But is it true? What percentage could Gary Johnson receive should Paul not get the GOP nomination and would it be enough to help re-elect Barack Obama? I suspect it is. To add more fuel to this fire Obama is starting to campaign as an anti-war president to difference himself from the GOP field of likely nominees. This “Campaigner-In-Chief” move could be completely stymied by Republicans making Ron Paul their nominee. Who would be the real anti-war candidate if it were a Ron “non-interventionist” Paul vs Barack “drone bomber” Obama contest? This is yet another reason to make Paul the nominee.

Let’s see what you think about the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson factor.

The only question is will the party bosses side with Willard “Sideburns” Romney or will they be eating a giant plate of frothy Santorum Salad on caucus night? Or will they even conspire to have Ron Paul finish in 3rd behind both or worse?

For evidence of this effort, please see this video.

What do you think?

It seems to me that this process is more open and most like a general election. To win the general you need independents and party-switchers. This is why Ron Paul is in the best position to beat Obama. He wins in those segments in poll after poll. Something that should negate any question of “electability”.

Following the results, something the PPP folks noted on Twitter was the following:

Young voters and indys unusual winning formula for GOP caucus but if Paul really gets them out he can win.

This comment is specific to Iowa, but Iowa is probably the best microcosm we have at this time of a general election. Paul is rather notorious for getting supporters out to vote for him. He wins or places in just about every straw poll in the country, including a very close 2nd in this summer’s Iowa Ames Straw Poll. So that is truly the bottom line, if Paul’s unusual strategy works then he can win Iowa. And that unusual strategy happens to be the exact strategy to take votes away from Obama in the general election.

Some of Paul’s detractors make the claim he’d be “dangerous for America”. Well, okay, that depends upon how you define America. If by America you mean the statist-status-quo in Washington DC and Obama’s re-election chances then yes, he’s extremely dangerous for America.

If by America you mean the country of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” and if by America you mean a country that places individual liberty as its highest value then Ron Paul would be the best friend America ever had.

So yes, if you want to beat Obama, Ron Paul is your choice, but he’s also so much more than that.

1. Ron Paul is unlikely to win the GOP nomination but…
2. If he did win the GOP nomination, he’d beat Obama.

The poll results again show that most of Paul’s support is coming from younger people, independents, and Democrats. From the release:

Paul’s base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest.  Among voters under 45 he’s at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.  He’s really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney’s blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters.  Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

Read it all here at PPP.

I think I have a pretty good idea what getting water-boarded feels like. I’m not sure why I do this to myself, but I sometimes find myself reading the comments on Ron Paul articles appearing on various mainstream and semi-mainstream news sites. It is akin to torture. One of the more common things I keep seeing from anti-Ron Paul people is the charge of isolationism. I thought this was an old argument that most people already understood. Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Ron Paul supporters invariably reply to set things straight. I know because I’ve done it before, too many times to count.

Today, in the billionth thread about Ron Paul’s so-called isolationism someone posted something that truly demonstrates a lack of understanding. This person said the following:

“If Ron Paul brings home our troops from other countries who’ll be there to protect freedom?”

Uh-huh. And Ron Paul is the crazy one. “Hey you, Start being free or I’ll shoot!” Let freedom ring!

Yesterday’s poll numbers from Public Policy Polling show that Ron Paul is gaining serious steam in Iowa, only a single percentage point behind Newt Gingrich. I head over to Twitter to see the reactions and I see a post from a popular “conservative” blog entitled, “No, Ron Paul is not a threat to win the Iowa Caucuses”. The article itself is full of wishful thinking analysis and struck me as a bunch of flapdoodle. Yeah, I said it: flapdoodle!

Then I read about radio talk show host Mark Levin saying some bad things about Ron Paul. Sorry, listening to him is not something I can permit myself to do. His voice disturbs me. You know what I mean. Though, I guess it could also be the things he says. Apparently, he went on a rant (surprise!) and called Ron Paul some names like “Ru Paul” (surprise!). If you ever thought this to be humorous then Ron Paul doesn’t need your vote. Yeah, all 3 of you.

