Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address to the Nation, 1961                                    

“Ron Paul and I would disagree on many issues. …However, these are policy differences. They can be negotiated or legislated into a compromise.  But on liberty, on human rights, and on the Constitution, Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets it.  …Liberty is where we begin and end the conversation in America.  For far too long, government has chipped away at the rights of Americans.  Ron Paul would reverse that trend.  Whatever else he does is secondary to that prime directive.”

John Thorpe “Forbes“                                                                                                                                  

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Thorpe (a liberal) in the above paragraph.  I also agree with those expressed by conservative Steve Deace: “as much as I disagree with Paul, I’d choose him over the Republicrat ruling class any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.” 

The fact that individuals from both the left and right of the political spectrum find Ron Paul increasingly attractive is of no little concern to The Powers That Be (TPTB) and their long-knives are already out.  Should Ron Paul become the lead, or one of the lead Republican candidates they will attempt to slice and dice him like a Cuisinart — count on it.  The MSM, who cannot seem to find Obama’s past history with a bloodhound and a road map will suddenly become super-sleuths able to sniff out every nook and cranny of Ron Paul’s past — and where the truth does not suit their purposes they will twist it until it does.

It is understandable that the Far Left would oppose Ron Paul, because of his stance on state’s rights, limited government, and his staunch defense of the US Constitution.  What perplexes me is the animosity shown toward Paul by the purportedly conservative Republican establishment — and there can be no doubt that the GOP elites despise Paul’s positions.  Rush Limbaugh has dumped on him; the “conservative” press treats him as a joke, and “conservative” talking heads routinely dismiss him.  Recently Neil Cavuto took his fellow pundits at Fox News to task for their blatantly dismissive attitudes toward Ron Paul.                                                                                                                                  

All of which only makes Ron Paul all the more attractive to me as a candidate, and I suspect that a growing number of conservatives feel similarly — we know how lame “conservative” media can be. 

“We the people” are more than a little tired of the condescending arrogance thrown our way by Republican elites and their duplicitous mouthpieces.  The truth is that for all of their talk of being conservative, they find Ron Paul’s ideas about limited government anathema.  They want big government — they only differ from the liberal elites in their choice of what type of big government we should have.  It is of no importance to them that freedom decreases as government increases. 

I only recently became aware of just how much negative information TPTB have already put out about Ron Paul, so one of my first tasks has been to bring myself up to speed on what is true about Ron Paul, and what is false.  I found that I needed to brush aside much of the “common wisdom” surrounding him.

I have found that many of the “problems” with Ron Paul are not problems at all, and that most of his troublesome positions are in fact either outright fabrications invented by those who oppose him, or statements taken out of context.  Granted, there are still a few things that as a conservative make me cringe, but I am sure that liberals can say the same.  The thing is, as John Thorpe points out, liberty trumps all.  Next to freedom, most all of the other issues that we concern ourselves with become peripheral sideshows — and the one thing that Ron Paul definitely stands for, almost uniquely, is freedom.

For those of you who may not be aware of Ron Paul’s positions regarding several controversial issues, let me give some examples of what I have found out.

Ron Paul’s position on illegal immigration includes physically securing our borders, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, and ending birthright citizenship.  That does not sound like Paul is an open borders La Raza aficionado to me.                              

Ron Paul is not a proponent of abortion.  Doctor Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies, and no doubt understands more about the complexities involved in the debate than most of us.  As is the case with a number of issues, he has been made out to be a proponent of things that he does not endorse, but simply believes should be left up to the individual states to decide, as per the US Constitution. 

