To win

October 2, 2007

To win

Our goal is to win.

We have 96 days, maybe less.

We have one shot.


Yesterday afternoon, the Ron Paul 2008 staff came together to hear that message.  I shared it with them then.  I share it with you now.

Our goal is to win.  Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination.  Ron Paul becomes our next president.

We have 96 days, maybe less.  The first contest will be January 5 in Wyoming.  But Iowa will change its date to be earlier than Wyoming and New Hampshire will do the same. Michigan will hold its primary on January 15.  South Carolina and Nevada are set for January 19, followed by Florida on January 29.

We have one shot.  The time is right for this Ron Paul Revolution; there are many reasons why.  But this opportunity we now hold in our hands will never come again.

The future of our nation lies with us, and with the people who will soon join this freedom movement.

We have the answer:  freedom.  We have the man:  Ron Paul.  We have each other.

We have what we need to win.

Kent Snyder
Ron Paul 2008


Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul

October 2, 2007

Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul
posted October 2, 2007

Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.

It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google “Medicare expansion” for a massive example) … the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father’s or grandfather’s GOP.

There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) … except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.

It isn’t his status as the leading advocate of limited, constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)

Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others – Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.

Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country’s voters. (Google “2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it’s a fact and it’s going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.

If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the “establishment” Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won’t really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won’t figure that out until after she wins the election.)

If any of the supposed “front runner” Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as “the anti-war candidate,” but – simply put – the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.

Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won’t even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.

Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) “America’s Mayor” 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won’t turn out for the former governor of “Taxachusetts” who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won’t help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can’t win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.

Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand – and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won’t even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he’s done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.

Fred Thompson? He’s the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a “mainstream” candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned “big three.” After all, he has the “actor factor.” It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California – couldn’t it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.

Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it’s obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible.

Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn’t say anything of substance. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won’t be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no “Law and Order” writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary.

When you look at it objectively, there isn’t a single one of the “Big Four” GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the “second tier” candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.

Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet … the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn’t it?

Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else … which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.

Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren – no “trophy wives” here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.

Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.

Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader’s votes in 2000….

Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent … now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.

The Ron Paul Revolution has begun.

Joe Dumas

Judge Andrew Napolitano – “Nation of Sheep” and Ron Paul for President

October 2, 2007

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about his latest book, “Nation of Sheep” and presidential candidate Ron Paul on the David Allen show.  This is a great interview, check it out!  Click here.

Meet Ron Paul

October 1, 2007

This thorough article on Ron Paul can be found in issue #2 of Republic Magazine.

Update: I just now noticed that same issue has a “truther” style article in it about 9/11.  This means I DO NOT endorse this magazine as an activist tool for Ron Paul.  Ron Paul has said explicitly that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, and it’s unfortunate that he’s going to get the guilt by association treatment because of this magazine lumping that article in with an issue largely about Ron Paul.  But, the article on Ron Paul is still good so I’ll leave it up on the blog.

Meet Ron Paul

Written by Lee Rogers

Presidential candidate Ron Paul, Congressman (R-TX), has been called “Founding Father Material”, “Champion of the Constitution”, the “Leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capitol” and even “Dr. No”. These titles are not typically associated with many of today’s politicians who rarely speak about liberty and the Constitution. Even for those who disagree with Congressman Paul’s politics, there is no debating he is a man of principle. With a consistent voting record that falls directly in line with true Constitutional principles, he upholds his oath unlike others. Congressman Paul has clearly distinguished himself from the other Presidential candidates in either party with the message of liberty and the Constitutional rule of law.
But, who exactly is Ron Paul and how did he finally become the “Champion of the Constitution”? Before Ron Paul became known as “Dr. No” he was born and raised in Green Tree, Pennsylvania just outside of Pittsburgh. In high school, Congressman Paul was a standout athlete winning the Pennsylvania State Championship in the 220-yard dash. Upon graduation from high school in 1953 he attended and graduated from Gettysburg College. From there he went on to gain his medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine. It was during the time that he attended Gettysburg College that he married his wife Carol. He and his wife have had five children and seventeen grandchildren.

Dr. Paul is a traditional ‘baby doctor’ by trade, but his medical training is actually much broader. His formal medical training was interrupted during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he was drafted into the United States Air Force. He served honorably as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965. He then continued to serve in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968 while he completed a medical residency specializing in obstetrics and gynecology.

