Ron Paul Cheated Out Of Sure Victory In Texas Straw Pole Cancelation; Due To Lack Of Interest By Other GOP Candidates

20 09 2011

Ron Paul is riding high again after his California Straw Poll victory yesterday, but some Paul supporters are questioning why the Texas Straw Poll was cancelled for “lack of interest,” and whether it was actually killed because the Congressman would have inflicted an embarrassing defeat on Governor Rick Perry in his own state.

According to a June 16 Washington Times report, the Texas GOP decided to cancel the straw poll, which was held on September 1 last year, because of a “lack of interest expressed by the candidates,” and due to fears that the event would not recoup the financial outlay needed to stage it.

The claim that the poll was cancelled due to “lack of interest” doesn’t correlate with the firestorm of media attention generated by Rick Perry’s announcement of his candidacy, as well as the building momentum of the Paul campaign, which went supernova after the media hoax of attempting to pretend the Congressman doesn’t exist spectacularly imploded last month.

There seems little doubt that Ron Paul would have defeated Rick Perry in the Texas Straw Poll, sending out the embarrassing message that those who know Perry’s record best, lone star state voters, have no trust in his leadership. This would have been a massive blow to the perception of Perry’s electability nationwide.

A presidential survey of voters in both candidate’s home state conducted by the Azimuth Research Group last month found that Texans would be more likely to vote for Congressman Ron Paul over Gov. Perry by a margin of 22% to 17%.

Indeed, Paul has made it a focus of his campaign, including an expensive TV commercial, to bring attention to what the Perry campaign fears the most, his outing as a globalist RINO (Republican In Name Only).

A Texas Straw Poll win for Paul would have thrown fresh spotlight on Perry’s history as a campaign manager for Al Gore, and his legacy of big government policies such as his support for the Trans Texas Corridor, toll roads owned by foreign companies, and his 1993 advocacy of Hillarycare.

It would not be the first time a straw poll was cancelled by establishment Republicans in order to neutralize a winning platform for Ron Paul’s campaign. The 2007 San Francisco straw poll was cancelled due to there being “too many Ron Paul supporters”. The Colorado straw poll was also cancelled that year, with the Adams County GOP citing the exact same reason.

The establishment media has openly attempted to unfairly marginalize Ron Paul’s campaign this year. Following a September 12 Republican debate in Cincinnati, a straw poll found Ron Paul to be the winner. However, CNN refused to release the results of the poll and instead published an online poll, omitting Ron Paul from the list of candidates.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.





Ron Paul IS Electable, But The Media Would Have You Think Otherwise

15 09 2011

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has a good chance of winning his party’s nomination and the presidency next year, yet few in the media (mainstream or otherwise) seem to notice.

Ensuring that voters understand this is essential to having an informed discussion about the direction the country should take in the coming years.This is especially true because of the frequency in which people write off the congressman since they consider him unelectable.

Before we begin, I should note that I write this as someone who does not agree with Paul on everything, does not belong to any group advocating his election and does not plan to join any group advocating such.

I also write this, however, as someone who shares his passion for promoting personal and economic freedom and as someone who believes he is probably the only presidential candidate from any party that has a chance of doing net good while in office.

With that said, let’s look at some of the major indicators of electability in order to determine just how good a shot Paul has.

For many, the most important question regarding electability is a candidate’s performance in head-to-head matchups against the president. By this metric, Paul does very well, averaging 41.5 percent to President Barack Obama’s 43 percent in polls conducted in the last month.

Only one candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, does better by this standard, and his average margin of victory against the president is just 0.6 percent. Additionally, only one other candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, comes close to either Romney or Paul, losing to the president by an average of 2.5 percent.

This means voters looking for a candidate that can beat Obama but that has a more consistent record of promoting limited government than Romney or Perry should give the congressman another look.

After considering his chances against the president, most people are curious about Paul’s performance in national polling relative to his fellow Republican contenders. Despite the cable news channels’ fervent efforts to elevate statist, warmongering candidates such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Paul has consistently placed third among announced candidates for about two weeks.

His average standing in the national polls among declared GOP candidates since Aug. 27, according to RealClearPolitics.com, is third place (9.2 percent), behind Perry (31.8 percent) and Romney (19.8 percent). This still leaves him a distant third, but he has gone from trailing Bachmann by seven percent on July 20 to leading by three points as of Tuesday.

Those who think Paul is too far behind to make a surge should recall that, at this point in the 2008 cycle, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, was in a distant third place (15.3 percent), trailing former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (28.6 percent) and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (23.4 percent).

In addition, polls conducted in states that hold the first primaries and caucuses can be very important.

There has only been one general poll conducted in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire in the last month, but Paul placed a solid third in it, earning 14 percent, much less than Romney’s 36 percent but quite close to Perry’s 18 percent. RealClearPolitics.com lists three polls conducted in the leading caucus state of Iowa in the last month, and Paul averages a respectable fourth in those.

The fact that he came within one percentage point of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August, however, is a strong indication of a passionate, well-organized following, something that will be especially beneficial in small-scale contests such as caucuses and small-state primaries.This recent success in polls of Republicans in these consequential states means Paul has the potential to catch a major break if he can win or place second in one or both.

