News and Current Events

A Semi-Inside View into the Ron Paul Newsletter Issue

2011-12-29T14:11:00.000-08:00

It's challenging to remain a voice of reason and even-handedness in a news cycle that has provoked fierce personal attacks on all sides. The myriad misrepresentations, misinformation, and false accusations surrounding the Ron Paul newsletter controversy are distractions from the real problems facing the country and the world.

I've long been acquainted with Ron Paul, his newsletters, the people who helped produced them, and the intellectual context in which the groundwork was laid for this controversy. For years, I've been good friends with former and current employees of the Congressman, and have a bit of insight into how it all came about.

It's fairly well known that Ron Paul worked closely with the "paleolibertarians," a group of writers and economists associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the preeminent think tank for the Austrian School of Economics. Two Mises Institute personalities, Lew Rockwell and heralded libertarian economist Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), are the most commonly mentioned names in connection with the Ron Paul newsletter controversy. Lew Rockwell was the director of the entity known as Ron Paul & Associates from 1984 to 2001. The Associates business managed his several newsletters and provided copy, content and direction, with Ron Paul as basically the figurehead. Rockwell and Rothbard are frequently being pointed to as the main source of the controversial content of the newsletters, and the reasons for that are fairly clear.

Now, I've long been a fan of Mises Institute scholarship and have attended Mises events, including one in Austria. While I can't say that I have directly had much interaction with Mr. Rockwell, I have met him a number of times, and welcomed him to speaking engagements over the years at the University of Florida, Houston and Atlanta. I always found him to be a complete gentleman and a stand-up, gracious fellow. I also had the great fortune of meeting Murray Rothbard a number of times, and the same goes for him.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Rockwell, along with Rothbard, endorsed a political strategy of appealing to the populist right and social conservatives. Recoiling from the libertinism and countercultural lifestyles of some libertarians (and after the defeat of their candidate for Chairman at a Libertarian Party convention), Rockwell and Rothbard decided to start a culture war of their own within the libertarian movement. This was effectively laid out in Rockwell's paleo manifesto in Liberty magazine (PDF) as well as in the Rockwell-Rothbard Report (also PDF), basically the house organ and gossip column of the paleo brain trust. The Paleo strategy included stark denunciations of other libertarians (especially the Libertarian Party, "libertines" and "beltway" libertarians) as well as embracing the likes of Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and Tom Fleming (associated with the John Randolph Club, the Rockford Institute and Chronicles magazine).

Many within the libertarian movement were taken aback by the explicit calls for social intolerance. While many of us appreciated the appeal to local tradition and customary social behavior, how could anyone calling themselves a libertarian be actively intolerant - of non-Christians, immigrants, homosexuals, or of rock and roll? I was a young college student at the time. We all knew toleration of behavior we didn't like didn't mean embracing it. Furthermore, many of us identified with things the paleos were reacting against. We also liked Cato and reason; we simply didn't get the antagonism and rejected the intra-libertarian culture war. We saw no reason to be looking backward instead of forward, and a lot of the paleo posturing veered just a little too close to the more authoritarian aspects of communitarianism.

Suffice to say many of us young libertarians objected to the paleo strategy, and we also lamented the insertion of this strategy into the publications of our favorite former Congressman - who, while no libertine - would never himself endorse divisiveness or endlessly harp on hard-right social issues.

Everyone familiar with this now knows that Paul only wrote a small part of the content of his newsletters - mainly on economics and monetary policy. The divisive social issues, particularly the ones invoking the most contention, were written by others. But so goes the newsletter business. You sound the alarm about issues of concern, and build up your base of readers. And different writers supply much of the content - in the case of a publication with a notable name on it, the content is almost always supplied by ghostwriters and sometimes outside authors. I personally do not know if Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Jean McIver, Burt Blumert, Mark Thornton, Jeffrey Tucker or the ever-colorful Fred Reed authored the most controversial passages, but they, among others, did contribute to the content and production of the newsletters. It would likely be for the good of all if those responsible owned up to it. My only wish is that specific questions be clarified so we can simply move on (of course, it won't be good enough for some, but then again, certain critics will never be satisfied).

