In Iraq for 100 Years?!
Check out the expressions on the faces of these New Hampshire voters as John McCain tells them that it's fine with him if we're in Iraq for 100 years.
LDS Member Takes Romney, Beck to the Woodshed
A member of the Mormon Church, Joel Skousen, lays what amounts to the LDS smackdown on fellow Mormons Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck.
While Skousen has high praise for Ron Paul, he calls Beck (who has been extremely critical of Paul) a sellout
Faux News Republican Debate Starts in 28 Minutes
Hannity is doing his pre-debate shtick. Listening to him it sounds as if only Mr. 9/11 and Flipper showed up for the debate...Hannity is trying to get his guests to confirm just how important a Faux News debate really is..Juan Williams is bumming Hannity out by saying Flip-Flop Mitt is losing ground in the polls.
Bill Kristol says "Huckabee is FOR REAL," because he is moving up in the polls (I don't know anyone who has ever been called by these pollsters.) Unfortunately for Huckabee, nobody is sending him any money.
Of course, HE WHO CAN NOT BE NAMED ON FAUX NEWS, Ron Paul has never once been mentioned. I don't think Hunter has either, so apparently they've thrown him overboard too.
Now they're asking their sample, undecided, Republican voters questions. They all want to hear specifics from the candidates, though they can't articulate what it is they really want to hear, except that the Republicans are wimps, and where the hell is Ronald Reagan when you need him. One guy said Ron Paul is certifiably crazy. They want someone to "step up" whatever the hell that means.
Now Hannity is blathering again. He's pimping their text message poll. Don't they know that that sort of poll favors younger voters; hence Ron Paul?
Would someone like to take bets on how many times Rudy mentions 9/11 or how many times Flip-Flop Mitt compares himself to Reagan?
No Dice for Romney in Nevada
Voters were less than impressed with Mitt's presence this weekend at the Conservative Leadership Conference straw poll in Nevada.
Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend “by a large margin,” according to an organizer.
Paul won with 32 percent, McCain came in second with 17 percent, Hunter was third with 15 percent, and "Romney was in the lower numbers because people came out for his event but they just didn't vote for him," according to organizer and McCain operative Paul Jackson. (Link: DESPITE SHOWING UP IN PERSON, ROMNEY LOSES NEV. STRAW POLL, MSNBC)
Duncan Hunter was the only other candidate that spoke at the conference.
Quick Takes from Oct. 9th Republican Debate
Brownback: My mother was a mail carrier.
Giuliani: I'll police the internet. Third parties? Screw 'em.
Huckabee: I'm Democrat Lite, with a side of Fair Tax.
Hunter: Um, I'll have to get back to you on Hunter.
McCain: I don't really know jack about the monetary system.
Paul: We're pissing our money and our future away by policing the world. Doesn't promise to support Republican nominee if they go down the same path we have been.
Romney: Don't worry, be happy. We're a great country! And by the way, I like Reagan.
Tancredo: Doesn't promise to support Republican nominee if they stand for the same old shit.
Thompson: Where's my script? (Good Lord, he looks OLD)
Update: Aha! I knew there was there was a bit of "'eau de compassionate conservative" wafting from Huckabee! Here's a quote from former Bushie, Dan Bartlett:
As it happens, the Bush adviser was most enthusiastic about a contender who seems to have even less chance. He called Huckabee the "best candidate," one who seems to most mirror Bush's own vision of compassionate conservatism. (Link: The Trail)
Makes you kind of shudder.
Reminder: CNBC/MSNBC/WSJ GOP Presidential Debate is today
This will be the first time Fred Thompson shows up to debate. Should be worth a look. The debate airs at 4 p.m. ET on CNBC and will be re-broadcast on MSNBC at 9 this evening.
And the World Votes for...Ron Paul
The results are in and it looks like Ron Paul is the winner with 21,438 votes. Barack Obama came in second with 12,466 votes. A very distant third goes to Dennis Kucinich.
Now, assuming that those naughty Ron Paul spammers* (you know, those 10 people huddled in their basements who are well on their way to contributing 1 million to his campaign this week) spammed this poll. Fine. Let's cut his U.S. support IN HALF. He still wins. In fact, if you slashed his total votes by half, he'd still come in second, 7,230 votes ahead of third place.
A far as Republican candidates go, Giuliani places a very, very distant second with 882 votes.
For a break-down of votes, you can visit Who Would The World Elect.
