tea party for ron paul

http://teaparty07.com/

A Ban on Ron Paul Supporters

A Ban on Ron Paul Supporters

By Kate Phillips

The right-leaning side of the blogosphere, and especially some of the leading Repub-blogs, have been ablaze over the decision by RedState.com to bar comments and diaries from those enthusiastically Web-savvy and driven backers of Representative Ron Paul.

To recap first of all, Leon Wolfe over at RedState, under a headline that included “Life Is Really Not Fair,” wrote on Monday:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I’m guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don’t understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we’re upset that you’ve discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we’re silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

(Early this year, RedState, which features several bloggers, was bought by Eagle Publishing, a company that also owns Regnery Publishing and Human Events, among other ventures that cater to conservative Republicans.)

Now, avid Caucus readers know the Paulites are heavy-duty keyboarding fans of the Republican-libertarian candidate. They try to win every text-messaging contest out there. They complain on our site that Mr. Paul doesn’t get enough, er, the equivalent of ink on The Times’s Web site. We know many of them well.

They’re not prohibited from commenting here, unless they use abusive language or slurs, etc., that don’t meet our guidelines.

But this little dustup has spurred an interesting debate, one that takes place on the left and the right (and on all blogs) over cheerleading for various candidates (Go, Candidate Go!) when it does not further the discussion. More important, some would contend this ban rides up against the so-called democracy of the Internet.

Over at Captain’s Quarters, Ed Morrissey disagreed with RedState’s decision, saying it would more likely hurt the site than Mr. Paul and his supporters. Here’s part of what he had to say yesterday:

… I disagree with Leon’s assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them. After all, Paul will not be in the race all that much longer, and we need those voters to stay in the GOP when Paul disappears. There are worse impulses than libertarianism.

Heck, I’d even interview Ron Paul, just to get a chance to challenge him (respectfully) on some of his positions and see how he responds. I put in a request yesterday to do just that, and if we can make it work, we’ll have Rep. Paul on the Heading Right Radio show, where listeners can ask their own questions and continue engaging the Paulites. Engagement can be understandably frustrating, but in the end, it forces us to sharpen our own arguments and challenge our own assumptions — and both are good processes.

For those who live and breathe in the world of the Internet, there’s another piece to this debate, provided today by David All, at TechRepublican.com. He agreed with Mr. Morrissey, adding that Republicans would need the Paul supporters to help defeat — in Mr. All’s choice of a candidate — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And, with more and more Republican sites sprouting up to try to match the left’s Internet strength in fund-raising and online voter engagement during this election cycle, the Paulites provide Mr. All with another point of entry in this debate:

Personally, I recognize that Paul’s support is very, very real, especially in the politics + tech sphere. He is the people-powered Howard Dean candidate of 2008 which I’ve been saying we need to “prove” the importance of an effective Internet strategy. He is that Revolution.

Of course, there was bound to be reaction among the Paulites. And not all of it printable here. At PeachPundit, there’s a sampling of the more offensive write-ins — we’d advise adult-only eyes take a gander to understand why some may be weary of being blasted.

my nigga ron paul!!!

http://www.jbs.org/node/6030
New Bill to Repeal Military Commissions Act in House
By JBS Staff
Published: 2007-10-22 21:21 Email this page | printer friendly version

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would restore the Constitution's system of checks and balances, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Titled the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (H.R. 3835), the bill would restore habeas corpus by repealing the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The following is an excerpt from the American Freedom Agenda Act:

(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.

(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.

(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.

The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary as well as the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence.

Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul

Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul
Sunday, October 21, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

NEWS OPINION

Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.

The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).

The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.

Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate.

Coming from behind as a "dark horse," Ron Paul is arguably the biggest story in American politics in this political year – one of the reasons that, as a free-market news site, FMNN has continually covered him and his campaign.

At this point, the New York Post would seem to owe its readers an explanation of just what its editorial really policy is and what it considers a "conservative." Even in its own press release, the Family Research Council chose to highlight the on-line straw poll rather than the smaller "onsite" poll results.

=====

http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=PR07J04

Nearly six thousand votes - 5,775 - were cast in the first-ever Values Voters Straw Poll at FRC Action's 2nd Annual Washington Briefing. FRC Action members had the choice of voting on-line, by mail, or at electronic voting stations during this weekend's event. All presidential candidates from both parties were listed on the ballot. The following are the straw poll results:

Candidate Name Total Votes Percentage
1. Mitt Romney 1,595 27.62 %
2. Mike Huckabee 1,565 27.10 %
3. Ron Paul 865 14.98%
4. Fred Thompson 564 9.77 %
5. Sam Brownback 297 5.14 %
6. Duncan Hunter 140 2.42 %
7. Tom Tancredo 133 2.30 %
8. Rudy Giuliani 107 1.85 %
9. John McCain 81 1.40 %

* The full results can be accessed at www.frcaction.org

ron paul at grand central station

aint no stopping ron paul

Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now!

by James Ostrowski
by James Ostrowski

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
DIGG THIS

Ron’s Paul’s announcement of his third-quarter fundraising was a major turning point in the campaign. It was the first time he received coverage from the mainstream media befitting a contender.

