20 for Ron Paul

This should be the goal of every Ron Paul supporter across the country.

You need to personally see to it that 20 people vote for Ron Paul, whether it's personally calling them on election day, making them call you from their cell phone from the polling booth, or going personally to pick them up and take them to the voting booth.

Ron Paul currently has almost 100,000 friends on MySpace. Imagine if each and every one of them could personally make sure that 20 people make it to the polls. If those friends got 20 people to the polls Ron Paul would win with 2 million votes.

We have 5 front runner Republicans right now (besides Ron Paul). Each spouting off a very similar big government, neo-con message that differs only slightly. If they were to split the vote evenly Ron Paul would only need 17% of the votes to win.

In a state like Iowa where, in 2000, there were 86,000 Republican primary voters he would only need 14,620 votes to win.

In 2000 there were 20 million votes cast in the Republican primary election. %17 of that would be 3.4 million. Of course, Ron Paul only needs to get just over 50% of the votes to win. So he would need 1.7 million votes to win.

So, if we personally deliver 2 million voters to Ron Paul, there is nothing the Old Media or anyone else can do to keep Ron Paul from winning the Republican primary election, and then from there the general election hands down.

There is a handy tool at http://www.ronpaulcanvassing.com where you can keep track of your 20 Ron Paul voters. Go there, sign up, and let's get Ron Paul and our country a much needed victory.

Why I don't support Ron Paul

I recently found out that I do not support Ron Paul...as far as pollsters are concerned.

usaelections.com recently spoke to the CEO of one of the polling companies. The pollster told him that there were certain filters used to get that "likely republican voters" stamp of approval.

One is that the voter had to have voted before. So if you've been pissed off at the government and haven't wanted to fall into their game of "lesser of two evil" voting you cannot show your support for Ron Paul in the polls.

Another is he must ignore those that were never eligible to vote before (18-21). So the huge group of young voters who have been flooding YouTube and every other sector of the Internet usually used by younger voters (Including those excited 16-17 year olds that will be 18 by Nov 5, 2008) cannot show their support for Ron Paul.

And then there is the HUGE filter where those who have just recently switched cannot be polled. I fall into that category, though I lived in Georgia where we just choose which primary we want to vote in, then we vote in it so I can't say I was part of either the Republican or Democrat party. I was a member of the Libertarian Party, I voted in each of those state primaries at our state convention, and then when the primaries came along I usually picked the party that I wanted to vote in (though most often that was the Republican primary). I just moved to Texas so I have definitely not voted Republican in any Texas elections. As for the last presidential election and every one before it...my vote went to the Libertarian.

So even though I work my back out trying to get Ron Paul elected, going to our meetup group events, volunteering for the Ron Paul fundraiser, donating money, writing articles, putting up a sign in my yard, and on my car, joined thousands of cheering Spurs fans downtown San Antonio holding up a Ron Paul sign shouting my support, if I were to get a call on my landline (yes I actually do have one) from a pollster asking about who I support for the presidential election, my support of Ron Paul would be quietly swept aside in their poll because of their filters.

The national polls reflect those old school Republicans who voted in the last election. They reflect the very people who gave us what we have now. No wonder Guiliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain grace their top ranks while Ron Paul still sits low in the 2-3% range. The only way we'll go up in those polls is if we convert a bunch of neo-cons. That doesn't seem like a fight worth the effort just to get some poll numbers.

It's too bad the pollsters don't factor in those that have never voted in their life but are inspired enough this time around to walk into the voting booth. It's too bad they don't factor in the youth who are never going to see their social security money and who just got socked with paying for old people's prescription medicine under these high polled Republicans. It's too bad they don't factor in those who have embraced technology and have ditched the old technology of the landline phone and only use cell phones (yes I have a cell phone, my landline is for work). It's too bad that they don't factor in the fact that a bunch of these old school, landline using Republicans will either be too senile by November 2008 or they'll have died off before they have a chance to vote for their favorite neo-con.

Either way, the sooner we realize that the effort to get those poll numbers up is not worth it and keep our focus on bringing in the new Republicans, the Ron Paul Republicans, the sooner we will have an army of voters in the primaries that will leave all pollsters scratching their heads wondering where they went wrong.

