Ron Paul

From WhyNotWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Ron Paul  edit   (Category  edit) Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax . We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited." Congressman Ron Paul (1998) Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18. star_full.gif star_full.gif star_full.gif star_full.gif star_empty.gif [Somewhat time-sensitive]

As far as primaries go, Iowa and New Hampshire do not truly represent the entire country. In most states, only Republicans and Democrats can actually vote. [That's interesting; I'd never really thought about that. -Tyler] It was the Independent voters who swung Iowa in favor of Obama, and Independents split their votes in New Hampshire between Obama and McCain. Yes, America does want change. However, I do not believe that America wants to become a mirror image of the Socialist dictatorship that has become the European Union. The problem with politics, and this reflects our failure in education, is that no one actually analyses any of the issues from the perspective of the actual citizens. I have; I know first-hand that the majority of European People are furious with their government. Tensions in Europe are reeling from unencumbered immigration, but the politicians shut the People right down. Most European countries do not have the Freedom of Speech, the great exception being Denmark. When a few countries actually allowed the citizens to vote in a referendum on the European Union Constitution, all of those countries: France, the Netherlands and Spain voted a resounding NO! What did the politicians do? They said, OK, no more referendums; no more letting the People have a voice in government. [Need reference] Do we really want America to end up in that position? We are rapidly heading down that road. Our most sacred document, the greatest legal document in the entire world, the Constitution of the United States of America, has slowly been eroded by irresponsible politicians who only care about wielding power over the masses, rather than doing the only thing they are legally allowed to do: represent the People. ... America does want change. We need change. We need to, no, we absolutely must get back to the values of our Founding Fathers, we must get back to small government in which the People control our national agenda. The country may be split on the issues between the Northeast and the Midwest, as can be seen in the clear difference in outcomes between New Hampshire and Iowa. The reason for this is clear: The Northeast is dominated by wealthy powerful elites who are willing to send our children to war, but the majority of those recruits come from the Midwest. The Northeast does not feel the actual pain of our war-mongering like other parts of the country do. I am from the Northeast, from one of the most over-taxed places in the entire country. The people of my generation are fleeing in droves because they cannot afford to pay the property taxes here. I understand the mindset of elitist New Yorkers and New Englanders. I hate them. I relate to the plight of all the rural farmers and working-class people up here who have lost their farms to bankruptcy due to unfair subsidies given to industrial farmers, and good manufacturing jobs lost to China. I hate the fact that the remaining small successful farmers here in NY are being shut down because fresh apple cider is now illegal due to unwarranted FDA regulations. I hate the fact that in NY you have to go underground to buy contraband raw milk, and that a small farmer was arrested in Michigan for providing raw milk to his customers. I hate the fact that in the Northeast the politicians claim to be for the environment, yet finance their campaigns through donations from developers who destroy the wilderness that we are famous for and build shoddy cookie-cutter developments that only the wealthy can afford. I hate the fact that those of us who want to build “green” homes the way our ancestors did, homes that remain standing for hundreds of years, on our private property, are not allowed to due so because of unconstitutional building codes. Most of all, I hate the fact that a small, but loud, minority of elites here drown out the voices of all the rural people whose ancestors actually built the cities that the elites now control. There is no question that our economy is in shambles. George W. Bush is the only person in this country to remain oblivious. Today, gold hit an all-time high of $880, the first time since 1980 when it hit $875. The problems our economy is facing today mirror that of the disastrous 1970’s stagflation. Sadly, we still have not learned our lesson. The causes are the same – high oil prices, tensions in the Middle East, a weak job market, and a plummeting dollar. The only difference is that today interests rates are artificially low, whereas the 14% back then was relative to the dollar. Today, the FED is allowing our dollar to lose its value in an attempt to stop the economy from crashing, however, the truth is that the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government are working hand-in-hand to make the dollar worthless in order to force the American People to accept a joint-currency with Mexico and Canada. The Canadian People are against it, the American People are in the dark, and the Mexican government is pushing for it. The only reason our economy is still floating above water is that we have borrowed trillions of dollars from foreign countries, China in particular. Forget for a moment the disaster that will happen when no one will buy up anymore of our debt at all. The Bush Administration has sent a large team of top economic and trade officials to China at least twice over the last two years. What could we, with no real assets, truly have to offer the Chinese in order to convince them to continue investing in American debt? The answer is simple: we have promised them that we will soon have one currency that will compete with the Euro; a currency that is balanced because it will be backed by three united governments – America, Canada and Mexico. Why should I care if I pay for goods with the Amero instead of the American Dollar, you ask? Well, because the only way to create a common currency is to create a Super-State. Once we create one giant North American Union without borders, then all that our Founding Fathers fought for will disappear. We will no longer have a sacred document in the form of The United States Constitution, because the United States will no longer exist. The Declaration of Independence will be replaced by a Declaration of World Governance. The People, all the People of the entire world, will no longer have any say in their own private lives. All of our problems, both foreign and domestic, revolve around the state of our economy, the state of the American Dollar. Only one candidate has even brought up the state of our economy. Only one candidate actually understands the root of the problem. Only one candidate has been acknowledged by economists and Wall Street as having a solid understanding of economic fundamentals. Yes, all the Republicans are now calling for tax cuts, and yes Wall Street loves that. But tax cuts will only do so much at this point. Only Ron Paul has been willing to tell America WHY our economy is in shambles. And only Ron Paul is willing to take drastic measures to restore our economy and set us free at the same time. As long as we keep printing money with nothing to back up its value (gold), we will always be vulnerable to the whims of foreign governments. We are currently living in a Paper Prison, and we are as vulnerable as sitting ducks. [Hmm... "The Money Masters" documentary actually refutes the idea that going back to the gold standard would be a good thing. Why do people still clam we should do that?] So, why should Ron Paul supporters be optimistic? Because the New Hampshire primary has proven that the wealthy elites in the Northeast, those who profit from manipulating paper currency and foreign wars, are all for the status-quo. I know, the religious Conservatives have decided to go with Huckabee, even though Ron Paul is the only one who has truly defended home-school Rights. Still, the outward religious rhetoric will only go so far; eventually Huckabee will be out, and most home-schoolers did embrace Paul in the beginning. Besides, Ron Paul believes in the Separation of Church and State, and most Christians embrace that because they know that any government that blurs