to the skies for three hours to promote Paul’s candidacy and his small-government platform. The dirigible drifted over the Charm City’s skyline and suburbs, displaying its gigantic “Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul” and ‘Ron Paul Revolution’ banners. The blimp rides like a boat, tipping and rolling with the wind. It is also unpressurized. With easily (and safely) opened sliding windows, the blimp offers a chilly ride in the December air.
The blimp is a result of the entrepreneurial and creative endeavors of Paul’s passionate and Web-savvy supporters who, unsatisfied with their underdog candidate’s showing in the national media and polls, created a company outside of the campaign to rent and fly the blimp, which costs $350,000 a month to operate, across the East Coast as the primary elections near.
Paul supporters Trevor Lyman and Elijah Lynn hashed out the blimp idea on a Ron Paul Web forum over the past several months. They then created Liberty Political Advertising as the vehicle for funneling unrestricted cash donations into funding a flying billboard for the Paul campaign.
Lyman also helped mastermind the two ‘money bomb’ fundraising days that raised more than $10 million for the Paul campaign in the fourth quarter. The Dec. 16 “Tea Party” fundraising push hauled in $6 million, the most money raised in a single day in American political campaign history.
Lyman’s unconventional, grassroots approach to promoting Paul outside the auspices of his national campaign has defined the anti-war Republican’s bid for the presidency. Despite his back-of-the-pack showing in every poll during the primary campaign, his supporters will spread Paul’s message to anyone who will listen.
The inventive, somewhat decentralized strategies that Paul supports have been used to spread his message are tied to Paul’s libertarian, market-based political ideology.
“He wants the markets to come up with the ideas and to feed the needs that are out there … so he let it alone and provided the message and focused on that,” Lyman said during an interview aboard the blimp. “We took that message and amplified it through our efforts. I think it has been a great illustration of allowing the markets to do it, (to let) the entrepreneurial spirit to take over.”
This video chronicles what the corporate media did not. A massive demonstration on the Santa Monica pier for the Ron Paul campaign that raised $6,000,000 in a single day.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Monday through Wednesday of this week shows Ron Paul tied for third with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire.
This was apparently written by a Robert E. Alexander in 1989:
SOCIAL CONTRACT
Between an individual and the United States Government
WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,
I agree to the following terms:
SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.
SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.
SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.
SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.
SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.
SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.
SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.
SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.
SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time.
Here is a list of some libertarian oriented books I've read and liked or ones that are recommended by others:
Descriptions of the books are from Laissez Faire Books:
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
It is the damndest book: a brilliant introduction to economics, a work that teaches you how to think in terms of political and economic principles, and a refutation of hosts of myths about the free market, all in one package. Hazlitt gives example after example. You want to "cure unemployment," Hazlitt says, or protect American jobs from foreign competition. You favor some government program to do just that. The problem is, you are only looking at the program's obvious results; you aren't looking at its unintended consequences. Yet you must, in order to see the whole picture. In twenty-six chapters, Hazlitt will lead you through illustration after illustration of this basic principle, and show how those favored government programs do more harm than good.
The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane
A half-century ago, when the world was engulfed in war and hundreds of millions were enslaved, a bold woman named Rose Wilder Lane wrote a passionate book which reasserted the supreme importance of individual freedom.
In The Discovery of Freedom she talks not about rulers marching through our history books, but the epic 6,000-year struggle of ordinary people to raise their families, produce food, develop industries, pursue commerce and in myriad ways improve human life. Lane celebrates the American Revolution, which dramatically showed how ordinary people achieved extraordinary freedom--and how we can do it again.
FREEDOM IN CHAINS by James Bovard
Bovard offers much evidence that despite heartening progress for liberty on some fronts, government has become more menacing than ever. Even the best-informed among us might be shocked by the scope of the government's discretionary power. "Federal agents," Bovard reports, "can seize people's house, car, wallet, boat, or other property by invoking over a hundred different federal statutes, covering alleged offenses involving narcotics, wildlife, structuring withdrawals from one's bank account, having friends and relatives play poker for cash in your home, having too much cash in one's wallet or luggage, etc. Since 1979, federal seizures of property under forfeiture laws have increased 2,500%, totaling over $5 billion confiscated from accused private citizens and businesses. Hearsay evidence is all that is required: a mere rumor or scrap of gossip can justify government stripping a person of his most valuable belongings."
