Thursday, December 27, 2007

Explaining Ron Paul's foreign policy with Star Trek analogy

It is some times difficult to explain why Ron Paul's position on foreign policy is the wisest to people who have drank from the neoconservative cool-aid served by pundits like Hannity. Recently I was reminded of a Star Trek Voyager episode called 'Year of Hell' and was struck by how well the flaw of its antagonist parallels the follies of America's interventionist foreign policy. Perhaps the retelling of the premise of the 'Year of Hell' episode along with pointing out its analogies to America's foreign policy these last 60 years can open some people's eyes.

The prologue, via Wikipedia:

Krenim scientist Annorax developed a technology that can cause "temporal incursions" which can be used to erase events from history. Each temporal incursion must be meticulously calculated so the removal of one event from the timeline has no negative effects on other events. This is rarely possible, of course. Annorax attempted to restore the Krenim empire to the apex of its power by destroying its archenemies, but by doing so he prevented the development of an antibody in his people, and they became vulnerable to a plague. 50 million of his people died, including his beloved wife, because of his actions. Now he is bent on undoing his mistakes. The more temporal incursions he creates in the attempt only causes more disruptions in the time-line. Civilizations are being erased from existence.

America's middle east interventions are like Annorax' "temporal incursions", causing new unforeseen problems that are worse than the problem they solve.

For example:

1) America responded to the nationalization of Iranian oil by supporting the Shah and mullahs in a 1953 coup against the democratically elected government of Iran and its secular/nationalist allies. This set the stage for the Islamic Revolution of 1979.


a) America responded to the Islamic Revolution and its threat of spreading to the rest of the middle east by supporting Saddam Hussein in the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. Billions of dollars were funneled to Iraq and a blind eye was turned to Saddam's chemical weapons program. This set the stage for Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.

b) America responded to its failure in Vietnam by attempting to draw the Soviets into their own quagmire in Afghanistan. The CIA gave military aid to Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan in the late 1970's to attack the communist government of that nation, in the hope of drawing the Soviet military in to protect its client state. The CIA plan worked, and the Soviets were drawn in for nearly a decade, while America poured over $22 billion into the international mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. The Soviets eventually withdrew, badly beaten, and a ravaged Afghanistan fell into the hands of Islamic radicals empowered by a decade of American aid.

3) America responded to the threat of a middle east dictator who had shown a propensity to invade his neighbors and use chemical weapons by putting Iraq under sanctions and bombing thousands of targets in its northern and southern no fly zones in the 1990's.

4) Al Qaeda, an offshoot of the international mujahadeen of Afghanistan, launched an attack on America on September 11th 2001, in response to American troop deployments throughout the middle east, support for Israel, and the sanctioning and bombing of Iraq throughout the 1990's.

5) America responded to 911 by launching a program to democratize and modernize the middle east starting with the overthrow of Saddam. Today Iraq is more unstable than ever, four million Iraqis live as refugees, a million are dead, and Al Qaeda has recruited thousands of fighters motivated by the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Like Annorax's attempts to make things right by changing history, American foreign policy has tried to right the wrongs created by intervention, with more intervention, and every time it does so, the unforeseen consequences of its interventions are seemingly worse than the problems they solve.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Ron Paul- Baton of Truth

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Ron Chusid of Liberal Values is an Israel-firster

Reuters recently published a blog post titled, "Ron Paul Raises Almost Six Million But Remains a Fringe Candidate", written by Ron Chusid, from the "Liberal Values" blog. Of all the blog posts in the blogosphere discussing Ron Paul, this is the most negative and critical one I've ever seen, and Reuters happened to choose it to be published.

Ron Chusid is a hyper Israel-firster. Just today, Ron Chusid wrote another extremely anti-Paul blog post, titled "A Republican Case Against Republican Candidates". In it, he quotes a Jewish neoconservative Michael Medved. Note that Ron Chusid is very critical of the Republican party, but for the purposes of attacking Ron Paul and protecting Israel, Chusid is allying with warmongering Republicans like Medved.

In his post, Chusid chooses to criticize, from all the Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. He does not criticize "double gitmo" Romney. He does not criticize "bomb bomb Iran" McCain. He does not criticize "AIPAC's dream team" Giuliani. No, despite professing to be an anti-war liberal, Chusid criticizes the two candidates that have arguably (with respect to Huckabee) shown the least tendency for war-mongering.

It is clear that Chusid's only purpose is to defend Israel. That Reuters, one of the most important media organizations in the world, decides to publish Ron Chusid's article, of all the articles on Ron Paul's tea party fundraising success, is extremely disturbing, and points to something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Programmer reveals vote rigging and Chinese espionage

This is a video of a computer programmer, Clint Curtis, saying under oath that

1) While working for Yang Enterprise Inc (YEI), he was asked by congressman Tom Feeney to build software to rig the Florida elections in 2000.

2) He reported that an employee of YEI, Hai Lin (Henry) Nee, built a wiretapping module in database software YEI had built for NASA and other American agencies. After Clint Curtis reported him, Henry Nee was arrested for sending missile guidance chips used in Hellfire anti-tank missile systems to China.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Why I Support Ron Paul

Here is an article, via dailypaul, written by Lawrence Lepard, the patriot who donated $85,000 of his own money to put a full page ad in USA Today, explaining why he supports Ron Paul:

by Lawrence W. Lepard

I recently spent a significant sum of money running a full-page advertisement in USA Today supporting the candidacy of Ron Paul for President of the United States. Several people have asked me why I did it, so I have decided to explain my reasoning.

I believe that as American citizens we stand at an important crossroads in history. We are faced with a very important decision that will have repercussions for many, many years. We need to make a decision as to what we want America to represent, and to become. History will record the outcome of our decision. If we blow it, many more innocent people will die, and history will not be kind. As I say to my closest friends, I do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren that I was one of the “good Germans.”

Let me state it clearly. The America that I grew up in believed in the rule of law, not men. The America that I grew up in believed in telling the truth. The America that I grew up in believed in following Judeo/Christian values, and yet made room for those of different faiths and backgrounds. The America I grew up in had a religious flavor, but we were wary of those who wore their religion on their sleeves. The America that I grew up in believed in the golden rule: treat people the way we would like them to treat us. The America that I grew up in believed that you did not lie, cheat or steal. The America that I grew up in believed in the inherent goodness of most men, but recognized that evil exists. Nevertheless, the America that I grew up in did not believe in an eye for an eye. It believed in protecting oneself from evil, but in the process of doing so we were cautioned not to become what we were protecting against. In short, the America that I grew up in was a place where one could be proud of one’s country, and thankful to the men and women who had sacrificed so much in the past to give us this heritage.

