EDITORIAL: No Mystery As To Why Young Americans Love Ron Paul
Mock right-wing TV talk show host Stephen Colbert described GOP Presidential candidate this way in a visit Congressman Paul (R-Texas) made to his show last June:
"You are an enigma wrapped in a riddle nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery."
Certainly, at first glance, Congressman Paul does seem a bit different than most Presidential candidates running for the Republican Party's nomination. First, he's opposed to the Iraq War, while the others defend it. Next, he minces no words when it comes to the Constitution guiding his views, whether on touchy subjects like illegal immigration, government programs, or trade agreements.
Yet, of all the GOP candidates, it could be argued that Paul is the strongest when it comes to his pro-life position. A former Air Force doctor, he says he's rarely seen any need to terminate a pregnancy for the life of the mother. And on the gun issue, he is predictable, which is refreshing with tortured logic reining among other candidates like Rudy Giuiliani: if the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms, that's all the Congressman from southeast Texas needs to know.
So what is this connection Paul has with the young people who flock to hear him talk? It's becoming a phenomenon, reminding some of the love affair Ronald Reagan had with young voters who could have been his grandchildren.
Gary Jones, a supporter of Paul's in Tennessee, has observed that the younger generation may simply be looking ahead--and see Paul doing the same thing. And both Paul and the young people don't like all that they see resulting from the war:
"The current, administration has placed the U.S. in a war that appears to have no end," writes Jones. "And as bad and as irresponsible as that is, it gets compounded in another way. If you listen to the Republican candidates, you hear the same status quo: half-heartedly talking about how we need to stay and we will get our troops out SOMEDAY. Or you hear the Democrats speaking against the war and realizing a possible withdrawal no sooner than 2013--which would make this war twice as long as World War II.
"What most people don't hear that the younger people hear and see very clearly is their forced participation. The current troop deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan have been there far beyond the prescribed tours of duty, and our military has been spread so thin that we are virtually guarding Iraq while America goes unprotected. This cannot continue on a volunteer basis. The young of our country see a mandatory draft in their future to fight in a war they don't even want. These young people are supporting Ron Paul in droves. They do not want a new Vietnam or continued Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran for their generation."
Now, if this were simply the voice of the far left, who have never seen a war they wanted to fight, that would be one thing. But these are at the very least centrist, sometime conservative young members of the Republican Party. If they saw a war that was absolutely needed to defend America, a war argument well-articulated well by an intelligent Commander-In-Chief, one gets the impression that they would be willing to do their part.
But to just throw themselves and their friends and relatives into a meaningless meatgrinder? That may be where today's young people differ from those who dutifully went whenever and wherever their country sent them. Watergate, Clinton, and now Bush have given America cause for skepticism from our national leaders.
At the very least, Ron Paul embodies this skepticism, and his supporters mostly want better justifications and smarter plans before giving open-ended support to any President's war.
That's not so much to ask.
Link to story.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
No Mystery as to Why Young Americans Love Ron Paul
This seems to be a gross oversimplification of Paul as a candidate, but I like the logic presented here about why some young folks might be drawn to Paul's anti-war stance. - Allan
WaPo Traffic Goes Up When they write about Ron Paul
Short article with interesting discussion on Ron Paul's influence. I especially like the quote: "[Ron Paul] is not just a creation of a bunch of consultants." - Allan
Washington Post traffic goes up when they write Ron Paul articlesLarry FesterPublished 10/29/2007 - 2:58 p.m. EDT
Anne Kornblut from the Washington Post says internet traffic goes up when they write about Ron Paul. When interviewed as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show Anne Kornblut said,
”This is the reason that you’re even putting him on your show it is to spike your ratings. We know that every time we write about him, hits to our website, it’s not a joke, its amazing, every time we write about him, the hits to the Washington Post website go up.
It was a startling statement considering that the Washington Post is ranked 755 on Alexa.com. She continued, “They’ve raised him money. I think if you measure the money alone this isn’t just a phenomenon”
Rosa Brooks, of the LA Times, who made it a point to say that she is not a Paul supporter said:
“He is a genuine phenomenon, he is not a media creation and thank God that Ron Paul is our there. I think Ron Paul knows something the other candidates probably deep down in their little shriveled hearts know but are scared to let themselves feel. People will vote for you even if they don’t agree on everything. If they feel like you’re a guy or a gal that has a conscience, got some integrity, and calls it like you see it. And is not just a creation of a bunch of consultants”
Tucker Carlson said he agreed with most of Paul’s issues but said that he didn’t support a gold standard.
In a recent debate Paul pointed out that “since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 a dollar then is only worth 4 cents today”. Paul supports reforming the monetary system by authorizing competing currencies backed by gold and silver. Paul has made the case that ‘empire overseas’ and a ‘fiat currency’ are contributing factors to causing economic strain on Americans.
While the pundits attempted to explain why Ron Paul has such tremendous support and they did try to couch Paul’s common sense issues as a bit strange, there seemed to be an indirect implication and almost an early explanation of why Paul will do well in the early primaries like New Hampshire.
Media outlets have been slowly back tracking from apparently inaccurate polls that have been saying for months that Ron Paul’s support is only at 1% and are starting to change polling data to reflect reality. A new poll in New Hampshire shows Paul at 7.4%.
Paul’s campaign if it wins New Hampshire may prove media generated polls to be obsolete or at best a useless and lagging indicator. Visit the USA Daily Forum to discuss this and other issues.
Link to story
Sunday, October 28, 2007
This November 5th
This is a note from our friend Jano, a reporter in Slovakia, who wanted to draw our attention to a fundraising event on November 5 (Guy Fawkes Day). - Allan
Hi guys,
good job with that videoI wanna draw your attention to this in a case you haven't seen it yet: http://www.thisnovember5th.com/ It's a grassroot effort to donate Ron 10million bucks in a single day (!!!). Maybe their goal is too high but you always have to set your goals higher so you can reach the best you can. Since they have more than 10,000 subscribers already it might really bring a significant amount of cash.
Anyway, Matej, I actually don't see RP Revolution as the reflection of French Revolution, in fact, I see it as a complete opposite. While French Revolution was a violent riot against the natural order that launched the offense of socialism, Ron Paul 'Revolution' is a peaceful effort that could launch the end of it.
jano
Our First
Eric posted our first video on You Tube yesterday and in 24 hours had a few hundred views, brought a pair of new members to our meetup group, and was listed as having three You Tube Honors that day. Great job with the camera and editing, Eric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mBrnJrHa7E
Also, Eric has come up with a pretty good plan that I expect to follow up on - a video appeal to friends and family which asks: 1. Please take note of Ron Paul and 2. Please trust your instinct that the Main Stream Media ought not be trusted, so please head out onto the internet to find trustworthy pieces of info. In presenting his video appeal, Eric asks that others do the same thing and make video appeals that they send out to anyone they know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkeM30M1EB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mBrnJrHa7E
Also, Eric has come up with a pretty good plan that I expect to follow up on - a video appeal to friends and family which asks: 1. Please take note of Ron Paul and 2. Please trust your instinct that the Main Stream Media ought not be trusted, so please head out onto the internet to find trustworthy pieces of info. In presenting his video appeal, Eric asks that others do the same thing and make video appeals that they send out to anyone they know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkeM30M1EB8
Thursday, October 25, 2007
To Help you Sleep Well Tonight
How Ron Paul Could Win the Presidency – A Hypothetical Chronology
by Benjamin Tyler Fenton
Considering his surprising 3rd quarter fundraising numbers and the media attention that has followed for Ron Paul, it is clear that he has a chance (however small) to win the Presidency. Should this libertarian reverie somehow become a reality, here’s how I imagine it might happen.
