Dear Friend of Liberty,

Across our nation, Campaign for Liberty’s 150,000+ members are taking action, educating their fellow countrymen, and making a considerable impact on the political landscape. Together, we unapologetically champion the principles that made our nation great: sound money, a constitutionally limited government and foreign policy, and respect for individual liberties.

These ideas transcend traditional boundaries and draw Americans (and like-minded people across the globe) from all backgrounds to the liberty message.

Many Republican leaders, however, continue to believe that principle must be sacrificed on the altar of attaining political power, despite the devastating defeats a “win-at-all-costs” philosophy brought their Party last November.  And, as you will see below, it is the liberty message that has all the momentum.

This past weekend at a South Carolina Republican convention, Senator Lindsey Graham adamantly defended supporting those who choose political expediency over substance. “We’re not going to build [the Republican Party] around libertarian ideas,” he told his audience. “[Ron Paul] is not the leader of this Party,” he emphasized.

Click on the image below to see these widely-circulated remarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy48BKd-1TI

Senator Graham claimed his view as being that of a Ronald Reagan Republican, but Reagan’s own words in a 1975 Reason interview remove any endorsement of the Senator’s statement.

“If you analyze it,” said Reagan, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

What about principle vs. politics? (Emphasis in the following mine)

Reagan said: “I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I’ve spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph… I’ve been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don’t compromise, but don’t try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can’t keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you’ve got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.”

South Carolina’s junior Senator, Jim DeMint, spoke after Graham and echoed Reagan, commenting about the Senate that he, “[w]ould rather have 30 Republicans who believe in the principles of limited government and free markets and free people than 60 Republicans who have no beliefs at all.”

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford also defended the freedom movement, remarking, “Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment. That is the distinguishing characteristic of our Republic, and frankly what’s made it great… I’ve been accused of being a libertarian, and I would say I wear it as a badge of honor because I do love, believe in, and want to support liberty.”

Click on the image below to watch Governor Sanford’s remarks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikqJ_KB66WQ

In his speech, Senator Graham noted that those who don’t think winning matters should head for the Party’s exits.

Of course winning is important. But when that becomes your ultimate focus at the expense of everything else, you throw away the integrity our Founders believed crucial in order to be involved in government.

The time has come to make it clear that we will no longer tolerate the rampant trashing of our Constitution by our representatives or their constant shifting on the issues. No matter what political party you belong to, you should have the courage to stand firm on your beliefs.

As our efforts with HR 1207 are demonstrating, you don’t have to cast aside principle to achieve success. A clear, consistent stand on a philosophy of freedom will find supporters, and from there real, lasting change can be effected.

To those in all political parties who wish to maximize freedom and prosperity, we invite you to join us in our efforts. To all those who would sell out our Constitution and their beliefs in pursuit of power, we turn Senator Graham’s words back on him and you by saying, “There’s the exit sign.”

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

This new website is made exactly for that purpose. It offers in Ron Paul’s own words a perfect introduction to our hero.

Check out: http://www.ronpaulintro.com/ 

Updates on my main site: apologus.wordpress.com

As Hillary Clinton appears to be breaking away from the pack, the Republican race in Iowa may be tightening up. A week ago, an ARG poll placed Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney by an 11-point margin among likely Republican caucus-goers, but the latest poll by the group puts the two back in a statistical tie, 23 to 21 percent. John McCain has 17 percent of the vote, Rudy Giuliani has 14 percent — and Ron Paul has 10 percent in the latest poll, up from 4 percent last week.

Part 1

Part 2

Topic: Stay Away From Our Children

This podcast lasts 5 minutes and 16 seconds.

Podcast Notes:

I could spend the time in this podcast talking about the Ron Paul blimp, which will surely make news in the next few days or I could talk about the Boston Tea Party celebration where Paul supporters will raise over 5 million dollars on the 16^th and 17^th of December. Since Ron Paul has over 75,000 volunteers (more than any other presidential candidate) and since Paul supporters have more blogs and websites than any other candidate, I am sure they will cover these issues in due time.

What I prefer to do is to talk about what Ron Paul believes; because it is what he believes that most intelligent people care about. In these new few minutes I would like to discuss what Ron Paul believes about education.

There is no doubt that the educational system of this great Republic has ruined our children. Forced indoctrination, anti-American propaganda, and the systematic neglect of parental responsibility have led to unprecedented lows in Mathematics, Science, Geography, and furthermore, Christian children who attend public schools are less likely to ever develop a proper worldview

An American statesman once said that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.

The relentless indoctrination of children in public schools leads to future adults who believe they are entitled to receive everything from the government from cradle to grave. Their work ethic is diminished because they have no sense of personal responsibility. After all, why work if mother government will provide all my needs?

Congressman Paul once stated:

…the federal government has so invaded our classrooms, that daily our children are constantly bombarded with the message that everything good flows from the federal government, and that no one but the federal government has the ability to put right problems in our culture and world. On any given day, the federal government has more influence on the education of the average child than that child’s parents.

Why have parents neglected their God-given responsibility to educate their children? Why have they turned over their precious little ones to the jurisdiction of a Federal Government that has no interest in sharing your religious views? In the end of the day, would a parent prefer to see his children reflect his values or the often socialistic and anti-Christian values of Government Education?

Our Constitution does not authorize our precious tax dollars to fund the education of others. Paul writes:

Even though many people across the nation are tired of what they see the federal government doing in education, there are too many entrenched congressmen, senators and federal employees who are unwilling to eliminate this unconstitutional waste of tax dollars.

This happens precisely because Washington has no interest in defending your cause; rather they are interested in seeing every child leave high school dependent on more government gifts, thus leading to greater national debt and higher taxation. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is the only candidate who defends the rights of homeschooling parents against the tyranny of the Federal Government; the only candidate who wants to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education, the only candidate who offers solutions for families of low income to put their children in private schools, and the only candidate who believes that our future generation depends on how our children are educated today.

