Ron Paul on American Morning 1/3/08

Sphere: Related Content

Why doesn't Fox News want to include Ron Paul?

Maybe they're afraid he'll win.



To hell with Fox News. Sean Hannity, you are NOT a great American. You are a Neocon Loyalist sock puppet.

Boycott Fox News' sponsors, dump News Corp stock. Time to vote NO with our wallets.

Sphere: Related Content

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics (Frank Luntz)

Thanks to Bern for bringing this to my attention. Frank Luntz is the propagandist tool behind those polls which claim that Ron Paul has so little support. Watch the video to see how the facts are twisted to represent what they want you to believe.

Sphere: Related Content

Just how honest and accurate are those polls, anyway?

Sphere: Related Content

50 States Sued to Block Computerized Vote Counting

Federal Court to be Asked to Delay Primaries
On October 2nd we posted an article in which we announced that the Clean Election Lawsuit was being expanded to all fifty states. We said we were in the process of filing an amended complaint to name all of the nation’s chief election officials as defendants.

We also announced that we were looking for up to three volunteers from each state to become plaintiffs and/or friends of the lawsuit. The response was very strong. We thank each and every one of the 610 people who responded to this call for action.

Plaintiffs from every state brought the suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and maintain that current election practices, including the widespread use of computerized voting machines, are unconstitutional because they are ripe for fraud and error and effectively hide the physical vote counting process from the public, effectively denying citizens their legally protected Right to cast an effective vote.

The lawsuit seeks an Order from the Court prohibiting the use of all voting machines and to force election officials to instead utilize paper ballots and to count and total all votes by hand, always in full view of the public.

The lawsuit, called the NCEL, National Clean Elections Lawsuit, follows documented vote machine failures during August's Iowa Straw Poll, persisting claims questioning the integrity of the 2004 presidential election, and the official de-certification in August of virtually every major electronic voting system by the California Secretary of State based upon several comprehensive academic studies documenting the systems' significant vulnerabilities to software "hacking" and vote fraud.

Since October 2, 2007, here is what we have accomplished:

We have divided the country into eleven Circuits, matching the geographic boundaries of the eleven federal Circuit Courts. Eleven citizen “Circuit Leaders” were chosen. They interviewed many of the volunteers, coming up with a list of three or four potential plaintiffs from each state. Fifty citizen “State Leaders” were chosen as lead plaintiffs.

Numerous conference calls were held among the state and Circuit leaders and, at times, with all plaintiffs. A draft of the amended complaint was emailed to all potential plaintiffs for their review and comment.

Eventually, the amended complaint was finalized and approved by 150 named plaintiffs. In total, 84 state officers and election officials are named as defendants, many in their private, as well as official capacity.

On November 1st the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint, signed by 150 plaintiffs, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Click here to read the Amended Complaint.

On Saturday, November 3rd, 50 cartons containing the requisite number of sets of legal documents were rushed to the state leaders for service on all defendants. All 50 Governors, all 50 Attorneys General and all 84 chief election officials in the 50 states are currently in the process of being served with the National Clean Election Lawsuit. Those in Alaska, Missouri and a few other states were served yesterday. Many are being served today. By tomorrow evening, service should have been completed.

Press Releases are being distributed regarding this important lawsuit involving the election practices of every state in the Union.

Click here to view the New York press release.

Click here to view the general national press release.

We will post another update once we confirm all defendants in the lawsuit have been served. Reactions by those being served has been interesting to say the least.

Finally, as noted, we intend to file a motion in a few days, asking the Court to delay the 2008 primaries and caucuses until the important constitutional issues raised by this lawsuit are finally determined.

We urge everyone to consider a donation to help finance WTP's National Clean Elections federal lawsuit.

From We The People Foundation

Sphere: Related Content

How to Defeat Ron Paul

How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.

Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.

But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

- Moderno Machiavelli (from disinter)

Sphere: Related Content

Open letter to Allen Wastler of CNBC

Here's what Allen Wastler of CNBC had to say to Ron Paul supporters this morning:

"22 hours ago
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful
Topics:Economy (U.S.) Economy (Global) Economics Politics & Government White House
Editor's Note:

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler

Managing Editor, CNBC.com

Questions? Comments? Write to politicalcapital@cnbc.com."