The few passages in question are in very poor taste and in some cases stooped regrettably to low levels. They have been discussed in detail elsewhere, but anyone exposed to the broad spectrum of political polemics knows they are hardly the writings of genuine racists or anti-Semites (the latter is the most ridiculous and uninformed accusation of them all). In fact, it's all really rather tame in comparison to other stuff being disseminated as violent crime peaked in the early '90s and also in the aftermath of the L.A. riots. Observing that young black males are "fleet of foot" is clearly stereotyping, but not too far off from stand-up comedian material (Robin Williams, anyone?). Suggesting Al Sharpton should hold a protest at a crack house or welfare office instead of the Statue of Liberty is actually rather funny if somewhat inappropriate. Although the remarks about gays were made during the excesses of ACT-UP and similar groups, off-color comments on gays here are also insensitive, in bad taste and just dumb. You can be reject political correctness, but you can also take it too far. Many of the charges about the newsletters currently floating around are trumped up and baseless, but I do think I'm being charitable when state that this posturing was taken too far and was not very forward-looking.

When I first started noticing the editorial trend in that direction in the pages of the Mises Institute's Free Market newsletter (up to that point, we young libertarians devoured every issue and gave out extra copies on campus) and elsewhere, my conclusion was that it was because those stodgy socially conservative types wrote bigger checks. Much of the more sober writing on this controversy suggests my initial instinct was on the money - that the hard-right posturing was an attempt at tapping into a larger subscriber base.

At the time, we all knew passages of this nature did not come directly from Ron - they issued from the same corners the Rockwell-Rothbard Report did. My own sense was that he had worked with Lew and Murray and their compatriots for a long time, trusted them, and simply allowed them to pursue a strategy they felt would be successful. In the meantime, Ron Paul has disavowed the controversial writings, and has expressed regret for them many times over. Paul even said as much in the New York Times about Messrs. Rockwell and Rothbard: "They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people." Perhaps the Paleos leaned on him to allow them freer reign with his newsletters. Nice folks tend to succumb to more dominant, aggressive people - such is human nature. And that can be forgiven.

Thankfully, the Paleo strategy of corralling the hard-right quietly fell by the wayside as the Mises people parted ways with the protectionists and nativists and war became a major issue. Lew Rockwell has expressed some reflections on his own evolution in attitude. Also see Rockwell's interesting piece here, "My Speech at the Antiwar Rally."

Although the actual schism is long over and done with, many of the questions still remain. But Ron Paul is no George Wallace or Lester Maddox, and it's ridiculous that he's being treated that way for words he did not write. To err in judgment is all too human, but the misjudgment of Ron Paul over this issue is malicious and unfair. His dedication to the cause of liberty will always instruct and inspire us, and his legacy will long outlive this hopefully short-lived brouhaha.

I know what it's like to have your name appear on words you didn't write. Coincidentally, my situation involved some of the same people. In an article I wrote covering a GOP convention for Liberty magazine, the late editor, Bill Bradford, changed specific passages to take personal swipes at Rockwell and Blumert. I'm not entirely sure what his motivation was. This stirred a few hornets and ultimately resulted in a bit of bad blood between the Mises people and the Republican Liberty Caucus. Not unlike Ron Paul's situation, I really had a difficult time getting the word out that I didn't come up with those cheap snipes at Rockwell or Blumert, since the damage had been done (I regret that I only indirectly expressed regret to Burt Blumert for the swipe against him before he passed away). And while I strongly disagreed with the Paleo approach at the time, I'd have never said unkind things about Lew Rockwell personally. I have my issues with some of the excesses and crankiness of a few of the Lew Rockwell Blog writers, but that's for another article.

With a $15 trillion national debt, troops stationed all over the globe, and our personal freedoms and privacy being chipped away at, it's difficult for me to imagine how some people justify their obsession with this issue. It came and went years ago. With Ron Paul leading in Iowa and polling a strong second in New Hampshire, it is not unlikely that the powers that be - those who benefit from the corporate state and looting the American people - have an interest in slinging as much mud at Ron Paul as they can. It's because he speaks against their power, not because they care about un-PC things that were published in an investment letter or political report 20 years ago.