I wake up today as a 50-year-old husband and father of three, and I wonder where that America has gone. I see a President who called the U.S. Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.” He replaced a President who blatantly lied to the American public. Admittedly the lie was about something that was none of the Public’s business. However, when a country is led by a liar, it lowers that country’s level of discourse and makes lying seem acceptable. It is not. Are these the best leaders this Country can produce? I see that the prior President’s wife running for President with the attitude that because her husband was elected, she too deserves to be President. Says who? Do Americans really believe she will act in our best interest given all the money she has received from the military industrial complex? I see the U.S. involved in an aggressive undeclared war against a country that did not represent a threat to us in any way. Deliberate lies were told to get this war started. To date the outcome of this war is that between 100,000 and 1.0 million innocent people have died. These figures are between 30 and 300 times the number of people killed in 911. Do two wrongs make a right? Furthermore, the majority of the 911 hijackers were Saudis. Not Iraqis. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and yet Saudi Arabia is far from being a democracy. Yet we went to war to create a democracy in Iraq and set an example for the Middle East. The hypocrisy is staggering. The mistakes that were made are criminal. Why anyone believes one thing that is said by the people who lied us into this war is a mystery to me. We would be greeted as liberators. No. Oil revenues will pay the cost. No. A secular democracy will emerge and be an inspiration for other countries. No. The list of misjudgments goes on an on. If they were a baseball team one would be forced to wonder “can anyone here play this game?”

The civilian Iraqis killed by our preemptive war: were they collateral damage or is that just a euphemism for murder? Has anyone taken the time to look at their pictures on the web? I wonder how their relatives and friends feel about the United States? I wonder if they are more or less likely to become terrorists as a result of the actions of the United States. I see a Country that has violated the Geneva Conventions. I see a Country that has violated the Christian doctrine of “just war”. I see a Country that has started a war that is illegal under international law. As President Eisenhower said, “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not listen to anyone who seriously talked about such a thing.” I see a flock of Presidential candidates, most of whom voted for this war and many of whom believe “all options should be on the table” in dealing with Iran. For those who are not current on this subject, that language is code for: we should be prepared to attack Iran with conventional or nuclear weapons.

Think about that for a moment. Leaders in this Country are actually talking about using a nuclear weapon against a country that has not attacked us. Are they insane? I hear Neocon pundits calling for the beginning of World War III. I see a Country that has suspended habeas corpus. I see a Country that has stripped its citizens of the Constitutional protections against an overreaching government. I see a Country that has sanctioned “rendition” which is just another term for the kidnapping of anyone, anywhere, throughout the world, and then spiriting them off to a remote location where they can be subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Which we are told are not torture. Another lie. I see a Country that has engaged in torture. Hell, one leading Presidential candidate wants to “double Guantanamo” and thinks his son’s campaigning for him is equivalent to serving in the military. Of course, he got a deferment to avoid serving in Vietnam. I see a Country where the top advocates of war have never fought in one. Worse yet, they sought and obtained deferments when others were fighting. You cannot make this stuff up. The irony is incredible. If there is karma in the world, we are surely screwed.

I see a Country that thinks that it owns and controls the world. I believe this is ethically wrong. Furthermore, we cannot afford it, so even attempting to run the world is pointless. I see a Country that thinks it should have bases in the Middle East for the next fifty years. I see a Country where the dominant political party, the Neocons, believe the world is a dark and evil place. I believe the people who feel this way are projecting their own views onto the rest of the world. They need therapy. I see a Country that has adopted the Old Testament view of an eye for an eye. If we adopt this view we are on the road to becoming a modern day Pottersville. In short, I see a Country that has lost its soul. Out of malfeasance, fear, ignorance, or incompetence we have implemented the wrong policies and taken the wrong course. Since this is true, then effectively the terrorists are winning. God surely has a great sense of humor. Irony abounds.

Is it possible that America has lost its soul? As citizens each and every one of us is somewhat responsible for the acts of our government. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. So, has America lost it soul: yes or no? I would submit that while the current U.S. Administration and the vast majority of the Senate and Congress have lost their souls, the American people have not. We were lied to. Nearly 70% of the American population is against this war, and yet the war goes on. The vast majority of the American people want peace. People know what is right, yet the government does the wrong thing. How can this be? We are supposed to be a government OF, FOR and BY the People. Are we? What do you think? Is the government the American people? Does it really represent the American people? Do you think the U.S. government should kill innocent Iraqis to make us safer? Would you advocate killing a man who lives down the street because you think he might do you harm in the future, even though he has done nothing to you yet? Do you think the 2 million dead Vietnamese citizens died in a cause that was just for either side? That is what we are about to find out.

I will say it right now, clearly and loud: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TODAY DOES NOT REPRESENT ME. I FURTHER BELIEVE THAT IT DOES NOT REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. The huge disconnect between what a majority of this country wants and what our government is doing is the elephant in the room that no one will discuss. I cannot in good conscience condone or support the policies of the Neocons, the military industrial complex, or the oil industry. I do not believe in “Full Spectrum Dominance”. I do not believe “We Are The Indispensable Nation”. I do not believe we are “History’s Actors.” I do not believe we can “Make Our Own Reality”. I do not believe we should be an Empire. I think we have great power and military superiority, and that with these come enormous responsibility. We are a Constitutional Republic. I do not believe we need to have strategic influence all over the world. I believe there is a power higher than my government and that the Founders drew upon this power when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That reads “all men.” Not “all Americans.” All men have god given rights. Governments are made to protect these rights, not destroy them. Until recently, I believe the American government did a good job of protecting these rights if you were an American. For many years now I believe the American government has used a different standard or play book when dealing with foreign countries and foreign citizens. But that is a story for a different essay.

If it sounds like I am mad, then that is right. I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. (Source: Howard Beale: Network) I am mad that my money becomes worth less every year because the Federal Reserve can print money out of thin air. I am mad that the U.S. Government inflation statistics are a lie, thanks to Bill Clinton’s changing of the CPI calculation. I am mad that this change and the Federal Reserve have put the economy on a roller coaster leading to a boom and bust cycles that benefit financiers at the expense of the middle class, retirees and the poor. I am mad that Wall Street titans and speculators have been rewarded while savers and honest labor have been punished. I am mad that honesty is considered quaint and na├»ve by the political classes. I am mad at the arrogance of those who hold power in Washington, DC. I am mad that the actions of some men in my Country have taken away the moral high ground that the U.S. used to occupy. I am mad that my tax dollars are used for weapons rather than for peaceful purposes. I do not want the blood of innocents on my hands. I do not agree with many of Michael Moore’s positions, but his statement “dude, I want my country back” resonates with me. I believe that it resonates with a large portion of the American voter base.

Individual Americans are great people. If 70% of this country is opposed to the war then there is still hope. Of course the mainstream media, the press and the vested industrial and political interests would have us all believe that we cannot make a difference. They say we need to listen to them as they tell us who the next President will be. We have to choose between the two candidates they will serve up to us. We are told who the two front runners are, and we are discouraged from looking elsewhere. Why bother, they say? No one else even stands a chance. Maybe so, maybe not. This time I think they have gone too far. I would submit that the outcome of this election it is not so clear. The establishment dam has sprung a leak. The leak may be small now, but it is growing. It is growing exponentially. The word is spreading. The candidates who represent change are moving up. The candidates who represent the status quo are moving down (Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton). Even Rudy is being forced to talk about what a great religion Islam is in order to soften his “ kill’em all, and let god sort them out message.“

The lines could not be more clearly drawn.

