Hi Dale
This article suggest that we must vote for Mr Paul.Isn,t that the same as voting for someone who the majority knows doesn,t take a lead ever in the history of politics. The Liberals are a third fringe lever usually used and helped by either party the Left Wing or the Right, to lead voters away from the opposite party. I might add paid to run by those who know they aren,t going to win but claim some of the strength or sap, a better word from the other pary's Base. Its like a war game, in which decoys are put out to draw the subject into a trap. In this case a potential voter ...than come from behind and ambush or surround and conquer..by sheer cunning. strategic rule of the game to victory. with enough planning and enticing the decoy is made to look the more the outcome plays into its design. This is what happened to the last election and one of the reasons Bush had the lead. Ralph Nadar was 'planted' to sway votes away from the Democrats because he promised a similar but independent package. It was staged to hang him up as a carrot. Why wouldn,t he give up when he should of? Ask yourself that?? The writing is on the wall for a third party to even dream of turning the country around when Ross Perot garnered only 30% of the vote ..they are place there or lured by a part of the population that seeks change and obviously feel passionate to serve their country in what seems the only true way with the people's heart..but I beleive their is those who will use their will to their own advantage by the 'Sway. Comments are welcomed.
Rita
Ron Paul, a true American
33 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Roll over Rover
by Rita » Sun May 20, 2007 12:29 am
-
Rita - Posts: 806
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:20 am
- Location: none
Hilliary's Indian Name
by Rita » Sun May 20, 2007 1:18 am
This is hilarious!, I didn,t have anything to do with it I swear!
____________Hillary's Indian Name_________________**
I have not been able to verify the truth of this story, but it made me smile none-the-less.
Senator Hillary Clinton was invited to address a major gathering of American Indians from the Iroquois tribes two weeks ago in upper New York State. She spoke for almost an hour on her future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should she one day become the first female President.
She referred to her career as a New York Senator, how she had signed "YES" for every Indian issue that came to her desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of her plan, she seemed most enthusiastic about her future ideas for helping her "red sisters and brothers".
At the conclusion of her speech, representatives of the Iroquois tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with her new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in her motorcade, waving to the crowds. A news reporter later inquired of the group of chiefs of how they had come to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of poop it can no longer fly...
____________Hillary's Indian Name_________________**
I have not been able to verify the truth of this story, but it made me smile none-the-less.
Senator Hillary Clinton was invited to address a major gathering of American Indians from the Iroquois tribes two weeks ago in upper New York State. She spoke for almost an hour on her future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should she one day become the first female President.
She referred to her career as a New York Senator, how she had signed "YES" for every Indian issue that came to her desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of her plan, she seemed most enthusiastic about her future ideas for helping her "red sisters and brothers".
At the conclusion of her speech, representatives of the Iroquois tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with her new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in her motorcade, waving to the crowds. A news reporter later inquired of the group of chiefs of how they had come to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of poop it can no longer fly...
-
Rita - Posts: 806
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:20 am
- Location: none
Ron Paul Rocks!
by DaleSVP » Tue May 22, 2007 9:55 am
Ron Paul Rocks!
by Karen Kwiatkowski
I am ashamed to admit that I’ve been watching Ron Paul’s recent political acts with fingers and toes crossed, breathless.
Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in the possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power.
And in doing it, not only survive, but thrive!
A famous Orwell quote captures what is happening. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." And while many have been working to prepare ground for truth and freedom in this country, I think we will note that the first shots in this revolution have been fired by Ron Paul.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/ ... ki183.html
by Karen Kwiatkowski
I am ashamed to admit that I’ve been watching Ron Paul’s recent political acts with fingers and toes crossed, breathless.
Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in the possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power.
And in doing it, not only survive, but thrive!
A famous Orwell quote captures what is happening. "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." And while many have been working to prepare ground for truth and freedom in this country, I think we will note that the first shots in this revolution have been fired by Ron Paul.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/ ... ki183.html
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
THE RON PAUL REBELLION
by DaleSVP » Tue May 22, 2007 4:30 pm
Had enough? Every other candidate is owned by big money, the oligarchs who tell them what to do. If you are sick and tired of empty rhetoric and no action, vote for someone who will more than likely have attempts on his life for trying to change the cesspool known as D.C.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven26.htm
THE RON PAUL REBELLION
By Steven Yates
May 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Ron Paul now has national visibility, courtesy of last Tuesday’s “debate” down in Columbia—much to the chagrin of mainstream media and Republican Party elites. His poll numbers are sufficiently high that a struggle to suppress them is underway. We are seeing what we might call a Ron Paul rebellion. Whether it will have staying power remains to be seen.
This was the exchange that opened the door. Fox New’s Wendell Goler addressed Paul and asked, “I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as— almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your Party? Is your Party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?”
Ron Paul articulated, “Well, I think the Party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy—no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican Party. It is the Constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them…. [T]here’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly.”
Goler followed up with, “Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?”
His response: our foreign policy was a “major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’ve building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”
Goler: “Are you suggested we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?”
“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.”
That was when Rudy Giuliani blew his top—giving this writer the best reason I’ve seen not to vote for him and to urge others not to support him. Giuliani jumped in with, “That’s really an extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” Delivered with the tone of a true authoritarian. An overwhelmingly neocon audience cheered.
Paul hadn’t said we invited 9/11, of course. He used the phrase contributing factor, which implies there were other contributing factors. When asked to reply, he elaborated:
“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were—if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”
We saw, dramatized on national television and in ensuing media discussion, the two worldviews that may battle it out over the next year or so for control of the Republican Party—and possibly the country itself—with ramifications well beyond Election 2008. The one Rudy Giuliani represents (which is that of the Bush clan, the neocons, and the corporatist elite generally): the U.S. is an empire obliged or destined to rule the world, capable of building “democracies” in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere, relying on a value system based on money and power. Power does not necessarily corrupt. We peons should fall in line behind our leaders.
The second, which Ron Paul represents, sees the U.S. as a Constitutional republic with a limited government, believes that sound economics requires sound money (not our present fiat dollar), would distinguish genuine free enterprise from corporatism, and advocate a foreign policy of trade with all but entangling alliances with none—i.e., a foreign policy rooted in respect for other nations’ sovereignty and their right to self-determination. Other nations’ internal affairs are not our business unless we are explicitly invited in.
This is not simply a clash between “left” and “right,” or between “liberal” and “conservative.” We may be approaching a major dust-up between those who want freedom and those who want power, between those who believe society must be aggressively centralized and those who wish to see power dispersed. We may see a struggle between those who want policies that allow the common man to live as he sees fit if he isn’t bothering anyone else, and a cadre of oligarchs who view the world as theirs, and who see themselves as unaccountable.
