near_tucson
12-19-2007, 05:50 PM
The following is a response to:
>Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous (http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911)
>by JB Williams
>
>I am fast becoming the most unpopular man in America, among
>Ron Paul supporters that is. Truth is seldom popular among
>those at odds with that truth.
Unfortunately, the first part of this statement is not true. I assert that JB Williams is unknown to most of Ron Paul’s supporters. However, since this is not really germane to the rest of the article, I’ll not take the time to provide supporting links for my assertion. Instead I’ll be lazy and just rely on my own informal poll here at my office. No one knew who JB WIlliams is – not even the dedicated Ron Paul supporters. However, this does set the tone of rest of the article.
The second part of that statement cuts both ways. What is ‘truth’?
For many Americans it is what they see and hear on the ‘mainstream’ media, including the ‘conservative’ talk shows. However, that obviously does not make it the truth. Even Google is censoring (http://www.google.com/search?q=google+censorship) their search results to minimize the hits from non ‘mainstream’ media web sites.
I will include supporting citations in my comments below to help readers to discover ‘the truth.’
>Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters
>that their candidate is the “real deal” constitutionalist
>conservative in the ’08 presidential race and that he has a
>real chance of winning.
(Of course, however IMHO, it is disgraceful that they have to work so hard to overcome the marginalization of Ron Paul and his campaign by the major media conglomerates:
Old Media a No-Show in Ron Paul's Press Conference to Discuss Record-Breaking Fundraiser (http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2007/12/old-media-a-no.html)
ABC Exiles Ron Paul Interview to Web (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/abc-exiles-ron-paul-inter_b_76206.html)
The censorship of Ron Paul (http://goldrust.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/09/709683-the-censorship-of-ron-paul)
This lends support to my assertion that Ron Paul is dangerous – to the current status quo.
>But the facts simply don’t support
>either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems
>to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.
Often, the accusation that Ron Paul supporters are ‘kooks, bitter, full of rage’ etc. is made (WHO ARE THESE KOOKS? (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin420.htm)), but at Ron Paul events, of which there are *thousands* of videos posted on YouTube (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul&search=Search), the evidence is the opposite. Ron Paul supporters are an amazing mix of races, cultures, ages and economic levels, all cooperatively working toward the common goal of restoring liberty in our time.
As far as the two claims above:
Ron Paul IS the ‘real-deal’ Champion of the Constitution (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIivoqLbeeg) and the *only* one running who has the record to back up that claim. Further, his claim to be the Champion of the Constitution has never been contested by any of the other candidates.
Here is an excellent piece titled Repeat After Me: "Ron Paul Is NOT Electable!" (http://www.nolanchart.com/article579.html) that effectively refutes its satirical title.
>The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone
>or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very
>dangerous for America and the conservative movement in
>particular.
If, in a debate, you are successful in defining the terms you will most likely win. This applies even if the terms are not explicitly defined, but implied. Mr. Williams’ previous writings indicate that he defines ‘conservative’ really as ‘neo-conservative’ and that Ron Paul’s ideas are dangerous to the current status quo Corporate/Government system in America.
>Although he is highly unlikely to win anything,
>his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble
>for the legitimate Republican nomination process.
To address the first part:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels.
See the above "Ron Paul Is NOT Electable!" link.
The ‘legitimate Republican nomination process’ is already so “rigged” to favor the incumbent and disenfranchise those not selected by the party elites that it should be repugnant to moral people. This topic is an entire essay in itself and I will not take the time to detail it here. If you want to discuss this let me know and we will start a separate thread. And yes, Ron Paul is a threat to this unethical system.
>Ron Paul’s fund raising
>
>Recent headlines have been focused on the record fund
>raising day in the Paul campaign. It was a very effective
>campaign stunt.
Yes it was! (http://www.teaparty07.com/) 6.04 MILLION dollars, in 24 hours with an average donation of $102, by 58,407 Americans, including 24,940 first-time donors.
(Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter alone.)
The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million (“This could very well mean Paul will out raise his Republican rivals for the 4th quarter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/17/cafferty-ron-pauls-money-bomb/)” and Ron Paul Raises $6 Million in a 24-Hour Period (http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/12/ron_paul_raises_6_million_in_a.html)).
>Although he still trails most other
>candidates in overall fund raising by a pretty wide margin,
Not true – see Ron Paul’s Fund-Raising Continues to Stun (http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/12/ron_paul_raises_6_million_in_a.html) and Banking on Becoming President (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp)at opensecrets.org.
(Note: these are Third Quarter results only and do not include any fourth quarter donations.)
>his campaign grabbed headlines by setting up an internet
>campaign stunt designed to raise as much as possible in a
>single day.
>
>It worked - they got the desired headlines - but what does
>it really mean? In the end, it won’t change the outcome of
>the election process.
Here’s another opinion presented as fact. The ‘Hope for America’ is that it will change the ’outcome of the election process’, and for the better. It has already changed the ’election process’ for the better. See – Ron Paul Blimp Soars Over BiCRA (http://www.nolanchart.com/article448.html).
