Saturday, June 30, 2007

Video: Ron Paul speaks at Iowa Rally June 30th 2007

This video just in. Opening remarks at the Iowa rally today. Pro-Freedom, Pro-Liberty, Pro-Life, Anti-Tax centric.

Vote in this 2008 Presidential Straw Poll

It's over there to the left. This poll seems to be a bit more reliable than most I've seen, perhaps because of the high numbers of voters. In any case, it's miles more accurate than the biased poll put out by those jackasses at pajamas media.

Edit: This humble blog is now the 7th most voted at precinct. Give us a boost and see if we can beat the big guys!

Edit: Ron Paul friendly sites might consider clicking the 'put this on your own site' to open up more precincts. It only takes about a minute to set up. As you can see, Ron Paul is about to pass SHrillary and begin closing on Rudy. Total votes is over 94,000.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Picture of the day: Liberty Turns Me On!

Who knew politics could be so sexy?

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Video: NAFTA Superhighway

Welcome to the North American Union.

Constitution? How quaint.

More info from Judicial Watch on the SPP here and from Congressman Ron Paul on the NAFTA Superhighway here.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Picture of the day: Bong Hits For Jesus

Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

Looks like the Old Farts on the Supreme Court have dealt another blow to our already beleaguered Bill Of Rights. I wonder if our standing on the Freedom Index will slip a few more places because of this. What the hell, we're already 54th of of 168, only a few rungs behind Chile!

We need Ron Paul more than ever... before there's no Constitution left to fight for.

Ron Paul Army to march on Iowa Saturday June 30th

As noted earlier, Ron Paul has been excluded from the Iowa Tax Relief Forum. In response, Congressman Paul will be holding his own get together right next door and it is expected to draw supporters from all over the continental United States. Lemonade from lemons indeed!

This is from on high and should dispel any rumors to the contrary:

In Iowa: Ron Paul to Celebrate Life and Liberty

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will celebrate life and liberty at a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday, June 30th.

Dr. Paul will share his message of freedom, peace and prosperity at the Hy-Vee Hall, Room C, Iowa Events Center, 730 Third Street, Des Moines, Iowa. The rally will start immediately following the conclusion of the Presidential Candidates Forum sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance at approximately 4:30 p.m.

The public is invited. Food and beverage will be provided to the first 500 people who arrive.

If you're planning to make the trip to Iowa, you might want to check out your Ron Paul meetup group or the Ron Paul Forums for possible ride and lodging info.

Video: Rachel Mills on the Ron Paul Iowa Forum debacle

"Taking lemons and making lemonade"

More Rachel here.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

John McCain poses for pictures with 9/11 Truth activists

De-Bunking John McCain

Go McAmnesty!

Friday, June 22, 2007

Final Push: Donate to Ron Paul's campaign before the end of the quarter

The end of the quarter is drawing near and quarterly fund raising disclosures are right around the corner. A good showing by Ron Paul will go a long way to dispelling the myth that we are a small but vocal group as well as generating some serious surprise and mainstream media coverage (by highlighting who he beats!). Every little bit at this crucial time is going to help. With luck, the donations of this quarter will lessen the burden next quarter by increasing our numbers many fold. I know times are hard for many of us, the middle class is being gutted, but think of it as an investment. Once Ron Paul is elected we can all look forward to a pay raise in the form of tax reduction as well as an overall increase in the value and purchasing power of the dollars we already have. Anyway, it's only paper (right now) isn't it?

Please, go to the Ron Paul 2008 website and Donate if you can.

Politicians take heed: The Power Ron Paul

Ron Paul is all the buzz on this series of tubes we call the Internet. Not just the typical flash in the pan buzz of lonelygirl15 either, this meme appears to have the persistence of a weed. As I write this, 'Ron Paul' is the second most searched term in the blogosphere, nestled comfortably between the usual suspects 'Youtube' and 'MySpace' . This has been noted adnaseum over the last several weeks. What has been missed however is the apparent lasting power of Ron Paul. He took the usual meme route and shot right to number one and held it for a while before being de-throned by blog meme regular 'Paris Hilton'. That's typical for flash in the pan popularity. What is not typical however is that Paul dropped only to second place and has remained there ever since. Normally, when the 'next big thing' has had its time in the sun, it disappears down the memory hole, rarely to be heard from again. The Ron Paul revolution continues to hold a respectable place net-wide, from the blogosphere to Youtube to Myspace to Facebook to Digg and beyond. This thing is here to stay.

So what's the trick? I'm sure any other politician would love to know. Any politician would love to be able to harness this type of grass roots movement which is reaching the maximum number of people at the minimum cost. The trick is: There is no trick. You can't trick the Internet. Sure, you can make a big push and gain some recognition, but it won't have the staying power we see in the Ron Paul campaign. That's the difference between the old media and the new. Now, when a politician spews forth sound bytes and rhetoric, there's a hundred bloggers picking over every word, comparing it to the records, analyzing it every which way and if the words don't match the reality ... woe to the foolish politician who tried to pull a fast one. It can be a career ender. The net is in essence the worlds largest 'truthiness' detector. Bullshit and spin have minimal effect here and often times can engender a backlash worse than any gains made. On the net, a politician has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. That's where Ron Paul wins. His honesty and integrity leaves nothing for the nay sayers to assail. It also doesn't hurt that his message itself resonates with the freedom loving internet crowd. As a strict Constitutionalist, Paul puts freedom and liberty above all else and appears to extend that to the internet as well. He is against regulation and taxation of the net. I think perhaps he sees in the internet what his policies could do for America as a whole. The internet thrives exactly because it is minimally regulated and un-taxed. The entire country used to be that way, before ever more intrusive and restrictive laws were passed for corporate and special interests and strangling taxation choked off the American Dream. That's what made this country great and in some ways we're still resting on the laurels of past glories, coasting along on the power of yesterday and destroying the future in our head long path to an unsustainable future. In a nutshell, if you want to excite people about you as a politician, you have to be a politician that people can get excited about. Don't just tell us what you think we want to hear, that doesn't fly in today's age. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. It's a simple concept really: You do right by the people and the people will do right by you.