The Paul campaign continues unloading its newfound cash on radio and television ads in the early primary states, especially New Hampshire. Dr. Paul heeds Concord Monitor’s Mike Pride’s suggestion and moves to the state, invigorating the already strong grassroots support in the "live free or die" state. The New Hampshire legislature votes to move the primary up to December 11. On that day, shocking the MSM and their "scientific" polls, Ron Paul wins the New Hampshire primary with 35% of the vote. CNBC.com editor Allen Wastler calls Paul supporters "Real REAL good." The victory puts Dr. Paul on the map, and the Republican establishment begins to panic. Increasing numbers of disillusioned voters who had not planned to vote realize that Paul has a real chance to win and come out to the polls in droves. New Hampshire’s extremely early primary date allows thousands upon thousands of independent voters in other states to change their party affiliation to Republican in time to vote for Dr. Paul in their states’ primaries.
While the other undistinguishable Republican candidates write off Paul’s New Hampshire victory as a fluke and continue to jockey for votes, Paul’s libertarian message continues to stand out like a sore thumb, unifying his support and enabling him to win in many of the 23 Super Tuesday primaries on February 5. He wins several more states down the homestretch, and as the delegates mount, Paul’s victory becomes assured. The Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney campaigns fold up their tents. Sean Hannity’s hairline recedes three inches. Ron Paul officially wins the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination.
With Paul’s victory, chaos erupts at Republican Party headquarters. The reality sinks in that either Hillary Clinton, the Mother of All That Is Not Republican, or Ron Paul, who won’t preemptively nuke Iran, will become president. Neocons past and present come out of the woodwork to test the waters for an independent presidential run. Newt Gingrich becomes the most serious candidate but ultimately decides against running, realizing that 1) he won’t win, and 2) running as independent would erode voter confidence in the Republican Party, and 3) A Hillary presidency would be great for Rush Limbaugh’s ratings. So the Republican big wigs reach a consensus and decide to nominally back Paul while secretly rooting on Hillary. Fox News suddenly becomes fair and balanced in its election coverage.
Meanwhile, the MSM shrugs off Paul as a "protest candidate," calling his victory "a resounding indication of voter disenchantment with the Republican Party." The MSM proceeds to roll out the red carpet for Hillary Clinton, vastly underestimating the public’s widespread negative perception of her.
When Focus on the Family’s James Dobson endorses Paul for President, giving him the Christian Right’s support, no one at Hillary’s campaign headquarters worries. But when Paul starts getting endorsements from various anti-war groups (for his consistent stance on Iraq), civil liberties groups (for his anti-Patriot Act stance) and even the AARP (for his opposition to taxing Social Security benefits), the Hillary Machine goes on the offensive. Attack ads are launched in an attempt to paint Paul as a bigot, a hillbilly, a moron, a conspiracy theorist and everything else. The ads change few minds however, as Paul’s impeccable voting record, his unwavering commitment to the Constitution, and his grandfatherly charm speak volumes about his true character.
Nevertheless, heading into Election Day, the MSM has Paul trailing Clinton by 8–10% in "scientific" polls carefully worded by Frank Luntz. On election night, the New York Times doesn’t bother to wait for all precincts to close, let alone report, smugly going to press with the headline "Clinton Defeats Paul."
Late on election night, the pundits stare incredulously as the results roll in showing wins for Paul in state after state. While Paul holds his own in the Heartland, benefiting from an unexpectedly high voter turnout driven by a vast Hillary Fear that the polls failed to pick up on, he shocks many by winning in traditionally blue states like Oregon, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. When all is said and done, the final electoral tally shows Paul winning 280 electoral votes to Hillary’s 258. George Stephanopoulos thanks the Lord he is not a betting man. Ron Paul has won the Presidency.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking. Maybe it’s a dead-on prediction that would put me on par with Nostradamus. Either way, imagining how a candidate truly committed to upholding the Constitution could become President sure is a pleasant thought.
October 24, 2007
Benjamin Tyler Fenton [send him mail] is an economics major at the University of Colorado studying in Chile.
by Benjamin Tyler Fenton
Considering his surprising 3rd quarter fundraising numbers and the media attention that has followed for Ron Paul, it is clear that he has a chance (however small) to win the Presidency. Should this libertarian reverie somehow become a reality, here’s how I imagine it might happen.
The Paul campaign continues unloading its newfound cash on radio and television ads in the early primary states, especially New Hampshire. Dr. Paul heeds Concord Monitor’s Mike Pride’s suggestion and moves to the state, invigorating the already strong grassroots support in the "live free or die" state. The New Hampshire legislature votes to move the primary up to December 11. On that day, shocking the MSM and their "scientific" polls, Ron Paul wins the New Hampshire primary with 35% of the vote. CNBC.com editor Allen Wastler calls Paul supporters "Real REAL good." The victory puts Dr. Paul on the map, and the Republican establishment begins to panic. Increasing numbers of disillusioned voters who had not planned to vote realize that Paul has a real chance to win and come out to the polls in droves. New Hampshire’s extremely early primary date allows thousands upon thousands of independent voters in other states to change their party affiliation to Republican in time to vote for Dr. Paul in their states’ primaries.
While the other undistinguishable Republican candidates write off Paul’s New Hampshire victory as a fluke and continue to jockey for votes, Paul’s libertarian message continues to stand out like a sore thumb, unifying his support and enabling him to win in many of the 23 Super Tuesday primaries on February 5. He wins several more states down the homestretch, and as the delegates mount, Paul’s victory becomes assured. The Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney campaigns fold up their tents. Sean Hannity’s hairline recedes three inches. Ron Paul officially wins the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination.
With Paul’s victory, chaos erupts at Republican Party headquarters. The reality sinks in that either Hillary Clinton, the Mother of All That Is Not Republican, or Ron Paul, who won’t preemptively nuke Iran, will become president. Neocons past and present come out of the woodwork to test the waters for an independent presidential run. Newt Gingrich becomes the most serious candidate but ultimately decides against running, realizing that 1) he won’t win, and 2) running as independent would erode voter confidence in the Republican Party, and 3) A Hillary presidency would be great for Rush Limbaugh’s ratings. So the Republican big wigs reach a consensus and decide to nominally back Paul while secretly rooting on Hillary. Fox News suddenly becomes fair and balanced in its election coverage.
Meanwhile, the MSM shrugs off Paul as a "protest candidate," calling his victory "a resounding indication of voter disenchantment with the Republican Party." The MSM proceeds to roll out the red carpet for Hillary Clinton, vastly underestimating the public’s widespread negative perception of her.
When Focus on the Family’s James Dobson endorses Paul for President, giving him the Christian Right’s support, no one at Hillary’s campaign headquarters worries. But when Paul starts getting endorsements from various anti-war groups (for his consistent stance on Iraq), civil liberties groups (for his anti-Patriot Act stance) and even the AARP (for his opposition to taxing Social Security benefits), the Hillary Machine goes on the offensive. Attack ads are launched in an attempt to paint Paul as a bigot, a hillbilly, a moron, a conspiracy theorist and everything else. The ads change few minds however, as Paul’s impeccable voting record, his unwavering commitment to the Constitution, and his grandfatherly charm speak volumes about his true character.
Nevertheless, heading into Election Day, the MSM has Paul trailing Clinton by 8–10% in "scientific" polls carefully worded by Frank Luntz. On election night, the New York Times doesn’t bother to wait for all precincts to close, let alone report, smugly going to press with the headline "Clinton Defeats Paul."
Late on election night, the pundits stare incredulously as the results roll in showing wins for Paul in state after state. While Paul holds his own in the Heartland, benefiting from an unexpectedly high voter turnout driven by a vast Hillary Fear that the polls failed to pick up on, he shocks many by winning in traditionally blue states like Oregon, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. When all is said and done, the final electoral tally shows Paul winning 280 electoral votes to Hillary’s 258. George Stephanopoulos thanks the Lord he is not a betting man. Ron Paul has won the Presidency.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking. Maybe it’s a dead-on prediction that would put me on par with Nostradamus. Either way, imagining how a candidate truly committed to upholding the Constitution could become President sure is a pleasant thought.
October 24, 2007
Benjamin Tyler Fenton [send him mail] is an economics major at the University of Colorado studying in Chile.