Finally, one metric that can influence and be influenced by polling numbers is fundraising success.

In the second quarter of this year (the most recent complete quarter) Paul was second only to Romney in fundraising, and his margin over the third-place fundraiser (former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has since dropped out) was a comfortable $4.5 million to $4.2 million.

This is an indication that he will be able to compete with the president’s fundraising machine in the general election.

The above figures do not prove Ron Paul is destined to be the GOP nominee and our 45th president, but the news media should acknowledge that they at least prove his viability as a contender.





Ron Paul’s View On America’s Foreign Occupation Supported By U.S. Troops

13 09 2011

The establishment media is once again attempting to smear Ron Paul as anti-American following Paul’s simple observation during the debate last night that foreign occupations increase the risk of terrorist attacks, when in reality the Texan Congressman’s views are endorsed by US military personnel more than any other Republican candidate

“Republican Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul was booed at last night’s CNN/Tea Party debate while explaining his view on why America was attacked on September 11, 2001,” reports ABC News.

The corporate media instantly seized on the boos, made by a gaggle of neo-con “Tea Party” members, as a tool through which to portray Paul as un-American, with one acerbic headline even asking whether the Congressman was defending Al-Qaeda.

It’s a common smear to equate not supporting foreign occupations as anti-American or against conservative principles, despite the fact that the founding fathers consistently warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

But like a lot of the myths circulated by the establishment about Ron Paul, reality reflects a very different picture.

Given the fact that Ron Paul has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself, his views on foreign occupations are supported by the very U.S. troops that neo-cons constantly invoke to support maintaining such foreign occupations.

Paul’s contention that the troops should be brought home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and that US bases around the world should be closed, is supported by those very same troops.

“Paul’s campaign told Politifact that Paul raised $34,480 from people in the military, compared with $19,849 for Obama and $13,848 for the other GOP presidential candidates,” reports USA Today.

“The Center for Responsive Politics says $11,350 of Paul’s military donations come from people who work for the Army. In the 2008 campaign, the center found that individuals employed by the Army, Navy and Air Force were Paul’s top three sources of campaign donations.

But it’s not just military service people who are growing tired of America’s unaffordable foreign empire. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, conservatives in general are losing their appetite for war.

Only 15 per cent of of likely U.S. Voters think the situation in Afghanistan will improve over the next six months, while more voters than ever before – 59 per cent – now want an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable to be set for ending the occupation. Republicans are more pessimistic than Democrats about the future course of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The 59 per cent figure represents a significant swing from less than two years ago in September 2009, when just 39 per cent wanted the troops pulled out of Afghanistan.

Crucially, a slim majority of Republicans now want the troops brought home from Afghanistan, 43 per cent to 42 per cent. Wars launched during the administration of George W. Bush have now become Obama’s wars. Indeed, there are more troops deployed under Obama than there were at any time under Bush.

In addition, a mere 13 per cent of Republicans support US military intervention in Libya to topple Colonel Gaddafi.

The myth that Republican candidates must not deviate from the neo-con dogma of supporting America’s unsustainable foreign occupations and the ludicrous policy of pre-emptive warfare in order to be electable is disappearing fast.

Although a gaggle of self-proclaimed “conservatives,” who in reality have nothing in common with the founding fathers, may have booed Paul’s explanation last night, the majority of Americans, and indeed the majority of US Military servicemen and women, were applauding him.





Ron Paul’s Secret Weapon by The N.Y. Sun

13 09 2011






Why Does Our Media Ignore Ron Paul?