Following his military service he began practicing medicine working in an emergency room in San Antonio, Texas. He eventually went on to start his own medical practice. As a physician, Dr. Paul has delivered thousands of babies and performed numerous surgical procedures.

His decision to get involved in politics followed the August 15th 1971 announcement by then President Richard Nixon. Nixon announced the United States would end the issuance of money based on the gold standard. Until that time the United States still honored foreign redemption of U.S. Dollars for gold in accordance with the post World War II Bretton Woods Agreement. Foreign redemption of U.S. Dollars for gold gave the United States the right to print the world’s reserve currency. This effectively meant the end of the honest money system that the United States had enjoyed since its inception. This perplexed Dr. Paul after having studied the Austrian School of Economics, which advocated a laissez-faire economic system based on sound money.

Dr. Paul was quoted in Texas Monthly discussing the end of the gold standard stating, “After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded.”

The founding fathers agreed with Dr. Paul’s belief that money should be based on something honest and tangible like gold and silver. With Nixon taking the U.S. Dollar off the gold standard, it meant that the Federal Reserve would have carte blanche to create as much money as it wished. This was in direct contrast to the principles of sound money demanded by the Constitution. Sound money principles were specifically elaborated on in the Coinage Act of 1792, which established our Mint and regulated the coins of the United States.

The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers that stemmed from the issuance of paper money with no backing by gold, silver or other tangible assets. During the Revolutionary War a currency called the Continental was issued. The Continental was a paper currency with no backing by gold or silver that was easily counterfeited. The popularization of the phrase “not worth a continental” was a direct result of the inflation and devaluation of the Continental because more and more Continentals were chasing the same goods and services.

The founders also knew about the threat of allowing private bankers to issue money. Take for example the following quote from Thomas Jefferson.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (the banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

After 1971, we not only had a private central bank issuing our currency but the currency no longer had any ties to gold or any other precious metal. This was of great concern to Dr. Paul as he sought to reverse the damage that this sort of irresponsible monetary policy would cause. He first ran for Congress in 1974 and despite failing to win the seat the first time around he later would win a special election for that same seat when it was vacated in 1976.

Congressman Paul would become one of four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan in his run against Gerald Ford for the nomination for President. By supporting Reagan, it was clear that he did not buy into President Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now’ campaign. Ford’s campaign encouraged the American people to fight inflation by enacting personal saving policies and better spending habits. Congressman Paul knew the Federal Reserve, not the American people, was the cause of inflation. Paul knew this because the Federal Reserve had the power to issue America’s currency since 1913 and that determined the amount of inflation. Although, he would lose in the general election six months later, Dr. Paul ran for Congress again and won a full term in 1978. He was re-elected again in 1980 and 1982.

During this time, Congressman Paul gained the reputation as “Dr. No” for refusing to vote for laws that he saw as unconstitutional. Amazingly, he continued to deliver babies in private practice while he served in Congress. The issue of monetary policy remained a primary focus as he served on the House Banking Committee where he spoke out against the policies of the Federal Reserve. During this time, Congressman Paul also wrote several books on the subject of monetary policy encouraging the return to an honest money system.

Dr. Paul made the suggestion of forming a commission to determine what role gold should play in the economy. In 1982 the U.S. Gold Commission was formed as part of a response to the near inflationary collapse of the U.S. Dollar that plagued the U.S. economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Commission’s report made suggestions as to what role gold should play in the U.S. economy.

Dr. Paul would go on to make a failed run for Senate in 1984 before returning to his medical practice. He would not stay out of politics for long, however, making a run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. During the campaign Dr. Paul endorsed the same message of liberty and Constitutional government that has now become the foundation of his 2008 presidential run. Despite being an early supporter of Reagan, Dr. Paul was critical of the huge deficits that occurred during the Reagan administration and sought to inject the limited government and freedom message into the 1988 presidential campaign. He ended up placing third in the election with 431,750 popular votes.

Following his 1988 run for President, Dr. Paul stayed out of politics until the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994. He believed that the message of limited Constitutional government would be more effective with the political shift. Even though that has not proven to be the case as government has expanded to become more intrusive since the 1994 Republican take over of Congress. However, Dr. Paul has remained steadfast with the principles of limited Constitutional government.

Since his return to Congress in 1996, Congressman Paul has truly been the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. He has maintained a perfect Constitutional voting record continuing to vote “No” on any legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Congressman Paul’s politics are refreshingly simple and honest. Follow the Constitution, emphasize local control and allow liberty and free markets to work. These principles are true for any of the important issues that are facing this country today.

