Interesting information is coming to light about the viability of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden himself. This validates Ron Paul’s urging of non-interventionism and as always is on target.
The conviction is growing in intelligence circles that Usama bin Laden’s days might be numbered, but his demise will likely have nothing to do with Bush Administration efforts to kill him, which continue to be inept, unfocused, and overly reliant on allies like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to do the heavy lifting. Many officers within the counterterrorism community are beginning to question some basic assumptions about al-Qaeda and how great a threat it continues to represent. The internal debate has been revealed by Steve Coll, who has authored a best settler on the bin Ladens (The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century) and has recently written an essay for The Los Angeles Times suggesting that Usama bin Laden may well understand that he in serious danger of being killed within the next year. (Source: American Conservative Blog)
If true, this is yet another point making Ron Paul the remaining Presidential candidate with the most insight into foreign policy. The simple truth is that it isn’t quite that insightful. After all, it is only the foreign policy our founding father’s recommended over 200 years ago. What is sad, is that no other Presidential candidate has a consistent record of following the advice of our founders. Yet again, Ron Paul proves that it isn’t difficult to get it right. The difficult part is keeping it right in the face of so many advocates of the opposite.
Ron Paul supporters really need to realize that it isn’t all about Ron Paul. Sure there is mass disappointment that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee for President. There was genuine pain and sadness as each state held their primaries and caucuses and Ron Paul kept receiving under 10% of the vote with a few exceptions. Reality has set in and the reality is Ron Paul will not ever be President of the United States.
This does not mean the message of liberty has lost, it only means it has taken a punch to the gut. It is impossible to strike a fatal blow to liberty when there still exists a mass of citizens willing to fight back. It is true that some of those fanatical supporters of Ron Paul’s campaign have left. Perhaps being perpetual bandwagon jumpers is in their psychological makeup. If so, they can probably be found supporting Obama now.
In the same message where Ron Paul announced it was time for his Presidential campaign to wind down he floated the idea of a grand march on Washington DC to his supporters. Since then various factions began rallying for the rally/march. Initially, the Ron Paul campaign jumped in the ring and tried planning the event. At some point they backed out and left it up to the grassroots.
At least two different major events were either already underway or were started the minute the idea was floated. Those major events are, The Freedom Rally organized/promoted by the Granny Warriors and The Revolution March. Many have been critical of these competing events. The criticism is mostly based on the belief that having one large event is better than having multiple smaller events. It seems that there is no basis for this argument. Why not work towards having multiple large events? After all, don’t we believe that free markets and competition work for the betterment of all?
The first event is this Tuesday, April 15th, 2008. It is the “Freedom Rally” organized by the Granny Warriors. Many liberty luminaries are scheduled to speak, including Ron Paul and Bob Barr. The event begins at 11am and lasts until 6pm. The weather as of this writing looks to be a bit chilly but no rain. For all the details check out the Freedom Rally page at the Granny Warriors web site.
The second event is the Revolution March and will either be held on July 12th or August 2nd, depending upon the support. Currently, the July 12th date is leading in votes, but not by much.
There is more than enough room in the Ron Paul tent for two rallies or even more. Some have also suggested a protest be held outside the walls of the Republican National Convention. That is yet another great idea.
Save the criticism and negative energy for the authoritarian tyrants who oppose liberty that for want of more power have hijacked America for their own hubris rather than the self evident truths found in the Constitution they falsely swore to uphold.
According to a press release, “In a survey commissioned last week by the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee, seven percent of likely voters responded that they would vote for the former Georgia congressman for president if he were on the ballot in November…. Barr is considering whether to seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party for president.
Bob Barr is no Ron Paul…. and that is a blessing as well as a curse.
There has been much criticism to go around about the official Ron Paul campaign dropping the ball here and there during the Presidential race. Much of the criticism came from his own supporters. Questioning his campaign strategy has become easy to do in hindsight, especially when you now have Ron Paul clone campaigns in overdrive across America for comparison.
By all measures Ron Paul has been an extreme advocate of the Second Amendment. In 2003, he introduced legislation that would make any gun control advocate want to shoot themselves or something else in frustration.
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. (Source)
Also, during his Presidential run he has repeatedly stated that 9/11 may never have happened if airline companies were allowed to arm their employees. This is some of the strongest advocacy for the Second Amendment from any politician. It is interesting then that the NRA gave Ron Paul a ‘B’ in 2006 largely believed to be due to him opposing the NRA compromise on gun locks legislation. Apparently, when a candidate sticks to the original intent of the Second Amendment it is grounds for negative points, according to the NRA.
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) are a different story. They gave and still give Ron Paul an A+ rating, as it should be.
There is no doubt Ron Paul is serious about our Second Amendment rights, but could he have gained the support of a Second Amendment celebrity? Someone like Dick Heller, who has taken the Second Amendment all the way to the Supreme Court? A local Virginia Ron Paul Republican, Vern McKinley is campaigning at the “Nation’s Gun Show” this weekend, and there have been reports that Dick Heller is hanging out at his table.
It’s no secret that we (Liberty Maven) love the McKinley effort to unseat Frank Wolf in Virginia’s 10th District. Truthfully, following our interview with him, we have become Vern McKinley fanatics, and for good reason. Frank Wolf voted against repealing the DC gun ban, so it is not surprising that Heller would be supportive of McKinley’s campaign as well. (NOTE: Grassroots supporters of McKinley are holding a money bomb for him on May 1st, check it out and pledge a few bucks or more at the website.)
Perhaps the timing just wasn’t quite right, but it would have been a perfect political move for Ron Paul to seek Dick Heller’s endorsement. They tried to make waves with the Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) endorsement, but it barely made a wimper. There’s a good case that gaining the endorsement of Dick Heller would have done the same. Once a candidate is dubbed ‘unelectable’ by the media, endorsements only get mentioned in passing. Then again things may have been different.
At least it would have been a counterpunch to the face of the NRA for giving Ron Paul that ‘B’ rating.
Here is video of Ron Paul hammering General Patraeus on the Iraq war and most importantly on the Constitutionality of committing war-like activity without Congressional approval.
What disturbs Ron Paul should disturb every single American on both the left and the right. The first order of any military person is to protect the Constitution. Dodging the question Ron Paul asked only underscores the fact that our Constitution has been rendered meaningless when it comes to modern day American foreign policy. So sad.
One of the more interesting developments to rise out of the Ron Paul Presidential campaign was the “money bomb.” The “money bomb” is an effort to get the multitudes to donate to a campaign within a specific period of time. Usually, the period is the 24 hours in one single day. The day also normally has a theme associated with it. Ultimately, the purpose is to pool campaign donations in a short period of time as an attempt to gain more funding and perhaps most importantly, free media attention.
What is even more interesting is that the “money bombs” are completely independent efforts from official campaigns. They are conceived and promoted by grassroots supporters via YouTube videos, web sites, forum postings, email lists, and blogs. Technically they are not grassroots efforts, but more aptly, netroots efforts.
Ron Paul had 3 major money bombs and several minor ones. The largest filled his campaign coffers with over $6 million. That amount helped him close out the final quarter of 2007 with the most money in the quarter when compared to his GOP rivals. This was an astounding feat for a candidate who received very little media attention.
It would not be surprising to see future Presidential campaigns take the money bomb concept to new levels in attempts to get similar attention. There is a problem with this though. In order for it to work, it must be a grass/net-roots effort. This requires many like-minded individuals banning together around a candidate and helping to promote the day. If the money bomb is an effort from the official campaign, it is likely doomed to failure.
The money bomb concept is now being taken to new levels by candidates who are running with a Ron Paul style message. In fact, a Ron Paul Republican in my district here in Virginia has an upcoming money bomb on May 1st. His primary is on June 10th and he faces a 28 year incumbent who seems to have lost his way over the years in office. Vern McKinley’s money bomb site is: MayDayMcKinley.com. I strongly encourage everyone to pledge to donate to him on May 1st. He has a great shot at winning. Two Dr. No’s in Congress are certainly better than one.
The legacy of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign is still being written. It is clear that legacy includes at least two new political concepts that complement each other. They are the “money bomb” and the “Ron Paul Republican”. It is important we keep both concepts alive and kicking by participating in money bombs to help elect Ron Paul Republicans to office and keep them there.
Like so many times in the past, there was a vote in the House of Representatives today and the vote was 413-1. If you follow the House you already know who the Congressman was who voted ‘no’. For those that don’t, his name is Ron Paul. Some say he is principled to a fault. Some say he is heroic. The truth is he is just a representative who takes his oath as… well… an actual oath.
This time the vote was for a resolution to call on China to end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for “nonviolent” demonstrations. These votes are the kind where Paul is commonly the lone dissenter. It is a non-binding feel good measure where the U.S. tries to, albeit diplomatically, meddle in other country’s affairs. It is a waste of time and tax money.
It does give those in Congress the ability to pontificate against the human rights violations of another country, which is all nice and well-meaning. As a taxpayer I’d rather they pontificate about reducing spending, lowering taxes, and following the Constitution. If done through a press release or a speech to a specific organization I have no problem with individual elected officials denouncing such things. I take issue when you utilize the House chambers in an official capacity for a resolution that does absolutely nothing to help our country. Apparently, Ron Paul feels the same way.
What is quite sad about his single ‘no’ vote is the way the media reports it. Sure, they give quotes from the other representatives, but the only thing written about Paul is that he was the lone ‘no’ vote and he recently dropped out of the Presidential race. The truly sad part is that only the first part of that statement is true. He is still in the Presidential race.
The damage is done though, as it has been done so many times in the past year of his campaign. The media anointed him the “un-serious”, “dark horse”, “quixotic”, “long shot” candidate. They missed covering one of the greatest stories in recent political history and in doing so they not only marginalized Ron Paul, but many of their own viewers as well.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
