Click on image to view "Rudy's Reading Assignment" news conference

Laying it on the line - The stark campaign of Ron Paul

Sean Scallon

May 30, 2007

A few weeks ago Ron Paul made his best, in my opinion, appearance on a television news show since beginning his campaign for president. Speaking to John King on CNN’s Late Edition Rep. Paul laid it on the line what his campaign about when he (paraphrasing) that he “wanted the Republican Party to face up to its failure in Iraq.”

No wonder some GOP leaders want to keep Paul out of future GOP presidential debates. The only time a lot of people face up to their failures is in rehab and you can’t shove a whole political party into the Betty Ford Clinic, can you? It’s like the line from a U2 song…

“….You’re dangerous, because you’re honest.”

Read the full article here.

In loving memory of those who gave so much

On this memorial day, we should all take a moment to honor those who have died fighting for liberty, mourn those who have died for the folly of arrogance, and begin a conversation about how to best assure that future generations enjoy the blessings of that hard won liberty while avoiding the costs of folly.

Let's ask ourselves if our freedom and our security are enhanced or diminished by our continuing presence in 130 countries around the world or if it's time to bring our troops home from Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, United Kingdom, Vatican City, Australia, Burma, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Diego Garcia, Egypt, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, St. Helena, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Antigua, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba (Guantanamo), Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, and afloat (As of Sept. 30, 2006, Department of Defense)

Total US Deployments in Foreign Countries: 130
Total Foreign Deployments in the US: 0

Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

From: Global Research Center

The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”, the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

Read complete story here.

Freedom's Retreat

If the one party elections last year where the beginning of the end for Venezuelan democracy, then last night's forced takeover of RCTV by government soldiers may be a sign of the end game. Hugo Chavez has long decried RCTV for its critical view of his government and his efforts to make himself a Castro-style socialist dictator. It appears that the station has now paid the price for opposing his tyranny.

As our petro-dollars continue to fuel Chavez's rise to absolute power, American's should ask ourselves how our own choices effect people around the world. Most of the presidential contenders seem to think that all policy and economic choice happens in a vacuum and fail to realize how the smallest domestic issue in the US can ripple across the globe and affect the lives of millions of people.

The biggest movie of the summer has been Spiderman 3 with its signature line, "With great power comes great responsibility." Perhaps it is time for our policy-makers, voters and consumers to consider that wisdom as well.

Read more about the RCTV take-over here.

Dr. Paul on Real Time with Bill Maher

Watch Ron Paul on the Bill Maher Show

How Will They Destroy Ron Paul?

