Internet Censorship on the Rise Worldwide – TECHNEWSWORLD

24 09 2011

At least 25 countries censor their citizens’ access to the Internet, according to new research from OpenNet, a nonprofit partnership of four top-tier universities. The countries with the most restrictive Internet policies regarding the free flow of political information include China, Iran and Vietnam. Some governments also apparently attempt to hide the fact that they are actively blocking sites. While the Internet is widely considered one of the most democratizing tools in history, there still remain countries where the free flow of information over the World Wide Web is restricted.

In fact, at least 25 countries block Web sites for political, social or other reasons, with governments controlling domestic networks, according to a new study.

Censorship Abounds

The OpenNet Initiative, a nonprofit collaborative partnership of four of the world’s leading academic institutions, said the number is likely even higher than 25 nations, but because of limited resources it only had the ability to investigate 40 countries and the Palestinian territories.

Still, the researchers ran into more censorship than they initially anticipated, a sign that the Internet has matured to the point that governments are taking notice, according to the study.

“Not surprisingly, as net penetration keeps increasing, you are going to see even higher rates of filtering,” Mukul Krishna, global manager of digital media practice with Frost & Sullivan, told TechNewsWorld, noting that as Internet penetration continues to grow tremendously in places like India and Africa, we are “going to see more of this Big Brother type of thing.

“There are always going to be certain places you can’t go,” Krishna said.

Web applications such as Google Maps and Skype as well as so-called subversive Web sites were often featured on content blocking lists. However, five years ago only a “couple” of states were exercising similar controls, according to the study.

The Biggest Culprits

The countries with the most restrictive Internet policies regarding the free flow of political information include China, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam.

Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen had the strictest social-filtering practices, blocking pornography, gambling and gay and lesbian sites, according to the study.

“Online censorship is growing in scale, scope and sophistication around the world, which is not surprising, given the importance of the medium,” John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, said in the report.

The report was conducted by groups at four universities — Harvard University, Cambridge, the University of Oxford and the University of Toronto — and covered thousands of Web sites and 120 Internet service providers.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., the government has stepped up it its level of monitoring of the country’s netizens.

Hiding Censorship

It appears that not every country wants to advertise their filtering habits, as nine countries, including China, Pakistan and Vietnam, reportedly use technology to conceal their censorship, disguising it with techniques such as flashing network error messages.

Researchers found no filtering at all in Russia, Israel or the Palestinian territories despite political conflicts there.

In some countries, censorship was very limited. In South Korea, for example, the government tends to block only information about its neighboring rival, North Korea.

In fact, Krishna pointed out the United State is not immune to this type of Internet interference. Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., the government has stepped up it its level of monitoring of the country’s netizens.

“Right now there is a lot of monitoring going on,” he said.

Getting Around Filters

Once citizens discover they are being blocked from accessing certain sites, there really isn’t much they can do. Most governments had no mechanism for citizens to complain about erroneous blocking, according to the report.

However, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates do provide an official outlet for complaints.

The report also studied some technical approaches, noting that some are better than others in blocking sites, but all can be bypassed with enough technical expertise and the right software. 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Constitution, Personal Liberty, Police State Control, Politics, Science/Tech

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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Constitution, Personal Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul 2012

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

13 09 2011

The question after the latest Republican presidential debate is why Ron Paul keeps winning them. MSNBC has been widening the margin by which its own survey is showing that the congressman from Texas did the best job; it’s now up to 57%. One can imagine there might be non-substantive explanations; Dr. Paul, say, has so many followers on the Web, who may be primed to respond to these polls. Our guess, though, is that more than the other candidates Ron Paul gives the impression that he is animated by a clear and coherent set of principles in which he deeply believes. His sense of principle is his source of power, his secret weapon.