The Republican National Committee and its talk-show fellow travelers are all on the side of power. The latter immediately went into attack-dog mode. After the debate, Paul appeared on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes show. Sean Hannity spluttered incoherently against Paul to the point where Paul had difficulty getting a word in edgewise; to his credit, he did not get flustered and refused to back down. He stood his ground the next day when Wolf Blitzer on CNN asked if he wanted to apologize for his statements. He retorted that Rudy Giuliani ought to apologize to him. He told Blitzer that Americans have the right to disagree with bad policy. Interventionism is bad foreign policy, he said, and ought to be challenged. Fox News anchor John Gibson tried to associate Paul with the 9/11 Truth movement by crediting Paul with saying “the U.S. actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks.” Paul, of course, had said nothing of the sort. Glenn Beck, yet another neocon talk-show host and Rush Limbaugh wannabe, has repeatedly smeared Paul on his show, calling him “crazy” after the first debate and a “dope” after this one.
Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis proposed barring Ron Paul from future debates. After the RNC and the Michigan GOP received thousands of phone calls and several online petitions totaling over 20,000 signatures, they scrapped that idea. We may thank the growing number of people who get their news over the uncensored Internet, where Ron Paul is now practically the frontrunner, for protecting free speech from Republican Party elites.
Ron Paul’s point of view is gaining an audience whether the neocons like it or not. Major CNN contributing writer Roland S. Martin has said that his thinking on U.S. foreign policy should at least be discussed. Paul, after all, is hardly the first to say that our policies in the Middle East might have contributed to our being attacked. Jacob G. Hornberger, of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in fact has a detailed timeline of our interventions in the region going back to 1953, the year a CIA-backed coup in Iran ousted democratically elected Mohammed Mosadegh and instilled the Shah. As the Shah proceeded to butcher the Iranian people for the next quarter-century, the Islamic terror underground formed and began to ferment (see Hornberger’s article “Iraq, Iran and September 11: A Chronology,”
But more generally, the Ron Paul candidacy is exposing how the power system in this country is gutting the Constitution. This is very good news! Ron Paul has arguably won two national debates now—won in the sense that he came from the incredible disadvantage of a media blackout and has reached the point of having a message that is resonating with that growing segment of the public that is fed up with government lies, whether the topic is Iraq, illegal immigration, the economy, or any number of other front burner issues.
Giuliani looks to be emerging as the elites’ favorite. This guy is pro-choice, favors special rights for gays, and advocates gun control. Have these become official Republican positions, and are they evidence of what has happened to the Republican Party since the neocons took it over? An attorney friend of mine with whom I spoke last Friday probably said it best. To paraphrase how he put it, if the Republicans choose Rudy Giuliani as their nominee after a protracted hate campaign drives Ron Paul back to “third party” status and the public lets them get away with it, they do not deserve to win next year. It will be fair and just to say that this country deserves a socialist Hillary/Obama presidency which would run Rome on the Potomac straight into the ground.
It might be worth noting as an aside that Giuliani has been linked to the proposed NAFTA Superhighway system. According to the Texas Department of Transportation, his Houston-based law firm, Bracewell & Guiliani, represents Cintra Concesiones, the Spanish megacorporation that has joined with San Antonio’s Zachry Construction on the Trans-Texas Corridor. This positions Giuliani firmly with the power elite. So again: do Americans really want him in the White House?
And should conservatives trust information from elite-controlled outfits like Fox News (owned by News Corporation, globalist Rupert Murdoch’s media empire)? Arguably the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani was a set-up. During debates such as the one last Tuesday, microphones of non-speakers are turned off. Giuliani’s, however, was left on while Ron Paul was speaking. Why? Was someone waiting for something Giuliani could attack? Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has observed, “[Fox News] seems to be emerging as an arm of the Giuliani-for-President campaign. Honest conservatives should demand better coverage.” Fox News Online published a dishonest Dick Morris column declining to mention Paul and portraying the race as “nine-way.”
A growing number of people aren’t buying it. They are responding to Ron Paul’s message of limited government, bringing America’s troops home from a pointless and increasingly destructive war, abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve, getting out of bad trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, getting out of the WTO, restoring the Constitution, and returning to the idea of America as republic, not empire. It would be, as I’ve noted elsewhere, a first. But those who believe that America is still worth fighting for will get behind Ron Paul’s candidacy, and defend him from the media’s attack dogs. Since Ron Paul shows no signs of caving in, and I don’t see the neocons backing down, the next year promises to be very interesting!
© 2007 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved
Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.
He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.
E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven26.htm
THE RON PAUL REBELLION
By Steven Yates
May 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
Ron Paul now has national visibility, courtesy of last Tuesday’s “debate” down in Columbia—much to the chagrin of mainstream media and Republican Party elites. His poll numbers are sufficiently high that a struggle to suppress them is underway. We are seeing what we might call a Ron Paul rebellion. Whether it will have staying power remains to be seen.
This was the exchange that opened the door. Fox New’s Wendell Goler addressed Paul and asked, “I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as— almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your Party? Is your Party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?”
Ron Paul articulated, “Well, I think the Party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy—no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican Party. It is the Constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them…. [T]here’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly.”
Goler followed up with, “Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?”
His response: our foreign policy was a “major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East—I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’ve building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”
Goler: “Are you suggested we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?”
“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.”
That was when Rudy Giuliani blew his top—giving this writer the best reason I’ve seen not to vote for him and to urge others not to support him. Giuliani jumped in with, “That’s really an extraordinary statement. As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” Delivered with the tone of a true authoritarian. An overwhelmingly neocon audience cheered.
Paul hadn’t said we invited 9/11, of course. He used the phrase contributing factor, which implies there were other contributing factors. When asked to reply, he elaborated:
“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were—if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”
We saw, dramatized on national television and in ensuing media discussion, the two worldviews that may battle it out over the next year or so for control of the Republican Party—and possibly the country itself—with ramifications well beyond Election 2008. The one Rudy Giuliani represents (which is that of the Bush clan, the neocons, and the corporatist elite generally): the U.S. is an empire obliged or destined to rule the world, capable of building “democracies” in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere, relying on a value system based on money and power. Power does not necessarily corrupt. We peons should fall in line behind our leaders.