*As a test, I tried to cast a second vote for another candidate and received this rather confusing message; "
Thank you for your vote AGAIN (All votes are only counted once). We'll add it to what everyone else is voting in your Country."
Who Would the Rest of the World Elect...
As President of the U.S.? You can check it out here. I haven't totaled it up, but it appears that other countries would like to see us with a Democrat as President and a Republican as V.P.
Mike Gravel/Ron Paul Debate?
Mike Gravel would like to have a one-on-one debate with Ron Paul. I think it'd be the most worthwhile debate yet. Bring it on!
If you agree, sign the petition. Make Rudy's day. After all, he's the one that suggested it.
Is Rudy Guiliani Whipped?
Who the heck interrupts a speech they 're giving to answer their cell phone? Does Judith have Rudy on a short leash or what? Or...was this simply a ploy to shore up the image of Rudy's family life. Didn't do the trick for me.
Ron Paul and Obama Favorites of Military
In spite of the vicious attacks from conservative talk show hosts (including local talker, Vince Jericho), Ron Paul STILL LEADS ALL REPUBLICANS IN DONATIONS FROM THE MILITARY!
Among GOP candidates, Ron Paul, the only Republican who opposes the war, has brought in the biggest haul from the military since the start of the 2008 election cycle in January—at least $19,250. Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War prisoner who backs the administration's policy in Iraq, has raised $18,600. Paul, who was a flight surgeon in the Air Force, got nearly twice as much from servicemen and women in the campaign's first six months as GOP fundraising front-runner Mitt Romney and four times more than better-known candidate Rudy Giuliani.
Obama, who also has opposed the war from the start, leads all presidential hopefuls in donations from our military.
I can't wait to see how they spin this one.
Speaking of our troops, stop by and visit Military for Ron Paul.
(Link: Capital Eye)
Part 1, Those Damn Ron Paul Supporters
Everyone knows Ron Paul supporters are 911 conspiracy theorists, hate America, belong to Code Pink, or are Democrat operatives, right? We're all alike and we're all crazy.
News flash: We are not a homogenous group. Some of the things about this Paul supporter:
- 911 was not an inside job and I don't while away my hours at Prison Planet.
- I support our troops. My son was one of them. I've sent packages, letters, prayers, and donated to the Wounded Warrior Project. I was the impetus behind my employer's program to send packages to the troops. (Looking for something to send? Check out Brigade QM.) I have joined with others to welcome home our troops.
- While what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong, wrong, WRONG, I don't have a problem with water-boarding, stress positions, nor sleep deprivation. Many of our troops go through ALL these things during training.
- Code Pink is, for the most part, an assemblage of useful idiots.
- I am not a pacifist.
- Democrat operative? Oh, please. Until a few years ago, I was a Republican, albeit an independent one. I voted for Bush twice. Reluctantly the second time around.
- Sorry, Hannity. I don't spend my time text messaging your stupid-ass Faux News Polls. No one over the age of 13 should text message.
So why am I supporting Ron Paul? I'll get to that.
Diebold, Still Stealing Votes After All These Years
Fresh off the press, a report from a team of computer scientists finds Diebold machines are riddled with security flaws.
A little of what they found:
- Data on the memory cards for the optical-scan machines is unauthenticated
- The memory card “signature” does not adequately detect malicious tampering
- The touch-screen machine automatically installs bootloader and operating system updates from the memory card without verifying the authenticity of the updates (Link to Threat Level - Wired Blogs)
This video shows how it can be done.
One has to wonder why the Iowa GOP has chosen to use this faulty machine during the upcoming Iowa Straw Poll. My understanding is that after the vote, one person will retire to tabulate the votes; no observers allowed. Now, why is that?
Several groups are joining together to conduct a verification EXIT POLL at the Ames Straw Poll, using paper ballots, in order to get a fair count.
More on the subject of voter fraud: A House Without Doors, Black Box Voting,
Democracy Imperiled, Inside a U.S. Election Vote Counting Program
The Ron Paul Online Rally
Oh my God! They're, they're...NORMAL PEOPLE! The faces of Ron Paul's supporters, growing daily. Come join us and turn this country around!
Giuliani, Romney Taking a Pass on CNN/You Tube Debate
Neither Giuliani, nor Romney cares to spend some unscripted moments with the American people.
Rudy Giuliani is unlikely to be present during the CNN/You Tube Republican debate, due to "unspecified scheduling conflicts."
