First, the videos:
For some outstanding campaign ads running in Iowa, take a look!
"A Ron Paul Grassroots Group Formed A PAC And Is Ru..."
I guess that's why Fox is no longer denying the truth:
"Ron Paul third in Iowa, Fox News reports"
Oh, and Ron Paul will win Kansas:
"Kansas Republican Caucus & Straw Poll. Ron Paul wi..."
Excuse me, MSM, he won the straw poll 79-0?!?!
SEVENTY-NINE to NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
You aren't going to able to steal this election. No way!
People at the local level will KNOW!!
We are ALL GOING TO KNOW!
Because the support is everywhere and everybody:
Home
"Diverse crowd turns out for Paul event"
"TAYLOR BRIGHT
Star-Telegram.com
Sunday December 9, 2007
ROCK HILL, S.C. -- Some had Mohawks; others had tattoos. One dressed as an American Revolutionary.
They wore Hollister. They chanted his name loudly. This is Texan Ron Paul's revolution.
On Saturday morning, about 500 devotees showed up at the Freedom Center to hear Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
"This can definitely happen," said Jared Phillips, 19.
Paul is an unlikely vessel for the fire of his supporters. A longtime Republican congressman from Surfside, his delivery is low-key and his message is nuanced.
Paul believes that the U.S. shouldn't be in Iraq, that the government shouldn't interfere in its citizens' lives, and that the Constitution should be followed.
"It was written not to control our lives; it was written to restrain the government," Paul said.
Paul trails in the polls, but is raising more money than any other Republican candidate.
"The big question, is there enough time?" Paul said. The South Carolina Republican primary is Jan.19.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/091207Diverse.htm"
New Hampshire
"Live Free or Die Volunteers come from afar for GOP's Ron Paul"
Beth LaMontagne
Seacoastonline.com
Sunday December 9, 2007
There aren't many people who would pack up their family, head to a colder climate, and live in a small home with about 10 other people with the goal of helping elect their favorite candidate, but as Laura and Wesley Lounsbury will tell you, Ron Paul isn't your typical presidential contender.
The Lounsburys came to New Hampshire from a small town in Arizona last month to volunteer for the Ron Paul campaign as part of Operation Live Free or Die, an effort spearheaded by Google engineer and Washington state resident Vijay Boyapati. The project aims to bring 1,000 Paul volunteers to the Granite State before the Jan. 8 primary. Already, 400 people have signed up, and on Wednesday the group raised more than $50,000 to help these volunteers pay travel and lodging expenses.
"We saw this as an opportunity to make a difference in the state where Ron Paul has the best shot," said Wesley, who is drawn to Paul's conservative take on financial issues.
"It's an investment," Laura said. "If we really wanted Ron Paul to be president ... we knew we were going to have to come out here and do everything we can."
The Lounsburys are now staying in a rental home on Hampton Beach and adjusting to the cold weather. They've been spending their days canvassing Exeter and Portsmouth, sometimes for seven hours at a time with their 3½-year-old daughter and 20-month-old son.
Laura, who is expecting her third child and has taken on the role as house leader, keeps track of the five to 10 volunteers who stay with them at any one time. She also does most of the cooking and makes sure they get up and out on the campaign trail each day.
Alex Hunter, a volunteer from Colorado who is staying at the beach house, said he came to New Hampshire because he believes in freedom, something he feels the Republican member of Congress from Texas will fight for as president. "It's hard not to want to come," he said.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/091207Volunteers.htm"
Everywhere
"Why the Internet Community Supports Ron Paul"
"Grizzle Griz
Nolan Chart
Sunday December 9, 2007
This originated as a response to an article by Seattle PI
If Ron Paul has a handicap, it's that his ideas are esoteric and difficult for quick consumption. He doesn't resort to the easy-out demagogy that seems to be political par these days. Instead, he engages the more robust discussions that Americans entertain in coffee shops and academic quarters. As Glen Greenwald at Salon.com describes, "While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional wisdom, Paul's campaign -- for better or worse -- actually does so, and does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way."
This sort of thinking is ill-suited for the soundbite-oriented mainstream outlets. It can only be understood in its entirety by doing enough research on the Internet. Thus, the Internet is where Ron Paul flourishes.
Second, he regularly challenges the conventional wisdom of Washington D.C. Objectively, his points are equally valid; he pits trade against war, low taxes against corporate welfare, lower grocery prices against agriculture subsidies. But again, the common assumption that politicians succumb to the whims of Washington can only be overcome by researching the theories that underlie his beliefs. Why, for instance, was he the only Congressman who opposed casting a posthumous gold medal for Rosa Parks? It turns out, he wasn't opposed to casting the medal per se, "Rosa Parks is a hero of mine...I believe in civil disobedience", he said. Instead, he offered to help pay for it with his own money and encouraged other Congressmen to do the same. They would not.