Ron Paul’s fiscal policies seem to me to be much more sane than anything I have seen come out of Washington since…well, actually I cannot think of any sane fiscal policy that has come out of Washington.  That is to say, Ron Paul’s ideas for responsible fiscal behavior are the sanest things to have come out of Washington in a loong time — end the Fed, end taxes, stop the government’s insane spending spree, and clean up rampant corruption.  You had better believe TPTB do not like the sound of any of that.                                                  

Claims that Ron Paul is racist are absurd.  Read the quote of his below and judge for yourself:  

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.  Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.  By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.  …The true antidote to racism is liberty.  Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.  …Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.” That bears rereading.                                            

John Nichols, writing for NPR on the Ron Paul candidacy notes that “what frightens Republican party leaders [is] the notion that the Grand Old Party might actually base its politics on values, as opposed to pay-to-play deal-making, [which] unsettles the Republican leaders who back only contenders who have been pre-approved by the Wall Street speculators, banksters and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab—and kindly pick up some of the bills for the Democrats, as well.  And if [Ron Paul] wins Iowa, he could begin a process of transforming the Republican Party into a conservative party.  That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters.  But it…quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the “conservatism” of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.”  (Italics added)    

I basically agree with Mr. Nichols, pausing only to mention in passing that the shoe is on the other foot, and that it is mainly the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are in bed with Wall Street.  The numbers paint a different story than liberals would have us believe: “These Democrats may claim to be on the side of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters, but the numbers don’t lie. They are clearly capitalizing on the populism of the day while continuing to line their campaign coffers with money from the very people they are now demonizing.”  In the spirit of détente I will drop that particular subject for the time being, and move onto Ron Paul’s “anti-war/non-intervention” stance of which much has been written.  

Not many people alive today remember the time when America was not the world’s “policeman,” but the current state of affairs is a rather recent development that did not start coming into being until shortly after WW II.  For most of America’s history the idea of policing the world would have been considered ludicrous.

Todd S. Purdum writing for “Vanity Fair” lays the blame for the rapid expansion of the military/industrial complex at the feet of George Kennan and an article he wrote in 1947 for the Council on Foreign Relations.  In his article Keenan outlined the need for America to fight communism in one hot-spot after another.  Keenan meant to fight it diplomatically and politically rather than militarily, but no matter, the military/industrial complex was born.  (John Bolton in a recent article gives Keenan much less credit, writing that Keenan “was simply a verbalizer for ideas swirling at the State Department” at the time). 

In any event, Keenan lived to rue his article and when US troops were sent to Somalia in 1992 he wrote “The dispatch of American armed forces to a seat of operations in a place far from our own shores, and this for what is actually a major police action in another country and in a situation where no defensible American interest is involved—this, obviously, is something that the Founding Fathers of this country never envisaged or would ever have approved. If this is in the American tradition, then it is a very recent tradition.”                                                                                                  

Exactly Ron Paul’s point — that all of this international military involvement is against the grain of America’s history, and at odds with our founding principles — if not flat out unconstitutional.  While our military is engaged in numerous operations overseas, the country that they are “defending” is going to hell in a hand-basket — economically, morally, and culturally.

I recently saw an article headlined “Draft Hillary.”  I thought to myself “”great idea!”  Issue her an M-16 and let her have at it in Afghanistan.  Send some of the more objectionable members of Congress along with her.  Let them get blown up, let them deal with suicide bombers, let them deal with insane ROEs in a tar-baby backwater surrounded on all sides by hostiles.  We would no doubt see a rapid “attitude-adjustment” on their part                                                                        

And if we were to successfully colonize Afghanistan — then what?  Colonize the surrounding countries of Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Yajikistan, and Pakistan?  We have to go after those terrorists you know.  Shall we colonize Yemen — we know they hide out there.  Somalia?  What about Sudan?  Where does it end?  What brainiac thought up this grand strategy?  I support our troops, and I want them out of Afghanistanbecause I support them.

I am not the non-interventionist that Ron Paul is, but I am for bringing most of our troops back home to regroup and reevaluate things.  We should concentrate on getting our own house in order, before we go waltzing around the world telling other folks how to run their business.  The United States has the world’s highest divorce rate, we lead the world in rapes, car thefts, and drug use.  We are by far the world’s main supplier of pornography, and we possess the planet’s most complicated tax system.  We have the most people behind bars, and we have far more foreign military bases that any other country.  Oh, and we spend over seven times more on our military than any other country.  What’s not to love?  Plenty.                                                                                       

It is no secret that war is big business and that many powerful people have a vested interest in seeing to it that wars continue unabated.  The “defense” industry beats out illegal drugs for profitability — only the oil industry brings in more money.  The “death merchants” make out like bandits while our young men and women lose lives, limbs, and heart.           