that line can backfire on them (USSR banned the Orthodox Church and then re-instated it under Communist ideology). Most of the Religious Right also happens to be fiscally conservative, and only Ron Paul has a clean record on that front. Ron Paul is running against a circus of candidates who don’t have a genuine Conservative bone in their bodies; if anyone of them did, then there would already be a clear front-runner. Ron Paul has the values of real Americans at heart: Live and let live. The Constitution guarantees us our Rights; it is the corrupt politicians who have stolen our rights from us. Only Ron Paul wrote a bill to legalize raw milk. Raw Milk is the perfect issue to highlight why Ron Paul stands for all the People. Humans have been drinking raw milk since time immemorial; even Jesus drank raw milk! Suddenly, the FDA comes along and makes raw milk illegal (although Maine and California allow it). Wealthy elites in NYC have underground raw milk purchasing clubs; cancer patients and people with other chronic illnesses go out of their way to find natural, raw milk. Organic dairy farmers risk arrest to provide their customers with raw milk. And many rural, gun-totting folks wouldn’t drink anything that the government could secretly contaminate through its unconstitutional regulation. So, you see, people from all walks of life trust grass-fed dairy cows more than they trust the federal government! Apparently, the Iraq War has become a non-issue for all the candidates except for Ron Paul. Democrats have turned their entire campaigns toward Universal Healthcare and increasing taxes and spending on even more government programs. Needless to say they wouldn’t know an ounce of gold from a T-Bill. The Republicans are still using fear-mongering and warning us of the “evil Jihadists” out to get us. So, we are forced to choose between tales of poor children in crumbing schools and tales of desert dwellers with nukes. Pleeeease!!! Let’s get real! We are facing economic collapse and the end of freedom as we know it. Why, oh why, is no one talking about this? Why is Ron Paul, against entitlement programs, the only candidate actually willing to pay for Social Security for our retirees and healthcare for all by simply bringing all our troops home and using all those trillions of dollars here, in America? Why is Ron Paul the only candidate willing to use our defense budget to actually DEFEND America, here on our soil, by truly securing our borders and funding a real domestic anti-missile defense program? Why do Republicans want to build a missile-defense system in Poland, when Iran is nowhere near Poland? How can anyone believe that we do not intend to attack Russia? Please, use some logic, People! Here in my backyard, a measly $40 million is going towards real national defense: at JFK International Airport a Laser Missile Defense Protective Shield, “Skyguard,” that can detect and shoot down short and long-range and supersonic missiles is being installed. We probably spend that amount of money in one week just feeding all of the troops we have around the world. As a New Yorker, I am appalled at Rudy for turning 9/11 into a worn-out joke. I do NOT feel any safer having our troops getting killed in Iraq. I DO feel safer knowing that if any psychopath decided to aim a missile at my island that it would be detected and shot down. Our Federal Government has one primary responsibility: to defend the United States from attack. If it only costs $40 million dollars and no loss of American lives to secure JFK, then there is no excuse for any politician to tell us that we must be anywhere else in the world. Best of all, this defense system is built by Northrop Grumman, so local jobs are created at the same time. All the candidates, on both sides just want to spend, spend, spend. Where, I ask you, is this money going to come from? We have literally burned trillions of dollars in Iraq, and we have nothing to show for it except outrageous oil prices ($27 before the war, $100 now). Surge = Splurge. Now we are claiming that we were attacked by Iranian speedboats; whose water were those boats on? Last time I checked, the United States didn’t have any coastline in the Middle East. And Pakistan? We pay for Musharraf and his military; now we are going to pay for a “democratic” takeover? Pakistan is only nuclear because we allowed Bhutto’s father to develop nukes against India; and then, of course, we decided to back India instead. We have managed to support and then screw-over just about every single government in the 2nd and 3rd World. My goodness, if we just stayed at home and spent the money on ourselves we could have a universal healthcare system that would transplant every citizen with a heart made of solid gold! Face facts: We are BROKE! We ARE in a recession and the only thing keeping us from feeling the true pain is artificially low interest rates. We are floating along on a ship made out of paper. Eventually, paper will sink! Remember, very few primaries allow Independents to vote, but the voice of Independents is clear: Change is needed. So, if all goes as went New Hampshire, then Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. Some Republican will eek out a win and run against her, but who cares, no change there. In the general election there will be no real choice for change. So, what will probably happen is that Michael Bloomberg will plow his billions of dollars into an Independent race, and then Lou Dobbs will toss his hat into the race and probably win. For the record, this is my opinion: There is no one I hate more than Hillary … Except John McCain. There is no one I hate more than John McCain … Except Michael Bloomberg. I am from NY, and I know the Devil when I see him, and Bloomberg is the Devil Incarnate. No NYC Mayor has ever managed to rape the rest of New York State nearly as bad as he has; and let me tell you, that is surely saying something. ... As for the message, I would start a full-throttle economic, fiscal policy campaign. Our entire country knows we are up a creek, they just do not understand why. Everyone already knows Ron Paul is against the war; if that is the only thing a person likes about him, well that person is either an Obama or Kucinich supporter. Ron Paul will never get the votes of the Left because they foolishly believe Obama will end the war. Kucinich would have, but Obama will not. The economy is current, the war is old news. Should it be that way? No, but that is how it is. None of the candidates will talk about the war because they are all for it, and obviously the People do not care. I had to flip between New Hampshire primary coverage and CNBC to watch the record-breaking price of gold. People know something is wrong, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who can explain it to them. Sound-bites are not Ron Paul’s strong suit, that is why the debates suck. Real politicians excel at sound-bites, but the root of our current problems are economic, and sound-bites can not explain them at all. During the ABC debate, when asked about the price of oil and Paul explained the three charts in the WSJ showing the price of oil relative to the US Dollar, the Euro and Gold, he proved his point about currency inflation and none of the other candidates made fun of him because he was right and that was the first time he got to show his intelligence without being mocked, talked over or laughed at. What Ron Paul has to do is get a bunch of open-minded Independents and Republicans in a room and give one of his monetary and anti-government speeches and they will be hooked. Now it is close enough to the primaries that they will actually remember it, too. ... Ron Paul’s message is the only thing right now that will save our country from absolute oblivion. If he only awakens a few more souls, even if another moron becomes president, at least the People will be aware of their Rights. The People will be awakened to the FACT that the United States Government is OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People. We the People are not your slaves, and you have NO Right to tell us what we can and cannot do. You will not destroy OUR COUNTRY by forming any unconstitutional union, starting anymore unconstitutional wars, or printing anymore unconstitutional hollow currency. You will not dictate to Us, but you will represent Us, as that is the ONLY RIGHT you, OUR Government, have under the Constitution of the United States of America. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