It would be impossible to detail Congressman Paul’s stance on every issue in the space of this article, but what is clear is that he is a man of integrity and principle. Over the ten terms that he has served in Congress, his voting record and message of freedom, liberty and adherence to the Constitution has remained the same.

Let’s now run down Congressman Paul’s stance on a variety of issues and how it pertains to the Constitution and the message of liberty. This list will be prefaced with a brief history of U.S monetary policy.

Currently, the U.S. economy is manipulated by a private central bank called the Federal Reserve. The Constitution specifically prohibits the issuance of bills of credit and demands that honest money like gold or silver be issued. The government in 1913 allowed for the establishment of a private central bank called the Federal Reserve to print the money for the government. As time went on, this allowed the Federal Reserve to gain a monopoly on printing money, which is the system that we currently have in place today. Today’s money is not backed by any sort of tangible asset like gold or silver and much of it is manipulated by the Federal Reserve in secret. In layman’s terms, simply put, the Federal Reserve is given legal authority to print counterfeit money and loan it back to the U.S. government at an interest rate that it sets. The Federal Reserve is entirely unconstitutional and through their policies, they create the booms and busts that have plagued our economy since its inception. The current mortgage meltdown that is causing tremendous problems with our economy is a symptom of the policies implemented by the Federal Reserve.

Through the government giving this group of private bankers legal authority to create money out of thin air, we as a nation have facilitated a dramatic increase in the size and scope of government as well as the erosion of individual civil liberties. Congressman Paul has previously introduced legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve because he understands, like the founding fathers did, the dangers of emitting bills of credit under the control of a private banking system.

When referring to the central bank during the interview, Paul stated, “The Federal Reserve creates money and that is inflation. When you create new money the rest of the money goes down in value and people’s prices go up.”

Congressman Paul is 100% correct as bankers at the Federal Reserve can manipulate the money supply to steal wealth from the American people by way of inflation. Under a gold and silver standard it would take effort and work to increase the money supply by finding more gold and silver. Under a gold and silver standard it would be impossible for bankers to steal wealth from the American people by simply issuing additional currency. Such a system would also constrain the ability of politicians to increase the size of government without having access to the money making machine that the Federal Reserve currently provides. The issuance of money should rest with the people as the Constitution demands, not in the hands of a private, for-profit institution like the Federal Reserve. If elected, Congressman Paul would introduce competition to the Federal Reserve by encouraging the use of private money like the Liberty Dollar and potentially authorizing the Treasury to issue gold and silver as money. This would effectively put the Federal Reserve out of business because honest money in the form of gold or silver that is also legal tender would win out in the marketplace over Federal Reserve Notes that have no intrinsic value.

When asked how he would restore an honest monetary system Congressman Paul replied, “You should turn it completely over to the marketplace and let private money evolve and use gold and silver or if the government is to be involved they should issue a currency and define it as a weight of gold or a weight of silver but not fix the ratio. That to me would be a better standard than we had in the 19th century.”

Congressman Paul recently introduced legislation to the 110th Congress in the form of H.R. 2755 which would abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve. His clear statements and legislation make Congressman Paul one of the only politicians in Washington who actually understands how our monetary system works and knows what needs to be done to fix it.

Another important issue pertaining to the economy is the income tax, a tax considered by many as direct government theft. The income tax, like the Federal Reserve, is believed to be unconstitutional because the Constitution demands that taxes be apportioned or equally divided. The income tax is not apportioned and therefore unconstitutional. The same can be said for filing an income tax return. The requirement of filing an income tax is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment because it forces the individual to provide evidence to the government that later can be used to incriminate the individual. Congressman Paul recognizes that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the income tax are both unconstitutional and has previously introduced legislation to abolish the IRS and end the income tax.

In the first Republican Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, Congressman Paul said that he would immediately move to abolish the IRS and end the income tax if elected to office. Furthermore, Congressman Paul has stated many times in various campaign appearances that upon abolishing the income tax, he would replace it with nothing. Congressman Paul contends that if government operated within its lawfully defined limits as provided in the Constitution, there would be no need to have an income tax.

What hard working American citizen wouldn’t welcome the abolishment of the IRS and Income Tax?