That's not to say politicians out there can't capitalize on the power of Ron Paul right now. This is where you would do well to take heed. Besides the ever vigilant 'truthiness detection' the internet has brought to the political landscape, there is another important contribution: Long Memory. The net does not forget. This long memory is a sword that can cut both ways. If you anger the blogosphere, you can be guaranteed that somewhere down the road it will come back to bite you. You can rest assured that one of the 70 million+ bloggers has archived your misdeeds and will raise the hue and cry at the most inopportune moment sometime in the future. A good example of this might be seen in the case of Eric Dondero. Dondero, described by Paul as "a disgruntled former employee who was fired", apparently belongs to the small and ever dwindling mindset of Americans who believe that the "terrists" hate us for our freedom, as opposed to the more realistic stance which Ron Paul and the entire intelligence community takes which is that they hate our foreign policy. After Paul pointed out this simple common sense fact in the GOP debates, Dondero foolishly announced that he'd be challenging Paul for his congressional seat. The flap lasted about a half a day. Thanks to the long memory of the internet and the power of the Ron Paul Army however, it is likely that Dondero has sunk his political career. I'd be surprised if he were able to make a successful run as Dog Catcher now, and you can bet dollars to donuts that the Paulites will be vigilantly watching for him to try and ready and eager to pounce if he does. This long memory of course has a bright side as well. Politicians who support Ron Paul may well find themselves in a much better position when their own races come up. Those struggling toughly contested seats may find an ally in the Ron Paul Army. They may find themselves rescued by a sudden surge in fundraising, volunteer campaigning and those extra votes that just make the difference.

To be clear, politicians, if you endorse Ron Paul now, we will not forget you. We are a large and growing, internet-savy and very loyal grass roots movement, becoming increasingly organized all the time. The type of energetic and enthusiastic support we offer is priceless. It can put boots on the ground, coins in the coffers and bodies in the voting booth. It can be had at no cost. Endorse Ron Paul and we will not forget you.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Help get Ron Paul on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

It's fast becoming fashionable for the talking heads on the mainstream news to criticize the many blunders of the Bush administration. Long before it was popular however, Keith Olbermann was out there crying foul over the abuses of the Constitution and Habeas Corpus. Standing almost alone in pointing out the wholesale destruction of the Constitution, the very cornerstone of our society, by the Bushies, with his 'special comments' Olbermann seemed almost Murrowesque. In light of this heroic stance, it seems strange that Keith has not had Congressman Ron Paul, the undisputed Champion of the Constitution on his show. In fact, as the only person in congress who stands by his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and consistently votes against any law which is unconstitutional, Ron Paul's absence from Countdown with Keith Olbermann seems a glaring injustice and may be seen by some as a spotlight on partisanship. I hope this is not the case.

I'll ask that everyone send a polite note to the show, requesting that they invite Congressman Ron Paul to appear. The e-mail address is:

The show also has a blog here: The News Hole which allows comments. Again, please keep it polite and on topic.

I think if we get these two stalwart defenders of the Constitution together, we'll hear a very frank and honest discussion on the dangerous course that the neocons have steered this country and what needs to be done to set things right.

If anyone can make this happen, its the Ron Paul Army.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Ron Paul is walking on the moon

Everything seems to be breaking Ron Paul's way lately. Recent events are throwing other candidates into a tailspin while Paul proceeds calm, cool and collected like the elder statesman he has shown himself to be. He is getting his common sense message out and gathering a snowballing group of devoted followers along the way. The juggernaut of freedom.


Rudy Giuliani, already mired in the stink of corruption, suffered a tough blow when the state chairman of his campaign Thomas Ravenel was indicted on cocaine charges.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has left the GOP, further fuelling speculation that he might run for President in 08 as an independent. This will have several consequences.

First, the big money folks being bought off by special interests are likely to suffer because piles of their corporate backing is going to dry up in the face of a self financed billionaire. So that's 1 whammy each to Hillary, Giuliani and Romney. It might be enough to knock Mitt Romney out of his magical underwear because he's been shoveling gobs of cash into his campaign bid and has barely registered much more than some of the third tier candidates as it is. I guess he's just boring, or perhaps too scripted, or maybe it's the flip-floppery? I don't know, I never really thought he had a chance to begin with.

Another consequence will be, being from New York, that's bound to hit both Giuliani and Hillary to some degree. I doubt it will be enough to completely crush Rudy, but considering the recurring corruption scandals, his general unlikeablility and the spanking he got from Ron Paul on foreign policy... it's certainly not helping him. Hillary herself will take less of a hit, but since every day she's sounding more and more like a pro-war neocon koolaid drinking Bush clone and that's bound to start driving people away, every little chip at the ice queen is going to sting. To add a little insult to injury, today's real news has pretty much overshadowed her little Hillary Clinton Sopranos video on which is probably just as well because to me it seemed rather stilted. Another same girl video. I'm sure someone thought it'd go viral, but really it's just a yawn.

