“Having appeared on numerous conservative radio shows to promote other projects unrelated to foreign policy, I have had to tread lightly and watch my words, lest the subject of our current foreign adventure might arise. I quickly learned U.S. policy in Iraq is for most conservatives literally beyond discussion. It is not that these people will not debate the war; they literally cannot. Even questioning American actions abroad while our troops are in the field strikes them as a form not so much of treason as of blasphemy. Itâ€™s as if our troops were several hundred thousand Christs, and to criticize their mission amounted to jeering at Jesus on the cross.” – John Zmirak
For those of you out there who like camping in front of the television, the Ron Paul DVD Project have put together some videos to watch on your DVD player at home. You can download them via the bittorrent links using azureus, or any other bittorrent client.
If you only get one, I’d recommend The Ron Paul Revolution project. It’s a well-produced video about 45 minutes long that goes over Dr. Paul’s various policies.
These two DVDs (DVD 1, DVD 2) are compilations of various speeches, interviews and debates that Dr. Paul has done over the last few months. The DVD is easily traversable, and you can pick and choose what you want to watch.
Finally, one DVD was produced specifically to answer questions for Christian voters regarding values, taken from a speech in Iowa and from a pastor’s conference. This DVD is designed to answer a lot of the specific questions for Christian voters, including his position on abortion and foreign policy (including Israel).
If you’re unable to burn any of the moves above, but still want to watch them, shoot me an email, and I will burn a copy for you and send it via the mail.
Following the success of the last fund raising day, where we raised $4.2 million for the Ron Paul campaign in a single day, we’re looking to try to double that number on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
Check out this video put together by a supporter… the campaign had nothing to do with the last contribution surge, and has nothing to do with this one. It’s the people coming together to support our candidate.
When one enlists in the military, one signs certain rights away. You essentially sign yourself up for indentured service to the country for a period of time, and during that time, certain constitutional rights no longer apply to you. These rules are listed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
One of those rights you voluntarily give up is the right to free speech. Article 88 of the UCMJ states the following:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
The reason why I point this out is because recently, we’ve see many neo-con pundits pointing out that the Generals in the army are testifying to Congress about the situation in Iraq, and making positive statements about President Bush’s policies. But military officers are required to support the policies of their civilian leaders, and take very severe legal risks if they do speak out against the policies of Congress or the President.
This is the same reason why polls of American soldiers in Iraq are next to meaningless. Of course soldiers are going to say they support the mission to any media person who asks. That’s their job to do so. It’s like asking a football player whether they think they’re going to win on Sunday. Who is going to say no?
However, there is one place that we can find out what the members of the military really think about policy, and that’s by looking to see which candidates to whom they’re sending their campaign contributions. And Congressman Paul is winning that contest.
For all you folks who say that Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, I’d like to see you put your money where your mouth is. Right now, Sportsbook.com has Ron Paul’s odds of winning the Republican nomination at 4-1. That means if you bet $100, you’ll win $25 when Ron Paul doesn’t win the nomination, like so many of you are absolutely sure won’t happen.
Tell you what. I’ll even take anyone up on the bet, at 4-1 odds. I’ll put up $25 to anyone who wants to put up $100. Just post in the comments, and we’ll work out the details.
There is a common misconception amongst the people whom I talk to about Ron Paul that he’s some sort of a pacifist, and against all forms of foreign war. This misconception was reinforced and repeated by Bill O’Reilly a few months ago when Dr. Paul was on his show.
WIth the limited television budget, I would love to see the following in the hardcore “red states”. I would love to see Dr. Paul say something like the following.
“On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by a group of Islamic militants in a plan masterminded by Osama bi Laden. On [fill in the date], I voted to authorize President George W. Bush to deploy our military into Afghanistan to overthrow the corrupt government which was protecting these criminals, and to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Since that time, our government has been distracted from this quest for justice by a war in Iraq, a country that has never attacked the United States and joined us as an enemy of Islamic jihadists.
The war in Iraq is draining our resources, and distracting us from our original mission of finding Osama bin Laden and destroying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.
As president, I will refocus our military on the original mission, and go after the global criminal terror networks, and not allow our military to be used for to serve the interests of the oil companies and the military industrial complex.”
I think this would really ring a bell with the red state republicans and make them think twice about the other republican candidates who somehow equate the war in Iraq with the “War on Terror” and also remind people that Ron Paul isn’t a pacifist, but simply promotes the proper use of the military.