Paul makes an excellent point here: Why is congress willing to raid your Social Security and tax you for a medal that they're not willing to pay for themselves? Meanwhile, they have set up a lucrative pension plan in which Ron Paul refuses to partake. If you use the Internet, you can delineate these points. But if you get all your information from the major outlets, you'll hear "Ron Paul hates Rosa Parks".
This article also evidences this phenomenon. It says that Paul blamed the attacks on 9/11 on American foreign policy. That was a demagogic simplification of his statement. It was first misconstrued by the moderator at the debate, then by Giuliani, and now Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reiley. Bill Maher even corrected Chris Dodd about this by explaining , "Excuse me Senator, but that is just what the Republicans at the debate were trying to do, they were trying to say that he blamed America for 9/11". Yet, he wasn't talking about a good-and-evil blame-game that informs most of our Bush-era understanding of the world. He was talking about geopolitical cause-and-effect. The fact that he is correct according to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA's declassified intelligence, and Paul Wolfowitz himself seems to matter little to voters who don't have the time to do internet research.
The fact is that Paul addresses the real issues that America faces. There is no doubt that Social Security is crumbling. Rogue economists who set out to buy time for Democrats cannot overwhelm the weight of economic wisdom that a system of IOUs backed by IOUs that the government wrote to itself, simply cannot sustain. The value of the dollar is deteriorating and inflation will be our next biggest long-term financial crisis according to Greenspan. The cost of our war is increasing with no viable end -not to mention the cost of maintaining troops deployed all over the world. All of these put together are recipe for financial collapse.
Paul's wisdom hails from the school of foresight. While conventional politicians go to great efforts to secure legacies by pushing problems down to their successors, Paul stands for the idea that we can address them now, on our terms. One thing is certain though; we *will* address them. Hillary Clinton and George Bush may be in wheelchairs when we do. But an entire generation of Americans who will be worried about putting farm-subsidized bread on the table and will suffer the real, difficult consequences of government largess...well, they tend to use the Internet.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/091207Internet.htm"
And WE ARE GROWING!!!
Even the MSM admits it!
Which is why you get this:
"Ron Paul and the Media Bias"
"TAYLOR BRIGHT
Nolan Chart
Sunday December 9, 2007
Chances are good that those of you who are reading this have been paying attention to the brewing race for the 2008 presidential election. If we also take into account those who have not been paying attention, we can effectively separate the population of the United States into three disparate camps: Those who love to hear, those who are sick of hearing, and those who have never heard – of Ron Paul.
It can be said that this is perfectly normal, given the election is still, at the time of writing, barely under a year away. Consider, though, that the primaries begin in merely 50 days or so, and that this election cycle has been gaining steam for months now, and the argument falls apart. It can also be said that due to his low scores in the polls, Ron Paul simply is getting the amount of coverage that should be expected for a middle-bottom tier candidate. All other refutations to this point aside, from his performance in straw polls and post-debate polls to his vast support on the internet, nothing more need be said than "money bomb." On November 5th, but we Paul-istinians (my favorite dirty name for his supporters) proved to the country what we had known all along; Ron Paul has long had first tier support.
The simple fact of the matter is, though, apart from that rarest of species, the non-Paul-supporting internet user, nobody else had a clue that all of those people were partaking in his – he calls it our – revolution. This begs a serious question: why, during a race in which the favorite candidates have been household names for months, is there such a large portion of the population which has simply never heard of Doctor Ronald Ernest Paul, Republican Representative, Texas?
As we have already established, those reading this have most likely been paying active attention, and therefore have also probably heard rumblings of a general media bias against Dr. Paul. I cannot speak for the truth of this as per print, for, like so many of my peers, I have not held one of those archaic "news paper" devices for some time. Radio outlets are wide and varied, so again I cannot speak to that which I have no option to hear; I refused to drive around the country with my car radio on as part of the research for this piece. Suffice to say, though, that the big name conservative talk show hosts all seem to have reserved their love for some variation of Rudy McRomneyson. The internet, though seemingly dominated by Paul supporters, is such a huge venue that while biases among certain outlets on the internet certainly do exist, there is a forum for literally any idea one might wish to pursue. Don't believe me? Try googling "2," "girls," "1," and "cup" and see what comes up. Go ahead, I can wait. Now that we have that out of our system, lets take a look at the end-all be-all of the current journalistic forum, the mainstream media (MSM) god, television.