I just have a few small quibbles and not out of orneriness or ingratitude at the fine coverage.

The MSM actually understated the significance of this accomplishment.

First, the money was raised by a candidate the MSM had given no chance to win and little coverage. Much of the coverage was derisive or dismissive. His poll numbers were in the single digits. Ron Paul supporters evidently don’t care much about today’s poll numbers or MSM conventional wisdom. The Ron Paul Revolution is, among other things, a revolution against the MSM! The Revolution has used the MSM’s rival, the internet, to force its way into contention. This is the first presidential campaign where the internet has been a decisive factor, not just a sideshow.

Second, while money is the heart of the campaigns of the other contenders, official money is the lesser part of the Ron Paul campaign. The heart of Ron Paul’s campaign is a spontaneous, grassroots eruption of real world and virtual activism. This is simply nonexistent with Rudy’s campaign, for example. There is no grassroots Rudy campaign. I would know. I live in the second largest city in his home state and am a close observer of local politics. It just isn’t there.

As has been noted in various places on the web in recent days, the total economic value of the efforts on behalf of Ron Paul is far greater than reflected in his campaign spending. He has 50 paid staffers but tens of thousands of hardcore volunteers spending their own money. I spoke to a volunteer in Albany the other day. He said there were "only" 150 Ron Paul volunteers in Albany. Only 150 in one small city? Other campaigns would kill for that.

Third, it's a mistake to compare contributions to Ron Paul with contributions to Rudy. Rudy collects large donations from the usual suspects, the corporate state elite, rich people who wish to buy political influence. They want something specific and tangible for their money: a judgeship, a subsidy, a pardon, an ambassadorship. In Buffalo, his fundraiser was hosted by a man who did the same for George Bush and coincidentally got an ambassadorship to Malta. A tough job but somebody has to do it.

Those who give to Ron Paul do so mainly out of pure principle. While his supporters expect to benefit from his election, it’s not a specific tangible benefit at the expense of others. On the contrary, they expect an improvement in the general welfare of which they will partake. Concern for the general welfare has rarely provided the basis for substantial political fundraising. Political scientists tell us that people generally do not get heavily involved in politics unless they expect to materially benefit above and beyond the general public. Ron Paul is defying a law of politics known as rational apathy.

Fourth, the average donation to Rudy is many times higher than Ron Paul’s. This means that far more people stand behind those Ron Paul dollars. As the campaign goes on, they can continue to donate while many of Rudy’s influence buyers have maxed out. Also, there’s just more of us plain folk than fat cats, once again pointing to more room for growth for Ron Paul.

The MSM deserves credit for finally noticing the Ron Paul Revolution but they have barely begun to grasp its true strength. Nevertheless, this burst of publicity will generate even more contributions, boost poll numbers, and encourage more volunteers, which in turn will stimulate more publicity. I think the best metaphor for the campaign now is a nuclear chain reaction. That’s why this may be an appropriate campaign theme song:

misunderestimating ron paul

click here
Misunderestimating Ron Paul's Support
by Rick Fisk
by Rick Fisk

DIGG THIS
The media, neoconservatives and some Democrats just don't understand why Ron Paul's supporters are so excited, dedicated and diverse. At the most recent PBS debate in Baltimore, the camera panned to catch the first African-American female fighter pilot in U.S. history applauding enthusiastically when Dr. Paul suggested we should bring the troops home from Iraq and every other country they currently occupy. Neoconservative bloggers are aghast at Ron Paul's increasing success as are the neoconservative gatekeepers. This is a truly satisfying result since it was the neoconservative hijacking of the Republican Party which has helped to further decimate our once-great Republic.
In one comment, written as a response to a post at the quintessential neoconservative and freedom-hating blog, Red State, a reader unsupportive of Paul points out the obvious for most neoconservatives, that Ron Paul's ability to raise a million dollars in seven days is "[expletive deleted] scary."
The neoconservative movement is now officially in its dying throes and yet neoconservatives do not take notice. A good example of this can be witnessed in Newt Gingrich's threat to join the crowded field of GOP Presidential candidates. (Eye of) Newt has been touting his ability to bring together a goodly number of intellectuals who will help solve America's problems. What is at the forefront of those problems? Why, it is the threat of Islamic law being instituted in the United States if we were to pull out of Iraq. Seriously, that is what he's saying.
The neoconservatives are banking on a strategy that has worked for them since 1994 (and all governments since the dawn of civilization). If they just pull the kids 'round the campfire and tell them a scary enough story, the kids will flock to their skirts and demand protection. If the story isn't scary enough, then it has to be modified until it becomes sufficiently scary. But at some point, the story becomes so far-fetched that even the true believers have to scratch their heads.
With Ron Paul's entry into the field of Presidential contenders, that tactic is no longer going to work. Ron Paul's early support was made up of those who were either never fooled by this claptrap or have come to understand that they were being manipulated. It only becomes more apparent to them with every utterance by neoconservatives that the scare stories have no basis in reality. Rather than offer something truly different, the neoconservatives are simply upping the ante and labeling it "different." They have discounted Ron Paul's support by claiming that it is much smaller than it appears. This is just another side of the same reality-denying tactic that is killing their movement. Because they cannot acknowledge reality, their influence will completely wither away, sooner rather than later.
Ron Paul's grass roots support is growing daily. Each time he is given a national forum in which to speak, a new flood of supporters joins the cause and his coffers grow (as opposed to Mitt Romney who's coiffeur's coffers grow). In the spaces between these national appearances, the growing body of supporters reaches out to their neighbors and spreads the word.
The neoconservatives on the other hand, believe that they are the keepers of all intellectual truth and that they have enemies both domestic and foreign. The domestic enemies are "liberals" or those whom they label so. The list of "liberals" keeps growing however and their blindness to reality prevents them from realizing that a list of enemies, increased by spite and action and drawn from a static pool of voters, is causing the number of "allies" to dwindle.
If you are thinking that I'm giving away some secret that will tip off neoconservatives and cause them to mend their ways long enough to torpedo Ron Paul's candidacy, don't worry. As Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret.) told the San Diego Tribune recently, "this administration is immune to good advice."
The neoconservatives are immune to good advice. Their arrogance and hubris knows no bounds. Even if they were to read this, they would discount it as irrelevant nonsense from a wacko Paul supporter. Since it is only they who have the answers to America's problems, there are no qualified observers who can offer worthwhile advice. Their inability to give criticism any serious consideration is the source of their failures in every policy. Iraq is a great example of this but there are others that can be pointed out such as FEMA's reaction to hurricane Katrina.
We are at the "fight" stage in Gandhi's oft-quoted statement. The neocons are beginning to fight, but they are using the very tactics that do nothing to diminish support for Ron Paul and everything to decrease their own ranks. They think that non-neoconservative voices emanate from brainless liberals, but this isn't why their ranks dwindle. They are incapable of honest self-assessment – the very thing of which they accuse their enemies – thus, neoconservative influence continues to wane. Their knack for projecting their own problems onto others is similar to their knack for projecting U.S. military power all over the globe. It is not "terrorists" who would convert the U.S. to a nation ruled by draconian dictates but the neoconservatives themselves.
Ron Paul's support grows because he is the anti-neoconservative candidate. Where neoconservatives deride those who don't buy their solutions, Ron Paul always assumes the best of both detractors and the merely ignorant. When Bill Maher asked him "Why are Americans so stupid?" he responded, "We're Americans," to point out that all Americans aren't stupid and his task is to inform and enlighten rather than make enemies. What a concept. The most obvious truism for a politician is that he should be expanding his influence rather than alienating voters. This is lost on neoconservatives.
Ron Paul refuses to convert disagreements into personal arguments which create animosity. His tactic is to merely present his side of the argument while acknowledging that this is part of his core belief system and not an indication that those who disagree are stupid or evil. This has trickled down to his supporters who, for the most part, avoid political arguments and instead implore the uninitiated to simply discover for themselves what Ron Paul is saying. This tactic has worked brilliantly. Ron Paul's message is genuinely compelling and his defense of these views has been consistent and dogged over the past 30 years; no matter what obstacles are thrown before him. That is the basis for his supporter's enthusiasm. He truly means what he is saying. Unlike his counterparts, he does not have to waste any words explaining why his votes do not match his rhetoric. His supporters do not have to suffer the nagging feeling that something different would occur if they were to elect him. He has always voted in a manner that matches his speech.
The neocons have no candidate in the race remotely showing the same level of integrity though they appear to be certain that nobody will notice this. They prove by their actions that any talk of truth, honesty or values is just empty, pandering, rhetoric. The number of Paul supporters is increasing because, contrary to neoconservative belief, Americans are not stupid. They just haven't had a decent alternative in 30 years. Well....now they do.

keep kids off (pharmacuetical) drugs!

click here


________________________________________
Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children
This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.
Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.
With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.
Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.
As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.
Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.
We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.