Tonewah's Various Curiosities

Debate Result? President Paul

2012-02-23T06:58:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul looked (dare I say it?) Presidential last night. From start to finish, he dominated. From sparring with the other candidates to attacking the media, he did it all with humor and dignity.

His one word description of himself: Consistent. And it was none more true than last night when he consistently pushed his message of smaller government, accountability, and a Constitutional foreign policy.

Typically, when the media tries to create some sort of backlash from the commercials the candidates run, they back off. Paul didn't. When asked about running the "Fake Conservative" ads against Santorum, Paul said, "Because its true... he's a fake!"

He called Santorum a fake to his face, and the former Senator couldn't even make eye contact. Paul pointed out the many flaws in Santorum's record, and had the newly-anointed front-runner on his heels. The others smelled blood, but weren't able to take the chucks out of Santorum that Paul did, without sustaining damage to themselves.

Romney and Santorum were booed by the audience as they danced around the issues. Even Newt, although he didn't speak as often, managed to provoke a boo or two.

When told he could only briefly reply to one question, which the other candidates had been given a minute, Paul replied to moderator John King, "No, I get a minute." Then, proceeded to use the full minute, prompting applause at the end of his answer.

Finally, during the post-debate interview, the CNN reporter was forced to admit that Paul is actually second in the delegate count. I have to say, that was the best debate performance I've watched so far. Paul's skills are now honed to razor sharpness.

If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, Obama had better look out. Paul has so much ammunition from the broken promises of the Obama administration's first term that the debates could get quite ugly for the President. Paul already polls ahead of him in some states.

This could get interesting.

FORBES: Gas prices not rising, dollar is falling.

2012-02-22T21:49:00.001-06:00

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoo...ar-is-falling/

"At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a “core CPI index” that excludes food and energy to guide monetary policy. From Big Ben’s point of view, rising gasoline prices are not a problem. For the rest of us, they are becoming a big problem.

Over the centuries, gold has been “the golden constant”. Eventually, all prices equilibrate with gold. This is why gold represents the best available standard in terms of which to define the value of a monetary unit. Forty-one years ago, when the value of the dollar was defined in terms of gold at $35/oz, WTI was selling for $3.56/bbl."

I say this a lot. Good to see it in a mainline publication. You can use silver, as well. A silver dime from 1964 will still buy the same amount of gas, roughly, as it did back then.

Drudge: Santorum: "[Protestantism] is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it"

2012-02-21T12:23:00.002-06:00

Drudge has picked up the Santorum story:

The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.

"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

Developing...

This needs to get out to more people.

Why I Will Never Support Rick Santorum

2012-02-21T06:42:00.001-06:00

I don't feel comfortable smearing anyone. I don't care if it is someone I'll never meet; it just kind of gives me a sick feeling. I don't like speaking ill of anyone that can't defend his or herself.

I have posted some things about two candidates in the 2012 GOP Primary. One of them has now dropped out. The things I said about him are true, however, and no one else was saying them, especially not the media.

That is why I am coming out strongly against the guy I see as the largest fraud in the GOP field: Rick Santorum.

Santorum has cobbled together a group of people dissatisfied with Mitt Romney, turned off by the media to the true conservative, Ron Paul, and distrustful of Newt Gingrich. He knew exactly what they wanted to hear, and has been repeating it, ad nauseum, for months, now.

However, who he is saying he is, and who he really is, are two different people. Now, I have no doubt that Mr. Santorum is a religious person. It's not up to me to question that. That's not what I'm questioning. I respect that. What I am calling into question is his honesty and integrity.

The man parses words like a dime-store Bill Clinton. He votes for things he says he is against. He makes excuses, constantly, for voting against his principle.

This is why I have chosen to attack him. He, and the many politicians like him, are ruining the GOP. The inconsistencies and the degradation of principles have led the Republican Party to the edge of a cliff.

With no question, he has been responsible for the financial crisis this nation faces. As a member of the Senate, he voted for so much wasteful spending and then defended doing so. He voted for the sham bridge to nowhere and then tried to make excuses for it. He voted for increasing the size of the department of education, billions of dollars to go to our enemies, billions upon billions upon billions of wasteful spending... and then voted against the right to work, recently making excuses for that.

As a conservative, when in doubt, you vote, "NO". If it will violate anything that already stands as a constitutionally sound law, it should not be passed. That is something that neo-conservatives (or neo-liberals, as they have been called) like Santorum should realize... Just because something doesn't violate what they perceive as their religious beliefs, doesn't mean it is right. The new morality (or lack thereof) is frightening, because it seems to pretend to come from the side of morality.

Theft will always be wrong. Its in the 10 Commandments, for goodness sake! Thou shalt not steal. Just because you VOTE on it, doesn't mean it's not stealing! If 100 people vote, and 90 vote to take money from the other 10, it is still wrong. Conservatives used to know this.

Our Republic is robust enough to handle a group that constantly attempts to rob us, but to have the attack come from both sides... well, I think the state of our economy is showing the effects of having exactly this for the last 20 years.

It is time for a REAL change, a move away from the false security of collectivism, and towards the grace and liberty our religious, conservative beliefs afford us. Rick Santorum does NOT represent this.

Read my previous posts to find out more. There are links to his congressional voting record, on the official government websites, and so much more. He is a fraud, and I will not let him continue to lie to me without speaking out.

PAPER: Santorum Excommunicates Protestants

2012-02-20T07:09:00.002-06:00

Hey, all you Christians who happen to not be Catholic... Rick Santorum thinks you are "peacocks on display".

This guy just makes it too easy. The latest quote to hit from Tricky is one he made back in 2008 at a Catholic University:

"we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. [...]
they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set."

While he might have made a point, it isn't the point he's trying to make. The point he might have made is that mainline Christianity isn't about charity anymore, and has become too materialistic. Instead, he seems to be saying that Catholics got it right, and protestants, well, they're just debauched heretics. Of course, coming from a wealthy career politician and lobbyist who has consistently given up principle to succeed, either point would be somewhat ironic.

So, to all of those Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and any other protestants who happen to have voted for, or supported, Rick Santorum, I hope you enjoy your 'conservative' choice.