The second, which Ron Paul represents, sees the U.S. as a Constitutional republic with a limited government, believes that sound economics requires sound money (not our present fiat dollar), would distinguish genuine free enterprise from corporatism, and advocate a foreign policy of trade with all but entangling alliances with none—i.e., a foreign policy rooted in respect for other nations’ sovereignty and their right to self-determination. Other nations’ internal affairs are not our business unless we are explicitly invited in.
This is not simply a clash between “left” and “right,” or between “liberal” and “conservative.” We may be approaching a major dust-up between those who want freedom and those who want power, between those who believe society must be aggressively centralized and those who wish to see power dispersed. We may see a struggle between those who want policies that allow the common man to live as he sees fit if he isn’t bothering anyone else, and a cadre of oligarchs who view the world as theirs, and who see themselves as unaccountable.
The Republican National Committee and its talk-show fellow travelers are all on the side of power. The latter immediately went into attack-dog mode. After the debate, Paul appeared on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes show. Sean Hannity spluttered incoherently against Paul to the point where Paul had difficulty getting a word in edgewise; to his credit, he did not get flustered and refused to back down. He stood his ground the next day when Wolf Blitzer on CNN asked if he wanted to apologize for his statements. He retorted that Rudy Giuliani ought to apologize to him. He told Blitzer that Americans have the right to disagree with bad policy. Interventionism is bad foreign policy, he said, and ought to be challenged. Fox News anchor John Gibson tried to associate Paul with the 9/11 Truth movement by crediting Paul with saying “the U.S. actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks.” Paul, of course, had said nothing of the sort. Glenn Beck, yet another neocon talk-show host and Rush Limbaugh wannabe, has repeatedly smeared Paul on his show, calling him “crazy” after the first debate and a “dope” after this one.
Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis proposed barring Ron Paul from future debates. After the RNC and the Michigan GOP received thousands of phone calls and several online petitions totaling over 20,000 signatures, they scrapped that idea. We may thank the growing number of people who get their news over the uncensored Internet, where Ron Paul is now practically the frontrunner, for protecting free speech from Republican Party elites.
Ron Paul’s point of view is gaining an audience whether the neocons like it or not. Major CNN contributing writer Roland S. Martin has said that his thinking on U.S. foreign policy should at least be discussed. Paul, after all, is hardly the first to say that our policies in the Middle East might have contributed to our being attacked. Jacob G. Hornberger, of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in fact has a detailed timeline of our interventions in the region going back to 1953, the year a CIA-backed coup in Iran ousted democratically elected Mohammed Mosadegh and instilled the Shah. As the Shah proceeded to butcher the Iranian people for the next quarter-century, the Islamic terror underground formed and began to ferment (see Hornberger’s article “Iraq, Iran and September 11: A Chronology,”
But more generally, the Ron Paul candidacy is exposing how the power system in this country is gutting the Constitution. This is very good news! Ron Paul has arguably won two national debates now—won in the sense that he came from the incredible disadvantage of a media blackout and has reached the point of having a message that is resonating with that growing segment of the public that is fed up with government lies, whether the topic is Iraq, illegal immigration, the economy, or any number of other front burner issues.
Giuliani looks to be emerging as the elites’ favorite. This guy is pro-choice, favors special rights for gays, and advocates gun control. Have these become official Republican positions, and are they evidence of what has happened to the Republican Party since the neocons took it over? An attorney friend of mine with whom I spoke last Friday probably said it best. To paraphrase how he put it, if the Republicans choose Rudy Giuliani as their nominee after a protracted hate campaign drives Ron Paul back to “third party” status and the public lets them get away with it, they do not deserve to win next year. It will be fair and just to say that this country deserves a socialist Hillary/Obama presidency which would run Rome on the Potomac straight into the ground.
It might be worth noting as an aside that Giuliani has been linked to the proposed NAFTA Superhighway system. According to the Texas Department of Transportation, his Houston-based law firm, Bracewell & Guiliani, represents Cintra Concesiones, the Spanish megacorporation that has joined with San Antonio’s Zachry Construction on the Trans-Texas Corridor. This positions Giuliani firmly with the power elite. So again: do Americans really want him in the White House?
And should conservatives trust information from elite-controlled outfits like Fox News (owned by News Corporation, globalist Rupert Murdoch’s media empire)? Arguably the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani was a set-up. During debates such as the one last Tuesday, microphones of non-speakers are turned off. Giuliani’s, however, was left on while Ron Paul was speaking. Why? Was someone waiting for something Giuliani could attack? Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has observed, “[Fox News] seems to be emerging as an arm of the Giuliani-for-President campaign. Honest conservatives should demand better coverage.” Fox News Online published a dishonest Dick Morris column declining to mention Paul and portraying the race as “nine-way.”
A growing number of people aren’t buying it. They are responding to Ron Paul’s message of limited government, bringing America’s troops home from a pointless and increasingly destructive war, abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve, getting out of bad trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, getting out of the WTO, restoring the Constitution, and returning to the idea of America as republic, not empire. It would be, as I’ve noted elsewhere, a first. But those who believe that America is still worth fighting for will get behind Ron Paul’s candidacy, and defend him from the media’s attack dogs. Since Ron Paul shows no signs of caving in, and I don’t see the neocons backing down, the next year promises to be very interesting!
© 2007 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved
Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.
He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.
E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Ron Paul videos - Why Support Ron Paul?
by DaleSVP » Tue May 22, 2007 4:32 pm
Ron Paul 2008 - The Voice Of The People On CSPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VeaUW1 ... ted&search =
Why Support Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9dPyj_fTZBg&NR=1
Ron Paul in the Situation Room - May 16, 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPI-ogw ... ted&search =
REBUTTAL to GIULIANI ATTACK on RON PAUL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjeVRCAgt0E
Feisty Rep. Ron Paul Discusses Economy with Neil Cavuto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Qt8Eyy ... ted&search =
Ron Paul Clips - Republican Debate 5-15-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8DVdGkGCpA&NR=1
Ron Paul Kicks Rudi's Neocon Ass with Truth & Logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaVBlRS7GU4
Ron Paul's Challenge to Rudy Giuliani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YBAVVOq ... ted&search =
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5VeaUW1 ... ted&search =
Why Support Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9dPyj_fTZBg&NR=1
Ron Paul in the Situation Room - May 16, 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPI-ogw ... ted&search =
REBUTTAL to GIULIANI ATTACK on RON PAUL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjeVRCAgt0E
Feisty Rep. Ron Paul Discusses Economy with Neil Cavuto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Qt8Eyy ... ted&search =
Ron Paul Clips - Republican Debate 5-15-07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8DVdGkGCpA&NR=1
Ron Paul Kicks Rudi's Neocon Ass with Truth & Logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaVBlRS7GU4
Ron Paul's Challenge to Rudy Giuliani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YBAVVOq ... ted&search =
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Ron Paul Said It!
by DaleSVP » Tue May 22, 2007 4:36 pm
From: Trinity Farms
Subject: Ron Paul Said It!