An unintended consequence of those spreading the false impression that Ron Paul somehow holds racial views will undoubtedly create sympathy among those who don't care about the issue. It may even succeed in creating support from those who were the original target audience of those passages (i.e. the paleo "redneck outreach" as it was called). We're talking about Republican primary voters here - not the political junkies or bloggers or other nitpickers and meticulous evaluators of the news. Remember that Rand Paul won the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky and the general election - even after the Civil Rights Act flap stemming from the Rachel Maddow show led to Rand falsely being accused of being a racist, even after stating his support for the intent of the Civil Rights Act and most of its planks -- as well as stating he would not seek its repeal.

It should be noted that Governor Gary Johnson is officially out of the GOP running and intends to seek the LP nomination - I also think he's absolutely great and have met with him and attended several of his events. Best of luck to him.

At the end of the day, Ron Paul remains the best candidate in the GOP race. By far. No one else in the running speaks out against unconstitutional wars, the financial manipulations by the banks and the Fed, the drug war, out-of-control spending and the erosion of our civil liberties.

TDW

If anything I've written is factually incorrect, I welcome any civil comments with corrections.

Controversy = Relevance. Ron Paul Jars Establishment, Media, Pundits

2011-09-13T02:32:00.000-07:00

In the latest GOP Presidential debate hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express, Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul made news tickers buzz with his "controversial" statements about health care and foreign policy. Reactions from left and right attempt, rather ridiculously, to paint Paul as anything but what he is. From Mother Jones and the grossly uninformed Rosanne Barr on the left, to booing Tea Partiers and neocon blogs on the right, Ron Paul raises the ire of statists across the spectrum. And ever more so.

Ron Paul stands for sound money, limited government, a rational foreign policy and solid protection of civil liberties under the Bill of Rights.

His prescription for our troubling health care situation includes freedom, competition and charity - as opposed to the dirigism and corporatism of Hillarycare, Obamacare and Romneycare.

The reason why the cost of health care has skyrocketed in the U.S. is a direct result of the collusion of interest groups such as the AMA (the doctors' lobby), Big Insurance, et al, with state and Federal lawmakers. Competition is strangled and ensures the oligopoly position of health care providers. In most cases, the same costly regulations that apply to a 100-doctor hospital apply to a one-doctor private practice or small clinic. Insurance cannot be offered across state lines unless it complies with the often complex dictates of state insurance law. Medicare and Medicaid have historically have had little cost control, allowing what providers charge to balloon. We have nothing resembling real competition in the health care marketplace.

Ron Paul's foreign policy principles would make America safe, and pull the rug out from under terrorists who have sworn to harm this country. The jihadists' strategy of pulling the US and its allies into long, protracted occupations has worked - to the benefit of military contractors and those who loan money to the US government to pay for it. Who benefits from interventionist foreign policy? Not the US taxpayer.

The more the guardians of the military-industrial-bureaucratic complex attack him, the more relevant he is.

Support FAMM - Families Against Mandatory Minimums

2011-01-25T08:43:00.000-08:00

Mandatory minimum sentencing for drugs was devised in the '70s (in New York) and '80s (Federally) by misguided proponents of the war on drugs, who thought they could eradicate drugs by getting "tough."

The drug war has ruined peoples' lives more than drugs ever could, by throwing them in jail for years and years - at your expense. FAMM has several stories about people whose lives have been ruined. Mandatory minimum sentences can send first-time, non-violent offenders to jail for years.

It's time to get rid of mandatory minimums (and for that matter, drug prohibition). I saw a presentation by the Florida office of FAMM (they only have two state offices - Fla. and Mass.) and I have never heard such heart-wrenching stories.

FAMM.org

Rand Paul Headed for Victory in Kentucky GOP Primary

2010-05-14T10:36:00.000-07:00

It looks like a pretty safe bet that Bowling Green ophthamologist Rand Paul is coasting towards a sizable victory in Tuesday's Republican Senate primary in Kentucky. The May 18 primary pits Paul against establishment scion Trey Grayson, who has released a number of negative attack ads distorting Rand Paul's positions on foreign policy and conflating them with the perceptions of those of his father. In fact, Grayson has started aping some of Rand's positions on economic issues, even distancing himself from the corporate bailouts rubber-stamped by the national GOP.

