View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (12-17-07) PART 1

12-17-2007, 06:07 PM

[b]Ron Paul Roundup (12-17-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=338962032&Mytoken=8BDFC348-FB25-4ECE-B39A2D7C8D6CC6AB54594582)

Hello Freedomphiles! So, this is the normal edition of the Roundup, and I probably still won't be able to get away from the moneybomb mentions. It's huge news! In other huge news, Liv - the beautiful and talented Ron Paul Girl - has a new video out. You can see it at the end of this Roundup. Don't go peek - save it as your reward for the end.

Let's start out with two more from LewRockwell's open letter series. The first (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html) is an open letter to anarchists (pay attention, BiggHigg):

Why, then, am I asking fellow anarchists – those who also reject the state on ethical or practical grounds – to lend support to Ron Paul, a Republican politician running for president? How can an anarchist of any stripe get excited about a man who seeks the most powerful office in the most powerful state in world history?

Some anarchists oppose Ron Paul's candidacy simply because he is not an anarchist and the presidency itself is an office that can never be defended, no matter who holds it. This is a respectable enough position, but it neglects the full significance of this campaign, both short and long term, to the cause of liberty.

If Ron Paul were to actually win, he would indeed fail to smash the state entirely. That is neither his intention nor his promise. However, he would clearly move American society far closer toward the anarchist ideal. He would put to rest the most tyrannical and hierarchical organization as it concerns international affairs – the US empire. He would close down the American bases on foreign soil, halt the murderous invasions and bombings, stop dictating terms to other nations, and end the horrifying US regime of torture and indefinite, unchecked detentions. He would end the war on terror, which the two parties intend to maintain for a lifetime. All this alone would make Paul a remarkably unique president. On the world scene, it would finally mean anarchy between nations: There would be no global policeman, the role currently executed by the US government.

And the second (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/arias1.html) is an open letter to Hispanics:

Although there is only one Hispanic presidential candidate today, Ron Paul is the best option for Hispanics. In my opinion, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would make a better president than the other candidates from the Democratic Party. But we have to ask ourselves who is the best candidate from either party. In a time of war, inflation, rising taxes, out-of-control deficit-spending and domestic spying, Hispanics need a man who has the experience, the integrity and the determination to stand up to the Washington machine. That man is Ron Paul.

Hispanics have endured oppression and infringement of human rights since the European powers came to Latinize our native cultures with slavery, feudalism and state-sponsored religion. Our history for centuries has been a long, arduous journey to self-determination and liberty. We should stay true to that common vision and purpose.

Over at The Progress Report, Jim Kramer is envisioning (http://www.progress.org/2007/fold537.htm) how Ron Paul could win the presidency:

It's fine to be able to sue polluters, but in some cases, the pollution affects a wide area, including the whole planet. A class-action lawsuit against a polluter such as a coal power plant implies that the polluter compensate all Americans and others affected as an on-going charge. This has the same effect as a pollution levy of the same amount.

Actually, the green tax shift would be even better than a mass tort, because the elimination of the income tax would also eliminate the excess burden of the tax. When wages are taxed, we are hit with two taxes. One tax is the money workers are forced to pay to government. The second tax is the reduction in production, investment, and consumption because of the first tax. The green tax shift would eliminate the excess burden and also replace intrusive and costly regulations such as gasoline additives and engine requirements. If libertarians are serious about eliminating subsidies, they should favor pollution levies that apply the polluter-pays principle to emissions that have millions of victims and that replace punitive taxes on wages and entrepreneurship.

There is not a single candidate in the Republican or Democratic Party primary elections who is advocating the green tax shift. If Ron Paul adopted the shift in his platform and promoted it in his speeches and debates, it would electrify the campaign. Environmentalists would flock to his campaign, cheering. This would put the free-market movement in the vanguard of environmentalism rather than dragging behind.

Yeah, I don't see that happening. LawyerUCLA.com asked (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/12/prweb563025.htm) whether the Founding Fathers would have endorsed Paul. Accroding to PRWeb, their answer:

According to the statistics provided on their website, 61 percent of the mentions of the Constitution at the 2008 presidential debates were made by Ron Paul himself, despite being a candidate that has not been given a fair amount of time to speak.