A few other Twitter posters wanted to make the following point:

“If we Republicans nominate Ron Paul then Obama will win easily”

This is obviously coming from the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-after-they’re-all-dead wing of the GOP. Some people call them neo-conservatives, but I like my name for them a bit more.

The only way that Obama wins in 2012 is for the GOP to nominate a candidate not named Ronald Ernest Paul. Independents swing general elections one way or the other. The Democratic base will vote for Obama. The Republican base will hold their noses and vote for Paul because they hate him less than they hate Obama (except for maybe Mark Levin). Ron Paul is immensely strong with independents and moderate disaffected democrats. These two voting blocs will give Paul enough votes to beat Obama in the general.

The problem is that even if Ron Paul wins Iowa it means nothing unless he secures the nomination and it’s a tall order. Remember, McCain, the eventual GOP nominee in 2008, came in 4th in the Iowa Caucuses. Sleepyhead Fred Thompson even finished ahead of him.

Do you think the status-quo GOP would ever embrace Ron Paul as their nominee? I sure would like to find out.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he’s also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31).  There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008- he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:

-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18.  But among the 41% of likely voters who are ‘new’ for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%.  Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven’t done this before.

-He’s also very strong with young voters.  Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich.  With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.

Read the Public Policy Polling release for more information.

by Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, and host of The Peter Schiff Show, broadcasting live from WSTC Norwalk CT from 10am to noon Eastern time every weekday, and streaming at

Herman Cain has been gaining much traction with his 9-9-9 Plan, a bold proposal to replace our dysfunctional tax code with what could be a simpler, less invasive, and more economically stimulative alternative. While I don’t agree with the full spectrum of Mr. Cain’s policy choices, I applaud his courage on the tax front. Judging by his rising poll numbers, this appreciation is widely shared. However, the plan has deep flaws, the most glaring of which is its creation of a hidden payroll tax which represents a fourth “nine.” This serious pitfall has been unmentioned by Mr. Cain and overlooked by those who have analyzed his plan.

Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9% flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Great idea. Such a system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation. This is exactly what our economy needs. But unlike our current corporate tax system, the plan eliminates the deductibility of wages and salaries from corporate income. The net effect is the creation of a brand new 9% tax on wages. When this fourth 9 falls from Cain’s sleeve, many of his opponents will likely accuse him of cheating.

Much of the plan’s virtue lies in its elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes (payroll taxes) that fall heaviest on lower income workers. This includes the 6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.5% Medicare tax paid directly by the worker. But it also includes the 6.2% and 1.5% portions paid indirectly by workers through their employers. Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From the employer’s perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost workers 15.4% of their wages.

The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9% payroll tax. Therefore a more honest name for Cain’s proposal is the 9-9-9-9 plan. The forth nine changes everything.

Cain admits that the 9% sales tax would fall heaviest on the poor, but he claims that the elimination of the payroll tax would more than compensate. But when the hidden 9% payroll tax is factored in, more than 50% of workers who currently pay an average income tax rate of just 3% would see a huge tax hike, from 18.4% (former payroll tax plus income tax) to 27%: 9% payroll tax, 9% income tax and 9% consumption tax (poorer worker generally spend all income).

On the other hand, high income tax payers get a huge break. Not counting the consumption tax, the 9-9-9 plan reduces the highest marginal tax rate from 38% (35% income tax and 3% payroll tax – on income over $105,000) to just 18% (9% income tax plus 9% payroll). For the self-employed, who can transform their wages into dividends (that are deductible business expenses under the 9-9-9 plan), the rate would fall to just 9% (all income tax, no payroll or business tax). Of course, in either case, the 9% sales tax will apply to spending, but even if 100% of earnings are spent (which is generally not true of high earners) the top rate would still top out at only 27% for the highest salaried employees and just 18% for the self-employed. In essence, tax cuts for the rich are paid for with tax hikes on the poor and middle class. If these aspects were widely known the plan would become a political dead letter.