Finally, someone had the courage to say it !!!
Dr. Ron Paul on Tuesday night's "debate" (modern debates are more like mass interviews) dared suggest that "we",or rather our government, bears some responsibility for the 9-11 attack. He, in essence, held up a mirror in front of America, and America cursed the mirror. Rudy Guiliani did the cursing and the ignorant crowd cheered him on. Shameful indeed.
Since then, the talking heads have focused on the cursing and not on the image that they were shown. The GOPAC chairman, Michael Steele, was being interviewed immediately after the debate and said that he thought that Ron Paul was done and that he shouldn't be included in the rest of the debates. Shortly after that, the voting began to come through and to their surprise, Ron Paul was leading the votes. It wasn't until later that Romney overtook him and he ended up in second place.
We need to seriously consider what Ron Paul said that night. Am I a "blame America" whacko ? No, but I'm not a "blame-less America" whacko, either. We had better start being honest with ourselves and look at ALL the facts that are being presented and not simply dismiss it because we " hadn't heard that before" (Guiliani).
Lew Rockwell has an excellent article this morning on the subject. Please, don't dismiss it as ludicrous.
?
Ron
Paul Said It
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate.
Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.
So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina.
Ron was asked if he really wants the troops to come home, and whether that is really a Republican position.
"Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy – no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them."
He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "
And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks.
"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."
Then the very archetype of the State Enforcer popped up to shout him down.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."
Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Guiliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" – a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question.
Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows:
"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blow back. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"
Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a bit more about it.
It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy, meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the point. The problem is that most of the American people simply have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most Americans think that America the country is much like their own neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard working, law abiding. So when you tell people that the US is actually something completely different, they are shocked.
Why would anyone hate us? The problem is that the military wing of the US government is very different from your neighborhood. After the Soviet Union crashed, US elites declared themselves masters of the universe, the only "indispensable nation" and the like. All countries must ask the US for permission to have a nuclear program. If we don't like your government, we can overthrow it. Meanwhile, we sought a global empire unlike any in history: not just a sphere of interest but the entire world. Laurence Vance has the details but here is the bottom line: one-third of a million deployed troops in 134 countries in 1000 locations in foreign countries.
All during the 1990s, the US attempted to starve the population of Iraq, with the result of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Madelyn Albright said on national television that the deaths of 500,000 children (the UN's number) was "worth it" in order to achieve our aims, which were ostensibly the elimination of non-existent, non-US built weapons of mass destruction. Yes, that annoyed a few people. There were constant bombings in Iraq all these years. And let us not forget how all this nonsense began: the first war in 1989 was waged in retaliation for a US-approved Iraqi invasion of its former province, Kuwait. Saddam had good reason to think that the US ambassador was telling the truth about non-interference with Kuwait relations: Saddam was our ally all through the Iran-Iraq war and before.
Ron spoke about complications of the Middle East. One of them is that the enemy we are now fighting, the Islamic extremists, are the very group that we supported and subsidized all through the 1980s in the name of fighting Communism. That's the reason the US knows so much about their bunkers and hiding spots in Afghanistan: US tax dollars created them.
Now, I know this is a lot for the tender ears of Americans to take, who like to think that their government reflects their own values of faith, freedom, and friendliness. But here is the point that libertarians have been trying to hammer home for many years: the US government is the enemy of the American people and their values. It is not peaceful, it is not friendly, it is not motivated by the Christian faith but rather power and imperial lust.
Ron is such a wonderful person that I'm sorry that he had to be the one to tell the truth. One could sense in the debate that he was making an enormous sacrifice here. After Guiliani spoke, the red-state fascists in the audience all started whooping up the bloodlust that the politicians have been encouraging for the last six years – a mindless display of Nazi-like nationalism that would cause the founding fathers to shudder with fear of what we've become. These people are frantic about terrorism and extremism abroad, but they need to take a good hard look in the mirror.
Thank you, Ron, for doing this. We are all in your debt.
May 17, 2007
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com
PRESS RELEASE ** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: May 17, 2007
CONTACT: R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences, PO Box 1625, Aiken, SC 29802
Permission granted to print this article, if used in its entirety. Permission is not granted to change or excerpt the article for redistribution or print. Copyright May 17, 2007.
Wishbone vs Backbone = GOP debate
In the recent debate amongst the Republican Party Presidential primary candidates, there was a moment in which Rep. Dr. Ron Paul asserted historical relevance concerning the September 11 attack in New York. Dr. Paul is 72 years old and was recently unopposed in his reelection to the U.S. House. His constituents believe that he is telling us the truth.
The New York candidate Giuliani attacked Dr. Paul's historical explanation. He demanded an apology because Dr. Paul dared to say that the United States foreign policy and its past behavior caused an enemy to plan the attack on the World Trade Towers in New York City.
Even more amazing is that FoxNews portrayed Giuliani as a victor and defender of the innocent USA. It failed to give a "fair and balanced" report, because the words of a wise historian and physician were clipped and remain on the editors' floor.
For the record, Dr. Paul explained that in 1979, the USA assisted in deposing the Iranian leadership, which caused the hostage taking of USA citizens. The hostages were not set free until President Carter's administration was defeated and a new U.S. President was in power. Dr. Paul rebutted Guiliani's attack by quoting the CIA, which warned of "blow back" behavior due to USA foreign policy decisions.
For the record, Dr. Paul is a scientist. He understands cause and effect. He is a physician. He treats disease by finding the cause, and then treating it correctly. He cannot ignore facts, logic, or history. Dr. Paul has an intellectual backbone by which he stands.
Giuliani is only a great visionary who resides in fairytales. He wants to believe that the USA is innocent; therefore, he says that the USA is an innocent victim to terrorism. That is ridiculous. Those of us who can read will easily refute that position. Giuliani only has a wishbone, which is upheld by the magical fairies of his party who have great wealth and influence with the media (i.e., the gnomes under the proverbial sands of time who feed on cash).
One little known fact is that Kuwait began dipping into Iraq's oil wells by drilling sideways. The leader of Iraq, who rose to power with the backing of the CIA, felt justified in attacking Kuwait. The USA leadership betrayed their old buddy Saddam Hussein and sent military assistance to Kuwait under the elder Bush administration. That is the simple version of history and why men from the Middle East despise the USA.