Assuming 10 total candidates, 39 percent of the references to the Constitution would be divided among the nine other candidates. If the total number of references were to be split evenly across the rest of the candidates, each candidate would roughly only contribute to 4.3 percent of the Constitutional mentions. So this means that Ron Paul is 14 times more likely to utter the words of the Constitution than the average candidate...

...A list of quotes by Ron Paul at these debates were also provided in their article entitled "Empirical Proof That The Founding Fathers Would Endorse Ron Paul".

The most highly publicized quote by Ron Paul occurred when Ron Paul challenged Mitt Romney's statement regarding needing to consult lawyers. "This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war," said Ron Paul in a debate October 9 in Michigan.

CT Johnson over at The Nolan Chart is saying (http://www.nolanchart.com/article544.html) that it may be Ron Paul's time:

Close friends and family believed going into 2007 that Ron Paul should try another run for President. They believed that the time was nigh for the Message'the true American Message' espoused by our founders. Ron Paul was skeptical, but set up an exploratory committee and found that there was support. Still skeptical he started his run for President of the United States.

It wasn't long before in an early spring Fox debate that Ron Paul and destiny came together. Mayor Rudy Giuliani attempted to twist Congressman Paul's words about why the terrorists attack us. America's mayor received huge applause, but it was the opening the good doctor had been waiting for. This gave him the opportunity to explain to the nation the concept of "blowback" which in the physics world is called cause and effect. To be honest with my readers...this was the moment that this ex-neoconservative, ex-military writer encountered his own personal paradigm shift. Ron Paul went on to explain that they don't attack us because we are free and rich. They attack us because our government (not us the people) has an aggressive foreign policy and that they are angry with our troops being on their holy land (i.e. the Saudi Arabian peninsula). This writer was personally stunned...then I started researching...then I became angry.

Also at The Nolan Chart, John Armstrong is saying (http://www.nolanchart.com/article517.html) that Ron Paul is the frontrunner:

There was an interesting article written the day before lift-off of the Ron Paul Blimp by Michael Duffy titled "The GOP Race: None of the Above" on Time.com (in partnership with CNN) you might have missed. The reason you may have missed it is because if you were simply googling "Ron Paul" it wouldn't have shown up.

Why wouldn't it have shown up? Because the GOP's leading 4th quarter fundraiser (by far after Sunday's "Tea Party" raised $6 Million in a single day taking his total for the quarter to over 18,000,000)didn't merit a single mention in the article. Not one. If you haven't clicked the link yet, you haven't noticed that there is a nice picture from the youtube debate of Mitt, Rudy, Huck, John, and Fred (why do they all have four letters in their spoken name?) but Congressman Paul is like Rudolph (not the Mayor--the red-nosed reindeer) before that fateful foggy Christmas Eve--all left out.

At first I thought this was a typical MSM slight of Dr. Paul. But then I read the article. Yes, the one that doesn't mention Dr. Paul once. After reading it, I think this was actually a nod towards Paul's campaign and an implicit acknowledgment of his Front-Runner status (especially considering the campaign is past the "first they ignore you" stage). Why? Here is a quote from the aforementioned article:

"If somebody could run as None of the Above," says former McCain campaign chief John Weaver, "he would be the front-runner."

So, Ron Paul was on Mad Money with Jim Cramer, and they went to town. Here's what Blogging Stocks had to say (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/15/ron-paul-and-jim-cramer-trash-the-fed-together/):

Jim Cramer is the probably the most crazy and rational man on CNBC, and Ron Paul holds a similar position in politics.

Last night on CNBC's Mad Money, the two spent seven minutes trashing the Federal Reserve. Regardless of whether you think they're right, they're certainly bringing up a topic that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.

Andrew Sullivan says one of his readers summed up (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/ron-paul-jim-cr.html)his view:

This was some of weirdest, most-contradictory television I have seen. Cramer was screaming earlier this fall because he wants the Fed to lower rates in order to pump up the market, so his friends don't get hurt. Yet here he is complaining that they created the housing bubble? Well, yes, they enabled it at least, how? Well, with low interest rates. So Cramer, who wants a huge increase in the money supply, is agreeing with Paul, whose complaint is that the Fed has enabled inflation and who wants to get rid of monetary policy by going to the Gold Standard. Doesn't make sense to me.