Ron Paul’s message is clear and beautiful and true. It resonates with people. You hear it and you say, “that’s right, that’s what I believe”. This is why his poll numbers are rising faster than any other candidate. Yet, the media still ignores him or treats him poorly. It is beautiful irony that every attack on him only brings him more attention as intelligent Americans wonder, “who is this guy that everyone keeps attacking……I wonder if there is a reason”. They say he cannot win. They say he is a fringe candidate. They say he will lose big. I disagree. First, I think there is a very good chance he will be our next President. Second, I think he has won, even if he does not win. Why? Because he has put the Freedom message out there. It is like a virus. It is spreading. It cannot be stopped. I believe history will record the Ron Paul Freedom Movement as a seminal political event in the history of U.S. politics. It is an honor to support this man. We should be so lucky as to have him for our President.

Having said that, we could all help history along a little bit by supporting the Ron Paul campaign. My favorite movie is “It’s A Wonderful Life.” To me, the message of that movie is that we all make a difference. Individually, none of us have the power of the Neocons and the political classes, but collectively they are supposed to work for us. If we self -organize and unite, we have them badly out numbered. They are terrified, believe me on this. And it is happening. The growth in this movement is exponential. We can and will win this struggle. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a defeatist or is working for the other side. I ran the USA Today Advertisement because I wanted to plant a seed and make a difference. WE ALL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Every conversation, every person converted, every e-mail , every effort, it all counts. The internet is what has made it possible. What a beautiful thing. The trend is really changing and it is fun to watch the old guard struggle as their fortress crumbles.

So what can you do?

Coming up this December 16th we are holding a one day Fund Raiser for Ron Paul. The last time we did this over 37,000 people donated $4.3 million dollars, or an average of $116 per person. That made this event the largest one day political fund raiser in history. On December 16th we will raise even more money. Every contribution counts. Ten dollars is not too little. Each contribution represents another American who has said, enough is enough. I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. Think about it, what is freedom worth? I would submit that it is priceless. If you care about the future of this Country, I know that Ron Paul will not let you down. If you care about our troops, then you must vote for Ron Paul. They will come home and defend America, not someone else’s country. Ron Paul has more donations from active military personnel than all the other candidates combined. Why do you think that is? Have you heard about it from the Mainstream Media? I think not.

This is it folks. Once in a lifetime. You will never see another politician with more integrity, and a better message or track record. Rarely has our Country been so far off track. Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honors in order to establish this Nation. Perhaps we have taken for granted the risk they took and the sacrifices they made. But we are being called. We are being tested. How will we answer? Will we meet the test or will we fail? Each of us makes a difference.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to be a Loyalist or a Patriot? Are you going to storm the ramparts or huddle with the bourgeoisie? Are you going to stick your neck out or be a turtle. Americans are brave people. I believe we can set this country back on the right track and that we will all be better off for doing so. We can show the evil men who call themselves Neocons that this great country will not be hijacked by people who call themselves Christians but are anything but. In short, we can say to the two entrenched political parties: we will not be governed by liars and fools. You can no longer piss on our leg and tell us it is raining. The criminal gang which includes Dick Cheney and the Neocons will be reviled in history for the actions they have taken and America will experience a renaissance of Peace, Freedom and Prosperity.

The danger to our Republic is real—we must act now!

Remember, each one of us makes a difference.

If you agree please support Ron Paul by pledging to donate to his campaign on December 16th at Also, please vote for Ron Paul in your State Republican Primary and encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.

You can also learn more at about Ron Paul's positions on the issues that concern you.


Mr. Lepard is a venture capitalist and investment manager and lives and works in the Boston, Massachusetts area.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

The Only Candidate Worthy of the Office of the President

This video sums up why Ron Paul is the only candidate who is worthy of the office of the president:

Ron Paul: The Forgotten Wounded

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Giuliani supporter says to RP supporter : "you will get hurt" to try to keep her quiet

Tony DiMatteo, chairman of Pinellas County Republican Executive Committee, and a Giuliani supporter, tells a female Ron Paul supporter after she complained about corruption at the straw poll: "if you make a big deal out of this, you will get hurt." People were voting 80 times each for Romney.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Ron Paul supporter donates $85,000 for USA Today Ad

A Ron Paul supporter, Larry Lepard, spent $85,000 of his own money to place a full page ad in USA Today on November 21st. With a circulation exceeding 2.25 million, USA Today has the largest circulation of any US daily.

See the ad here:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Land of the Free

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Buchanan blasts Rudy and Israeli lobby in new Article

I wish more had the courage of Pat Buchanan to challenge the sinister war mongers behind the top candidates of the 2008 elections. Here is his latest article:

Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War?

Rudy Giuliani has made a "promise" not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability, even if it requires U.S. military action. Though the U.S. Army is scrimping to meet recruitment goals, Rudy has pledged to add at least 10 new combat brigades.

Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?

Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.

Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?

While FDR talked to Stalin, Ike and JFK to Khrushchev, and Nixon to Mao, Rudy would not talk to any "enemies bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." Would he be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Answers Rudy, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy ... and a group of terrorists."

If Rudy rivals McCain as the hawk's hawk in the Republican race, the foreign policy advisers he has signed up make the Vulcans of Bush look like Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark. Arnaud de Borchgrave titled his column about them "Dogs of War."

Team leader is Charles Hill, a co-signer of the Sept. 20, 2001, neocon ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9/11, warning the president if he did not attack Iraq, his failure to do so "will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender to the war on international terrorism."

Yet Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

A second member of Rudy's team is Martin Kramer, an Israeli-American who, according to Ken Silverstein of Harper's, "spent 25 years at Tel Aviv University and whose Middle East policy can best be summarized as, 'What's Best for Israel?'" Silverstein calls Rudy's eight-man advisory group "AIPAC's Dream Team" – AIPAC being the Israeli lobby, two of whose leaders go on trial in January for espionage against the United States.

According to the New York Times, another key Rudy adviser is Daniel Pipes, "who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps." Another is AEI's Michael Rubin, "who has written in favor of revoking the United States' ban on assassinations."

Best known of Rudy's advisers is Norman Podhoretz, who wrote in June, "The Case for Bombing Iran" in Commentary, thinks we are in "World War IV" and writes that "as an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart" Bush will bomb Iran. Podhoretz sees us at Munich in 1938 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Hitler.

"Like Hitler," writes Podhoretz, Ahmadinejad "is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international order and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism."