Tricky is up to his usual Tricks

2012-02-20T06:54:00.001-06:00

Rick Santorum is at it again... making claims about conservative issues with no record to back it up. Over the last few weeks, he has been ramping up his anti-public schooling rhetoric, saying things like, schools controlled by the federal government, or state governments, is wrong and "anachronistic". However, according to his record in the Senate, he gave billions to FEDERALLY FUND public education.

From a recent New American article:

"Unfortunately, Santorum’s excellent rhetoric does not comport with his record. While serving in the Senate, Santorum voted to increase federal funding for teacher testing in 2001 and to give the Education Department a $3.1 billion raise in 1996. Perhaps most egregiously, he voted for the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which vastly extended federal control over the education system and now has grown so onerous that the Obama administration is handing out waivers to states that cannot meet its requirements."

That's not the actions of someone who opposes public education. Sure, he didn't send HIS kids to public schools. He can't have his kids mixing with normal people. No, he says, he is strongly opposed to public education... but he was willing to fund public schools to the tune of billions of federal, taxpayer dollars.

This is just more proof that Santorum is empty rhetoric. One might go further and say he's merely a troll, stealing votes with his empty rhetoric, from real conservatives like Ron Paul who have voting records to back up every word they say.

More Tricks

2012-02-20T05:22:00.002-06:00

This is rich. Little Tricky Santorum is saying the Obama administration isn't based on the Bible, implying that a Santorum administration would be based on the Bible. Which Bible, Tricky?

Since you are a Catholic, Rick, your Bible has several more books that us protestants don't recognize as Canon. Some Catholics believe that the Pope is the closest thing to God on earth, and that his word is just as powerful as the word of God. I doubt many of your protestant Christian supporters, who may not be aware of your religious persuasion, would be happy if they thought you meant you'd allow the Pope to make policy decisions for the good ole' US of A, would they?

Now, of course, all of this is moot, because, as people who follow the Constitution, we don't believe there should be any religious tests for any office, right, Rick? Of course not. So tone it down, and let your example speak for you. Wait, you can't.

*grin*

Trick Santorum

2012-02-16T06:21:00.001-06:00

Since the time of Thomas Jefferson and the founders, Liberty has been the bedrock upon which this country stands. Ronald Reagan said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."¹ Jim DeMint, respected as one of the most conservative Senators in Washington, says that libertarians are the "conscience" of conservatism.²

Former Senator and GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum says, "I fight very strongly against libertarian influence in the Republican party and the conservative movement."³ Wait... what? That would mean, in the traditional sense, that Santorum doesn't want the conservative movement to have a heart, soul or conscience. What does a conservative movement look like without a heart, soul or conscience? One could posit that 1930s Germany somewhat fits that description.

But that's not all. If offending the GOP's 'heart, soul and conscience' isn't enough, let's look at a few traditional conservative issues that Mr. Santorum speaks about and how his record stands up to scrutiny:

Santorum claims to have a consistent track record on abortion, yet, when he ran in 1990, he called himself a "progressive Republican" who said, and I quote, "I tried as much as I could to dance around the issue, not really take a position on it."⁴ This is the man who self-righteously attacked Ron Paul's stance that the states could make abortion illegal immediately, as they do with all murder, if the Federal Government would get out the way.

Let's get real. Ron Paul was writing pro-life books when little Ricky wasn't sure how babies were made and was a pro-life champion while Santorum was 'dancing around the issue'. Santorum implies that if we give the Federal Government enough time, it will somehow outlaw abortion, even though the Republican Revolution in the '90s and the full Republican control of the House, Senate and White House didn't do it in the early 2000s.

Santorum voted against the right of the people of America to work without joining a union.⁵ He claims he voted that way because he was "representing Pennsylvania", and that he supports the right to work. So, I guess Rick thinks people don't deserve the right to work if the majority in his state thinks it is ok to take away their right to work. Who else might he think does not deserve the right to work and what would he do if the majority decided to take away other rights?

Santorum makes broad claims about the 2nd Amendment and makes implications that others don't support it as well as he does. Yet, as a Senator, he voted to make it illegal to buy a gun unless you have a government approved storage or safety device. That's the kind of typical liberal nanny-state legislation that a conservative wouldn't let slide.⁶

Fiscally, it is astounding that he considers himself a conservative.

• In just two years, 2003-04, he cosponsored 51 Bills to increase spending.⁷
• Voted for No Child Left Behind.⁸
• Voted to raise the minimum wage MULTIPLE times.⁹
• Voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.¹⁰
• Voted to raise his own pay three times.¹¹
• Voted to raise the debt ceiling five times!¹²

Rick Santorum is a typical double-speaking, rhetoric-spewing bureaucrat. He is just like the career politicians the Tea Party was protesting. Luckily for him, he was ousted in 2006, a year before the Tea Party protests began, or else he would have had to answer for his inconsistencies back then. It is doubtful that he would have had any real support if he had remained in office and might have been in the sights to be ousted, had he been re-elected in 2006.

Santorum: a conservative? A little, mostly in social rhetoric. Consistent? No. Honest? No. Electable? Definitely NOT.

SOURCES:
1. http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/

2. Fox Business Channel 1/18/2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8orjjOIZldk

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vLQnoVpkyqc

4. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t4cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3GMEAAAAIBAJ&dq=santorum%20progressive&pg=6015%2C5485825

5. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00188

6. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00207

7.Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum

8. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00192

9. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00058

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00027

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00257

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00258

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00180

10. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00264

11. Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum

12. H.R. 2015, Roll Call Vote #209, 7/31/97; S. 2578, Roll Call Vote #148, 6/11/02; H. J. Res. 51, Roll Call Vote #202, 5/23/03; S. 2986, Roll Call Vote #213, 11/17/04; H. J. Res. 47, Roll Call Vote #54, 3/16/06; Mindy R. Leavit, “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” Congressional Research Service, 9/9/11

Hey, Maine: You voted... or did you?

2012-02-15T06:50:00.001-06:00

All-American Ron Paul

2012-02-13T13:02:00.007-06:00

Is the candidate you support for President as American as Apple Pie? If you're voting for Ron Paul, he is. Ron Paul is an all-American with the credentials and history to back it up. He even holds a national baseball record!