POINT: The growing hatred for the USA has historical roots and must not be ignored by our future leadership, including the future President of the United States. In the most recent debate, Rep. Dr. Ron Paul deserves an A-plus in history. His opponent Giuliani made an F-minus.
Subject: Ron Paul Said It!
Finally, someone had the courage to say it !!!
Dr. Ron Paul on Tuesday night's "debate" (modern debates are more like mass interviews) dared suggest that "we",or rather our government, bears some responsibility for the 9-11 attack. He, in essence, held up a mirror in front of America, and America cursed the mirror. Rudy Guiliani did the cursing and the ignorant crowd cheered him on. Shameful indeed.
Since then, the talking heads have focused on the cursing and not on the image that they were shown. The GOPAC chairman, Michael Steele, was being interviewed immediately after the debate and said that he thought that Ron Paul was done and that he shouldn't be included in the rest of the debates. Shortly after that, the voting began to come through and to their surprise, Ron Paul was leading the votes. It wasn't until later that Romney overtook him and he ended up in second place.
We need to seriously consider what Ron Paul said that night. Am I a "blame America" whacko ? No, but I'm not a "blame-less America" whacko, either. We had better start being honest with ourselves and look at ALL the facts that are being presented and not simply dismiss it because we " hadn't heard that before" (Guiliani).
Lew Rockwell has an excellent article this morning on the subject. Please, don't dismiss it as ludicrous.
?
Ron
Paul Said It
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate.
Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.
So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina.
Ron was asked if he really wants the troops to come home, and whether that is really a Republican position.
"Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy – no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them."
He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East – I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "
And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the attacks.
"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time – have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."
Then the very archetype of the State Enforcer popped up to shout him down.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."
Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Guiliani then went on to say that he has never "heard that before" – a statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this question.
Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows:
"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blow back. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"
Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a bit more about it.
It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy, meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the point. The problem is that most of the American people simply have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most Americans think that America the country is much like their own neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard working, law abiding. So when you tell people that the US is actually something completely different, they are shocked.
Why would anyone hate us? The problem is that the military wing of the US government is very different from your neighborhood. After the Soviet Union crashed, US elites declared themselves masters of the universe, the only "indispensable nation" and the like. All countries must ask the US for permission to have a nuclear program. If we don't like your government, we can overthrow it. Meanwhile, we sought a global empire unlike any in history: not just a sphere of interest but the entire world. Laurence Vance has the details but here is the bottom line: one-third of a million deployed troops in 134 countries in 1000 locations in foreign countries.
All during the 1990s, the US attempted to starve the population of Iraq, with the result of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Madelyn Albright said on national television that the deaths of 500,000 children (the UN's number) was "worth it" in order to achieve our aims, which were ostensibly the elimination of non-existent, non-US built weapons of mass destruction. Yes, that annoyed a few people. There were constant bombings in Iraq all these years. And let us not forget how all this nonsense began: the first war in 1989 was waged in retaliation for a US-approved Iraqi invasion of its former province, Kuwait. Saddam had good reason to think that the US ambassador was telling the truth about non-interference with Kuwait relations: Saddam was our ally all through the Iran-Iraq war and before.
Ron spoke about complications of the Middle East. One of them is that the enemy we are now fighting, the Islamic extremists, are the very group that we supported and subsidized all through the 1980s in the name of fighting Communism. That's the reason the US knows so much about their bunkers and hiding spots in Afghanistan: US tax dollars created them.
Now, I know this is a lot for the tender ears of Americans to take, who like to think that their government reflects their own values of faith, freedom, and friendliness. But here is the point that libertarians have been trying to hammer home for many years: the US government is the enemy of the American people and their values. It is not peaceful, it is not friendly, it is not motivated by the Christian faith but rather power and imperial lust.
Ron is such a wonderful person that I'm sorry that he had to be the one to tell the truth. One could sense in the debate that he was making an enormous sacrifice here. After Guiliani spoke, the red-state fascists in the audience all started whooping up the bloodlust that the politicians have been encouraging for the last six years – a mindless display of Nazi-like nationalism that would cause the founding fathers to shudder with fear of what we've become. These people are frantic about terrorism and extremism abroad, but they need to take a good hard look in the mirror.
Thank you, Ron, for doing this. We are all in your debt.
May 17, 2007
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com
PRESS RELEASE ** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: May 17, 2007
CONTACT: R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences, PO Box 1625, Aiken, SC 29802
Permission granted to print this article, if used in its entirety. Permission is not granted to change or excerpt the article for redistribution or print. Copyright May 17, 2007.
Wishbone vs Backbone = GOP debate
In the recent debate amongst the Republican Party Presidential primary candidates, there was a moment in which Rep. Dr. Ron Paul asserted historical relevance concerning the September 11 attack in New York. Dr. Paul is 72 years old and was recently unopposed in his reelection to the U.S. House. His constituents believe that he is telling us the truth.
The New York candidate Giuliani attacked Dr. Paul's historical explanation. He demanded an apology because Dr. Paul dared to say that the United States foreign policy and its past behavior caused an enemy to plan the attack on the World Trade Towers in New York City.
Even more amazing is that FoxNews portrayed Giuliani as a victor and defender of the innocent USA. It failed to give a "fair and balanced" report, because the words of a wise historian and physician were clipped and remain on the editors' floor.
For the record, Dr. Paul explained that in 1979, the USA assisted in deposing the Iranian leadership, which caused the hostage taking of USA citizens. The hostages were not set free until President Carter's administration was defeated and a new U.S. President was in power. Dr. Paul rebutted Guiliani's attack by quoting the CIA, which warned of "blow back" behavior due to USA foreign policy decisions.
For the record, Dr. Paul is a scientist. He understands cause and effect. He is a physician. He treats disease by finding the cause, and then treating it correctly. He cannot ignore facts, logic, or history. Dr. Paul has an intellectual backbone by which he stands.
Giuliani is only a great visionary who resides in fairytales. He wants to believe that the USA is innocent; therefore, he says that the USA is an innocent victim to terrorism. That is ridiculous. Those of us who can read will easily refute that position. Giuliani only has a wishbone, which is upheld by the magical fairies of his party who have great wealth and influence with the media (i.e., the gnomes under the proverbial sands of time who feed on cash).
One little known fact is that Kuwait began dipping into Iraq's oil wells by drilling sideways. The leader of Iraq, who rose to power with the backing of the CIA, felt justified in attacking Kuwait. The USA leadership betrayed their old buddy Saddam Hussein and sent military assistance to Kuwait under the elder Bush administration. That is the simple version of history and why men from the Middle East despise the USA.
