The Texas Attack on Ron Paul
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

On January 12, 2007, a Texas city councilman named Chris Peden told the Galveston Daily News, “I have an immense amount of respect for Ron Paul. Politics has a way of forcing people to go against their core principles for political gain. That has never been the case for Ron Paul.”

In case you don’t know, Chris Peden is now Ron Paul’s congressional challenger in the Republican primary in Texas’ 14th District.

What happened to make Peden go from an admirer to an opponent – and not just an opponent, but one who is running a vicious and (as he surely realizes) dishonest smear campaign against the very man he so recently praised?

I have no idea.

But here’s an indication of just what a classy guy he is: all throughout Peden’s campaign website, his professional head shot sits next to a silly photo of Dr. Paul – the kind of photo every human being on earth has taken a zillion times, but which in this case is presumably intended as a stark contrast to the sobriety and deep thinking of Chris Peden.

That’s one of the benefits of running for public office against a gentleman: you can do childish and dishonorable things all campaign long in the full knowledge that your opponent is too decent to reciprocate.

Thankfully, you don’t even need to visit Peden’s website. We’ve already heard every thought he’s ever had every fifteen seconds for years and years.

Thus we read: “I think Islamo-Fascist terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks; the incumbent thinks America’s Middle East policies were responsible for the attacks.” (Yes, he really is talking down to his potential constituents like this.) The terrorists “wish to destroy our way of life because they abhor freedom, democracy, and liberty.” We should continue to encourage democracy around the world “even if it takes the remainder of the century.”

You know what that means – lots and lots of war. And you know what it also means: the politician uttering these inanities has no intention of disclosing the tiniest hint as to where the money for these fantasies is going to come from, what with bankruptcy on our very doorstep.

Being a neoconservative means never having to explain, well, anything.

Assuming Peden has an IQ above 50, he knows he is misrepresenting Ron Paul’s position. Dr. Paul’s argument, which is shared by top terrorism experts, is that our government’s expensive and counterproductive foreign policy has stirred up more trouble than it has alleviated. He’s saying kind of what Russell Kirk – the founder of the modern conservative movement, and no “liberal” – said after the first Persian Gulf War. Good thing for Peden he’s never heard of Kirk.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini called for jihad on the United States in the early 1980s, it went nowhere. When bin Laden called for the same thing but on the specific grounds that the US refuses to leave the Muslim world alone, fighters flocked to his banner. Could it be that our government’s dumb foreign policy, in addition to wrecking our economy, is actually making us less secure?

I’ve explained all of this here.

We also learn that Ron Paul, who has been married to the same woman for 51 years and has five children, 18 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild, doesn’t believe in “traditional family values.” Peden draws this conclusion on the basis of Dr. Paul’s votes against unconstitutional legislation that would decide social policy at the federal level – you know, the kind of voting record you compile when you favor the “smaller government” that Peden himself falsely claims to support.

Ron Paul “weakens our economy,” Peden says, because he doesn’t believe in supranational trade bureaucracies that can dictate tax and regulatory policy to member states – the very thing Republicans rightly opposed half a century ago when it took the form of the International Trade Organization. In those days, supporters of the free market knew a boondoggle when they saw one.

Peden says that opposing the World Trade Organization and NAFTA is “exactly the approach that led us to the Great Depression.” Now much as I’d love to hear Peden’s entire collection of learned insights into the Great Depression – really, Peden has done us all a grave disservice over the course of his career by confining his remarks on the subject to this single sentence – I’m still inclined to stick with Ron Paul, who could write a treatise on the causes of the Great Depression off the top of his head.

Of course, as the Federal Reserve’s policies lead the country and the world to the brink of another depression, it is Ron Paul alone who stands tall as the one politician who told the truth all these years about what the geniuses who run our monetary policy have been up to. It is Ron Paul who spoke truth to power, and who understood what Austrian business cycle theory has to teach us about the inevitable devastation that results from expanding the money supply through credit markets.

I wonder, on the other hand, whether Chris Peden even knows what business cycle theory is, but if his bumper-sticker thoughts on the economy are any indication, I probably already know the answer.

As with so many other politicians, the message of “change” turns out to be more of the same. The Federal Reserve has wrecked the dollar and inflated the housing bubble? Then more of the same is just what we need. Or at least that’s what I assume Peden’s position is. Like every other politician in America, he is completely silent on the issue of money and the Federal Reserve, standing idly by while ordinary Americans are silently ripped off year after year. Chances are, he (again like most politicians) doesn’t know the first thing about it. How else can we explain his failure, in the midst of a Fed-induced downturn, to utter a single word about how we got here?