Speaking of drugs, now might be a good time to point out that Ron Paul is not for drug use, again he simply feels that it is something that should be left up to the individual states to decide.  (An interesting aside: did you know that Afghanistan’s multi-billion dollar opium trade rapidly expanded under US occupation?  Somehow I doubt that all that money goes to the Taliban).       

If you are under the delusion that our men and women in uniform are rabidly opposed to Ron Paul’s anti-war/isolationist stance, then you might be surprised to learn that Ron Paul receives more donations from active duty military personnel than any other politician — in either political party.  Paul Joseph Watson writes “judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.”        

The meme that Ron Paul is unelectable is rubbish — scare tactics courtesy of TPTB.  I “guesstimate” that apart from a small percentage of voters who will find some of Paul’s positions to be beyond the pale (which is of course their right), there is a large majority that may very well end up voting for him.  

The Ron Paul revolution is a real across-the-board revolution, and not some dialectical sophistry designed to hoodwink one ideological side or the other. The establishment, no matter what political banner they carry, will fight tooth and nail anyone who threatens their grip on the status quo.   They like things just the way they are — with them in charge.  

At least in regard to Ron Paul a truce should be called between “we the people” on the left and on the right.  Let us agree to disagree, and “keep our eyes on the prize” — our freedom.  It is not impossible that “we the people” can win this thing.          

In truth this is not about left vs. right; it is about up vs. down.  Up to freedom, truth, light and hope, or down to darkness, lies, despair and ruin.

As “we the people” move forward toward restoring liberty in our land it would be wise to keep in mind that Ron Paul is only one man, and a revolution should not be about just one person.  Using Ron Paul as a figurehead, a touchstone, and a rallying point is fine, but fundamentaly this revolution is about “we the people, and restoring hope and freedom to our children and future generations. 

That being said, I wholeheartedly and without reservation endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States.  Now let’s go kick some butt – lovingly of course.  Power to the people – right on.             

Next up are two familiar tools of status-quo politics discussing Ron Paul’s recent poll numbers in Iowa. Of course, I’m talking about Bill O’Reilly and Dick Morris. Dick Morris actually appears to shudder when he considers (and then immediately dismisses) the possibility of Ron Paul being the GOP nominee. What Morris doesn’t realize is that when he speaks later in the segment about his “cockroach theory” (whatever that means) he’s actually describing the very reason Ron Paul would win against Obama and not one of his choices of Romney or Gingrich.

This just, once again, proves what a monumental task Ron Paul is up against in his quest to spread liberty by leading by example rather than leading by a leash. The pundits are coming out in droves to discredit Paul’s candidacy because they don’t want to be forced to vote for him if he should get the nomination. I’d love for one of these tools to answer the question, “If Ron Paul gets the nomination would you support him?” They’d likely dismiss the question as “impossible” rather than admit they’d support him, eventually.

Paul has a long road ahead of him. Not only must he actually win enough votes in each state, but he must also win over the pundits and their despicable preliminary coronations of other candidates. Doing enough of the former will help with the latter. One thing is for sure, Ron Paul’s campaign this time around is not an educational effort like it was in 2008. He’s all in and if Ron Paul wins, America wins.

————–
Don’t forget to pledge and donate this Friday for the Tea Party 2011 Money Bomb. It’s one way that we can punch back at the Dick Morris types.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oULpsuoEY7c

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.

My only question is did the memo about Ron Paul from the mainstream media czar go out early this time around? Here is the relevant excerpt suspiciously omitting Paul:

“It’s one of the first times that they get to showcase their actual credentials among key constituencies and generate publicity for themselves early on in the cycle,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.

Among the speakers are two former governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich and sitting governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Mitch Daniels of Indiana.

Gingrich and two other possibles, Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum speak on Thursday.

Romney, Pawlenty, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Daniels speak on Friday and Barbour speaks on Saturday. Attendees will decide their favorites in a Saturday straw poll.