WAITING TO INHALE The Politics of Medical Marijuana By Alan W. Bock
In 1996 Californian voters, in the teeth of opposition by the drug war establishment, passed Proposition 215, the Medical Marijuana initiative. Most local governments took account of the will of the people, but certain people in the state government and the drug warriors in the federal government fought it, or ignored it. This resulted in people, like writer Peter McWilliams, being arrested by federal troopers for doing something that was perfectly legal under state law.
Waiting to Inhale covers the history of medical Marijuana (from 1500 B.C.!), the medical controversy over Marijuana, the campaign and its aftermath.
"Medical Marijuana may sound like a narrow issue, but it touches on large topics such as the role of doctors in easing pain and saving lives, states' rights and popular sovereignty, and the right of individuals to make their own decisions about their lives. Waiting to Inhale is a comprehensive book about this important subject--the only book you'll need on the growing political movement to give individuals access to Marijuana for medical purposes." --David Boaz, Cato Institute
HEALING OUR WORLD (P) In an Age of Aggression By Mary J. Ruwart
Many people believe that without government, everyone would be at each others' throats. Government, we're told, is needed to maintain order. But Dr. Ruwart offers much evidence that government provokes mass misery and social conflict in this new, updated edition of her popular book . She shows how government mainly enables those with political connections to exploit taxpayers and consumers, provoking the injustice and disorder government is supposed to prevent. She explains how laws promote mass ignorance and talks about two common ways government destroys jobs.
A St. Louis surgeon, Ruwart shows how laws create a chronic shortage of medical care for the poor. She also offers compelling evidence that at least 80% of the costs of new drugs are due to excessive FDA regulation. Her new material includes an explanation of how property rights are rescuing the rain forests and the Third World poor, how one industrialized nation has lowered its crime rates by introducing restitution to victims, and why the distribution of wealth is more equal in countries with a history of liberty. A fine introduction on libertarian thinking.
LIBERTARIANISM IN ONE LESSON Ninth Edition by David Bergland
This is a comprehensively updated and rewritten edition of Bergland's classic introductory work. With insight and candor, Bergland answers the most common questions about the freedom philosophy: What exactly is libertarianism? Does libertarianism work in the "real world"? The book lays out the central premise of libertarianism -- "you own yourself" -- and reveals how that deceptively simple statement has an enormous impact on the relationship between government and individuals.
Bergland explains where libertarians stand on Social Security, gun rights, the War on drugs, poverty, the environment, taxes, terrorism, and more. In a fast-paced Q&A chapter, he contrasts the conservative, liberal, and libertarian positions on major issues. Bergland debunks the muddled thinking that encourages people to turn to government to solve problems.
"The best brief introduction to libertarianism available. Bergland is anxious to provide as persuasive and comprehensive a case as he can, and wastes no time getting to the point... He has even adapted it so it can be readily used in classrooms, and sprinkles the book with short sections differentiating among liberal, conservative, and libertarian positions on current issues." --Brian Wilson, radio talk show host
Excerpts from Congressman Ron Paul"s Address in the U.S. House of Representatives - July 10, 2003:
"Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.
In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.
We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society."
Booed by Republicans for his isolationist foreign policy views and anathema to Democrats for his anti-government philosophy, the Texas congressman was proudly out of step with both political parties. But marching to his own drummer, the grandfatherly libertarian found himself leading an online parade. Millions of dollars poured into his quixotic presidential campaign, raising an inevitable question: What's next for this free-thinking and strangely compelling grassroots crusader?
It is great that Time recognized him, but of course like most of the Mainstream Media they get things wrong. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. Ron Paul is not anti-government, he is FOR limited Constitutional government
You got to love this guy. He "speaks truth to power." Instead of backing down about keeping this contribution, Dr. Paul Paul instructs Mr. Cavuto in what are the real evil campaign contributions. Those bundled contributions given to the mainstream media's favorite candidates. Those contributions designed to buy power and seek favors from the government.