20 08 2011

Why is the American media so intent on ignoring congressman Ron Paul and his prickly libertarian views?
Paul is running for president in the Republican primaries, and it’s plain that the handmaidens of the political establishment — Democrats as well as Republicans — are freezing him out. He came within a few votes of winning last week’sIowa straw poll, just 152 votes short among almost 17,000 cast. But rather than shower this intriguing candidate and his views with attention, the news media willfully forgot about him. The question is, why?Perhaps the answer could be found during the recentFox News debate in Iowa, in which Paul trashed Republican saber-rattling toward a potentially nuclearIran. ”They’re building up this case like, just like we did in Iraq — build up the war propaganda,” Paul said. “It’s time we quit this. It’s time — it’s trillions of dollars we’re spending on these wars.” After that, he couldn’t get himself into a news story for days. But this media freeze-out started long before. The Project for Excellence in Journalism studied media coverage of Paul from January through Aug. 14, and demonstrated that he received much less coverage than non-candidates such as Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. After reading that, I got a little paranoid and did what any reasonable guy would do. I fashioned a cone-shaped hat from aluminum foil and put it on as I typed this column. The last thing I needed was to have my mind channeled by either Democratic Merlin David Axelrod or Republican Rasputin Karl Rove. Even liberal comedian Jon Stewart, not my typical go-to source, seemed ashamed of the media’s treatment of Paul. On his show last week, Stewart ran clips of broadcast news coverage that slapped Paul around. News anchors gushed over the “top tier” Republicans in Iowa, and even though Paul came in second behind U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, he wasn’t considered “top tier” enough to be mentioned. ”Really?” asked Stewart, as Paul’s photo flashed on the screen. “You’re not forgetting … say, an ideologically consistent 12-term congressman who came within less than 200 votes of winning the straw poll? Isn’t anyone going to give that gentleman any love?” Love may indeed be the reason the media ignores Ron Paul. Under this theory, the media is merely trying to provide us with loving protection from Paul and those challenging libertarian ideals: Such as the view we shouldn’t be eager to be groped in airports or to fund another war in the Middle East, or that we should legalize drugs rather than fight the drug wars, or the wild idea that a coffee shop waitress should not be expected to pay taxes on her tips. These are extreme notions, though the principles behind them were once held dear by a few old guys in powdered wigs who founded this country. The TV people are happy to do the work for you, and tell you what notions are fit for public debate. Thinking for yourself is really, really hard, and it’s just easier to watch TV and listen to discussions about Bachmann’s hair. Another possible reason why the media is ignoring Paul could be fear rather than love. Perhaps Democrats and Republicans are afraid of him. Paul is anti-war, and there are many independent Democrats who’ve been anti-war, including those who elected President Barack Obama in 2008 and have since turned on him because, well, he recently help start a war in Libya, turning America’s two wars into three. Paul also doesn’t campaign on social issues, like outlawing abortion, or involving the government in the bedroom. He’s not a political evangelical, so Paul’s stance would be attractive to many Democrats. And that is why I put on my tinfoil hat, lest magic-man Axelrod zap me with one of his mind-control spells before I could finish typing. Yet it’s obvious that tin-foil brain prophylactics are also needed against the powers of Axelrod’s doppelganger, Rove. For years now, Rove has sputtered angrily about the libertarians, and it’s obvious Republicans see Paul as a threat. Perhaps it’s the fact that Paul ridicules the GOP military drumbeat against Iran. It may be that he appeals to tea party fiscal conservatives, and if these voters begin to lean toward Paul, the establishment GOP will be left with defense contractors, neocons and evangelicals, not enough to win a national election. Paul loathes government even more than I do, but his throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater philosophy of reform gives me pause. Still, he’s intriguing. So even a blind goose can see that by freezing Paul out, the media serves the political establishment, but that’s about it. ”It is hard for them to accept,” Paul told Politico’s liberal Roger Simon in a recent interview about the candidate’s media treatment after the Iowa vote. “They (the media) believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo, but that is a reason to be more energized.” Paul is dangerous to the status quo. And that’s a reason not to ignore him.





Reporting Fox News to the FCC for Committing Election Fraud, Using Fraudulent Data, False Polling Reports to Sway Voter Opinion

19 08 2011

The Ron Paul Campaign should sue Fox News for False Light Publication, Defamation, and Fraud, and we should all contact the FCC and other national and local broadcasting companies and news outlets and make them report on what Fox News just did.

Here you guys go, use this link
Submitted by buddharoger on Fri, 08/12/2011 – 15:39.
http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=&id=d1e664
report it !

As we all clearly witnessed, and as we can still see online (until Fox removes its original polls from online which it soon will to hide the truth as it always does) Ron Paul won a landslide victory in all online polling following the debate. Fox did not like the results of the 50 or more online polls following the debate that all showed that Ron Paul won by a landslide with margin of 2 to 3 times greater the number of votes of all the other contending candidates. So what Fox did was post a fake fixed poll that had already had Newt ahead at the time of posting. Fox posted this new fake fixed poll even though Paul was and is still winning and in first place and getting 2 to 4 times the number of votes that Newt was getting in every single other online poll. The new fake fixed poll had about 900 fabricated participants while all the other polls that showed Ron Paul winning by a landslide nationwide had roughly 20,000 real online participants or more. Then Fox said they would report on the winner in an hour using the fixed poll of about 900 people, giving noone any time to respond to the new fixed poll. In addition, I’m sure more people voted for Ron Paul even in the fixed poll, but the problem is that on the fixed poll the numbers are locked so that with every vote for Paul the computer automatically adds 1 to 3 votes for Newt within 2-3 minutes later.

If Ron Paul’s Campaign does not sue Fox News and we do not report Fox news to the FCC and all other national and local news outlets I think we are all making a terrible mistake and consciously allowing evil to persist. The next time Ron Paul gets on Fox News and other news outlets for interviews Paul should ask Fox News on the air why Fox News did not show him as the winner following the debate polls (when he was clearly winning in all of them and he should cite 10 or more of the 50 or more polls he was and is still winning in), and he should ask why Fox instead introduced a fake fixed poll with less participants and reported on that.

Suing Fox News or sending a letter to Fox News to retract their statement that polls indicate that Newt won the debate would take money and time, and the Ron Paul Campaign has both. Also, bringing attention to the matter would draw additional media attention and controversy… Clearly reporting that the polls indicate that Newt won the debate is a knowing publication of false statement of fact, which has a direct effect on Paul’s ability to win the presidency.