Important Ron Paul Success
As our man "-D" pointed out last week, Ron Paul won at a straw poll in Nevada that had an exclusive group of voters. Romney was even in attendance that day, but it did not help him. This piece from Lew Rockwell demonstrates the importance of Ron Paul's win in Nevada last week. - Allan
October 18, 2007
Eric Odom: Yes, Ron Paul Poll Results are ValidPosted
by Tex MacRae at October 18, 2007 05:54 PMI'm so glad Brett Celinski passed this link to me because I had been wondering when Eric Odom would speak up about the Conservative Leadership Conference Straw poll last weekend in Nevada that Ron Paul won decisively.
Because of the Who's Who of Conservatism nature of the attendees at that conference, I expected Ron's win to be particularly convincing and it was:
Many in the media, as well as in the ranks of the Republican party, almost instantly tried to discount the results for the CLC straw poll once PolitcalDerby.com made them public.The problem with this is, this straw poll was conducted on one of the most level playing fields I’ve ever seen. I watched how the straw poll at CPAC was conducted earlier this year, and I’ve studied the process at several other venues since. The straw poll at CLC was carefully conducted by a very trusted group of associates. The process was also heavily debated and discussed in the weeks prior to the actual event.
We knew there was a potential for “cheating” and we took what we saw as the proper steps to ensure fair and relevant results. Judging by the way that other straw polls have ended, we thought it was safe to assume that Romney or Hunter would come out ahead. Romney had a heavy presence at CLC, providing a townhall style meeting as well as a major mid day speech. Duncan Hunter also made a major speech and his supporters turned out in numbers similar to that of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul had a booth in the exhibit hall, but was not present at CLC.
With all of this in mind, we figured that Romney would probably take the lead with Hunter and Paul close behind. This was just a guess, but it made sense at the time.
When the results began to take shape, however, it was clear that the true limited-government minded conservatives present at CLC just didn’t click with any of the major candidates. In fact, Ron Paul walked away with a significant victory.(...)The bottom line is that several hundred limited-government conservatives met here in Reno, Nevada, and agreed that none of the top tier candidates had their support.This is one poll that simply cannot be argued. Ron Paul won the CLC straw poll fair and square.
Link to the article.
For the Math Nerd in You
These are some interesting websites that crunch Ron Paul campaign figures.
Here you can find lots of number crunching and graphs about 4th quarter fund raising figures and other Ron Paul related numbers:
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/
These folks have a cool fundraising map of the US:
http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/9914/inside_ron_paul_nation
This one has to do with internet traffic to campaign websites:
http://www.spinbee.com/2007/10/ron-paul-outpacing-rivals-in-internet.html
This guy who writes at the Atlantic writes nice things about Ron Paul from time to time, and I rather like this blog entry and the freethinking, irreverent nature of the supporter the author mentions, based on Ron Paul's quarterly financial reports:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/the-genius-of-t.html
On this one, you can find a bunch of cool ladies and gentlemen who get together every Wednesday night in support of Ron Paul:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/583/ : )
- Allan
Here you can find lots of number crunching and graphs about 4th quarter fund raising figures and other Ron Paul related numbers:
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/
These folks have a cool fundraising map of the US:
http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/9914/inside_ron_paul_nation
This one has to do with internet traffic to campaign websites:
http://www.spinbee.com/2007/10/ron-paul-outpacing-rivals-in-internet.html
This guy who writes at the Atlantic writes nice things about Ron Paul from time to time, and I rather like this blog entry and the freethinking, irreverent nature of the supporter the author mentions, based on Ron Paul's quarterly financial reports:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/the-genius-of-t.html
On this one, you can find a bunch of cool ladies and gentlemen who get together every Wednesday night in support of Ron Paul:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/583/ : )
- Allan
ABC - Finally, something about Ron Paul's MESSAGE ! !
For several paragraphs in this 4 page article, the author seeks to deal with the message of Ron Paul's campaign, and while it is by no means perfect, I welcome this article, as coverage of what Ron Paul is actually saying is sorely lacking in the main stream media.
While the following summary is not entirely complimentary, Ron Paul humbly says the same types of things about his campaign as what the author concludes towards the end of the article: "Ultimately, Paul's campaign, more than any other in the presidential field, has less to do with Paul than with Paul's message against the way Washington works." - Allan
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3745767&page=1
While the following summary is not entirely complimentary, Ron Paul humbly says the same types of things about his campaign as what the author concludes towards the end of the article: "Ultimately, Paul's campaign, more than any other in the presidential field, has less to do with Paul than with Paul's message against the way Washington works." - Allan
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3745767&page=1
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Ron Paul's Poor Gallup Poll Numbers?
Last night, after a long Ron Paul discussion, a friend in Americans in Europe for Ron Paul directed me to this excellent website.
This deals with the number one question that I have had about Ron Paul’s campaign. It answers my question “why the discrepancy between his polling numbers and his massive legion of supporters?” Well. The question is one that I will be unlikely to ask again. Thank you to Penn and Teller for helping me get myself around that question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
- Allan
This deals with the number one question that I have had about Ron Paul’s campaign. It answers my question “why the discrepancy between his polling numbers and his massive legion of supporters?” Well. The question is one that I will be unlikely to ask again. Thank you to Penn and Teller for helping me get myself around that question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
- Allan
Friday, October 19, 2007
Why Ron Paul?
1.
I believe in democracy, and in federalism - in decisions being made as close to constituents as possible. As something that goes hand in hand with this, I also like nations and borders. I like laws that both government and citizens must follow. I like the U.S. Constitution as a document that, if followed, prevents the over-concentration of government power. These are reasons I like Ron Paul.
This article, demonstrates that people who talk about challenges to US Sovereignty are not crazy. I’d like to recommend that anyone who finds this page, read this article top to bottom.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nroad04.xml
Texans fear US sovereignty will disappear down superhighway
James Langton in Temple, Texas
Last Updated: 12:48am GMT 04/03/2007
If it were built, the road would be one of the engineering wonders of the 21st century -a trade route a quarter of a mile wide, carving a path from Mexico through the heart of America to Canada.
In its most radical form, it would allow lorry drivers to travel hundreds of miles from the Mexican border deep into the US before reaching customs and immigration controls in Kansas.
Backers of the idea, labelled the "Nafta Superhighway", after the North American trade pact, say it would revolutionise patterns of commerce across the continent and enhance the economic prospects of millions. But its critics say it could spell the end of US sovereignty. In arguments akin to those deployed by critics of the European Union, opponents say that opening borders will hit businesses, create a terrorist threat and allow illegal immigrants and drugs to flood in.
More.
------------------------------------------
The current US policy of supporting the building of this highway is not being widely talked about right now. Building such a structure brings us a step closer to not being the sovereign United States of America. Many have found dismay in the fact that this structure is essentially not covered by the mainstream media. Ron Paul can, at times, act like a quality editorial news source – lots of information crosses his desk in Congress, and when something is being under-represented in the media, or misrepresented, you can be sure that he is talking about it. If he isn’t talking about it, and it’s a pressing issue of the day, you can be sure that he has talked about it and written about it. For anyone who does not know of Congressman Paul’s weekly column (excellent concise viewpoints) or the Ron Paul Library (exhaustive collections of Ron Paul’s work), I would like to recommend these two links to you.
Ron Paul’s Weekly Column - http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
The Ron Paul Library - http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
-----------------------------------------------
2.
This article could be frighteningly accurate and illustrates how vulnerable we have become to China, an ideological enemy, through our mounting indebtedness and the waning reserve status of the dollar. I appreciate Ron Paul’s constant return to the topic of honest money and government spending within its means. If you’d like further details on what Ron Paul means when he says “honest money” feel free to email “Allan” at “AmericansInEuropeForRonPaul@gmail.com”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HAPT1JGI4NYOFQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml
China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 8:39pm BST 10/08/2007
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.
Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies. Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
More.