Over $50 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities is coming due in the next few decades. The national debt keeps skyrocketing, the dollar keeps plummeting, the prices of necessities are rising, and the housing bubble is bursting. Ron Paul understands these issues – in fact, he’s the only one in the presidential race who’s bothered to bring them up.

A Martian glancing at Chris Peden’s political positions, on the other hand, could be forgiven for assuming that these problems do not exist. It’s all business as usual, full steam ahead. A financial catastrophe is coming? Why, let’s carry on as before! Is this the Peden message that Republican Party hacks in Texas are so excited about?

The rest of Peden’s propaganda is the same old establishment boilerplate, along with a complaint that Ron Paul doesn’t vote for the pork and the corporate welfare that Peden himself promises to support.

This is the genius who is campaigning against Ron Paul. And not merely campaigning against him, but misrepresenting and smearing a man with a voting record unmatched in all of American history in its commitment to freedom, and whose knowledge of economics, foreign policy, and the Constitution makes him an intellectual giant among Washington’s pygmies.

Now instead of being honored and privileged to be represented by a statesman as accomplished and knowledgeable as Ron Paul, State Republican Executive Committee Chairwoman Kathy Haigler supports the city councilman. “For far too long,” she says, “[Congressional District] 14 Republicans have been denied the opportunity to be represented by someone who actually believes in and practices the Republican Party Platform, and now they have the opportunity to vote for a solid conservative who will go to Washington D.C. and vote Republican.”

Poor Kathy. She’s had to be represented by a constitutionalist for 12 consecutive years. There’s some serious withdrawal for you: twelve whole years without a business-as-usual, platitude-uttering hack as her congressman. She must be getting the shakes.

All that time, her congressman has been the only constitutionalist in the entire Congress, arguably the greatest congressman in all of American history, and a man who is loved and admired all over the world. Only a city councilman mouthing slogans and propaganda and promising pork and bankruptcy can rescue longsuffering Kathy Haigler from this unspeakable ordeal.

Now I don’t care how much you loved Mitt Romney, but no one, not even members of his own family, compared him to Thomas Jefferson. Yet Ron Paul has been compared to Jefferson and the Founders more times than anyone can count. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him “the Thomas Jefferson of our day.”

Running against him – and, it has to be said, running a vigorous campaign that cannot be taken lightly – is not another Thomas Jefferson, to put it kindly. It is a forgettable city councilman who, if his campaign website is any indication, has never had an interesting thought in his life, and for whom the history books will not have a single thing to say. Well, maybe one thing: how did the American people become so debased that the intellectual and moral mismatch between City Councilman Chris Peden and Congressman Ron Paul could actually have been a contest?

Pretty maddening, isn’t it?

Want to let off some steam? Then do the only sensible thing: donate to Ron Paul’s congressional campaign right now.

I’d say we already have just about enough mouthpieces of official propaganda serving in the US Congress. Is it so much to ask for one – just one – congressman who tells the truth?

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

May 22, 2007

In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)

For some, patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington, or any American for that matter, who chose to be called “unpatriotic.” Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals is sharp accusations that because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were “unpatriotic, un-American, evil doers deserving contempt.”

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest — for himself, his family, and the future of his country — to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.

Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful non-violent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. achieved great political successes by practicing non-violence, yet they themselves suffered physically at the hands of the state.

But whether the resistance against government tyrants is non-violent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name—at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor, are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well—especially by conservative statists.

Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war once it’s started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic and all dissent must stop. Yet it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security — and for that matter may even damage our security — is hardly a way to “patriotically” support the troops.

Who are the true patriots: those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of the patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that “war is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state.

This includes the role the federal government plays in our personal lives as well as in all our economic transactions. And certainly the neo-conservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide, through force, justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined, the economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibitive.

Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe. This is a bad trade-off in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism.

Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism—that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people, and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition becomes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring “war” — even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate, encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs. The long term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized.

It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus the war on drugs, against gun ownership, poverty, illiteracy, and terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements, are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite: prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty. Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences, condemnation or ostracism, or even imprisonment that may result.

Non-violent protesters of the tax code are frequently imprisoned—whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding.

Resisters to the military draft, or even to selective service registration, are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the selective service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure. A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax.

A more sophisticated and less well known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve. Protestors against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money is outlawed, matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head.

Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, an immoral monetary system, or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots. If there’s a “war” going on, supporting the state’s efforts to win the war is expected at all costs. No dissent!