Rand has been more skillful than his father at bringing mainstream conservatives on board his campaign, earning the endorsement of Steve Forbes, Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), retiring Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), and archconservative James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Today, Salon published a detailed and sympathetic profile of Rand entitled How Rand Paul became the Tea Party's Obama. Last month, reason magazine published an excellent profile of Rand Paul and his campaign, and today our good friend Brian Doherty notes the GOP power shift represented by Rand's campaign, also in reason.

Also participating in the race are rambling but entertaining WWII veteran Gurley Martin (not only is he on the Interwebs, he can be found on the Youtubes and the Twitter) and also-rans John Stephenson and Jon Scribner. Red-meat Republican Bill Johnson dropped out in March after dropping thousands of dollars on his own campaign, after gaining no traction whatsoever, the endorsement of religious firebrand Alan Keyes notwithstanding.

The editors of this site disagree with Rand on a few things, notably abortion and a few of his more socially conservative positions -- things that earned him the endorsement of people like Dobson and social conservative groups in Kentucky. However, the most crucial issues facing this country are primarily economic, and Rand is the candidate with the best understanding of these issues and how to approach and solve the myriad problems our own Federal government has caused: obscene deficits, a crippling national debt, which is approaching an unfathomable $13 trillion dollars, out-of-control spending, and regulations that end up benefiting large corporations while hurting small business - such as recent health care and financial reform legislation.

Without question, Rand's father Ron is more consistent in articulating the libertarian philosophy and is much more vocal about civil liberties issues commonly ignored by mainstream Republicans. In this regard, Rand has left a few observers wanting to hear more on these issues. Then again, Rand is his own person, and he is running for the Kentucky GOP Senate nod, not for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination. On the other hand, Rand takes a firmer stance against Congressional earmarks and pork-barrel spending, maintaining that Federal funds should be distributed according to objective criteria, not the seniority of a district's Congressperson.

On foreign policy, we appreciate elements of both Pauls' positions - we favor a strong defense, while at the same time resisting the misguided imperative of acting as the world's policeman and the pursuit of costly and quixotic nation-building.

We applaud Rand Paul's impressive campaign and wish him a resounding victory on Tuesday and in November.

Bastiat's Broken-Window Fallacy: Do Disasters and War Create Prosperity?

2010-03-30T16:14:00.000-07:00

In this short video, scholar Tom Palmer discusses Bastiat's Broken-Window Fallacy, a very simple proposition that says destruction (in the form of disasters or war) does not create wealth or prosperity. Apparently "experts" like Paul Krugman claim that it does.

Obama's Corporatist Economic Advisors

2008-10-17T22:33:00.000-07:00

Obama's Corporatist Economic Advisors
Hopefully, they'll leave us with some change

Barack Obama's economic advisors include some youngish Democratic centrists, genuinely bright economists like Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman. Their pedigrees include Yale, MIT, Harvard and the University of Chicago, an historically free-market bastion. In many instances, these individuals display a surprising sensitivity to recognizing the spontaneous order brought about by millions of actors in the marketplace. However, the few relatively sane positions they hold will likely be drowned out by the converging cavalcade of interest groups that will accompany a potential Obama victory.

In spite of Obama's anti-trade campaign rhetoric, the members of his economic brain trust are friendly to trade and globalization - so much so that the far left has screamed bloody murder, accusing Furman and Goolsbee of having "Wall Street viewpoints" and being "crypto-Bushies." Furman authored a notable paper lauding the salutary effects of Wal-Mart's low prices. Speaking of the net benefits that Wal-Mart's cost savings gave the working poor -- an estimated $263 billion dollars -- Furman declared "there are very few public policies that I’ve advocated in my life that would make as big a difference as that." His estimates of wage suppression ran about $5 billion. "It's just an enormous differential." The Nation's Naomi Klein almost summons the lynch mob, and then concludes their saving grace might just be their paeans to Keynesianism and John Kenneth Galbraith.