Ron Paul was a high school sports star, class president and married his high school sweetheart. He is a working class person who, through hard work and determination, became successful. Later in life, when he saw the country was leaving its principles, he ran for office.

Ron Paul's first job was in 1940, at 5 years of age, collecting and cleaning milk bottles. Throughout his childhood, he worked mowing lawns and running a newspaper route. Paul lettered in multiple sports in high school and was a state track champion. He was offered an athletic scholarship, which he turned down, choosing to work his way through college. He earned enough at his high school jobs to pay for his first year of college.

While in college, he married his high school sweetheart, Carol.

After having children, he was drafted into the military. He served with honor as a flight surgeon during the early years of the Vietnam War and was stationed in the same country in which many US soldiers are stationed today, Afghanistan.

Returning from the military, Paul finished his college, and became a medical doctor.

After being a medical doctor for years, Paul became alarmed that our government took the radical step of removing gold backing from the dollar. After being tied to gold for almost 200 years (196 years), the United States now had a floating currency, and inflation. Because of this, he decided to run for congress.

Every position that Ron Paul takes is in agreement with the traditional Republican Party Platform. When Nixon went against the GOP platform and ended the gold standard, Paul went to congress as a Republican. When the GOP moved even further away from traditional conservative values, Paul ran against George W. Bush in 1988 as a third party contender, returning to run again on the GOP ticket in the 90's.

In congress, Paul introduced and supported legislation that protected the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the ability of our nation to defend itself. Known as Dr. No, Ron Paul has consistently voted against all tax increases and un-Constitutional bills. With the GOP's foreign and economic policies looking more like FDR than the Monroe Doctrine and a gold standard, it is once again Paul who is looking to correct the path of our nation.

As for his baseball prowess, he is the only person to hit an out-of-the-park home run in the 103 year history of the Annual Congressional Baseball game. That includes even the pro-baseball players who were elected to congress!

None of the other pretenders for the Presidency can say that!

Newt Gingrich's Wesley Mouch physique probably keeps him from being good at sports, but his multiple liberal stances, Mitt Romney's Romneycare and Santorum's history of voting against principle with anti-right to work legislation, supporting the failing government-funded Amtrak, and pro-collectivist rhetoric, contribute to making them all fall short of the high mark set by Ron Paul on the political stage.

Nevada: You Voted... or did you?

2012-02-06T07:13:00.000-06:00

Here we go again...

The caucuses in Nevada were Saturday and there are questions about how the vote totals were counted. It is 2 days later, and the votes are still not counted, yet, somehow, the state GOP has declared a winner. As of 2AM election night, when this blogger went to bed, less than 50% were counted.

The caucuses where the votes were counted live on television went like this:

58% Paul
19% Romney
16% Gingrich
4% Santorum
3% OTHER

It took all night to get to 48% of the vote totals from the other precincts' caucuses... You know, the ones that weren't counted live on national TV. The results of those? Not anywhere near the same:

50% Romney
20% Gingrich
19% Paul
11% Santorum

I really hate to speculate on items like this, but watching movies like 'Hacking Democracy' really makes me distrustful of those who count the votes. These people tend to be party hacks who have motivations to make 'errors' that swing elections. Simply writing a number in front of the actual single digit number of votes he received gave Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum potentially thousands of votes they DID NOT receive in Iowa precincts, as I blogged, and has been widely reported.

South Carolina and Florida have Diebold machines, so I don't trust those results, either. I simply can't. I've seen too many examples of them returning erroneous results.

We need to have randomly numbered paper ballots that are hand counted in public. Print the number on the ballot twice, and make one detachable so you can take it home. Then, even if the votes were machine counted, a number would be assigned to the ballot that only you would know. You could then look up your ballot number to see how that ballot was recorded. To prevent ballot stuffing, you compare the number of people who signed in to vote at each precinct vs the number of ballots returned from that precinct.

Voting is the ONLY say we have in how our country is run. If it isn't trustworthy, then we really have NO say in how our country is run. Lost votes, and unconfirmed vote totals are unacceptable. We pride ourselves on allowing the people to control their own government, but if the vote totals aren't real, what do we really have?

GAH!

2012-02-02T05:34:00.000-06:00

My truck was stolen almost 5 years ago. I recovered the vehicle myself, after seeking help from police and receiving none. After recovering the vehicle, I told the police I knew where the people were who stole it, they asked me why I was still bothering them, since I already had my truck back.

I took pictures of the thieves and gave them to the police, along with names of witnesses who saw the vehicle stolen. I followed up for several months with the 'detective' who was supposed to be investigating this. He finally told me they had 'more important things' to investigate.

Then, yesterday, I saw helicopters, unmarked police cars, and dozens of officers at a gas station.

What were they doing? Blowing $700,000 dollars on drug busts. Their target? Synthetic drugs at convenience stores. They claim to have been planning the bust for a year, but the synthetic stuff has only been illegal for a few months. Maybe they were planning to make it illegal in order to make the busts.

Why do I think they blew the money and that it wasn't well spent? Because prohibition never works. The demand will still exist. Even if you reduce the supply to almost zero, which isn't really possible, that just makes the price skyrocket. It is simple economics. New suppliers will spring up, making a much greater profit than the previous suppliers.

So, instead of eliminating the problem, you've exacerbated it. You now have wealthier suppliers and drug addicts with a need to obtain more money to get their fix. This means more property crimes, which law enforcement around here practically ignores, already.

The drug busts look good on TV. It makes it look as if law enforcement is doing something. They aren't. Drug busts increase crime, make criminals wealthier, and cull the herd of weak black marketeers, making the black market stronger.

Trillions spent on this drug war have resulted in more types of drugs, a wider distribution base, and more powerful drug lords. THIS IS A FACT. Cartels south of the border have been armed, equipped and emboldened by a steady supply line from our government. The drug runners drive Hummers given to them by our government to fight drugs. Prohibition is what has made the drug trade such a lucrative endeavor.

If you truly want to eliminate drug abuse in this country, you must accept that prohibition doesn't work. Then, when these substances are not making drug suppliers wealthy, the market will correct. There will always be those among us who choose to abuse substances. But when the users are only paying a few cents for a hit, there will be no need to commit crimes. They will simply be killing themselves.

