The year is not 1912 when three serious candidates ran in the general election for the White House. The year is 2012 when simply getting on the ballot is enough for third parties to cheer.
I’m not the partisan type and the weak "success" of simply getting Ron Paul on the ballot won’t be enough for me to even break a smile this autumn. I want to see Ron Paul in the White House. That will be success.
When I look my children in the eye and tell them the history of the revolution, the minor victory of ballot access for Ron Paul will not be mentioned. Ballot access is an important fight. It's a step in the right direction. But right now in the spring of 2012 with Rick Santorum leaving the race, we are confronted with a choice. Will we Ron Paul supporters continue to take over one of the two major parties, or will we settle for a third party run?
Jonathan Karl, ABC News TV commentator and reporter, first states that he has no position on whether we should have gone to war with Iraq! Later, it turns out that he has a position, but he will not share it with us. Why do he and other journalists first say they have no position? After 10 years of the USA having made this decision he still feels uncomfortable sharing his reasoning and analysis for this position. How can we learn lessons of history if the people that report, analyze and comment on political events will not share their opinions(at least with me)? Why are they happy to share their opinions in other venues? How can we know what is the right policy if we cannot examine the reasoning they use to support their public policy positions? Part three.
Chip Reid CBS news correspondent first says he has no opinions, but later admits that he does have opinions. Apparently, he has to pretend he does not have an opinion in order to be considered neutral. Does having an opinion prevent you from being objective and neutral? If as everyone agrees having an opinion does not prevent you from being objective, why is it so many journalists believe it is necessary to pretend they have no opinion and when first asked lie about the fact that they do have opinions? Who do they think they are deceiving any way? Don't they know that their opinions are implied in the selection of their questions?
TAMPA, April 7, 2012 – GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney continues to win primaries and Ron Paul still won’t go away.
Part of the reason is that the Paul campaign understands the primary process and knows a little history. Romney’s support is lukewarm, while Paul’s actual delegate total is dramatically understated.
As Robert Wenzel points out, Paul is a lot like Warren Harding. Harding went into the brokered 1920 convention with only 6% of the delegates, but emerged as the party’s nominee. Harding won the general election in a landslide and took a very non-interventionist approach to the Depression of 1921.
Free market economists cite Harding’s refusal to intervene in that crisis for the quick recovery that followed.
So, there is no reason not to take Ron Paul at his word when he says that he is still in the contest to win the nomination. Still, speculation persists that he has made a deal with Romney for an eventual endorsement.
In return, Paul would get a speaking slot at the convention, consideration for his son Rand, or concessions in the party platform.
Both Paul and Romney have repeatedly denied this. Paul acknowledges that he is open to talk to the other candidates and that Romney, a personal friend, is easier to talk to. However, anyone who believes Ron Paul will simply endorse the nominee in exchange for political favors doesn’t understand Ron Paul or his Revolution.
Recently President Obama made this remarkable statement, “Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” For someone reputed to be a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago this statement is hard to explain. Any high school student in a sophomore American History class knows there are many precedents for the Supreme Court making laws passed by Congress null and void. As a matter of fact, in the system of government tradition has delivered to us overturning laws as unconstitutional has been an important power of the Supreme Court for more than two hundred years.
And if the primary content of the President’s statement isn’t strange enough the supporting information is wrong. Obamacare wasn't passed by a strong majority in Congress. In reality the final vote in the House vote was 220 to 215. Every Republican and thirty four Democrats voted against the law. In the Senate the vote was sixty Democrats and Independents voting for and thirty nine Republicans voting against. The Democrats, even though they controlled both houses of Congress knew they would lose enough of their own members that it was going to be a close vote so they moved the bill outside the regular order of business and used a legislative maneuver known as reconciliation to avoid giving the Republicans the opportunity to filibuster the law.
What is the context of these current pressure tactics being used by the executive branch on the judicial branch?
The mainstream media is completely out of control and nothing more than a big government (big bank, big war, big pharma, big prison, big police state, big agribusiness and so on) propaganda machine. If Ron Paul loses his bid for the Presidency it will be because their lies and smear cost us the election, and that could ultimately cost us our country. Their lies have certainly placed our nation in the jeopardy it is in today.
We can do something about it and boycott the mainstream media's advertisers (their advertisers keep them in operation). Certainly if we do nothing, nothing will change.
US Rep. Steve King says all payments are redistribution of wealth. Why does he say this? First he says he is against governmental redistribution of wealth. When confronted with the fact that he is in favor of some farm subsidies and some foreign aid he argues that if these are examples of redistribution of wealth then everything is redistribution of wealth, implying that there isn't anything wrong with redistribution of wealth. To defend his point that everything is redistribution of wealth he says that, if he gave me a penny that would be redistribution of wealth.
A common complaint in the liberty movement is that the media is no help. For numerous reasons that’s an ideal situation for us.
The Media Offers No Help
There are plenty of media sources that censor Ron Paul. We can react to that in a variety of ways. The reasons media sources do not mention Ron Paul are numerous. The goals of not mentioning him are few and include – 1. Discouraging his supporters and 2. Distracting his supporters.