Well, Allen, as someone else said: you guys are smug, really smug.

Here's my emailed reply to politicalcapital@cnbc.com:

"Allen Wastler:

I'm not buying your garbage. We Ron Paul supporters are way more numerous and way more dedicated than you'd like to admit.

But it seems you have your head stuck in a dark place.

Your attempts to marginalize Ron Paul are obvious, and now a matter of public record. CNBC stinks, frankly.

Have a nice day.

Me."

Now it seems CNBC has changed their tune: http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

"My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood
Topics:Presidential Politics (2008) Print Media Politics & Government White House

I have been reading e-mailed complaints from dozens and dozens of you about CNBC.com's decision to take down our online poll gauging results of the CNBC-MSNBC-Wall Street Journal presidential debate.
AP
Ron Paul
I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.

My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.

To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.

To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.

He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.

The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.
--John Harwood "

Fair enough. I'll be updating this post with my reply in the next day or so. OK, here it is:

Open Letter to John Harwood:

I do not believe your colleagues were acting in good faith. After all the crap CNBC has already pulled, you guys have zero credibility.

I believe you have a duty to the public to cover all the candidates fairly and equally. Clearly you disagree, you have your own agenda. As far as I'm concerned, you have no journalistic integrity. Are you just sock puppets for the oligarchy?

I have searched your site in vain for a Code of Ethics, but couldn't find one, presumably because you have no ethics.

Consider this my public vote of No Confidence for CNBC.

Me.

Sphere: Related Content

Hasta la vista, PajamasMedia

Well, those Pajamas Media people did it again - they removed the best candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, from their straw poll. And so I have removed them from my blog. Good riddance!

From their website: "Over 130,000 votes have been cast in the weekly PAJAMAS MEDIA PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL. The thirty-fifth week has officially begun.
NEW DEAL: Pajamas Media editors have noted that the number of weekly votes in our poll has diminished drastically from the tens of thousands cast at the outset. For months now, many readers have been complaining to us about the increasing inutility of the poll because of vote-swarming by second tier candidates. Many voters have lost interest and are not participating. Websites that had run our widget were no longer doing so.
Something needed to change.
Therefore, especially since the campaign itself appears to be narrowing its focus to front-running candidates, henceforth the Pajamas Media Poll will be restricted to those first tier candidates listed on the front poll page of the leading online poll aggregator Real Clear Politics. As of now, that is four candidates on the Democratic side and five on the Republican. We will change our lineup on the Sunday after RCP does, if it does."

So basically, it's not fair that Ron Paul supporters are more fervent and dedicated than those of the other candidates? Crybabies.

Sphere: Related Content

Bogus Election Polls

Below is a link to a bogus election poll. Why is it bogus? Because no matter how many times anyone votes for Ron Paul, he still has only 25 votes. Hmmm.

Remember the 3 types of lies? "Lies, damn lies, and statistics". Caution: the so-called "poll" linked below is probably a data-mining operation, so fill out the forms at your own risk.

http://www.cfourstrategies.com/ACN/p...ntialpoll.html

You can read more of the background on the Ron Paul forums: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=17380

Speaking of bogus election polls, there are a number of polls out there that don't include Ron Paul at all. Reader's Digest, Glenn Beck, and GOPStrawPolls are a few examples of this type of disinformation BS. The PajamasMedia poll which I currently have on my blog used to ignore the good Doctor, and if they do that again I'll take them off my website.

By their fruits you shall know them folks. What can we possibly conclude about anyone who deliberately ignores the only honest* candidate out there?

*this means he actually remains faithful to his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, in case you were wondering.

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Paul overwhelmingly wins Fox News debate!

Vote on the MSNBC POLL forNew Hampshire Republican debate-Who do you think did the best or worst in the following six categories?
http://www.msnbc. msn.com/id/ 18963731/(Ron Paul winning overwhelmingly! )
Results of the post-debate Fox News TV Cell-Phone Text Message Poll September 5th, 2007:(Again-Ron Paul WINS Overwhelmingly! )
33% Paul
18% Huckabee
15% Giuliani(Huckabee & Giuliani Combined=Paul! )
14% McCain
12% Romney
02% Hunter
02% Tancredo
01% Brownback

Sphere: Related Content