My property isn't important to police. Your property means nothing to them. They let known thieves continue to steal, while doing these made-for-tv drug busts which do nothing but make the real crimes they are supposed to prevent more prevalent.

Good job.

Primary Math

2012-01-30T05:52:00.000-06:00

Many people seem confused about the process for selecting a presidential candidate to go on the ballot in November. Every four years, as long as anyone alive today can remember, either one or both of the parties that currently control our government has gone through the process. So how do they select a candidate?

To start, when the political parties meet, they not only decide their platforms, but how the selection of candidates will be handled. Political parties are not a part of government, therefore the rules of who can be nominated are not decided by elected representation to government, other than the basic qualifications for the office. A lot of power is vested in state party leadership. The process they decide upon will vary from state to state, but will include either a primary, a caucus or both.

Primaries typically allow voters to select delegates which have pledged support for a candidate by selecting their name from a ballot. Caucuses are similar, but are typically an open forum where voters are sometimes required to make their selection publicly. In both, delegates are selected, sometimes as part of the first vote, sometimes as part of a second selection process.

Each state is allotted a number of delegates by the national party. This number is three times the number of representatives to Congress from that state, plus some 'bonus' delegates, typically having to do with rewarding a state for electing Republicans. For example, Alabama has 50 GOP delegates, based on 7 Representatives to the House of Representatives (21), 10 at-large, 3 party, and 16 bonus delegates. 47 of these will be selected on the ballot and 3 go to prescribed elected Republicans, who typically vote with the majority of the state.

Some states award all delegates to the candidate with the largest number of votes. Others award them in different ways. Alabama, for example, awards delegates by district. The candidate with the most votes in the district over 20% is awarded 2 delegates for the district. If the winning candidate has over 50%, the candidate is awarded all 3 delegates. If the winning candidate does not have 50% of the vote, and the second place candidate has over 20%, the 2nd place candidate is awarded 1 delegate. If not, the remaining delegate goes to the winning candidate.

The candidates will receive a proportion of the 26 at-large and bonus delegates using statewide totals if no candidate receives more than 50% of the statewide vote. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote statewide, that candidate is awarded all of the at-large and bonus delegates.

Alabama State Party 2012 Presidential Primary Rules

There are a total of 2286 delegates to the GOP convention. 1144 delegates (50%+1) are required to win. If at any point during the race, three candidates obtain 572 delegates, it will become a near impossibility to win the 1144 delegates. The same results if 2 two candidates get 572 delegates and the remaining two split 572 delegates between them.

When a delegate is elected, they are bound to vote for the candidate at the national convention. If no candidate has 1144 delegates, the delegates are released to vote for other candidates after the first vote. Superdelegates would most likely cast their vote with their state on the first ballot but coalesce around the candidate with the highest delegate total for the second. For example: If the candidate with the most delegates has received at least 1012 regular delegates, the 132 superdelegates would most likely vote for candidate A on the second ballot to give the candidate 1144 delegates, which is enough to win.

If the first place candidate has less than 1012 regular delegates, however, deals would then be made to capture the delegates of other candidates on the next ballot. It is also possible that the superdelegates might not coalesce on the second ballot. Either way, if a third ballot is reached, regular delegates will begin brokering.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/i/delegate.strength.overview.pdf

There are two basic components to calculating the delegate strength score -- how close the frontrunner is to winning a majority of the delegates, and the gap between the frontrunner's delegates and his or her closest rival. That gap is measured in terms of how many "outstanding delegates" remain. Finally, a factor is applied that essentially creates a range of scores from zero to 100, which makes the score a little easier to comprehend. For the math junkies, the calculation is:

Delegate Strength = (((C1-C2)/O) * (C1/L) * 333)

where...
C1 = Number of delegates the leading candidate has won
C2 = Number of delegates the candidate with the second-highest number of delegates has won
O = Number of delegates that have not been chosen
L = Number of delegates needed to win the nomination

To give an example of how this works, Gingrich currently has a delegate strength of .03, based on the races so far in South Carolina, New Hampshire and estimates of the Iowa delegate apportionment. Remember: A delegate strength of 100 or more is required to win. Gingrich, with the current delegate lead, doesn't even have a tenth of a percent in delegate strength. If Mitt Romney wins Florida, he will have a whopping .34 delegate strength, which is still 99.66% shy of enough delegate strength to win, barely one third of a percent.

If you do the math, this race is still wide open.

Iowa Caucuses Inconclusive/Rigged

2012-01-19T06:03:00.000-06:00

Well, it is official: Iowa was not won by Mitt Romney. Who really won? We will never know. The results from 8 precincts will never be certified due to the fact that THEY ARE MISSING. Isn't that curious?

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/

From the article: "GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. " I wonder which of the other candidates these 'inaccuracies' affected? Depending on the size of the precinct, there could be several thousand votes missing. Maybe three thousand or so?

"The biggest shift happened in Fayette County. In two cases there, Rick Santorum gained more votes than the entire gap in the statewide certified total." That seems odd, right? In one county, votes for Santorum magically appeared that were more than the gap in the statewide totals. If only 50 votes were added to Santorum's count per county, that'd be over 4000 made-up votes for him. And he wasn't the only one to get magical votes. Romney got about the same number per county.

Unbelievable.

No to SOPA/PIPA

2012-01-18T04:23:00.000-06:00

The recent pate of governmental snooping and intrusion reminds me of a situation that arose about a decade ago. I was asked to give my opinion about a 'manager of the future' program which allowed screen-sharing of any PC on our network without the knowledge of the users. I asked if there were productivity issues which prompted this decision. When told there weren't, I asked if this software and its implementation would be a productivity drain.

It seems that someone passed a co-worker's cubicle and saw a news website on the screen while the PC was not in use. The perception, of course, was that there was misuse, therefore some form of loss. The reality was, although resources were not being utilized for an intended purpose, those resources being misused did not result in a net loss of productivity.

We didn't get the software.

The same is true for the new SOPA/PIPA bills which are threatening to be passed into law. Someone raises an alarm, yet no one is analyzing whether there truly is a loss. Websites will be shut down that do not violate any law to protect a victim that may not have taken a loss, at all. The perception of loss overrides the logical analysis that should be taken before something like this passes.