Grounds for the Defamation per se lawsuit by Ron Paul Campaign:

1.) That Ron Paul did not come in first is clearly a false statement of fact.
2.) Fox clearly published false statements of fact on purpose ignoring their prior polls.
3.) The purposefully misleading reporting of the polls clearly is “adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade” that is Paul’s ability to win the presidency.

Defamation: also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Defamation per se: The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

There is broad protections for commenting on political figures and public figures, and especially broad protections for political speech; however, you cannot lie about political figures or public figures regardless. This is why celebrities (who are public figures) often bring defamation suits against the media and win. Even though they are public figures, if they can prove the statements are a lie they win. Fox has armies of general counsel and in house counsel, and of course their attempt is to make the reporters couch their false statements of fact as opinion rather than statements of fact (opinion is protected). However, poll results are statements of fact!!! Although polls may be asking people’s opinion, the results of polls are facts, that must be accurately reported. Purposefully leaving out polls in favor of others, and reporting only on the other fraudulent polls is defamation. If you are reporting on poll results, the results of these polls are facts. Leaving out more reliable and participated in polls with true and accurate results, and posting the result of only one other smaller poll that can be proven to have been made with the intention of misleading voters, and which is clearly fixed and inaccurate is defamatory.

Paul needs to get candid and straightforward not only with his politics but also about the dirty tricks that are being perpetrated against him instead of acting as if these fraudulent tactics aren’t being used and allowing news organizations to continue to lie about him, step all over him, commit fraud against him, and treat him like crap. Pointing out Fox News lies and deceptive and manipulative reporting would draw a ton of attention and controversy and any media attention is good attention, especially when it draws attention to the truth, as Ron Paul always does.

David S. Chesley, Esq.
http://www.chesleylawyers.com
(818) 922-5433





Ron Paul only grown-up running for president in GOP? FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

17 08 2011

J. Cafferty

As the race for the Republican nomination heats up, there’s one candidate who’s been largely ignored by the mainstream media.

But Ron Paul is talking sense and more people ought to listen to him.

The Texas congressman has visionary ideas about where the country ought to be going and what sea changes are necessary in order to continue being a superpower.

When Paul ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 – he talked about the economy imploding, the untenable nature of the national debt, the eventual destruction of our currency and a limited role for government.

He showed tremendous fund-raising ability and had an absolutely rabid base of support. The problem was – it was too small.

In the four years since then, many of the things Paul warned us about have happened: We’re deeper in debt. The dollar is worth less. The federal government is increasingly dysfunctional, and the country is more divided than at any time maybe since the Civil War.

Yes, Ron Paul is a conservative. But he’s not one of those who hits you over the head with his bible. And looking at the current batch of republican wanna-bees, he stands out as maybe the only adult in the room.

In politics as in life, it’s often the timing that makes the difference. In the case of Ron Paul, it seems events over the last four years have finally caught up with the candidate.

Paul’s message hasn’t changed – but the urgency of what he’s saying has increased. And it seems like this time, more people may be listening.

He came within an eyelash of finishing first in the Iowa straw poll. Less than 200 votes behind Michele Bachmann out of nearly 17,000 cast.

Michele Bachmann has no chance of being the next president of the United States. Maybe Ron Paul should be.

Tx Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul





Newsflash: Ron Paul Is ELECTABLE!

15 08 2011

Ron Paul, once seen as a fringe candidate and a nuisance to the establishment, is shaping the 2012 Republican primary by giving voice to the party’s libertarian wing and reflecting frustration with the United States’ international entanglements. The Texas congressman placed second in a key early test vote Saturday in Ames, coming within 152 votes of winning the first significant balloting of the Republican nominating contest. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota won the nonbinding Iowa straw poll, but Paul’s organizational strength and a retooled focus on social issues set him up to be a serious player in the campaign. “I believe in a very limited role for government. But the prime reason that government exists in a free society is to protect liberty, but also to protect life. And I mean all life,” he told a raucous crowd on Saturday. “You cannot have relative value for life and deal with that. We cannot play God and make those decisions. All life is precious,” he said, opening his remarks with an anti-abortion appeal to the social conservatives who have great sway here in Iowa’s leadoff caucuses. Later Saturday, Paul won 4,671 votes, or roughly 28 percent of the votes from party activists who flocked to a college campus for the daylong political carnival Paul’s narrow second-place finish pushed former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty down to third, leading Pawlenty on Sunday to abandon his effort to challenge President Barack Obama next November. Four years ago, Paul sought the GOP nomination while talking about economic policy, liberty and the Federal Reserve. Since then, the tea party has risen and seized on those issues, and some regard Paul as one of the movement’s godfathers. “The country’s bankrupt, and nobody wanted to admit it. And when you’re bankrupt, you can’t keep spending,” Paul said Thursday during a Fox News Channel debate. He may lack the broad appeal that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or Texas Gov. Rick Perry are claiming, but Paul’s finish Saturday indicated he could compete. Paul typically does well in such straw polls, which rely on supporters’ intensity and organization. His base helped him win straw polls at June’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans and February’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, and his followers organize online to ensure strong finishes at any contest they can find. It is part of their effort to get rid of the notion that Paul is a fringe candidate. Paul’s 2008 campaign came up far short of better organized rivals. This time, his advisers are putting together a more serious effort that taps into voters’ frustrations with Washington and the fears about the economy. His aides are working within the system instead of against it. For instance, Paul’s base camp for the Iowa straw poll was at the same location Romney used in 2007. Romney won that straw poll after investing heavily from his deep pockets for the prime real estate. Paul’s campaign notes that it won more votes this year than Romney won four years ago during his first bid for the GOP nomination. This year, Romney didn’t actively campaign during the straw poll; instead, he is looking at a campaign launch in New Hampshire, which hosts the first primary after Iowa’s leadoff caucuses. Still, Paul finds himself outside the bounds of traditional Republicans. His opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan defines him as a dove. His skepticism toward the Federal Reserve has spooked Wall Street. And his libertarian views on gay rights draw the ire of social conservatives. He also tweaks Republicans on foreign policy, arguing it isn’t the United States’ role to police Iran’s nuclear program or to enforce an embargo with Cuba. “Iran is not Iceland, Ron,” former Sen. Rick Santorum told Paul during Thursday’s debate. Paul also proves a reliable foil for Democrats. “In previous presidential campaigns, we might have chalked extreme fringe-type candidates like Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul as an anomaly, (and) the Ames straw poll didn’t mean as much,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. “But we’re looking at the core of the Republican Party now. The heart of the Republican Party is the extreme right wing,” she told CNN. Paul, a 75-year-old doctor by training, is not backing down. “These straw poll results, our growing poll numbers and our strong fundraising show that our message is resonating with Iowans and Americans everywhere,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton said. “Our message was the same in 2007 as it is now in 2011, but this time we have quadrupled our support. That means our message is spreading, our support is surging and people are taking notice.”