>But the recent surge in campaign contributions did raise a
>more important question.
>
>Where’s all that money coming from?
And here is where Mr. Williams really begins to dissemble.
>At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul’s
>financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of
>the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron
>Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus,
>Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and
>hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.
>
>In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained;
>“Please refrain in the future from using the label
>"Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him
>what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.”
Eric Dondero is “a disgruntled former employee who was fired. (http://reason.com/blog/show/120338.html)” Dondero is currently running for Dr. Paul's seat in Congress (http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/former-ron-paul-campaign-manager.html). Dondero is not a reliable source (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/12208).
>Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete
>nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing
>American-hating nutball.”
>
>These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from
>1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind.
>So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means,
>follow the money.
Strong words or a cheap shot based on another’s slander (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/85BAB88B-0660-4AB6-A2F5C32E716A6D52)? This has all been disproven:
Audio Interview of Ron Paul by Sean Hannity (http://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulWOWFMradioInterviewIowa121707.mp3).
>Where is all that money coming from?
>
>Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly
>right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from
>mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.
This is true, IF your definition of ‘mainstream Libertarians or Republicans” does not include the disaffected, those new to politics (Students for Ron Paul (http://studentsforpaul.org/)), or Libertarians for Ron Paul
(http://www.libertariansforpaul.com/).
>Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very
>little support from rank and file Republicans, as every
>national Republican poll confirms.
Here Mr. Williams inserts the now debunked low poll numbers zing.
Can you believe polls that don’t list Ron Paul as a choice: Ron Paul Being Censored In Telephone Polls (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg),
or that are documented on video tape as being fraudulent: Ron Paul Straw Poll Corruption (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wjJieSib0),
Romney Supporter Votes Dozens of Times in Florida Straw Poll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRGMrPP4as&feature=related),
Mitt Romney Buys Election in Florida Straw Poll (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rdCcGWX2SuU), and many more…
or that are cancelled when the outcome isn’t going to be what the organizers wanted: SF Straw Poll Cancelled (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_GADQv3vKs&feature=related)?
Truth is that Ron Paul has won almost every legitimate straw poll (Straw Poll Results) and media polls despite attempts to deny or spin the outcome: Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8oO_OD3PtI), Ron Paul Landslide Victory Censored by CNBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mmY7giY4s), New Hampshire Debate, FOX NEWS LIED (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxQadgSkoA) and Zogby Spins Poll Results To Marginalize Ron Paul (http://feareffect.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/zogby-spins-poll-results-to-marginalize-ron-paul/).
>But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either.
>As Dondero pointed out, “Ron Paul is only attracting support
>from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum,
>virtually none of whom are Republicans.”
Again, this is patently false, as has been demonstrated by many of the above citations, including Libertarians for Ron Paul (http://www.libertariansforpaul.com/).
>According to official campaign fund raising filings posted
>at www.opensecrets.org, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well
>known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the
>board of directors, has a long history of progressive
>political activism, both in the way they censor search
>results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their
>campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat,
>with the exception of Ron Paul.
OK, I tried to fact check his assertion at opensecretes.org. (Notice he did not give a specific citation.)
Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp) is their list of top contributors, sorted alphabetically. Notice there is no mention of Google in the ‘G’s –
71 Freddie Mac $9,586,722
67 General Dynamics $9,852,269
39 General Electric $14,459,883
68 General Motors $9,710,069
76 GlaxoSmithKline $8,892,964
6 Goldman Sachs $27,162,732
79 Human Rights Campaign $8,747,685
So I tried searching their site –
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp (search term=google)
Search results:
No matches found. Search again.
so I tried again (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=EHV9F&txtState=(all%20states)&txtEmploy=google&txt2008=Y&Order=N) (search term=google, period=2008):
The linked results are for google employees, not for google itself, but Mr. Williams is trying to make it sound as if Google is working to alter the election results by subsidizing Ron Paul. If you take the time to do the research and the math, the combined contribution by Google employees to Ron Paul is less than 10% of the total Google employee political contributions and Google itself is included in total business contributions to Ron Paul of $11,000. Therefore, as shown once again, Mr. Williams ‘facts’ are not true.
Now it appears we know why he did not give an explicit citation.
>Like Howard Dean before him, Ron Paul first grabbed
>headlines with his very hi-tech internet campaign, which is
>now easily explained by the fact that his largest
>constituency is in the computer tech community. It also
>explains how Paul supporters have perfected the art of
>“spamming” or “jamming” online polls, creating a false
>impression of bigger support while invalidating poll after
>poll. Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his
>donors list as well.
Oh, Please! See the above citations for examples that completely refute these false allegations.
>Among Ron Paul’s top donor zip codes are of course parts of
>Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago
>(60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which
>supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles –
>Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after
>Dallas.
>
>What we have here is a candidate trying to win the
>Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across
>the political aisle.
No, what we have is a candidate that is re-engaging disaffected voters and non-voters with his proclamation of liberty and freedom based on the constitution. They come from across the political spectrum. That is a very encouraging thing.