POINT: The growing hatred for the USA has historical roots and must not be ignored by our future leadership, including the future President of the United States. In the most recent debate, Rep. Dr. Ron Paul deserves an A-plus in history. His opponent Giuliani made an F-minus.
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Ron Paul is leaving the pack in the dust
by DaleSVP » Wed May 23, 2007 1:25 pm
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Ron Paul in the lead still
by DaleSVP » Thu May 24, 2007 12:50 am
10,001...and counting!
May 23, 2007
At 4:46 p.m. ET today, Congressman Ron Paul's YouTube channel registered 10,001 subscribers! Dr. Paul now has nearly twice as many subscribers as Barack Obama who is in second place.
Here are the current numbers:
Paul - 10,001
Obama - 5,768
Clinton - 3,212
Edwards - 2,764
Romney - 2,014
Kucinich - 1,732
Giuliani - 1,389
McCain - 1,259
Gravel - 885
Richardson - 790
Biden - 589
Hunter - 402
Dodd - 230
Huckabee - 205
Tancredo - 190
Brownback - 96
Gilmore - 50.
Ron Paul 2008 YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
May 23, 2007
At 4:46 p.m. ET today, Congressman Ron Paul's YouTube channel registered 10,001 subscribers! Dr. Paul now has nearly twice as many subscribers as Barack Obama who is in second place.
Here are the current numbers:
Paul - 10,001
Obama - 5,768
Clinton - 3,212
Edwards - 2,764
Romney - 2,014
Kucinich - 1,732
Giuliani - 1,389
McCain - 1,259
Gravel - 885
Richardson - 790
Biden - 589
Hunter - 402
Dodd - 230
Huckabee - 205
Tancredo - 190
Brownback - 96
Gilmore - 50.
Ron Paul 2008 YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Ron Paul, Stop Dreaming, a call to sanity
by DaleSVP » Thu May 24, 2007 11:30 am
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Ron Paul is smoking 'em
by DaleSVP » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:14 pm
July 13, 2007
Press Release: Ron Paul Goes 20/20
GOP presidential candidate's eCampaign reaches unparalleled levels of success
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – The Ron Paul presidential campaign has reached two important benchmarks of success: 20,000 YouTube subscribers and 20,000 Meetup group members.
As of today, the Paul Campaign's YouTube channel has 20,302 subscribers, giving the organization a powerful platform for their popular videos. The GOP candidate with the second most subscribers is Mitt Romney with 2,416. Barack Obama has 8,807.
Dr. Paul also has 20,677 individuals in 428 cities across America signed up though Meetup.com to participate in grassroots activities. Meetup members have thus far held 1,127 events for Dr. Paul: walking neighborhoods, making signs and handing out literature. Barack Obama has 5,327 Meetup group members, while Mitt Romney has 29.
"Our campaign is growing by the day," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity is spreading across the country like wild fire. It is exciting to see online attention translate to action on the ground."
Press Release: Ron Paul Goes 20/20
GOP presidential candidate's eCampaign reaches unparalleled levels of success
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – The Ron Paul presidential campaign has reached two important benchmarks of success: 20,000 YouTube subscribers and 20,000 Meetup group members.
As of today, the Paul Campaign's YouTube channel has 20,302 subscribers, giving the organization a powerful platform for their popular videos. The GOP candidate with the second most subscribers is Mitt Romney with 2,416. Barack Obama has 8,807.
Dr. Paul also has 20,677 individuals in 428 cities across America signed up though Meetup.com to participate in grassroots activities. Meetup members have thus far held 1,127 events for Dr. Paul: walking neighborhoods, making signs and handing out literature. Barack Obama has 5,327 Meetup group members, while Mitt Romney has 29.
"Our campaign is growing by the day," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul's message of freedom, peace and prosperity is spreading across the country like wild fire. It is exciting to see online attention translate to action on the ground."
