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)