View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (11-13-07)

11-13-2007, 11:42 AM

Ron Paul Roundup (11-13-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=328220190&Mytoken=CE7BADB5-4D83-4EB2-9F6F2050278430DE15571641)

Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start today's Roundup with some news about Ron Paul's emerging status as a frontrunner. USADaily is reporting (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=160054) on some new poll numbers that have Paul leapfrogging over some "mainstream" competition:

Paul's campaign is highlighting two new polls this past week end by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both polls show Congressman Paul polling at seven percent in New Hampshire.

This places Ron Paul in 4rth place and ahead of a former front-runner in the polls, Fred Thompson. The New Hampshire primary is the first in the nation and the winner is likely to win the Republican nomination or at least gain a great amount of momentum toward that goal.

And United Press International is talking (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/12/huckabee_paul_discount_front-runners/8177/) about what Dr Paul had to say about his emergence:

Paul, a libertarian GOPcongressman from the Houston area, said the $5 million in contributions his campaign pulled in last week shows Americans "are just starved for" his vision of limited federal government. Still, he recognizes he's a long-shot.

"But compared to 12 months ago, I would say that it's much more likely now," Paul said. "... Don't try and tell my supporters that there's not a chance, because they believe."

Gambling911.com is reporting (http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-111207.html) on the effects of Paul's fundraising success:

Prior to last week's unprecedented Internet fund raising campaign, few outside of Ron Paul's loyal support base (and of course Gambling911.com readers) really knew much about the candidate.

"Who's that?" we here at Gambling911.com would hear time and time again when the subject was brought up.

Last Monday, Dr. Paul, a popular long term Texas Representative, managed to take in just over $4 mil in a single 24 hour period via a massive grassroots Internet-only campaign. A week later, Ron Paul had amassed just over $8 mil for the quarter, well on his way to the campaign's goal of $12 mil by year's end. There is already talk of a second one-day fundraiser. Ron Paul has begun advertising heavily in early primary states.

But it's the free press that may ultimately help his campaign. One of the reasons few had heard of Ron Paul was the fact that few mainstream media outlets would bring his name up. The tide is changing now.

Wired has a story (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/in-role-reversa.html)right now about how Obama's supporters, whether they admit it or not, are trying to emulate Ron Paul supporters:

Girish Manchaiah, a 35-year-old software engineer and Obama supporter in Springboro, Ohio, has set up an online fund-raising deadline of November 16th to raise $5 million.

Asked whether he was inspired by Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's supporters, who recently raised $4.2 million in 24 hours, Macchaiah said: "Not really -- I think Ron Paul's people are inspired by what we're doing online."

Riiiiight....but let's continue...

Nevertheless, it's apparent that Ron Paul's recent news-making haul online has touched a competitive nerve within the Democratic grassroots community.

"Backers of the program say if Ron Paul supporters can do it, so can we. Can we really do it?" asked "Diamond," an Obama supporter in Bradenton, Fla. and Dublin, Ireland in a post promoting the November 16 fund-raising drive.

"If a bunch of crazy people can raise $5 million in a day for Ron Paul Matrix rEVOLutions Ayn Rand '08, we should be able to do the same for Obama," wrote "HatchinBrooklyn," at "One Million Strong," a progressive community Weblog dedicated to tracking the conversation and online support for Obama.

That's fucking hilarious. Seriously. We see through you, Obama supporters.

David Weigel of reason wrote (http://reason.com/news/show/123454.html) about a Ron Paul rally in Philadelphia:

The afternoon rolled in on Philadelphia's Independence Mall, Ron Paul supporters kept streaming onto the green, and a Temple University student named Matt Sullivan stalked the crowd handing out flyers. The headline: "Think you know what RON PAUL stands for?" The text: Four paragraphs from a 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report, the issue with an essay about 95 percent of black males being criminals.

Why was a self-identified liberal, a student who's worked for Democratic campaigns, passing out Paul oppo? "I keep talking to liberals," Sullivan said, "who hear Paul in the debates and think he's anti-war. There's an effort to register Republican to vote for him, but he's got truly radical views that are being mainstreamed at events like this."

Here was the best example—better even than the churning, cheering rally of at least 4000 people—of how the Paul movement has grown. No one crashes Dennis Kucinich or Duncan Hunter events handing out "fact sheets." Our electoral Ashton Kutchers show up in dolphin suits at Mitt rallies; they amble into Rudy fundraisers with photos of mutilated fetuses who died for your sins. They only pay attention to the candidates they fear.

Indeed, Mr Weigel. Indeed. I feel I must note for those not familiar, that essay has been widely debunked as not written by Paul. When he was made aware of it, he said it didn't represent his views at all. If you'd like to know Ron Paul's views on racism, read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html):

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

But back to Philadelphia. USNews & World Reports is also talking (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/11/12/ron-paul-finds-fans-in-cradle-of-liberty.html)about the rally:

Ron Paul is on a roll. After a record-breaking online fundraising week, the libertarian Republican candidate for the presidency entertained a crowd of 5,000 in the Old City section of Philadelphia on Saturday.