Moderator: Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong? Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas): That's a very good question. And you might ask the question, why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there, and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year? So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy. I'm suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non- intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American -- it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution. I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, "Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us. Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

Conservative Values We Love Smaller Government, Health Care Freedom, Lower Spending, Lower Taxation, Private Property Rights, Individual Rights, Less Regulation, Parental control of the School Systems, Religious Freedom, Strict Adherence to Constitutional Law, Life and Liberty, Just War, 2nd Amendment Rights, Freedom of Speech, American Sovereignty, Austrian Mises Economics, Common-Sense Immigration Reform, Opposition to Socialism, Communism, Fascism and Corporatism Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

... Caucuses in Missouri, held only in presidential election years, are typically low-key affairs attended mainly by party diehards. But this year, the pro-Paul activists commandeered gatherings in the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, Kansas City and Springfield. Paul supporters also controlled caucuses in at least a half dozen rural counties. The result: Paul's supporters predict they have snagged roughly a third of the 2,137 state Republican delegates. Those delegates will determine the state GOP platform this spring and help select the presidential delegates to the national Republican presidential convention in Minneapolis in September. ... "This is a movement for change in the long term," said Ruth Carlson, a 24-year-old secretary from St. John who helped organize Saturday's push in the St. Louis area. At many of Saturday's caucuses, the Paul contingents also won approval for some of their man's key positions, including resolutions for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and against the federal Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps. But the most politically explosive resolution called for repealing the Missouri Republican Party requirement that all of the state's 58 GOP presidential delegates back the victor in the Feb. 5 primary: U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., now the presumptive presidential nominee. In Missouri's presidential contest, Paul obtained less than 5 percent of the statewide Republican vote. Missouri leaders of Saturday's pro-Paul effort insist that they're not driven by a quest to resurrect his chances for the White House. Carlson and other Paul supporters say their aim is to force the Missouri Republican Party to embrace Paul's principles. "We're not holding out an illusion that Ron is going to win the nomination," said Debbie Hopper, Paul's national field director. "This is about calling the Republican Party back to its roots." Hopper — who lives in Fenton and was herself elected a delegate Saturday at a caucus in St. Louis County — cited other caucus successes by pro-Paul supporters in other states, including Nevada, Colorado and Washington. ... Brent Stafford, a computer analyst from O'Fallon who headed the pro-Paul forces in St. Charles County, gave credit to his side's stealth preparations, which included mock caucuses. Whatever happens, organizer Carlson said Saturday's victories should prove that Republican Party leaders can't ignore Ron Paul, his views or his supporters. She added with a chuckle: "We're not just a bunch of people on the Internet. We show up."