Time to return to Planet Earth. Ahmadinejad is not only jeered at Columbia but at colleges in Tehran. He is openly attacked by rivals. He does not control the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He does not decide on war or peace. He runs a regime with 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, no nukes and no navy or air force to rival ours. He is a Shi'ite in a Sunni world. How is this 5 foot, 4 inch Persian going to strong-arm the United States, Russia and China – not to mention an Israel with 300 nukes – into his "new order"?

After the axis-of-evil speech threatening war on Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Podhoretz wrote that Bush had not gone far enough.

The "regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown ... should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority." After toppling them all, wrote Podhoretz, as he mocked the "timorous ... incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell," let's find "the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated."

Bush found the stomach. Near 4,000 Americans are dead, 27,000 wounded, Walter Reed is full, and Norman is looking for new wars. On a recent National Review cruise, he ranted that Iraq was an "amazing success," "a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." As for Saddam's WMDs, they were secretly "shipped to Syria."

After meeting with his candidate, Podhoretz emerged happy to assure us, "There is very little difference in how he (Rudy) sees the war and I see it." If true, a vote for Rudy is a vote for endless war.

And, as James Madison said, wars are the death of republics.


Saturday, November 10, 2007

America's Braveheart

Friday, November 9, 2007

Ron Paul Tea Party 07

Awsome Ron Paul Video

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Fox News caught red-handed suppressing coverage of Ron Paul

This proves they are devoid of any character or integrity.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Pat Buchanan's website openly endorses Ron Paul

In a huge positive development, Linda Muller, the lady who ran Pat Buchanan's website through two presidential campaigns, and is currently running the website, has posted the "Ron Paul: A New Hope" video on the Pat Buchanan website. This is an open and strong endorsement for Ron Paul for president.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

This is the most enlightening video I've ever seen. An insider of insiders, John Perkins, reveals the inner workings of the military industrial complex. If this doesn't make you support the Ron Paul phenomenon, nothing will.

-October 29th addendum-

part 2:

Ron Paul Matrix

Ron Paul's face pasted over Neo's in scenes from the Matrix

digg story

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Ron Paul "has undone a century's worth of work in less than six months."

This article discusses how the Ron Paul phenomenon has brought to light issues that have been actively suppressed for a century in public discourse. I think the most important issue that the Ron Paul campaign has brought to the public's attention is monetary policy, which affects everything in the world, but by design, has not been a campaign issue for nearly a 100 years.

Excerpt: "Much of the efforts of the 20th century by the political and monetary elite were apparently intended to crush this culture. Public schools, gun control, even the establishment of the Federal Reserve...Now comes Ron Paul with a campaign that has undone a century's worth of work in less than six months."

read more | digg story

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Ron Paul likes Fox audience

This is absolutely hilarious. Discussing his overwhelming Fox text poll victory in the after debate discussion with Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul exclaims "I like this (the Fox News) audience". Towards the end of the discussion, talking to Hannity, he adds "this is a great audience! This Fox Network is just Great".

The Ron Paul Revolution

Great visual on the support of the presidential candidates. This visual more than anything shows that this is a revolution.

see visual | digg story

Ron Paul: Last Chance (Treg)

Inspirational New Video

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Ron Paul : Snowball Effect

World-wide Unity Becoming Reality

Friday, October 19, 2007

Ron Paul's article on the Virginia tech tragedy

From the Ron Paul campaign website:

April 23, 2007

The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Ron Paul Cartoon

A spiffy new animated campaign ad for the revolution!

read more | digg story

Ron Paul beats Clinton in Kansas!

Via a Reason magazine article, I found this poll that shows Ron Paul beating Hillary Clinton in Kansas!

Kansas poll

Cyberwar: China Declares War On Western Search Sites

The Chinese Government is clearly using its censorship regime to the economic benefit of a Chinese owned (but NASDAQ listed) company. Although the United States Government is a poor WTO member (Antigua anyone) given that China is a recent member the US Government should lodge a complaint with the WTO. China expects free and open access to Western nations but is now not only blocking, but also redirecting domestic traffic away from Western internet sites that compete with local firms.

read more | digg story

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Ron Paul opposes medal to Dalai Lama

Congress authorized $30,000 to be spend to mint a congressional medal to honor the Dalai Lama, and Ron Paul stood up alone in Congress to oppose this. Here is his speech to the House of Representatives:

Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.

I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.

We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal–if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved.


This is very similar to his opposition to the Congressional medals awarded to Ronald Reagan and his wife:

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Great New Ron Paul Revolution Video

Friday, October 5, 2007

CNN's Cafferty totally endorses Ron Paul!

This is the first major media figure since Tucker Carlson to publicly endorse Ron Paul.

click here for the video

Saturday, September 1, 2007

Germany for Ron Paul

Saturday, August 18, 2007

When in the Course of human events

A great video.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Why Libertarianism is a Superior Political System

I believe libertarianism, of all political systems, allows for the highest level of efficiency in a society. I define a libertarian government as one that outlaws acts of fraud and initiated coercion against individuals and their property and taxes people to fund a police force and courts to enforce the law, a military force for self-defense against foreign aggression, and little else.

A good example of a libertarian government is the United States government circa the 19th century, when it strongly adhered to the principle of Laissez Faire, and when the United States saw itself become the world's industrial super-power. Instead of wading into more historical examples to try to prove my case about libertarianism and efficiency, I want to explain my theoretical reasoning.

The underlying reason why a libertarian econo-political system is the most efficient one is that conflict is expensive. Conflict drains and diverts resources from productive uses and disrupts productive systems through acts of destruction. We humans seek to attain and accumulate resources in the most efficient possible manner for our individual self. When the most efficient manner available is attaining the resources from other individuals through coercion or theft (including fraud), it tends to reduce the overall efficiency of society because those individuals who lost their resources to the coercion and/or theft will divert their resources to attempting to prevent future losses of resources by such means.

One example of this dynamic in effect is taxes. Tax receipts are coerced from the population at the threat of imprisonment/fines. People spend considerable amounts of time and resources trying to find ways to minimize the taxes they are forced pay. For example, they may hire an accountant to file their taxes in a way that minimizes their taxable income, or they may look for ways to move their money offshore outside the reach and sight of government agents.

None of these activities aimed at reducing how much they are taxed increases the overall efficiency of society. This type of mis-allocation of resources manifests itself whenever there is conflict amongst the participants of a society (in this case between state and citizen), so obviously, as this line of reasoning goes, the less conflict a society has, the better it is for its level of efficiency.

So the next question we face is how to reduce conflict. One option is simply putting everyone into bondage, deny them their right to privacy, and ensure that they have no choice but to obey the government. This could conceivably reduce the incentive of the citizen to resist the state's dictums to the point that conflict is reduced, but this would also give awesome powers to the government over the people, and therefore make the potential rewards of attaining the position of political leader of such a state enormous, which itself could create conditions that increase the likelihood of conflict.