The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war, and to carelessly sacrifice liberties which they are told is necessary.

The last six years have been quite beneficial to the “health of the state,” which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty.

Even though every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. This has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now instead become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms.

We are continually being reminded that “9/11 has changed everything.” Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed—that is our policy of foreign interventionism—has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policeman and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration. We now live in a post 9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We’re expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed this declared effort to make us safe, and were willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed. The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on and a real danger of its spreading exists. There’s no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq , or in the war on terror or drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it’s impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we’re now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality, and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy, allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and with this our respect for self reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there’s no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hairspray and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We’re worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It’s certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are co-conspirators with the American government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us. These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security. We may be the economic and military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism, is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course—both well-intentioned and malevolent. But it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice of liberty—even if it’s just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to reign in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution, will disappear.

The record since September 11, 2001, is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated.

Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had in fact been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long planned-for invasion of Iraq .

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drum beat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan , our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government—hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote—no Member had sufficient time to read or understand it—political fear of “not doing something,” even something harmful, drove Members of Congress to not question the contents and just vote for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair tradeoff—and the majority of Americans applauded.

The Patriot Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include: sneak and peak searches; a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism; allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause; easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps; easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the internet; and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past six years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the Executive Branch are used and abused.

This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the president and without the right of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA (National Security Agency). It also gives to the president the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world has been widely engaged in, though obviously extra-legal.

A growing concern in the post 9/11 environment is the federal government’s lists of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed, even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It’s called the Real ID card and it’s tied to our Social Security numbers and our state driver’s license. If Real ID is not stopped it will become a national driver’s license/ID for all America .

Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to Posse Comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007.

These changes pose a threat to the survival of our republic by giving the president the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore “public order.” The 1807 Act severely restricted the president in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the president to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act”. This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for “insurrection” but also for “natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents” or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without Congressional approval or the governors’ approval and even send these state guard troops into other states. The American republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship and few seem to care.

These precedent setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not reversed. The beneficial results of our revolt against the king’s abuses are about to be eliminated and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders.

Sadly, those few who do object to this self evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not “supporting the troops”. The cliché “support the troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of “supporting the policy” no matter how flawed it may be. Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict, for which we’ll be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take—education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience, to bring about the necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing.

Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

I, for one, intend to do everything in my power to keep the ‘r3VOLution’ moving forward! I believe that we have only just begun to show the establishment that we intend to take our country back!

Do not lose faith. Do not succumb to the ‘powers that be’. It’s time to take a bottom-up approach to this movement. We need to take the term ‘grassroots’ for its literal meaning, and bring this down to the local level. Let’s get the true revolutionaries into local government positions. Let’s defend our states and be proud patriots!

“Let it not be said that we did nothing!” - Dr. Ron Paul

Sincerely,
Stacey R. Brodsky

The Ant & the Grasshopper

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so ?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’ Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’ Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, (which just happens to be the ant’s old house), crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008 !!!!!!

Romney quite possibly quit to prevent a brokered convention that can leave the door open for Ron Paul - but it may just all work out in Ron Paul’s favor.by Alex Wallenwein
(Libertarian)
Mitt Romney has announced his withdrawal from the race.

As predicted, they are falling off like flies - and the most amazing thing is that it’s the GOP’s cream of the crap (er …, sorry, I meant “cream of the crop”) that keeps falling off the cliff.

Think about that for a moment.

The “Rudy McRomney” trio was the press-crowned successors-in-waiting for the country’s highest office for most of 2007. Now that Romney is out, only the “Mc” remains of that old triumvirate.

Just to make sure Ron Paul doesn’t get the votes of the disenchanted Christian base, the country’s behind-the-scene string-pullers leaned on Evangelical “leaders” to turn their base into the direction the string-pullers favored: Mike Huckabee, a total unknown who had even less name recognition than Ron Paul in the first two debates of the season. (Naturally, any references to “string-pullers” and “the CFR” in this article are purely fictitious and are not intended to impugn the reputation or motives of any actually existing individuals or organizations.)

The groomed him and groomed him, with CFR president Richard Haass at the helm of his team of advisers, until he became the establishment’s overnight sensation who was able to run in third place behind “McRomney” - after Rudy jumped the sinking ship.

Huck’s role was that of spoiler, to draw votes away from both Romney and Paul so that McCain, the most pliable of the candidates who toed the “stay in Iraq forever” line, could become the front runner.

But, the equation didn’t quite work out that way

In the aftermath of the Super-Tuesday carnage, there remained a distinct possibility of a brokered convention that would have left the back door open for Ron Paul to emerge as the exclusive winner.