Show #6: Huckabee’s Liberal Record and Paul’s Favoritism

This podcast lasts 3 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.

Program notes:

On this 6^th podcast I would like to speak briefly about Mike Huckabee’s liberal economic policies. In a recent article by Robert Novak entitled: The False Conservative, Novak details Huckabee’s impressive and clear abilities to articulate a liberal economic policy of increasing taxes and “big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”

Novak begins his article with the following words:

Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the “Club for Greed”? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender — definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.

This information would have remained hidden if Huckabee had not started to climb up the polls in Iowa and elsewhere. Romney and Thompson have now joined their efforts in criticizing the former governor. They are right to do so, though, both advocate a similar policy of big government by increasing militaristic intervention over seas.

I have argued in a previous podcast that Huckabee is a well-known liberal on economic issues. It is true that he may fight to overturn Roe V. Wade, but at the same time he may also go beyond Bush’s policies and bring about greater economic debt with his habit of taxing every American citizen and giving scholarship to illegal immigrants as he did in Arkansas. It is true that with Mike Huckabee you get a social conservative, but at the same time you get an economic liberal who received the same ratings as Bill Clinton from the Cato Institute.

With Congressman Ron Paul you get both a social conservative who believes in what he says and an economic conservative who truly believes that Government has no business is collecting our wages and distributing our wealth.

This same Ron Paul has just won a scientific poll from Zogby. In a recent blind poll, Ron Paul defeated his top opponents in the GOP by double digit number. A blind poll reveals the policies of a candidate without revealing his name. Among independents, conservatives, and liberals, Paul won all of them. In an interview with Sean Hannity last week, the founder of Zobgy declared to a stunned Hannity that Paul could very well win New Hampshire. If there is one thing I certainly enjoy is to see Fox News fear a 72 year old man who truly upholds the Constitution and the rule of Law.

Show #5: Non-Interference and change

Show #5: Non-Interference and change

This podcast lasts 5 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.

Program notes: Now that the phenomenal fourth quarter “money-bomb” of 4.2 million dollars in one twenty-four day is somewhat passe, we need to see if Paul’s numbers will go up in NH and other parts of the country. As of today, he is fourth in NH with 8%, ahead of Fred Thompson and Huckabee. Fortunately, we don’t have to be worried about the Paul campaign mismanaging the money of loyal supporters. You can’t have this same confidence with the Romney or Giuliani campaign.

If Paul supporters have complained that he has not been in the news much, well, we got what we asked for. Everyone wants a chance to interview Dr. Paul. From Wolf Blitzer to NH journalists.

Paul has raised as of today over 8.2 million dollars; this is more than last quarter already and more than Senator McCain. And there are still 46 days left before the end of the quarter. But what is it that leads people to donate such amounts? Why does the media not understand what’s behind Paul’s message? The mainstream media: Fox News, ABC, MSNBC cannot understand two issues:

At least two philosophical ideas come to mind?

a) A Philosophy of non-interference

b) A Philosophy of Change

First, people want to live without government interference. They want to work hard and keep the fruits of their labor. They do not want to end up like most of their grandparents having to work full-time jobs at Wal-Mart at the age of 75 because their social security cannot support them after retirement. This new generation wants to invest their money, give their charity to whom they please instead of being forced by government to make that decision for them.

Secondly, people want change. Change of foreign policy and change of economic policy.

Our foreign policy has been one of the most outrageous and empire-like foreign policy this country has ever had. In previous wars, young men walked into the Military booth to sign up for the military and go to war. Today, the US government has so extended itself throughout the world (130 countries) that it has to find someone; anyone off the streets or off prison. Our empire can no longer survive another generation without changing its foreign policy.

This same foreign policy is the one that may bring about a recession to our nation. A Recession is a decline in any country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year. Our debt due to foreign intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan has reached almost 1.6 trillion dollars. It is estimated to double by 2017. There is no end to a foreign policy of interventionism. If we had followed the advice of Ron Paul, this nation would be close to paying off its unprecedented debt. Our nation would be closer to the prosperity that attracts the world, the world would not despise us so much, and we could begin to heal the abuse we have imposed on others. Ron Paul can bring about change in foreign policy and economic policy. Will you consider registering Republican for the coming primary? Time is short.

As of 10:47PM, Ron Paul has raised over $3.6 million dollars surpassing the $3.1 million from Mitt Romney. This is what the AP reported concerning this donation explosion, which has just appeared on Drudgereport.com:

The AP weighs in:

Paul’s total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul’s backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

“It’s been kind of building up virally,” Benton said.

The $3.5 million, he said, represented online contributions from more than 22,000 donors.

Tomorrow, there will be more reporting of this historical event. This is what has been printed thus far:

Wolf Blitzer/CNN: Ron Paul Raises Millions!

ABC News: Ron Paul is Money

New York Times: Guy Fawkes Day Helps Raise Millions for Paul

Associated Press: Paul Raises More Than $3.5 Million

Drudge Report front page: Ron Paul Raises More Than $3.5M in One Day…

Breitbart: Ron Paul Raises More Than $3.5M in One Day

Show #4 Topic: Mike Huckabee’s record.

Download page. 

Content:a) Interview with John Fund concerning Mike Huckabee’s record (5 minutes)
b) My commentary on Mike Huckabee (4 minutes)

This podcast lasts 10 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.

Podcast Notes:

And greetings to you…this is Uri Brito for our fourth Ron Paul podcast. You have just heard John Fund from the Wall Street Journal talking to Tucker Carlson about Mike Huckabee’s record. I would like to spend a few minutes further speaking about Huckabee’s record and then making a final observation as to why a Paul campaign is superior and far more conservative to the Huckabee message.

In these last few weeks, Huckabee has been endorsed by no other than actor Chuck Norris from Townhall.com and a few respectable bloggers elsewhere. People have been highly attracted to his smoothness and strong dislike for abortion and homosexual marriage. Concerning abortion, he compared it recently to a holocaust. The fact is Huckabee is a strong social conservative. This is undeniable! I strongly applaud him for his record.