Everything deserves a cost-benefit analysis. You set values to everything included in the analysis. In the case of over-reaching government, you must first ask if there truly is a violation of life, liberty or property before assigning resources to counter this violation. If the cost in collateral rights exists to at least an equal level, you do not have an efficient process by which to protect said life, liberty or property.

With SOPA/PIPA, the mere accusation of loss, without any trial, is enough to cause loss with the shutdown of a website. Violations of intellectual property, or IP, are highly subjective, as are the damages sustained from the violation. At the mere accusation that IP is being violated, however, a business could be completely destroyed. This is not an efficient process AT ALL.

As the 'manager of the future' would have put all the employees on edge, leaving PCs unused while other more resource consuming and less efficient processes replaced them, SOPA will have a chilling effect on those who use the internet. In an age where free speech and communication relies heavily on this technology, such a law would be a huge step down towards the ant-hill of tyranny. This is not something a free society should embrace.

Attacks from "Conservatives"

2012-01-17T06:31:00.000-06:00

It seems that the dirty tricks are getting pretty vile. There are several groups who have organized to pretend to be Ron Paul supporters in an attempt to discredit Paul.

Here is an example from a group called "Stop Ron Paul" from their Facebook page, where they pretend to be Paul supporters and make phone calls:

"I am pretty sure that lady I was telling how much I like firemen and wanted Ron Paul to do a fireman calendar might not be voting for Paul. The guy who said he was for Newt that I called a neo con will tell some friends."

"Always try to get three numbers and call, well now around midnight in SC. There is a household not voting for Paul."

"Need to call some folks I wrote down four numbers for late night calls for Ron. Do I go lizard people or David Duke next???"

"Oh man, I just pissed this guy off. He is definitely not voting for Paul. The conversation went like this Hey, this is Nathan Bedford Forrest calling on the behalf on Ron Paul-Do you know what time is?-It is never too late for liberty-I will not vote for Ron Paul-Your filthy neocon zionist."

"As soon as they say they are supporting any candidate other than Paul; I instantly start yelling and cursing at them and accusing them of hating liberty and telling them that their families should be ashamed to be related to such an ingnorant moronic goat humper."(sic)

Where I come from, that's called wire fraud, and is a crime. They don't seem to mind implicating themselves, though.

At a Paul rally early in the election cycle, a man wearing tin-foil on his head claimed to be a Paul supporter, yet was later found, dressed normally, at another politician's rally.

Another group got some publicity over the weekend for trying to organize a rally where they dressed as Klan members pretending to be Paul supporters. When people protested, they claimed a Paul supporter made threats against them, again attempting to cast aspersions on Paul supporters, when it was THEIR GROUP that was using the disgusting racial tactics.

There have been others, and they seem to be getting worse and worse. That they've come to breaking the law in order to slander the supporters of a candidate means they just have no understanding of what made our country great.

These groups are wicked. It is unbelievable how they can be outright liars, yet can claim to be religious conservatives. I have chosen to not indicate which candidates these people support in order to not do the same thing they're doing. Needless to say, though, they don't support Ron Paul.

The REAL Conservative is RON PAUL

2012-01-13T05:34:00.002-06:00

Everyone is searching for the true conservative. The majority of the party doesn't want Romneycare, nor do they support policians who take money from lobbyists or big-government programs. They want real, conservative values.

To the person who's been paying attention, Ron Paul is the only real alternative. However, many pundits and other Johnny-come-latelies have been questioning Paul's overwhelming conservative credentials. Let us take a look at these attacks, and compare them to the words of someone most people consider the standard-bearer of the GOP.

At the debates, or in TV interviews, they ask Ron Paul about third parties, speaking as if he committed a sin when he doesn't utterly rule out a third party. But Paul is supported by the words of a previous GOP leader... A fairly famous one, at that. When asked, "Governor if the Republicans were to nominate a candidate that was unacceptable to you in 1976, could you support a Libertarian third party candidate?" Ronald Reagan replied, "I have to wait and see what you’re doing and what you are standing for." Not exactly the absolutist, 11th commandment answer the neo-cons want.

When Paul points out that there is no real left and right, anymore, but a fight between liberty and tyranny, he has the words of Reagan to back him, "You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up- man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

When Dr. Paul stands alone at the debates, attacking the neo-cons for their so-called 'Patriot Act' and Department of Homeland Security, he may be all alone on that stage, but he is in good company. "These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine." Ronald Reagan said that when he was fighting Mitt Romney's father and the Rockefeller wing of the establisment GOP in the early 60s.

Reagan also said, "I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." This is exactly the point Ron Paul is trying to make that gets taken completely out of context. Reagan went on to say, "That’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid." For example, wearing a seatbelt is smart, and Paul has never said you shouldn't wear one. Failing to do so shouldn't warrant a police stop and violation of your 4th Amendment right to privacy, though, and that's the important point that both Reagan and Paul were trying to make. What you do with yourself is your business, and no one elses. If you take that away, you lose the whole point of liberty.

I also take issue with those who say Ron Paul's position on foreign policy sets him 'at odds' with Republican ideals. It is no different than when another Ron, Ronald Reagan, chastised those who wanted to continue sending troops to Vietnam in the 1960s, saying, "I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely." In his memoirs, he expressed great regret over sending troops to Lebanon. "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today." "The sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as President."

Both Reagan and Paul advocated the traditional Republican ideal of peace through strength. Make your military and economic might so formidable that enemies fear you too much to even attempt an attack. This could have been shown after the 9-11 attacks with Paul's plan to get the terrorists. He would have done what took a decade within the first few months of the attack using the traditional republican methods of dealing with rogue characters. Instead, we borrowed a page from the neo-liberals and neo-cons by going into nation-building mode.

When Ron Paul, unlike so many of his GOP rivals, attacks raising the debt limit and supports a return to some sort of gold standard, he is again supported by Reagan. Reagan complained about raising the debt limit, saying, "We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce." "I believe the only way to acheive price stability is to return America to some form of gold standard." He further promised to attempt to return the country to a gold standard. In this charge, he failed. The neo-con establisment fought him every step of the way. Only two congressmen helped him in his attempt to get America back on gold, and, wouldn't you know it, one of them was Ron Paul.