---------------------------------------------------------
The article below comes from a more mainstream news source. The idea is the same as in the article above – the US Government has surprisingly little control over our debt market and that being the case, the US Government has worked itself into a situation where it can have surprisingly little control over the value of our currency. After decades of unsound financial management, the value of the US dollar can be heavily influenced by a number of governments around the world. It’s a question of who will run for the door first? Who will publicly show their displeasure in the US Dollar first? Hopefully, no one will run for the door before someone with Ron Paul’s monetary policy is voted into the oval office. - Allan
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFfgx_lG6hRA
Japan, China Sell Most U.S. Debt in at Least 5 Years
By David Yong and Wes Goodman
Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Japan, China and Taiwan sold U.S. Treasuries at the fastest pace in at least five years in August as losses linked to U.S. subprime mortgages sparked a slump in the dollar.
Story continues.
I believe in democracy, and in federalism - in decisions being made as close to constituents as possible. As something that goes hand in hand with this, I also like nations and borders. I like laws that both government and citizens must follow. I like the U.S. Constitution as a document that, if followed, prevents the over-concentration of government power. These are reasons I like Ron Paul.
This article, demonstrates that people who talk about challenges to US Sovereignty are not crazy. I’d like to recommend that anyone who finds this page, read this article top to bottom.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nroad04.xml
Texans fear US sovereignty will disappear down superhighway
James Langton in Temple, Texas
Last Updated: 12:48am GMT 04/03/2007
If it were built, the road would be one of the engineering wonders of the 21st century -a trade route a quarter of a mile wide, carving a path from Mexico through the heart of America to Canada.
In its most radical form, it would allow lorry drivers to travel hundreds of miles from the Mexican border deep into the US before reaching customs and immigration controls in Kansas.
Backers of the idea, labelled the "Nafta Superhighway", after the North American trade pact, say it would revolutionise patterns of commerce across the continent and enhance the economic prospects of millions. But its critics say it could spell the end of US sovereignty. In arguments akin to those deployed by critics of the European Union, opponents say that opening borders will hit businesses, create a terrorist threat and allow illegal immigrants and drugs to flood in.
More.
------------------------------------------
The current US policy of supporting the building of this highway is not being widely talked about right now. Building such a structure brings us a step closer to not being the sovereign United States of America. Many have found dismay in the fact that this structure is essentially not covered by the mainstream media. Ron Paul can, at times, act like a quality editorial news source – lots of information crosses his desk in Congress, and when something is being under-represented in the media, or misrepresented, you can be sure that he is talking about it. If he isn’t talking about it, and it’s a pressing issue of the day, you can be sure that he has talked about it and written about it. For anyone who does not know of Congressman Paul’s weekly column (excellent concise viewpoints) or the Ron Paul Library (exhaustive collections of Ron Paul’s work), I would like to recommend these two links to you.
Ron Paul’s Weekly Column - http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
The Ron Paul Library - http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
-----------------------------------------------
2.
This article could be frighteningly accurate and illustrates how vulnerable we have become to China, an ideological enemy, through our mounting indebtedness and the waning reserve status of the dollar. I appreciate Ron Paul’s constant return to the topic of honest money and government spending within its means. If you’d like further details on what Ron Paul means when he says “honest money” feel free to email “Allan” at “AmericansInEuropeForRonPaul@gmail.com”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HAPT1JGI4NYOFQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/money/2007/08/07/bcnchina107a.xml
China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 8:39pm BST 10/08/2007
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.
Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies. Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
More.
---------------------------------------------------------
The article below comes from a more mainstream news source. The idea is the same as in the article above – the US Government has surprisingly little control over our debt market and that being the case, the US Government has worked itself into a situation where it can have surprisingly little control over the value of our currency. After decades of unsound financial management, the value of the US dollar can be heavily influenced by a number of governments around the world. It’s a question of who will run for the door first? Who will publicly show their displeasure in the US Dollar first? Hopefully, no one will run for the door before someone with Ron Paul’s monetary policy is voted into the oval office. - Allan
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFfgx_lG6hRA
Japan, China Sell Most U.S. Debt in at Least 5 Years
By David Yong and Wes Goodman
Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Japan, China and Taiwan sold U.S. Treasuries at the fastest pace in at least five years in August as losses linked to U.S. subprime mortgages sparked a slump in the dollar.
Story continues.
The Smear Continues - Enter AlterNet
AlterNet has always been an impressive news outlet for me, at which, nearly every day, I’ve found a fresh take on some piece of information. All reporters have some type of bias in their writing, but AlterNet, regularly does a good job in providing an alternative bias as compared to what I might expect. At times, AlterNet is not tough enough on Democrats, and in this respect it tends to be partisan, and perhaps even seems to seek to unite voters around the Democratic Party. As a follow-up to the article “-D” sent on white supremacists in the mainstream media, I want to attach this AlterNet article. The fact that this usually fair-minded news source won’t try to give Ron Paul’s viewpoints unbiased coverage is distressing. I don’t get the Ron Paul smear campaign. I don’t get what’s so scary about his ideas that people won’t hear them out. It’s frightening to think that even online media sources that market themselves with a name like AlterNet can’t seem to break out of the mold. Other AlterNet readers found the article equally disturbing. Nowhere on the site was “RON PAUL 2008!!!!!!” posted by someone commenting, or any other slogan in support of the candidate. I think the comment board on the site just shows that some fair minded individuals read this article, and others, and asked “What gives?” - Allan
To view the article and discussion click here.
To view the article and discussion click here.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
If they're smearing you, you know you're good.
Allan,
The below article is absolutely horrid. The article seems to have no other purpose but to convince the reader that one should not support Ron Paul because white supremists support him. Why do you suppose this article was written?
- D
--
-D.,
From my years of political involvement, I can tell you this: campaign resources are always in short supply, and if a political machine begins to focus on working against you, it’s only because you are a realistic opponent. The answer to Dan’s question is this: the top-tier GOP contenders can’t beat Hillary, but the smart folks at Huffington Post know that Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands between Hillary and the White House next winter.
In democracy there are pluralities of opinions. We are not all the same, we are individuals who strive to act in support of the public good.
Ron Paul speaks beliefs that even the most polar opposite characters can stand in support of. While some point to him and say that he is one who cannot lead, the next two articles clearly show that he is a man that divided segments of America can stand behind.
Let the smear campaign begin, I doubt that we will see Dr. Paul joining the folks at Huffington Post down in the mud.
Thank you, “- D.” for the note and the article.
- Allan
The article from "-D" can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html
---------------------------------------
Even Socialists Stand Behind Ron Paul
The next article is from the wise founder of Americans in Europe for Ron Paul, Ben.
- Allan
Dear Guys,
This is why we should be recruiting even our socialist friends to support Ron Paul.
- Ben
The Socialist Case for Ron Paul
Posted by Lew Rockwell at October 14, 2007 05:54
PM
Now I knew that Ron had a huge and diverse coalition, but I didn't realize quite how diverse until Jeiel Schalkwijk of the Christian Socialist Party in the Netherlands sent me his article.The Socialist Case for Ron Paul
Although I am a Ron Paul supporter, I am also a member of a Christian Socialist party in the Netherlands. In many cases I do not agree with Paul's political philosophy.
But I would still urge all socialists, communists and people of all political persuasions to support Ron Paul when he runs for President.
Unless your political philosophy requires the invading of other nations and is generally totalitarian, you will win, and not only regarding the war with Iraq. Let me explain.Ron Paul is running for a federal position and is committed to a small federal government. A small federal government will consume fewer taxes and impose fewer burdens on the individual states.
This will leave the people of the states more free to implement the type of government that they want.
I will give three examples, socialized healthcare, moral laws and gun control. Ron Paul is not an advocate of these things, but his presidency will help the groups that advocate these things. Since the federal government will take in less tax, states can afford to raise taxes as high as they see fit and use it to implement socialized healthcare. Now you do not need to convince the entire United States that socialized healthcare is better, but you only need to convince the people of your state, a much simpler task.
Your state can have its own healthcare plan and you could withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid.
Moral laws, such as abortion and gay marriage, are very simple. They are not mentioned in the constitution, so states will be free to do whatever they want.