The old media worships those polls, and with it those old voters that have gotten us where we are today. Let them worship them to their own demise. Let us embrace the new media and all the truth that it provides, and together we will give them a primary they'll never forget.

Letters to the Editor for Ron Paul

Ok, so you've posted about Ron Paul on your blog or championed Ron Paul's positions in some comment section or in some online forum. You've written an e-mail to someone else or dugg an article or commented or submitted a digg.com article. That's great, from the looks of things Ron Paul is getting a lot of support from the Internet. And it looks like he's growing faster and faster at an exponential rate.

But the Internet can only account for so much. Ron Paul isn't running to be the president of the Internet, if he was he'd win hands down. We need to reach out to those who are still stuck in the old media. People who actually wait a day or a week to read the newspaper to find out what happened the day before, or the week before. According to newspaper sales, those people actually do still exist.

Do they have comment sections that you can post your opinions on? Do they have the technological advances that allow people who read an article to let others know about the real story, the real truth? In a way they do. Most newspapers have a letter to the editor. It's not quite as sophisticated as the way it's done on the Internet, and not quite as quick. But it's still available. We need to get Ron Paul's message out to every medium and this is the way you get it out to newspapers.

I have created a petition, we are over a third of the way there, that will get 100 people within a week or so to write a letter to the editor of their local paper. The petition ends August 1st. At that point 100 people will be sending a letter to the editor of their local newspaper. Imagine that, August 5 is that Sunday, the day of the debates, and then a week later the Iowa Ames straw poll.

Imagine in that Sunday's paper, all across the country, regular newspaper reading individuals reading something good about Ron Paul, sparking at least enough interest to watch the debates and see Ron Paul in action.

Not all 100 will get published, but even if half get into the paper it'll be significant. I've run across many stories about Ron Paul on google news that are letters to the editor of hometown papers. That google news page would be filled with our articles.

There's no time to waste though. The petition ends in about a week. Go to: http://www.pledgebank.com/RPletter2editor and sign up. We need as many people to sign up as possible so that the 33+ people who have already signed up will follow through with the pledge.

At the end I will post all letters here that participants want to share. Let's make this happen, we only have a week!

Sign Up!

Bet against Ron Paul

I think a lot of people have it wrong on George Stephanopolous's statement that he would bet everything he has against Ron Paul winning as stated here on ABC News.

If he were to bet everything he has against Ron Paul winning he would (according to sportsbook.com) have 7 to 1 odds of a Ron Paul win. If Ron Paul loses George would have 7 times the amount of money that he has right now. This will be useful with the other candidates because the worth of his dollar will go down with any other candidate and it will be continually hard to get ahead under any other president, so 7 times his money will be helpful. He could even use it to buy favor with the new leadership, which they are more open to than Ron Paul.

However, if Ron Paul does win...all he does is lose all of his money. No big deal in the grand scheme of things. His children will be able to grow up in the freedom that this country was founded on and many have said we have for a long time. He will make up for the loss because Ron Paul will work toward getting the dollar back to something that is worth something and ending the income tax will certainly kick his recovery into high gear quite hastily. Along with that and the economy taking off with a Ron Paul win, it's a sure bet to bet all of your fiat money on Ron Paul's loss.

So, basically Stephanopolous is showing that he is a great gambler. Willing to gamble away his assets in exchange for freedom, but hedging his bets in case he is stuck with one of the other candidates.

Though personally, I think the best bet is putting your money here.

Post debate roundup

So I just finished watching what turned out to be the CNN Rudy McRomney show. I can't believe how much time they gave to those three and so little exposure to Ron Paul, sticking him way out to the far side with their prized ponies in the middle.

There was no smash hit from Ron Paul, at least to those who have heard him countless times as I have. I'm sure if nobody had heard of him before tonight they'd probably be more apt to search him out. The Jon Stewart show last night did more for Ron Paul than the establishment planned event tonight.