Striking Distance: Ron Paul is polling where John McCain was at this point in the 2008 campaign

10 08 2011

In August of 2007, at this same point in the last presidential election cycle with fifteen months before the general election, guess who was polling at fourth place with statistically the same numbers as Ron Paul? Yup– John McCain: Rudy Giuliani: 32% Fred Thompson: 19% Mitt Romney: 14% John McCain: 11% Cool huh? Notice “front runner” Rudy Giuliani just fell off the map entirely when it actually came time for Republican voters to enter the ballot box and seriously consider voting for a Northeastern liberal. The same could easily happen for Mitt Romney. More interestingly, we can now say that as a matter of scientific polling and statistical fact, that Ron Paul has just as much chance of winning the 2012 Republican Primary as John McCain had of winning the 2008 Republican Primary at this point in the campaign season… and John McCain won. Major hat tip to Gary C. Huggins for compiling this information and connecting the dots. The implications are truly incredible.





Why Ron Paul Matters

10 08 2011

I began writing this simply as a “note” for my Facebook friends to explain to them why it is that every week I inevitably have a dozen political status updates of which most concern Ron Paul. I have had family, friends, and co-workers say, “It is clear you really believe in this guy, but what is the big deal? Why does Ron Paul matter?” For myself, the answer is part of who I have become, yet to truly explain why Ron Paul matters would require me to sit down and write it out. To be sure, anyone who asks about Ron Paul in a 10 foot radius of me is likely to get his or her ear talked off, but I truly wanted to do the good Dr. Paul justice by explaining why he matters to me. For this explanation to make sense it really has to start with my own political journey. I grew up in a very conservative and religious household. Needless to say, in 2000 and 2004 there were Bush/Cheney signs in my neighbor’s yards. Fox News was sure to be on the TV in favor of another “news” station. When 2007 rolled around it was my first chance to support a candidate when I would be of the voting age for a general election. At this point I firmly believed that being in Iraq and Afghanistan was the right thing, the bailouts had been necessary, the PATRIOT act was possibly necessary, our markets were at least somewhat free, and that by-golly if we could just get some more Republicans in office then our country would be much better off. Most of all, and perhaps the most disturbing of all my beliefs, I thought there was a meaningful difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Let me put it another way: I voted for McCain/Palin and believed that there was a significant difference between the Democrat and GOP ticket. Ok. There, I said it. I just had to get that off my chest. Only a few years later, I have thankfully realized that every belief and action in the above paragraph was foolish, naïve, and ignorant. But I am getting ahead of myself. When Barack Obama won the 2008 election, my internal political compass had already begun to shift. I freely admit 99% of me thought it was a catastrophe that he was elected, but the other 1% was glad he won. What was the source of the change? During the Republican nomination debates there was a Texas Congressman, Representative Ron Paul, who spoke of how our foreign military presence actually made us less safe. This conflicted with McCain, saying that we might need to have our military in Iraq for another 100 years was equivalent to a slap in the face. Something was going on here that I knew I needed to get to the heart of, but I was still stuck in my Democrat/GOP political paradigm. So when McCain went on to win the nomination, I put all thoughts of the humble Dr. Paul out of my head and went on to join the masses. However, when Obama won the election, there was that 1% of me that was happy as I had heard him say the first thing he would do would be pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama made his promise to get our troops out of the Middle East only immediately to break his promise upon entering office. This really disheartened me. It was at that point that I saw a e-book copy of Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto. I read it and thought it was impressive, but at the time it didn’t floor me. Weeks later, the housing bubble burst in what I thought was a very surprising and unpredictable manner. Finally in the summer of 2009 I came across a YouTube video that absolutely rocked my world. http://bit.ly/bkTDOs Here I heard a man, when so many Washington and Federal Reserve spokespeople had said otherwise, in a clear manner predict the collapse of the housing market five years before it began. Ron Paul was the man who had woken me up to the lies of our overseas militarism (although even at this point I did not fully understand the military-industrial complex) so I knew he had some credibility when it came to speaking the truth that no one wanted to hear. At this point I was certain that I needed to investigate who this congressman was. I began to check out his voting record and was astounded to discover that throughout his entire political career he was consistent. He always spoke of how we needed to secure our economic and civil liberties… and then he actually voted that way. He voted against the bailouts, against corporate welfare, against all foreign military action, against the PATRIOT act, etc. He was the consummate congressman who actually upheld his oath to support and defend the Constitution. At all times. You would think at this point I would have been completely sold on Ron Paul, but having an extremely strong understanding of economics and freedom still wasn’t quite enough. I was sold on him as a person, but I thought his ideas hadn’t taken root at large. I had incorrectly assumed that when his 2008 Presidential campaign ended that it was more or less the end of his “revolution.”