This was evident in the way he eclipsed the others, starting with Michele Bachamann, in respect of gasoline prices. Mrs. Bachmann was right to bring up the price of gas; it’s a bitter symptom of . . . of what? Not only our policy of restricting the development of our own energy resources, as Mrs. Bachmann argued, but more fundamentally of our system of fiat money. Dr. Paul jumped in after Mrs. Bachman to point out that gasoline hasn’t become more valuable. One can still get a gallon for a silver dime. It’s the dollar that has collapsed. Governor Perry has warned darkly of how Texans would deal with Ben Bernanke. But neither he nor any of the others at the Reagan Library approaches the issue in the principled way that Ron Paul does.

Dr. Paul was the only candidate who kept referring to the Constitution, the principles behind which he has clearly thought about for a long time. He talked about enumerated powers in laying out the grounds on which he’d take the federal government out of education and health care and other “mandates” for which Congress lacks an enumerated power. We understand there is a debate about the extent of Congressional powers; some of them, such as regulating interstate commerce, are enormous. But while the other candidates are driving themselves crazy over policy, Dr. Paul is standing on principle.

It’s clear to readers of these columns that this newspaper agrees with Dr. Paul in respect of the war. The hawks on the war have nowhere near the constitutional principle behind them as Dr. Paul’s libertarian view. War, whatever else it is, is one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Even while we agree with Dr. Paul’s position on the war as should all freedom loving individuals. Declaration, after all, is only one of the two war powers given to Congress. The other — the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, which are licenses to private parties to conduct war — is also a bright line enumerated power. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who’s proven he’s prepared wield that constitutional sword.*

Dr. Paul startled us by being the only individual to speak in opposition to idea of a border fence against Mexico. He did so in principled terms, warning that fences can cut two ways. It’s not as if he’s from a congressional district a long way from Mexico; he’s from the gulf coast. He just looks at things in libertarian terms, a strategy that sets him apart and allows him to sweep aside the pettifogging. He did this in respect of a question about the minimum wage. “Mandate, mandate, mandate . . .” he exclaimed at one point. “Everything we do is a mandate . . . that’s why you have to look at this as the cause of liberty.” It is a wonderful phrase, “the cause of liberty.” The polls keep showing that when a candidate sticks to it in a principled way, he wins the debate.



Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Personal Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul 2012

Liberty for the Ron Paul Generation

28 08 2011

The stark reality about the Ron Paul revolution is that the power elites could not survive in a society based upon individual liberty. Nevertheless, this statement does not imply that a Paul presidency would guarantee the elimination of the oligarchy.

The faint memory of what a free nation could be, or even what our country once was, could be revived under certain circumstances. Imagine the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and the fractional debt-created money system. Consider a non-interventionist foreign policy that allows for actual national defense and secures the borders. Or, best of all, a limited government culture that is based upon the principle that government exists to serve citizens in their pursuit of freedom. Thomas Jefferson’s soul lives within the Ron Paul generation.

The barons of media exclusion, that spread a confederacy of silence around Ron Paul, are descendants of the same cabal that sent Jefferson to France during the drafting and debating at the Constitutional Convention. These latest cohorts want to continue the same dominance over the spirit of the revolution. This eternal battle is presently waged under an invigorated new awakening. The old game no longer works. Swept away are their lies, because their pseudo propaganda all point to the oz cult behind the curtain, and the destructive reality of their plots are visible for all to see.

No wonder, since he does not play their game, Ron Paul is such a threat to their control. Consider the insight of our long-time friend and courageous advocate of an American First foreign policy, Mark Dankof. He gets to the core reason why the (FCM) Fawning Corporate Media wants to prevent Ron Paul from winning the GOP nomination.