On another note, one of the problems with the Gold Standard (besides preventing a country from smoothing out the business cycle) is that it is basically deflationary. I am not a "Fed worshipper," I think the Fed did enable the housing bubble, but these guys are really a little single-minded. So, single-minded that they don't seem to realize that they believe opposite things--it makes one wonder whether they really do understand Monetary Policy as much as they think they do.

And over at GoldSeek, this (http://news.goldseek.com/GATA/1197825474.php) is what they had to say:

But on his "Mad Money" program on CNBC yesterday Cramer spent seven minutes interviewing and praising Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, for seeking to make market manipulation by the Federal Reserve into a campaign issue...

...Yesterday on "Mad Money" Cramer agreed with Paul that the Fed gets almost no scrutiny from Congress even as it is a creature of law made by Congress. Paul commented that the Fed is "more secretive than the CIA," adding that no one really knows if the U.S. government still has its gold reserves -- an issue of great interest lately to GATA.

Paul said that there is "no accountability" in the U.S. monetary system and blamed the Fed's manipulation of market interest rates for the recent stock market and housing bubbles.

And here's the clip:


News Long Island is reporting (http://www.newsli.com/2007/12/14/supportersmedia-await-congressman-ron-paul-status-with-bated-breath/) on the clamour for Paul:

"How is Ron Paul doing?" is the question of the day. Presidential candidate Ron Paul started off his campaign slowly, but it has gained strength and momentum with time. But from where in the woodwork is the strength and support coming? Is the support really even there? Is it still just a vociferous 50,000 on the internet? Are the traditional polls reported on by the major news networks correct? Could he still be in the single digits despite the clamor? Is Ron Paul's Presidential campaign in need of resuscitation? Come on already, people! Is this not one of the oddest, contradictory things you've ever witnessed? Something is going on, and I want to get to the bottom of it!

Here, we have a man running for President of the United States. He's seems like a decent, upstanding family man, served in the military, is a medical doctor and a ten-term representative in Congress. He's not running for President like Donald Trump was running for President. He's not Howard Stern or Al Sharpton. He's not some quick-quipping novelty from Texas who is just out there on a soap box to tell us what's wrong with our country. When he goes on the radio, the telephones light up like a Christmas tree - so I am told. When he appears on television, ratings soar - relatively speaking. One would think that such a star, such a ratings booster, would get the ol' invite more often. I've seen video of people holding Ron Paul signs up around Hillary and Romney and Giuliani and McCain, at functions that were supposed to be theirs. Every so often, on my way home, some man holds up a Ron Paul sign to passing cars on Merrick Road . The other day, I saw a handmade banner hanging over a bridge on the Wantagh Parkway that read "Google Ron Paul If You Love America". We're still a year from the election! Are these people nuts, or are they excited for a logical reason? Are they a small, vociferous swath, or are they a pervasive presence?

TheFacts.com reported (http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=36475b4d132fc0a1) on the rally that coincided with the money bomb:

More than 600 people gathered in an open warehouse used for offloading freshly caught shrimp and filled the fishy smelling, chilly air with a passionate energy of idealism.

It was supposed to be a surprise, but word travels fast through an Internet-fueled campaign. With a passionate roar, the crowd applauded as Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul made his entrance.

Sunday's Freeport fundraiser, a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party of 1773, was part of a national one-day "money bomb" fundraising phenomenon supporters said drew in more than $4 million for the campaign of the Lake Jackson congressman. The money raised rivals the Nov. 5 Guy Fawkes Day fundraisers, which garnered a record $4.3 million.

Over at Extreme Ink, Susan Shelley has endorsed (http://www.extremeink.com/awtk/2007/12/ron-pauls-tea-party.html) Ron Paul:

Ron Paul wants to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq because what we are doing in Iraq isn't working, and it's long past time to recognize that and start doing something else.

Ron Paul wants to make Social Security and Medicare solvent by reducing what we spend on overseas military operations in more than a hundred countries around the globe and using that money to fund our own safety-net programs. Other politicians say our only options are tax increases and benefit cuts. Ron Paul has a different idea.

Ron Paul wants to reduce the size of the federal government, not just to save money, but because the more power the federal government has over every little detail of life, the less freedom we all have.

The Boston Herald is reporting (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1050783) on the blimp:

A 200-foot long blimp bearing the name of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is flying over North Carolina.

Campaign spokesman Bryce Henderson said the blimp took off from Elizabeth City just before 9 a.m. It's expected to fly over Raleigh and Greensboro in the afternoon, and over Charlotte just before nightfall.