Foreign policy

In what way should we help the people in Darfur, etc.? Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the U.S. government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties.


Articles Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18. Ron Paul and I have very few things in common besides our last name. We agree on very little, and we defend those few policy positions we happen to share on very different ideological and philosophical grounds.

My namesake and I agree on one thing, though: Ron Paul has every right to participate in the Republican primary debates.

Saul Azunis, the Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, wants Paul out of the GOP debates simply because he finds Paul's ideas objectionable. Here's the direct quote:

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night and I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party."

What nerve.

If candidates should ever be excluded from debates - and I leave that as an open question - it should be based on measured levels of support, simply so voters can get better acquainted with the more viable candidates. Interestingly, since Paul commented that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by U.S. military activity in the Middle East, interest in his candidacy has gone through the roof.

Clearly, the campaign to exclude Paul isn't based on his waning support or viability. This effort to exclude him on the basis of his ideas is more than absurd - it's an affront to democratic principles.

And if you'll permit me to idealistically invoke John Stuart Mill here, shouldn't Paul's kooky thoughts - some far more kooky than his most recent controversial remark - be exposed in the marketplace of ideas for all to see and reject?

I would think so.

This whole fiasco makes me all the more grateful to have a forum where I can ask my own kooky questions and pose my own challenging ideas.

Isn't it interesting that Republicans are all for the ol' marketplace, except when it's inconvenient for their power-grabs and profits. Posted by: David N at May 17, 2007 05:46 PM

I'm not sure what "cooky" comment Paul made during the debates. However, if everyone else is comfortable with U.S. troops remaining in the holy territories of Islam, who am I to differ? Posted by: Hedley Lamarr at May 17, 2007 06:55 PM

Is this supposed to be a suprise? Anyone threatening to run as a third party candidate, or running to the edge of his party's platform, doesn't stand a chance. I find it interesting that Scott Paul laments Ron Paul's ostracization, yet participates in the ostracization of Kucinich by his comments on a previous thread. Quite simply, our media, and both parties, are only willing to market those candidates that will participate in creating an illusion of separate party agendas, when in fact there is very little difference in their loyalties, financial backing, and agendas. The subservience to AIPAC and Israel is a perfect example of the parallel agendas that drive the popularly marketed candidates of both parties. People such as Ron Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich do not stand a chance because they are truly interested in change, and are willing to tell the American people the TRUTH about why change is needed. The scope of this media and party control is breathtaking, as CBS's recent firing of General Batiste illustrates, as does Pelosi's removal of the Iran provision from a recent Iraq resolution draft. The status quo system of corruption, illegality, media manipulation, and massive propaganda campaigns does not just enable the power on the right, but enables the power on the left as well. It is painfully obvious they serve the same masters. There is no hew and cry for impeachment because the abuses and crimes we have seen these last six years are the same abuses and crimes that the media marketed "popular" candidates intend to engage in should they be "elected". I am disgusted with the whole thing. Who woulda thought a damned blow job would have trumped treason and obstruction of Justice? If there's any one thing you can take to the bank, its the fact that WHOEVER makes it to the Oval Office, it will be because they are the best at being a lying posturing self serving piece of shit. Posted by: Pissed Off American at May 17, 2007 07:31 PM

Presidential debates were first sponsored by the League of Women Voters. A great idea and contribution to an informed electoral process. Back then, they were actual debates. Unfortunately, the two major parties wanted candidates to set their own rules, rather than abide by rules set by "women voters". They also wanted to exclude minor candidates who had achieved ballot status. This is when we stopped having meaningful Presidential debates. What we have now are more like auditions for a part/job. I wish the League of Women Voters would take back the Presidential debates and invite all candidates. People would watch and learn. The majors could participate or not. Ron Paul is the only one who has the balls to acknowledge our part of the terrorism equation. What he said about our actions in Iraq and other places in the Middle East are the truth. I disagree with him about Reagan being right, that Middle Eastern politics is crazy. Seems pretty normal to me to not want invaders in your midst, no matter where on the planet you live. This is not crazy or unique to the Middle East. Ron Paul is asking Giuliani for an apology and best of all, has named him "Benito". I'm loving it. Posted by: Kathleen at May 17, 2007 07:36 PM

[Blowback (category)] [Presidential debates (category)]