Congressman Paul refers directly to the Constitution on issues of foreign policy. The Constitution advocates a policy of non-interventionism, which simply means staying out of entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations. Congressman Paul favors withdrawing from institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, NATO and others, as he believes that these organizations erode our sovereignty. He supports free trade but is against arrangements like NAFTA that are widely viewed as corporate welfare agreements masqueraded as free trade agreements.

When asked about regional and global governing institutions he stated, “To work in the direction of loss of sovereignty which is what happens when you setup these regional governments, the WTO, the IMF and World Bank. They are working for the New World Order a new system of government and I’m not in support of that at all.”

During the latter half of the 20th century, the U.S. policy of non-intervention has been completely abandoned in favor of empire building. We have also abandoned the notion that only Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has not declared war since World War II and yet the U.S. has been involved in several undeclared foreign wars including the current war in Iraq.

Congressman Paul voted against authorization to go to war in Iraq and supports immediate troop withdrawal based on the premise that it is unconstitutional, since war with Iraq was never declared by Congress. During the Iowa GOP debate that aired on ABC News, he stated the following when asked about the Iraq war, “Just come home. We just marched in, we can just come home.”

This simple and powerful message on the Iraq war has really helped to shape and define his campaign. As President he would strengthen our national defense by withdrawing our troops from their current mission of empire building and use the military to defend our national borders, as was intended by the Constitution.

Congressman Paul is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. He has consistently voted against gun control legislation, supports the private ownership of automatic firearms and has been given the highest Congressional rating by the Gun Owners of America. He believes that the individual, not the state, is in the best position to protect their lives and liberty and that is why he has voted continuously in support of upholding the 2nd amendment.

Congressman Paul supports a true free market health care system to fix the problems it is plagued by. He believes the American health care system has the problems it does because of government involvement, which has resulted in a corporatist-fascist model. Strangely enough, many of the other presidential candidates, particularly on the Democratic side of the fence, believe that we need more government involvement to fix the system. Congressman Paul opposes a universal national health care plan because a national health care system is not authorized by the Constitution and it would vastly increase the size and scope of government. When asked how a government-run health care plan would operate he replied, “It would be like asking FEMA to take care of it.”

He also talked about the rising costs of medical care and stated, “Medical care costs prices skyrocket because of inflation, the government is involved and bureaucrats are involved.”

In addition, he said referring to advances in technology, “Technology should lower the prices of everything involved if all things are equal.”

Congressman Paul’s message on health care is really quite simple. There is no government involvement with computers and cell phones and the prices of those things have gone down. If government wasn’t involved in the health care system, the price of health care would also go down.

The North American Union is the stealth push for the integration of Canada, Mexico and the United States into a regional government entity under a common currency known as the “Amero”. Congressman Paul is strongly opposed to the NAU. This secret push towards North American integration began with the Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by George W. Bush and established regional agencies that would oversee governmental functions across North America. The SPP is unconstitutional because treaties with other nations are required to have congressional approval.

Congressman Paul supports eliminating the Department of Education allowing states and local government control over public education. He also supports introducing free market competition. From a Constitutional perspective the Department of Education can be considered unconstitutional because the Constitution states that this is a matter that should be left to the states and local government.

Congressman Paul supports the decriminalization of drug laws based on the premise that the government does not have the right to tell the individual what they should or should not put in their body.

On the environment, Congressman Paul believes we need to strengthen private property laws because people who truly own something will be more likely to take care for it, than will the state. Nations that have favored socialism and collectivism over freedom, liberty and private property have had rampant amounts of pollution because individuals do not have true ownership of their property.

On immigration, Congressman Paul supports ending the welfare state that provides the incentive for individuals to come here illegally. He has also proposed legislation that would end birthright citizenship eliminating another incentive for illegal immigrants to enter the country.

During the interview he stated, “The welfare state provides an incentive for people to come, as well as, an incentive for some of our people not to work and take some of these jobs.”

He also talked about physical border security and stated, “We need more border guards. I would provide the personnel by bringing our troops home.”
Congressman Paul supports both ending the incentive for illegal immigrants to come to the United States in addition to providing physical border security. He also opposes any sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Congressman Paul voted against the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, which were two pieces of unconstitutional legislation that allowed for domestic spying and the elimination of habeas corpus. He supports the abolishment of both laws because they are in direct contradiction with the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. He is also strongly opposed to the Real ID Act, which is a national ID card program that is slated to start in 2008.