Don't get me wrong, though. Under pressure from the neo-con wing, Reagan's 11th commandment to never speak ill of someone in your party basically gave up the ship to the neo-cons. The only ones to benefit from the 11th commandment were the dirty, dishonest politicians who quoted it as if it were a free-pass to be as repugnant as they could be. By the 90s, politicians like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were passing for conservatives. Not speaking ill of these nanny-statists allowed the party to become overrun with them.

I believe it is time to clean house, "grow up", and get back to our conservative soul. Again, the words of Reagan, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." That heart and soul is only represented by Ron Paul.

SOURCES:

Reagan's Goldwater Endorsement Speech, 1964. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

Reagan Campaign Video, 1975.

Reagan interview in REASON magazine. http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/

An American Life: The Autobiography by: Ronald Reagan

ABOVE: Ronald Reagan listens intently to Ronald Paul as he no doubt speaks about the Shining City of America and the Gold Standard.

Spinning like a 45 on a 78 Turntable

2012-01-06T05:41:00.000-06:00

If you have been paying any attention at all to the Ron Paul campaign, you will have no doubt that the media is marginalizing him. He has consistently been first, second or third in most scientific polls, yet his face and name are often omitted from the results. Candidates with lower numbers are touted ad nauseum as 'rising', yet when Paul had the same momentum which carried him into the top tier, he was given little press, and that was almost all negative.

His face has been blacked out on televised poll reports, with no name and his percentage numbers displayed below the cameo, while other candidates, even those with lower numbers, have their name and full color face displayed. More often, he is omitted from results, altogether, with lower and higher polling candidates displayed. Almost every time he is mentioned at the top of a poll, some negative caveat is given as an adjective to describe him.

Here are a few examples that I found by simply typing "Ron Paul blacked out" into a search engine:

And that is just a few, easy to find examples. Most are way worse.

Talk radio, where a lot of people get their 'news', contains some of the worst spin. There is almost no accountability for radio talk shows. They can, and do, say almost anything with no fact-checking or attachment to reality. A lot of dirty work in smearing Paul is done at this level. Listening to talk radio is getting to be like listening to Tokyo Rose.

Poorly researched, debunked reports are repeatedly reported as fact about him, with no retractions or apologies. ALL of the news networks smear Paul. They can't even make up their mind what they want to smear him about. On CBS, he was called 'too far to the right to be electable' by Bob Schaffer. On the Fox News Debate, they accused him of being to the 'left of Obama'. They always follow that up with the 'unelectable' smear.

Technically, anyone is electable who meets the requirements laid out in the Constitution. But, if you want to get down to those issues most people claim to care about, Ron Paul is pretty much the only one that IS electable. They won't report on that, though.

If you ever had any doubt that the media is spinning against Ron Paul, you need only look at the way they're trying to spin the recent sales boost that singer Kelly Clarkson received after tweeting that she loves the Republican from Texas. When a few 'fans' complained, Ron Paul supporters jumped on Amazon and bought all the albums they could afford. The spin doctors are claiming that her double digit ranking jump (triple digit percentage jump in sales, which had most industry people dropping their jaws), isn't from Ron Paul supporters buying her album, but from Christmas sales or people just wanting to 'fill up their new MP3 players.' What?

There is no doubt that Kelly Clarkson is a talented singer and is popular in her own right; She won American Idol and has a lot of fans. But no other artist had that massive a bump for 'Christmas sales'. It was a meteoric rise in sales. There is NO DOUBT that the Ron Paul bump jumped her ranking dramatically. To even imply that the Ron Paul people buying up her album had nothing to do with it is ridiculous and is blatant, unrepentant spin.

The old media is spinning in a dizzying, death spiral.

Why I Choose Ron Paul

2012-01-04T18:13:00.001-06:00

I know that I have repeatedly indicated my support for Ron Paul over the last few years. I've given my reasons for this support, and I've given my reasons why I wouldn't support other candidates. Let me reiterate a few of these reasons for the sake of clarity.

To start, the main reason I support Ron Paul is his consistent conservative message. For 40 years, he's said the same things. You can pull up video from the early '80s and hear the same, conservative values you'd hear from him today.
In the realm of government, I like that he supports the traditional conservative principles of smaller, fiscally-sound, less-intrusive government and the traditional conservative value of sound money. To me, he pushes civilization forward by rejecting collectivism and embracing individualism. He supports the traditionally conservative idea that each person should take responsibility for his or her self.

In his personal life, he represents the strength of the family unit: being faithful to your family and to your savior. I have always been impressed by the way he doesn't act prideful about his salvation, but humbly speaks of Christ in a reverent and respectful manner. This humility is probably one of the things I admire and respect most about the man.

Too many politicians flash their religious credentials, paying lip service while not living the example. They talk about the truth, yet speak in circles and take backroom deals. You won't find Paul doing that. What he says is what he does. Ron Paul leads by example.

He understands that you can't use force to make people do good things. Those good things must come from the realization that personal responsibility requires generosity, and generosity can't be forced. He shows this in the fact that, while he didn't accept government assistance for his patients as a doctor, he would give lower rates and sometimes free healthcare to those who couldn't afford it. He wants people to be taken care of if they happen to fall into unfortunate circumstances, but he doesn't want to use the force of government to do so.

Another big thing for me is that he doesn't compromise away his principles. The rights of man are unalienable. This means you can't sell them, trade them, loan them, or have them taken away... ever. If you compromise any right, you give up the principle that all rights are based upon.

He is willing to work with anyone on anything that doesn't violate his core principles. That is hard to find ANYWHERE, much less in Washington D.C. This is where the true progress can be made in government.

Paul wants me to know what is going on in government. He's pushed for sunlight laws and keeps his constituency up to date on what is going on in Congress. He has never towed the line for anyone if it means violating rights. He doesn't want the cloak of secrecy blinding the people and obscuring their rights.

There are a few less tangible reasons I like Ron Paul. One of them is that he reminds me of a pastor I had back in the late 80s and early 90s. He always pointed out that freedom was more important than picking the winner. I didn't understand it at the time, but, with the benefit of age, I can now say what he taught makes sense.

Another is that he never seems fake. Everything he says seems genuine. It's not something that can be put on a meter and judged, but his delivery and body language seem to be that of someone who hasn't rehearsed what he's saying. It is coming from his deeply-held beliefs.