Of course Bloomberg doesn't have a chance ftw, he's not a great campaigner or speaker and he has much the same flaw Rudy does... stances on issues from both parties which the other party utterly hates. Someone should tell them that this doesn't make you a 'centrist', it makes you unelectable. In any case, he's likely to dillute the pool on both sides of the isle for pretty much everyone, except Ron Paul of course, much the same way that arch neocon and coward Freddy Thompson will be dilluting the small and ever dwindling pro-war vote.

Moving on... as noted earlier Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance have failed to invite Ron Paul to their little forum on the 30th. Well, it's been exposed that The Chairman of Iowans for Tax Relief, Ed Failor, is a Senior Advisor to the McCain Campaign in Iowa. That answers some questions. Somehow I doubt this will help McCain's foundering campaign. No doubt, these folks are feeling the full fury of the Ron Paul Army, much as the foolish Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis did before them (I wonder how long his career will last?).

And that brings us to... the end of the quarter campaign finance disclosures coming up at the end of this month. It's likely that some of the stragglers will drop out before the next quarter, and some of these lesser knowns are going to be reporting not only low revenues, but possibly debt. I expect McCain to have a rather poor showing, in fact the more I see from McCain, the more I think he'll be lucky if his constituents take pity on him and allow him to remain their senator. In any case, the field is going to be narrowing somewhat. On the other hand, word on the grapevine is that Ron Paul will be reporting some respectable fund raising numbers, thanks to his incredible popularity on the internet and the growing affinity for his message. I hope it's enough to catapult him into a solid first tier position. There's ten days left, so you can still donate to his campaign for this quarter to give him a bigger bump.

Sometimes I think the other candidates and their bumbling shenanegans are working to make Ron Paul look even better.

Vote Ron Paul 2008.

ACTION ALERT: Ron Paul being excluded in Iowa

I just saw this on the Ron Paul Blog:

Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa

Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.

Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

Full article here.

We need some Iowans and others to start making some calls, sending e-mail and anything else you can think of.

Here's the contact info for the offending parties:

Contact Information

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413

Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826

Personally, when I contact such people I usually emphasize that this type of behavior is what makes me withhold my support, my votes and especially my donations from anyone and everyone involved, including any affiliated or similar organizations and even the rest of the Republican Party in general. Just to make the point clear.

ADDED: Don't digg this post, it's already up there from the original source, right here. Digg that one instead.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Video: Ron Paul at Kansas City Event

Ron Paul takes questions from a packed crowd at the Uptown Theater in Kansas City.

I just saw this video on the Daily Paul, and it blew me away. I've been a Ron Paul fan for a number of years now, certainly long before he threw his hat in the ring for the current presidential bid, but I'm also a bit of a pessimist. Something striking about watching this video is that my pessimism was swept away and I found myself thinking about how things could be verses how they are. There's something about Paul's easy, honest and plain spoken manner of explaining the complex issues and dilemmas this country is facing that just draws me in and instils something I havn't felt in a long time: Hope.

In this short (just under 20 minutes) question and answer session, Congressman Paul tackles a wide range of topics in his usual straightforward, no-nonsense way (I guess that's easy when you speak from the heart and have a wealth of knowledge and experience to back up what you say). He touches on: immigration, marijuana laws, liberty, the constitution, marriage and civil unions, central banks and the dumping of gold to prop up the dollar, peak oil, the federal reserve, rolling back unconstitutional and illegal presidential orders and signing statements, gun regulation, veterans, protecting the borders, nafta and the hated superhighway, free trade, tarrifs and taxes, special interest influence on government, redistribution of wealth, the military industrial complex, Bush's possible war crimes, property tax, reduction of the size of government and freedom versus authoratarianism. Yes, he packed all that into 20 minutes and in an easy, coherent fluid way.

This video is well worth watching.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Fred Thompson is too cowardly to be President

Alright, I have nothing against Fred Thompson personally... well, maybe there are a few little things about him that I find irksome. For instance, his lobbying efforts to deregulate the savings and loan industry which resulted in the S&L crisis in the 80's. Then there was the lobbying on behalf of big business to make sure they didn't have to pay big money to those afflicted with health problems due to asbestos exposure. And of course he appears to be drinking the neocon koolaid in huge gulps, making him in essense yet another Bushie. All that aside, he doesn't seem like such a bad guy. It's his cowardly approach to the presidential election that I don't like.

Perhaps, as many actors, he is unable to speak without a script? What it appears to be though, is that he's frightened to pit himself against the other candidates in the debates. Afraid of the tough questions and afraid to be put in a position where he might have to think on his feet and speak without a cue card. It doesn't end there though. Having dodged the bullet and avoided three debates, Fred is now apparently going to wait until July to 'announce' his unannounced entry into the race. The reason for the delay is obvious: if he announced now, he would have to disclose fund raising numbers for the current quarter and they would look poor. So it's just strategy right? Perhaps. Perhaps it's even good strategy, but it's certainly not good straightforward leadership, and that's something this country sorely needs right now.

I'm really not sure why Freddy entertained the idea of throwing his hat into the ring in the first place. Yes, there is dissatisfaction with the republican candidates, but for the most part the same things turning voters away from most of the declared pack are the same things Fred embodies. Namely the neocon agenda of perpetual and ever expanding war via an ill conceived interventionist foreign policy, growing government beyond all measure, taxing the people to death and stripping away civil rights and liberties. Honestly, what was he thinking? People are unhappy because they have bad choices so Fred puts himself forward as the worst choice? It makes no sense. The neocon koolaid seems to impart a discernable break from reality.