It therefore seems likely that an all powerful state would create a cold war like environment where each political faction is focused on increasing their political/military strength in order to increase the probability of seizing power.

All of this political jockeying uses up resources of course, diverting them from productive purposes, and therefore mitigating whatever efficiency advantage that an all powerful state would confer from reducing citizen vs state conflict.

Furthermore, the resources required to maintain a bureaucracy that keeps the population under absolute control and surveillance would be enormous. For these reasons, I conclude that a society with an all powerful government that pervades every facet of that society cannot be economically efficient.

So the question now is, if we go to the opposite extreme, and have a society that has a small libertarian government in place rather than an all powerful pervasive one, will coercion from other, non-state, facets of society replace government coercion? Wouldn't mafias and other non-state actors simply take the place of the government?

I argue no, because there's a distinct advantage that a government has when trying to prosecute and outlaw acts of initiated coercion and fraud, over trying to prosecute other types of crime (e.g. narcotics consumption, tax evasion, etc), and that is that they have the victim on their side.

It is not just Government vs Law-breaker, in the case of a libertarian government, it is always Government + Victim vs Law Breaker. A libertarian government need only be more powerful than the next most powerful center of power in the country, in order to guarantee that no citizen is above the law. The citizens will do the bulk of the job of surveilling and reporting crime, as a natural consequence of the fact that the only crime in a libertarian society is one where a citizen is a victim and therefore has a strong incentive to report it, requiring of the government only to administer justice.

I believe this advantage of libertarianism in efficiently reducing conflict in society makes it the best form of government for maximizing efficiency in a society.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

The Ron Paul movement is bigger than Ron Paul

The Ron Paul movement is not just about the 72 year old doctor from Texas. He merely serves as an example, perhaps the best example, of a patriotic American doing what he can to serve his nation. The movement is about patriotism. There is no special interest money greasing the movement: no pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow for long term supporters like that waiting for Bush-Cheney supporters (think cushy jobs at Halliburton or other defense contractors). There is no prospect of tapping easy money through appeals to voter emotions like there is for Democrats with their promises of fixing everything for the people with a wave of the government wand. The Ron Paul movement is about educating people about the real long term interests of America and constantly having to deconstruct the mistruths being sold by political opportunists to the general population. This is a movement of patriotism, and it takes heart and courage to be a part of it.

What inspires the movement is love. We in the Ron Paul movement, in fighting for an ever more prosperous America, do so for our eternal destiny, as our fate is inextricably tied to that of our civilization.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Renaming Conservatism and its Mission

The word conservative has come to connote elitism, bigotry, selfishness and hatred, while the words liberal and democrat (as in the Democratic party) have come to connote compromise, selflessness, cooperation and peace. Nothing could be more dangerous to the West than this pervading notion. For the sake of our destiny as a people, this falsehood must be challenged and defeated in the court of public opinion. I propose using a new word to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' and a new term to describe its mission of 'cutting the size of government'.

Traditional conservatives (as opposed to the big-government AIPAC-Lockheed Martin-Evangelical neo-conservatives) have defined themselves as, above all else, proponents of small government. Many people do not know the underlying reason why conservatives have a religious-like devotion to cutting the size of government. The perception in the public is that these small-government type conservatives are either:

1) xenophobic rednecks. They are typically white males who belong to a militia, and believe there is a conspiracy by the government to control them. They fear this government control because it would mean being forced to accept the 21st century progressive values of human rights, equality and tolerance: values which have still not spread to the backwards rural areas of America.

2) greedy rich bean counters. These people are trying to loosen the rules that protect the poor from the big rich corporations. They are also typically white, and are trying to protect the elite from the roving bands of mostly dark-skinned poor by enacting tougher laws against crime and cutting social programs that allow the inner city poor to survive. Above all else, they are trying to reduce the taxes the rich must pay so that they can hoard even more money.

I believe this has become the perception of conservatives, because conservatives have not done enough to explain their message and have allowed big-government leftists to succeed in associating the conservative mission with immorality.

For the values of limited government to take hold, it must be seen as the morally superior position. I also believe the morality of limited government needs to be stressed over the economic advantages of limited government. Proponents of small government must challenge the position of proponents of big government social programs as the retainers of the moral high ground.

Those who advocate big government do not have the moral high ground, because they advocate coercion against innocent individuals. Too many people do not understand this. They do not understand that government has nothing. For a government to provide something, it must take it from someone else using coercion. Government is coercion. This is the equation that must be imprinted into the collective mind of the public. The mission of conservatives is not 'cutting the size of government', but 'reducing coercion'.

Jesus or Buddha would never advocate force to acquire resources to help the poor, yet that is exactly what the so-called compassionate leftists advocate. They advocate using government agents to force people to hand over their wealth, in order to provide for the poor. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies using coercion against an innocent individual.

This point must be stressed above all else, because leftists do everything they can to justify the coercion that is required to fund government programs, and then turn around and call the right immoral for not wanting government programs that help the poor. Leftists do everything they can to be perceived as the moral ones because that is where they get their political strength, and that is where they must be attacked relentlessly.

From now on, we conservatives do not want to 'cut the size of government', but 'reduce coercion'. Whether it's coercion against a small child, coercion against a rich greedy son of a bitch, it matters not, it is immoral and cannot be justified. Once this is made clear, the big government leftist will be exposed as an advocate of theft against innocent people, a cheater who rather than using his own hard-earned money to help the poor, wants to take the shortcut and take other people's money.

The term conservative itself is also misleading. At one time one would need to be a conservative to be an advocate of reduced coercion, because coercion (government) was minimal, and therefore to be a proponent of reduced coercion you would need to conserve the type of government the nation had. It was the progressives, those who wanted to change the system, that wanted to increase coercion (increase the size of government).

Now, the situation is reversed. We have an established system for coercing innocent individuals, that is widely accepted by a population who has lost its pride, and its belief in human dignity and morality. It is those who want to reduce coercion that want change- that are the progressives, and it is those who want to continue the widespread coercion of innocent individuals who want to conserve the system- it is the leftists who are the conservatives.

Ron Paul has enjoyed success primarily because he has focused on the moral aspect of reducing the size of government. He stresses again and again that government is coercion and therefore immoral. We must all try to do the same. We must never compromise on our principles and give into dehumanizing our fellow man and allowing coercion against him to be justified.

-August 12th addendum-

Upon a re-read of this article, I realized I never proposed a new term to describe the political ideology 'conservatism' as I stated I would in the introduction, so I would like to attempt to do so now.

In the article I mention that I believe in our modern age, traditional conservatives are the real progressives, and the leftists are the real conservatives, but despite this, 'progressive' isn't the term that I would support to describe the political ideology that we now call 'conservatism'.

I thought a lot about what value one who tries to reduce coercion believes in, and I concluded that that value is liberty. Upon thinking on this, I further concluded that the term 'liberal' has been grotesquely misappropriated by the left. The group that advocates greater coercion via government regulations and taxes should not be called the 'liberals'. It is advocates of limited government that are the champions of liberty.