"It certainly looks bigger than a few spammers," the once long-shot candidate told supporters. His campaign has been wildly popular online, but with the good turnout in Philly, it looks as though it's gaining traction outside cyberspace as well.

Surrounded by the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, and the National Constitution Center, Paul said he could "feel the energy of the Founders" as he gave a speech touching on topics as diverse as how he would use the executive order to the legalization of marijuana. Paul, known as "Dr. No" in Washington for his unwillingness to vote for anything not expressly delegated to Congress in the Constitution, often cites the Founding Fathers.

That is nice coverage. They said libertarian, which is always good for the freedom movement, and treated the campaign seriously.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon is a good guy. He doesn't endorse Ron Paul - he endorses truth (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html):

I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:

Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.

He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning.

But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Party front-runner who, "along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal" -- Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes frequently -- that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.

Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous."

It is a seriouly good piece. He dissects several of the hit pieces out there. If you only follow one link out of this whole Roundup, pick that one.

The Nolan Chart is making the distinction (http://www.nolanchart.com/article282.html) between an isolationist and a non-interventionist. This is something we all need to do all the time, because it seems to be the most mis-represented of all Ron Paul's views:

The press keep harping that his foreign policy is isolationist and they keep trying to characterize him that way as if he is out of touch with reality. It is an absurd notion that people seem to really think that our 700 worldwide bases and trillion dollar annual defense spending largess are somehow required to make us safe.

The expenditures are representative of a huge waste of money for a very poor defense benefit in my opinion. The only ones that care about our military bases overseas in areas we have not had a real strategic requirement to defend in many years are those who have a vested interested in those bases. There is no current strategic advantage for bases in Japan. There is no current strategic advantage for bases in Germany. There is no current strategic advantage for bases in South Korea.

The same can be said for most of our military bases around the world. They are in fact what a businessman would call a bad return on a poor investment. In other words they are a bust and of no value on the financial level. At least when the Roman Empire left a garrison in a conquered region there was a tribute paid for the favor of leaving that army in the area so it was not a total bust and debt to the empire. When the United States Empire has a foreign base we commonly pay rent and damages to the host nation.

Steven Horwitz of the History News Network knocked out (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/44523.html)fiat money and imperialism with one punch:

One of the interesting things about the Ron Paul candidacy has been the reaction to two of his most controversial proposals: withdrawing US troops from Iraq (and elsewhere) as soon as possible and returning to the gold standard or some form of private money. The right, of course, howls with derision at the former, while the left (and some on the right) do the same at the latter. What few if any seem to realize is that these two positions have a deep and important historical connection:

If you want to make it harder for the US to act like an imperialist bully you need to find ways to reduce the resources available for it to do so. Getting the state out of the money creation business eliminates its ability to manipulate the monetary system to raise funds surreptitiously for the war machine.

When I taught money and banking, I used begin the history of the American monetary system section by asking my students what the following dates in US history had in common: 1812-1816, 1863, 1913, 1971. The obvious answer is "times of war or close to it" (and if you count the Great Depression as a metaphorical war in the eyes of politicians, you could add 1934), but the answer I was looking for is "times of increased federal involvement in the monetary system." That those two answers overlap is no coincidence. For hundreds of years, governments have intervened in monetary institutions for the purpose of using them as a way to raise revenue via the manipulation of money and credit, and most often that revenue has been for the making of war.

Fighting wars requires resources. Governments have only four ways to raise revenue: sell off assets, borrow, tax, or inflate/maniuplate the monetary system. If we assume that states interested in making war are also ones interested in accruing power, selling off assets is unlikely. Both borrowing and taxing have their limits. If governments try to sell war bonds, they better have buyers and that assumes that the populace is in general agreement the conduct of that war. World War II bonds sold, but I don't recall any Vietnam War bonds, nor do I see any Iraq War bonds being available for purchase. Raising taxes to fight a war also requires at least some public agreement with the policy as tax-raising politicians may well be voted out if the war is unpopular. For politicians, the downside of raising taxes (like the downside of conscription) is that it is an obvious and painful grab for resources by the warfare state. It would much rather be able to raise the necessary resources in a way that is much less obvious and therefore has less potential for political conflict. Enter the monetary system.

Free Market News Network is reporting (http://www.fmnn.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=51343) about some of my friends over at RonPaulForums.com who plan to take out a full page ad in America's newspaper, USAToday:

On either November 20, or 21, USA Today will be running a full-page, black and white ad in support of the campaign of presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex), currently titled "An Open Letter to the American People."

The ad will be paid for by a wealthy Ron Paul supporter in Massachusetts who will be placing the ad on his own behalf and is not associated with the official campaign. The graphic design work is being provided out of NH, and the ad concept is the brain work of the team at www.ronpaulforums.com, sources said.

The black and white ad will emphasize the constitutional nature of the Ron Paul campaign and the foundations of his small-government, anti-tax and anti-foreign entanglements perspective.

And finally, here's Ron Paul on reforming marijuana laws:


11-13-2007, 12:04 PM
Thanks again for your work!

I like that you inject your own personality and humor into the side commentary. However, keep in mind that as this Roundup becomes more popular, you may want to be careful with the language.

- Topher

11-13-2007, 03:03 PM