Translation: Rudy doesn't want to hear from you, the unwashed masses, unless you're being booked into a jail cell. Check out his You Choose '08 Spotlight video; while all the other candidates invite you to respond on You Tube's site, all Giuliani presents is a commercial and then tells you to go to his website. And it appears that the comments section has been HEAVILY culled. Criticism is apparently not allowed, although one sly person did slip in what would seem to be a reference to Ron Paul.
Romney is likely to follow Giuliani's lead, just like he did when he found out that Giuliani wouldn't be attending the Iowa Straw Polls in August.
Mitt Romney didn't like some of the more frivolous trappings and told the New Hampshire Union Leader that "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." (Link: techPresident)
O.K., some of the questions were dumb. But none were as stupid as what Chris Matthews offered up in the first debate.
I guess that being carried along in Giuliani's wake makes Mitt feel like a frontrunner. He is, if money is the only thing that matters in this race. But Romney is polling in the single digits, trailing behind McCain. And McCain is done. Finished. Kaput.
This could actually be the best debate of all. With Rudy "I-Was-There-on 9/11" and Romney "I'm-Really-Reagan" out of the way, McCain, Ron Paul, Tancredo and the rest can get to the red meat.
Ron Paul and the Economy
The good thing about Ron Paul is that he is a policy wonk. It's also a bad thing, as American voters are enamored with fluffy sound bites, which explains the Fred Thompson factor.
Listen as presidential hopeful Ron Paul discusses monetary policy with Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. (Hat Tip: Jeremy Hermanns)
Initial Thoughts on the S. C. Democratic Debate
It went something like this:
You Tuber: My life sucks 'cause minimum wage doesn't pay enough. How am I supposed to raise 5 kids on minimum wage?
Democrat's answer: This is the richest country in the world! Nobody should have to flip burgers for less than $10/hour.
You Tuber: But I still won't be able to afford healthcare for all those kids on $10 bucks an hour!
Democrats: This is the richest country in the world! We'll give everyone healthcare!
You Tuber: Obama, are you really black?
Obama: I'm blacker than Bill Clinton, you twit.
Hillary: I'm not black, but I'm not butch. I'm wearing pink!
You Tuber: Yo man. What about reparations for black folk. You gonna fork it over?
Kucinich: Sure!
Obama: Have you considered educating yourself? Twit.
Rest of Dems: WTF?! Uh, no.
Gravel: In my lucid moments, I have good ideas.
Me: America, we're so screwed.
Napolitano on Ron Paul
Judge Andrew Napolitano gives high praise to Ron Paul while speaking at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Blowback! The GOP South Carolina Debate
The talking heads (both TV and radio) are gleefully proclaiming the Ron Paul campaign officially dead after the Giuliani/Paul dust up last night. Below is a clip of the exchange.
The reaction from the internet has been interesting (I'll post my own reaction later):
Vox Popoli: "I note that Giuliani didn't stop the first 9/11. So I suggest that his opinion is the very last one that deserves to be consulted regarding how to stop the next one."
Andrew Sullivan writes "...the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick."
Ross Douthat, The Atlantic Online: "the attention that Paul's getting isn't, pace Andrew, a sign of the hidden strength of conservative opposition to Bush's Iraq policy - it's a sign of its weakness, and the vacuum that's opened in what used to be the space between neoconservative interventionism and Paul-style isolationism.
Conservative Times: "... The fact that what Ron Paul said is an indisputable fact is of no consequence to these intellectual and emotional children. In the minds of the post-9/11 War on Terror cultists, some things, true or not, are just not supposed to be said."
d-day: "...Rudy Giuliani got to pull his 9-11 card out by attacking Ron Paul for daring to suggest the concept of blowback which is well-known to anyone whose sense of history doesn't perish the past with each passing day...I still say "none of the above" is out to a huge lead."
wizbangblue: "There was a time when the Republican party was known as the one which believed in smaller government and avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements. Now the Pub's mouthpiece is attacking the only Republican candidate who still believes in those things for not being intrusive and imperialist enough."
Save The GOP: "There is only one thing I don’t completely agree with Paul on regarding last night’s comments. Even if the U.S. hadn’t had a sustained presence in the Middle East over the last twenty something years, I am not certain that we still wouldn’t be feeling some of their aggression. Islamic fundamentalism plays a large part in the role on exercising terror across the globe."