Google “Ron Paul Cured My Apathy” and you’ll get over 16,000 hits, such as http://getoffthecouchandvote.blogspot.com/ and http://www.debatenation.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2930 and http://curedmyapathy.blogspot.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCRc2ub8hU
>This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved
>poll positions.
Actually, as he raises more money his poll numbers are increasing: Polls now show Ron Paul passing Thompson in New Hampshire and tied with McCain in Iowa (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=162851), Ron Paul's growing poll numbers vex mainstream press (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1376276.php).
>His donors are not Republicans. So no matter how much money
>he raises, it is not translating into Republican support in
>the polls. He remains at or below 5% support in every
>national Republican poll, no matter how much money he
>raises.
>
>USA Today reports, “The Iowa Republican Party put out an
>advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a
>Dec. 4 debate. Sponsors said participants need to average 5%
>support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls
>-- and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates
>not making the cut.”
>
>In Pollster.com's latest averaging of national poll results
>of Republicans, Paul's support comes in at 2.7%. The website
>calculates Paul's support among Republicans in Iowa, based
>on polls there, to be 3.8%.
>
>Yet his supporters still claim he is much more popular than
>the national polls indicate and that he will be the come
>from behind shocker at the Republican convention. How?
See above “Low Poll Numbers” discussion. Additionally, Republican polls generally call “likely to vote” republicans based on the last election’s poll rosters of who actually voted. As previously demonstrated, Ron Paul supporters cross party lines and many did not vote in the last election as Republicans, or even at all. Also, Polls don't call cell phones, and most of Ron Paul's younger supporters don't have land lines. There’s no point in giving even more citations to support this fact given all the ones proving the point above. If you really want more citations google “ron paul polls.”
>Here’s where the Ron Paul campaign becomes dangerous
And this reinforces my contention that yes, Ron Paul is dangerous – to the corrupt status quo.
>Because Paul supporters know that support coming from
>non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls,
>they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so
>that their anti-war supporter’s from the left can vote in
>the Republican primary.
>
>Twenty four states have “open” primaries, which means, one
>need not be Republican to vote in those Republican
>primaries. Ron Paul supporters are promoting both strategies
>– one in which Democrats, Independents, and members of other
>third parties can vote for him in “open” primaries where
>possible, and switch parties to vote for him where the
>primaries are “closed.”
And this is a good thing.
This election is beginning to change the Democrat – Republican paradigm to that of Constitutionalist (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin213.htm) – Statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism) choice, rather than the old “lesser of two evils” choice.
>The mere notion that a Republican presidential candidate
>should be nominated by this strategy is insane and very
>dangerous to the entire election process.
To quote Kate_in_AZ - “The ENTIRE election process? We’re in the primaries… a part of the election cycle that is not constitutionally mandated and has been created by power brokers in order to install in office those people who will be party hacks. I’m not going to take the time right now to demonstrate that this is the case, but if someone needs me to then I’ll do that in a different post.
In any case, the parties make their rules about the primaries in order to perpetuate the two party system. So, yes, Dr. Paul’s strategy does threaten the Republican party’s hold on party politics as usual, but I don’t think that is a bad thing. It certainly doesn’t threaten the ENTIRE election process.”
>At a minimum, it
>is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind
>the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally
>conscious people.
Again, to quote Kate “Not Constitutionally conscious people? If the fact that we who support Ron Paul don’t see party jumping as unconstitutional is the basis for Williams’ assertion that Ron Paul isn’t a Constitutional candidate, I see what the problem is. Williams doesn’t have a clue what is in the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution about either a two party system or a primary election cycle. For that matter, states are only required to provide electors to the electoral college. They don’t actually have to hold elections to determine who those electors are going to be. Each state legislature has the Constitutional authority to determine who the electors will be in whatever way they want to.
But, apparently Williams is under the impression that not only is the two party system Constitutionally mandated, the perpetuation of the two parties that currently exist is also somehow central to the preservation of America - since challenging the status quo jeopardizes the ENTIRE election process.”
>I do not know if the Paul campaign itself
>is behind this effort. But I am sure that the campaign is
>aware of this effort, as well as the fact that much of their
>funding is coming from people other than Republicans.
>
>The Daily Paul is openly promoting Change Party Affiliation
>to Republican to Participate in Primaries. “As you may
>realize, there are many people from across the spectrum
>planning to support Ron Paul: Libertarians,
>Constitutionalists, Green Party members, disenfranchised
>Democrats, and of course the disenfranchised Republicans.
>Many of these people may not realize that they NEED to
>change party affiliations to Republican to vote in the GOP
>Primary in many States.” (A direct quote from the site)
>
>So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
>
>If he’s funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat
>stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians
>and members of the Green Party to win the Republican
>nomination, not very…
Another un-truth. Ron Paul is not primarily funded by the above enumerated list. See ronpaulgraphs.com (http://ronpaulgraphs.com/) and Ron Paul's Realtime Donation Graphs and Statistics for Q4 (http://paulcash.slact.net/). Remember, Ron Paul is a *10 term Republican* Congressman.