Gun control is harder, since our ancestors amended the constitution to guarantee it. And the US Constitution is binding for all States. However, secession is possible and Ron Paul will not invade your state if you choose to secede. As a matter of fact, states are at all times free to leave the union and negotiate a new (different) treaty with the union.
Your state could secede and negotiate a new treaty with the union that only includes the free movement of people and goods, for instance.
You only lose if you are totalitarian, which means you want to impose your laws on all states even if their citizens do not want your laws. You also lose if you want to use federal resources, such as the army, without explicit permission from a majority of the states in the federation (which they can grant through congress).
Article from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html
--
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
"No more symbolic protest campaign" - HERE WE COME ! !
The radio ads have begun. - Allan
Ron Paul Radio
Monday, October 15th, 2007 in politics by Daniel LarisonRon Paul’s campaign has started running radio ads, and intriguingly the first ad focuses on popular, “mainstream” themes.
The ad script says:
Anncr: Who is Ron Paul, the candidate for President?
He served his country as a flight surgeon after the Cuban Missile crisis.
As a young doctor, Ron Paul worked nights in the emergency room of an inner city hospital, taking care of everyone, whether they could pay or not.
As an OB-GYN, he has delivered over 4000 babies. As a doctor, Ron Paul knows our health care system needs real change— where patients and doctors are in charge, not big corporations or government bureaucrats.
As a Congressman— for over twenty years, Ron Paul knows our Constitution is there to protect our freedom and limit government in our lives.
Ron Paul has refused his congressional pension. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget.
People who know him call him the taxpayers’ best friend.
To learn more about this remarkable man, go to RonPaul2008.com. That’s Ron Paul 2008.com
RP: I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.
The ad has some nice populist flourishes. It manages to tie in Rep. Paul’s medical career with health care and allude to his pro-life stance without dwelling on it and it pitches a constitutionalist, libertarian message without talking about the war. It seems pretty intelligently crafted to me. This ad makes me think that Paul is now really trying to expand his base of support.
The days of the symbolic protest campaign definitely seem to be over.
link
Ron Paul supporters in Oregon
I've been hearing these great stories of volunteers all over the US coming out in droves in support of the Paul campaign. I've basically lost heart that such stories will get mention in the mainstream media. Here is a quick one from Salem, Oregon. - Allan
Support for Ron Paul should offer lesson to GOP leaders
October 15, 2007
Oregon Republicans got a wake-up call when their straw poll at the Portland World Trade Center was transformed into a Ron Paul rally, and his supporters crushed the opposition in the poll.About 100 Paul supporters brought signs and banners, waved at traffic and pedestrians for blocks around the center, handed out literature and ended up putting Ron Paul in the winner's seat with 67 percent of the vote. Other candidates couldn't generate enough enthusiasm to get anyone at all to come out with any visible support.
Instead of ignoring or opposing Paul's efforts as they have done to date, the Republican Party leadership should be asking themselves what it is about this man that brings so many people out of their comfortable homes and hobbies to volunteer to campaign for him when other politicians are looked upon as something nasty that
got on their shoe.Here's a little hint for them: Ron Paul is today's Thomas Jefferson.
-- Denny Jackson, Independence
Monday, October 15, 2007
I'm looking for a good debate
The only time I can seem to find anything worth listening to in a debate is when the non-top-tier candidates are the ones speaking. Tiering, in cased you missed it, is a new system that someone started in the US. The way it works is that the media, or someone, I'm not sure who exactly, tells Americans who the good candidates are. I guess it's sort of voted on by some sort of consensus. Tier means level essentially. Being top-tier may or may not be a good thing. For example this link suggests that top-tier makes you a good player in a fight simulator video game. Whereas this link points out that tier is a level of seating. Essentially, being top-tier at a football stadium is undesirable to most people. Some refer to top-tier seating in large stadiums as "nosebleed seats." In consideration of this meaning of this term, I'd much rather be bottom-most-tier. In this usage of the word, much as in the usage in popular media today, top tier does not mean top-tier, as in the fighting game, instead it means "one who looks spectacular while blathering, but says little of substance."
Well, to get to the point of things, in a presidential debate - the fewer top-tier candidates, the better. Such a debate ensures a high level of substance and hearfelt emotion in the discussion. To further narrow down the field to a debate that would get me to tune in and to watch over and over again - I would desperately like to see Ron Paul debate Mike Huckabee with no other candidate welcomed on that stage. There, I would see a debate on small friendly government v. limited government. This is a debate which I often have with myself and which the Republican party desperately needs to have with itself. Follow this link and you will see what I believe to be the best three minutes of the campaign cycle so far: Huck and Paul debating the Surge. - Allan
Well, to get to the point of things, in a presidential debate - the fewer top-tier candidates, the better. Such a debate ensures a high level of substance and hearfelt emotion in the discussion. To further narrow down the field to a debate that would get me to tune in and to watch over and over again - I would desperately like to see Ron Paul debate Mike Huckabee with no other candidate welcomed on that stage. There, I would see a debate on small friendly government v. limited government. This is a debate which I often have with myself and which the Republican party desperately needs to have with itself. Follow this link and you will see what I believe to be the best three minutes of the campaign cycle so far: Huck and Paul debating the Surge. - Allan
An interesting twist in Nevada
I'm sure many Ron Paul supporters have gotten sick of hearing that Ron Paul has stormed to victory in yet another state's straw poll. This one is different though, I promise. Thank you to "-D.," who took note of Ron Paul's victory, in absentia. - Allan
Thought you might like to know that Ron Paul recently won a Straw Poll in Nevada and Mitt Romney was actually at the place where they had the vote and he still lost. I might have to ask my lawyers on this one, but you'd think that if you show up to an event, you would win the poll at the event. Guess not.
- D
P.S. As I (and the people who commented on the article) noticed, Paul's name occurs twice, and the rest of the article is devoted to Romney. Need I say, "ridiculous"?
ROMNEY LOSES IN NV STRAW POLL
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2007 2:26 PM by Chuck Todd
From NBC/NJ's Erin McPikeSPARKS, Nev. – Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend “by a large margin,” according to an organizer.
Paul won with 33 percent, Romney came in second with 16 percent and Duncan Hunter was just behind with 15 percent. "Undecided" was fourth with 11 percent, and Thompson and Giuliani were next and ahead of the rest of the pack -- all in single digits. Raw numbers haven't been provided, but there were approximately 430 registrants at the opening of the conference.
Although many of the Republican presidential teams had surrogates representing them at the conference, Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter were the only candidates to speak at the conference, and the victor himself was not there. Story Continues
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Szandor Blestman
This piece is written by a gentleman by the name of Szandor Blestman in response to one of the open letters posted on cnbc.com. Szandor does an excellent job highlighting reasons that people are drawn to Ron Paul. He hits on reasons that I am drawn to Ron Paul. - Allan
From: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=40271
An Open Reply to Mr. Harwood's Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters
Szandor Blestman
October 14, 2007
The letter this reply relates to can be found here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546
Dear Mr. Harwood,
I must say that you write a very eloquent open letter. I am so happy to see someone from the “mainstream” media finally admit that the post debate polls aren’t being hacked, that nothing illegal, immoral or corrupt was going on, and that these results are the legitimate result of political discourse. Your reasoning that political dialogue and democracy ought to be open and participatory is spot on. I must agree with you and hence I have decided to openly participate.
I do appreciate your efforts to try to placate those who have flooded your email box with complaints. This effort alone shows just how much Dr. Paul has grown in popularity over such a short period of time. It must be difficult to open your email box and see dozens of emails from people you know are irate. I’m sure it’s not fun reading through them when all they seem to do is complain, but certainly from looking through these emails you must now understand the level of frustration most of these people have been feeling. You see, if most Ron Paul supporters are like me, they had given up on the political process in this country long ago and now suddenly they have been given hope. They have suddenly found someone that they can get behind and support, someone that is not just the lesser of two evils, and someone with an ideology they believe in. This ideology I speak of is the ideology of the United States of America. Ron Paul believes in the ideals this country was founded upon and often points to the constitution of our great land, the supreme law of the land that the government is supposed to follow, and tells us that our government should be following the words of the wise men that wrote it. When Ron Paul supporters voice their endorsement of Ron Paul, they are supporting more than just the man, they are supporting his ideals, they are supporting the constitution of the United States of America, and they are supporting the country they were born in or immigrated to, a country they have come to know and love, a country they believe can once again become the greatest beacon for freedom and liberty the world has ever seen. It is only natural they should become upset when they believe that hope is being stolen from them.