Congressman Paul also favors abolishing federal government agencies that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. This includes the Department of Homeland Security among others that have already been mentioned. During his June 13th 2007 appearance on the “Colbert Report” he made it clear that he would reduce the size of government dramatically. In terms of programs that people depend upon like Social Security and Medicare he favors eliminating them by reducing them in size over a period of time. This way, people who depend upon these institutions would get the help they needed until it was possible to eliminate them entirely.

Congressman Paul is against regulation and taxation of the Internet. When asked about the push towards taxing and regulating the Internet and he compared it to regulating things like books. He stated, “Books are available. We don’t regulate books.”

This is a very good point. If the government doesn’t regulate books, why should the government regulate things like the Internet?

He also referred to the Internet as “our secret weapon” calling it a “political equalizer.”

Ron Paul’s campaign website is ranked at 20,124 among every website in the world according to the global ranking website Alexa ranks as the number one website in the world next to and Hillary Clinton’s campaign site is ranked at 21,650, Obama’s at 22,433 and Giuliani’s at 117,055.

Considering the tremendous success that Congressman Paul’s presidential campaign has had on the Internet, it is easy to see why he holds this position on Internet regulation and taxation. The internet is also one of the reasons why young people have flocked to support his presidential campaign.

Dr. Paul believes a major problem affecting this country is the Federal Reserve because this is the engine that is used to expand the government, erode civil liberty and wage war. He is the only presidential candidate that understands the dangers of a private central banking system, and is willing to address it. The ability of the Federal Reserve to print money that is legal tender out of thin air has allowed the government to behave irresponsibly and offers very little in the way of checks and balances.

A statement he made about the Federal Reserve, during the interview, sums it up. He stated, “If you want to strive for personal liberty you want government to be small. The Federal Reserve permits the members of Congress and politicians to expand government without being responsible.

No individual running for President has the education and background on monetary policy that Congressman Paul does. We are faced with a monetary crisis; the U.S. Dollar has lost, approximately, more than half of its value since 2000. There is a clear need for a President who understands the concept of honest money to reverse some potentially damaging trends.

Ron Paul’s stance on political issues, his life experiences and solid Constitutional voting record make it obvious that he is a genuine and honest man. We urgently need this type of patriot as the next President of the United States. Unlike the majority of politicians who seek office for power, fellow freedom lovers and patriots had to convince him to run for President. They felt he was the right man at the right time. Ron Paul is the George Washington of our time. Ron Paul is running for President for the right reasons. He is truly the “Champion of the Constitution”.

The phenomenon of grass roots support for this man is nothing short of amazing. Politicians fighting for the chance to become President of the United States could only dream of the people’s support that Ron Paul has. No presidential candidate can boast his own 24-hour radio network other than Ron Paul. is not managed by Ron Paul’s campaign; his supporters run it. Musicians from coat to coast have written songs of praise about Ron Paul. Ranging from country to reggae and Rock and Roll to Rap there is no shortage of musical fare to celebrate his message. The actual numbers of grassroots supporters, on, are now over 37,000 in 630 cities. Compared to Obama’s 4,071 nationwide supporters or Hilary’s 861, Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign is an unstoppable force that builds momentum daily. His solid number of supporters should be encouraging to anyone who considers himself a modern patriot.

Those who want to see this country released from corporate controls and returned to its Constitutional foundations can take refuge in Dr. Paul. Given the chance to act upon these principles from the office of President, “Dr. No” could end up becoming “Dr. Yes” as his efforts would shift from voting against bad policy to supporting and enacting correct and just Constitutional policy.

Ron Paul is a refreshing change for our Constitutional Republic, as opposed the destructive policy that had held sway for too long in this country.

Vote Ron Paul in 2008? You have a choice! Protected by the Constitution, your right to vote is the only remedy to protect the fate of our children and grandchildren for generations to come. The title of President of the United States of America must be held by one who values the honesty, integrity, and the constitutional fortitude of those that forged this great nation. Our republic, born in 1776, needs to be restored. You get to decide who has the ability and who will do it.


In Wiki-Politics, Ron Paul Leads the Field

October 1, 2007

In Wiki-Politics, Ron Paul Leads the Field

Written by Matt Pace (e-mail) — August 30th, 2007 | Listen | EMail This Post

At this time during the run up to the last presidential election, Wikipedia was in its infancy. In July of 2003, the online encyclopedia attracted less than half a million US visitors. Fast forward four years. In July of 2007 over 41 million people, or 1 in 4 people online in the US, visited the site. Wikipedia is now the 12th most visited website and is likely to play a significant role in informing and influencing those who will choose our next president.