So is 'liberal' the term conservatives should demand they be called? No because I think that the belief in personal liberty does not fully encompass the traditional conservative movement. There is also an element of promoting family values, national solidarity, and personal responsibility that defines the traditional conservative.

I think therefore that a term that could properly describe the traditional conservative is "responsible liberal". The "responsible" part describes the factor of believing in personal responsibility, rather than believing that the state should take care of each individual.

A responsible person takes care of his family and is charitable to his neighbors, not because the government forces him to, but because that is the right thing to do. A responsible liberal believes that government should give people maximum liberty and that people should use that liberty responsibly, meaning not indulging in pre-marital sex, financial carelessness, drug-use, etc just because they can.

I am in no way certain that this term, 'responsible liberal', is the best term out there to describe the political ideology of conservatism, but in the interest of advancing the public discussion, I've put it forth here. Oh and leftists, they should be called socialists, because that is the term that most accurately describes them.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Vote Online for Ron Paul!

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (202 675-6000) has snail mailed a Presidential Preference Poll to get your feedback, and Ron Paul is not included in the list of candidates.

read more

Thursday, July 12, 2007

How to convince older people to vote for Ron Paul

I think in order for Ron Paul to win, the mostly young, internet savvy Ron Paul supporters needs to find a way to convert the older more traditional crowd. Older people need to realize that younger people are ready to take the reigns of leadership and bring about a better future. Getting them to understand the merits of a Ron Paul presidency is vital to our goal of winning the elections. The following is my thoughts on how this can be done.

Make them understand the long term implications of staying the course (in a broad sense, not just in reference to Iraq which is the context one recently hears the term in) with the 'mainstream' Republican/Democrat candidates. They must understand the economic trouble America is in, and they must understand that America WILL lose its position as the world's most prosperous nation if this continues. Economic data needs to be pointed to. For example:

America's social security obligations are staggering and far outpace the estimates of what America will be able to afford. This article explains that in 2025, there will be 2 workers paying for the benefits of each retiree, in opposed to the 3.3 workers per retiree now and the 16 workers per retiree in 1950, when social security started: Social Security's Inevitable Future

Americans' personal savings rates are in the negative and declining. This article from the federal reserve (I don't support the federal reserve setup on economic principle but I do think there are various useful articles that are published by it) shows this: Questions and Reflections on the Personal Saving Rate

American median wages, that is the wage that the largest number of Americans earn, has decreased in the last 35 years. Here are some figures to demonstrate this: wage data

Please let me know your thoughts, I can improve this if you give recommendations.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Ron Paul's meteoric rise to top candidate

When Ron Paul entered the presidential race in March of this year, he was considered a fringe candidate who had no serious chance of winning but added a fresh infusion of constitutional ideals and libertarian ideas into the republican race. After the first Republican debate in May, he became the Kucinich of the Republican party: the dissenting voice that spoke to the conscience of the base, deriding the failed policy of foreign intervention, and reminding the party that the Republican party was ignoring the coming bankruptcy of the American economy.

This all changed after the second Republican debates. Ron Paul's challenge to Rudy Guliani on the root causes of muslim terrorism against America- by blaming interventionist policies for formenting Islamic terrorism- and his subsequent defiance in the face of Guliani's applause-accompanied request that he apologize for his statement, awoke something in America that has shocked and sidelined all of the mainstream presidential candidates since then, Democrat and Republican. Suddenly Ron Paul became the lone voice of reason and integrity in a sea of politic correctness and political expedience. He became the only person who had the courage to speak out about America's real problems while all of the others spoke like politicians. In the era of Youtube and instant information exchange, the truth of this state became apparent to millions of disillusioned Americans who saw in Ron Paul a chance to get their nation back on track.

Despite having zero mainstream support, and lacking the tens of millions that the large special interest groups give to the frontrunner candidates that represent their agendas, Ron Paul has become the candidate to beat in poll after poll. He consistently beats the mainstream candidates like Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney in straw polls, and gets up to 90% of the votes in internet polls. Ron Paul's following is far and away the most enthusiastic and the fastest growing of any presidential candidate. He represents the core ideals of America, ideals that have been ignored by political campaign managers for the last few decades who have been more focused on 30 second sound bites and 'get-tough-on-crime' type appeals to voter emotions. Ron Paul represents a change in America, a change brought about by the free flow of information that the internet has permitted. Ron Paul is America's future, and the future is bright.

Saturday, July 7, 2007

How to convince Republicans to vote for Ron Paul

Here is a great article I found in Mike Duchemin's blog

It is clear that Ron Paul is the most qualified presidential candidate who will do the best job for America. However, it will be an uphill battle to muster enough support for him before the megaprimaries on February 5, 2008. He has several factors working against him. The mainstream media ignore him, by and large, and the fat cats in the new media do everything they can to pretend he doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations, in their corner offices and penthouses, tweak their handlebar moustaches and laugh maniacally while preparing to invade Iran.

The neocons fear Ron Paul far more than the libs do because they know that their house of cards will fall if Paul's message receives attention in the marketplace of ideas. This is because they have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the rank and file Republicans. They have convinced the conservative base that American needs to maintain an empire in order to protect itself against terrorism. In discussing this issue with Republicans, keep these points in mind:

Do Not Begin By Demonizing President Bush

There are still many Republicans who support President Bush. You may know that President Bush is actually a fire-breathing slobber demon from the third circle of hell, but if you begin your conversation with Loyal Q. Republican with a statement like that, you will turn him off to anything else you might say. Build your case and let him come to the conclusion for himself that George Bush makes Ulysses S. Grant look like a competent president.

Start With the Borders

This is one thing that many war-mongering conservatives will already agree with you about. Point out that Ron Paul has a six point plan for border security and immigration reform. His plan is common sense. His plan is not wishy-washy, and his plan is consistent with protecting the nation against foreign terrorists. Use this point to transition to the military action in Iraq.

Point Out That The United States Policy On Terror Is Counter-Intuitive

Why is it that those who say they care about protecting us against terror at all costs will not secure the borders? Which is more dangerous to U.S. citizens, having Islamic Fascists in Iraq and Afghanistan or having them cross the unprotected borders into our country? If our policy is "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," wouldn't you think that the smartest (and most dangerous) terrorists would simply come to where all the undefended American civilians are?