"If candidates should ever be excluded from debates - and I leave that as an open question - it should be based on measured levels of support, simply so voters can get better acquainted with the more viable candidates." what would be measured levels of on a petition? ..what if 200,000 supporters gave Paul $20 dollars each and one New York money man gave Rudi or McCain 5 milion dollars? How are you gonna gauge support? Nope, let them all on stage and let the American people sort it out. And while I am typing this I am listening to the polyester pundits on the MSM pronnounce who is a "nationalist and who is not..Matthews says he is a good "nationalist", who opposes the war (finally) and those like Rosie are america haters who oppose the war because they hate america. ..then another plastic pundit says she "knows" "real" americans don't oppose the war because it was wrong, but only because defeatist tell us we are losing. Must confesss it boggles the mind, Chris the peace corp dodger and a wigged gop dollie profess to know what Americans r-e-a-l-l-y think.. when if they ever fell out of their incest pool they would need a map to find their own minds. So maybe the koolaide media is going to tell us who is "viable"....? This run democracy by party wigs and fop pundits has gotten so nutty I am actually looking forward to a good cleansing revolution. Posted by: Carroll at May 17, 2007 08:27 PM

[Should candidates be excluded from debates based on levels of support? (category)] [How can you fairly judge how much support they have? (category)]

How could anyone suggest ringing the Muslim world with military bases, propping up Medieval monarchs, and squashing all the national liberation movements in the ME could have anything to do with terrorism? I, for one, would be quite happy having a dozen Chinese military bases on our border and lots of Russian missiles in Cuba. Sorry...I mistakenly thought Wingnut logic was generally applicable. It's not; that's why we call it "American Exceptionalism." Posted by: Matthew at May 17, 2007 10:08 PM

[Blowback (category)] i wrote to the writer of the article how i thought it quite interesting how he managed to frame a story around ron pauls words which guiliani challenged without mentioning ron paul once in the article.. that is impressive. who needs censorship when you have ny times writers doing that? Posted by: ... at May 17, 2007 11:31 PM

[NY Times censorship/bias (category)]

An open letter to Saul Azunis: I read that you, being a true upholder of democracy, want to "ban" Ron Paul's ideas from future Republican debates. Congratulations, you're just like a Soviet-style party boss. I hope you succeed. It will illustrate to a good share of people in this country just how corrupt this closed political system has become. Actions like this are needed to illustrate the need for revolution NOW! The two party system is no longer of use to the commoners and needs to be replaced with a parliamentary system. I realize that your well entrenched system won't go down easily. They didn't in 1776, 1789, 1848, or 1917, but fall they did on the weight of their own myopic arrogance. Once again, like in those earlier cases, an unpopular war leading to economic collapse will be the catalyst for awakening the usually apathetic Joe Sixpacks out there and ushering in a fresh cleansing! So keep supporting this war and work to ban Ron Paul for daring to deviate from the corporate party line. The future depends on it! Posted by: J.P. Marat at May 18, 2007 12:42 AM

I am down here in Austin and helping to promote and organize a fund raiser for Ron Paul this Saturday and I can tell you it is going absolutely gangbusters the last few days. Thank-you attacks from establishment GOP - like manna from heaven. Ron Paul is a real threat to the establishment GOP not just on his anti-Iraq war position, which is quite popular, but also because he is anti-tax, anti-federal government and pro-USA national sovereignty. These folks would not be attacking Ron Paul if he were not gaining support. Ron Paul is the GOP's strongest candidate and ironically the leadership is trying to marginalize or destroy him. Ron Paul is the GOP's best possible candidate against Hillary. He has very strong appeal to independents. The libertarian vote deserted the GOP in 2006 and they would come back if Ron Paul is at the top of the ticket. I think Ron Paul would be a much stronger candidate than Rudy Giuliani, who is our liberal sell-out option to nominate. Ron Paul is a long shot to be nominated for POTUS, but I feel that his campaign has only begun to shake up this race. He is running on MESSAGE not MONEY and that can be a potent appeal. Posted by: Robert Morrow at May 18, 2007 02:48 AM

The Republican party was hijacked a good while back. Chuck Hagel stole my line because I have been typing it online now for four or five years. In that process, many Republicans fell in lock step with the Neocons. These people are very confused about their personal beliefs. It appears Mr. Azuni is one of these people who no longer subscribe to Republican values or even know what they are! Mr. Paul sounds like the embodiment of Republicanism to me. He sounds old timey Republican. It strikes me as extremely odd that the Republicans want to dismiss their only chance at winning the White House. Mr. Paul's numbers are very high with him " WINNING" all the debates so far. So why can a winner?? Because Republicans have this idea that they alone decide who is one and then they tell them exactly what to think. Discrimination is high on the list to create the Best. Discrimination is rampant under the Republicans and they even practice it amongst themselves. Amazing. Republicans are scared to death of Ron Paul Posted by: liz at May 18, 2007 06:24 AM