Good… seems like other people other there get it. Fred Thompson is not a conservative, but a neo-con globalist, and the Conservatives Against Fred Thompson are working to expose this. Here’s sample of some of their articles:
Fred Thompson’s Anti-gun Senate Record – The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a list of proposals supported by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations to the free speech of Gun Rights Advocates.
Thompson fought against the Republican Pro-Life Plank – (From a 1996 article) Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next weekâ€™s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. â€˜We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,â€™ (emphasis theirs)
Is Thompson a Tennesseean for Choice? – CBNâ€™s David Brody has uncovered a Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire filled out by Fred Dalton Thompson circa 1996 in which he answered questions about his personal philosophy on the issue of abortion.
As a young man, though, [Ron Paul] did not protest the Vietnam War, which he now calls â€œtotally unnecessaryâ€ and â€œillegal.â€ Much later, after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, he began reading St. Augustine. â€œI was annoyed by the evangelicalsâ€™ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,â€ he recalls. â€œThe religion is based on somebody whoâ€™s referred to as the Prince of Peace.â€
Hmm… my politics category is drowning out the others. Oh well.
Good article by John Nichols talking about a political race that on the surface didn’t look too important in the big scheme of things, but, as the author points out, could be a microcosm for the large distaste that the conservative Republicans are showing for the GOP. His article, Slapping Down the “GOP Establishment”, describes a race between Jim Whitehead and Paul Broun for the 10th Congressional Seat in Georgia. Georgia has a runoff system, where the two people receiving the highest number of votes go into a runoff. Whitehead is described as a “rubberstamp for the Bush White House and Republican leaders in Congress”, while Broun was running as simply “fighting the entire GOP establishment.”
Whitehead was a shoe-in for the election.
Well, Broun has won Tuesday’s election by less than four hundred votes.
Broun’s message sounds suspiciously like Ron Paul’s message during his Presidential run (and Paul’s message during his entire political career). Nichols describes this in the meat of the article towards the end:
As evidence of his independence, Broun emphasized a Ron Paul-like committed to “work to restore government according to the Constitution as our Founders intended.” While the Georgia appears to be a more cautious constitutionalist than the maverick Texas congressman who is making a longshot bid for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, Broun borrowed one of the most popular of Paul’s principles, promising that if elected he would assess any new legislation by first asking: “Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?”
No one was going to confuse Broun with a liberal, but he did display a Paul-like libertarian streak, suggesting that the federal government ought to stay away away from issues gay marriage and legalizing marijuana — matters that the candidate suggested are best handled at the state level.
“I believe in the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which clearly says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states and the people,” Broun said. “I am not a person who believes that our lives should be controlled by politicians in Washington. I do not believe that the states are merely administrative units of the federal government, to do its bidding.”
I’m hoping that this message is going to resonate outside of George, to the rest of the country. I know there are many Democrats who are switching their party affiliation in order to vote for Paul.
Richard A. Viguerie has penned an article on Fred Thompson asking whether he should be the choice for conservatives in the upcoming presidential election. After describing Thompson’s history in politics as senator and as a lobbyist, and going through issues like McCain-Feingold Bill and the Asia fundraising scandal, his answer is a resounding no. Here are some excerpts from the article:
Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House. President Eisenhowerâ€™s policies were â€œa dime store New Deal,â€ he said on the floor of the Senate. He spoke truth to power.
Well, again we have a Big Government Republican in the White House, and now itâ€™s no longer a dime store New Dealâ€”itâ€™s a supersized Wal-Mart of a New Deal. The Republican welfare state is far worse than anything the Democrats achieved.
And what has been Fred Thompsonâ€™s response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If heâ€™s said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, heâ€™s said it so quietly that nobodyâ€”not just us, nobodyâ€”has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit. (emphasis mine)
For six of his eight years as a Senator, Thompson ranked in the bottom half of Republican Senators in terms of his commitment to conservatism. What makes this more remarkable is that he served as a Senator from Tennessee, winning his two elections by hefty margins. He didnâ€™t have the excuse that his electorate was liberal, like the electorates of RINO Senators from Oregon, Maine, or Rhode Island. He had a safe seat with a conservative electorate. So when he voted liberal, we have to assume itâ€™s because thatâ€™s what he believed. (emphasis mine)