The S Factor: "...the argument being made by Bushies/Giulianites is that we should disregard any consequences of our foreign policy that end up promoting terrorism, because doing so would be allowing the terrorists to dicate our foreign policy, since we would be taking their behavioral responses to our policies into account."
Dean Barnett, blogging for Hugh Hewitt: "I was actually thinking of doing a serious post about Ron Paul. However briefly, I pondered preparing a scholarly inquiry into why it is that he’s the very definition of a crank."
Mike The Actuary's Musings: "Whether Dr. Paul is correct is an arguable point. Regardless of that, regardless of Ron’s intellect and his sincere belief in libertarian principles… the fact that he’d expose such a stance in a televised debate shows a certain cluelessness which should disqualify him from office."
About That MSNBC Republican Debate…
While the the mainstream media blathered on about Romney, Giuliani, and McCain, Ron Paul is the only candidate who got a huge boost in the MSNBC poll after the debate. He is, in fact, the LEADER in the poll.
Having watched the debate live, and then again several times on MSNBC's website, I have a few thoughts:
- Chris Matthews is a smarmy little asshat.
- Does anyone really care whether a candidate believes in evolution or not? Is this the burning issue of the day? Wherever you stand on the issue, I say give a high five to the three men who, when asked who didn't believe, raised their hands, knowing that they'd get a lot of flak for it. Here's to Tancredo, Brownback, and Huckabee!
- Speaking of evolution, when did Brownback suddenly become Mr. Control-Our-Borders?
- Am I the only one who would've liked to have seen Tancredo, after being cut short one too many times, knock Matthews on his ass? Just askingJ
- WTF is up with McCain? How can a man launch into a full rant about following bin Laden "to the gates of hell" and then punctuate it with a big, shit-eating grin? A very scary man.
Please, let's have no more putrid little people as moderators, no more Politico operatives stalking about the stage a la Al Gore, and no more dumbass questions.
Notice how Keith Whats-His-Face just can't believe that one of the media-approved candidates isn't winning their poll.
Here's Ron Paul in the debate. (Listen to the endorsements beforehand!)
Former V.P. Candidate Asks Christians to "Wake Up!"
Dear Fellow Christians, Please Wake Up!
by Chuck Baldwin
May 4, 2007
I suppose there was a time in American politics when there was a significant difference between conservatives and liberals, between Republicans and Democrats, and between Christians and unbelievers. However, with only limited exceptions, that time has largely gone. When it comes to the salient issues that are currently waging war against America's future survival, it is extremely difficult to distinguish those differences.
If one removes the issues of abortion and gay rights from the debate, there is precious little that distinguishes the modern Christian conservative from his liberal counterpart.
Federal spending sure doesn't apply. President George W. Bush and his fellow "conservative" Republicans have the dubious distinction of outspending practically every administration and Congress during the entire 20th century. Only the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations compare to the insatiable spending habits of the current administration.
Then there is the illegal alien invasion currently taking place in America. What was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago and only a minor nuisance before Bush was elected President has now become a full-fledged assault that threatens our country's very survival. And remember, the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government during the six years that the bulk of this invasion was taking place. And, except for a few conservative congressmen (mostly in the House of Representatives), not only did they do nothing to stop it, they sat back and watched as President Bush actively encouraged and facilitated it, something he is doing to this very day.
Then there is the obsequious manner in which our national Christian leaders treat "big-name" Republican presidential contenders. This is especially disconcerting when one considers that many of these contenders are people with very dubious track records: either bitterly betraying conservative principles or, in some cases, openly subscribing to positions that are downright antithetical to those principles.
For example, conservatism does not have a worse Judas turncoat than Newt Gingrich. His track record as Speaker of the House is more than dismal. Just talk to any of the members of the House freshman class of 1995. Ask Joe Scarborough. Ask Steve Largent. Ask Bob Barr. Ask them if Newt Gingrich is a conservative.
They would, no doubt, remind you that it was Newt Gingrich who used the power of the Speaker's office to rush GATT and the WTO through a lame-duck session of Congress before the more conservative '95 freshman class arrived on Capitol Hill, because he knew they would derail passage of these two draconian pieces of legislation.
I'm sure they would also remind you that one of the first things Gingrich did after being elected to Congress in 1978 was support the creation of the Department of Education, and Most Favored Nation trade status for Red China. They would also remind you that Newt Gingrich voted for taxpayer dollars to be used to facilitate rade with the communist Chinese.