Israel, the Jewish Lobby worldwide, the Central Bankers, and the energy/gas consortiums, are the driving force behind making this war happen. Jay Solomon’s story (WSJ – Senators Press Obama On Iran’s Central Bank) indeed notes that Senator Mark Kirk (R., Illinois) and Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York), are the co-sponsors of the letter, in a “sign of bipartisan support for tougher financial measures against Iran. . . .” What the Wall Street Journal omits, of course, is that Kirk received more Israeli/Jewish PAC money for his initial election to the Senate, than any other candidate in the last election cycle, and that Schumer’s pockets have been lined historically with reams of the same levels of financial largesse for doing the bidding of the Zionist State. We might also draw the legitimate and documentable conclusion that Kirk, Schumer, and their colleagues in both houses of Congress, demonstrate the stranglehold that Israel has on both major political parties, as demonstrated each year by Hugh Galford and Janet McMahon of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in Washington. The numbers provided annually by Galford and McMahon provide the quantitative proof of what President Obama told Ha’aretz in his last trip to Israel: that Obama himself could not possibly have been elected to the U. S. Senate in Illinois (the seat now held by Kirk, by the way), or the American Presidency, without the amount of Jewish money and political support that came his way. Presumably, the President is saying something about the larger political system and the way it works systemically. Follow the money trail. And the Bankers. And the number of Israeli assets in the GOP Presidential sweepstakes (the exception is Ron Paul) who have never met a surrogate war they didn’t like, including the one on the drawing board now they will assiduously promote if The Masters should decide that Mr. Obama needs replacing in 2012 for insufficient sycophancy.

 Sadly, many Tea Party conservatives still accept the Neocon foreign policy deception. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. Watch the thinking man’s version of a strong leader in the video, Ron Paul Speaks Out: Media Blackout, Economic Freedom, Intellectual Revolution. Go beyond the sound bites and ads, then ask the hard questions.

Once the presidential campaign heats up after Labor Day, the cast of characters will keep shucking out the phony common man populism, while cavorting with the same money interests, corporatists and banksters that select every other nominee. Have you forgotten the Skull and Bones ticket of 2004? Surely, the progressive McCain was no choice over the “bomber” Obama general.

Now the Ron Paul generation understands that liberty and genuine national security is never advanced under the military-industrial-homeland war party. Yet, usually the only candidates you get to vote for out of the duel party wag the dog parade is a kosher toady. The unremitting plans to eradicate Iran, drives the banking internationalists for the same reason that Libya became a bombing range target. No nation is allowed to challenge the money monopoly. Gaddafi’s gold and Ahmadinejad’s economic independence as cited in an IMF report, cannot stand the risk of any unorthodox ruler. How dare the Zionist controlled press make a rare slip up and reveal, “The IMF said it has revised its previous figures on Iran’s economy after a brief visit to the country, expressing admiration for some of the controversial plans introduced by the hardline president.” The entrenched GOP party facilitators want to marginalize Ron Paul as dangerous because he resists tribe orders and refuses to waste another generation of youth in the service of zealots. Liberty demands that our sons and daughters no longer be consumed as cannon fodder. Translate the “ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL NATION” sympathy statement to read – The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.

Now even the disappointed left have figured out that warmonger Barry Soetoro, is no different from George W. Bush. So when will the Republican faithful come to grips, that Bachmann and Cain are IRS and Federal Reserve cronies, respectively? As for Romney, anyone who is willing to champion person status for corporations deserves to file chapter 7 on his own campaign aspirations. New World Order Perry is the puppet of choice. His rhetoric will ring home to many, because he lifts it directly from the Ron Paul journal. However,Rick Perry is the next incarnate plastic doll, which will read the script from the banksters’ ledger sheet, once elected.

When was the last time you heard another Republican presidential candidate utter the words civil liberties? Or name another public figure that actually made his life’s work synonymous with LIBERTY? Only Ron Paul stands the test of performance.

So how can Paul win in the GOP primaries? The New York Times offers a salient chart and states, “On the Republican side, partisan self-identification peaked in the early 1990s – as did the percent of the electorate voting in Republican primaries – before declining.” Decrying the GOP hacks, every liberty Republican patriot needs to organize their universe of friends and acquaintances to get the vote out at the ballot box on primary day. Just a minimum increase and return to the 33% 1990 levels with Ron Paul voters will result is his victory for the nomination. The caveat does require a verifiable monitoring of any enhanced electronic voting count against liberty-minded voters or the sabotage by the party of the delegate certification process.

Presidents are selected well before the general election. Ron Paul will generate significant support and votes from independents. Even disgruntled Democrats will rally in a general election; however, the Republican registered primary voter must resist the perennialNeocon treachery.

