Message from Ron Paul

The other day, my old sparring partner in so many Congressional committee hearings, Alan Greenspan, was on the Fox Business Channel. After Alan promoted his new book, the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.

You and I are reopening a whole host of questions that the establishment thought it had closed off forever: on war, on taxes and spending, on inflation and gold, and on the rule of law and our Constitution.

A few years ago, I asked a famous conservative columnist a question. What did he think about the prospects for a restored Robert Taft wing of the Republican party? He thought I was joking. As you know, I was not.

After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too. It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only "top-tier candidates."

Some of the opposition claims that I am not a "real Republican," whereas I am the only one in the race. And our campaign is registering new Republican voters by the boatload. None of my opponents is doing anything approaching that.

Of course, they pooh-pooh our success. "He's just registering Democrats and Independents and people who have never voted before." Well, yes. It's called growth. We are laying the groundwork for the primaries.

All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.

The crowd cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary.

But time is getting short. We must do massive radio and TV advertising, open many small offices (three in just South Carolina the other day), staff them, pay all the bills, and turn out our vote with massive organizational and phone-bank efforts.

As you know, the blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers. And contributions are the key to more attention, and to our being able to do the actual work of victory. Good news: our recent green-eyeshade analysis of all the candidates' net finances, which got so much press attention, shows our campaign as one of only three in the top-tier.

But we must keep moving up, and the Iowa caucuses are now on January 3rd. The New Hampshire primary may be in early December!

As always, everything depends on you. Please, make the most generous donation you can as soon as you can. I need your help so badly.

The other day, an 8-year-old boy handed me a small white envelope. It contained the $4.00 he had saved from his allowance, as a donation to our campaign. I can't tell you how seriously I take my responsibility to work hard, and spend frugally and effectively, to be worthy of his support, and yours.

Please help me keep working, even harder and more effectively, for all we believe in. Without you, I'd have to pack it in. Donate now. We have more than an election to win. We have a country to save.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

Sphere: Related Content

There Are Two Kinds of People

There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who divide everyone into 2 groups, and those who don't.

But seriously, it could be said that there are two types of people in this world: those who seek independence, and those who seek interdependence.

Those who seek interdependence tend to be liberals/socialists and love the nanny state.

Those of us who seek independence tend to be libertarians and want the nanny state off our backs. This seems to be the dichotomy we face going into the 2008 Presidential election. Do we continue to say Yes to an ever-increasing nanny state? If so, all you have to do is vote for ANYONE except Ron Paul.

You nanny staters have had your way with our lives, our government, our freedoms, and our money for quite some time now. What you seem to overlook is that, while socialism is a great system if you happen to be a bee or an ant or some other hive insect, it goes against basic human nature.

Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. - Frank Zappa

Sphere: Related Content

Let's get Open Carry in Texas!

I found a great new site: Texas Citizens Defense League, Supporters of the Political Initiative for Open Carry of Handguns in Texas

Update: The TCDL site has been down for a while now. I recommend OpenCarry.org.

Here's their Introduction, and I agree with it:

Dear Fellow Texans,

Did you know that there are 43 states in the union that permit Open Carry of firearms? 11 of these states are known as “Gold Star” states where, with few restrictions, law abiding citizens may exercise their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right, and openly carry on their person and in their vehicle a loaded side arm for personal protection. 11 other states have Open Carry laws that allow their citizens to carry their handguns openly with a permit, and the remaining 21 states allow open carry with various additional restrictions.

Texas gun laws are clearly behind the times. Many citizens of states that currently enjoy Open Carry are surprised to learn that the great Lone Star State does not allow its law-abiding citizens to Open Carry. Many of your fellow Texans and fellow gun owners feel strongly that the time is right for us to unite together in support of a Texas Open Carry Law.

The TCDL is a non-profit, grassroots movement of fellow Texans who are dedicated to supporting our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We know that it will be a long, hard process to enact this law in Texas but we feel our mutual labors will be rewarded in the end. We are asking for your support in this great effort.

One of our first tasks is to assemble a large data base of supporters. As the list grows we will begin sub-dividing the state into local contact zones. Each zone will work to promote this initiative in its geographical region to more effectively reach out and communicate the progress and needs of the TCDL. Already hundreds of Texans have signed on to work together toward this common goal. But it will take all of us together to successfully push the bill through the Texas legislature.

This is not about money, but about numbers! There is no charge at this time for joining TCDL. All we are asking is for you to say “yes” - you are willing to help us with this noble goal . Please complete the membership form and we will enter your name and email address in a confidential data base. You will then periodically receive our newsletter and updates on our progress as well as suggestions on what you can do to further the cause.

The TCDL is a serious group of pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment TKBA supporters. Please join us NOW! If you’ve never experienced Open Carry – you don’t know what you are missing! We can do this – and you will be able to look back and proudly say you were an integral part of bringing Open Carry to Texas!

We sincerely thank you for your support.

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

An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community

Gun Owners of America

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102

Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585

Thursday, October 4, 2007

It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.

In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.

Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much pro-gun legislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.
Understand this:

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex. Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun control measure in over a decade."

* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status quo."

* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer. It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability" provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this letter and pass it onto your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,

Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman

Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel

Sphere: Related Content

Open letter to the Associated Press

Honest mistake or Media Bias?

The Associated Press published an Election Summary Flash Chart. Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have been omitted (I didn't realize Fred was omitted when I wrote this), so I wrote them this letter:

Dear Sirs,

According to the second paragraph at http://www.ap.org/pages/about/about.html:

“AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

So given that, I ask AP “Why is Ron Paul not listed in your Election Summary Flash Chart?”

I contend the factors below strongly indicate that Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckoned with, despite any mainstream bias toward marginalizing him.

· The Ron Paul campaign raised over $5 million in the 3rd quarter of 2007.

· CNN’s Jack Cafferty’s October 4th question of the day was: “Should more people be listening to what Ron Paul has to say?”

· According to Alexa, the internet traffic ratings company, Ron Paul's campaign website is the most popular 2008 Presidential Candidate website.

See it live here: http://tinyurl.com/32nf5h

As of Oct. 4th (#1 being the best ranking):

Ronpaul2008.com has a traffic rank of: 19,019

Barackobama.com has a traffic rank of: 22,126

Hillaryclinton.com has a traffic rank of: 34,068

Imwithfred.com has a traffic rank of: 115,686

Joinrudy2008.com has a traffic rank of: 126,455

· Ron Paul Meetup groups have:
45,090 Members
6,016 Interested
961 Groups
772 Cities
21 Countries
7,897 Events so far!
compared to

Barack Obama
4,208 Members in 63 Meetup Groups, 1,732 waiting for a Meetup Group
Dennis Kucinich
1,640 Members in 54 Meetup Groups, 2,525 waiting for a Meetup
Hillary Rodham Clinton
938 Members in 29 Meetup Groups, 1,190 waiting for a Meetup
John Edwards / One America
1,864 Members in 49 Meetup Groups, 2,263 waiting for a Meetup Group
John Kerry
8,275 Members in 38 Meetup Groups, 14,422 waiting for a Meetup
Mitt Romney for President 2008
4 Members in 2 Meetup Groups, 8 waiting for a Meetup
Ron Paul 2008
45,090 Members in 961 Meetup Groups, 6,016 waiting for a Meetup Group
Rudy Giuliani
3 Members in 1 Meetup Groups, 0 waiting for a Meetup Group
Tom Tancredo
5 Members in 3 Meetup Groups, 35 waiting for a Meetup Group

Source: http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/cand/pres/
Note : For brevity’s sake, only the listings for candidates included in the Election Summary Flash Chart are shown above/

· Ron Paul 2008 has 67170 friends on MySpace
Source: http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles at http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html states “…That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast…”

I challenge AP to live up to its stated principles by including Ron Paul in the Election Summary Flash Chart, as not doing so could be construed as an attempt to distort the election process.

I’d like to believe you are not deliberately ignoring Ron Paul, but be advised: ignoring him won't make him, or his numerous and passionate supporters, go away.

Strangers stop me to ask me about Ron Paul because of the bumper sticker on my car. “Non-political” friends who tell me that have not voted in years tell me they will not only vote for Ron Paul, but they will wholeheartedly and actively support him. Look around today, and you will probably notice most of the signs and bumpers stickers out there for the 2008 presidential race promote Ron Paul.

Perhaps AP judges that Dr Paul is not a serious contender, but I assert that is NOT for AP to decide.
At this same point in Ronald Reagan’s campaign he was also being dismissed. (Quote facts and figures and a source on this).

And, further, I maintain that continuing to leave him off your list would create ill will and affect your credibility, whereas correcting this oversight (or mistake) will uphold and reinforce what you state you stand for.

In addition to sending this to you, I am posting this to my blog: http://freedomjoyadventure.blogspot.com/

I shall look forward to a prompt response in line with your mission.

Me.

Sphere: Related Content

Rules for a Gunfight

Why am I posting rules for a gunfight?

I'm certainly not looking for one. I prefer to mind my own damn business and live my own life in peace. I am responsible for defending myself. The courts have consistently ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect us. "Therefore, whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war." - Vegetius in De Re Militari. I am a proponent of the right to keep and bear arms. I believe in Peace Through Superior Firepower.

Having said that, the two basic rules for gunfighting that I adhere to are as follows:

1. Have a gun (obvious, isn't it?) If you don't already have a gun, but ever thought about getting one, I suggest you start working on that now.

2. Have the biggest, most powerful gun that you can safely, comfortably and accurately handle. If you've never handled a gun, please get proper training. Do everyone a favor by not becoming a firearms accident statistic. There are a variety of firearms safety rules, the ones the NRA teaches are simple and effective:

The fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling are:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances

2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

Someone out there compiled a much longer list of rules for gunfights, here it is (by the way, if this is yours, let me know and I'll happily give credit where it's due):

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap - life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket."
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".
25. You can't miss fast enough to win.

Sphere: Related Content