Hey... let's play "Why" with why Scott Paul thinks Ron Paul is kooky. I went and read thru his official positions on the issues and found some, like withdrawing from the ICC and WTO and other international orgs that I think go too far but definitely not kooky. 50 years ago this was mainstream thinking actually, among what then was mostly non corp US businessmen and business owners. Maybe Paul is catching on because people think we are due a course correction to get "non multinational corp" main street US business back on the playing field? He isn't even extreme in his "conspiracy" about the US-Canada-Mexico thing....he just makes a mistake in presenting it as a conspiracy or anything that will ever be "officially" declared or "presented" to the American people as change in our NationHood... it's a change in "American Commerce" for the benefit of corps and their politicians that already exist and is secret there. I don't disagree with his immigration position or his private property position..I don't even disagree with his tax stand so far (need more info on what he considers an entitlement and what he considers welfare) but in general he is right... we taxpayers have paid enough in taxes to clone America seven times over already...that there are no other Americas out there to suit all the democracy promoters in the trillion agencies we funds to do that tells you how well spent or directed our money was. There is one thing Paul and Gravel are doing and that is talking about what they can do for Americans. Maybe people are responding to that. As luck would have it I am sitting here listening to the Mexican Amb speak to the US Chamber of Commerce and the chamber also discussing how they can "package" the SSP to overcome us dummies' opposition. Now they are on how the US and Exxon can help Columbia..maybe send them some more money and helos to fight the druggies since they have done so well on that over the past 30 years. Not. Maybe they should have been actually fighting druggies instead of guarding Exxon faculities and shooting down US missionaries. Now they are playing the "security card"..the US must aid and cooperate and shovel money to every country that strikes the corps fancy because terrorist will get us if we don't. (translated means make these countries safe for global capitalism) does this fit with in with all those illegal immigrants and now uninspected truckers coming in from Mexico. I have been listening closely and haven't heard one ... word on or anyone even pretend to mention if there is anything in all this for the lowly American worker or family or small business. Nope, Americans are totally a non-entity in this country, how dare we presume to think our politicians should actually represent us and look after our interest. And yea you can say but,but,but..this is today! and things are more complicated!...well no kidding!..and who do you think complicated them and for whom? where written in stone they can't be uncomplicated. Oh no, gag me!......cspan switched to McCain explaining how Paul blamed Americans for 911. ... do you suppose Falwell's evil spirit has taken possession of McCain's body? On the foreign policy issue if anyone thinks Paul is kooky than they also think Washington and Jefferson were kooky. What I hear from the politicians goes like this: ...more "free trade this time will give you jobs/ that the free trade last time cost you...lowering corporate taxes/ will trickle down to more jobs ....cutting taxes on the extreme rich/ will trickle for me/ or terrorist will kill you....illegal workers/ keep your consumer cost lower....kill the terriers and send your children to die in Iraq/ so you won't have to die here...LOL...don't you love the cute way they tell us how something they are doing for someone else "first" will benefit us as a "side effect"? Maybe that is why Paul has supporters. Hell I may even support him. Or maybe I will vote for official policy position is Burn Washington to the Ground and Start Over. Yea, I realize that might cost a lot of government employees their jobs, but what the hey, it's all for the greater good...they can get a new job sweeping up the ashes...and the good news for them is as a "side effect" of my policy the minimun wage increase might be in effect by then. Posted by: Carroll at May 19, 2007 01:53 AM

This is all about the First Amendment. The RNC should not follow the gov't down the path of censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for debates). Dr. Ron Paul is the only true conservative. Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title): Posted by: Kent at May 19, 2007 08:21 AM