Dr. Paul, '07

I then stumbled across another video from 2002 that finally made me realize what a genius this man was. Listen to the words from 2002 and notice how he correctly predicted the Iraq War, Bush and Obama’s unconstitutional wars/policies in the Middle East and Africa, and the Federal Reserve’s actions that would cause inflation and a flight to gold from the dollar. http://bit.ly/bxQqaA He makes other correct predictions as well, but those were the most astonishing to me. It was at this point that I was Ron Paul’s man. Most importantly, as Dr. Paul says, “It’s not like I’m a powerful person. My ideas are.” I was awoken to the message of liberty. I discovered that there was such a thing as a sincere politician. I decided I would settle for nothing less than politicians who vote in accordance with their stated principles. Political parties clearly appeared to me as an illusion to keep the majority of Americans believing they were fighting for something substantial and that their politicians were “The Good Guys.” We were to be satisfied when our people won, not because they would actually ever enact legislation that our party stood for, but because our team won. A few years have gone by since my political awakening, but I feel that the amount I have recently learned has been more important than all the previous years of knowledge I had amassed. I hope the story wasn’t too boring, cliché, or soapboxish but I think it will put my view of Dr. Paul’s strengths into perspective: 1) Untouchable integrity. Dr. Paul is outspoken on issues in the spotlight and issues that deserve to be in the spotlight, but are not. He then votes accordingly without fail. Even when more progressive hosts bring him on their shows they often claim that while they may not agree with all of what Dr. Paul says, he stands by his views with intellectual integrity. 2) Civil liberties. Dr. Paul understands that our liberties are our own. To take them in the name of safety is an illegitimate excuse often used to grow or create unnecessary government agencies like the TSA. That is only the tip of the iceberg. He is one of the few congressmen who, from the PATRIOT act’s creation, opposed it every step of the way and continues to do so. The PATRIOT act is the most unconstitutional piece of garbage I have seen in my lifetime. As just a sampler: FBI agents can write a self-written search warrant (essentially a 4th amendment violation) to search anything you own. Once they give you one of these warrants you are not allowed to tell anyone about it (1st amendment violation). Not children, your spouse, your parents, your friends, or even your lawyer! Not that lawyers are on my list of important people, but if you have the FBI breathing down your neck you certainly would want one. Now many people claim, “But I’m not a terrorist, I don’t have anything to worry about!” To this I can only respond that if your government someday becomes something heinous that you oppose, you too may be labeled a terrorist. Who will watch the watchers? 3) War. Dr. Paul is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, running for the Presidency who is anti-war. Let that sink in for a few minutes. The rest of the Republicans clearly are pro militarism while Obama lied that he would remove our troops from the Middle East to get elected. In fact, he started an unconstitutional war in Libya that is akin to our military campaign in Afghanistan against the Soviets. This will come back to haunt us, just like Afghanistan did. In addition to being the only anti-war contender, he has garnered more donations from military personnel than any other candidate. This speaks volumes. (source: http://bit.ly/r9LZFF ) You cannot spread freedom through military power. Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia… need I continue? The will for freedom (not to be confused with democracy, *gasp*) must come completely from the people. More importantly, the indigenous population must be the ones to effect freedom. Who sincerely believes that Iraqi elections haven’t been rigged either in counting or in who was allowed to be the candidates? Even then, years later should this government fail, who do you think will be blamed for the country’s plight? The U.S. will be blamed, and not unfairly so. Now what of Libya where there are purportedly Al Qaeda in the ranks of the rebels? If the new government collapses or morphs into something completely different, what is to say they will appreciate U.S. help? Osama Bin Laden used to be BFF with the U.S. until it suited him to rant, rave, and bomb us after we had helped him and his people against the Soviets. If you are still not convinced that our militarism can’t spread peace, listen to Dr. Paul talk about what would happen if the U.S. allowed other countries to do to us what we do to them. http://bit.ly/6hScqn It is an excellent video that is worth watching. He says it well, but I like to put it in a more blunt way: If your mother, father, sister, brother, or spouse were killed by a foreign military presence in the U.S., and our military either couldn’t or didn’t do anything to protect you, nor would it in the future, would you sit on your hands and wait it out? I hate the idea of war and fighting but I, like most Americans, would join a homegrown militia if necessary to stop a foreign power that our government did nothing or was unable to stop. I should be careful saying that though. Now I’m probably on some FBI-PATRIOT Act sponsored list as a potential homegrown terrorist. 