Every one of Paul's positions seem to come from a core rooted in the Christian beliefs upon which this nation was founded. This core is reflected in the natural, God-given rights of man. You don't steal; this is property rights. You don't kill; this is the right to life. You respect freewill; this is liberty. You can find these rights from the 10 Commandments to the Declaration of Independence.

God ordained this as a nation to be governed by "We the People". It's basic concept is that all people are created with rights given to us by God which can't be taken away by ANYONE. It is plain to see that Ron Paul respects and reveres this notion. Some 'conservatives', who want to rule or be ruled by a President who acts with the power of a king, are destroying the very principles they are supposed to be trying to conserve.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in any party that adheres to the traditional, conservative principles that make our nation free. He's the only one that even comes CLOSE. That is why, in my humble opinion, he is the only choice for President.

That's 5 Delegates!

2012-01-03T23:50:00.003-06:00

Ron Paul's finish in tonight's Iowa Caucus will probably earn him five delegates. Romney and Santorum could wind up with only five each, as well, in spite of having a few more percentage points.

It amuses me, but doesn't really surprise me, that the media darlings Santorum and Romney got a few more votes. Especially with the last week of pumping by the old hag media. The funniest part is that every conservative Republican preaches against Obamacare, yet Romney designed it, and Santorum helped get Obamacare supporters elected. The only candidate who has a history to prove opposition to socialized medicine is Ron Paul.

Santorum lost his 2006 bid for re-election after being named one of the 3 most corrupt US Senators, so he didn't get the chance to vote for Obamacare. It is pretty well known, though, that he endorsed Arlen Specter, who would go on to support Obamacare, and that Santorum was known as a lobbyist's best friend... pushing whatever cause from the highest bidder.

Just what makes someone a GOP candidate, nowadays? Paying lip service to conservative values while bearing a strong resemblance to Al Gore or Bill Clinton? Seems to be the way we're going.

I digress.

If we were going to lose delegates to someone, Romney and Santorum are two you don't really mind having them. Neither of them has a snowball's chance in Haiti. If Santorum is supposed to be the Huckabee of 2012, he did a bad job of knocking off Romney... and Romney just isn't a Republican. Period. Neither of them are electable.

Now I guess we wait and see who the media will push for a boost going into New Hampshire.

The Last Wag of the Old Media

2011-12-30T06:12:00.001-06:00

For many years, the TV, radio and print media has dominated public opinion. If it was on TV, people would take it as fact. If you could read it in the paper, it was 'in black and white'. Like a the tail of a pointer, the media was largely seen as accurate and true.

However, as long as it has existed, the media has used that reliance to mislead the public; Read 1984. If the media couldn't wag the tail, it would use the tail to wag the dog. This is true today.

The vestigial tail we recognize as the old media is in trouble. With the advent of real-time internet and wireless data, the old tail is having a harder and harder time wagging the dog. It has become obsolete. It is losing its supply of blood and turning an ominous shade. Before long, it will dry up and fall off.

Until it does, however, it will continue to try to wag. That wagging is becoming more and more futile as newer, freer media takes over as the source of news for most people. But wag it still does.

You need only watch the cable 'news' networks to watch the frantic, panic-stricken wagging of this old, dried up stump. More accurate and well-sourced news outlets are putting the rubber bands around it, drying it up even more quickly. In a desperate attempt to stay relevant, they update websites, yet still post the same tired, old, and slanted stories. They have no idea which way to point the tail, and it is flailing wildly.

The only thing keeping it alive are the infusions of cash from those who have long counted on it to keep public opinion on their side and away from the real issues. Even this cash infusion isn't enough, anymore. The people are seeing the rotting, decaying hunk of faux-journalistic mess for what it is: unnecessary.

They may be able to keep it moving for a while, but not forever. True, there are still those who refuse to use the internet, or won't believe the 'trusted' allies on their network of choice are lying to their faces. Still, as long as there are so many accurate sources popping up in the free press that aren't controlled, those numbers will continue to decline.

The Ron Paul rEVOLution is doing a good bit of work towards cutting the old thing off. With little to no coverage, Paul has moved into the top GOP hopefuls, and actually leads many scientific polls. This 2012 election is going to be the last hurrah... the last 'wag', if you will, of the old media.

The tail will soon be gone, and good riddance.

Who are the 1%?

2011-12-29T06:56:00.000-06:00

Who are the 1%? According to sources MotherJones and the Washington Post, the top one percent has something like an average income of around $1 million per year and has an average net worth of $8 million+. That average must include some lower net worths to balance out those who have billions.

According to USA Today, there are 57 congresspeople in this percentile. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1) 7 out of the top 10 are Democrats, although the top 2 are Republicans. As anxious as I'd be to say that these people are the ones capable of controlling much of global politics, I think that is mostly just hype. The ones who contribute to these politicians obtaining a few million dollars might have that kind of power, but a few million dollars just isn't enough to peddle influence on a global scale.

The ones who truly are capable of controlling anything at that level would have to have many times the average income and net worth of the typical one percenter. Not just tens of millions, or hundreds of millions... We're talking in the billions.

Roughly one hundred-thousandth of a percent of Americans have a net worth of $1 billion or more. The .00001%ers. These people actually have the assets to affect politics on a multi-national scale. This doesn't mean that they are actively attempting to affect global politics, although with that kind of economic potential, one could imagine anything they do in any country could have effects in that country.

Some of these are the people who fund the big think-tanks. They are the ones who's ideas are pure gold to the unscrupulous movers and shakers in politics. Their influence is probably why nations go to war, or coup attempts are mounted.

There is no doubt that the biggest power-brokers in global politics are smart enough to mask their actual worth. The most powerful among these are those who influence monetary policy on a global scale and can move money far more silently and easily than the majority of the 1%. Their net worth is likely in the trillions.

The vast majority of the 1% are people with incomes below $1 million per year. These are NOT the people controlling much of anything except their own small companies. If the cost of a good that a company sells is high to produce, it can cost millions a month to run a small, local retailer with a small profit margin. As Federal Reserve policies inflate the amount of currency in circulation, it will require more money for these small American companies to survive. Targeting these people only damages the already faltering economy.