But is that enough? Are we Evangelical/Protestant Christians satisfied merely with a social conservative? Are we a two-issue voter? For most conservatives, this is all they are concerned about. If he is pro-life and anti-homosexual partnership, then you can count him in. But what about the issues make up a society like economic policy or in these days foreign policy?

On economic policies he has in many occasions sided with the liberals and moderates. Both as a Southern Baptist minister and as a politician. He maintained most of the Clinton agency heads when he became governor of Arkansas. As John Fund has noted in his article:

Mr. Huckabee was the only GOP candidate to refuse to endorse President Bush’s veto of the Democrats’ bill to vastly expand the Schip health-care program. Only he and John McCain have endorsed the discredited cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions that has proved a fiasco in Europe.

For anyone interested, Huckabee has answered Fund’s article. In my opinion, he is extremely unconvincing. He mentions some of his record as governor, and some of it is positive, but the final proof is in the pudding. Even Phyllis Schlafly–the darling of the right-wing evangelicals– rebuked Mike Huckabee’s record:

“He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles,” she says. “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”

The question needs to be asked about Huckabee: On an economic level, what makes him different than his fellow Arkansas friend: Bill Clinton? 

And let me conclude by mentioning one more crucial detail about Huckabee: He defends this unconstitutional war, which is another indication that he is not aware of the  affects of this war on the US economy and the Constitutional mandate for Congress to declare war before going to war.

As Tucker mentioned, evangelicals are really liberals on everything else, but abortion and  homosexuality. They want ethics in social matters, but not in economics. And to be a true conservative, you MUST have both.

On the other hand, Ron Paul’s record is unquestionable! He simply refuses to raise taxes and to pass any bill contrary to the limitations of our Constitution and He opposes this needless war. In the end of the day, evangelicals have one true option; a real social conservative and an economic conservative that people around the country are coming to know as Dr. NO! because of his long consistent record of VOTING NO to every Anti-American bill. For the Ron Paul Podcast, I am Uri Brito. We will see you next time.

Show #3: 911- Calling Dr. Ron Paul; save us from this senseless foreign policy.

Download Podcast.

Also included, a portion of Ron Paul’s response in the first presidential debate.

This podcast lasts 7 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.

Podcast Notes:

Today, I would like to speak about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As anyone who has watched all the debates or even one of them will know, Ron Paul stands away from the pack. He opposes the neo-conservative agenda of policing the world and using force as a way to achieve peace. The idea of achieving Middle Eastern stability through the barrel of a gun is senseless and Paul has made that clear.

Ron Paul has been the only one to take off the table a nuclear strike against Iran, while all the others seem eager like a three year old before a bowl of chocolate ice cream, to invade and bomb through air strikes and possibly a military attack.

As Paul has mentioned, “War is the health of the state.” And the truth is, the state is sick. The war has cost almost half a trillion dollars to this point and may even surpass one trillion dollars.[1] Can you count the zeros? The state is sick. Congress’ approval is low; the president’s has one of the lowest in the last 30 years and 70% of the American people are ready for this war to end. But if the state is sick, it seeks healing through more war, because it is salvation of a dying state.

Ron Paul wrote in 1997. That is, 10 years ago the following:[2]

Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs.

And he notes:

There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can’t afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region’s huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.

And he concludes with the following words:

Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel.

A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East.

A foreign policy designed to impose American democracy, to aid the enemy of the enemy, is to expect more civil war and bloodshed in the streets of Bagdad in the years to come. Have we not learned? Stay away from entangling alliances.

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

[2] Read article here: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=21

Show #2 Topic: Discussing Ron Paul’s Pro-Life Bill and states’ responsibilities.

Also included, a portion of the Chuck Baldwin interview with Ron Paul and two great websites.

Download Podcast.

This podcast lasts 10 minutes.

Podcast Notes:

You have just heard Ron Paul’s interview with Pastor Chuck Baldwin. You heard them speaking about Ron Paul’s proposal called THE “Sanctity of Life Bill.” This bill, if it had been passed, would have given the states the right to decide on abortion. As I mentioned on a previous program, if this had passed, Roe V. Wade would receive a bloody nose and human beings in mother’s wombs would continue to live. This would send a powerful message to other states. But notice also what Ron Paul said: Though the states would have the right to abolish Roe, at the Federal Level, he would have no problem if the Federal Government continued trying to amend the Constitution. Paul is not saying that He wants Congress to give up on the idea of amending the Constitution on a Federal Level; it is simply at a state level you can see faster results. So, it is not as Bob Enyart has accused Paul. Enyart accuses Paul constantly of not believing that human rights trump state rights. What Enyart wants is that the Federal Government abolish Roe V. Wade once and for all…but that has not been done since 1973. The Constitution, that procedural document, which Enyart gives little attention, gives us this option. When government fails its duty, then they lose the authority to make these decisions and the states should take on that responsibility. If you are waiting for Rudy Giuliani to get in office to choose honorable judges for the Supreme Court, you are being dishonorably dishonest.

When the Federal Government is acting unconstitutionally, the states then may legitimately under Congressional majority approval delegate those responsibilities to the states. It is much more reasonable to assume the states would reverse Roe than at the Federal Level. Our current president has broken every promise he has ever made to conservatives, what makes you think that the Federal Government is going to do something that it has failed to do under the administration of three or more Republican presidents since 1973? If you want to see infant death abolished systematically and on much quicker pace, then allow the states to make these decisions. After all, the decentralization of Government is a Biblical mandate. And continue to fight to amend the Constitution on a federal level, but let’s not wait because 4,000 children die in the womb every day. If there is an alternative to end this massacre, let us not wait.

In this final segment, let me tell you about two fabulous websites dedicated to Ron Paul’s message. The first one is: ronpaulgraphs.com. If you enjoy all sorts of graphs, maps, and every statistical detail about the Paul campaign, then this is the website you need to visit on a regular basis. As of now, Ron Paul has raised over 2.2 million dollars and there are still 66 days left in this fourth quarter. This will be a striking blow to Fox News and to the remaining doubters of the Paul campaign.