That could not be tolerated!

It now became imperative to make Romney withdraw and present all of his delegates to McCain so that McCain can become the undisputed winner of the required 1191 delegates needed to cinch the nomination for him. That means, of course, that Huckabee will have to give his delegates up as well, just to make sure. Accordingly, expect a similar withdrawal announcement from Huckabee in the near future.

Naturally, that will leave only Ron Paul on the ticket to oppose McCain. The “Last Man Standing” scenario described in the previous article on that topic definitely appears to be coming true.

The Big Question is: What Does that Mean?

Does it necessarily mean that McCain (the man who blocked all efforts to get our POW/MIA soldiers out of Vietnam so they wouldn’t reveal that he ratted them out to the communists), will “cinch” the GOP nomination?

No. It doesn’t.

The reason is that delegates who were, by their state’s GOP party rules, forced to cast their vote for Romney as the candidate who won the popular vote in that state are now free agents. Their contract of servitude has just been canceled. They now can vote for whoever they want at the convention.

To “cinch” the nomination, McCain will still have to win enough delegates in future primaries to gain his total of 1191 delegates that he needs to win.

If Huck indeed jumps ship, future voters will have to make a stark choice: Vote for McCain, the GOP candidate whom most conservative heavyweights like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter detest for his liberal Democrat-leaning votes during his Senate career - or for Ron Paul, who from the beginning was the only candidate with true, sterling, and unassailable conservative credentials?

In essence, their dilemma will be this: Elect a liberal war monger - or a hard-core conservative non-interventionist and impeccable constitutionalist?

It will be the first time in this and the last century that American conservatives will have the chance to make a real choice in a presidential election.

God does work in funny ways, as they say.

But let’s say Huck stays in the race, just to make sure that conservatives will not be confronted with that stark choice, just so they can still fool themselves into believing that there is a “third alternative.” In that case, Huck will continue to draw votes - but this time he will draw them away form McCain instead of Romney.

If Huckabee is really running for McCain’s veep position, that will make McCain a bit uncomfortable about this possible choice. Not ideal, to say the least - and fraught with big dangers. Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s volunteer army can quietly do their precinct walks and whatever else they do so well to get their candidate enough votes to get him to their brokered convention.

Tough choice for the folks at the CFR. Very tough. You almost feel bad for them.

Their problem is that Ron Paul doesn’t take marching orders. Not from them, not from anyone else. Never has, never will. That’s precisely why he must not win - at least in the book of those who think they (still) run this country.

History, however, may well be in the process of rewriting that ‘book’ for them.

It is utterly revealing that Romney expressly bowed out for the purpose of making sure that the nominee will be one of the other war mongers of the CFR-trained GOP. He said:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,” (Emphasis mine)

Naturally, Romney knows that, in spite of their rhetoric of late, neither of the two Democrats will withdraw from Iraq once he or she gets elected. They are as beholden to the CFR’s internationalist agenda as McCain and Huckabee are - so at whom was that remark really directed?

You guessed it. None other than Ron Paul. And that shows how utterly panicked the establishment is by the mere thought of a possible brokered convention. Romney obediently agreed to waste all of the millions and millions of his own dollars he blew on his campaign, just to make sure that this elitist nightmare called “Ron Paul” and his constitutionalist “revolution” will never see even the sliver of a chance to make it to the GOP convention.

Vote Ron Paul.

Sean Breslin | February 7, 2008
Montana KaiminLast night, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul won more delegates than any other candidate at the Missoula County Republican Caucus. Despite the now obviously high levels of support, the Montana Kaimin did not run a single article on Paul, nor did we include him in our election prediction scorecard.To Paul supporters in Missoula, and specifically at the University of Montana, the Montana Kaimin regrets this omission.

In excluding Paul, we stifled both his message and supporters. Cutting people out of the political process is anything but democratic, as several readers have correctly pointed out.

For some national media outlets, not including Paul might have made sense. In covering political attitudes across the entire country, honing in on a low-population state that supports a non-mainstream candidate might require more resources than they are willing or able to commit. Covering candidates with more broad support makes sense at that level.

But in the weeks leading up to Montana’s caucus, local media either did not see or outright ignored Paul’s local support. The Montana Kaimin is especially guilty of this lapse because much of Paul’s support comes from college students.

Though the Kaimin may take cues from the national media (they are professionals, after all), we shouldn’t forget that they serve a very different audience than we do. Our primary area of coverage is the University of Montana, specifically its students. When it came to Ron Paul, we failed to cover that readership.