Obama's Democratic "Chicago Boys" recognize the value of lower corporate tax rates in principle. Goolsbee determined in a study that taxing Internet transactions could reduce sales by up to a third and stunt e-commerce significantly. Furman has called for lowering tax rates generally and broadening the tax base by limiting special exemptions, calling incentives to invest in tax-favored activities (as opposed to economically productive activities) perverse. In a July 24 interview with NPR, Furman rattled off an astonishing litany of potential budget savings, including ending some subsidies and overpayments to Medicare, banks that make student loans (!), and wealthy farmers.

On the other hand, these things are now de rigueur in any intelligent discussion of political economics today. Only the truly unlettered deny that confiscatory tax rates, complicated tax codes and protectionism are detrimental to a country's economic well-being.

One would hope such bright young minds would find their own voice and not serve as servile executors of viagrafied interest groups, from longshoremen to Lehman Brothers. Will they just go along with the most noxious proposals the Obama team brings to the table? One particularly ominous piece of legislation is the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, a labor-backed step towards coerced unionization on a national level that portends to do away with secret ballots at the workplace.

The Pelsoi/Reid Congress are already clamoring for billions in new spending, as if current levels weren't bilious enough. With an Obama presidency, expect every imaginable Democrat constituency (and then some) to have their eager hands out; after all, Barack Obama has presented himself as all things to all people, people with not all that much in common.

Given their Keynesian roots, and looking at the rest of their policy proposals, it could be argued that these guys are not truly free marketeers, but pragmatic corporatists and utilitarians hired to keep Wall Street and tax-eaters happy (these days it seems those two are converging). Furman was groomed by high-powered Democratic pro-business luminaries such as Robert Rubin and Joe Stiglitz, who successfully steered Bill Clinton towards deficit reduction while only marginally increasing top tax rates.

Goolsbee cheer-led subprime lending in his March 2007 NYT column "‘Irresponsible’ Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded", pooh-poohing predictions of economic bust. This seems to make clear under what kind of paradigm the Obama economic team operates; we know how well Wall Street lenders love the easy credit gravy train. As Justin Raimondo documented, Obama's campaign has received huge support from Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and other top execs of the nation's financial giants, all beneficiaries of the shameful bailout scheme.

Jason Furman himself comes from an entrenched Democratic Party establishment background. Furman's mother, Gail, a Manhattan child psychologist, is the matriarch of the Furman Foundation, a fund that deals cash to Soros-backed groups like the Tides Center, People for the American Way, left-leaning NGOs, and Media Matters, David Brock's left-wing journalist team. Conspiracy nuts will love the fact that the Furmans have bestowed thousands to the Council on Foreign Relations on an annual basis. Furman grants mirror those of Soros and Herb and Marion Sandler, the controversial pair implicated as major players in the subprime lending debacle and Wachovia collapse. Furman herself is an effusive donor to the DNC and Democratic candidates across the country. There is little doubt she'll grab Jason by the ear and have him march her in to the Oval Office so she can have her say with Barack. If momma ain't happy, ain't no one happy.

Those of us who tend to favor markets and choice over state domination hope these centrist advisors will keep Obama from embarking on too many asinine shenanigans if he is elected. They would serve him well to mute the traditional Democrat constituencies, whose scoreboard lights up with every new tax, regulation and Federal bureaucracy. In the 1990s, a reinvigorated GOP Congress helped contain the Clinton Administration's more ambitious targets, and as a result it left a relatively fiscally conservative record. Obama's market-friendly centrists may try to bring a level of reasonableness to a potential Obama administration, but with Democratic trifecta in place, we can only doubt this.

Tom Walls is a travel consultant and translator in Lake Worth, Fla. He has a long history of activism in libertarian organizations, from the National Libertarian Party to the RLC. He supported Ron Paul in the GOP primaries and is voting for Bob Barr in the general election.

What is to be done? A message from Phil Blumel

2007-09-26T15:55:00.000-07:00

From: Phil Blumel, Palm Beach Ron Paul meetup coordinator

Friends,

We are running in a GOP primary and have to reach GOP voters. It is helpful, and easy, to have sign-waving events on busy street corners -- and they are worth doing! -- but they are not enough, as a minority of the people who pass in cars are NOT going to be voting in the primary.

The most influential primary voters attend local GOP meetings and/or belong to their county Republican Executive Committee and, of course, 100% of the people at such meetings are both interested in the election and will be voting in the primary. We need to be a recognized and respectable part of the Republican Party if we are to win a Republican primary. If we act like a marginal third party, we will get the vote total of a marginal third party.