Point Out That the Nation Building Campaign in Iraq is Nothing More Than Social Engineering

Most Republicans will not have a problem seeing that social engineering does not work. You only need to direct them to the failed public schools to see that. You can talk with them about how Affirmative Action, the Great Society, Prohibition, and the myriad of other "progressive" social engineering movements have not only failed to achieve their stated consequences but have been disasters that only made the problems they were designed to solve worse. At this point most Republicans will be agreeing with you and perhaps adding personal anecdotes about their opposition to social engineering. This is where you use a little jujitsu to cause the nation building argument to collapse under its own weight. If social engineering doesn't work here in America, what makes you think it will work halfway across the world, especially if the armed forces are acting as the social engineers? Back when Clinton was president, Rush Limbaugh would emphasize that the purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. If social engineering was a bad idea in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton, why is it a good idea in Iraq under Bush? This internal critique doesn't merely take a nick out of the hawkish warmonger; it finishes him off. Either he has to accept that the purpose of the military is to act as international police and change his party affiliation to the one with the jackass mascot, or he has to admit that his definition of "victory" is impossible using military means.

Then What Should the U.S. Military Do?

The military should not only withdraw its troops from Iraq, but also from all of the other 130 countries it currently occupies with military forces. You heard me correctly, I said ONE HUNDRED THIRTY COUNTRIES, as in 65% of all the countries in the world. In case you were wondering, the other countries do not hate us because of our liberty or wealth--they hate us because they are quartering our soldiers. How would you feel if China or Russia or Iran decided they were going to build a military base in your country? Exactly.

But That Would Be Surrender, Wouldn't It?

You can only surrender when you are in a declared war. We are not currently at war. We are in an unconstitutional arrangement in which our troops are being used to enforce a United Nations resolution (or 16 of them or whatever). The point is that the United States Congress did not declare war. They passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to enforce resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Of course, the U.N. Security Council did not authorize a regime change, but who's counting? The Republican hypocrisy in its use of the United Nations is astounding. When the U.N. serves their purposes, they clamor at the opportunity to champion its cause. When they disagree with the U.N. then the U.N. doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways, and The Constitution only allows for one option. Representative Paul would never go to war as the result of a resolution that came from an unelected, foreign body, like the U.N. Moreover, Ron Paul would avoid tangling the United States in foreign alliances that would drag the country into war (like our entangling alliance with Great Britain is about to do in Iran).

But Doesn't That Make Ron Paul an Isolationist?

No. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Ron Paul believes in free trade with other nations (not managed trade like NAFTA, mind you). The current U.S. foreign and domestic policies have us on a one way trip to One World Government.

Didn't Ron Paul Vote Against the Patriot Act?

Yes he did, as well he should have. The "Patriot Act" gives the executive branch ridiculous powers. Anybody can be held by the Federal Government without cause forever according to the act. This may not sound bad to some of you, but imagine if President Hillary Clinton had such powers? Homeschoolers, pro-life advocates, gun rights advocates, pastors, and bloggers would disappear and never reappear under the reign of terror by uberfascist Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ron Paul is the Only Constitutionalist in the Race

If elected, Ron Paul would be one of the only presidents in U.S. history to have a genuine respect for the constitution. Most presidents have spent their time in office attempting to circumvent, or, in the cases of horrible presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt, utterly destroy the constitution. Ron Paul is founding father material, unlike the blowhards and demagogues who currently fill the overwhelming majority of offices inside the beltway. He is the only candidate that walks the walk of a limited government, that protects the personal liberty of its citizens, and his record is plain for all to see.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Dailykos attacks Ron Paul

I always thought that the flak that the "left" got from the right was typical neocon bullshit. I figured that Democrats were never really serious proponents of big-government and over-regulation: that their main goal was to limit the power of the warmongering parasites in the republican party. I thought that maybe their advocacy for social programs was not a reflection of their core principles, but a misguided expression of their desire to help the poor. They saw all these hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on foreign adventures, so why not at least use a small portion of that government expenditure for a cause that would actually help people. I thought that the real idiots only existed on the right- those mindless war-mongering minions of the military-industrial complex, but my illusions were shattered after seeing various Dailykos blogs attacking Ron Paul . These are calling Ron Paul "nuts"- saying he is a crazy radical for wanting to cut spending. They equate wanting the federal government in its proper constitutional role, and not as a big brother nanny, with a heartless disregard for the poor. These mindless idiots fail to understand that Ron Paul cares about the poor, but doesn't believe in government dictating who gives how much to who. They fail to understand that a man who gave free medical care for his patients who couldn't afford his services is not a heartless capitalist. They are too ideologically attached to big government socialism to consider that when Ron Paul worked for $3 an hour as a medical doctor in a church hospital in the 60's, he did it because he cares about the poor. They fail to understand that it isn't charity that Ron Paul objects to, but tyranny.

The Military-Industrial Complex are extortionists

Like the mafia, the military-industrial complex runs an extortion racket, with the entire nation as the target. It works like this: pursue policies that antagonize foreign populations and causes them to threaten/attack America and its interests, which necessitates higher spending for the military industrial complex to protect America.

The military industrial complex will be careful not to existentially threaten the nation by antagonizing nuclear powers like Russia or China, since it derives its income from the nation, but third world countries that do not have significant military capabilities are fair game.

The proof of this racket is in the pudding: annual spending on federal contracts to private companies increased by $175 billion between 2000 and 2005, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Like a mafia, the military-industrial complex can always manufacture a threat if it doesn't receive its protection money. A mafia will send one of its affiliates to break a few windows if it doesn't get paid, but the military industrial need only to have its representatives in the government provoke foreign hostility to get the same effect. This can be seen in the administration's policies towards Iraq and Iran over the last decade, which, rather than diffuse the situation, have only ever escalated it.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Ron Paul TV interview- 06/24/2007

Part 1- He talks about the Federal reserve System, the IRS, and the Plunge Protection Team.

Part 2- He talks about health care, abolishing big government agencies, the CIA/NSA, global government, the New World Order the North American Union, investigating secretive organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and global government organizations like the UN.

Part 3- He talks about American imperialism in the world and in particular the middle east, the billion dollar embassy being built in Iraq that will be bigger than the Vatican, the fraud of the global war on terror, illegal immigration, the move by the establishment to tax and regulate the Internet, the prospect of global taxation, gun control, people control, the move towards a universal world ID system, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the militarization of police, Bush's Homeland Security Directive (HPSD-51) that makes the President a dictator in the case of a catastrophic emergency and the push towards martial law.

Part 4- He talks about the possibility of martial law in the United States, explains his stance on a new independent investigation on the events of 9/11 and if he would support the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Ron Paul on "Attack of the Show" (06-26-07)

An interview with presidential candidate Ron Paul on "Attack of the Show"

Star Wars: Ron Paul re-dub

This guy redubbed a scene from Star Wars. It's the funniest shit I've ever seen.

INN interviews candidate Ron Paul

Here is a recent TV interview where he talks about how the current policies hurt young people more than any other segment of society.

He also talks about how, despite his belief in free markets and free enterprise, he believes corporate control of the government is the greatest threat to the country.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Monday, June 25, 2007

1988 vs 2007: Drugs vs Terror

In 1988, there was a War on Drugs (tm), in 2007, there is a War on Terror (tm). This video from 1988 shows a fat idiot calling for a more aggressive military campaign to win the "war on drugs", very similar to the idiots today promoting a more aggressive campaign in the "war on terror". See for yourself the similarity between the attitudes towards drugs in 1988 and terror in 2007.