All of the candidates have exhaustive articles dedicated to them on Wikipedia that offer in-depth biographical information and near-real time updates on the ups and downs of their campaigns. As anyone (including supporters and detractors) can edit the information, Wikipedia provides a counterweight to the carefully scripted information released on the candidates’ official websites.

The table below compares the activity on each candidate’s Wikipedia articles in July in terms of total readers, time spent on the article (reading, commenting, editing, etc.) and their share of all time spent across all of these articles. Finally, the table compares the overlap between a candidate’s Wikipedia readership and their official website traffic. For example, in July, 42% of the people who read Ron Paul’s Wikipedia article also visited

Rankings across these metrics were then averaged. Who comes out on top? The results might come as a surprise to those accustomed to seeing the party front runners capturing all of the headlines.


  • Lesser known, grass-roots supported candidates, such as Ron Paul, fare particularly well in this comparison. Although trailing rivals in national polls, Paul attracts a sizable following on Wikipedia. In July his article was second only to Barack Obama’s in terms of readership, but accounted for nearly a quarter of all time spent across all of the candidates’ articles. This certainly speaks to the avid devotion of Paul’s supporters (online in particular).
  • Household names such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani trail rivals in this comparison. The modest interest seen in their Wikipedia articles could be a result of the public’s general familiarity with candidates whose lives of late have played out on the public stage.
  • The front runners from both parties appear to capture a wider range of readership (not just supporters) than the 2nd tier candidates, given the low levels of campaign site visitation among their Wikipedia article readers.
  • Fred Thompson attracted considerably more Wikipedia interest than his leading Republican rivals in July, not surprising given the uncertainty surrounding his entry into the race and his party’s continued search for favorite candidate.

Four Titanics and One Iceberg, Ron Paul?

October 1, 2007

Four Titanics and One Iceberg, Ron Paul?
Larry Fester
Published 10/01/2007 – 2:44 p.m. EDT

The Republican presidential field has four media appointed Titanics in the race, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. All the candidates have garnered positive media attention and demonstrated fund raising ability.

Still, with the GOP nomination up for grabs these Republican frontrunners have at least one iceberg to navigate in the New Hampshire primary, namely Dr. Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman that is starting to gain momentum and may actually be expanding the GOP base in the process.

With so many primaries moving their dates up, 22 states are now up for grabs on Super Tuesday. If Ron Paul wins New Hampshire his odds of winning the lions share of states on Super Tuesday’s February 5th elections become very good, as will his likelihood of winning the GOP nomination.

Paul supports eliminating federal income taxes and the Federal Reserve which he blames for the current housing crises. Ron Paul also voted against the Iraq war and has been critical of Hillary Clinton and his fellow Republicans for supporting the war.

To many Ron Paul is known as a civil rights leader defending the Bill of Rights and the U.S. constitution at every chance. Paul gathers large crowds wherever he holds rallies across America and when he says ‘we’ve become soft on liberty’ and promises to ‘repeal the police state’ he is welcomed with chants of ‘Freedom’ by adoring supporters from all walks of life.

Ron Paul also opposes a North American Union and says he will protect U.S. borders and not allow them to be erased. Republicans and some Democrats have been critical of the Bush administration for not securing borders in the six years since 9/11.

Paul’s campaign recently did an online challenge to raise 500 thousand dollars to end the quarter strongly on September 30th. They over shot the mark and raised over 1.2 million dollars in the seven day period.

Paul activists believe that if he wins the nomination he may be re-create a Republican landslide like Ronald Reagan did in the 80s.

For the first time in a generation, Republicans have a presidential primary that has not been decided before it started. GOP frontrunners should proceed with caution because if Ron Paul wins New Hampshire, the nomination will likely follow.

Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children by Ron Paul

October 1, 2007

Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children

by Ron Paul

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for. 

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground.  These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies.  The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002.  More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time. 

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned.  Opponents of one such program, called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging.  While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected.  Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders.  The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom.  In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable.  Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal.  Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening.  In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent.  In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement.  These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted. 

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed.  Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding.  Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect.  My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs. 

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children.  That’s what parents need to be doing.