If you truly want to protest those who are negatively influencing the world you live in, you are missing the mark by hitting on the broad group of 1%ers. You should be targeting the .00001%ers like those who were the major contributors to the campaign of Barak Obama.

Does it really matter who the 1%ers are? I know I'm not one, nor is my choice for President, Ron Paul. We don't meet the criteria. But the question shouldn't be, "Who are the 1%", it should be, "Who is pulling the strings of your elected government and which politicians are letting their strings get pulled?"

Dear MSM: We don't need you!

2011-12-27T06:24:00.000-06:00

This is my one-sentence message for the media: We didn't need you to get here, and we don't need you to stay here.

What the elitist media fails to realize is that this election ISN'T about Ron Paul, it is about IDEAS. Ideas can't be killed. We've been listening, and reading every idea espoused by Paul for 40 years; Those concepts of freedom are what we support. Spin doesn't work.

This election isn't about some televised left-right argument; it is about the fundamental principle of liberty vs tyranny: Force vs Free-will. Every 'Patriot ACTion', tea-party-something-or-other, or 'Occupy' group pushed on us by the media claiming to be our 'voice' will be rejected. Every bit of political spin will be ignored. You can't control this opposition with media; it grew with the media trying to kill it and it will not die because of it.

From the time the Declaration of Independence was penned until today, the United States has been moving closer to real independence. We have taken great strides forward. We understand that the archaic requirement of giving up independence in order to huddle together for warmth is no longer valid. We recognize that each mind should be free to explore and to innovate without giving up individuality to the collective. The rules that violate natural laws are being repealed.

This is the movement. It is a fight between the elitists, who have always profited from the fears of the collective, and the person who denies that some elitist knows what is best for the individual. It is also a fight between the frightened collective, attempting to force the individual back into his or her 'place', and the spirit of individual freedom and innovation. The elites have always controlled the collective through fear, hatred and division. This movement is the antithesis of those concepts.

No amount of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News, print news or any other propaganda is enough to surpass the will and mind of the individual. Group-think is flawed from the very start. Collective thought will be defeated by a group of individuals. Elite media, pushing the agenda of oppressive collectivism, is NOT enough to reverse the tide of individuality, which is the real source of support for Ron Paul.

Let's Talk REAL Issues

2011-12-22T05:54:00.005-06:00

The real issues in the 2012 Presidential election are the economy, foreign policy, and the growing nanny-state.

REALITY: If Ron Paul isn't elected, we will probably go to war with Iran. This will most likely hurt our economy and create a foreign relations nightmare. He is the ONLY candidate advocating a foreign policy of peace.

REALITY: If Ron Paul isn't elected, we will most likely continue down the same fiat path with our currency, facing the failure of the dollar while the cronies and friends of the media elites get richer and the poor get poorer.

REALITY: Ron Paul has always defended individual rights, no matter what race, religion or national origin the individual might be. He has been praised and defended by high ranking officials in the NAACP. That shouldn't be a requirement to prove a lack of bias, but it does go above and beyond what a Newt or Romney would get.

REALITY: Ron Paul has always been a fiscal conservative, voting only to allow spending when he believes it is thoroughly authorized by Congress. If there had been a hundred more Ron Paul's in Congress, there would be no budget crisis right now.

REALITY: Ron Paul would continue to fight against legislation that suspends habeas corpus and indefinite detention from the powerful position President. You wouldn't have to worry extraordinary rendition under a Paul presidency.

REALITY: Although he has never accepted money from medicare or government assistance, he gave reduced-rate and sometimes free healthcare to the needy.

REALITY: Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble bursting 5 years before it happened. There is so much evidence to back this up, it should have been front page news for months.

REALITY: Ron Paul predicted the market crash in 1987. This also has video and audio from multiple sources to back it up, unlike the attacks the political media machine is making against him.

REALITY: Ron Paul has preached against collectivism in any form for 40 years, with overwhelming audio, video and text evidence to back that up.

REALITY: Ron Paul has NEVER received a fair shake from the media. Deal with that.

With all the topics concerning these real issues, why is the media asking Ron Paul about something written by someone he doesn't know 20 years ago, and that he didn't find out about until 10 years later?

Because they have nothing! Paul's record is virtually spotless.

CNN, which has been asking the same questions about these things since 2008, made no attack when their candidate, Obama, had Black Panthers information on his 2008 Presidential campaign site...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=59398

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-black-panther-party-supports-obama

In this day and age, when the equivalent to newsletters are blogs or websites, it is much easier to get rid of that kind of content. It would have been another story completely had his site been hacked and the Panthers' info inserted, but it wasn't, and it allowed to stay up long enough to conceivably allow it to be viewed by millions of people. Still, it is dumb to try to blame the then Senator Obama for this.

Things were different in the late '80s. There is no way you can know what someone is typing and xeroxing. There was no googling your name, back then. Paul didn't even know this inflammatory content EXISTED for roughly TEN YEARS, until a muck-raker dug one of these 'newsletters' up. He wasn't even in politics at the time this stuff was alleged to have been written. It wasn't brought to his attention until it was long out of publication.

The funniest thing of all is that a disgruntled former staffer, after being fired nearly a decade ago for trying to pressure Paul into supporting an attack on Iraq, is considered the 'source' for most of this info. His claim that 'millions' were made off of these mailers is so laughable that no credible news source should touch it.

Come on, CNN, and other statist news outlets, let's talk about something that pertains to reality.

Fox News' Reality Check: Patriot Act Fail

2011-12-09T06:00:00.000-06:00

Fox News affiliate reports that the "Patriot" Act hasn't stopped the 42 attacks commonly reported, and that most of the few 'victories' were really failures or simply fabricated by the law enforcement that claims them as victories.

"The majority of cases... were not law enforcement victories, they were simply failed attacks.

For instance, shoe bomber Richard Reid. His shoe bombs simply didn't detonate. The Patriot Act powers didn't stop him from trying."

"It is very difficult to quantify how well the Patriot Act has worked in preventing terror attacks, especially when you find that in many of these plots that were broken up the Feds bated suspects, offered in many cases to buy weapons or explosives, and then once that suspect agreed to take part in the plot, they were arrested."