Here are my specific recommendations in this regard:

1) Register Republican right now if you are not already.

2) Bring change of registration forms to every planning Meetup. We always get new GOP voters in the South Florida Meetups when we do this.

3) Encourage the more presentable Meetup folks (you know what I mean) to join their local GOP clubs and attend meetings and socials wearing a Ron Paul lapel pin and armed with some Ron literature. Go to the meeting, participate, get to know people.

You don't need to be pushy or dogmatic, as this will be resented. Have you ever been active in a charity and some realtor or other salesperson joins trying to network to generate business and it is clear they don't really care about the charity? They do not succeed in generating business that way; this kind of networking only works when the realtor is *genuinely* interested in the goals of the charity. Watch how the Rudy and Mitt folks are working the crowd and learn from them. Because of the pin, discussions about Ron will spring up. But even when they don't, these important primary voters will recognize intraparty support and we will earn respect. The key to networking is to make genuine connections with people, not to harangue or give speeches. It requires attending meetings regularly and establishing real relationships.

4) Join the Republican Liberty Caucus network (www.rlc.org). Ron was chair of the RLC in the 1990s and this is the existing libertarian network in the GOP. This will help you locate fellow travelers in the GOP. You are not alone!

May 25: Ron Paul on Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO

2007-05-23T18:51:00.001-07:00

After his big splash in the GOP debates, Bill Maher has declared Ron Paul "my new hero." Ron Paul will be on Maher's show once again on Friday, May 25, this time with libertarian humorist P.J. O'Rourke and actor Ben Affleck.

On Ron's first appearance on Maher's show, Maher was somewhat dismissive of him and even disrespectful. Apparently he has changed his opinion, and is offering him as an example for other politicians to follow (click here to see Maher haranguing establishment sop Chris Dodd while throwing Ron's name out there).

2nd GOP Presidential Debate: Tuesday, May 15 - 9:00 PM EST

2007-05-10T20:35:00.000-07:00

From the SC GOP website:

The 2007 First-In-The-South Republican Party Presidential Candidates Debate will be televised live by FOX News Channel at 9:00 PM from the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. FOX News Channel Washington Managing Editor Brit Hume will moderate the debate and FOX News Sunday Anchor Chris Wallace and White House Correspondent Wendell Goler will ask questions of the candidates.

You can submit questions here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271356,00.html

Ron Paul wins MSNBC post-debate poll

2007-05-04T17:31:00.000-07:00

Last night, MSNBC held the first GOP presidential debates at the Reagan Library in California. Ron Paul was the most surprising and refreshing of the candidates. We're not just saying that because we're big supporters here at electronpaul.blogpsot.com ... it is because he clearly seperated himself from the others by staking out firm, principled positions. When he came out squarely against any kind of national ID card, the others who endorsed it (Giuliani, Romney, et cetera) then backtracked and said they only wanted it for aliens. His staking out of the libertarian quadrant is already having an effect on the others. Chris Matthews used the word libertarian twice and linked Ron Paul to the "Barry Goldwater wing" of the GOP. It's nice to see him finally get some respect from these guys.

As of now, Ron Paul leads in the MSNBC interactive poll - 32% positive, ahead of all the others. And Ron has the lowest negatives - 29% as opposed to Huckabee's 37%. If you toggle the before/after ratings, you'll see Ron had the biggest increase.

This is very encouraging - and nothing short of amazing. Put Ron in front of larger audiences, and he wins them over.

A message from Ron Paul's District Political Director

2007-03-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

First and foremost, the goals that we hope to accomplish are:

Bringing the message that liberty can be reestablished in American only by respecting the rule of law, the U. S. Constitution.

Saving America from bankruptcy, world war and a continued fascist regime by getting Ron Paul elected President.

What you can do:

Republicans need to get involved in the party. Become voting delegates at your precinct, county and state conventions. Support Ron Paul at all these events. Ask them to invite Ron Paul to speak at their state conventions! (1-800-RON-PAUL)

Republicans need to call the county chairs, executive committee and state chairmen of your individual state. Ask that they support and endorse Ron Paul. Tell them that it is imperative at this time in history that we have someone who in incorruptible and a true conservative because this country is going bankrupt - financially and morally.