Furthermore, does anyone need to be reminded that Newt Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is nothing more than a cabal of elitists dedicated to the promotion of global government?
Gingrich proved himself to be such a Judas that he had to resign or face ouster by the very conservatives he professed to lead. And if one wants further testimony regarding Gingrich's infidelity, ask his first two wives.
Yet, Newt Gingrich is being lauded and cheered as a "true American statesman," to quote one national Christian leader. That leader also said, "Mr. Gingrich is certainly one of the brightest men I know in public life today, and he is becoming one of our great ambassadors for reawakening the spirit of our Founders."
Then there is Rudy Giuliani. The same Christian leader who lavished praise upon Newt Gingrich recently wrote this about Rudy Giuliani: "I personally have great respect for Mr. Giuliani in terms of his leadership in law and order and national defense issues. In these areas, I believe he would be a potentially great president."
This seems to suggest that if Giuliani could just convince us that he is now genuinely "pro-life" and "pro-family," we Christian conservatives should support him. But is that really all there is that qualifies a candidate for President? Would Giuliani truly be a "potentially great president" when it comes to "law and order" issues?
Are we supposed to forget that Rudy Giuliani has been one of the most outspoken proponents of gun control in the entire country? Does it not matter that for years Giuliani used the power of his office to disarm honest American citizens and trample the Second Amendment?
For example, Gun Owners of America has this to say about Rudy Giuliani's track record on gun control: "[T]he record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation.
"In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn't go far enough.
"The President, largely crediting Giuliani for the idea, enthusiastically sent Attorney General Janet Reno off to develop a gun licensing and registration system . . . .
"In May of 1994, as the battle over the ban on certain semi-automatic firearms reached its height, Giuliani threw his support behind the ban. On the eve of the final vote, he noted that so-called assault weapons 'have no legitimate purpose.'
"When the ban passed, Giuliani commented that, 'This is an important step towards curtailing the indiscriminate proliferation of guns across the nation.'"
Is this the kind of "law and order" that Christian conservatives expect from their elected leaders today? If so, they should throw away the Bill of Rights and embrace the Communist Manifesto, because the latter more closely mirrors Giuliani's brand of law and order.
Dear fellow Christians, please wake up! Gun control is not a secondary issue. Runaway, out-of-control federal spending is not a secondary issue. The invasion of America by millions of illegal aliens is not a secondary issue. The creation of a North American Community, which integrates the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States, is not a secondary issue. The NAFTA superhighway currently being constructed is not a secondary issue. The abuse of our Bill of Rights under the Patriot Act is not a secondary issue. The blatant disregard for constitutional government by our elected leaders is not a secondary issue.
There is more to a candidate's qualification for public office than his or her opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Are we really so shallow and undiscerning that we cannot see what our political and corporate leaders are doing to our country? Do we not recognize evil when we see it? Do we really think that we can ignore these issues and not pay the consequences?
We are in desperate need of leaders who will distinguish themselves as standing foursquare on the fundamental principles upon which America was founded. We need leaders who will respect the U.S. Constitution and who will aggressively stop the invasion taking place across our southern border. We need leaders who will rein in federal spending and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. We need leaders who will refuse to allow the United States to be integrated into a North American Community of any kind.
And most of all, we need Christian conservatives to wake up to what is going on in this country, and to stop trying to grovel before the neocons in the Republican Party, and to start acting like real conservatives again.
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070504.html
New Pledge For Ron Paul
If you save $25/week until the deadline, you can meet this pledge! Help Ron get elected by going PledgeBank and making your pledge!
"I will pledge 200 dollars to Ron Paul for President 2008 but only if 199 other people will pledge 200 Dollars."
— Nathan L McDonald, Concerned American
Deadline to sign up by: 21st June 2007
Viguerie Not Impressed With Giuliani, McCain, Romney
Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed, doesn't believe conservative voters should support Giuliani, Romney, or McCain. He does, however, have good things to say about Ron Paul.
Snarky Journalism: Washington Post's Dana Milbank
I'm not a Kucinich fan, but I'm annoyed by Dana Milbank's article, Kucinich's Battle Against Cheney Not So (Im)Peachy Keen, in today's Washington Post.
Rather than an intelligent discussion on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Kucinich's drive to impeach Vice President Cheney, Milbank used the article as an occasion to make sly digs at a presidential candidate for whom he obviously has no respect.