Even with its flaws, the 9-9-9-9 plan would create an economic windfall by lowering the top corporate rate to 9% from 50% (35% at the corporate level and 15% on dividends taxed at the individual level), and simplifying the tax code to reduce unnecessary compliance costs and the economically inefficient behavior that is created by perverse tax incentives. These changes alone will make America far more globally competitive. Also by taxing individuals based more on what they spend rather than on what they earn, the plan will encourage more savings (which is a key ingredient for economic growth). As a result, the economy will grow faster, generate greater output of goods and services, and create more jobs.

The problem for Herman Cain is that unless he slashes government expenditures, his pro-growth tax structure will inevitably shift more of the tax burden to low and moderate-income people. The only way to combine tax reform with tax reductions for most taxpayers is to shrink government to a more manageable scale.

The size of the tax increases required to keep Cain’s 9-9-9-9 plan revenue neutral demonstrates just how high a percentage of our current taxes are being paid by affluent taxpayers. Couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $125,000 only constitute about 3% of taxpayers but pay almost half of all taxes. Any policy that cuts their taxes will inflict a disproportional hit on government revenue.

Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from the American left, the “rich” are currently paying a lot more than “their fair share.” It is only a handful of mega-rich, those whose entire incomes are derived from dividends and capital gains, rather than salaries or business profits, who have the ability to pay lower tax rates than some members of the middle class. The left knows this but continues to build their “free loading millionaire” straw man because it makes good politics.

In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that doesn’t raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax.  However, the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all.

Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of ”How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.”

New Special Report: For an in depth look at the prospects of international currencies, download Peter Schiff’s and Axel Merk’s Five Favorite Currencies for the Next Five Years.

My background lends itself to picking out oddities, or outliers, as well. When a poll released by CNN and Opinion Research Center (ORC) in late May showed political afterthought Rudy Giuliani leading the race for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2012, I thought it was a bit bizarre. Here we had a candidate who failed to register a single victory in the party’s 2008 primaries, despite spending more than Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul – two candidates who soundly defeated him at the polls – combined. A candidate who had registered at 9% in two independent polls released in the previous month – a 9% number that was well outside ORC’s 4.5% margin of error. Were they saying that Giuliani had received at least a 3% bump from April to May? Based on nothing except, perhaps, the death of Osama bin Laden?

Fast forward to today, when a new poll of the 2012 GOP race was released, showing Rick Perry with a commanding lead at 27% as compared with Mitt Romney’s 14%. Perhaps most shocking in this most recent poll was a precipitous drop in declared support for Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who received just 6% as compared with 12% in a poll by the same company and news agency not even three weeks prior – a drop that falls outside the margin of error of 4.5% for the Republican sample. Did Ron Paul – who received a mixed bag of media attention, from his near-victory at the Ames Straw Poll to his jabs at FEMA on the eve of a hurricane to the stories of his being a non-story – really experience a statistically significant drop in support over these past three weeks? I had to check the cross-tabs.

The more I looked, the more suspicious I became. First of all, ORC decided to exclude cross-tabs on demographics and sample sections which were statistically insignificant – by my examination, it looks like anything with a margin of error greater than ± 8.5% was struck and replaced with “N/A”. This is an interesting methodology, and one that I’ve not seen any other major national pollster take – most report the cross-tabs without margin of error at all. However, having those MOE’s is vital to conduct the next analysis, since ORC apparently didn’t find it necessary to specify how they broke down their “Republican” sample into more detailed numbers.

At the top of Page 2 of the release, ORC claims to have a sample of 467 Republicans (registered? Likely voters? The world may never know.), to which they attribute a ± 4.5% margin of error. Using some quick statistical math (the binomial approximation to the normal distribution), I find that they are using a power of 0.62, which I used to perform subsequent calculations.