Mike Whitney, ICH

"Whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism". Rep. Ron Paul "On Patriotism" May 24, 2007 How will the media destroy Ron Paul? We all know the drill by now. Whenever a politician with character and principles throws his hat in the ring the media descends on him like feral hounds on a pork chop. It’ll be no different with Paul. The only difference is that we should all be aware of what’s really going on. Did you see the Republican debates? Paul won hands-down. He stood out in a crowd of colorless toadies and became an overnight sensation on the internet. In fact, an ABC survey showed that Paul won the first debate with an 85% majority; while C-SPAN showed him at 70%. Maybe the stats are just a fluke of internet voting, but it’s sure made the boys in the boardrooms nervous. You see, it doesn’t matter if Paul wins or not. What matters is that he is delivering a message that is damaging to America’s biggest powerbrokers---and they don’t like it. They would rather he just shut up and go away. They’ve heard enough about the Military Commissions Act, and martial law, and the fraudulent war on terror. They’ve put a lot of energy into the new American police state and they aren’t about to let some "no account" libertarian destroy all their hard work. Right now, the right wing think tanks are probably buzzing like a hornets nest. They have their work cut out for them. The sleeves are rolled up, the ash trays are full, and America’s best propagandists are working out the details for a full-blown assault on Ron Paul. They want to take him down now, before he can cause any more trouble. My guess is that they will use a similar strategy to what they used on John Kerry, that is---keep it simple---attack on 3 fronts and repeat the charges from every soapbox in America. In Kerry’s case, the mantra was as follows: 1. Kerry "flip-flops" 2 He’s a Massachusetts liberal. 3 He faked his war injuries to look like a hero. The effectiveness of this strategy depends on how often the charges are repeated and from how many outlets. The media will have to devise a saturation-campaign similar to the full-blown attack on Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic primary. The infamous "Dean Scream" appeared over 900 times in the major media in the first 72 hours. Technicians isolated Dean’s holler from the background noise of a crowded convention hall, which made him look like he was emotionally unstable. It worked like a charm. Dean’s star sunk overnight and the country was "spared" the prospect of an antiwar candidate. Isn’t that what media is for---to obliterate the enemies of the corporate chieftains who enrich themselves through foreign wars? My guess is that, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we’ll see a big push by to derail the Paul campaign. Already Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and FOX News have taken a few swipes at him, but they proved they are not up to the task. Its time to wheel out the heavy artillery and pound Paul into rubble. But what is Paul saying that makes him such a threat to the corporate powerbrokers? Is it just because he stands out in a crowd of plaster-hair phonies--or is it because his campaign is focused on the traditional American values of liberty and non-intervention rather than demagoguery and torture? This is how Paul summarized 9-11 and our misguided war in Iraq: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? Would we be objecting? Or this: "I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there." The rest of the Republican candidates support the "official narrative" that Iraq is just a battleground in a larger war against Islamic fanaticism---the prevailing myth which is fueled by the media and assures decades of conflict. Clearly, the bankers, neocons and weapons manufacturers are not sympathetic to Paul’s analysis nor do they want to pollute the public air-waves with his common sense alternatives. Here’s what Paul has to say about the maneuverings of the Federal Reserve, the secretive cabal that controls our money: "Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government. Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare." Do you really think that the board-members of the privately-owned Central Bank want the American people to know about the extortionist racket they’ve been running for the last 90 years in contravention of the US Constitution? And, what do you think they’ll do to stop further embarrassing exposure? Paul’s demand that we abolish the Federal Reserve is no different than his ideological ancestor Thomas Jefferson, who said: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing of power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Isn’t that what is happening right now? Doesn’t the Fed inflate one massive equity bubble after the other so that working class people are lured in by low-interest rates and then lose their shirts when the bubble collapses? This is how the banking elites shift wealth from one class to another. It’s an old scam, but it never fails. Paul is right. Free people cannot control their own destiny unless they control their own currency. The Federal Reserve must be abolished. And, as Paul says, "The sooner the better". He’s also right about deficits when he says: The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars". The men who own the media don’t want this type of populism on the air-waves. After all, they love deficits. The trade deficits provide cheap capital for the stock market while the budget deficit borrows money from future generations for lavish tax cuts for Bush’s wealthy buddies. No wonder they hate Paul! Most of all, Paul is reviled for his defense of liberty and his rejection of Bush’s sweeping changes to the Constitution. He’s been an outspoken critic of the Military Commissions Act, which permits torture and arbitrary detention of American citizens or foreign nationals on the orders of the executive. He has also condemned warrantless wiretaps, presidential signings, extraordinary rendition, the Real ID Act, and the Orwellian-sounding "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act'' which allows Bush to declare martial law at his own discretion. Ron Paul is a friend of personal freedom which makes him the de facto enemy of the White House brown-shirts. He has watched as our country has continued to slide towards military dictatorship. He has put himself on the firing-line to defend our way of life. His candidacy is an act of patriotism which is why the Bush Throng will try to destroy him. In a recent speech on the floor of the House Paul said: "Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty". Thanks for that, Mr. Paul. And, good luck.

Ron Paul - Petition Against Media Bias

Click icon to sign the petition



From: Free Market News Network

A new petition has been launched at ThePetitionSite.com to demand, "Fair and equal treatment in the media of Dr Ron Paul's presidential election campaign." ThePetitionSite.com is "a free service provided to help concerned citizens rally support for issues they believe in."

A release from petition organizers reads as follows:

Dr. Ron Paul has done far better than anyone could have expected in the early going for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. After the first Republican debates sponsored by MSNBC on May 3rd in San Diego, Dr. Paul was the clear winner in all of the various poll questions conducted by MSNBC on their own website. Then, on May 15th, he was a very close second (some claim he finished 2nd and not 1st because of hijinx) in the debates in South Carolina.

In the first instance, Dr. Paul was "rewarded" by MSNBC by dropping from 9th to 12th (dead last) shortly thereafter in their rankings of the Republicans most likely to win the nomination. There was also not a single mention on their network that Dr. Paul had been the consensus and clearcut winner in all of their own polling data.

In the post-debate show conducted by Fox News after their debate on May 15th, the treatment of Dr. Paul was blatantly negative. One of the invited guests on the show actually said that "Dr. Paul is finished," moments before the results of the Fox News call-in polling flashed on the screen showing that Dr. Paul had won their debate. Sean Hannity was also blatantly rude to Dr. Paul after the debates.

These are merely examples. The mainstream media's treatment of Dr. Paul has been routinely negative and/or purposely inaccurate. Campaign supporters have begun a petition demanding fair and equal treatment in the MSM.