The most compelling thing that happened during the debate was an overwhelming sense of fear I got while listening to all of the other Republican candidates talk. Neo-cons might think that that's good...that I should be scared and that they're there to help me to fight off those evil people that need to be IDed and put in a database and tracked...No, it wasn't that kind of fear. It was a fear of those candidates talking, coming to the realization that one of them might actually win the election in 2008. How scary is that?

I might not agree with Democrats on basically anything but at least a feeling of fear doesn't go through my body with the thought of them winning the presidency. Though, admittedly I didn't watch their debate the other night or I might have had the same feeling.

The way they systematically tried to hide Ron Paul from the public worries me quite a bit. It was a dark day for America with what they did on the CNN Rudy McRomney show.

Fred Thompson, helping Ron Paul get elected.

So it seems that finally, after so much secrecy, Fred Thompson is going to announce his candidacy and boost Ron Paul's chances of winning the Republican nomination and more easily the national election.

As of right now there are three front runners; Guliani, McCain, and Romney. Each spouting off a very similar big government neo-con message that differs only slightly. If each of these candidates stays out front until the election they will split the big-government neo-con electorate. If this happens, Ron Paul will need only 25% of the Republican primary vote (a few votes will most likely be split among the other 6 neo-cons as well). He'll have the full support of the small government conservatives since there will be no competition for that slot. In a state like Iowa where in 2000 there were 86,000 Republican primary voters he would only need 21,500 votes to win.

But, an added bonus has befallen Ron Paul. Fred Thompson is joining the race adding yet another big-government neo-con to the race. That makes it so Ron Paul only needs 20% of the vote to win the primary and go on to be president. That's a mere 17,200 votes Ron Paul would need in Iowa.

It could turn out that he needs a mere 2 million Republican votes to win every state in the primary (just over a million to take 51%).

So, thank you Fred Thompson for supporting Ron Paul in his effort to become the next president of the United States, we look forward to you grabbing up your share of that juicy neo-con/big government support.

Rudy and the neo-cons, like gay homophobes

Ok, so I've figured out how Rudy Guiliani and all of the neo-cons can so easily believe that Al Quaida attacked the United States because of our "freedoms". They can so easily believe in that theory because that is why they attack Ron Paul. Because Ron Paul wants to bring us freedom. It's not that big of a stretch...like a homophobe hating gays so much because he's having such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that he is actually gay himself.

I can't imagine how difficult it is for all other Republicans who support candidates other than Ron Paul, and difficult for the candidates themselves. They actually have to admit to themselves that they do not believe in the Constitution. Ron Paul has voted according to the Constitution since his days in Congress in the 70s. Those who don't support him have to finally realize that they don't uphold the values of small, Constitutional government like they thought they did when they blindly pulled the lever for all of the other candidates. All of those Republicans that ran on the message of small government and never delivered. We actually have a candidate now with a proven track record for everything that the Republicans have preached about, and he is attacked by this fringe neo-con section of the Republican Party.

Are neo-cons attacking Ron Paul because he wants to bring us freedom? If so, according to their beliefs, they're no better than those that attacked us on 9/11 for that same reason.

Ron Paul has more YouTube subscribers than all Republican candidates...COMBINED

As of today Ron Paul has more YouTube subscribers than all other Republican presidential candidates combined. This is no small feat considering there are 10 candidates who are declared candidates for the Republican Party.

YouTube subscribers as of this post:

Romney: 1992
Gilmore: 1,957
Giuliani: 1387
McCain: 1251
Hunter: 395
Huckabee: 198
Tancredo: 182
Brownback: 93
Thompson: N/A
-----
7455

Ron Paul: 8002


This amount of Internet support has to hurt the bought and paid for frontrunners. John McCain was pleading with his supporters to get out there and support him online in blogs (of which he wishes to regulate) after the debates, Mitt Romney is spending all of his special interest money on buying off the media and Gulianni is probably out there somewhere making a list of people he'll throw in jail when he liberally suspends habeas corpus using the National ID to track them down.