Scrolling down to the political party and political ideology cross-tabs (Page 8), we find a breakdown of the 467 polled, excluding the aforementioned Giuliani as well as former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In this sample, “Republican” is assigned a ± 6.0% margin of error, and “Independent” is assigned a ± 7.0% margin of error. Using the 0.62 power of sample attained above, this yields 264 Republicans and 194 Independents for a total of 458 – slightly less than the 467 actually polled. We’ll assign the remainder proportionally, and assume 270 Republicans and 197 Independents are in the sample.

Remember the ± 8.5% cutoff that ORC is using to determine which sections they will not report? In the sample of 467, again using the 0.62 power of sample, this equates to a sample of about 132 – that is, if the cross-section of respondents in a category falls below 132, the category will be reported as “N/A”.

Let’s look at the section of cross-tabs just below the political parties and political ideologies. Here we have a breakdown of geographic regions and household location demographics. Whoa! Only the “South” region registers as statistically significant to ORC, and only “Suburban” households. For now, we’ll take for granted that this sample of “Republicans” is reflective of a national voting populace. Using the ± 7.0% margin of error on the “South” region, we estimate that 194 of the 467 respondents lived in the “South” region (however ORC defined it). That’s 41.5% of the sample – again, we won’t dispute this selection of the sample.

In the “South” region, Ron Paul received 10% support among those polled. Given that it makes up such a notable portion of the total sample, this earns Ron Paul roughly 4.15% of the total vote in the sample, regardless of what respondents say in other regions. Yet, Paul receives just 6% of the total vote in the sample. Doing the quick calculation, this means that Paul must have received just 3.16% of the vote in the other 3 regions – West, Midwest, and Northeast – combined.

As far as differences between these regions are negated, that’s effectively a national poll with Paul receiving just above 3% of the vote. The last national poll in which he registered so low (without the presence of Giuliani)? An ABC News/Washington Post poll dated April 14-17, which had Paul at 2%, and a full 50% of respondents offering Other/None/Undecided.

Needless to say, this result falls well outside the expected range of Paul’s support across the rest of the country. In fact, the most recent Gallup poll (which had Paul at a 13%, admittedly on the high end of his polling range) showed that Ron Paul actually performed better in the West, Midwest, and Northeast than he did in the South:

No matter which poll you believe, one thing is clear: Both of them can’t be correct. However, based on my statistical experience, as well as my political savvy built over the past decade, I’d say that any poll which puts Paul around 3% anywhere almost discredits itself. After all, Paul’s supporters haven’t been the small, devoted group of internet spammers the media made them out to be, in light of their successes in the past few months.

One final thought: Any polling company which is willing to be hired to run an unabashedly biased headline such as: “Keep the EPA Strong – Let Them Do Their Job” is probably not the company you want to rely on for a fair and unbiased poll.

Then, again, you may have crossed over into that Zombieland of voting in which you can’t seem to get enough of the heady stuff. While the former state is normal, here’s how to tell if you’ve really had too much politics for the season and are badly in need of a vacation or at least electroshock therapy:

1) You know Sarah Palin’s dog’s favorite color.
2) You can recite the Hatch Act from memory.
3) You call polling companies and beg to be polled.
4) You can’t wait for TV shows to end so you can start enjoying the campaign commercials.
5) You’ve come to believe that Rand Paul is a type of gold coin.
6) You can spell Ben Bernanke’s name forward AND backwards.
7) Your shirt has color-coded campaign buttons with Republicans on the right side, Democrats on the left, and Libertarians down the middle.
You agree with every political view no matter who holds it yet become irritated when someone refuses to have an opinion.
9) Your Favorites menu on your computer browser is full of campaign websites.
10) You can’t be reached on the Internet because your e-mail account is glutted with campaign spam.
11) You’ve got a space reserved in front of the early voting place so that you can get there before midnight.
12) You’ve got a tattoo of your favorite candidate on your shoulder and you were the tattoo artist.
13) You’ve painted half your car red and the other half blue.
14) You invite campaign flyer distributors into your house for coffee and cookies and to have a heart-to-heart.
15) You’ve removed the heads from your bobblehead collection and replaced them with leading candidates.
16) You straighten up campaign signs at intersections.
17) Your alarm clock has campaign ads to awaken you.
18) You call radio talk shows just to hear them breathe.
19) Instead of Fantasy Football, you play Fantasy Politics.
20) Your friends avoid you because all you want to talk about is the latest polling numbers.
21) When you dream, it’s of filling out your ballot.
22) Your iPod is full of recorded campaign speeches.
23) You’re disappointed when, after the phone rings, it’s only your mother calling and not a pre-recorded message from a local candidate.
24) You burned out your TIVO recording late-night political shows.
25) Your car has so many campaign stickers on it, it makes two miles less per gallon.