The frustration of discussing politics in an era of denial needs to be overcome. Enrolling a Republican voter into the cause of Liberty can be a daunting task. Those who believe that the party of Lincoln champions a proper conservative defense of liberty are wholly confused. Tea Party proponents must reject the GOP establishment and their hijack express. Do not believe the hype. Accurate public Tea Party approval sentiment is not in decline. Simply, the only drink that Rick Perry partakes is an imported Camellia sinensis brew, while he worships another lord in the Bilderberg temple.

Lastly, those critics of Ron Paul’s Austrian economics usually oppose a return to a resurrection of a modified gold standard. Yet if you dig deeper, those same detractors maintain an apologist attitude for keeping a central banking system. Few disparagers view the preservation of liberty on the same scale as their return from compound interest.

The money elite may soon conduct another false flag to scare the uninformed and redirect one more staged diversion. The rush of enthusiasm for retaking our liberty is the essence of the Ron Paul message. The generation that tasted the joy in the establishment’s fear during the 1960s appreciates just how a government can be broken, from conducting an exhausted and immoral war.

Today everyone needs to learn this lesson, apply traditional conservative populist principles, and eliminate the central banking tyranny that is the prime destroyer of our economy. The fascist state that follows orders and reports to this private bank-ruling cartel is the foremost enemy. Is Liberty more important to you or do you think a looser fit of your governance chains is achievable with your continued apathy?


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Constitution, Economics/Monetary Policy, Personal Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul 2012, States Rights

TIME Magazine Pens Five Page Spread To Convince America Ron Paul Can’t Win

27 08 2011

TIME magazine has published a five page spread on Ron Paul’s presidential campaign that hits newsstands today. While some are declaring this a lifting of the veil on media coverage of the Congressman, the reality is that the piece will go out of its way to convince readers that Paul is a fad and has no chance of winning.

Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple today shared a post entitled “News media reverses Ron Paul blackout”, which links directly to a Politico article that contends “Ron Paul scores success in media assault”.

“Paul’s complaints contributed to Time’s decision to do its first major piece on him this campaign season,” the Politico article states.

“He performed strongly at Ames,” Time writer Alex Altman told Politico. “I thought, and my editors think, that he had a valid complaint that he was being overlooked.”

On the surface this sounds great from a Ron Paul follower’s point of view, however, it quickly becomes clear from reading Altman’s blog that the Time piece represents a continuation of the desperate establishment attempt to convince voters that Ron Paul does not have a snowflake’s chance in hell.

In his explanation of the upcoming Time piece, Altman opines, “Paul is probably not a credible contender for the nomination,” attempting to convince readers that his ideology and policies do not resonate with voters.

“His foreign policy of nonintervention is a nonstarter among neoconservatives. His view that social issues like abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states causes social conservatives to blanch,” writes Altman.

“He’s a fiscal conservative, but his crusade for commodity-backed money and warnings about the looming dangers of hyperinflation aren’t exactly simpatico with deficit hawks’ concerns.” the piece continues. “At 76, his age could be a factor, and he hasn’t shaken the fringe rep he was tagged with in 2008. “Ron Paul is not going to be President of the United States,” conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said recently.”

So Paul’s ideas do not resonate? One commenter puts Altman’s claims into perspective:

Ron Paul can’t win because he appeals to traditional conservatives who believe in small government, to leftists who believe in personal liberty, to ‘blue’ democrats who believe Obama has betrayed the party, to independents who voted for Obama but are disgusted with the Hopey-Changy that never happened, by gays who don’t want government dictating marriage rules, by straights who don’t want to be forced to live by a ‘gay agenda’. Gee…left, right, young, old, conservative, liberal, gay, straight…with all that support, he doesn’t have a chance!

Altman then takes a leap into Orwellian territory by suggesting that “Paul isn’t really running for President, at least not entirely.”

Last time I checked, Paul was placed third in Gallup’s national presidential preference poll, and is running at an almost dead heat with Obama in the popularity stakes.

It has been an average week as far as Ron Paul appearances on the news networks are concerned. He’s been on CNN a couple of times, Fox News a couple of times and appeared on CNBC also. There have also been more print media stories this week, primarily, and rather paradoxically, reporting the fact that the media is not covering Ron Paul.