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
101 reasons to vote for Ron Paul 2008
by DaleSVP » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:15 pm
101 reasons to vote for Ron Paul 2008
1. He Supports the Constitution. (wow go figure!)
2. He Believes In Religious Freedom.
3. He Has Never Voted For A Tax Increase.
4. He Is Against Public Funding Of Abortion.
5. He Is Against Funding Abortion Abroad.
6. He Is Against The National I.D. or Real I.D. Act.
7. He Believes In The “Just War Theory”.
8. He Supports The Rights Of Private Property Owners.
9. He Wants Us Out Of The U.N.
10. He Wants Us To Trade With Nations And Not War With Them.
11. He Is For 2nd Amendment Rights.
12. He Opposes NAIS.
13. He Wants To Shrink The Federal Government, Not Expand It.
14. He Has No Plans To Start A War With Iran Or Anyone Else.
15. He Wants To Bring Our Troops Home.
16. He Does Not Belong To The CFR (Council On Foreign Relations).
17. He Has Not Received Campaign Contributions From Rupert Murdoch (Like Hillary).
18. His Running Mate Most Likely Will Not Have Shot Anyone In The Face.
19. He Wants To End The I.R.S..
20. He Wants To Cut Spending……Really, Cut Spending.
21. He Is Against Eminent Domain.
22. He Is Against The Nafta Superhighway.
23. He Is Against The North American Union Or SPP (It Exists, Google It).
24. He Is For The Principle Of Sound Money.
25. He Is Against The Idea of The Amero (Google It).
26. He Is Against The Federal Reserve’s Monopoly On Monetary Regulation.
27. He Is Philosophically Opposed To Big Government.
28. He Voted Against The Misnamed Patriot Act That Stripped Us Of Our Rights.
29. He Is For The Bill Of Rights.
30. He Knows The Meaning Of Liberty.
31. He Was 1 Of 4 People That Supported Reagan Early On.
32. He Has Been Married For 50 Years, Which Is An Achievement These Days.
33. He Is Not Married To Hillary.
34. His Supporters Love Him.
35. He Is A Once In A Lifetime Candidate.
36. Because His Record Is Consistent.
37. He Is Against Funding The So-Called War On Drugs (Another Unsuccessful War).
38. He Is Actually Against Funding Many Unsuccessful Federal Programs.
39. He Does Not Want To Ruin Healthcare By Nationalizing It, (Like Hillary, Obama, et al.)
40. He Is A Student Of History.
41. He Votes In Accordance With The Constitution.
42. He Will Not Forcibly Implant Us Or Our Troops With Microchips Or Like Devices (It’s For Your Safety, Of Course).
43. He Is The Only Conservative, In The Traditional Sense, Left.
44. Republicans Love Him Because He Is For Small Government.
45. Democrats Love Him Because He Will End The War For Oil.
46. Libertarians Love Him Because He Wants The Government Out Of Their Business.
47. He Is The Only Electable Republican Candidate.
48. He is Against The Creation Of A Surveillance Society (See London).
49. He Supports Homeschool Rights.
50. He Wants To End The Corporate Welfare System That Is Destroying Our Government’s Credibility.
51. He Tells It Like It Is. He Is Truthful.
52. He Reads.
53. As A Doctor, He Is Informed On The Healthcare Issue.
54. He Has Not Been Hannitized.
55. He Has The Courage To Speak Out Against What Is Wrong.
56. He Will Be Good For The Economy (Freedom Generally Is Good For The Economy).
57. He Wants Us Out Of The WTO And Like Organizations.
58. The I.R.S. Is Scared Of This Guy.
59. He Is Smart Enough To Prefer Gold Over Paper.
60. He Knows The Term FIAT-CURRENCY and knows what it means.
61. He Wants To Secure Our Borders.
62. He Favors Guarding Our Country Over Policing The World.
63. He Opposed The War From The Beginning.
64. He Authorized The Hunt For Osama Bin Laden.
65. He Believes Local Governments Are Better Suited To Handle Their Own Issues.
66. He Is Willing To Listen And Reason With Others.
67. He Is A Christian Who Believes Christ Was Right When He Said, “Blessed Are The Peacemakers”.
68. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
69. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
70. He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
71. He has never taken a government-paid junket.
72. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
73. He voted against regulating the Internet.
74. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
75. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
76. He Is Against Selective Service Registration.
77. He Is Against A Mandatory Draft.
78. He Is Still Not Married To Hillary.
79. He Has The Support Of The Youth.
80. His Campaign Has People Across The Country Motivated.
81. His Supporters Are Enthusiastic.
82. He Is Educated.
83. He Wants To Apply The Golden Rule In Government (How Radical).
84. He Believes in Freedom Of Speech.
85. He Believes In Individual Rights
86. He Believes Those Rights Come From Our Creator.
87. He Does Not “Move With The Herd”.
88. He Has Delivered Over 4,000 Babies And Values Life.
89. He Doesn’t Have To “Act The Part” Because He Is What He Is.
90. He Has Not Waffled On The Abortion Issue As Every Other Republican Candidate.
91. He Has Faced Tremendous Opposition With Dignity.
92. He Is Optimistic
93. He Values The Traditions That Have Kept Us Free.
94. He Understands That Monopolies Are Bad Things.
95. He Understands The Difference Between Individual And Government Responsibility.
96. He Understands Inflation Is Not Just The Prices Going Up, But Rather The Value Of Money Going Down.
97. You Will Feel Good About Your Vote For A Change.
98. You Will Know You Have Done The Right Thing.
99. For The First Time In A Long Time, You Will Not Be Voting “For The Least Worst”.
100. You Will Help Undo The Damage Done To Our Country Over The Last Several Decades.
101. He Is Our Last Hope For A Free Nation.
_____________________________________
"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law."
Louis D. Brandeis, lawyer, judge and writer (1856-1941)