There were the inevitable snarks about Kucinich's appearance:
[...] Standing perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes, he wore a solemn face as he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level. He beckoned to aides, who handed out thick binders detailing the case."
Kucinich read at length from his articles of impeachment,undeterred by rush-hour traffic noise on Independence Avenue ("I'll wait till the truck goes by here," he said at one point) and wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem.
Milbank made sure readers knew that other Democrats weren't taking this seriously:
[...] A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.
And this:
[...]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive -- "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it" -- but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: "This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel."
While we can surmise this is a ploy by Kucinich to grab some attention, I'm wondering what tone Milbank (or Rahm Emanuel for that matter) would have taken if Clinton or Obama had been the one to call this news conference.
Not that that is likely to happen; it would ruin Clinton's new centrism, and Obama couldn't find a way to wax poetic on the subject.
Video: Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs
Ron Paul recently appeared with Lou Dobbs on a segment called 2008: Time for Answers.
Listen to Rep. Paul discuss Free Trade, NAFTA, the North American Union, WTO, and illegal immigration.
Related writings from Ron Paul: Bowing and Scraping for the WTO; Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies; "Buy American," Unless...; True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers; The World Trade Organization; International Protectionism
Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll
For those of you who had given up on voting the the Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll, as did I, there's good news. Ron Paul is once again listed as a selection.
'I will donate $100 to the Ron Paul for President campaign' - PledgeBank
And yet another pledge. At this rate, I may have to start working some overtime!
"I will donate $100 to the Ron Paul for President campaign but only if 100 other people will do the same."
— Jon Isaac, personal liberty activist
Deadline to sign up by: 20th April 2007
43 people have signed up, 57 more neededCountry: United States
More details
Congressman Ron Paul, the leading voice in today's freedom movement, is running for President of the United States. Dr Paul represents our best opportunity to infuse the 2008 presidential elections with a conversation on personal freedom. But he can't succeed without the help of you and me! I'm putting my money where my mouth is by pledging a paltry 100 bucks to help his campaign, and I urge you to do the same.
Let's send a message to Washington and the media that this man and his message will not be ignored!
Source: 'I will donate $100 to the Ron Paul for President campaign' - PledgeBank
Video: Ron Paul On Fox
Dr. Paul was interviewed on the "Because You Asked" segment of Fox News on March 21st.
Here's the video.
Hat Tip: Daily Paul
Demand a Visit From Ron Paul!
You can go to MySpace EVENTFUL and tell Ron Paul you want him to come to your town!
Former Constitution V.P. Candidate Supports Ron Paul
The Constitution Party's 2004 V.P. candidate, Chuck Baldwin, is no fan of current Republican presidential hopefuls.
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
...It is past time for conservatives to admit that the national Republican Party has crossed the point of no return and has no intention of nominating a genuine conservative for president. The GOP has become nothing more than a big-government, no-borders, war party. If true conservatives are going to have a voice in Washington politics, it will have to come through an independent party.
That is not to say that there are not genuine conservatives in the GOP presidential race. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas embodies everything the CEP is looking for. Beyond that, if he should miraculously win the nomination, he would, no doubt, receive broad support in the general election. He would solidify the conservative base of the GOP and would be very popular among independents, libertarians, and even conservative Democrats.
He goes on to state the obvious, which is that Ron Paul can expect no support (excepting the Liberty Caucus) from the Grand Pooh-Bahs of the GOP.
Link to Food For Thought From the Chuck Wagon
Hat Tip: Third Party Watch
Sunday Shorts
It's Sloth-in-a-Box!
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards vows to create more bureaucracy and spend $3 billion a year to educate children in OTHER COUNTRIES.
Government Bytes! notes that the new Democratic Senate won't cut spending even on programs that are rated "Ineffective."
Ron Paul Accepts Debate Invitation
Congressman Ron Paul has accepted Nancy Reagan's invitation to participate in a presidential debate to be held at the Reagan Presidential Library on May 3, 2007. MSNBC will moderate and televise the 90-minute debate starting at 5:00 p.m. ET. The debate will also be simulcast by politico.com to give citizens the opportunity to submit questions online. (Link)
Ron Paul, Exploring No More
Daily Paul reports that Ron Paul has gone from the exploratory stage to candidate:) He will make the announcement on C-Span's Washington Journal on Monday, March 11th, 6:00 a.m. CST.