>The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those
>myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for
>his Democrat-like spending habits.
“Myopic small government conservatives” are not the only Republicans angry with Bush and they are not the only ones supporting Ron Paul. Besides, is being angry with Bush for “his Democrat-like spending habits” a bad thing, especially for Republicans? These false assertions are getting tiresome.
>Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote
>for a candidate who promises less spending.
That’s not the only issue, just a disingenuous mischaracterization.
>Of course, we can’t entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans
>who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.
The code word here is ‘moderate’. Depending on how you define ‘moderate’ that statement may be true, but it insinuates that most Republicans are for the war in Iraq. As the last presidential election demonstrated, most soldiers are Republicans and they have donated more money to Ron Paul than all the other Republican candidates combined – Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with over one-fourth of military contributions for Q2 (http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/) and Ron Paul Leads Military Donations Race (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_leads_military_donations_race/).
>Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?
>
>Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle,
>he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in
>order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job
>of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda
>uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on
>Terror and national security. That’s not good.
Ah, some truth leaks out, couched as a slam. Again, it’s no longer Democrats vs. Republicans, but Statists vs. We The People.
>He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine
>the war on terror and that’s why he’s so popular among
>anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.
If this is true, then it is bad if you are among the top money makers from the government/military/medical/trans-national corporate system or your loved one is not in the military. See
War and Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/),
Answering 10 Questions about the War on Terror (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6060),
Dr. Paul’s Writings › War on Terror? It’s as Bad as War on Drugs (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/123/war-on-terror-its-as-bad-as-war-on-drugs/),
Ron Paul and the Empire (http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe80.html).
>But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican
>nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to
>win the Republican nomination.
Define ‘Republican.’ See above answer to this canard.
>Last, at a time in American history when the Republican
>Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when
>every available conservative vote is needed in next years
>general election,
This is very true…
>Paul and his supporters are busy carving
>up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda.
Negative! There has never been such an influx of excited, engaged, mostly young people into the Republican party. Yet, the “Good Old Boy” network of elder Republicans clearly recognizes the threat these new comers pose to “their” party and they are actively working to marginalize them and limit their involvement. This statement comes from my personal experience and direct observation. I first became actively involved with the Republicans a Republican Precinct Committeeman over 10 years ago.
>I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the
>Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican
>primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take
>votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates
>in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the
>party and the country.
>
>That’s why his campaign has become dangerous.
The most conservative of the MSM promoted “front runners” are not true conservatives by definition and past voting records.
>I actually agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions, outside
>of his suicidal national security perspective of course. But
>I can not agree with the campaign tactics of using leftist
>money and votes to hijack the Republican nomination and I’m
>shocked that any Republican would.
The current Republican party needs to be brought back to its roots. That is what Ron Paul is confronting them with. That is why he is dangerous to the current status quo.
>There’s really no need to write another word about Ron Paul.
That would be true if people were aware of, and chose to read Ron Paul’s existent writings, including his books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=ron+paul&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-binding=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=47&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12) (not to mention the transcripts (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml) of his speeches).
>If you can know all of these facts, follow the money and the
>links provided for their campaign tactics and still support
>him, you’re no Republican, much less a conservative or
>constitutionalist.
Remember, Mr. Williams’’ definitions have been shown to be ‘words of art.’ This statement is a fraudulent assertion.
>Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this
>effort to hijack the party nomination.
Surprisingly, ‘real’ Republicans are re-engaging – and may succeed in taking back their party. God help us if they fail.
>National elections are decided by a couple points one way or
>another today.
But by only a fraction of the total electorate that is eligible to vote. Those who previously didn’t vote would determine the election if they voted. Look at the spontaneous, independent, self-organized grassroots support (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/)that is building for Ron Paul, because of his ideas.
>Republicans can’t afford to let any candidate
>play games with their nomination process. Republicans need a
>candidate that will unite and motivate conservative voters,
>not one that divides and undermines that process.
>
>That’s it! These are the facts. You don’t have to like them,
>you just need to know them.
As shown, these are not, as stated ‘the facts,’ not even just a skewed sub-set of them.
<end of article>
Is Ron Paul perfect? By no means.
But, he is honest, moral, forthright and principled, with a consistent voting record to back up that claim. I could add dozens of links here to show how he has been faithfully married to the same woman, his wife Carol, for nearly 50 years, and how his lifestyle matches what he says. Instead here is one link worth checking out: Christians for Ron Paul (http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/).
Let me leave you with a final image – Baby Liberty (http://acmwallet.com/ronpaul/ronpaul_hires.jpg).
Ron Paul’s ‘Hope for America (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)’ is that the culture of liberty, so cherished by the founders that they gave “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor (http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/honor.html)” to make it come to pass, can be restored in our time.
Otherwise, the times may be come very dark.
I commend you if you have read this far, and even more so if you have checked out the citations.
This is a true clash of ideas – even worldviews. Sound bites and 30 second clips are not sufficient to intelligently address the momentous issues facing us.
I look forward to your response.
>Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous (http://www.americandaily.com/article/20911)
>by JB Williams
>
>I am fast becoming the most unpopular man in America, among
>Ron Paul supporters that is. Truth is seldom popular among
>those at odds with that truth.
Unfortunately, the first part of this statement is not true. I assert that JB Williams is unknown to most of Ron Paul’s supporters. However, since this is not really germane to the rest of the article, I’ll not take the time to provide supporting links for my assertion. Instead I’ll be lazy and just rely on my own informal poll here at my office. No one knew who JB WIlliams is – not even the dedicated Ron Paul supporters. However, this does set the tone of rest of the article.
The second part of that statement cuts both ways. What is ‘truth’?
For many Americans it is what they see and hear on the ‘mainstream’ media, including the ‘conservative’ talk shows. However, that obviously does not make it the truth. Even Google is censoring (http://www.google.com/search?q=google+censorship) their search results to minimize the hits from non ‘mainstream’ media web sites.
I will include supporting citations in my comments below to help readers to discover ‘the truth.’
>Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters
>that their candidate is the “real deal” constitutionalist
>conservative in the ’08 presidential race and that he has a
>real chance of winning.
(Of course, however IMHO, it is disgraceful that they have to work so hard to overcome the marginalization of Ron Paul and his campaign by the major media conglomerates:
Old Media a No-Show in Ron Paul's Press Conference to Discuss Record-Breaking Fundraiser (http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2007/12/old-media-a-no.html)
ABC Exiles Ron Paul Interview to Web (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/abc-exiles-ron-paul-inter_b_76206.html)
The censorship of Ron Paul (http://goldrust.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/09/709683-the-censorship-of-ron-paul)
This lends support to my assertion that Ron Paul is dangerous – to the current status quo.
>But the facts simply don’t support
>either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems
>to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.
Often, the accusation that Ron Paul supporters are ‘kooks, bitter, full of rage’ etc. is made (WHO ARE THESE KOOKS? (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin420.htm)), but at Ron Paul events, of which there are *thousands* of videos posted on YouTube (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul&search=Search), the evidence is the opposite. Ron Paul supporters are an amazing mix of races, cultures, ages and economic levels, all cooperatively working toward the common goal of restoring liberty in our time.
As far as the two claims above:
Ron Paul IS the ‘real-deal’ Champion of the Constitution (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIivoqLbeeg) and the *only* one running who has the record to back up that claim. Further, his claim to be the Champion of the Constitution has never been contested by any of the other candidates.
Here is an excellent piece titled Repeat After Me: "Ron Paul Is NOT Electable!" (http://www.nolanchart.com/article579.html) that effectively refutes its satirical title.
>The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone
>or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very
>dangerous for America and the conservative movement in
>particular.
If, in a debate, you are successful in defining the terms you will most likely win. This applies even if the terms are not explicitly defined, but implied. Mr. Williams’ previous writings indicate that he defines ‘conservative’ really as ‘neo-conservative’ and that Ron Paul’s ideas are dangerous to the current status quo Corporate/Government system in America.
>Although he is highly unlikely to win anything,
>his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble
>for the legitimate Republican nomination process.
To address the first part:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels.
See the above "Ron Paul Is NOT Electable!" link.
The ‘legitimate Republican nomination process’ is already so “rigged” to favor the incumbent and disenfranchise those not selected by the party elites that it should be repugnant to moral people. This topic is an entire essay in itself and I will not take the time to detail it here. If you want to discuss this let me know and we will start a separate thread. And yes, Ron Paul is a threat to this unethical system.
>Ron Paul’s fund raising
>
>Recent headlines have been focused on the record fund
>raising day in the Paul campaign. It was a very effective
>campaign stunt.
Yes it was! (http://www.teaparty07.com/) 6.04 MILLION dollars, in 24 hours with an average donation of $102, by 58,407 Americans, including 24,940 first-time donors.
(Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter alone.)
The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million (“This could very well mean Paul will out raise his Republican rivals for the 4th quarter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/17/cafferty-ron-pauls-money-bomb/)” and Ron Paul Raises $6 Million in a 24-Hour Period (http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/12/ron_paul_raises_6_million_in_a.html)).
>Although he still trails most other
>candidates in overall fund raising by a pretty wide margin,
Not true – see Ron Paul’s Fund-Raising Continues to Stun (http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/12/ron_paul_raises_6_million_in_a.html) and Banking on Becoming President (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp)at opensecrets.org.
(Note: these are Third Quarter results only and do not include any fourth quarter donations.)
>his campaign grabbed headlines by setting up an internet
>campaign stunt designed to raise as much as possible in a
>single day.
>
>It worked - they got the desired headlines - but what does
>it really mean? In the end, it won’t change the outcome of
>the election process.
Here’s another opinion presented as fact. The ‘Hope for America’ is that it will change the ’outcome of the election process’, and for the better. It has already changed the ’election process’ for the better. See – Ron Paul Blimp Soars Over BiCRA (http://www.nolanchart.com/article448.html).
>But the recent surge in campaign contributions did raise a
>more important question.
>
>Where’s all that money coming from?