Neoconservatism (as well as its sister neoliberalism) has failed miserably. It's been tried and found wanting. Beyond just not working, this flawed philosophy born in a think tank is detrimental to America as a whole. The people have seen this and the people have rejected it. Time to rethink, reorganize and try something different, not continue along a failed path.

Perhaps at a different time in history Freddy would be hailed as presidential. Unfortunately for him, and thanks to the same failed policies he himself seems to be embracing, Bush and his cabal of criminals have steered this country into a very dark place and a president who is 'just okay' or even 'least bad' simply won't do. In this time of crisis, created entirely by bad neocon policy, we're facing a collapsing economy, endless detrimental foreign entanglements and the greatest challenge to the constitution since its signing. In this time of challenges, the country needs a real leader, not someone who plays one on television. We need a hero; someone with a keen understanding of foreign policy as well as economics and a defender of the constitution. The only person running that fits that bill is Congressman Ron Paul.

P.S. Adam Schiff was a better fictional district attorney too!

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Video: Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson Show

Ron Paul on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show - June 14 2007

Another quick upload by ScaningTheWaves.

VIDEO: Ron Paul on The Colbert Report

Ron Paul on The Colbert Report - June 13 2007

Thanks to ScaningTheWaves for the speedy upload.

Note: Youtube is performing site maintenance tonight, so your mileage may vary until they're finished.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Video: Ron Paul on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

A good appearance by Congressman Ron Paul and some much needed exposure.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Democratic Congressman William Jefferson indicted on 16 counts

FBI Press release copy as follows.

Department of Justice Seal

U.S. Department of Justice
Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia
Judiciary Center
555 4th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530


For Information, Contact Public Affairs
Channing Phillips (202) 514-6933
June 4, 2007


WASHINGTON - United States Congressman William J. Jefferson was indicted today by a federal grand jury on charges including bribery and racketeering for allegedly using his office to corruptly solicit bribes and for paying bribes to a foreign official, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg for the Eastern District of Virginia announced today.

The 16-count indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., charges Jefferson with solicitation of bribes, honest services wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, racketeering, and conspiracy. The indictment alleges that from in or about August 2000 through in or about August 2005, Jefferson, while serving as an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, used his position and his office to corruptly seek, solicit and direct that things of value be paid to Jefferson and his family members in exchange for his performance of official acts to advance the interests of people and businesses who offered him the bribes.

The things of value allegedly sought and/or received by Jefferson on behalf of his business interests and relatives included hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in the form of payments from monthly fees or retainers, consulting fees, percentage shares of revenues and profits, flat fees for items sold, and stock ownership in the companies seeking his official assistance.

The official acts allegedly undertaken by Jefferson included leading official business delegations to Africa, corresponding with U.S. and foreign government officials, and utilizing congressional staff members to promote businesses and businesspersons. Business ventures that Congressman Jefferson sought to promote included: telecommunications deals in Nigeria, Ghana, and elsewhere; oil concessions in Equatorial Guinea; satellite transmission contracts in Botswana, Equatorial Guinea, and the Republic of Congo; and development of different plants and facilities in Nigeria.

"The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing the public corruption laws designed to ensure the integrity of our government," said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. "The Department will continue to hold public officials accountable for corrupt acts such as the bribery schemes outlined in today's indictment."

"The schemes charged are complex, but the essence of this case is simple: Mr. Jefferson corruptly traded on his good office, and on the Congress where he served as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, to enrich himself and his family through a pervasive pattern of fraud, bribery and corruption that spanned many years and two continents," said U.S. Attorney Rosenberg.

"The FBI has made combating public corruption its top criminal investigative priority because American citizens deserve honest and ethical public officials representing their interest," said Assistant Director Kenneth W. Kaiser, FBI Criminal Investigative Division. "As it is alleged, Congressman Jefferson violated the public's trust and used his official position and office as a RICO enterprise to corruptly solicit bribes, to pay off a foreign official, and to illegally benefit from overseas business transactions during a five-year period. The FBI will continue to work with our local, state, federal and international partners to combat public corruption across all levels of government as no corrupt public servant is exempt from FBI scrutiny."

The indictment alleges that Jefferson knowingly conspired with Vernon L. Jackson, a Louisville, Ky., businessman, and Brett M. Pfeffer, a former Jefferson congressional staff member, and others as part of the bribery and corruption scheme. Jefferson allegedly discussed and solicited bribes in return for being influenced in the performance of certain official acts, including receiving things of value from iGate, Jackson's company. According to the indictment, Jefferson also corruptly sought bribes from an individual identified in the indictment as a Cooperating Witness (CW) to be paid to family members. The indictment alleges, for example, that Jefferson required 5 percent to 7 percent of the CW's newly formed Nigerian company be given to members of Jefferson's family in exchange for his assistance. Jefferson allegedly made the request of the CW in December 2004 during a meeting in a congressional dining room.

The indictment further alleges that Jefferson violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by allegedly offering, promising and making payments to a foreign official to advance the various business endeavors in which he and his family had financial interest. Jefferson was allegedly responsible for negotiating, offering and delivering payments of bribes to the official identified in the indictment as "Nigerian Official A."

According to the indictment, on or about July 18, 2005, Jefferson met with Nigerian Official A at the official's residence in Potomac, Md., and offered Official A a bribe to induce him to use his position to assist in obtaining commitments from NITEL, the government-controlled main telecommunications service provider in Nigeria. On or before Aug. 3, 2005, at his residence in Washington, D.C., Jefferson allegedly secreted in his freezer $90,000 of the $100,000 in cash provided by the CW as part of the front-end bribe payment to Nigerian Official A. The cash was separated into $10,000 increments, wrapped in aluminum foil, and concealed inside various frozen food containers.