Now comes the point I must take issue with you on. You, like your colleague before, have made a statement that seeks to minimize the significance of Ron Paul’s message and the force his supporters are bringing to the forefront of this political debate. You make the statement that you believe that Ron Paul’s chances of winning the presidency are no greater than your own. As a matter of opinion, that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion and it is what it is. As a matter of public record, I find that statement very disconcerting. I haven’t seen any “John Harwood Revolution” signs springing up on the roads. I don’t believe common people are posting John Harwood videos on Youtube. I haven’t seen the John Harwood girl making videos extolling the virtues of John Harwood’s stances on honoring the constitution and limiting government. I don’t recall seeing that John Harwood was running for president on any party ticket, or hearing that he had plans to run for president at all. I find it hard to believe that John Harwood is so certain any candidate would have the same chance of winning as a non candidate, particularly one with the backing Ron Paul now has, that he has posted an open letter saying so. Unless, sir, perhaps you have inside information that has been kept from the rest of us?
I would suggest, sir, that you are doing your best to make sure that Ron Paul has no chance of winning by continuously stating that he has no chance of winning. I would suggest that the media, sir, of which you are a part of, is mis-reporting and understating Ron Paul’s significance in this campaign. Why hasn’t his wins in the straw polls been widely reported? Why is it that suddenly, when he wins or places second in so many straw polls, are these same straw polls of no significance? A few years back, I seem to remember much importance was put on those same straw polls by the very media you work for. I guess the straw polls are only significant when the candidate the media has deigned “has a chance” wins. Why is it that I have to go on Youtube to see video of the masses that show up at Ron Paul’s rallies? Why is it that other candidates can’t get the people out on the streets the way Ron Paul can, and why doesn’t the media report this? And why have the rules to some states’ primaries suddenly been changed at the last minute? Why hasn’t the media reported this? Is it because, perchance, the media gets its money from the same corporations that donate so much to the other candidates’ campaigns while Ron Paul gets all his money from the hard working American people who do the actual voting? These questions go unanswered by those in the media. Instead, the personalities who sit in front of the cameras every night and day tell us that Ron Paul has no chance of winning rather than reporting the events that have been taking place and letting us decide for ourselves who has a chance of winning and who doesn’t. Ron Paul, sir, has a better chance of winning than zero, a much better chance. In fact, Ron Paul’s chances of winning the Republican primary have been put at 4 to 1 by www.sportsbook.com., just behind John McCain and Mitt Romney who come in at 5 to 2. Funny, I didn’t see the name John Harwood even mentioned on that list, not even behind Duncan Hunter who came in at 100 to 1.
You state, sir, that when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian he drew less than half a million votes. So? When was the last time the system was fair to a third party candidate? Was Ron Paul able to participate in debates against Republicans and Democrats when he ran as a Libertarian? No? Is that because the message he brings to the table, the message of freedom and liberty, of smaller constitutional government, of peace and hope, the message that any good Libertarian would bring to the table, is it because this message is so powerful that it resonates not only in the hearts of Americans, but in the spirit of all human beings and the big government candidates know they wouldn’t stand a chance arguing against such a message? Or is it simply because the Democrats and Republicans want to maintain their power and therefore make the political process nearly impossible for any third party to participate in? Whatever the reason may be, it is time to change the guard in American politics and allow all those interested free and equal access to the political process in this country, just as we are now practicing free and open political discourse by exchanging open letters on the Internet.
You talk of a “scientific” poll of Republican primary voters where Ron Paul only garnered two percent. I say it is likely that “scientific” poll did not take many factors into account. I would imagine they only polled those party faithful who have in the past voted in the primaries. They are leaving out all those Democrats and Independents, Libertarians and members of the Reform Party, those who have affiliated themselves with the Green Party and the Constitution Party, all these people who have suddenly decided to register as Republicans just so they can vote for Ron Paul. These are the disenfranchised I speak of. These are the people who have been looking for someone to vote FOR instead of someone to vote against. These are the people who for years have been searching for a message and now they have found it in Ron Paul. The “scientific” poll you speak of probably did not take that into account and was probably developed so that the Republican Party faithful would dutifully go out and vote for whoever they were told had the best chance of winning. And let us not forget, many Republicans who would not normally go out and vote in the primary will discover the message of Ron Paul, and that will excite them so much that they will decide this year to vote in the primary, and they will vote for the man with a message they can support and understand. They will vote for the ideals they believe this country should stand for. Lastly, let us not forget the apathetic. Let us not forget those like myself who may have given up all together on the political process in this country. Let us not forget the tens of millions of registered voters who no longer even bother to vote. I bet your “scientific” poll forgot them. Should they come out on primary day and cast their votes for Ron Paul, you will likely see results similar to what you have seen in the online poll your organization so generously put up.
You say Ron Paul lacks GOP support because his views are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in. I would suggest, sir, to the contrary. I would suggest that his views are out of step with the elite that have taken over the party he is running in. I would suggest that his views are out of step with the corporate backers of the party who want to be able to buy the party in order to broker power for themselves. I would suggest, sir, that Ron Paul’s views are very much in step with the rank and file who make up the backbone of that party, and the backbone of this country. I would suggest that he is very much in step with those who have to fight the wars, who have to work every day, sometimes two jobs, and live paycheck to paycheck, who have to pay the burdensome income tax they can’t afford, who see the value of the money they earn shrink while the raises don’t come, I believe Ron Paul is quite in step with these people. His ability to raise so much money from what you might consider the unwashed masses, but what I would consider common humanity, proves this. It is all the other candidates who are out of step with their constituents. It is they who ignore the unwashed masses at their peril, and all the corporate donations in the world can’t change this.
You end your letter by suggesting that Ron Paul supporters are a highly motivated minority. I submit to you, sir, that you have miscalculated. Ron Paul supporters are the common folk, and the common folk are just that, common, and they are not a minority. I will repeat myself and tell you what I told your colleague, people are fed up. They are fed up with being lied to. They are fed up with being told what to think. They are fed up with being told that their candidate, their hope for the future, has no chance to win. And they are fed up with being told that their activism and support does not matter and has no meaning.
Mr. Harwood sir, your open letter should be seen as a challenge by Ron Paul supporters. You have thrown down the gauntlet. It is up to them now to show that you are wrong. Ron Paul can win the Republican primary. He can and should win the presidency, for he is the best man for the job. He is the best hope for our country. He may be the best hope for the world. He is a man deserving of our respect and admiration for his principled stance and his record of standing up for the Constitution of the United States of America and for the ideals this nation was built upon. It is not yet time for these ideals to die. Ron Paul supporters, such as they are, must redouble their efforts to get the word out, and they must show up at the Republican primaries across this great nation of ours to make sure their voices are heard loud and clear. I wish to thank you, sir, for giving me the chance to discuss these matters in such an open forum. I wish to thank you for allowing this discourse to occur. I also wish, however, that you would stop touting your polls and statistics, come down out of your ivory tower, and take a look at the reality at what is happening on the street. There’s a revolution happening down here and everyone’s invited to join, including you.
Peace.
Szandor Blestman.
From: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=40271
An Open Reply to Mr. Harwood's Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters
Szandor Blestman
October 14, 2007
The letter this reply relates to can be found here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546
Dear Mr. Harwood,
I must say that you write a very eloquent open letter. I am so happy to see someone from the “mainstream” media finally admit that the post debate polls aren’t being hacked, that nothing illegal, immoral or corrupt was going on, and that these results are the legitimate result of political discourse. Your reasoning that political dialogue and democracy ought to be open and participatory is spot on. I must agree with you and hence I have decided to openly participate.