Hat Tip: Friends of Ron Paul
Pastor Pleads The Case for Ron Paul
The religious right is dithering, trying to decide between a host of Republican candidates, both announced and assumed. One name they seem to overlook is Ron Paul.
Talk show host and Baptist Pastor Chuck Baldwin ponders the reasons:
Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.
The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.
For example, Jerry Falwell's widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled "Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates." A total of ten Republicans made the Journal's list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.
However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell's list. Why is this? Why do evangelicals ignore Ron Paul?
Ron Paul received his Bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College. He received his MD from Duke University. He began his OB/GYN career in 1968. He was also an Air Force Captain and a member of the Air National Guard.
Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman's true conservative record out there.
Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."
Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.) (ed. If I'm not mistaken, reversing Roe v. Wade would simply put the question of abortion back in the hands of the states.)
In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.
Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell's Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.
For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative's conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals ignore him?
The answer to the above question is not easy to determine. Maybe today's evangelicals are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists. Therefore, it might be that our illustrious evangelical leaders are unwilling to be identified with Paul lest they share the same ostracism.
Another reason might be that today's evangelicals are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.
Hence, evangelicals are already warming up to John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and even to Rudy Giuliani. Falwell's National Liberty Journal (NLJ) calls Gingrich "a true American statesman." McCain is called "pro-life." Already, McCain has spoken for Dr. Falwell at his Liberty University. (Don't be surprised if Falwell becomes one of McCain's strongest proponents.) The NLJ quotes Evangelicals for Mitt as saying, "Gov. Romney . . . shares our values." Of Giuliani, NLJ states, "On issues such as national security, battling terrorism and combating crime, Mr. Giuliani is very popular with conservatives."
However, the truth is, neither Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, nor McCain deserves the support of principled conservatives. Each of these men has numerous examples of failure and compromise of essential conservative values.
Another trap evangelicals seem to fall into is the puerile desire to "pick a winner." Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, evangelicals are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don't expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.
However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America's evangelicals would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.
As it is, evangelicals continue to call George W. Bush "one of us," they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.
© Chuck Baldwin
Link to Chuck Baldwin -- Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul?
Badnarik Urges Libertarians to Stand Behind Ron Paul
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian presidential candidate in '04) proposes a fusion candidacy at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum:
In his Friday night keynote address, Badnarik, who is also a member of the Free State Project and plans to move to New Hampshire by the end of 2008, urged over 200 attendees to support Ron Paul for president by making campaign contributions and activating grassroots support.
"You cannot do it yourself," he said. "You have to have wide, wide grassroots support."
Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. "I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, 'Oh ho, somebody we can trust!' and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee," he said. "We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person." (Link: Homeland Stupidity)
McCain, Giuliani Avoid First Debate
Hotline reports that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain won't be making that first GOP debate in New Hampshire after all.
McCain will be in the Middle East and Giuliani cited unspecified scheduling conflicts, a person with direct knowledge of the debate refusals said.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer and WMUR's Scott Spradling are the hosts.
Both McCain and Giuliani accepted Nancy Reagan's invitation to participate in the 5/3 debate scheduled for the Reagan Library. (MARC AMBINDER)
Why, one could almost think they were sitting this one out so they could watch Dr. Paul from a safe distance.
Ron Paul on Freedom and Government
I find this Ron Paul video to be very inspiring. Ron Paul for 2008!
Ron Paul Link Round Up
*Ron Paul's site will be set up to take online donations on Tuesday, Feb. 20th.
NewsMax.com, Dave Eberhart: "...this independent thinking man is no slave to a strict libertarian agenda — voting against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (bigger government, he says), supporting border security, and opposing illegal immigration — all postures that would rattle the Libertarian core."
SmallGovTimes: "Unfortunately, the American people have grown comfortable with big
federal government control, and Paul’s campaign knows it will be a
tough battle positioning him for victory in 2008. “There is no question
that it is an uphill battle,“ Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul’s
exploratory committee, said. "
George Will: "Paul, who really believes in limited government, will infiltrate that confabulation of sedate candidates in order, he says, to find out 'how many real Republicans are left.' This could be entertaining, meaning embarrassing." (Hat Tip: The Liberty Papers)
Politizine: "I don't agree with everything, but given the choice between him and some of the other Republicans, I would take him in a heartbeat. He knows in his core what freedom means."
Reason Hit & Run, Dave Weigel