1. He Supports the Constitution. (wow go figure!)
2. He Believes In Religious Freedom.
3. He Has Never Voted For A Tax Increase.
4. He Is Against Public Funding Of Abortion.
5. He Is Against Funding Abortion Abroad.
6. He Is Against The National I.D. or Real I.D. Act.
7. He Believes In The “Just War Theory”.
8. He Supports The Rights Of Private Property Owners.
9. He Wants Us Out Of The U.N.
10. He Wants Us To Trade With Nations And Not War With Them.
11. He Is For 2nd Amendment Rights.
12. He Opposes NAIS.
13. He Wants To Shrink The Federal Government, Not Expand It.
14. He Has No Plans To Start A War With Iran Or Anyone Else.
15. He Wants To Bring Our Troops Home.
16. He Does Not Belong To The CFR (Council On Foreign Relations).
17. He Has Not Received Campaign Contributions From Rupert Murdoch (Like Hillary).
18. His Running Mate Most Likely Will Not Have Shot Anyone In The Face.
19. He Wants To End The I.R.S..
20. He Wants To Cut Spending……Really, Cut Spending.
21. He Is Against Eminent Domain.
22. He Is Against The Nafta Superhighway.
23. He Is Against The North American Union Or SPP (It Exists, Google It).
24. He Is For The Principle Of Sound Money.
25. He Is Against The Idea of The Amero (Google It).
26. He Is Against The Federal Reserve’s Monopoly On Monetary Regulation.
27. He Is Philosophically Opposed To Big Government.
28. He Voted Against The Misnamed Patriot Act That Stripped Us Of Our Rights.
29. He Is For The Bill Of Rights.
30. He Knows The Meaning Of Liberty.
31. He Was 1 Of 4 People That Supported Reagan Early On.
32. He Has Been Married For 50 Years, Which Is An Achievement These Days.
33. He Is Not Married To Hillary.
34. His Supporters Love Him.
35. He Is A Once In A Lifetime Candidate.
36. Because His Record Is Consistent.
37. He Is Against Funding The So-Called War On Drugs (Another Unsuccessful War).
38. He Is Actually Against Funding Many Unsuccessful Federal Programs.
39. He Does Not Want To Ruin Healthcare By Nationalizing It, (Like Hillary, Obama, et al.)
40. He Is A Student Of History.
41. He Votes In Accordance With The Constitution.
42. He Will Not Forcibly Implant Us Or Our Troops With Microchips Or Like Devices (It’s For Your Safety, Of Course).
43. He Is The Only Conservative, In The Traditional Sense, Left.
44. Republicans Love Him Because He Is For Small Government.
45. Democrats Love Him Because He Will End The War For Oil.
46. Libertarians Love Him Because He Wants The Government Out Of Their Business.
47. He Is The Only Electable Republican Candidate.
48. He is Against The Creation Of A Surveillance Society (See London).
49. He Supports Homeschool Rights.
50. He Wants To End The Corporate Welfare System That Is Destroying Our Government’s Credibility.
51. He Tells It Like It Is. He Is Truthful.
52. He Reads.
53. As A Doctor, He Is Informed On The Healthcare Issue.
54. He Has Not Been Hannitized.
55. He Has The Courage To Speak Out Against What Is Wrong.
56. He Will Be Good For The Economy (Freedom Generally Is Good For The Economy).
57. He Wants Us Out Of The WTO And Like Organizations.
58. The I.R.S. Is Scared Of This Guy.
59. He Is Smart Enough To Prefer Gold Over Paper.
60. He Knows The Term FIAT-CURRENCY and knows what it means.
61. He Wants To Secure Our Borders.
62. He Favors Guarding Our Country Over Policing The World.
63. He Opposed The War From The Beginning.
64. He Authorized The Hunt For Osama Bin Laden.
65. He Believes Local Governments Are Better Suited To Handle Their Own Issues.
66. He Is Willing To Listen And Reason With Others.
67. He Is A Christian Who Believes Christ Was Right When He Said, “Blessed Are The Peacemakers”.
68. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
69. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
70. He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
71. He has never taken a government-paid junket.
72. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
73. He voted against regulating the Internet.
74. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
75. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
76. He Is Against Selective Service Registration.
77. He Is Against A Mandatory Draft.
78. He Is Still Not Married To Hillary.
79. He Has The Support Of The Youth.
80. His Campaign Has People Across The Country Motivated.
81. His Supporters Are Enthusiastic.
82. He Is Educated.
83. He Wants To Apply The Golden Rule In Government (How Radical).
84. He Believes in Freedom Of Speech.
85. He Believes In Individual Rights
86. He Believes Those Rights Come From Our Creator.
87. He Does Not “Move With The Herd”.
88. He Has Delivered Over 4,000 Babies And Values Life.
89. He Doesn’t Have To “Act The Part” Because He Is What He Is.
90. He Has Not Waffled On The Abortion Issue As Every Other Republican Candidate.
91. He Has Faced Tremendous Opposition With Dignity.
92. He Is Optimistic
93. He Values The Traditions That Have Kept Us Free.
94. He Understands That Monopolies Are Bad Things.
95. He Understands The Difference Between Individual And Government Responsibility.
96. He Understands Inflation Is Not Just The Prices Going Up, But Rather The Value Of Money Going Down.
97. You Will Feel Good About Your Vote For A Change.
98. You Will Know You Have Done The Right Thing.
99. For The First Time In A Long Time, You Will Not Be Voting “For The Least Worst”.
100. You Will Help Undo The Damage Done To Our Country Over The Last Several Decades.
101. He Is Our Last Hope For A Free Nation.
_____________________________________
"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law."
Louis D. Brandeis, lawyer, judge and writer (1856-1941)
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Promoting Ron Paul and caucuses
by DaleSVP » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:25 am
Hi Everyone,
Michelle Fire Eater (what an interesting name!) has sent us a PP presentation detailing how to promote Ron Paul and work within the caucus system. I uploaded it to my website for easier downloading as it is a large file (4.5 mb) for email.
http://www.svpvril.com/RonPaul/CanvassWorkshop03.ppt
Please download and review this amazingly well done presentation.
Michelle Fire Eater (what an interesting name!) has sent us a PP presentation detailing how to promote Ron Paul and work within the caucus system. I uploaded it to my website for easier downloading as it is a large file (4.5 mb) for email.
http://www.svpvril.com/RonPaul/CanvassWorkshop03.ppt
Please download and review this amazingly well done presentation.
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
by DaleSVP » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:28 pm
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
"We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property." Ron Paul
"We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property." Ron Paul
-
DaleSVP - Site Admin
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 am
- Location: La Junta, Colorado
RON PAUL'S ISRAEL PROBLEM
by pierre » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:54 pm
Excellent article
RON PAUL'S ISRAEL PROBLEM
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
January 15, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
If evangelical Christians are hesitant to support Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination for President, two reasons are usually proffered: he does not support Israel, and he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq.
Unfortunately, many (if not most) of today's evangelical Christians have bought into the whole neocon warmongering mentality. Somewhere along the way, evangelicals have forgotten the historic Christian understanding of "just war," not to mention our Savior's promise of divine blessing upon peacemakers. They have allowed President George W. Bush and his fellow warmongers to hijack the legitimate use of defensive war and turn it into a commitment to aggressive and preemptive war.
If the United States continues on its current path of aggressive, preemptive war, incessant nation-building, empire-building, and globalism, our country will collapse. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that no super-power can long survive global warfare. The economic, moral, and spiritual strain on the nation would be more than it could long endure. In other words, Bush's war doctrine has put America on a crash course with disaster, and evangelicals are downright foolish to go along with it.
http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin423.htm
RON PAUL'S ISRAEL PROBLEM
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
January 15, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
If evangelical Christians are hesitant to support Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination for President, two reasons are usually proffered: he does not support Israel, and he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq.
Unfortunately, many (if not most) of today's evangelical Christians have bought into the whole neocon warmongering mentality. Somewhere along the way, evangelicals have forgotten the historic Christian understanding of "just war," not to mention our Savior's promise of divine blessing upon peacemakers. They have allowed President George W. Bush and his fellow warmongers to hijack the legitimate use of defensive war and turn it into a commitment to aggressive and preemptive war.
If the United States continues on its current path of aggressive, preemptive war, incessant nation-building, empire-building, and globalism, our country will collapse. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that no super-power can long survive global warfare. The economic, moral, and spiritual strain on the nation would be more than it could long endure. In other words, Bush's war doctrine has put America on a crash course with disaster, and evangelicals are downright foolish to go along with it.
http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin423.htm
-
pierre - Site Admin
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:22 pm
Support Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act"
by Sunshinemaker » Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:18 pm
The ”American Freedom Agenda Act” is a bill . . .
* Created by conservatives
* Supported by progressives
* And introduced in Congress by Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas.
The full text of this bill can be found on the Background page. This legislation will . . .
* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2007” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
* Restore the ”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws
* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions
This one simple 3-page bill will . . .
* Restore basic Constitutional protections
* Empower Americans to support human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the world at large free from the stink of hypocrisy
* Protect Americans and American soldiers from blowback by foreign powers in retaliation for our government's transgression of America's most hallowed principles
If ever there was a bill that all Americans should support, it is this one.
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=82
* Created by conservatives
* Supported by progressives
* And introduced in Congress by Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas.
The full text of this bill can be found on the Background page. This legislation will . . .
* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2007” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
* Restore the ”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws
* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions
This one simple 3-page bill will . . .
* Restore basic Constitutional protections
* Empower Americans to support human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the world at large free from the stink of hypocrisy
* Protect Americans and American soldiers from blowback by foreign powers in retaliation for our government's transgression of America's most hallowed principles
If ever there was a bill that all Americans should support, it is this one.
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=82
- Sunshinemaker
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:54 am
33 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to 2008 Circus Maximus Hilarious
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest