I wish I received a birthday card containing over $1.5 million. In about 24 hours, Ron Paul’s Birthday “money bomb” has reeled in just that. While I’d probably spend the money on silver or gold, Ron Paul is going to spend the money on spreading the liberty message via his 2012 presidential campaign. And the way Ron Paul spends money that 1.5 million will go a long way.
Ron Paul has done it yet again. Another one of his patented money bombs today has already pulled in over $1 million for his 2012 presidential campaign.
Check out the latest running total at RonPaul2012.com and why not donate a few FRN’s yourself?
Five out of five liberty-lovers agree… there is no better candidate in 2012.
Back in December of 2007 Liberty Maven discovered a letter written by The main Stream Media Czar to all media outlets outlining the tactics to use in order to ensure Ron Paul did not come close to winning the GOP nomination in 2008. Feel free to read that ancient document, if you like.
Now the same tactics appear to be in use today. The only difference is that the effort to ignore Ron Paul is much more blatant this time around. By now you’ve probably seen this segment by Jon Stewart. It pretty much sums up the bias against Ron Paul quite well.
Jack Cafferty used his own time on CNN recently on the same topic.
It would have been much more difficult for them to ignore Paul if he had won Iowa outright. So the same problem from 2008 is front and center for 2012.
How do we Ron Paul supporters combat this kind of treatment? The Jon Stewart segment above has nearly 700,000 views. That’s a good start.
As if we needed further proof that it didn’t really matter if you voted for McCain or Obama in 2008. McCain appeared this morning on “This Week” and vocalized his displeasure at the growing “isolationism” (his word, not mine) being expressed by the 2012 GOP candidates. Of course it was McCain, who during a debate in 2007, accused Ron Paul’s “isolotianism” of being the kind of policy that brought about WWII and the rise of Hitler. Here’s a video of that exchange:
This morning McCain sounded a similar tune when talking about Obama’s recent support of actions in Libya.
“There’s always been an isolation strain in the Republican party, that Pat Buchanan (a former Republican presidential contender) wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak,” he said.
There is no question that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, made the right choice in lending US military support to the NATO mission in Libya, McCain told ABC television’s “This Week” program.
“If we had not intervened, Kadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That’s a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?
“That’s not the Republican party of the 20th century and now the 21st century,” McCain said.
McCain is a neo-con Republican dinosaur with a jingoist broken record roar of, “America F&%K YEAH!” It is as tired as it is desperate. He also, along with much of the media, needs to learn the proper definition of isolationism. For more see this excellent video on isolationism from Jack Hunter.
It is a testament to Ron Paul that his message of non-interventionism is now being echoed, in various forms, by his 2012 GOP opponents. However, let’s not kid ourselves, not a single candidate in the field other than Ron Paul can be trusted to put action behind the words.
In 2008 I wrote that I didn’t think America was ready for Ron Paul. Here in 2011-2012, America just might be ready. Even if Dino-McCain isn’t.
Ron Paul is an oasis in a dry-mouthed desert of 2012 choices for president. No one can question his integrity or his principles without looking like a fool. Indeed anyone who tries ends up revealing more about themselves than Dr. Paul. What is it going to take for enough people to truly wake up and smell the liberty?
Between now and the primary season we need enough Republicans to have a eureka moment if they aren’t already on-board the Ron Paul liberty train. Enough Republicans need to vote for the only candidate who realizes that the Constitution is not just a banner to wave above your head during debates and media appearances. Ron Paul knows the Constitution has depth. He knows that it is meant to protect human liberty.
His effort is and always has been a tall task. He is ostracized by the “America F$%K YEAH!” neo-cons on foreign policy. He is ostracized by the “emo” liberals for championing the free market.
It is up to us supporters of liberty to do every single damn thing in our power to help Ron Paul make the ostracism irrelevant. It’s up to us to help Ron Paul win. If Ron Paul wins liberty wins. If Ron Paul wins the Constitution wins. If Ron Paul wins the individual wins. Yes, that means you win.
In 2012 the GOP primary campaign season is money bomb season with several money bombs for Ron Paul scheduled throughout the 2011-2012 time frame. The next one just happens to begin tonight at midnight. The June 5th money bomb also will include an all day radio show.
Please support the money bombs and give some of your earned treasure to support liberty through the candidacy of Ron Paul. Think of it as a down payment for all the taxes you’ll save once he wins.
Rand Paul, not even 1 year in the U.S. Senate, is already creating a legacy for himself. And if you believe in the Constitution and the human liberty it protects then it looks good, very good. Paul has been steadfast and fearless when it comes to remaining true to his campaign promises. This is an anomaly in the float-with-the-current like a rotten log cesspool that is Washington DC circa 2011.
Paul has pushed for balancing the budget aggressively, stood up for consumer choice, and all the while doing everything in his power to cut government spending. Now, he’s revealing his diamond-tough huevos by going up against the whimsical idiot-savants of hypocrisy in his own party and the truth-bending emotionally-charged demagogues on the other side. His only allegiances are his promises and the U.S. Constitution. If enough of his peers in DC started doing the same our Founding Fathers might stop rolling over and over in their graves to salute the flag once again.
Listen here to Rand Paul discussing recent renewal vote on The PATRIOT Act with everyone’s favorite Neo-Conservative whipping boy, Sean Hannity (from Hannity’s radio show). Near the end Rand Paul reveals who he may vote for in the upcoming POTUS 2012 election and touches on his own potential aspirations for that same office.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This morning Ron Paul appeared on Good Morning America ahead of his speech in New Hampshire where he announced he is officially entering the race for POTUS 2012. This is unsurprising given his recent move toward running and the results in recent polls.
Here is his appearance on GMA. Note his excellent responses to all of the questions posed to him. Much like his fire in the first GOP debate, it has become obvious to me that this 2012 effort is no longer just an educational effort like 2008 admittedly was. He’s in it to win it this time around. The thing about Ron Paul is that even if he loses in the conventional sense (which right now appears likely) he will win and has already won the hearts and minds of a new generation of leaders. And their sole focus is what the America of the future needs most: liberty.
What do we demand from government? Jobs? Prosperity? These days those come to mind first, but during the post World War II years we had prosperity and jobs and discontent was rampant. Did we want something else then? I came of age with the first Boomers in the 50’s and 60’s and the country’s prosperity did little to dampen our discontent. What were we so mad about? I believe we were mad because we didn’t have a good national story that pertained to our generation.
And I think that in addition to our clamoring today for jobs and a return to prosperity, mine and succeeding generations have continued the yearning for a good national story. Now we have the makings of the sort of compelling story we lacked before. The only problem, as I shall conclude, is that sometimes stories can be too satisfying, too soon.
First let’s rid ourselves of the idea that a story is essentially fiction. After all, the words “history” and “story” share the same root. This is not to say that stories and history are equally non-fictional- they may be equally fictional. Their truth or falsity is beside the point. We eagerly adopt stories of either kind to underwrite our lives.
Hitler is relevant to this discussion, as he was the most strident and successful storyteller of the generations just before mine. He told different stories to different people, and everyone believed him. He told Germans that Jews and the rest of the world generally had conspired to destroy the destiny of the German people. This story was a bestseller, so to speak. Great swaths of German society devoured it as precious mental nourishment, because it made them feel good, made them feel part of something important and justified, as an effective story does. Then he told the rest of the world that he was a ferocious megalomaniac, poised to take over and punish all states and societies that were not in his thrall. That story too was a great hit, in the sense that people followed it and adopted it as their story.
The stories told by Roosevelt and Churchill were predicated on Hitler’s story: We were the defenders against Hitler, the homicidal maniac. Of course Hitler was a homicidal maniac, but as I say my use of “story” denotes neither fiction nor non-fiction. It was Hitler’s story telling capability that put him on the map. Our mental wards are full of crazed megalomaniacs whose stories are listened to by no one but bored staff. Hitler might well have been one of these isolated souls, but as a powerful storyteller, his story became, well, “real.”
Then what was wrong with post-war America’s story? Looking back I see a few things: the dreadful Hitler-enhanced war story that our parents lived, with its heroism and triumph, was not available for us to identify with, partly because it had not happened on our soil, and partly because we were so definitively post-war. Nor could we derive self-esteem from the earlier Depression, with its tales of injustice and endurance, awash as we were in surplus. We had for our coming of age rituals- not recognition of triumph over adversity- but endless exhortations conveyed via the new wonder, TV, to spend our parents’ money on keys to popularity like Brylceem (a little dab ‘ll do ‘ya!). We were just consumers of hair grease always on the look out for new products. I think I sensed even then the potential for Tom Brokaw to slander my entire generation as something less than “great.”
Ron Paul is on fire. That is my opinion of his performance in this first GOP debate. Of course, I’m biased. Feel free to make your own judgement after watching the entire debate below. There were a few stellar moments from Ron Paul, including his answer when asked about legalizing drugs, and his answer about being the “Founding Father” of the Tea Party movement regarding Michele Bachmann.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Herman Cain says, but I have to admit he has charisma that will give him a lot of support. Expect the other candidates to start attacking him if his poll numbers go up. I think they will.
Gary Johnson did very well with a few odd moments. If I’m looking at him through social-con or neo-con eyes voting for him would likely be impossible. He did come off as a very honest “make the hard choices” candidate. Sort of like Cain without the charisma.
Pawlenty seems to be channeling John McCain a bit too much and Santorum just comes off as angry. Both seem to be going after the George W. Bush voting block; however small that is these days.
The season approaches when our national discussion will once again turn to the relative sainthood of our would-be federal leaders. And shadowed close by, in my own community in the fair city of Los Angeles, we will be able to choose a new mayor. This political season appears at both levels with time-honored tradition, festivities and picnics everywhere, yet I react to its approach with growing fatigue and irritation.
Why? Am I running for office, so that I have to sweat every little quirk in a typically quirky conversation? No, I’m not running for office- and I’m not “in with the in-crowd,” if you know what I mean- and have no actual use for attaching my free-floating American angst to the great battles of the day. At the risk of psychoanalyzing my apathy (yes, in my youth I had a three-legged collie), I’ll just say that it isn’t so much apathy as, well…caring too much. It’s the same thing that happened to me when, on the way back from a Dodger game in which “we” had ignominiously lost, I had to ask my sulking self, “Why are you investing emotional energy in this? It’s just a damn baseball game, get over it!” Did I mention that this happened in 1969, not last week?
It was in that same year that I cast my first and last vote during the casting of which I believed that I was expressing a sort of influence on the government. That vote was in favor of Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic anti-war incumbent, for whom I had cheered in Columbus Square in San Francisco, against the warmonger Republican Barry Goldwater. (Ah, youth!). I dropped Democrats, Dodgers and Republicans within two years of each other. Whether that made me a secular humanist, well, I’m still working that out.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