Ron Paul hasn’t even announced he’s running in 2012 yet and the media is already trying to ignore him. I ask again, how can this not be on purpose?

The most infamous recent example of this tactic being used against a Liberty candidate was when Rachel Maddow attacked Rand Paul for stating he would not have supported one of the ten titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The title that assumed the Federal Government owns all private property and therefore can impose their will on the property owner. The key to that interview was Maddow’s demand for a yes or no answer to the question, “Should Walworth lunch counters should [sic] have been allowed to stay segregated, just yes or no please.” Because Maddow asked the question in a yes or no format, the average viewer may have been tricked into believing that Rand Paul’s answer was evasive. However he was trying to lay out the context necessary to properly answer the question while remaining loyal to his convictions. However, the time frame allotted for his response was disproportionate to the complexity of the question.

To fully argue his well developed point to an audience largely uninitiated on the Libertarian view of the Civil Rights Act Rand Paul would have needed at least one hour of uninterrupted speech, not 13 minutes of continually being talked over and “badgered,” to use Maddow’s own word. The link that Rand Paul needed to break was the deeply embedded connection between doing away with institutional racism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While they are two mutually exclusive things they are inextricably linked in American mainstream history. Although it was not acknowledged by Maddow he did indeed show that history is not inevitable and simply repealing the Jim Crow laws would have been an appropriate action for the Federal government to take, and would have ended institutional segregation.

Another archetypal moment of concision being used against a Liberty candidate was the September 2007 interview between Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly during the 2008 GOP primary cycle. Ron Paul attempted to put into context Iran’s presumed desire to acquire nuclear capability against the backdrop of the history of American aggression both directly and by proxy in the past several decades. Bill O’Reilly said very candidly, “we don’t have time for the history lesson,” and harshly cut Ron Paul off. That in a nutshell is concision, if the outlandish propaganda of the corporate broadcast media is put in historical context, it is exposed for exactly what it is.

Now on to the most recent example of concision in the interview between Ron Paul and Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC.

It begins with a lead in to the interview which is an attempt to lump Ron Paul in with the mainstream Tea Party movement. This is an attempt to have the audience form an opinion of him before he ever says a word. This part of the more general propaganda machine but not a form of concision. The goal of O’Donnell in addressing the term limits is to attempt to imply a hypocrisy in Ron Paul’s stance because he did not self impose term limits. When the reality is that the Liberty movement is forced to work within the system as it exists. So for Ron Paul to leave the House and be replaced by a Neo-Conservative would be an act of cutting off his nose to spite his face.

In order to ever have term limits passed the congress would first have to have a majority of candidates with the best interests of the country in mind. O’Donnell is simply trying to establish Ron Paul as a politician who contradicts his words with his actions and undermine his credibility. When the reality is that term limits are part of a wider political strategic discussion and lose their relevance when discussed out of context.

Ron Paul stumbles and stutters for a total of 2 seconds when asked point blank, “if term limits are so great, why don’t you self-impose term limits?” Commercial media scores debates on  pundit shows in a way that portrays this exchange as a huge victory for O’Donnell. The slightest hint of contradiction or lack of confidence is the goal of most pundit interviews. But the reality is that O’Donnell has had all day to plan this attack and even went as far as to have his staff lie to Ron Paul about not asking questions concerning other candidates, primarily his own son Rand Paul. So Ron Paul does the best he can in giving an answer but it is not perfect and O’Donnell sits quietly on the other side of the screen with about the most smug, satisfied grin a person can have on his face.

O’Donnell then proceeds to ask Ron Paul “why he can’t get his son to…refuse to take Medicare (as a physician)?” Ron Paul first states the obvious that he doesn’t speak for his son, which debases the premise of the embarrassing question. But then he goes on to explain that cutting war spending would save the money necessary to tide over the people who have become dependent on Medicare until the US could transition to an affordable private health care system for all.

[Note: This is not the first time O'Donnell uses the all or nothing argument on Medicare with a Liberty candidate: See this interview from 2009 with Liberty candidate Peter Schiff.]