Jefferson faces a maximum of 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Jackson was sentenced to 87 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and the payment of bribes to a public official. Pfeffer was sentenced to 96 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and aiding and abetting the solicitation of bribes by a member of Congress.

The case is being prosecuted by Mark D. Lytle and Rebeca H. Bellows, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Charles E. Duross of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. The case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

Criminal indictments are only charges and not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty.



Sunday, June 03, 2007

Democratic debates: Edwards wins... others lose.

Alright, I wrote my own transcript of the debates which I'll provide below. It may be biased, but too bad. That's the way I heard it. Overall I think Edwards came away with a clear win... though I guess it really will depend on how the spin masters twist it to see how everyone else feels. In saything that you should understand I do not endorse nor will I be voting for any democrat in the election and this is just my analysis of the debate itself.

I found the debate to be rather boorish. Most of them agree on the basic principle of the nanny state and I didn't hear anyone endorsing serious changes like rolling back the police state Bush has created which the voters have come out against. I guess they didn't get the memo? One thing I found rather disturbing was that Senator Hillary Clinton was addressed 'common' i.e. as 'Hillary' - I find that disrespectful. I can't stand her politics, but she IS a UNITED STATES SENATOR and that's something important to remember. That her co-debaters didn't is an absolute disgrace and they should probaby each issue a press relrease correcting that along with an apology. We'll see how that works out.

Beyond that, Hillary herself lost (I can say that, I'm just a blogger), as did Barak... in fact, they were both brought down by this debate. It's not like they could have passed on it though eh? The other loser may have been Mike Gravel... not due to anything he said, but more due to the fact that he didn't get a real chance to speak. My total summary is this:

Edwards: Big winner, bootstrapped himself into the top tier.

Richardson: Small winner, got some word out but not nearly enough.

Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel: Slight losers, either had no strong standing or were unable to defend their positions in a statesmanly manner (in Gravel's case didn't get the chance).

Everyone else remained unchanged (though that's not really a good thing at this point in the game).

To be absolutely clear, I saw nothing tonight that would shake my support for Ron Paul.

Filtered Transcript follows:

Sunday June 3rd 2007

Democratic Debates Leslie Wolf Blitzer presiding


Obama: 6 years since 9/11........ jfk arrests... is Bush's horseshit a success? NO. We live in a more dangerous world rather than a less dangerous world, partly because of Bush. Bush is creating terrorists in Afhanistan and Iraq like nobodies business. Time to end the wars, (but not yet) or else. Wolf: any credit for Bush? O: Sort of but not really.

Edwards: Wolf: IS there a war on terrorism? Yes, but I will still be strong on terrorism, if you know what I mean? I don't.

Clinton: War on terror... I am actually a republican and I will take the republican stand on terror which is - be afraid, be very afraid... I will scare you into voting with me. Thank God for Bush, he was right all along.

Kucinich: Is the Patriot act okay? Ben Franklin: those who would give up their liberties to gain security deserve neither. The patriot act is unconstitutional and I shall overturn it. (100% correct).

Biden: Iraq, You voted to continue the Iraq War... why were you right and the other idiots wrong? Biden: That bill was horseshit and it's all been lies. Time to end the madness. If you want to support the troops, bring them home.

Clinton: DO I play politics with the lives of the troops? Yes, basically.

Obama: Everybody mindlessly supports the troops.. or at least says they do. Bush is a fuckup, I'll do it better.

Edwards: Do you agree with these fools? Yes and No... I want to fight Bush but still win politically, the troops may have to suffer while we decide which party makes the most out of this whole mess.

Obama: I opposed this war from the start, even though I was a nobody with no say in it... I still stand on my rather weak record.

Hills: This is a Bush's fuckup, I dont know how we got into this political mess, but I have a plan to bring troops home - eventually, maybe, someday.

Edwards: There are differences between the democratic candidates, but nobody can see them because they are just semantic.

Chris Dodd: (nothing that wasn't already said by other candidates...)

Richardson: What if Genocide takes place in Iraq? I have a lot of experience, I know everything. Genocide is bad.

Gravel: Where do you disagree with the idiots? Completely. The democrats facilitated the war.. they share it with Bush. Remember vietnam and the idiotic domino theory.

Kucinich: Is Iraq a waste of time? Our soldiers shouldn't have been sent there in the first place and this war was based on LIES. END IT NOW - STOP THE FUNDING!

Biden: Let's get some truth into this discussion. END THE WAR. The truth is George Bush emboldens the enemy.

Clinton: Do you regret funding the war without reading the intel estimate? I was briefed! I knew everything. This is one of my talking points I've prepared for, thanks for asking it.

Edwards: did you want to read it? No, I read the summary and in part I agree with Hillary (addressing her common) but I was wrong on the vote and I've since then come around and will admit that I was wrong. Why won't she?

Obama: You were nobody at that time, you had no information, what do you think? Not much, but I sure like playing monday morning quarterback.

Gravel: Should anyone who voted for the war be president? NO! These people knew that there were two sets of intel about this. They have killed more americans than died in 9/11 and that alone disqualifies them to be president.

Hillary: It was a mistake to trust George Bush and I'll be using that as my fallback position throughout this debate and my campaign.