I do appreciate your efforts to try to placate those who have flooded your email box with complaints. This effort alone shows just how much Dr. Paul has grown in popularity over such a short period of time. It must be difficult to open your email box and see dozens of emails from people you know are irate. I’m sure it’s not fun reading through them when all they seem to do is complain, but certainly from looking through these emails you must now understand the level of frustration most of these people have been feeling. You see, if most Ron Paul supporters are like me, they had given up on the political process in this country long ago and now suddenly they have been given hope. They have suddenly found someone that they can get behind and support, someone that is not just the lesser of two evils, and someone with an ideology they believe in. This ideology I speak of is the ideology of the United States of America. Ron Paul believes in the ideals this country was founded upon and often points to the constitution of our great land, the supreme law of the land that the government is supposed to follow, and tells us that our government should be following the words of the wise men that wrote it. When Ron Paul supporters voice their endorsement of Ron Paul, they are supporting more than just the man, they are supporting his ideals, they are supporting the constitution of the United States of America, and they are supporting the country they were born in or immigrated to, a country they have come to know and love, a country they believe can once again become the greatest beacon for freedom and liberty the world has ever seen. It is only natural they should become upset when they believe that hope is being stolen from them.
Now comes the point I must take issue with you on. You, like your colleague before, have made a statement that seeks to minimize the significance of Ron Paul’s message and the force his supporters are bringing to the forefront of this political debate. You make the statement that you believe that Ron Paul’s chances of winning the presidency are no greater than your own. As a matter of opinion, that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion and it is what it is. As a matter of public record, I find that statement very disconcerting. I haven’t seen any “John Harwood Revolution” signs springing up on the roads. I don’t believe common people are posting John Harwood videos on Youtube. I haven’t seen the John Harwood girl making videos extolling the virtues of John Harwood’s stances on honoring the constitution and limiting government. I don’t recall seeing that John Harwood was running for president on any party ticket, or hearing that he had plans to run for president at all. I find it hard to believe that John Harwood is so certain any candidate would have the same chance of winning as a non candidate, particularly one with the backing Ron Paul now has, that he has posted an open letter saying so. Unless, sir, perhaps you have inside information that has been kept from the rest of us?
I would suggest, sir, that you are doing your best to make sure that Ron Paul has no chance of winning by continuously stating that he has no chance of winning. I would suggest that the media, sir, of which you are a part of, is mis-reporting and understating Ron Paul’s significance in this campaign. Why hasn’t his wins in the straw polls been widely reported? Why is it that suddenly, when he wins or places second in so many straw polls, are these same straw polls of no significance? A few years back, I seem to remember much importance was put on those same straw polls by the very media you work for. I guess the straw polls are only significant when the candidate the media has deigned “has a chance” wins. Why is it that I have to go on Youtube to see video of the masses that show up at Ron Paul’s rallies? Why is it that other candidates can’t get the people out on the streets the way Ron Paul can, and why doesn’t the media report this? And why have the rules to some states’ primaries suddenly been changed at the last minute? Why hasn’t the media reported this? Is it because, perchance, the media gets its money from the same corporations that donate so much to the other candidates’ campaigns while Ron Paul gets all his money from the hard working American people who do the actual voting? These questions go unanswered by those in the media. Instead, the personalities who sit in front of the cameras every night and day tell us that Ron Paul has no chance of winning rather than reporting the events that have been taking place and letting us decide for ourselves who has a chance of winning and who doesn’t. Ron Paul, sir, has a better chance of winning than zero, a much better chance. In fact, Ron Paul’s chances of winning the Republican primary have been put at 4 to 1 by www.sportsbook.com., just behind John McCain and Mitt Romney who come in at 5 to 2. Funny, I didn’t see the name John Harwood even mentioned on that list, not even behind Duncan Hunter who came in at 100 to 1.
You state, sir, that when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian he drew less than half a million votes. So? When was the last time the system was fair to a third party candidate? Was Ron Paul able to participate in debates against Republicans and Democrats when he ran as a Libertarian? No? Is that because the message he brings to the table, the message of freedom and liberty, of smaller constitutional government, of peace and hope, the message that any good Libertarian would bring to the table, is it because this message is so powerful that it resonates not only in the hearts of Americans, but in the spirit of all human beings and the big government candidates know they wouldn’t stand a chance arguing against such a message? Or is it simply because the Democrats and Republicans want to maintain their power and therefore make the political process nearly impossible for any third party to participate in? Whatever the reason may be, it is time to change the guard in American politics and allow all those interested free and equal access to the political process in this country, just as we are now practicing free and open political discourse by exchanging open letters on the Internet.
You talk of a “scientific” poll of Republican primary voters where Ron Paul only garnered two percent. I say it is likely that “scientific” poll did not take many factors into account. I would imagine they only polled those party faithful who have in the past voted in the primaries. They are leaving out all those Democrats and Independents, Libertarians and members of the Reform Party, those who have affiliated themselves with the Green Party and the Constitution Party, all these people who have suddenly decided to register as Republicans just so they can vote for Ron Paul. These are the disenfranchised I speak of. These are the people who have been looking for someone to vote FOR instead of someone to vote against. These are the people who for years have been searching for a message and now they have found it in Ron Paul. The “scientific” poll you speak of probably did not take that into account and was probably developed so that the Republican Party faithful would dutifully go out and vote for whoever they were told had the best chance of winning. And let us not forget, many Republicans who would not normally go out and vote in the primary will discover the message of Ron Paul, and that will excite them so much that they will decide this year to vote in the primary, and they will vote for the man with a message they can support and understand. They will vote for the ideals they believe this country should stand for. Lastly, let us not forget the apathetic. Let us not forget those like myself who may have given up all together on the political process in this country. Let us not forget the tens of millions of registered voters who no longer even bother to vote. I bet your “scientific” poll forgot them. Should they come out on primary day and cast their votes for Ron Paul, you will likely see results similar to what you have seen in the online poll your organization so generously put up.
You say Ron Paul lacks GOP support because his views are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in. I would suggest, sir, to the contrary. I would suggest that his views are out of step with the elite that have taken over the party he is running in. I would suggest that his views are out of step with the corporate backers of the party who want to be able to buy the party in order to broker power for themselves. I would suggest, sir, that Ron Paul’s views are very much in step with the rank and file who make up the backbone of that party, and the backbone of this country. I would suggest that he is very much in step with those who have to fight the wars, who have to work every day, sometimes two jobs, and live paycheck to paycheck, who have to pay the burdensome income tax they can’t afford, who see the value of the money they earn shrink while the raises don’t come, I believe Ron Paul is quite in step with these people. His ability to raise so much money from what you might consider the unwashed masses, but what I would consider common humanity, proves this. It is all the other candidates who are out of step with their constituents. It is they who ignore the unwashed masses at their peril, and all the corporate donations in the world can’t change this.
You end your letter by suggesting that Ron Paul supporters are a highly motivated minority. I submit to you, sir, that you have miscalculated. Ron Paul supporters are the common folk, and the common folk are just that, common, and they are not a minority. I will repeat myself and tell you what I told your colleague, people are fed up. They are fed up with being lied to. They are fed up with being told what to think. They are fed up with being told that their candidate, their hope for the future, has no chance to win. And they are fed up with being told that their activism and support does not matter and has no meaning.
Mr. Harwood sir, your open letter should be seen as a challenge by Ron Paul supporters. You have thrown down the gauntlet. It is up to them now to show that you are wrong. Ron Paul can win the Republican primary. He can and should win the presidency, for he is the best man for the job. He is the best hope for our country. He may be the best hope for the world. He is a man deserving of our respect and admiration for his principled stance and his record of standing up for the Constitution of the United States of America and for the ideals this nation was built upon. It is not yet time for these ideals to die. Ron Paul supporters, such as they are, must redouble their efforts to get the word out, and they must show up at the Republican primaries across this great nation of ours to make sure their voices are heard loud and clear. I wish to thank you, sir, for giving me the chance to discuss these matters in such an open forum. I wish to thank you for allowing this discourse to occur. I also wish, however, that you would stop touting your polls and statistics, come down out of your ivory tower, and take a look at the reality at what is happening on the street. There’s a revolution happening down here and everyone’s invited to join, including you.