And here is where Mr. Williams really begins to dissemble.
>At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul’s
>financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of
>the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron
>Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus,
>Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and
>hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.
>
>In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained;
>“Please refrain in the future from using the label
>"Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him
>what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.”
Eric Dondero is “a disgruntled former employee who was fired. (http://reason.com/blog/show/120338.html)” Dondero is currently running for Dr. Paul's seat in Congress (http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/former-ron-paul-campaign-manager.html). Dondero is not a reliable source (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/12208).
>Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete
>nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing
>American-hating nutball.”
>
>These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from
>1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind.
>So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means,
>follow the money.
Strong words or a cheap shot based on another’s slander (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/85BAB88B-0660-4AB6-A2F5C32E716A6D52)? This has all been disproven:
Audio Interview of Ron Paul by Sean Hannity (http://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulWOWFMradioInterviewIowa121707.mp3).
>Where is all that money coming from?
>
>Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly
>right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from
>mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.
This is true, IF your definition of ‘mainstream Libertarians or Republicans” does not include the disaffected, those new to politics (Students for Ron Paul (http://studentsforpaul.org/)), or Libertarians for Ron Paul
(http://www.libertariansforpaul.com/).
>Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very
>little support from rank and file Republicans, as every
>national Republican poll confirms.
Here Mr. Williams inserts the now debunked low poll numbers zing.
Can you believe polls that don’t list Ron Paul as a choice: Ron Paul Being Censored In Telephone Polls (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg),
or that are documented on video tape as being fraudulent: Ron Paul Straw Poll Corruption (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wjJieSib0),
Romney Supporter Votes Dozens of Times in Florida Straw Poll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRGMrPP4as&feature=related),
Mitt Romney Buys Election in Florida Straw Poll (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rdCcGWX2SuU), and many more…
or that are cancelled when the outcome isn’t going to be what the organizers wanted: SF Straw Poll Cancelled (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_GADQv3vKs&feature=related)?
Truth is that Ron Paul has won almost every legitimate straw poll (Straw Poll Results) and media polls despite attempts to deny or spin the outcome: Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8oO_OD3PtI), Ron Paul Landslide Victory Censored by CNBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mmY7giY4s), New Hampshire Debate, FOX NEWS LIED (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxQadgSkoA) and Zogby Spins Poll Results To Marginalize Ron Paul (http://feareffect.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/zogby-spins-poll-results-to-marginalize-ron-paul/).
>But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either.
>As Dondero pointed out, “Ron Paul is only attracting support
>from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum,
>virtually none of whom are Republicans.”
Again, this is patently false, as has been demonstrated by many of the above citations, including Libertarians for Ron Paul (http://www.libertariansforpaul.com/).
>According to official campaign fund raising filings posted
>at www.opensecrets.org, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well
>known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the
>board of directors, has a long history of progressive
>political activism, both in the way they censor search
>results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their
>campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat,
>with the exception of Ron Paul.
OK, I tried to fact check his assertion at opensecretes.org. (Notice he did not give a specific citation.)
Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp) is their list of top contributors, sorted alphabetically. Notice there is no mention of Google in the ‘G’s –
71 Freddie Mac $9,586,722
67 General Dynamics $9,852,269
39 General Electric $14,459,883
68 General Motors $9,710,069
76 GlaxoSmithKline $8,892,964
6 Goldman Sachs $27,162,732
79 Human Rights Campaign $8,747,685
So I tried searching their site –
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp (search term=google)
Search results:
No matches found. Search again.
so I tried again (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=EHV9F&txtState=(all%20states)&txtEmploy=google&txt2008=Y&Order=N) (search term=google, period=2008):
The linked results are for google employees, not for google itself, but Mr. Williams is trying to make it sound as if Google is working to alter the election results by subsidizing Ron Paul. If you take the time to do the research and the math, the combined contribution by Google employees to Ron Paul is less than 10% of the total Google employee political contributions and Google itself is included in total business contributions to Ron Paul of $11,000. Therefore, as shown once again, Mr. Williams ‘facts’ are not true.
Now it appears we know why he did not give an explicit citation.
>Like Howard Dean before him, Ron Paul first grabbed
>headlines with his very hi-tech internet campaign, which is
>now easily explained by the fact that his largest
>constituency is in the computer tech community. It also
>explains how Paul supporters have perfected the art of
>“spamming” or “jamming” online polls, creating a false
>impression of bigger support while invalidating poll after
>poll. Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his
>donors list as well.
Oh, Please! See the above citations for examples that completely refute these false allegations.
>Among Ron Paul’s top donor zip codes are of course parts of
>Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago
>(60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which
>supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles –
>Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after
>Dallas.
>
>What we have here is a candidate trying to win the
>Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across
>the political aisle.
No, what we have is a candidate that is re-engaging disaffected voters and non-voters with his proclamation of liberty and freedom based on the constitution. They come from across the political spectrum. That is a very encouraging thing.
Google “Ron Paul Cured My Apathy” and you’ll get over 16,000 hits, such as http://getoffthecouchandvote.blogspot.com/ and http://www.debatenation.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2930 and http://curedmyapathy.blogspot.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCRc2ub8hU
>This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved
>poll positions.