4) Dr. Paul is an economic powerhouse. Ending the Federal Reserve. If you read the intro story to my list of Dr. Paul’s strengths, you will already understand why. He predicted the housing bubble and financial crisis over 5 years before it even began. As the Federal Reserve continues to print money and destroys the value of the dollars you have in your wallet or bank account while your food and gas prices soar, just remember it was Dr. Paul who first cast a spotlight on the Federal Reserve. It is the Keynesians and central economic planners who are responsible for the greatest shift of wealth out of the hands of the middle class and the poor and into the hands of the rich. If you care about a shrinking middle class, the most principle culprit is the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, because Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has a real grasp on economics and the workings of the Federal Reserve, while all others wouldn’t touch the system, he is the man who needs to be elected. To tie this into the previous comment, Dr. Paul has mentioned how it is no surprise that a century of war coincided with a century of central economic planning. Without the Federal Reserve, the government would have to fund its war efforts on its own. While just raising taxes is perhaps a simplified way of showing how they would raise revenue to fund wars I must ask how likely do you think it would have been that the U.S. would have started the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if G.W. Bush had started his speech with, “Good evening my fellow Americans. Tonight, I propose an increase of 5% to the income tax across all brackets to fund my whimsical wars through out the Middle East.” Exactly. 5) The War on Drugs. Dr. Paul understands how the war on drugs has been a failure. While this should be tied in under civil liberties, I am pulling it out separately because many people view drugs as substances that need to be illegal and that congress somehow has the authority to do so. There is an interesting article on Wikipedia that questions the legality of the War on Drugs http://bit.ly/q9PjK7 However, beyond this article remember that congress knew it didn’t have the authority to prohibit people from drinking alcohol so it had to make an amendment to the constitution. Why are other substances treated differently under the law, particularly a substance like marijuana? There isn’t a substantial difference, but congress has treated the constitution like a doormat for over a century. Don’t even get me started on the industrial uses of hemp over corn for ethanol or other products. Additionally there legitimate medical uses of marijuana that allow people to avoid Big Pharma. Regardless of the question concerning the legality of drug use, by all estimates the war on drugs has been a failure. Countries like Portugal that legalized substances saw a decrease in abuse and disease contraction from drug use that involves needles such as HIV/AIDS. (source: http://onforb.es/jRE0f6 ) Lastly, the amount of organized crime that is both fueled and funded by supplying illegal drugs is astounding. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime not only is illegal drug trade a major source of revenue for global organized crime, but one form of illegal revenue tends to beget another. In other words, in a region that is ripe for profits to be made from illegal drug trade, you can be sure that loan sharking and human trafficking will be close by. (source: http://bit.ly/qKS41p ) Will legalizing drug trade prevent the others from happening? No. However it will limit ability of these groups to fund their other illegal activities. If this hasn’t convinced you, let me point out that there is an increasing number of police officers who want to see drugs, marijuana at the very least, legalized (source: http://www.leap.cc/ ) Finally, from a progressive perspective, can you imagine the number of families living with a drug abuser that would benefit from having their family members treated like someone with an abuse problem rather than a criminal? The boon this would have to the stabilization of families, particularly families that have a sociological higher risk of abuse, would be extremely significant. Too often people who have had substance abuse problems, but have been clean for years, are treated as second-rate citizens when it comes to finding employment. 6) Government Corruption.

B. Manning

When President Obama threw Private Bradley Manning into Quantico military prison it was my last straw. I previously had found Obama’s policies dislikable, but what the President has done here is unforgivable. To simplify the story I’ll recount here what transpired in a greatly abridged version. We have an active military member who sees corruption within our military and foreign policy that increases the cost of our militarism by lives and dollars while undermining the national sovereignty of many foreign nations. Allegedly, Private Manning released the information to Wikileaks. This information was not secret base locations or launch codes to nuclear missiles, but rather the under-the-table and backroom dealings that our government partakes in to keep a vice grip on our global militarism. The American people deserve to know how our government is engaging in foreign affairs when it will cost us money, lives, and our liberty. While I am shortening this travesty to a few paragraphs let me finish with a few more points. Firstly, the decision was made to try Private Manning by military tribunal. Not shortly after, the Commander in chief of the U.S. military says on television that Private Manning broke the law. ( http://bit.ly/ieXtYp ) So much for a fair trial. I will not argue whether or not Private Manning broke the law, but rather whether or not he deserves to be praised. Without a doubt Private Manning deserves our support. Administration corruption may come and go, but there is nothing so disturbing as an administration that prosecutes whistleblowing. We ought to applaud those that bring government corruption to light. That is not the case, however in President Obama’s administration. As Dr. Paul says, “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” 7) Ron Paul’s Plan as President: In a recent email from Dr. Paul’s campaign, he stated some of his goals. All of them should be pleasing to people who value the idea of small government and freedom. However, some may not be as appealing to progressives. Let me take a moment to explain some of these in further detail. *** Stop the spread of socialist, Big Government health care and instead work to repeal the “ObamaCare” monstrosity; ObamaCare is little more than another corporate welfare subsidy.