Earlier this month, Jack Tough raised over $300,000 in a money bomb of his own, and is looking to raise another $100K in the closing days of this quarter. Now more than ever, Rand Paul needs your help. This is our last, best chance to put one defender of Liberty into the US Senate. The last week of this quarter is crucial to the campaign in terms of fundraising.

Rand’s final money bomb of the quarter starts tonight, when the ticker goes live on the RandPaul2010.com site

Tomorrow there will be a Moneybomb Telethon with special guests Senator Jim DeMint, John Dennis, Clint Didier, Jake Towne, Wayne Allen Root, Peter Schiff, Joe the Plumber, Steve Dore and more.

Yes, it is certainly time to put your money where your liberty is. This is the home stretch.

You can watch the Telethon right here beginning at 9am Eastern:

“Today we face a D-Day of a different sort, and while there is still war, the causes are economic. At the last Towne Hall, I presented “The Economy in Pictures” where I demonstrated that unemployment is >>17%, 1 in every 8 Americans is on food stamps, the FDIC that “insures” bank accounts is hopelessly insolvent, and the true national debt is really $120 Trillion – when the $13 trillion in US treasury debt is added to the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare -  a vast sum that is best put into personal terms as $400,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.  At this point, even if the government were to tax 100% of each citizen’s dollars and properties, there still would not be enough to theoretically pay off this debt.

The plan the country should follow is very similar to an engineer solving a problem, or a doctor treating a bleeding patient. First we must contain the problem, then determine root cause, then take corrective actions. The steps are easy and simple enough, though this doesn’t mean Congress will follow them. Let me recap.

To contain the problem, we must first stop all new taxation and all new spending. This means no healthcare tax, no cap and trade energy tax, and no inflation tax by the money-printing of the Federal Reserve.

Next we must stop all new spending – no “stimulus” plans or new federal spending of any kind. Our economic mess is due to the excessive spending and the doubling of the size of government over the past decade. We cannot cure the problems of excessive spending by yet more spending!! And again, we must remember these three words – GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING. It is not possible for the government to give charity to someone without plundering it from someone else.

Lastly, we must cut both spending AND taxes. To cut taxes, the best tax to abolish is the federal income tax – it is not only IMMORAL that the government has the first claim on the labor of each individual American, but fiscally this tax is UNNECESSARY. There is no better stimulus to work than to remove the government interventions that keeps people from working and employers from hiring in the first place.

For instance 50% of the people who file contribute just 3% of the total tax. However, this does NOT mean they are not taxed heavily. If we slash government spending by the size of the federal income tax, the government would be the same size as it was in 2005. If we do this again, the government would be the same size as it was in 1998, which was still too big.

To cut spending, it really has been an educational experience to campaign door-to-door. Much of the time I feel as if people only grasp half of the whole picture. Some only understand the full impact of the welfare spending and can rattle off all types of statistics on social security or the Department of Education. Others don’t understand the true size of the welfare spending, but they can rattle off all the facts you ever needed to know about warfare spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, a lot of people are open to the full picture once I make it clear I understand where they are coming from on the welfare or warfare spending. Pragmatically speaking, it is very obvious that – while additional welfare spending should be frozen – the first place to make all the cuts is to the $1+ trillion dollar military budget that does not even secure our borders.  The other key place is the hundreds of billions spent on redundant and useless federal departments.  [As outlined in this ppt.]  At least a small percentage of welfare dollars does make it to recipients, and most of this is contractual obligations.