The aerial billboard is emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution."

Not to be outdone, The Boston Globe is also reporting (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/paul_campaign_b.html)on the blimp:

They originally planned for the blimp to drop tea into Boston Harbor on Sunday as part of the fund-raiser timed with the anniversary of the 1773 Boston Tea Party, then go on to New Hampshire. Instead, it will spend Sunday in another early-primary state, South Carolina, at TeaParty07 rally in Columbia.

I was really hoping it would happen, and it has. LewRockwell.com reports (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017776.html):

NBC's Tim Russert, Mr. Establishment, is induced by the rEVOLution's correlation of forces to invite Ron Paul on Meet the Press next Sunday, way out of his planned order. In fact, he thought he would never have to ask Ron. After he aided the "top-tier," there would be no more Ron Paul candidacy.

Mr. Russert and friends may think they can put the kaibosh on Ron with a tough, indepth, hour-long interview. Sure you can, boys. In fact, historians will look back on the December 23rd Meet the Press as a moment when the unstoppable nature of Ron's coming victory became obvious.

Ron is smarter, more thoughtful, more learned, and more principled than anyone Mr. Russert has encountered in politics. Get ready for the fun.

Indeed. Set the DVRs! At NeoCon Revie- er, National Review, they imagine (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjgxM2E0ZWEyNjRjNWE1Njg4Mjk1NWEyNDRiNjY5NjI=)wh at a Ron Paul presidency would look like:

Imagine, for a moment, Ron Paul becomes president. (Stop laughing. This is an intellectual exercise...)

...Suddenly the appropriators of both parties find themselves constantly bumping up against a president who forces them, for the first time in anyone's memory, to justify the existence of this federal department and its attending bureaucracy, much less the size of its budget. In the meantime, Paul may not appoint a Commerce Secretary, since he thinks we don't need a department. Or any of the undersecretaries. Or Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development….

Sooner or later, a fed-up Congress would try to impeach President Paul. And then the real revolution begins! Okay, no, not really.

But if you think Washington is big and bloated and unresponsive and voracious in its appetite for ever-larger, ever-more intrusive government, Ron Paul is the guy who would throw a monkeywrench into the gears. Official Washington would grind to a halt; it's hard to imagine any big expansion of government with a president who made Tom Coburn look like Robert Byrd. Four to eight years, of a broken record, "No, I'm vetoing it, it's not in the Constitution… no, I'm vetoing that too, it's not in the Constitution."

Sounds good to me! Over at OpEdNews.com, there's a nice piece regurgitating (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_lor_071215_ron_paul_3a__22the_one_22_. htm)the same tired racist claims:

For those seeking a Ross Perot/Ralph Nader need, Ron Paul looks to be the new Messiah for our post-Bush future. First off, he is completely devoid of any possibility of winning an election, even if he does have an army of loyal internet followers. Of course, this starry-eyed idealism about Ron Paul is born of desperation on the part of a lot of frustrated cons who have lost their knight in gleaming armor, George W. Bush. and are now in the market for a new fuehrer to lead them to the promised land.

Of course, to make him out to be "the one" you will have to avoid talking about the fact that Ron Paul has a lot of little discussed skeletons in his closet.

Let me start by saying Ron Paul is a racist. There is just no way around that fact. Ron Paul used to write a newsletter back in the '80s and '90s called the Ron Paul Political Report. The name was changed to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993 due to the fact that the newsletter was becoming so popular with the many militia groups around the country. It was around that time that that the David Koresh types and the "survivalist movement" was in.

Yawn. Richard Myers chimes in (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/16/18467281.php)at IndyBay.org:

Ron Paul defends the rights of the employer on principle. He calls it liberty; i call it privilege.

The boss has power over the employee, and may exert that power in illicit ways. Ron Paul considers the employment contract voluntary on both sides, and he therefore doesn't recognize the reality of that power relationship. While he won't defend a manager who actually uses force to coerce sex from a subordinate, his recommended solution to sexual harassment by the boss is for the employee to quit her job.

This leads me to believe that Ron Paul hasn't a clue what it must mean to be a single mother, dependent upon a paycheck to feed her children. Anyone who would offer a sexually exploited employee some civil rights tools to defend herself is derided as a social do-gooder.