Tampa, Fl., April 2, 2012 —The Republican Party has energized its base around the idea that Barack Obama must be defeated to save America from “socialism.” They won a majority in the House in 2010 by focusing on Obamacare. They claim that this election is a turning point. Obama must be defeated or America will be “fundamentally changed.”
There is only one problem. All of the candidates they are running will lose to Obama, with the exception of Ron Paul.
In order to win the general election, the Republicans need independents and Democrats. They also need a media narrative that shows a clear contrast between their candidate and Obama. They get all of this with Paul and none of it with Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.
During the 2010 elections, Republicans pulled off a rhetorical coup. They successfully labeled Obamacare as “socialism” while at the same time mobilizing millions of senior citizens against the program because it would hurt Medicare. Hats off to their spin doctors. It won’t be that easy this year. If they want to attack Obama on Obamacare, they can’t run a candidate who signed the same program into law in Massachusetts (Romney), who supported its individual mandate for twenty years (Gingrich), or who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit (Santorum).
Santorum hasn’t endorsed the individual mandate, but Obama can argue that he’s all for government healthcare and “spreading the wealth around” because of Medicare Part D. The Republican base might swallow Santorum’s rebuttals, but for the rest Obamacare gets neutralized.
A remarkable event has occurred. On Saturday, March 31st the 5th Congressional District Republican Convention was held at the Reed Center, in Midwest City, Oklahoma. More than 360 District Delegates were to decide who would represent them in Tampa, Florida at the GOP National Convention. First, some background information:
David Gergen, CNN TV commentator objects to Jan's characterization of redistribution of wealth as some people being forced through taxes to pay for other people's goods or services. Gergen says that he and others are not forced to pay taxes. However, ultimately he has to admit that he and others are forced to pay taxes. Watch Jan make him walk back his statement. Unfortunately, because this contradiction is deep in his mind he will continue to revert to his original idea in the rest of the interview so don't miss the next chapters. Part two
TAMPA, March 31, 2012 – In their mad dash to create the long awaited general election narrative, media outlets have pronounced Ron Paul’s campaign dead.
They now speculate about what his supporters may do when he drops out. The Associated Press reports that Romney has over ten times the delegates that Ron Paul has secured. Reuters reports that Paul is far behind in Wisconsin and that his supporters have finally conceded that he can’t win the nomination.
None of this is true. Romney has not secured 568 delegates. Hundreds of those delegates won’t be determined until Republican state conventions, many of which haven’t happened yet.
As I’ve reported before, there is very credible evidence that Ron Paul will emerge from those conventions with the majority of delegates in many states. Texas, New York and California haven’t even held their primaries yet. Those three states alone control over four hundred delegates.
In many states, there is no cause-effect relationship between the popular vote and the delegates awarded to each candidate. Delegates are awarded via a completely separate process that doesn’t utilize the popular vote totals in any way. The purpose of the popular vote is to inform the eventual delegates of the preferences of voters in their states. That’s why many of those states allow Democrats and independents to vote. They want the eventual delegates to know who those voters prefer. That tells them who has the best chance to win in the general election.
Perhaps the most serious Presidential election of my lifetime is occurring right now. Many – and I include myself here – believe the outcome of this election will determine if we survive as a Nation. Those are powerful and scary words. They are also true. If you don’t realize something is seriously wrong, if you can’t feel it, you’re not paying attention. This brings me to my point:
I am running for National Delegate from Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District.
Michael Medved starts out by coming out against all the redistribution of wealth. However, it turns out that he is in favor of Medicaid because he thinks Medicaid is not redistribution of wealth! Why you may ask does he think Medicaid is not redistribution of wealth, because it is a service! In Medved's view, when the government provides free services it is not redistributing wealth from the people that are paying for the service to the people who are receiving it for free. It is one whopper after another. This is the natural result of a person trying to evade the truth.
Don't miss the conclusion of Medved's interview and his parting shots after the interview. Medved Part 6.
I sat through a sometimes boring and very often disappointing GOP convention March 10 in Clark County, Nevada.
I heard numerous delegates proclaim that the income tax was necessary and that it was just "really weird" to want to get rid of it.
I heard lots of jeering and booing during discussions on social issues. It descended into uncivil personal attacks and got ugly.
I heard many platitude-filled, inconsistent speeches. During one speech, many delegates lukewarmly cheered a Republican elected official when he contradictorily proclaimed "I am a low tax, reasonable regulation, free market capitalist." Somehow I accurately predicted that the next sentence out of his mouth would not be "Free markets regulate themselves – now that’s reasonable regulation."
I didn’t really like most of what happened at that county convention.
However, there were fantastic shining moments too – like watching Ron Paul supporters 1. showing up so well organized that they wrestled control of the county party from the insiders, 2. playing fun parliamentary tricks with Roberts Rules of Order, and 3. cutting their teeth for the future contests ahead. The meeting was boot camp for the next generation of the state’s liberty activists.
But one moment stood out above all. In Reagan’s big tent Republican Party there was one issue that was unanimously supported. I really do mean unanimously. Not a single hand was raised to vote in opposition, not a jeer rang out through the quiet ballroom, not a hiss, nothing. And believe me when I say that these people really knew how to voice their displeasure. Nothing but utter unanimity on a particular issue, and it’s all thanks to the obstetrician representing the 14th Congressional District of Texas.