Ron Paul censored by FoxNews

I watched the debate last night. My fiance was in the other room and told me to call her in when Ron Paul is speaking. I think of my fiance as the 75% of voters who could really care less about politics and vote based on tidbits that they are fed by the media (not that I'm going to bash her because of that, she can bring up names of people in Hollywood and who they've dated and I'm absolutely clueless, she could have her own celebrity blog and bring up how I'm just one of those guys that goes to movies and doesn't pay attention to who the actors are). So anyway, they show Rudy Gulianni and she says "Oh, he's running? I like him.". I tell her, he'd run the country like a dictator, I remind her about how I mentioned that the government has gone so far as to detain someone without giving them a fair trial or a lawyer, which I know she disagrees with, and I tell her that he's in favor of that and would probably go even further. Later she asked...is Gulianni in favor of the National ID? I tell her yes. So she says..."Ok, it's Ron Paul then. I don't want things to lead to having to put a chip in our baby one day."

So I'm watching the debate, it's been two rounds and she got pissed because I didn't call her in when Ron Paul was talking (she was on the phone). So she sat on the couch with me for round 3...waiting...waiting...wait a minute, no Ron Paul in Round 3. She couldn't believe it "They skipped Ron Paul, you keep telling me they censor him but I didn't believe it but I just saw it. How can they do that? If I was in the audience I'd stand up and say Hey you skipped Ron Paul!".

This got her pissed off at the media more than I'd expect...she wanted to get active, asking me what we can do to promote Ron Paul, especially since the media is ignoring him. She said she felt like maybe what the rest of the world is saying about the US is true if this kind of thing is going on. How can we talk about freedom if we're censoring the most pro-freedom candidate in the race?

As was mentioned on another blog, when they re-ran the debate and interviews a second time they skipped the Ron Paul interview.

Fox News displayed, in front of the country, their bias against freedom (which apparently is the reason Al Qaida attacked us...you know, like the same reason they attack Sweden all the time). All they did in censoring Ron Paul was they got a spunky young gal riled up to do all she can to support Ron Paul. I've been holding back because I figured she'd think the whole politics thing is uncool (I was a lot more active before meeting her, even running for Congress a few years back), but she's given the green light to go full bore on this.

So, to those in the media who think they've got this whole election decided...you've started something that you can't stop. Ron Paul will be in the White House, and you can continue to ignore him there...as he gets out the red ink.

Yard signs now available.

I just ordered my Ron Paul yard sign at http://www.ronpaulhq.com/paulmart.php and I just received my Ron Paul bumper sticker in the mail from http://www.cafepress.com/RonPaul_2008

When I received my bumper sticker my fiance complained...why didn't I get her one? I was pleasantly surprised, I didn't think she was very interested in politics. She's always seemed more like a liberal, but when we were watching the movie Freedom to Facism she saw Ron Paul and said "If only we had honest guys like him in Washington" I told her that he was in Washington, that he was a Congressman from Texas. I told her later that he was running for president and she said that's who she'd vote for.

She also mentioned she'd like the Ron Paul bumper sticker on her car because she figures it would piss people off.

Buy your Yard Sign and Bumper Sticker. Support Ron Paul.

Washington Post wish list: Censor Ron Paul

It's not surprising that the Washington Post wants Ron Paul out of the debates. It is the duty of the mainstream media to censor Ron Paul. They do not work for their audience, they serve an elite group who meet once a year at the Bilderberg Group meeting.

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991

2005 Attendees:
Graham, Donald E., Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
Robert W. Kagan - columnist for Washington Post

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations:
Applebaum, Anne E. – columnist for Washington Post
Kaiser, Robert G. – Washington Post
Krauthammer, Charles - columnist for Time and Washington Post

Newsweek/Washington Post:
Katharine Graham
N. Deb. Katzenbach
Robert Christopher
Osborne Elliot
Phillip Geyelin
Murry Marder
Maynard Parker
George Will (also a member of the Trilateral Commission)
Robert Kaiser
Meg Greenfield
Walter Pincus
Murray Gart
Peter Osnos
Don Oberdorfer

I'm not a big conspiracy guy, but when a presidential candidate calls for the abolition of the source of funding for a "secret group" and then members of that "secret group" start calling for taking that candidate out of the debates, it's does give one pause to think.

(Hillary Clinton and John Edwards also attended those meetings. Watch to see which Republican candidate exposes himself as a member...from the media response so far I'm thinking it's Romney)