Richardson: IS granting amnesty to 12 million illegals a good thing? Blah blah blah... bunch of rhetoric... the current pro-amnesty bill is no amnesty... everyone may hate it, but it's good, no matter what the american people think.

Biden: Should there be a fence? No. There are 14 million people here already, there's no way we can get them out anyway, let's turn them into democratic voters. Let's be practical. Screw the fence, even though I voted for it before.

Obama: Pro fence or not? Why not one with Canada? I watch the news, tuberculousis man came from Canada! Blah blah whatever, rhetoric supporting the stupidity of the current amnesty bill.

Hand raise: English official language? ONLY GRAVEL raised his hands... he speaks french and english. (first applause entire debate).

Obama: The issue is not english... blah blah blah

Clinton: The problem is in making it official.. they wont print ballots and nobody in hospitols will speak spanish. (Was that a joke?)

Dodd: I agree with Hillary and Barak. (makes good point on encouraging speaking of multiple languages)

Edwards: Healthcare... Do we need taxes to pay for healthcare? Yes... these other folks are really liars and you just can't give everyone healthcare without paying for it... it's really that simple... let's be honest.

Obama: I'd rather drive down the costs of healthcare than give blanket healthcare to everyone. (seems rather reasonable, but only at first glance)

Clinton: I LOVE universal healthcare! It's my prime issue! (zero details just a general endorsement and basically saying it's HER issue) blah blah blah. Blames big Pharma and Insurance (which is surprising).

Richardson: I insured every child under 5 in new mexico, got rid of junk food in schools.. I will make it manditory for the entire U.S. but it worked for us in New Mexico so it should be good (will it?)... why won't it work for everyone? Focus on prevention.

Dodd: We stink as a nation on healcare and it's shameful (totally right) We need bi-partisanship (again, right).

Edwards: Obama will leave 15 million people uncovered on healthcare, my plan covers everyone BY LAW. It's going to cost a lot but we can find the money.

Obama: Blah blah, let's keep it non-mandatory ... look at auto-insurance where it's mandatory and so many don't have it anyway.

Edwards: Children can't decide, therefore it needs to be decided for everyone.

Kucinich: I disagree... there's only one way... a universal single payer healthcare system for everyone - what these other jerks are talking about is turning it over to the insurance companies (applause).

Clinton: On dont ask dont tell - Gays have always been in the military but there is a problem with the dont ask dont tell implementation. We need more arabic linguists so we need to allow gays and lesbians into the military! (references Goldwater - you don't have to be straight to shoot straight). (Actually makes sense... don't even know why such a thing would be discussed since it's a no brainer).

Biden: Peter Pace sucks. Gays are fine in the military. We've got a war on our hands and we should be welcoming in anyone who wants to serve. (No duh?).

All raise hands for get rid of no gays in the military.

Richardson: Delivers impromptu pro-gay speech and rights for all... (trying to one up Kucinich?)

Edwards: Civil unions.. is it time to let gays marry? (shuffling feet proverbially) The federal government should STFU and let states decide for themselves. blah blah.

What should be done with former president Clinton?

Gravel: I will send Clinton as a roving ambassador around the world... and send his wife with him. (audience LOLs).

Richardson: Ideal job for clinton is in the UN. Clinton hooked me up with some good jobs... I'd send him to the middle east (WTF? now displays a complete cluelessness on foreign policy).

Obama: (kisses hillary's ass) says clinton (Bill) can be a diplomat and we need diplomats. (yawn).

Hills: blah blah we should be using former presidents (does she mean Carter too?) my wayward husband shall be a roving ambasaador...

Dodd: Gas Crises? (Honestly, he said nothing intelligable, just rattled off a pile of hot-button keywords and concentrated them on global warming and endorsed a carbon tax).

Gravel: I'll join the carbon tax band wagon. Shit costs money. Gas costs are much higher than you think. (He's right that gas costs a lot more than we pay at the pump, but personally I think the entire idea of a carbon tax is absolutely ridiculous).

Edwards: Blah blah... investigate the gas companies why are we subsidizing them? (good question, let's do it!)

Rhichardson: Is price gouging going on? My state is green! I shall ignore the question. Every American should sacrifice to help this problem!

Biden: Reduce the price of gas? Take away the subsidy. Investigate price gouging. Raise mileage per gallon on autos and make that legislated.


Peanut gallery questions begin:

Army wife asks, How do you plan to rebuild the military?

Kucinich: We should not offer any war bill at all. I believe peace is strength. The American military should be a force for strength. The military is stretched .. cut military spending this money isn't going to troops.

Obama: You want to grow the military.. blah blah I will help the troops not the republican backed high tech horeshit. (agree) [explanation, in the short amount of time he touches on the fact that people like Rumsfeld have starved measures that help actual troops while pouring huge amounts of money into ridiculous and non-working projects which do zero but inflate the pockets of GOP endorsers.. at least that's what I hope he meant].

Dodd: What would you cut? blah blah troops blah blah... we're not listening to the generals. basically says diplomacy is a good option but nobody understands.

Why dont vets get help?

Obama: That's something we have to address. blah blah pro big pharma talk blah blah.

Richardson: That's crap. Under my plan anyone who has served will get healthcare anywhere they seek it period. (which sounds cool but he doesnt explain how to pay for that) and gets cut off.

Gravel: Your experience from the VA? I am cool with it, but Obama should learn about the scandals in walter reid before he heralds such things.

Obama: Blah blah don't blame me, (addresses Gravel as 'Mike') says nothing really and Wolf calls him on it. Rebutt is rather lackluster rhetoric.