D. Kucinich

Listen to CongressmanDennis Kucinich (a true liberal) speak on this. http://bit.ly/pmdLUJ I disagree with his conclusion on how to fix our system, but we sincerely agree that this will only give more money to insurance companies. The solution, as always, will be to make the companies compete. For starters allow insurance to be sold across state lines. If Dr. Paul, M.D. wins the Presidential election, it will be nice to finally have someone who understands medicine in the oval office. *** Stop the growth of government spending, restrictive regulations, and interference in our lives; *** Cut taxes and eliminate the IRS, because I believe the money you earn is yours and does NOT belong to government; Progressives can often be squeamish on this topic. I do find it quite providential, however, that the amount of money it costs to maintain our global militarism each year is roughly equal to the amount of revenue brought into the government via the income tax. Why not call it even and slash both? Dr. Paul points out that the income tax is the most totalitarian of taxes. It states that the government owns our lives, labor, and ingenuity. Remember that the government got by without the income tax for a long time. It was originally devised during the Civil War, only to be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court after it was reinstated. Later an amendment to the Constitution was required, although in truth the Supreme Court held that the amendment did not give congress any new powers of taxation. You may understandably be wondering, “Then why do I pay an income tax?” Indeed, why do you? *** Audit the Federal Reserve, which I believe will serve as an important first step toward finally ending the Fed once and for all; The Federal Reserve has already been talked about but I would like to point out again that it is the prime cause for the degradation of the middle class. As it continues to print money and destroy the dollar, families have their personal wealth in savings destroyed. Furthermore, without a sound currency, families feel strong-armed into putting their savings into stocks so Wall Street can play with their money. The answer is not more regulation of Wall Street to fix our financial system, but instead to provide our citizens with a currency that does its job by holding its value. The Federal Reserve extended over 16 Trillion dollars of credit during the financial crisis. I have to ask, if your half-full glass of milk is topped off with water, are you still drinking milk? As our savings continue to be diluted we have the Federal Reserve to blame, but we also have every previous and current administration culpable for not attempting to revoke the powers of the Federal Reserve. *** Ensure the federal government returns to its constitutional limits by eliminating departments and agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution; *** Repeal Big Government schemes like the so-called “PATRIOT Act”; *** Return to the Founders’ more humble foreign policy. American troops and taxpayers deserve better than to be used for “nation-building” or policing the world. We cannot afford trillion dollar international boondoggles that cost us our lives, our fortunes, and our freedom. I can certainly understand how some of those bullet points would make progressives squeamish. However, if you are someone who finds yourself in this situation, take two or three of those above topics that you find positive into consideration. Do you think Obama, or any other Presidential candidate would support the enactment of any of those ideas? If not, what does that say about these other candidates? Should we support them based upon party allegiances, or is it time to stop looking at Republican vs Democrat and to start judging candidates based upon their voting records and integrity? How can I know that Ron Paul will keep his promises and vote the way he said he would? How do I know that I won’t be betrayed by President Paul like I was by President Obama concerning bailing out Wall Street and our foreign wars? Nothing is certain in life, but the 12 terms of Congressman Paul voting identically to the way he preaches is pretty satisfying. More than that, he has been the lone single “no” vote in congress more often than all other congressmen and women combined. He mentions this in his book The Revolution: A Manifesto: “During my public life I have earned the nickname Dr. No, a reference to my previous occupation as a physician combined with my willingness to stand against the entire Congress if necessary to vote no on some proposed measure. (I am told I have been the sole “no” vote in Congress more often than all other members of Congress put together.) As a matter of fact, I don’t especially care for this nickname, since it may give people the impression that I am a contrarian for its own sake, and that for some reason I simply relish saying no. In those no votes, as in all my congressional votes, I have thought of myself as saying yes to the Constitution and to freedom” (49-50). At this point many people may ask, “If he is going to vote no on everything, he could never reach across the aisle!” To which I would respond that he continuously reaches across the aisle. For example, he has worked closely with Rep. Kucinich and other Democrats to audit The Fed or end the Afghanistan War. To legalize marijuana (on the federal level) Dr. Paul has worked with Rep. Frank. The list goes on, but it suffices to say that to Dr. Paul party affiliation is irrelevant. He does not vote or posture for political gain or party favor. He is consistent, principled, and his vote cannot be bought.

Ron Paul and his most loyal supporter, Me








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.