Another great website is: ronpaulradio.com. You can listen to hundreds of Ron Paul’s speeches and debate sound bites all day long. The website is very well organized and includes a plethora of great links and immensely helpful resources.

Finally, I woke up this morning to find this very positive New York Times article entitled: Flush With New Millions, Underdog Vies to Compete.[1] The article praises Ron Paul’s ability to raise money and talks about Ron Paul’s new ads in New Hampshire, where according to a new poll Ron Paul has reached 7 percent without running one ad. Imagine what will happen when the ads begin to circulate the state. I have no doubt that these numbers will increase. For this second Ron Paul podcast, this is Uri Brito. We will see you next time.

[1] Link to New York Time’ article.

Ok…so this one went about 10 minutes long… I will try to keep them between 5-7 minutes in my next one. I would love to hear your thoughts since this is my very first podcast. Leave me your comments or e-mail me at: apologus@hotmail.com

Show #1 – Topic: Response to Gary Demar and Bob Enyart

In this first program I spent some time answering to two opponents of the Ron Paul campaign. These are men I deeply respect, but disagree on this point.

Listen to Podcast. 

All the notes can be found in this word file: ron-paul-podcast-_2.doc

Here is the introduction of what I plan on doing in future podcasts…

This is a strong showing in Texas. The bloggers at TownHall are having a blast mocking Ron Paul supporters. What can we expect from neo-cons? Do they realize that a third among ten candidates and a third among a very strict polling is a superb mark? Though others recognize his rock-star status. 

Duncan Hunter won the straw poll, which on the negative side means he will not drop off the race yet. However, to his credit he did what candidates should do: show up and shake hands.

Fred Thompson, who will soon announce his candidacy early next week came in second, which reveals that his campaign is already in trouble before he starts the race.

What is unique about Paul’s message is that his support ranges beyond your typical right-wing voter. Paul brings people together under one slogan: freedom. However, we may understand freedom, from a Christian perspective freedom can only be had under Christ’s rule. It is true that under Ron Paul we may flee government control, but at the point we despise God’s control over our lives, we lose true freedom. Then what does it profit a man to gain worldly freedom and lose true freedom?

John Lofton is host of the American View. He calls himself a recovering Republican. I have met him several times, spoken to him on the phone, and corresponded via e-mail…the man is a bull-dog. When he sat at my lunch table at a conference a year ago, he barely talked and when he did, he had some harsh words to say about some of the speakers. It’s just how John is! The man worked for Goldwater and for various Republican candidates since then, and after being abused by the Republican party–perhaps betrayed–is a better word, John left the party and is recovering from years of substance abuse or promises abused.

Well, John the pit-dog or bull-dogg Lofton interviewed the great and honorable Dr. Ron Paul…as as always he didn’t back down. I am not sure Ron was expecting John’s style of interview…but again it’s just the way John is! John encouraged Ron Paul to preach to his fellow congress-men and to uphold God’s law and fight for righteousness and continue to defend the Constitution. Paul made some troubling statements in my opinion, particularly when he said he was not sure if homosexuality is a sin according to the Scriptures. I am not sure if too many years in Washington has eased his religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the interview was superb. Believe it or not, Ron has found his Constitutional match…John Lofton the Bull-dog. Here is the interview…

P.S. If you have never heard the American View, you are missing one of the most American, Constitutional, and Biblical programs on the internet.

In a surprising (only for the media) new updated polling from Fox News, (this poll is based only on registered voters, so there is no possibility of scam) Congressman Ron Paul is up to 3% tied with Mike Huckabee. He is in 6th place assuming Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson enter the race. As for Sam Brownback, his poor performance at the Ames Straw poll ( in light of the enormous amount of effort and money he spent) continues to have negative results. He is tied with Tom Tancredo with 1%. Sam, I think it’s time.

The title says it all. Michael Medved, blogger at Townhall.com, argues that Paul is a one-issue candidate. What is that one issue? Isolationalist foreign policy. Of course, the very first thing to point out to Medved is that Paul never uses that word about himself. I have heard him often say that there is nothing isolationist about trading with countries and befriending other countries. On the other hand, neo-cons want to bomb other countries and isolate themselves from other nations by supporting their enemies and then years later by supporting the enemy of the enemy. If you follow thus far, Medved and his group of neo-cons are the true isolationists.

Though in complete disagreement with Medved’s assessment about Paul, let me point out one helpful analysis he makes concerning other candidates in his most recent article. Medved believes that for Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter to continue their respective campaigns is insanity. He argues that their efforts at the Iowa straw poll bore no fruit despite their honorable reputations. So Medved calls Sam and Duncan to say good-bye. He writes:

…that leaves a much more focused campaign where the GOP candidates no longer resemble the seven dwarves (you can draw your own conclusions as to the identities of Grumpy, Sleepy and Dopey). With Brownback and Hunter gone (soon, please!) that leaves the two single-issue candidates (Paul and Tancredo) and five serious contenders: Giuliani, Fred Thompson, McCain, Romney – and Huckabee.

Medved then urges that the Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo campaigns continue since they are one-issue candidates. And of course, Medved has his own selfish reasons to see Paul and Tancredo continue in the race:

Their continued campaigning can actually provide a public service: demonstrating that their angry, alienated (and alienating) fringe perspectives draw scant support within the Republican Party.

We can always expect pure motives from the folks at Townhall. But what Medved forgot was that the comment section was open for readers like you. Further, when you write such a dishonest piece, you can expect corrections. Hence, here are some corrections offered humbly to our kind blogger Michael Medved from a few fanatic and fringe Ron Paul supporters. First there is this excellent analogy with European nations:

Should it be considered isolationist to promote free trade yet remove ourselves from the foreign entanglements of the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?
Do people consider the Norwegians, Swedes, or the Dutch to be isolationist because they don’t have a military presence in 192 of 212 other nations and merely rely upon free trade?
Michael, there is no speculating who’s desktop you take your marching orders from, too bad your loyalties weren’t closer to home as you are a decent writer.

Then, there is this list of 12 items that have been defended and proclaimed by Ron Paul in these last 3 months:

Why don’t you actually research a candidate’s position before you write about it? Or at least use a dictionary before using words that are too big for you like “isolationist”…

First, there is a BIG difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, NOT an isolationist. In Webster’s dictionary, isolationism is “a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries”. Ron Paul is NOT against trade between countries and he is NOT against peaceful negotiations with other countries. He’s also not afraid to go to war … as long as the Congress declares it AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION! He just doesn’t believe that we should police the world, overthrow governments in third world countries, and give OUR TAXPAYER money to every country looking for a handout. Simply put, he believes in putting the interests of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST and the interests of other nations second. It’s about time someone in our government started representing the people!

Second, how exactly did you decide that Ron Paul was a one-issue candidate. Let’s see, aside from bringing our troops home he stands for…

1. Reducing the scope of the federal government
2. Drastically cutting government spending
3. Eliminating the income tax
4. Reduce the national deficit and debt
5. Eliminating wasteful government agencies like the IRS, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, FEMA
6. Using our troops to actually defend and secure our borders
7. Stamping out illegal immigration and amnesty
8. Allow young people to opt out of Social Security
9. Repeal the Patriot Act and give Americans back their rights to privacy
10. Keeping the internet unregulated
11. Stamp out NAU, NAFTA, WTO
12. Fight to reverse Rowe v. Wade

Shall I go on???

Maybe Ron Paul should be a 12-issue candidate?

Sean Hannity once again continued what appears to be a purposeful attempt to avoid the naming of Ron Paul. Hannity took a large portion of his first hour to discuss the Ames Straw Poll. He praised Romney by asserting that we should honor the successful men of our country. He proceeded to name the Republicans starting with winner Mitt Romney; he then mentioned second place Mike Huckabee, third place Sam Brownback, fourth place Tom Tancredo, and before mentioning the fifth, (Ron Paul) he skipped to mention that Tommy Thompson (sixth place) dropped out of the race. I may be overly skeptical here, but there is reason to believe that Hannity has continually avoided the mention of Ron Paul on his radio program since the day second Republican debate, where he and Paul had a heated discussion in the post-debate interview. Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal observed Ron Paul’s campaign success:

Fourth place and fifth place went, respectively, to Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Ron Paul of Texas – impressive showings for two men with narrowly defined candidacies.

Mr. Paul, meanwhile, has built a fanatical following that has embraced his libertarian message and antiwar, anti-interventionist views; supporters came at their own expense from as far as Washington state to help out, though only Iowans could vote.

A fifth place on the Iowa straw poll is indeed incredible. I must confess, however, as an eternal optimist, that a third place would have been even better. Nevertheless, when you spend so little in a straw poll and when your opponents invest everything but their very lives, I think you can see why the excitement of Ron Paul supporters continue to grow. Perhaps Andrew Main summarizes it best:

I think Ron Paul’s placement in this poll was just about perfect: strong enough to solidly refute the ‘pundits’ — intellectual followers (not to mention shills) who like to pretend they are leaders — and provide just enough encouragement to the troops to keep everyone working hard, while still making clear just how far there is still to go. It is, after all, still a year (?) till the nominating convention, 15 months (!) to the actual election. (I shudder to think how much damage Dubya & friends can still do — but even that might not be bad for the rEVOLution.) Too much early success is not healthy, as many past ’sure thing’ candidates can attest.

A fifth position solidifies that the Paul campaign is no longer an internet scam on TV polls. This is a crucial victory early on in the campaign. The truth is that if this campaign will thrive in the next few months, Ron Paul supporters will have to multiply. This is already happening in meet-up groups across the country and even on a financial level. Recently, Ron Paul stated that his campaign had raised over $75,000 in 24 hours. As the media has become very much aware, Ron Paul’s campaign used the least amount of money in the poll and bore the greatest fruit. Whereas the Romney campaign used the greatest amount of money and bore the least fruit. So far it has been noted that he paid over $500 for each vote, whereas the second place Huckabee, spent under $100. Ron Paul’s numbers should be out soon, but we may just assume that he spent under $60 for each vote.  The straw poll in Ames, Iowa is truly not to be taken as the definitive poll on anything this early on the election, rather it serves to point out the ability a candidate has to organize his volunteers and indeed Ron Paul supporters and volunteers once again shattered any misconception that we are merely internet-based.

Another positive element of this straw poll is that it eliminates competition. Out of the 11 candidates, some were counting significantly on their standing in this poll. Tommy Thompson who traveled over 99 counties in Iowa seeking to make a powerful impression, ended behind Ron Paul in sixth place and was left with no other alternative but to step down.  With Thompson out of the race, Paul will have more time to make his positions clear in debates. It truly is a process of elimination. Duncan Hunter is also expected to drop out of the race in the days ahead. Truly, the absurdity of it all is that Ron Paul is the only candidate to reflect the Old Right promoting a foreign policy of non-intervention and a return to Constitutional principles, whereas all other candidates are in general agreement with each other. Hence, the fight becomes one of name recognition and experience. Ron Paul’s future is bright and the cause of freedom and peace is the cause of the future. Let the base die and the Revolution continue.

I will end my blogging for today. Continue to follow at lewrockwell.com. 

11:42AM – The Paul Revolution in Paris!

11:40AM – The Iowa Straw Poll began at 10AM and it will end at 6PM.

11:38AM – Spectacular Ames Tribute Ad for Dr. Ron Paul.

11:27AM – The RonStock concert was last night in Iowa. Check out Dr. Paul’s speech on youtube.

11:25AM – Jennifer shares her first impressions at RedStateEclectic.

11:19AM – I will be headed to my first Ron Paul meet-up at 1PM. We will be discussing strategies and meeting other supporters of the Constitution.

11:17AM -According to the Daily Paul, Ron Paul raised $75,000 in 24 hours. See video.

11:13AM – Carol Paul, the wife of Ron Paul has been hospitalized, but is stable according to a news source.

11:10AM – Here are the first impressions from Real Clear Politics:

The Paul folks are leading the sign wars on the way to campus. Once here, their volunteers easily outnumber volunteers for every other campaign (though it’s only 9am). Chants of “Ron Paul” are audible from hundreds of yards away.

11:00AM – On the morning of the Ames Straw Poll, CNN reports on who is winning the sign wars.

Watch live video from Iowa.

Tom Tancredo stood by his remarks on Sunday’s debate. The week before, while speaking to a group of Iowas he said:

If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.

In response, Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”

I confess Tancredo’s positions on Immigration and government limitation is appealing to paleo-conservatives like myself. Nevertheless, the audacity of Tancredo¹ is absurd. Tancredo could well be a reasonable choice in the Republican ticket if his positions were not so radical. It appears that his low numbers both on the internet and nationally has led him and his staff to think of creative ways to call the attention of the country. In debates, he has been known to taking every opportunity to go a step further than his opponents. Instead of the typical neo-con calculated candidates, Tancredo utters the obscene. Indeed, second-tier candidates (and Tancredo is truly a second-tier) are free to utter their thoughts however absurd they may seem and– trust me–they are absurd.

It was just a few days ago that I posted a link to the unfair treatment Sean Hannity and others at Fox used against Ron Paul. This interview after yesterday’s debate may redeem the neo-con network.

Note: Be aware of the eloquence of Ron Paul even amidst some serious accusations of conspiracy theory and his involvement with Alex Jones. Perhaps Fox will listen a bit more attentively to Dr. No.

Link: http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/ron-paul-on-fox-news/

From his introduction to Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years:

• America is no longer a bastion of freedom, prevailing ideology, grounded in economic ignorance and careless disregard for individual liberty, is nurtured by a multitude of self-serving, power-seeking politicians spouting platitudes of compassion for the poor who are created by their own philosophy. Reelection is paramount in the minds of most of those who represent us, while freedom and constitutional restraint of power are considered old-fashioned and unwise.
• Samuel Adams, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, accurately warned: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
• Both liberals and conservatives give lip service to limited government ideas, but only to serve some special view of government  that they might endorse, rather than to promote consistently the principles of freedom.
• The latter part of the twentieth century has permitted the acceptance of the
  idea that “society” owes everyone a living.
• Political leaders today are more interested in opinion polls than they are in the
  Constitution and freedom principles.
• Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson revolutionized foreign policy,
  dramatically changing our traditional belief in neutrality to one of perpetual meddling in the affairs of every nation throughout the world.
• Living for immediate material benefits has replaced concern for long-term
  freedom principles necessary to guarantee peace and prosperity for the next
  generation.

Ron Paul has had a good week according to Heading Right:

I would be remiss if I did not point out that Ron Paul has had a good week. Rasmussen isn’t tracking the second-tier candidates, but Gallup shows Paul with 3% support — probably his best showing in the entire primary season. He overtook Mike Huckabee this week by a single percentage point, which does not bode well for the Governor of Arkansas.

This is proof that the internet is starting to take effect. It is becoming more tangible.  Ron Paul opponents said three months ago when his polling was at 0-1% that Ron Paul’s campaign is only an expression of bored internet users. Now they can no longer avoid him. With McCain’s campaign declining at a fast pace and a possible abandonment of the campaign in the next 4 months, (this is my speculation) McCain supporters will spread even more among the remaining candidates. Ron Paul is now in sixth place, assuming of course that Thompson and Gingrich announce that they will run.

Anyone familiar with my official site for the last few years know that I have been a strong opponent of the Iraq War. Since I am unable to do all the research necessary, I have depended on some phenomenal bloggers and intellectual giants such as William f. Buckley Jr. Along the way, my thinking has been shaped more and more around Libertarian thinking, as expressed by the honorable Ron Paul and the great scholar R.J. Rushdoony.

Establishing arguments contra war has not always been as easy as it is today. Nowadays, the most fervent war-supporting Republicans have begun to express serious doubts about the president’s war policy. After all, when the ship has been sinking for so long,¹ even the crew will jump, though their captain may wish to die honorably. Of course, there are still those who will die on their loyalty graveyard. They will fight to the end though they may feel their fight is more about status than morality. They will fight to the end at the expense of other children’s blood, not their own.

These die-harders still claim that we need to stay until “victory” is accomplished; “victory” of course, is never defined. This is why I am glad Dan Phillips continues to write stimulating blogs that forces neo-cons to truly define their terms. Dan Phillips argues that supporters of the war will constantly use phrases like “we cannot leave until we achieve ‘victory;’ or “we cannot cut-and-run because that will mean that we have surrendered to our enemies.”I must confess that though I have believed for very long that the concept of “victory” in the lips of neo-cons is always destined to failure, I have not challenged what exactly they meant by the idea and how irrational it really is. Dan Phillips emerges to challenge and reveal the absurdity of it all when he poses these questions:

Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of “Shari’a-observant Islam” or more crudely put, wiping out “Islamo-fascism.” Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer. Instead they resort to talking points and boiler-plate accompanied by foot-stomping and eye-rolling.

The level of political discussion began with talks about WMD’s and now they have turned to “we must not leave, though we admit the war was a mistake.” What keeps us in Iraq is the stubbornness and unconstitutionality of a president who still has not given a definition of “victory” without changing his mind a month later.

Imperialism never admits failures; they persist because as Ron Paul has mentioned time and time again: “War is the health of the state.” If the imperial endeavor ceases, the state then ceases to control your money and your lives. If the state continues to wage war, then your life is back in their hands. So, what is victory anyway but the unstable and rhetorically mindless meandering of tyrants.