How to solve the Iranian problem?

Clinton: I am very concerned... we should have used diplomacy... blah blah... pro Bush crap injected. Raises the spectre of the soviet union and missiles "pointed at us". Basically endorses a full on nuclear attack on Iran but doesn't have the balls to come out and say so.

Edwards: Stop Iran from the nuke threat? WOW AMAZINGLY Edwards speaks truth about Iran... which is, they are quite pro-western. I'm shocked and amazed. Offers a carrot and stick propsal.. economically.. (my god he's right).

Biden: Gets loaded question regarding nuclear countdown... ignores and goes diplomacy as well... makes fun of Iran's nuclear capability (true according to the cIA). Stresses economics (did he steal Edward's wind there?)

Pakistan sucks, why do we support them?

Hillary: Blah blah... they've become a dictatrorship, but we sort of need that to control the area.

Kucinich: We have Bin Laden in our sights, should we take him out and kill innocents? NO We don't use assassination as a tool, we're the good guys. (he should have said 'what kind of asshole would ask something like that?').

Obama: I dont like assassinations but Bin Laden is an exception... with this I'm with the republican war and torture mongers... nothing is barred... kill them all and let god sort them out eh?

Hands: If you could take out Osama and kill innocents would you do it? (someone actually said it would 'depend on how many innocent civilians' and Hillary jumped in and said something along the same lines of: it would depend on how many innocents had to die for such a thing. (WTF country am I in? Even ONE innocent dealth is too fucking many you monsters).

Missed Edwards comment (sorry!).

On Darfur...

Biden: Let's stop talking and DO something there damnit. Send in NATO troops tomorrow.

Hands: WE should force the end of genocide in darfur.... HUGE ARGUMENT.

Use force to save people in Darfur?

Richardson: No... more UN peacekeepers, economic sanctions, china has to help, we should pressure them. We need to care about Africa.

Boycott China olympics?

Dodd: No. We need to kiss chinas ass. (probably right, they could easily bankrupt this country but most Americans have no idea of that).

Edwards: Fuck it, do whatever it takes! But really, we have lost our moral superiority and credibility in the world.

Obama: Blah security, humanity.. Guantanimo and suspension of habeus corpus hurt our credibility. (so true!).

Biden: Goes off... we can save them and shut down the mass deaths.

Richardson: boycott china olympics? Yes... china pressure can help the sudan. DO IT.

Mandatory service...

Gravel: No DRAFT! I'd love to see a volunteer service though and good leadership to inspire such a thing.

Kucinich: Ask not what a JFK quote can do for you... but can it do something for me?

Dodd: Draft? No... I'm a peace corpse guy. We should be encouraging voluntary service.

Obama: Who is rich? over 250k a year. as a democrat of course I'd like to re-distribute wealth.

Obama: I'd roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k.(lots of blah blah)

Edwards: My healthcare... roll back tax cuts for those making 200k a year. College for everyone! The government will pay for it (and when I say government I mean the taxpayers... i.e. you)!

Deficits are out of control... what will you do?

Richardson: I have balanced governoratorial budgets. I will take the money spent in Iraq and spend it on domestic stuff. (lots of blah, basically the same old democratic speel that takes money away from taxpayers but sugar-coated to seem like you're getting more than you're paying which of course is never the case, sigh)

Kucinich: Raise taxes raise spending? The war is bankrupting us... and we're borrowing from China to continue it.. the fake free trade bullshit is kiling the american worker (holy crap a democrat has finally made sense).

WTF is with earmarks?

Dodd: blah blah it's bad, but I'll dance around the issue and of course still support all earmarks that help my constitutents... just like everyone else. (dont blame him it's the most honest answer).

Gravel: DO AWAY with earmarks! We need to change the entire tax structure. Follow the money... special interest groups are buying your representatives.

Hillary: Blah blah... when Bill was president we were doing good, but people should ignore the fact that was because of the internet bubble and my husband did nothing to help it.

Gravel: You're all (to other candidates) raiding social security and robbing the american people!!!

Kucinich: Interest groups ARE fucking our country... but I'll only talk about the ones supporting the ones opposing me.

Biden: Middle of the night earmarks suck, reform it all!

Top Priorty:

Edwards: Travel around making america seem cool again (moral authority) (this is more important than most people think).

Clinton: Bring our troops home (which is what I say but will never do).

Obama: That and healthcare (Likewise).

Richardson: Upgrade schools (far too complicated for most voters but probably the smartest answer of them all in the long


Biden: End war in Iraq, defuse Iran and defuse North Korea. (this guy should probably be Secratary of State).

Kucinich: We could end Iraq war not... blah blah I'm crazy ... (sorry, he just lost me... and I even like the guy).

Gravel: Tells other candidates they could end the war RIGHT NOW if they wanted to but then get's cut off by moderador.

Dodd: Restore Constitution (applaudse) (Did he really say that? I think I may have missed it, he didnt get much time and the applause may have been carry over Gravel energy and the words wishful thinking on my part - something to check out).


Libertarian hottie Rachel Mills speaks about Ron Paul

Under the revitalized blog I'll be keeping content that comes from outside to a minimum, however I found these vids particularly interesting so I thought I'd bend my own rules a bit and add to their exposure. There's much more where they came from, check out Rachel's Youtube channel here.

Confessions of a Ron Paul Junkie


Rethinking Ron Paul

Its Personal

Rachel displays her ... libertarian principles.