Actually, as he raises more money his poll numbers are increasing: Polls now show Ron Paul passing Thompson in New Hampshire and tied with McCain in Iowa (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=162851), Ron Paul's growing poll numbers vex mainstream press (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1376276.php).
>His donors are not Republicans. So no matter how much money
>he raises, it is not translating into Republican support in
>the polls. He remains at or below 5% support in every
>national Republican poll, no matter how much money he
>raises.
>
>USA Today reports, “The Iowa Republican Party put out an
>advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a
>Dec. 4 debate. Sponsors said participants need to average 5%
>support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls
>-- and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates
>not making the cut.”
>
>In Pollster.com's latest averaging of national poll results
>of Republicans, Paul's support comes in at 2.7%. The website
>calculates Paul's support among Republicans in Iowa, based
>on polls there, to be 3.8%.
>
>Yet his supporters still claim he is much more popular than
>the national polls indicate and that he will be the come
>from behind shocker at the Republican convention. How?
See above “Low Poll Numbers” discussion. Additionally, Republican polls generally call “likely to vote” republicans based on the last election’s poll rosters of who actually voted. As previously demonstrated, Ron Paul supporters cross party lines and many did not vote in the last election as Republicans, or even at all. Also, Polls don't call cell phones, and most of Ron Paul's younger supporters don't have land lines. There’s no point in giving even more citations to support this fact given all the ones proving the point above. If you really want more citations google “ron paul polls.”
>Here’s where the Ron Paul campaign becomes dangerous
And this reinforces my contention that yes, Ron Paul is dangerous – to the corrupt status quo.
>Because Paul supporters know that support coming from
>non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls,
>they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so
>that their anti-war supporter’s from the left can vote in
>the Republican primary.
>
>Twenty four states have “open” primaries, which means, one
>need not be Republican to vote in those Republican
>primaries. Ron Paul supporters are promoting both strategies
>– one in which Democrats, Independents, and members of other
>third parties can vote for him in “open” primaries where
>possible, and switch parties to vote for him where the
>primaries are “closed.”
And this is a good thing.
This election is beginning to change the Democrat – Republican paradigm to that of Constitutionalist (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin213.htm) – Statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism) choice, rather than the old “lesser of two evils” choice.
>The mere notion that a Republican presidential candidate
>should be nominated by this strategy is insane and very
>dangerous to the entire election process.
To quote Kate_in_AZ - “The ENTIRE election process? We’re in the primaries… a part of the election cycle that is not constitutionally mandated and has been created by power brokers in order to install in office those people who will be party hacks. I’m not going to take the time right now to demonstrate that this is the case, but if someone needs me to then I’ll do that in a different post.
In any case, the parties make their rules about the primaries in order to perpetuate the two party system. So, yes, Dr. Paul’s strategy does threaten the Republican party’s hold on party politics as usual, but I don’t think that is a bad thing. It certainly doesn’t threaten the ENTIRE election process.”
>At a minimum, it
>is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind
>the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally
>conscious people.
Again, to quote Kate “Not Constitutionally conscious people? If the fact that we who support Ron Paul don’t see party jumping as unconstitutional is the basis for Williams’ assertion that Ron Paul isn’t a Constitutional candidate, I see what the problem is. Williams doesn’t have a clue what is in the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Constitution about either a two party system or a primary election cycle. For that matter, states are only required to provide electors to the electoral college. They don’t actually have to hold elections to determine who those electors are going to be. Each state legislature has the Constitutional authority to determine who the electors will be in whatever way they want to.
But, apparently Williams is under the impression that not only is the two party system Constitutionally mandated, the perpetuation of the two parties that currently exist is also somehow central to the preservation of America - since challenging the status quo jeopardizes the ENTIRE election process.”
>I do not know if the Paul campaign itself
>is behind this effort. But I am sure that the campaign is
>aware of this effort, as well as the fact that much of their
>funding is coming from people other than Republicans.
>
>The Daily Paul is openly promoting Change Party Affiliation
>to Republican to Participate in Primaries. “As you may
>realize, there are many people from across the spectrum
>planning to support Ron Paul: Libertarians,
>Constitutionalists, Green Party members, disenfranchised
>Democrats, and of course the disenfranchised Republicans.
>Many of these people may not realize that they NEED to
>change party affiliations to Republican to vote in the GOP
>Primary in many States.” (A direct quote from the site)
>
>So, how Republican is Republican candidate Ron Paul?
>
>If he’s funded largely by anti-war leftists, from Democrat
>stronghold districts and counting on Democrats, Libertarians
>and members of the Green Party to win the Republican
>nomination, not very…
Another un-truth. Ron Paul is not primarily funded by the above enumerated list. See ronpaulgraphs.com (http://ronpaulgraphs.com/) and Ron Paul's Realtime Donation Graphs and Statistics for Q4 (http://paulcash.slact.net/). Remember, Ron Paul is a *10 term Republican* Congressman.