My candidacy represents the only possible way to save both Social Security and Medicare by returning to a constitutionally-limited government on everything else. If this is not done ASAP, there will be a currency crisis with the dollar, of that there is no doubt.

I’d like to talk for a moment on interest rates, which are so important to understand in today’s crisis of debt. Many people don’t understand interest rates, which included myself not all that many years ago as well.

Interest rates represent the present time-value of money. Interest rates serve as a natural regulator between savings and investment in capital on one hand, and consumption on the other. Each individual or business is left to decide whether to increase cash holdings, to consume, or to build a business or building.

Interest rates serve as a check-valve between the deployment of capital (and the amount of mal-investments!) for economic growth and the savings deferred to the future to pay for the goods and services resulting from the growth.

When central banks increase the supply of dollars by money-printing, this suppresses the market’s interest rate in the present. This tends to trick entrepreneurs into spending dollars they otherwise would not have spent into business ventures that do not succeed just because consumers do not have any savings in the future. Meanwhile, consumers tend to consume all the goods and services they can in the present.  Why should they save dollars if the interest rates are so low?  Does this sound at all like 2001-2007?

The imbalances the government has created are only postponed AND worsened by additional suppression of the interest rate. This has played a critical role in not just today’s economic depression but also in Greece. Lessons from Greece can help us understand what can also happen to our country. Those who read my column realize I first warned about the collapse of Greece in late 2008, when the rioting first began.  Why was I able to predict this?

Well, unlike most of the 1800s globally and the early 20^th Century where the different FED regions varied interest rates to account for regional differences – like the agricultural Midwest or industrial East Coast – the modern FED constrains the economy to the same interest rate for the past 60 years or so.

This is similar to the EU’s central bank has done since the currency union was first formed in 1993; not only do they all use the Euro but — far more importantly — highly industrialized states like Germany now share the same interest rates as states with very different economies more based on tourism and agriculture like Greece or Spain.

What we may now see out of Europe is a domino effect as the weaker countries from the PIGS group (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) cannot sustain their levels of debt. In fact, ALL governments in Europe are in debt, it is just a question of how much as the two comedians – err, economists – below point out.

The alternative the EU has is to bind all its governments into one gigantic “bailout nation,” not unlike the current situation with America’s 50 states. This will weaken the EU’s stronger states like Germany with temporary gains for the weaker states.

However, choosing this alternative of centralization by bailout – as America has chosen with the FED – will only prolong and worsen the inevitable collapse of the paper currencies.

History teaches it is during such a currency collapse that the likelihood of additional warfare increases.

For additional reading on this campaign’s ideas on how to fix the economy:

• Freedom From Fascism
• Jobs and Social Insecurity Talks at Lafayette College
• Jake Towne Says John Callahan Clueless on Job Recovery
• Jobs Plank
• The Government’s “War” on Main Street
• Lecture – Why the Stimulus Plan Will Fail (and a Better Alternative)
• Lecture on the Financial Crisis
• Bailout and Corporatism Plank
• Income Tax Plank
• Escaping the Current Depression – Causes and Cures

_______________________________

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties.

_______________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.

There is certainly truth to that argument, but looking at the half-full glass this should give Paul supporters hope and yet further proof Paul is as viable as any Republican (perhaps more so) in a general election against Obama. The problem for Paul, of course, is the anti-Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party which makes the road difficult, if not impossible, for Paul to get the GOP nomination. Those quixotic, anti-American, extremist gadflies should drop their dislike of the man and embrace the message. It’s a winning message.

These anti-Paul people that are publicly dismissing the poll results are likely seething with worry in private. If the GOP decides to suddenly “get their Ron Paul on”, imagine the potential for liberty.

The poll results show Obama with 42% and Paul with 41%.