Paul pulls even with McCain financially

Sen. John McCain, Ariz., considers himself to be in competition with GOP candidates riding high in the polls, including Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. But at the end of June, McCain’s remaining cash, about $2 million, was about the same as that of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in polls but has picked up lots of fans online.

Paul, a campaign spokesman said, has $2.4 million on hand. He raised more than $2 million in the second quarter and has spent $520,000. McCain spent more than $20 million in the first six months of the year. Of course, Paul also lacks the campaign infrastructure around the country that McCain has built and is now seeking to streamline.

Ron Paul Political Machine

Community Flocks to Ron Paul

Paul vs. McCain 

Ron Paul has raised 2.4 million dollars. With this raise he becomes the third highest fund raiser in the Republican Party; this places John McCain in fourth place with under 2.4 million. Paul is so concerned with his message that he was not even aware that he had passed John McCain. Even Drudgereport noticed it.My prediction is that McCain will drop off the race soon, which will put Paul even more on the spotlight.  With the entrance of Fred Thompson, the votes will become even more split causing Ron Paul to be a real challenge to the front-runners. As the war continues to be a miserable disaster, Paul’s message of non-intervention will become fairly attractive to the undecided voters. Perhaps not enough to win the nomination, but enough to put Republican warmonger and morally bankrupt Giuliani on guard.

Here’s a short clip from the interview that will be aired on Sunday on “This Week.”

His message was the same then and it is the same now. See this incredible video. The issue that divides the 10 candidates (soon to be 11) has always been the same: One of principle, integrity and consistency.

In the time of political cliches, you are always searching around form some decent blog to express ideas that resonate with a Ron Paulian philosophy of liberty and peace. Here is one that does that: Copious Dissent

Check out the comment section here at CNN.com

Then, vote here. Ron Paul wins again.

Though Paul was snubbed, he won again according to Rockwell. 

So far in this evening’s post-analysis there has not been one mention of Ron Paul except when Anderson Cooper instead of saying Raw Politics said Ron Paul. What’s Cooper been thinking about lately?

Here are two things Ron Paul needs to do tonight:

a) What Ron Paul needs to do tonight is to stress once again that he will bring the troops home immediately and then appeal to the families and say something like: “Father and Mothers, brothers and sisters-I promise you I will bring you sons and daughters home immediately as your president!”

b) Secondly, Paul needs to capitalize in his Giuliani reading list. He should say something like: Mr. Giuliani needs to read what I have given him; how can a man desire to be a president of the United States if he does not seek to understand foreign policy. I, on the other hand, understand foreign policy and understand Middle Eastern politics and that is why I should lead this country.

The old argument used against those like Ron Paul who believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be better off without American interfering in Middle Eastern foreign affairs has plenty of validity according to a new survey out by Zogby.

The idea according to the Neo-Cons is that if we leave Iraq or if we don’t attack Iran, the Middle East will enter a civil-war (hint: It has become a civil war due to American foreign policy). American foreign policy under Bush has enraged the Middle East and underscore what Ron Paul has said so many times: “Let the Middle East deal with their problems.”

The Arab American Institute (AAI) and Americans for Peace Now (APN) on Monday, June 4, will release the results of a new joint survey of Arab Americans and Jewish Americans showing a high level of support, among both communities, for a negotiated two-state peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The poll, conducted by Zogby International, also shows a low level of approval of President Bush’s handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as an intention, by voters in both communities, to support political candidates who commit to actively advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process. The poll reveals solid support for a more robust use of American diplomacy in the region, including in Washington’s policy toward Iran.

Ron Paul answers on foreign policy, Islamist radicals and much more: Click here

I have just heard Ron Paul’s interview with Dennis Miller (the libertarian who defends the war). Dennis was gracious and allowed Ron to share his positions articulately. For that I am thankful. One of my curiosities regards the issue of the Constitution. No one ever challenges the unconstitutionality of a congress giving that right over to a president. If it is wrong, you do not perpetuate a wrong, you make it right-and you do so by bringing the troops home. Incidentally, I heard Governor Bill Richardson on Meet the Press argue taht we should take that authority away from the president and give it back to where it belongs – Congress.  (Of course, Richardson has changed his mind so many times that no one takes him seriously and no one should) This is Paul’s message. Dennis Miller told Ron Paul that he believes American troops will be in the Middle East for another 50-70 years battling Radical Islam. It appears Miller wants to spread the war all over the Middle East. What is he expecting? That 50 years from now they will suddenly all stop and say: “Hey, we love American foreign policy. Let us stop this war and love one another. ” How absurd of Mr. Miller!

The best option is to do what Ron Paul has talked about for over 4 years and that is to bring the troops home and honor them for their sacrifice.

I have to mention this excellent article in the National Review On-line about Ron Paul.

Then, if you have another 10 minutes, see this excellent video by John Stossel several years ago defending the only man in Congress who stands up to Constitutional Principles.

Video Link 

I saw the clip with Paul at Bill Maher and look forward hearing the entire program when it is uploaded into the podcast. After the interview Maher said he had never heard so much applause for a republican in his show before. Maher was gracious and allowed Ron Paul to share his position. Even Ben Affleck seemed to look with admiration at Ron Paul. Paul was bold enough to tell the audience that Rudy (or “Rude” as Rockwell prefers) is probably reading the assignment he gave him on foreign policy. Keep it up Paul!

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George.  I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.  The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest — for himself, his family, and the future of his country — to resist government abuse of power.  He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. — Ron Paul

Read on… 

I confess: I subscribe to Bill Maher’s podcast on HBO. I realize, Maher is an atheist and despises Christian morality, but Maher makes sense once in a while. According to Maher, Ron Paul is his new hero and as a result he is bringing Ron Paul to California to be a part of the panel of three on his show. Believe it or not, Ben Affleck will be seated next to the future president of the United States, Ron Paul (hope never dies).