>The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those
>myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for
>his Democrat-like spending habits.
“Myopic small government conservatives” are not the only Republicans angry with Bush and they are not the only ones supporting Ron Paul. Besides, is being angry with Bush for “his Democrat-like spending habits” a bad thing, especially for Republicans? These false assertions are getting tiresome.
>Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote
>for a candidate who promises less spending.
That’s not the only issue, just a disingenuous mischaracterization.
>Of course, we can’t entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans
>who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.
The code word here is ‘moderate’. Depending on how you define ‘moderate’ that statement may be true, but it insinuates that most Republicans are for the war in Iraq. As the last presidential election demonstrated, most soldiers are Republicans and they have donated more money to Ron Paul than all the other Republican candidates combined – Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with over one-fourth of military contributions for Q2 (http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/) and Ron Paul Leads Military Donations Race (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_leads_military_donations_race/).
>Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?
>
>Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle,
>he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in
>order to win the RNC nomination. But he is doing a great job
>of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda
>uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on
>Terror and national security. That’s not good.
Ah, some truth leaks out, couched as a slam. Again, it’s no longer Democrats vs. Republicans, but Statists vs. We The People.
>He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine
>the war on terror and that’s why he’s so popular among
>anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.
If this is true, then it is bad if you are among the top money makers from the government/military/medical/trans-national corporate system or your loved one is not in the military. See
War and Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/),
Answering 10 Questions about the War on Terror (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=6060),
Dr. Paul’s Writings › War on Terror? It’s as Bad as War on Drugs (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/123/war-on-terror-its-as-bad-as-war-on-drugs/),
Ron Paul and the Empire (http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe80.html).
>But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican
>nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to
>win the Republican nomination.
Define ‘Republican.’ See above answer to this canard.
>Last, at a time in American history when the Republican
>Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when
>every available conservative vote is needed in next years
>general election,
This is very true…
>Paul and his supporters are busy carving
>up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda.
Negative! There has never been such an influx of excited, engaged, mostly young people into the Republican party. Yet, the “Good Old Boy” network of elder Republicans clearly recognizes the threat these new comers pose to “their” party and they are actively working to marginalize them and limit their involvement. This statement comes from my personal experience and direct observation. I first became actively involved with the Republicans a Republican Precinct Committeeman over 10 years ago.
>I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the
>Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican
>primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take
>votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates
>in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the
>party and the country.
>
>That’s why his campaign has become dangerous.
The most conservative of the MSM promoted “front runners” are not true conservatives by definition and past voting records.
>I actually agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions, outside
>of his suicidal national security perspective of course. But
>I can not agree with the campaign tactics of using leftist
>money and votes to hijack the Republican nomination and I’m
>shocked that any Republican would.
The current Republican party needs to be brought back to its roots. That is what Ron Paul is confronting them with. That is why he is dangerous to the current status quo.
>There’s really no need to write another word about Ron Paul.
That would be true if people were aware of, and chose to read Ron Paul’s existent writings, including his books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=ron+paul&field-title=&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-binding=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=47&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12) (not to mention the transcripts (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml) of his speeches).
>If you can know all of these facts, follow the money and the
>links provided for their campaign tactics and still support
>him, you’re no Republican, much less a conservative or
>constitutionalist.
Remember, Mr. Williams’’ definitions have been shown to be ‘words of art.’ This statement is a fraudulent assertion.
>Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this
>effort to hijack the party nomination.
Surprisingly, ‘real’ Republicans are re-engaging – and may succeed in taking back their party. God help us if they fail.
>National elections are decided by a couple points one way or
>another today.
But by only a fraction of the total electorate that is eligible to vote. Those who previously didn’t vote would determine the election if they voted. Look at the spontaneous, independent, self-organized grassroots support (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/)that is building for Ron Paul, because of his ideas.
>Republicans can’t afford to let any candidate
>play games with their nomination process. Republicans need a
>candidate that will unite and motivate conservative voters,
>not one that divides and undermines that process.
>
>That’s it! These are the facts. You don’t have to like them,
>you just need to know them.
As shown, these are not, as stated ‘the facts,’ not even just a skewed sub-set of them.
<end of article>
Is Ron Paul perfect? By no means.
But, he is honest, moral, forthright and principled, with a consistent voting record to back up that claim. I could add dozens of links here to show how he has been faithfully married to the same woman, his wife Carol, for nearly 50 years, and how his lifestyle matches what he says. Instead here is one link worth checking out: Christians for Ron Paul (http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/).
Let me leave you with a final image – Baby Liberty (http://acmwallet.com/ronpaul/ronpaul_hires.jpg).
Ron Paul’s ‘Hope for America (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)’ is that the culture of liberty, so cherished by the founders that they gave “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor (http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/honor.html)” to make it come to pass, can be restored in our time.
Otherwise, the times may be come very dark.
I commend you if you have read this far, and even more so if you have checked out the citations.
This is a true clash of ideas – even worldviews. Sound bites and 30 second clips are not sufficient to intelligently address the momentous issues facing us.
I look forward to your response.