The parallels become even more apparent in the second clip which displays the fanaticism and herd mentality of people towards those, like Ron Paul, who dared advocate legalizing drugs.

This next clip has a few great quotes. From brainwashed fanatical woman:

"before we give in this to this idea of legalizing drugs which is going to create more problems let us fight a real war with real troops, make a real commitment, and get these phoney hypocrites out of here"

different issue, exact same herd mentality.

I liked this exchange:

brainwashed woman: "before we go to legalize drugs more -" Ron Paul interjects: "We want to legalize freedom!"

This next clip gets really good. The buffoons actually start chanting!

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Glenn Beck removed Ron Paul from online poll

Ron Paul had over 50% of the votes, then suddenly he was taken out of Glenn Beck's poll results. The funny thing is the total percentages add up to 50%. I wonder where the other 50% went? Here's a video that explains the sequence of events:

Digg to expose Glenn Beck

see poll results

Monday, June 11, 2007

No one should have this much power

G8 leaders pledge $60 billion for Aid to Africa

Looking at these pictures, of the G8 leaders after they pledged to give $60 BILLION in aid to Africa, it struck me how ridiculous it is for a group of ordinary people -and they are ordinary, just like you and me- to be given so much power over so many people. What gives them the right to decide for hundreds of millions of people how their money is to be spent? Is it necessary for philanthropy to be delegated to a small group of individuals to decide for everyone else how to donate to various charitable causes? It makes absolutely no sense to me and I hope other people wake up and realize it as well.

Let's take the example of the United States. George Bush was elected by maybe 50 million people. The other 250 million didn't vote for him. Now George Bush is given power to tax all 300 million American citizens, then spend that money in whichever way he thinks seems fit for 4 years. Why is this in any way acceptable?

Government and political leaders are necessary, I agree. We need some sort of administrator to handle issues where government is necessary, namely national defence, and criminal justice. But philanthropy? Say for example that the 50 million people who voted for Bush were completely OK with the president giving hundreds of their tax dollars to African nations for their aid, what about the other 250 million people? Are we supposed to accept unnecessary coersion if the cause is good? That is a slippery slope to socialism, i.e. the erosion of individual liberty and dignity. Each person, I believe, needs to maintain as much control over their own life and wealth as possible. If the 50 million people who voted for Bush wanted to give hundreds of their tax dollars to Bush to give to Africa, they could just donate it themselves directly. There is no need for a government leader to decide for everyone how much of their money should go to foreign aid.

Reading about this, I am reminded of Ron Paul's piece on the glorification of political power. I think the $60 billion G8 pledge brings the truth of his words to light:

Political Power and the Rule of Law

by Ron Paul

With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.

The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.

Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.

The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.

Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate – not political victories.

Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.

In a free society, government is restrained – and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.

Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.

Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.

February 6, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

The U.S. constitution states that before a president takes office he must make the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is the sole purpose of the office of president.

-November 18th addendum-

Here is a video of Ron Paul's speech condemning the Glorification of Political Power:

Friday, June 8, 2007

I love this video

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Open letter to Google and Microsoft


This is it folks. This is the chance to change the world for the better. Microsoft, Google, you both have the money to be able to influence the outcome of the elections. Why let big oil and other companies in the military industrial complex decide the direction of the country?

Bill Gates, you're spending over $20 Billion dollars of your own money to help the poor around the world. How about you spend some of that money to help get elected a man who cares about and understands the country more than any other politician? Isn't America the nation that gave you platform to become as wealthy as you are? Isn't it your duty to help bring this amazing man into office?

For 20 years, Ron Paul has been the ONLY voice in Congress that has consistently spoken out against government taxation/spending. He has been the ONLY voice to speak out against the inflationary monetary system that has eaten away at the middle class. He has been the ONLY voice to speak out against the broken borders. He has been the ONLY voice on all of the issues that are integral to America's future.

Google, Microsoft, there is no man in the world who, in the role of a politician, would do more for your business than Ron Paul. He would bring back sound money (versus inflationary federal reserve money controlled behind closed doors by a elite few), real economic growth, and respect for the law (e.g. he would enforce immigration laws which are being pissed on everyday). He is the ultimate pro-stock market candidate. He is the ultimate pro-freedom candidate. He is the best politician in the world precisely because he is the one that wants to limit the power politicians yield the most. Google, Microsoft, the world needs your help.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Ron Paul on Meet the Press

Hi, everyone needs to write in to Meet the Press to urge them not to backtrack on their promise to give each presidential candidate 1 hour of airtime. See video for details.

click here

Tuesday, May 29, 2007


An open letter urging Ron Paul to run for the Libertarian party, in order to smash the two party system that has enslaved America.

read more

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Why don't the big corporations fund Ron Paul?

This is a question that begs an answer. Ron Paul is for a non-interventionist foreign policy, deregulation, reduction in taxes, and a reduction in spending, all things that are conducive to economic growth and a market economy, so why don't more corporations fund his campaign?

Here is an excellent description of Ron Paul's idealogical "pedigree" from free market news:

Ron Paul is a deeply read man, probably the most educated candidate to run for high office since, well, how about Thomas Jefferson? That's a strong statement, but likely a true one. Certainly, one could make a case that he is the most learned and deeply read candidate of the 20th century.

What is his pedigree? He was a colleague and close friend of Murray Rothbard, the eminent free-market economist who proved one of Ludwig von Mises most outstanding and febrile pupils. Together, Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard (along with Lew Rockwell) helped define Austrian economics and academic libertarianism in the 20th century.

Rothbard is the author of the sweeping socio-economic masterpiece, "Man and State." Ludwig von Mises is author of numerous deeply learned, works on the free-market. His masterpiece is perhaps "Human Action," in which he sums up a century of "Austrian" free markets economics.

Granted, some very large corporations make alot of money from special interest politics, and have a vested interest in the continuation of such policies, but surely many multi-national corporations could stand to gain from a Ron Paul presidency and an explosion in America's economic growth, no? Where are they? Why aren't they funding him? This is perhaps the most free-market, low tax, small government politician that has ever run for office, and THE PEOPLE SUPPORT HIM. Why aren't the big corporations jumping on this opportunity?

I think there is this pervading notion that the interests of corporations and the people are fundamentally opposed, but I think this is absolutely false. I believe that corporations and the efficiencies they permit have permitted mankind to advance greatly in the last century, and I believe, that the majority of corporations, as with the majority of people, stand to gain from a world of freedom and peace. It is the corporations, and people, who are immersed in special interest pork barrel politics, that stand to gain from big government and government regulation. In other words, it is not a question of corporate interests versus people's interests, but rather, special interests versus the common interest.

The people have spoken: they want a Ron Paul presidency that serves the common interest and a return to prosperity. So where are the corporations?