Ohhh Rudy

Click image to view video

The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the second GOP presidential primary debate has been striking. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."

Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them.

It's a well-established theory accepted among most foreign policy scholars that states, simply, that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering, and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs and Muslims could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.

This isn't to say we should never bomb or invade an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to invade the country and topple its government.

But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we seem to have done with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies, most notably Saudi Arabia .

Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.

But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. Conservative pundits declared Giuliani the clear winner, not just of the exchange, but of the entire debate (he finished third in Fox News text polling, behind Paul and Mitt Romney). The head of the Michigan GOP demanded he be excluded from future debates (note: he has since retracted).

Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). Former Paul staffer Eric Dondero declared his old boss an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.

This is all patently absurd. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise by attempting to define them as the lunatic fringe of political debate is not only ignorant, it's an embrace of ignorance—a refusal to even hear ideas that might challenge your own perspective.

If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests, taking wild smacks at them with sticks anywhere you can find them. You're bound to get stung again.

It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place, and you're sensibly trying to prevent it from happening again.

Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringy or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:

• The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

• Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Now contrast those forecasts—both made before the war—with predictions from the war's architects:

• Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

• Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

• White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

• OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

This war is now going on its fifth year. Some are predicting its total cost will exceed $1 trillion.

It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now piling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.

The people who were wrong were rewarded. And without any sense of shame, they go right on mocking the people who were right.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. A version of this article originally appeared at FoxNews.com.

Paul v Falwell

A friend made a good point about the attacks being made on Ron Paul for stating the obvious -- that 9/11 and the fuel for the jihadist movement has been 60 years of American aggression in the Middle East. The people that have been attacking Paul are the same people (read Fox News) that have been deifying Jerry Falwell who once claimed that 9/11 was the result of America's tolerance for lesbianism. I guess that if you watch "Ellen" the terrorists win.

ABC News Post Debate Poll Results (Jaw Dropping support for Ron Paul)

The 10 Republican candidates running for president jousted over the issues and with each other Tuesday night at the second debate of the primary season.

Who won Tuesday night's debate?

Ron Paul

22,139

It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands.

1,833

Mitt Romney

382

Rudy Guiliani

366

None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson.

348

John McCain

171

Tom Tancredo

87

Mike Huckabee

51

Tommy Thompson

36

Duncan Hunter

34

Sam Brownback

26

James Gilmore

Source URL: http://abcnews.go.com/politics/beseenbeheard/popup?id=3135373&POLL288=4000000

Paul wins first two Republican debates despite media blackout

South Carolina Republican debate Who stood out from the pack? * 15553 responses Sam Brownback 1.6% Jim Gilmore 0.7% Rudy Giuliani 16% Mike Huckabee 3.6% Duncan Hunter 1.3% John McCain 4.4% Ron Paul 51% Mitt Romney 16% Tom Tancredo 2.5% Tommy Thompson 2.2% Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 15388 responses Sam Brownback 1.5% Jim Gilmore 0.9% Rudy Giuliani 17% Mike Huckabee 2.9% Duncan Hunter 1.5% John McCain 6.6% Ron Paul 48% Mitt Romney 17% Tom Tancredo 2.1% Tommy Thompson 2.2% Who was the most convincing candidate? * 15271 responses Sam Brownback 1.6% Jim Gilmore 1% Rudy Giuliani 15% Mike Huckabee 3.7% Duncan Hunter 1.6% John McCain 5.7% Ron Paul 50% Mitt Romney 17% Tom Tancredo 2.4% Tommy Thompson 2.3% Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 14893 responses Sam Brownback 2.8% Jim Gilmore 2% Rudy Giuliani 31% Mike Huckabee 3% Duncan Hunter 1.3% John McCain 23% Ron Paul 6.9% Mitt Romney 22% Tom Tancredo 2.3% Tommy Thompson 4.8% Who avoided the questions? * 14669 responses Sam Brownback 3.7% Jim Gilmore 3.8% Rudy Giuliani 43% Mike Huckabee 2.7% Duncan Hunter 2% John McCain 16% Ron Paul 6.8% Mitt Romney 14% Tom Tancredo 2.6% Tommy Thompson 4.9% Who had the best one-liner? * 14697 responses Sam Brownback 2.6% Jim Gilmore 2% Rudy Giuliani 17% Mike Huckabee 15% Duncan Hunter 2% John McCain 7.5% Ron Paul 35% Mitt Romney 8.6% Tom Tancredo 6% Tommy Thompson 3.7% Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.