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.
Ernest Hancock publisher of the online news, investigative reporting and opinion web portal FreedomsPhoenix.com and the Freedom’s Phoenix Ezine . Mr. Hancock also hosts the radio show “Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock” joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Ernest Hancock: Silver Dime Cards = Ignore the Fed’ to discuss how the Daily Paul Dime Card came about, the history of the Silver Dime Cards and the empowering new Silver Calculator Apps for iPhone and Android.
Radio host Michael Medved and Jan debate the Iraq war and the principle that should govern our warmaking. Medved finally admits that "national interest" is a vague term that does not mean anything specific. Inadvertently he has admitted he has no principle because he has admitted that going to war when national interests are at stake does not mean anything specific. If a principle does not mean anything specific, it is not a principle because one of the necessary elements of a principle is that it tells you clearly when you should do something and when you should not.
When I was 10 years old, Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. This affable man, with the easy manner and captivating way of speaking, reminded me of my Grandpa. In a strange coincidence, they share the same birthday: February 6th. For these reasons - the birthday, the way they both spoke, with quiet common sense, humor, and hope for the future - my formative years were spent admiring both my Grandpa and President Reagan. My Grandpa was named Ray Martin, and he died in 1988, at the end of President Reagan's second term.
Can Newt Gingrich really lower gasoline prices to $2.50 per gallon? With his pro-war foreign policy, not a chance in Hell. Lately, all the talk about government control over gasoline prices coming from both sides of the isle is nothing more than political jockeying in an election year. There are many factors contributing to higher gasoline prices, most of which have nothing to do with national supply and demand. It's all rather technical and geopolitical, but I'll try to do my best to explain.
First, the United States has increased production of domestic crudes by 15 percent over the past two years, while domestic demand for petroleum has decreased. Take note of how many refineries in the Northeast has shut down indefinitely over the past year. So, it's not a problem of oil supply. However, our infrastructure for transport and delivering these home-produced crudes has not grown with the pace of production. The U.S. oil storage hub, for example, is land-locked in Cushing, Okla. Approving large-scale energy infrastructure update projects like the Keystone XL pipeline is a start to de-bottlenecking these supply channels. President Barack Obama dropped the ball on that "shovel-ready" job in a flailing economy that is also down-trodden with high gasoline prices.
As technology has advanced and the world has “grown smaller,” it has become increasingly evident that little miracles don’t really happen. By “little miracles,” I mean people levitating, disappearing, parting seas, or making the sun stop in the sky. If they did occur, we’d be watching them on You Tube. But they don’t. That’s a good thing, because it leaves us less distracted from the real miracles: that we are here, that we live in a universe governed by natural laws that explain the world around us and that we have been blessed with reason to discover those laws.
In addition to the natural, physical laws that cause the planets to rotate around their stars and the plants to photosynthesize sunlight, there are also natural, moral laws. Like the physical laws, we are able to discover these by reason. First, we gather facts that we can observe directly with our senses. We then use reason to draw conclusions from those facts.
As I take up invitations around the country to discuss the Blue Republican idea, I am learning a great deal about how our minds are opened and even changed when it comes to politics. In a slight departure from my usual topics, I offer the following in the hope that other lovers of liberty may find my experience useful in their own attempts to improve our nation ...
No one arrives at his or her political preferences as a result of only, or even mostly, logical argument (despite fervently held feelings to the contrary). Rather, people find themselves most easily convinced by arguments that support political views to which they have become committed for often highly complex reasons that the their conscious mind may never even know.
Ben Swann co-anchor at WXIX Fox 19 in Cincinnati and host of Reality Check joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Ben Swann talks Fourth Branch of Government, Free Speech and Delegate Chaos’ to discuss how he approaches reporting the facts of complex issues and our founding fathers emphasis on free speech, the first amendment and freedom of the press. He also discusses reporting on the delegate process and the overwhelming evidence in not counting the votes in Maine plus proceedural violations at caucuses/delegate meetings in Missouri and Georgia.
Michael Steele's interview grabs the attention of the surrounding journalists. You can listen to their comments in this behind-the-scenes look at the interview process and thereafter. You can observe the effect of Socratic interviewing on what would otherwise be a blasé audience. Furthermore, you can get a glimpse of Jan Helfeld and Michael Steele letting whatever hair they have left down. Watch Jan Helfeld working hard to bring you these interviews. The discussion with Michael Steele continues in Postmortem 2.
I know, it feels like these primaries have gone on forever, but you know what – it’s only been 11 weeks since the first in the nation caucus. I stood before three precincts in Iowa on a Tuesday night just 11 weeks ago and spoke about Ron Paul. I said some good things. Lots of people said good things about all kinds of candidates. One woman even cried as she spoke about Santorum. One man stood up and said something bad about most of the candidates. He cited lots of statistics and spoke as if he were some kind of expert on how Romney was the only electable option.
That was on January 3, 2012, before anyone in the United States had cast a ballot, even before any exit poll had been taken. Mitt Romney was nothing but a former governor who lost to the guy who lost to Barrack Obama. That doesn’t exactly scream electable.
And thirty minutes later straw poll results were tallied. Mitt Romney wasn’t really electable in that room. Ron Paul was – in all three precincts, in fact, he had the most votes in each of those three precincts (one was only a tie). It will be months before anyone will have a hunch about the all-important question “Who won Iowa?” After all, it’ll be the delegates selected at the Iowa State Republican Convention on June 16, 2012 who matter, not the results of the January 3 non-binding straw poll.
So, who won Iowa? The winner is the one who can control Iowa’s RNC delegation with his delegates, the one who the majority of the Iowa delegation is friendly to. That person is the one who will win Iowa. But the media loves an easy-to-cover horserace and the media reported differently. Lots of things can change between now and the August 27 start of the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
Daily Paul founder Michael Nystrom did me the honor of allowing to speak to the media on behalf of Daily Paul. WNYC was interested in the grassroots reaction to Dr. Paul's latest fundraising report and his candidacy thus far. Here is the article from their website. Please check it out.
There are three political parties in the United States today, and they are all fielding candidates for the presidency.
The parties are the Republicrats, the Scared Religionists, and the Freedom and Peace Party.
By far the largest party is the Republicrats, who have held sway with their current platform since at least the 1940s. They are offering two candidates for president in 2012: their names are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.