For the viewer who does not have the time to think about how the money for the wars and the money for health care all come from the same huge Federal pot it sounds like Ron Paul is skipping around from topic to topic. O’Donnell is successful in cutting Ron Paul off at the precise moment that makes it look as though he was veering off topic rather than almost bringing his point full circle. The point Ron Paul was attempting to make was that it is about prioritizing Federal spending as the budget would be pared down, which was impossible to do in the time allotted. O’Donnell brings the most cherished programs to the forefront and asks if they would eventually be cut, which the answer is yes, but they are far down on the list.

The final tactic that O’Donnell uses is to take a statement made by Ron Paul on the House Floor on June 4th, 2004, which can be read in its entirety here, and imply that Ron Paul is a racist.

It is the same basic tactic that Maddow used against Rand Paul, and I think it is important to understand because it will continue to be used by political pundits in the final weeks of this election cycle and in the coming election cycle of 2012. That tactic is equating respect for private property with racism. The media wants to begin a debate on the historical relevance of the Civil Rights Act but they do not want to be open to the possibility that there was an option to abolishing institutionalized racism without the imposition of the Federal government on private property owners. The same argument is also made with the American’s with Disabilities Act of 1990.

As long as broadcast media continues to use these tactics, it is the Liberty movement’s job to inform the public about how these tactics work, and thankfully a large percentage of the public is already catching on.

He’s testifying against the Justice Department today after being forbidden to do so. From Doc Vega, the Dallas Tea Party Examiner:

Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights.  Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”

Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest  that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.

This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!

Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.

Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

You can read Chris Coates damning testimony from Pajamas Media while we all wait and see if the main stream media does its job.

First, the contributors run a web site called Zivity.com. It’s an adult social media site where models, photographers, and users unite to create and appreciate artsy photography of the mostly non-nude female form. In the minds of some this may pass for “pornography”, but I’d say most people would agree this is more art than porn. Have a look yourself.

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch gets it right.

Despite the fact that the donations weren’t from Zivity, and that Zivity would barely fall under the definition of pornography, people are calling for Rand to return the money. Says someone who has no idea what he’s talking about:

“A lot of Kentuckians would have a problem with a candidate accepting money from organizations that are tearing down the culture,” said Martin Cothran, a policy analyst for The Family Foundation of Kentucky. “And we assume that the Paul campaign understands that.”

Schreiner himself seems to have little knowledge of Zivity either. By phone yesterday he asked me if I could tell him more about the site. He had not, apparently, ventured farther than the home page.

The fact is Zivity is nowhere near as graphic as mainstream television. Sexual acts are never shown, and often the models aren’t even undressed. A typical Saturday evening on Showtime or HBO would be far more likely to “tear down our culture,” in the words of whoever that guy is. And I doubt the AP would be trying to make a big deal out of a HBO employee making a donation to a campaign.

It’s pretty safe to chalk this one up to the recent trend of the left media’s attempts to spread dirt on Rand Paul every chance they get. Oh and by the way, Martin Cothran quoted above, still plans on voting for Rand Paul as he makes clear in an article of his own.

Now what follows is what the media should be talking about. To me this passes as far more pornographic than what the folks of Zivity are doing…

Let’s take a look at what sectors are the largest contributors to both Rand Paul and his opponent Jack Conway. This is downright hardcore porn here.

We’ll start with Paul. From opensecrets.org:

So most of Paul’s contributions come from a sector called “Other”. It seems to me this represents Paul’s appeal across a spectrum of voters rather than any particular special interest group. Now let’s have a look at Jack Conway’s contributions by sector.

Well, how about that? The majority of Jack’s money comes from lawyers and lobbyists. That is a hardcore pornographic image right there and it’s far more disgusting and vile than any of the thousands of images I just finished looking at over at Zivity.com for the past several hours.

So I respectfully request (ie. demand) that AP’s Bruce Schreiner, in the interest of unbiased journalism, publish the above graphs and suggest Jack Conway should return all the money he’s received from the true pornographers in our society: lawyers and lobbyists.