To understand any motives the MSM may have, and thus to be able to decide if they really are conducting a brown-out of Dr. Paul, one must first examine exactly what the MSM outlets are. The news media corporations, while able to draw their roots to the earliest stages of our country, are not organizations devoted to the dissemination of truth and objectivity. Our modern MSM outlets are entities devoted to profit, to be gained by representation of selective facts, along with analyses of said facts conducted in a manner which best appeals to their, and their advertisers, target audiences. There really is nothing fundamentally wrong with this. The profit motive involved provides for competition within the market, and competition between providers is the best way for consumers to have inexpensive, high-quality products. If there is any fault with the aforementioned profit motive within the MSM, it lies most closely with exactly what it is that the average consumer desires from their news.
The important lesson, though, is that the MSM syndicates want to make money, and will not present anything which they feel will not appeal to their customers. The reason why many of the MSM stations seem to have chosen favorite candidates is because their target audience already has. The stations aren't dumb. Most of them compete for overlapping audiences, and they have all done comprehensive research and studies into exactly what those audiences want to hear.
It could be argued that were this profit motive truly guiding the MSM, they would simply provide their audiences with whatever distorted analyses they desired, disconnected from any facts which might not fit into it. Again, this is countered by competition. Due to the interactive environment of the news media, with each provider vying for similar viewers, each must strive to be seen as the "best" source. Were any of the MSM outlets to ignore reality entirely, it would give ammunition to their competitors to attack them, lessening their prestige, and thus, viewer base.
Of course, given Dr. Paul's popularity in the only de-centrally controlled media venue, the internet, some more questions must be raised. Namely, if the MSM is solely profit motivated, and they must compete over a limited amount of viewers, and thus advertisers attempting to reach them, wouldn't one of them "pick up" Ron Paul and his teeming masses? The question is extremely appropriate, and cannot be satisfactorily answered given the understanding of the MSM as it stands thus far in this piece. The reason for this is that there is another aspect to the companies which give us our news. They are also the singularly most powerful special interest group in existence. They have access to the political world of the United States through two means. First is the traditional method of simply throwing money at politicians in Washington, and secondly, and uniquely to them, the MSM has direct access the voting public, and extensive control over how that public perceives the political world. Because of this access to the public, they also enjoy the attentions of every other special interest group in existence. This is their power, and they use it.
To understand why the MSM as a special interest group would be violently averse to Ron Paul – and they are – one must examine what changes Dr. Paul would bring to our political landscape. This is actually quite simple, for while the changes he would bring are widespread, the motives behind the special interest groups' reactions to them are uniform. Ron Paul would end our military involvement over seas. Ron Paul would secure our borders. Ron Paul would, through a series of reforms, end government handouts of taxpayer dollars and end government interference impeding free markets. Now imagine how much money many companies, from Halliburton to Blackwater to Lockheed-Martin, stand to lose if we end our obsession with using our military globally. Imagine how much money some groups stand to lose, both by ending the stream of illegal labor and stemming the rampant drug markets, if we secure our borders. Imagine how much money the agriculture industry, the auto industry, and all the other mendicants stand to lose if their huge tax-payer funded government subsidies disappear, or if the quotas and tariffs which shelter them are removed. Imagine how much of this money currently being made, how many tens of billions of dollars, finds its way to the MSM in the effort to control you and me, and thus currying favor among politicians. Now you begin to understand what the MSM stands to lose if our champion, Dr. Paul, is elected to the office of President of the United States of America. It seems it was the profit motive after all dictating the actions of the MSM outlets, only we had yet to see the big picture.
It is with all of this very much in mind that those who are centrally in control of our syndicated, constitutionally protected news corporations have resisted Dr. Paul with all of their considerable might. They could never deny his existence completely, though they tried, but they could attempt to marginalize him, and have, again, tried. Thanks to the efforts of 38,905 individuals on the fifth of November, 2007, and thanks to the efforts of everyone around the nation who has heralded the message of liberty and freedom, Dr. Paul is now beyond suppression. In fact, many in the media, who are unable to further ignore or marginalize him, have begun to embrace him. The embrace may be tentative still on the part of most, but the simple fact of serious recognition is a harbinger of things to come. After the full effects of Money Bomb 2.0 have been seen next December 16th, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the true course of the future might become visible, and it will be then that we shall see how the mainstream media failed to censor Ron Paul.
Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.
Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/091207Bias.htm"
Let's peer into the future just a bit, shall we?
"Ron Paul Administration Appointments"
I know three of the names on the list.
From what I've heard of them in my past life as a lefty, I didn't like.
That will have to be reappraised, too!
How come you never see any of this in the AmeriKan War Dailies, readers?
Because they LIE to PUSH an AGENDA?!