After hearing of "Benito" Guiliani's attempt to shut-down Ron Paul's truth-telling on the blowback from U.S. (i.e., Israeli) Middle East policy we wrote out a big ol' honkin' check to Paul's campaign. You go Ron. I'm going to listen to Mike Gravel this morning on the What Really Happened radio show (GCN network) and most probably send his campaign a check as well. Carroll -- I am so with you on starting this country over. Since September 11 it's been brought home to me that "our" government doesn't give two sh-iiiites about we the people of the United States of America. Instead of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants they humiliate law-abiding CITIZENS with no probable cause by making us take off our flip-flops and confiscating our toothpaste at the airport. Because toothpaste in the arthritic hands of a wheel-chair bound 85 year old is a LETHAL WEAPON wouldn't ya know? No kidding -- I saw this happen. And as a resident of two border states, I am enraged at this amnesty bill, because that is what it is. With the full complicity of both the Democrats and the GOP, illegal immigration is crippling the middle and "lower" American ECONOMIC classes while the oligarchs in Mexico get even richer. Try going to an emergency room in southern California or southern Arizona, just try. And try to find a decent public school to put your kids into. The chattering classes in D.C. have no conception of reality because they don't have to live in this nightmare. Nor do the squishy limosine liberals like Edward Kennedy who has little chance of Hyannisport being taken over by gangs and hordes of anchor babies. This has nothing to do with racism -- I could care less if the illegals were purple who spoke Martian -- it's about economics. We the people CANNOT AFFORD funding millions of people whose country, in the ultimate irony, sits on a sea of oil. So Ron we're with you -- on illegal (and I STRESS ILLEGAL- I have nothing against legal) immigration, on restoration of the Bill of Rights, and STOPPING THIS WAR AND THE ONE TO COME AGAINST IRAN. I too must ask, what does Scott Paul have against Ron Paul? Posted by: GoRonGo at May 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Along those lines, Boxer just said, in a typically misrepresentative manner, that 80% of Californians endorse an amnesty bill. She worded it around the lines of...polls show that 80% of Californians endorse a policy that enables millions of people to "come out of the shadows". I guess this habit of just lying your ass off is contagious in Washington. I don't know what planet this lying hack is from, but I can guarantee her that none of those 80% seem to be from my community. And, I can assure her, if she would shag her ass outdoors and open her eyes, she would find that the illegals in California are hardly "in the shadows". In fact, they are on just about every fucking street corner and job site I see. Fortunately, I work with a general contractor who does extremely high end custom one-off homes, and he refuses to employ illegals, or use subs that are obviously doing so. But I can also assure her that this horseshit about these people doing jobs "that americans refuse to do" is snake oil. I know skilled tradespeople that cannot find jobs in their trades because they cannot afford to work for the pathetically low wages that are being paid to the illegals. And the only ones that win in this situation are the illegals, because quality of workmenship is usually substandard, Americans are put out of work, and when these illegals screw up a job, they simply dissappear, and there is no one to hold accountable. Add the fact that due to Home Depot and Lowes selling us pure unadulterated SHIT for building materials, (mostly Chinese goods), and running the smaller quality oriented lumber yards and hardware outlets out of business, thye housing industry is turning out a steadily declining product in terms of quality and durability. Posted by: Pissed Off American at May 19, 2007 12:54 PM

[Illegal immigration (category)]

I have done almost every single job that, "Americans won't do" -- that is, according to the Bush administration, the corporate whore Repulicans and the "liberal" Democrats. I have worked mowing lawns, picking fruit, as a dishwasher, in fast-food, as a nanny, as a maid, cleaning toilets. You name the crap job and I've done it to pay for my education and before that for food and rent. This amnesty is a big kiss to corporate America from the GOP, and a blatant vote grab on the part of the Democrats, who seem to think that the Hispanic vote is how they are going to retain control. And it is a huge, "Screw-you" to Americans who have to work for a living -- including Hispanic immigrants here legally. Especially in the border states. It's a huge "Screw-you" to the working poor because it means that companies don't have to pay a living wage, much less benefits. It means their kids won't get anything close to quality primary education, much less the chance to go to college. It ensures a permanent lower class for the corporations and the military/ industrial complex to exploit. So (thanks to the Israel lobby) we kill our own precious children and the children of others who are equally as precious to them, while spending billions a month occupying a country (Iraq) whose oil reserves we will most probably never get control of, in the meantime supporting the ex-pats of a country (Mexico) whose oil reserves we are forced to buy. The tie-in? Rather than go invade countries in the Middle East "for oil" ( a load of hooey because we didn't invade for oil, we invaded for Israel -- we get more oil out of Mexico than the 17% we get from the Middle East) let's invade Mexico, because after-all Mexico has invaded us. I meant that as a sort of pointed joke but the bottom line is that we are doing no one, including the Mexican working class, any favors by allowing Mexicans to escape their country's problems by making them ours. As it stands, our government, with the help of mushy "progressives" like the gang over at "Democracy Now" and Buzzflash, has successfully destroyed the American Dream. BTW Pissed Off American -- I am so with you too! Boxer is close to the top of the list of Israel lobby beneficiaries. And the so-called hero of the masses, *intrepid* Congressman Henry Waxman -- well, he is an UBER-ZIONIST. He needs to go represent the Knesset because he sure as h*ll doesn't represent the people of his district in terms of immigration or stopping the war(s) -- he talks the good talk but look at his walk... Posted by: MadAsHeck at May 19, 2007 02:25 PM

[Illegal immigration (category)]


Joe Schembrie (January 4, 2008). Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

Here is the full transcript of Congressman Paul's remarks, with the deleted sections in brackets:

"Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [ it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think ] the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't . . . if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our . . . if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office."]

As you can see, half of Paul's words were censored. His real message was, "We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils." The purpose of the censorship was obviously to encourage exactly such a split.

With the prospect of such a split in mind, now might be a good time for all of us who care about freedom to remember what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about. Certainly, it's about stopping a war that has killed over a million innocent people and has destroyed America's reputation throughout the world. Certainly it's about gaining control of our national finances before we become impoverished. Yet more important than the war and the economy, the dominant issue of our age is the question of whether America will continue to be a free country, or will it descend into tyranny. As anyone who follows the news knows, the trends are against liberty.