Of course, that would be impossible for Jack to do. He is one of them. They are his associates, peers, and friends.

Thanks for your time. I’m now going to spend a few more hours over at Zivity.com looking at art. I suggest you do the same.

I also suggest you throw another donation Rand Paul’s way to help him defend these kinds of attacks in the future.

Here are the available online streams:

The line up of guests is available at www.isupportrandpaul.com

Please remember to donate at RandPaul2010.com

The big news is that Rand Paul, Rand Paul will be on the program — that should set Google on fire!

In a moment, we’ll tell you how you can communicate with him during the show.

But it’s a full card, and you won’t want to miss it.

The show is three hours long. It begins at 2:07 PM Eastern (1:07 PM Central, 12:07 PM Mountain, and 11:07 AM Pacific:

Dr. William “BJ” Lawson, running for Congress in North Carolina’s 4th district, will join Jim Babka for the entire first hour.

The second hour, starting at 3:07 PM Eastern, will include . . .

* Michael Boldin, co-Founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, which is putting on NullifyNow.com events in four cities.

* Trevor Lyman, the entrepreneur who pioneered the Moneybomb concept, and who is on the organizing team for a Moneybomb this Thursday and Friday.

* Carla Howell, co-founder of the Center for Small Government, and campaign leader and spokesperson for the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes, Ballot Question #3 in Massachusetts.

And the final hour, starting at 4:07 PM Eastern, will feature Rand Paul, U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky.

The show is heard on more than a dozen terrestrial stations. But the best way to tune in Live, is via the web at AccentRadioNetwork.com

There are two ways to communicate your thoughts or questions to Rand. On-air time will be very limited, therefore . . .

* If you choose to call, please expect to be screened, and to be judged on brevity and the quality of your material. Jim hopes to squeeze-in as many calls as possible. The number is 866-2-ACCENT (or 866-222-2368).

* You can use Twitter to send your question, and have it read on air. Please include your first name and state when you tweet me at @JimBabka

You’ll be able to reach our other guests in the same ways.

DISCLAIMER: Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc. is non-partisan, and cannot legally endorse or support candidates for public office. This Dispatch is provided for INFORMATIONAL purposes only.

But let’s be frank. It is to DownsizeDC.org’s benefit that viable candidates are supporting and pledging to sponsor or co-sponsor the Downsize DC Agenda. You deserve to have this information, and we hope you can tune in — and even participate.

Please spread the word about this program. Please post it on blogs and Facebook pages.

Thanks,

The Downsize DC Team

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Watch the report below and be sure to pledge for Rand’s next money bomb at ISupportRandPaul.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpnPfGpceP4

————–

Maddow and the Obamas: Killers of hope, spurs of rebellion

The attacks by MSNBC’s extremist Rachel Maddow on Rand Paul clarify a good deal for me. Ms. Maddow’s position is based on a sort of warmed over version of the 1920s’ Bloomsbury ideology: effete, secular, socialist, pacifistic, elitist, and libertine. The ideology is shared by her fellow MSNBC extremists Olberman and Matthews and by Mr. Obama and his acolytes. Anyone disagreeing with her and them is not just wrong but perverse, racist, badly educated, antiquarian, and could only come from the scum of the earth. What passes for political thought and philosophy among MSNBC’s neo-Bloomsbury extremists and team Obama reminds one of cheeses and flowers — those that stink the most, last the longest.

But, to be honest, MSNBC’s extremists and the Obamaites are not much different from Republicans in being arrogant elitists who regard Americans as ignorant rubes who are unaware of what is best for themselves and their country. What do we hear from the Republicans: they talk anti-abortion, do-nothing; talk controlling borders, do nothing; talk debt reduction, spend more; talk energy self-sufficiency, kiss the Saudis’ butt; talk support for the troops, get more killed in useless wars; talk about America’s independence, and lap up humiliation from Israel and Mexico.

Ms. Maddow-of-Bloomsbury, then, represents both parties in the sense that they both are telling Americans: “Trust us. We know what is best for you. Vote for us, shut up, and go home and watch television.”

Please read the rest…