Peace.
Szandor Blestman.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
CNBC polls - one should not disagree with the mighty Mr. Wastler
Well, this week, CNBC hosted a GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan. As usually happens following such debates, an online poll was posted by CNBC. When the poll figures represented 75% in favor of Ron Paul having won the debate, Allen Wastler at CNBC called for the poll to be removed from the internet. His rationale for this can be found by following the link below.
A friend sent me the following note. I appreciate the situational irony that he points out here, and recommend reading the open letter that he has enclosed the link to. Situational irony occurs in literature when the audience understands something that a character fails to understand. - Allan
A friend sent me the following note. I appreciate the situational irony that he points out here, and recommend reading the open letter that he has enclosed the link to. Situational irony occurs in literature when the audience understands something that a character fails to understand. - Allan
Thought you might be interested in this open letter to Ron Paul supporters from the CNBC managing editor who took down an online poll after the last Republican debate after Ron Paul had 75% of the votes.If you believe that the mainstream media is delibrately covering Romney, Guilini, Hilary, and Obama instead of all the candidates, you will find irony in his second to last sentence: "When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried." Mr. Wastler, I get a little worried, too.
- D
Saturday, October 6, 2007
A Link from Down Under
This was sent to me by Lisa, who organizes an active group of Ron Paul volunteers in Brisbane - http://ronpaul.meetup.com/122/. It's a good three minutes of attention on Ron Paul and his ideas. The reporter in it doesn't even have a mocking voice. He absolutely takes the candidate seriously. On top of that, it's on CNN. Some good links from that YouTube page as well. Thank you, Lisa. - Allan
--
LOOKING TO START A RON PAUL GROUP IN EUROPE?
Let us know, and we might even send one of our members over
to give you a helping hand. Americans In Europe for Ron Paul.
--
Great coverage of Ron Paul -- finally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXe7cOsWjwk
Lisa
--
LOOKING TO START A RON PAUL GROUP IN EUROPE?
Let us know, and we might even send one of our members over
to give you a helping hand. Americans In Europe for Ron Paul.
--
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Five Million Dollar Man ! ! !
As predicted, the Ron Paul campaign, with it's stellar 1.2 million dollars in donations in the last week of this past campaign finance reporting quarter and a 5 million dollar total for the quarter, is generating a great media buzz. Here are just a few about Ron Paul, "the Five Million Dollar Man."
-----------------
This amount means that Paul is knocking on the back door of the GOP "front runners." For those of you with an interest in following trends, while Ron Paul's contributions increased 114%, Romney's decreased 29%, Giuliani's decreased 40%, and McCain's decreased 55%:
Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
The release continues below:
http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/10/press-release-t.html
-----------------
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/paul-raises-jaw.html
-------------
This article totals how Ron Paul has been doing the last sixth months:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49760
--------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-money.html
----------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04paul.html
-------------------------------
Sounds like a good strain:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-campaign-fundraising,0,468476.story
------------------------------
This story points out Paul's popularity among the military:
To read more about this, check out the article at:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3686073&page=1
And for further information beyond that see another article at:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3600852&page=1
----------------
This quote comes from an ABC News story about Ron Paul's supporters in the technology industry:
To read more of this story "Geeks Roll Out for Ron Paul," check out the following link:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3603896&page=1
-------------------------
Whether or not this plot mentioned here is true, considering Ron Paul's popularity among Republicans and non-Republicans, this issue is an important issue to follow:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49739&fb=1
-----------------------
I wish you all a good day. - Allan
-----------------
This amount means that Paul is knocking on the back door of the GOP "front runners." For those of you with an interest in following trends, while Ron Paul's contributions increased 114%, Romney's decreased 29%, Giuliani's decreased 40%, and McCain's decreased 55%:
Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
The release continues below:
http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/10/press-release-t.html
-----------------
Paul Raises Jaw-Dropping $5 Million
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: It dominated headlines yesterday when Sen..
Hillary Clinton, D-NY, announced her campaign juggernaut had outpaced all rivals
in the campaign fundraising horse race with a $27 million haul in the third
quarter.
Today's fundraising announcement by Rep. Ron Paul, the Republican
Libertarian ob-gyn from Texas, doesn't involve quite as much money, but is
downright jaw-dropping
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/paul-raises-jaw.html
-------------
This article totals how Ron Paul has been doing the last sixth months:
That makes $7.5 million in six months, almost all of it in "small"
donations. Such an amount, given that the vast bulk of fund-raising is raised
from corporate interests in fairly large batches, is nothing short of
sensational from a political standpoint and would seem to bear witness that Ron
Paul, as a national political figure, has reached critical mass.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49760
--------------------------------
Paul's cash puts him in a position to expand his campaign operation and run
advertising in the three months before the first nominating votes in the
kick-off state of Iowa. His campaign set a goal of raising $4 million in
October.
Democratic candidates generally have been raising more than their
Republican counterparts, but Paul's performance puts him in the same financial
territory as two prominent Democrats -- the $5.2 million raised by New Mexico
Gov. Bill Richardson and $7 million raised by former Sen. John Edwards.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-money.html
----------------------------
By comparison, two candidates considered contenders in the Republican
field, Mitt Romney and Fred D. Thompson, raised $10 million and $8 million in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, according to advisers, while Senator John McCain of Arizona reported raising $5 million.
The support has allowed the Paul campaign to expand both in reach and in size, and it has planned a second round of television spots (the first were broadcast in Iowa in August). And the campaign staff has been increased to 44 people from 10 over the last 10 weeks.
The $5 million figure more than doubled Mr. Paul’s first-quarter
donations, and came in a period when most candidates reported a slowing in
donations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/us/politics/04paul.html
-------------------------------
Sounds like a good strain:
Benton said most of Paul's money has come from online contributions. He
said the donations had placed a strain on the relatively small campaign staff,
which was trying to keep up with the accounting challenge.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-campaign-fundraising,0,468476.story
------------------------------
This story points out Paul's popularity among the military:
The study of contributions of $200 and more during the first two quarters
shows that Paul has raised three times as much from members of the military as
what's been raised by GOP fundraising front-runner Romney, and four times what
Giuliani garnered.
To read more about this, check out the article at:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3686073&page=1
And for further information beyond that see another article at:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3600852&page=1
----------------
This quote comes from an ABC News story about Ron Paul's supporters in the technology industry:
His said technologists support Paul because they're detail freaks. "When
you work in technology, a lot of the time you have to scrutinize details," he
says. "Sound bites are not enough."
To read more of this story "Geeks Roll Out for Ron Paul," check out the following link:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3603896&page=1
-------------------------
Whether or not this plot mentioned here is true, considering Ron Paul's popularity among Republicans and non-Republicans, this issue is an important issue to follow:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49739&fb=1
-----------------------
I wish you all a good day. - Allan
Monday, October 1, 2007
$1.2 Million + "Matching Contributions"
1.2 million dollars is the amount of money Ron Paul raised online this week in a drive that his campaign hoped would earn $500,000 in what was the last week of a campaign finance reporting quarter.
Based on the mainstream coverage of the Paul campaign's fundraising success last quarter, the $500,000 fundraiser was meant to be a decisive move that the campaign hoped would earn the candidate an estimated $10 million in free publicity, along with the success the candidate had in fundraising throughout the quarter.
For those who donated in this drive, the $10 million dollars in free publicity is akin to a 10 for 1 matching contribution.
More information on this can be found at the Ron Paul campaign website.
- Allan
Based on the mainstream coverage of the Paul campaign's fundraising success last quarter, the $500,000 fundraiser was meant to be a decisive move that the campaign hoped would earn the candidate an estimated $10 million in free publicity, along with the success the candidate had in fundraising throughout the quarter.
For those who donated in this drive, the $10 million dollars in free publicity is akin to a 10 for 1 matching contribution.
More information on this can be found at the Ron Paul campaign website.
- Allan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