So the fact is that Ron Paul is no longer being completely ignored by the media. However, as Time has made it all too obvious, he is still being marginalized and ridiculed.

When the time is right for them, the media will simply ignore Paul again – this is the stark reality that the Congressman’s campaign and his followers have to deal with and overcome.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Constitution, Economics/Monetary Policy, Personal Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul 2012, States Rights

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


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Personal Liberty, Politics, Ron Paul 2012

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


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Politics, Ron Paul 2012

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s Presidential Campaign Strategy: BE RON PAUL

17 08 2011

Texas Governor Rick Perry has shown his hand immediately. His presidential campaign strategy consists of attempting to steal away Ron Paul supporters while the mainstream media aids him by refusing to even acknowledge Paul exists. Perry entered the presidential race on Friday and was instantly hailed by the corporate controlled media as a “top tier” candidate. Meanwhile, Ron Paul was busy romping home to a historic vote total in the Iowa straw poll, coming second only to a phony tea party wannabe in Michelle Bachmann, who could only beat Paul by buying 4000 votes.

J. Stewart

As Jon Stewart painstakingly points out, the establishment media is manifestly engaged in a concerted effort to completely ignore Paul. Indeed, establishment media talking heads admitted what we’ve been highlighting from the very start – that there is a deliberate policy to sideline and discredit Paul’s campaign. Perry, on the other hand, is certainly not ignoring Paul, if his recent “attack” on Ben Bernanke is anything to go by. Speaking in Iowa yesterday, Perry said, “I’ll take a pass on the Federal Reserve at the moment, to be honest with you. I know that there’s a lot of talk about ‘em and if this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.” Perry said. “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion,” he added. Though he puts it into words much like an 18th century blacksmith would smash at metal with a hammer, Perry is correct about the Federal Reserve and the current administration’s monetary policy. However, the Texas governor is wholly unqualified to make such damning statements. Under Perry’s governorship, Texas soaked up $22 billion in stimulus money from the federal government’s bailout package. During Perry’s 11 year tenure, Texas has run up a $13.4 billion deficit, which is 31.5% of the 2011 budget. The Lone Star state has the 3rd highest deficit in the entire country behind only California and Illinois.

Dr. Paul

Unlike Congressman Ron Paul, Perry cannot possibly paint himself up as a fiscally responsible candidate. Indeed, recently uncovered records indicate that Perry only managed a D in basic economics in college. Perry’s words once again do not dovetail with his record. Ron Paul, on the other hand sits on the Joint Economic Committee, the House Committee on Financial Services, and is Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. Paul has held a steadfast position on fiscal responsibility for over thirty years and has a voting record to match. 20 plus years ago, back when Perry was expending all his energy promoting Democratic candidate Al Gore, Ron Paul was warning the country of the Federal Reserve takeover and the inevitable economic crises that would result. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that Perry, the template of a career politician, a man who has flip flopped not only between issues, but even between the two parties, is not going to bring economic prosperity back to the country. The only candidate who has the will to do so and the record to back it up is Ron Paul. As we continue to point out, there is an ongoing push to drill it into the minds of Republican supporters and voting Americans in general that Ron Paul cannot win. Zeke Miller of Business Insider today perpetuates this fallacy, noting: “Other candidates — particularly U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who won the straw poll, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry — see an opportunity to reach out to Paul supporters as an “electable” candidate with appeal to a broader array of constituencies.” “In Perry’s case, he has adopted Paul’s ardent criticism of the Fed and its chairman Ben Bernanke…” “While it’s unlikely these overtures will attract Paul supporters while the libertarian is still in the race, they will help in the event Perry is still in the running after the early states.”

For the last time, Ron Paul IS an “electable candidate”. The fact that every single one of his opponents is riding his coat tails and stealing his campaign strategy should make this fact blindingly obvious.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Politics, Ron Paul 2012

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.”


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Politics, Ron Paul 2012

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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Politics, Ron Paul 2012

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.