The worst example of the deterioration of our rights is in that we now live in a country where torture is accepted as standard interrogation procedure. In defiance of the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the President claims the right to arrest anyone – not just foreigners – and hold them indefinitely, and torture them as he pleases. Clearly, the intent of this initiative is not just to allow FBI agents to beat the truth out of terrorists so as to keep cities from being vaporized in the next ten minutes, because people have been tortured for years now though not a single city has ever come close to vaporization. Clearly, what the President cares about is not the safety or security of American cities, but that the Unitary Executive have the supreme power to torture anyone for any reason, and never have to account for his actions. There is only one purpose for that policy, and it's not to catch terrorists. It's to intimidate dissidents through the practice of state terror against the citizenry. To combat a handful of foreign terrorists, the government will create an army of domestic terrorists, bankrolled by your own taxes, and given bonuses and promotions based on how well they frighten you and your fellow citizens into silent compliance with presidential edicts.

Extrapolating the trends of the past few years, it's not hard to imagine a nightmare vision of America over the course of the next Presidential Administration. It begins with the issuance of national ID cards and proliferation of government security cameras everywhere. Then one day a government agent appears at your door, asking questions which indicate that your private e-mails and phone calls have been monitored. Then you make a nervous joke – perhaps about how the government spends too much time going after innocent protesters and not real terrorists – and next thing you know, you're arrested.

Why? They don't need to tell you. Habeas corpus has already been suspended. They don't even have to tell anyone that you have been arrested. You are now what is known in totalitarian regimes as a "non-person." You will learn over the long period of your incarceration, non-persons don't have rights. And then one day, they lead you into a room where screams have been coming from, and inside you see a board and a jug of water . . . am I being sensationalist here, or am I paraphrasing sworn testimony made before Congressional Committees?

You would think that the prospect of imminent tyranny would scare some sense into libertarians and make them realize that we have to stay united. For now, though, certain Christian and atheist libertarians would rather have the pleasure of bashing one another. Internet flame wars must be powerfully addicting, given that one of Sullivan's readers abandons all moderation to write: "Ron Paul's religious AND constitutional fundamentalisms are anti-historical, and consequently anti-literate, as all forms of fundamentalism are." Hmm, now how did a certain obstetrician get through medical school, let alone deliver four thousand babies, if he can't even read? Oh well, forget facts or logic – what matters is that we have our little coffee house debate, as heatedly as possible, while outside the paramilitaries gather and charge their tasers.

I'm not trying to choose sides here, but I'm puzzled that any atheist libertarian in America can possibly think that he can combat omnipotent government without the help of Christians. Polls show that eighty-five percent of the American people believe in God, and over fifty-one percent disbelieve the theory of evolution, so how do atheist libertarians think they're going to win an election if they openly mock Christians?

Maybe it's time we asked ourselves, "What would Thomas Jefferson do?"

In forming a coalition between libertarian-minded deists and Christians for the fateful presidential election of 1800, the secularist Thomas Jefferson wrote in a widely publicized letter: " . . . for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." He was a literate man who was indeed concerned with the ideas that people put into their minds – but note, his stated oath was to fight first for the right of minds to be free.

Though a sincere Christian, Ron Paul has expressed that sentiment many times now. It's something that both Christians and atheists should agree with as well, for while the debate over origins is important, there won't be any debate at all if tyranny comes, for tyranny will shut down all such metaphysical debates, demanding instead that all worship be directed to the State. Christians and atheists alike should ask themselves, whose mind and soul will be saved then?

Web sites

Ron Paul on (based on Ruby on Rails)

Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog

Blogs Retrieved on 2007-05-11 11:18.

I’m a fairly average American citizen. For my entire life I have felt like the good old days of America passed long ago. Don’t get me wrong…this country rocks, but we’ve become so dominated by government and business that it’s only a matter of time until freedom as we know it is extinct. You may look around and see a free country, but you need to realize the first freedoms are always the hardest to take away. Like anything, it’s the small compromises in the beginning that open the door to the large concessions later. As a nation we made these small compromises long ago, and as a result we have no control over the large concessions, such as the indefinite suspending of Habeas Corpus or warrentless wiretapping. The loss of liberty during my lifetime alone has been astounding. Business is running to other countries to avoid SOX compliance, we’re told how we may and may not punish our children’s and police brutality is worse than ever. Above the freedoms we have lost individually, the country has lost it’s own sovereignty as well. The United States is subject to the authority of the WTO and is facing a $100 billion potential fine for banning internet gambling and sanctions of unspecified billions for cotton subsidies. We now live in a country where our government is limited by outside organizations. So much for being top dog. If recent years are telling a tale of what is to come, then we are indeed entering troubled times. In societies throughout the world, once rights are revoked they are rarely restored. If they are returned then they are typically again removed through a different avenue. Our freedoms are an extremely limited natural resource and should be guarded with our lives. We have come to a point, however, where the average American citizen can do nothing within reason to protect individual liberties. With this conclusion, it is only a matter of time until we have none left, and our country will have traded the ways of Democracy for those of Socialism (or Fascism, depending on whether you believe government or business will take over). I estimate this to be within 50 to 150 years. Is that the country we want to live in and leave for our children?


Personal tools