Friday, June 01, 2007

Ron Paul, Digg, Spam and everything

Originally I started this article because I saw alot of diggers disparaging Ron Paul supporters because they were 'new' as in recently signed up to digg and therefore apparently their diggs and comments were somehow worth less than those of diggers who had been around much longer. This alone was rather disturbing, however when I scratched the surface and started checking out the actual people submitting articles I found much more to it than just that... and therefore this article itself changed.

You have to be living under an internet rock if you havn't felt the waves and reverberations of Ron Paul by now. Still, there seems to be plenty of people who just skim headlines and end up getting a lot of misinformation or even disinformation on this politician. I just thought I'd set a few things straight, for the record.

First... Ron Paul is indeed winning in every online straw poll. What I see a lot of talk about this one is that these polls are not scientific and Ron Paul is not holding his own in the supposedly scientific polls. Further, there have been many allegations that a small but determined group of tech savy Ron Paul supporters are gaming the system and thereby giving Ron Paul an undue advantage in such polls.

That would be fine if it were one or two polls, but really... for Ron Paul to be winning ALL of the polls? It stretches the imagination to think that his supporters could manipulate each and every poll as well as the metrics and records which places such as google, technorati and alexa not only keep, but base their entire business plan on. Really, if Ron Paul fans could 'game' the system to this extent, then he'll win hands down regardless because this is so far beyond 'fiddling' it's almost a conspiracy theory in it's own right.

More... the supposed 'scientific' polls quoted usually either reference a time period that pre-dates the recent Ron Paul explosion in popularity or don't include him as a choice at all... how scientific can that really be?

Second... Ron Paul supporters are (again, via a small but tech savy group) gaming digg and other social networking sites.

This itself would be funny if it weren't leading so many people to the wrong conclusions via the 'herd behavior' effect.

I'll be the first to admit that yes, there are a whole bunch of Ron Paul articles streaming through digg on a regular basis. Let's take a moment though to examine those articles and the people who submit and comment on them eh?

'Ron Paul' is the number one search term for blogs. Ron Paul has the most subscribers on Youtube. Ron Paul has the most friends on Myspace, Friendster and Facebook. Ron Paul, as previously mentioned, has won every single straw poll on the internet. What does this all mean? Ron Paul is POPULAR. What always has a place on digg? Things that are popular. As much as a geek fest digg is, there has always been a place for whatever news that is popular and/or breaking. Every starlet's indiscretion, every hollywood legal battle, every scandal. It all filters through. Popularity alone projects a great many articles onto digg.

Third... Of the many 'Ron Paul' articles coming through digg, a rather large amount of them are anti-Paul hit pieces or straight up spam articles inserted to generate anti-Paul sentiment. This is a tough one to combat, but I would hope that diggers would be a little bit discriminate before declaring everything 'Paul' as spam. If you take a look at who exactly is submitting these articles and what their views are, you'll see that the bulk of 'Ron Paul' related material you see is actually coming from submitters who are against Ron Paul and are merely betting that by upping the number of articles that they can turn popular digg support against him. This alone should raise a big red flag for everyone and cause people to question the motives behind such anti-digg-social behavior. Basically, these folks are betting on diggers being stupid enough to fall for such ploys and are themselves attempting to 'game' the system in order to point the finger at Ron Paul fans as the culprits and lay the blame on them. Personally, as a digger, I find that offensive. Don't think it's true? Here's one digger who's made an account for the exclusive purpose of attacking the Ron Paul grass roots movement: - now that is one source plenty of spam is coming from. The account was made a week ago, all submissions are anti-paul, all diggs are anti-paul and he's befriended every pro-paul digger in order to track and comment bomb all Paul related articles. Is that in the spirit of this community? An account with the only purpose of generating anti-sentiment on... anything?

Finally, there's people like this guy... Politics20, and there are tons just like him, again I'm just providing one example of many: It seems that digg h as seen fit to delete this account - obviously for reason... the skinny of it though is that he tracks ALL political stories, and through a combination of rss feeds and widgets, blind submits whatever political articles that happen to be 'hot' at the moment. Not just here, but on every social networking site. Funny thing is, ALL of his links lead back his personal advertising heavy blog... I'm all for the entrepreneurial spirit, but this is clear abuse of digg and totally against the TOS... the point here though is that this guy and many others like him are adding to the spam and it all gets blamed on the Ron Paul supporters. That's just plain wrong.

At the end of the day, I think if you bother to 'check it out', you'll find that between the articles that would just normally be on digg anyway, the anti-paul spam and the monetary keyword pirates, if you stripped that all out, you have a very few articles by actual Ron Paul supporters and they are all rather high quality and for the most part certainly worthy of a digg, NOT a bury. What's really happened here is that people from OTHER candidate's volunteer organizations have seen the Ron Paul effect and the Power of Digg and made a move to turn it around and incite anti-Paul sentiment. They're betting that diggers are too stupid to digg deeper and find out the real story. I'm hoping they're wrong.

In conclusion, from my own personal experience... support for Ron Paul is indeed REAL. It is widespread. He resonates with the internet crowd and yes, he's not perfect. The polls are correct and not gamed. The massive influx of Ron Paul related articles, or if you prefer 'spam', are NOT due to Ron Paul supporters, in fact afaik they are the one and only group that does any self policing in that regard at all. If you are overwhelmed with Ron Paul material, for the most part it is coming from OTHER candidate's volunteers or those who have a monetary interest in spamming in general, NOT from the pro Ron Paul crowd. So give them a break eh? Is there any other digg clique that at all works to reduce spam? I don't think so.

Ron Paul, he's got my vote.