The very first thing you see when you subscribe to Maher’s podcast is the word: EXPLICIT. Maher’s language is a bit strong and the sexual innuendos abound throughout the show, but I bear it, not because I like it, but because when you dig around the filth you find some nuggets of truth. Those nuggets that you do not hear in FOX or CNN. Nuggets like, “we have to leave Iraq immediately” or “Ron Paul makes more sense than the Democrats and Republicans combined”, or “The Drug war has failed, let’s re-think this strategy.” Frankly, I am not so sure how Paul will do tomorrow night. Here you have these trained comedians with their one liners and then there is Ron Paul who enjoys beginning conversations with: ” The Constitution of the United States says…” Hey Bill, let the man talk…then you will see how much sense he really makes.

By Ron Paul 

Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.

More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq.

According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States.

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq.

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

Video: People say to Ron Paul: “We gotta go over there and fight them there because we do not want them here. Paul says there is a great fallacy to that logic, mainly because they came over here because we were over there…there is one reason why the enemy, and they are our enemies, want to kill us and that is “occupation…” We tell people you either do it our way or we will bomb you; when they do it our way we subsidize them; how about avoiding both: neither bomb nor subsidize, but trade with them…one of our problems has been that we have had presidents that want to do too much…but the answer is that we should have a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that the president shouldn’t have.” –Ron Paul

New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Feb. 2007

Arianna Huffington affirms that Giuliani “deliberately misinterpreted” Ron Paul on the debate.

Paul is unbelievable here… his position is provable and accurate. Ron Paul 1 x Giuliani 0.

“I will be delighted to debate him (Giuliani) on foreign policy…” –Ron Paul

(quoted in the presence of the despicable Sean Hannity) 

Ron Paul clearly won MSNBC’s poll again. Will the media notice it this time?  Anthony Gregory writes:

Not only did he stand up against the New York fascist and not back down, only elaborating on the point beautifully, he did the best any candidate could possibly do in a debate in service of liberty: He spoke to the people telling them we need to change our ideas about the world. We need to think about actions and consequences. We need to look at what our government does to other people, thinking of what we might think if foreign governments treated Americans like that. We need to look at history a bit. It was a philosophical earthquake, and one that no doubt made a lot of people think. It was amazing.

And Lew Rockwell adds:

The maddening FOX debate is still going on, but Ron Paul has already won far more than that by calmly and eloquently speaking truth to power. His call for getting rid of the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security was magnificent, when the others couldn’t name one federal typewriter they would sell-off.

But Ron’s persuasive (if not to the fascist Giuliani and the brownshirts in the audience) discussion of the immorality of US intervention in the Middle East, and the hatred and blowback it has caused, was one of the great moments in the history of modern American politics.

Let me add at least two comments of my own:

a) Ron Paul is never questioned on flip-flopping. His positions are so consistent that every time the moderator asks a question it speaks about why Ron Paul is running in the Republican ticket? The implication is: “Look, all these guys want to stay in Iraq; most have changed their position on abortion, education, and everything else under the sun; so why on earth would you run in a party when you are so committed to the Constitution and human liberty? At least, that’s how I see it.

b) I want to thank Rudy Giuliani for responding to Ron Paul. Because of your stern answer and your earnest (I know you are earnest) desire to continue to see our war efforts succeed in Iraq, and in the rest of the Middle East, and soon the rest of the world, you have made Ron Paul the leader in almost every poll in the internet and on the media. Further, you have established that Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly believes that American troops belong in America, not throughout the world, and that an aggressive foreign policy is a deadly foreign policy. I thank you Rudy.

Lew Rockwell links to the absurd media deletion of Ron Paul. Pajamas Media has taken out Ron Paul’s name on the basis of his percentile in the Gallup Poll. Never mind the superb placement of Ron Paul on major internet sites including MSNBC and others. However, the warmongers do not want to support war haters. This is their reason behind this despicable move:

Therefore, this week three Republicans who achieved one percent in the new Gallup Poll – Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee and Chuck Hagel – have been duly added. Mike Gravel (Democrat, week 16’s runner-up) and Ron Paul (Republican, week 16’s winner) have been removed from the poll because they did not reach one percent on Gallup. If and when those latter candidates again reach one percent, we will reinstate them the following week. Their supporters may be disappointed for now, but it is worth pointing out – and Pajamas Media takes no pleasure in doing this – that their successes on the Pajamas Media Poll evidently did them little good on national polls. We encourage Gravel’s and Paul’s supporters to work hard to make an impact on the next Gallup Poll, so we can put their candidates back on the list. The same goes for supporters of other candidates who have not yet appeared on our poll.

Here is the absurdity of it all: The Gallup Poll does not seem to think it is actually that important this far from the election. Gallup’s website reads:

Poll results at this phase — nine months before the first primaries and caucuses — do not necessarily bear a strong relationship to the reality that unfolds in the election year itself.

If it doesn’t bear a strong relationship, then why on earth is Pajamas Media deleting Ron Paul and Mike Grave’s name? One reason: The war must go on. 

At support Ron Paul for president, they are serious about this grassroots campaign. Check it out.

One of my favorite articles written so far on Congressman Ron Paul is by Chuck Muth from CNS NEWS.com.

But Ron Paul’s candidacy deserves far greater attention and consideration by national Republicans who have clearly lost their way. GOP leaders in Washington who are still shell-shocked over the shellacking they took last November should stop scratching their heads and asking “What happened?” and start listening to Ron Paul. His campaign is all about the reasons so many limited-government conservatives stayed home or voted for a non-GOP option last fall.

Here is the rest of his excellent article.

I realize charisma is something necessary today in our world of entertainment, but charisma is not something we need in the Executive office. John Stossel and Gary Demar, both whom I highly respect and admire, said that they support Ron Paul’s platform, but in the end he is just not charismatic enough. Who needs charismatic leaders in the office? Are we so blinded by Hollywood that we believe that the man who will run the highest office in the country needs to awe the nation with his rhetorical abilities? Last I checked, Hitler was a not a good figure in world history. We need a serious man who is committed to a limited government; a man who will put an end to charismatic charlatans in Washington-this man is Ron Paul.