The decision to ignore Paul was consciously and deliberately made due to the fact that Paul had not generated the kind of broad-based national support that John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee had. We, like other media outlets, viewed him as an oddball candidate, not in step with his party and without national name recognition. In retrospect, we now see these may be the very qualities that draw people to Paul.

Click here to leave them a comment about this statement, or to read the many comments that others have already left

The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election

Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.

Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.

He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.

Click here to continue reading this article

Congressman Ron Paul has said his personal computer is his favorite gadget, and if his campaign is any indication, he wasn’t kidding. More than any other candidate, the 72-year-old Republican with the staunch libertarian ideals has used blogs, social networking sites and online videos to disseminate his message to an unconventional—and fiercely loyal—audience. His candidacy demonstrates both the power and the limitations of Internet politics. In online text voting after debates, Paul routinely “wins,” and in the last three months of 2007 his online fund-raising brought in a startling $19.5 million. But for all his Web appeal, he has yet to win more than 19 percent of the vote in any primary or caucus. In an e-mail interview with NEWSWEEK’s Katie Paul (no relation), Ron Paul talked about how to capitalize on the e-support that surprised even his own team.

NEWSWEEK: Since you’ve been a big fan of innovative campaign technology, are you hoping for any particular techie endorsements—Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the like?

Ron Paul: I would welcome their endorsements. Internet innovators understand that the Internet flourished because of freedom, so it would be natural for them to embrace my message of freedom and keeping the Internet free from taxes and overregulation.

You said recently that you’re honing a strategy to target smaller states and spend your money more wisely. Can you elaborate on that? How are you planning to spend your money? What would you like to change about your campaign?

Our campaign has had many successes and also some serious challenges. So far our top finishes have been in caucus states, where we finished second in Nevada and in Louisiana. And in Louisiana we may have even come in first. [The Paul campaign is contesting the state’s credentialing of delegates.] Because of that success we’ve decided that in these caucuses are the best places for us to win delegates. Our campaign’s organization, combined with the strength of the enthusiasm and dedication of our supporters, make caucus states a place where we will be focusing much of our efforts.

You’ve brought in a new media director, Mark Elam. What kinds of new media tools are in the works?
Mark is an old friend of mine. I’ve worked with Mark Elam for over 30 years, and we worked together on the Ronald Reagan campaign in 1976. He has a lot of expertise, and I think we have already seen improvements in our TV ads.

What would influence your decision to either stay in the race for the long haul or to drop out? Could Super Tuesday results push you into a decision?

I’ll drop out if my supporters lose confidence in our campaign or if our volunteers stop showing up. Until then, I owe it to them to keep going and spreading my message.

George Leopold
EE Times

(02/04/2008 12:00 AM EST)

While the U.S. electronics industry isn’t a major donor to U.S. presidential campaigns, generally preferring to focus its financial clout on congressional races, something unusual is happening this election cycle. According to early federal estimates, GOP hopeful Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian, is attracting the most individual campaign contributions from employees of major U.S. high-tech companies.

Based on available donor data, the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics estimates that employees of Google Inc. and related political action committees are the top contributors to Paul’s long-shot presidential bid. As of Sept. 30, Google employees had contributed $22,250 to Paul, and Microsoft Corp. employees were the No. 4 overall contributor to Paul’s campaign, kicking in $12,863. Employees from Cisco Systems, Apple Inc. and Verizon have also contributed. (Paul, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, has also received more than $21,000 from Army personnel, about $14,000 from the Navy and nearly $11,000 from Air Force members.)

Click here to continue reading this article

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 4, 2008

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – While most reports about this past weekend’s Maine Caucus focused on the purely symbolic presidential preference poll, in the meaningful race to secure delegates to the state convention Ron Paul is primed to finish second with likely 35 percent of the total delegates.

Delegates to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis are elected by the state delegates. Internal results from 10 of 16 counties, including the largest cities of Portland, South Portland, Lewiston, Auburn, Augusta, Waterville, Bangor, and Brewer, show Ron Paul picking up 215 of 608 State Convention delegates so far reported, or 35%.

“Ron Paul’s strong second place finish in Maine, in which he beat John McCain, is proof that this race is far from over,” said Ron Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “We’ll continue to battle for every delegate in this wide-open race for the Republican nomination.”

In the presidential preference poll, with 70 percent reporting, Ron Paul is in third place just two percentage points behind John McCain. However, the Maine preference poll is purely a beauty contest, and in the actual election of state delegates the so-called “frontrunner” McCain is far behind Ron Paul.