Those of you who are not Republicans, hold your nose and take the plunge as Ron Paul is running in the Republican primary and believe it or not, most grassroots Republicans believe in limited government and want someone to believe in Ron Paul is that Republican.

Write letters to the editors of newspapers about supporting Ron Paul for President.

Continue to hammer talk show blogs and email commentary promoting Ron Paul for President. (you have done a great job at this) Ask them to invite Ron Paul onto their station. Tell them to call 1-800-RON-PAUL. Promote him and the issues of liberty and the U.S. Constitution.

Ron Paul has to win Republican primaries before he can get to the next step - the general election, so we need you to work in Republican circles to get that done.

Thanks so much. You don't know how much we love you as supporters. If it weren't for you holding back the tide of big government by supporting Ron Paul in all of his endeavors, we would have little hope for freedom.

So, because of you, there is....Hope for America!

Penny Langford-Freeman
District Political Director/Scheduler
Congressman Ron Paul
"The Taxpayers' Best Friend"
District 14, Tex.
1-800-RON-PAUL
837 W. Plantation Dr.
Clute, Tex. 77531

Ron Paul on HBO TONIGHT with Bill Maher

2007-03-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

Tonight, Ron Paul will be on HBO's REAL TIME with Bill Maher at 11 PM EST. Also appearing on the show will be D.L. Hughley, Michael Smerconish, Catherine Crier and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This ought to be a humdinger.

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher

MSNBC Under the Radar appearance 3-29-07

2007-03-30T10:25:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul made a great appearance on MSNBC's Under the Radar program at noon yesterday (March 29, 2007). Have a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oWXbxgKbh0

Ron Paul expected to announce run on C-SPAN, 07:30 AM EST March 12

2007-03-11T13:23:00.000-07:00

Breaking news! Congressman Ron Paul is scheduled to appear live on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Monday, March 12th at 7:30 a.m. EST, 6:30 a.m. CST. He is expected to officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President on the show.

In the AP story, Paul is described as "a strict constitutionalist and fierce anti-war critic" and "routinely ranked either first or second in the House of Representatives by the National Taxpayers Union."

For more information on Ron Paul's announcment to run, please see:

Small Government Times, Ron Paul to officially announce presidential candidacy Monday, March 11, 2007

Dallas Morning News, Rep. Ron Paul to run for president, March 11, 2007

Ron Paul on CNN 2/26

2007-02-25T12:12:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight Monday evening, February 26.

You can view a clip here (disinter.wordpress.com) or here (direct from YouTube)

Who will rally the libertarians?

2007-02-13T17:59:00.000-08:00

From today's Wall Street Journal Political Diary, 2/13:

+++++

Who will rally the libertarians?

It's a sign that some Republican primary voters are dissatisfied
with the current field of presidential candidates. Economist Walter
Williams, who often substitutes for Rush Limbaugh, has found himself
the object of a committee drafting him for president. Of all things,
it's headed by a cartoon duck.

It's true. The comic strip "Mallard Fillmore," which is drawn by
Bruce Tinsley, has used several installments to urge the 70-year-old
George Mason University professor to run for president. The
outspoken Mr. Williams has been flooded with e-mails and phone calls
from enthusiastic boosters.

For his part, Mr. Williams agrees that career politicians have
disappointed conservatives. "I personally think that if we chose the
president of the United States at random, we'd get a better
president than any president since Ronald Reagan," Mr. Williams told
the Washington Times.

Mr. Williams is flattered by the attention but says he already has a
candidate: Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas congressman and former 1988
Libertarian Party presidential nominee, who recently announced he is
forming an exploratory committee for president. Mr. Williams is
under no illusion that Mr. Paul is likely to win but he says Mr.
Paul's presence in the debates would be refreshing. "If the framers
of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of
possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," he
says.

The 71-year-old Mr. Paul, a physician, has been in and out of
Congress since 1976 when he was one of only four GOP House members
to endorse Ronald Reagan's challenge of President Gerald Ford. He
has assembled an army of 15,000 individual donors across the nation
who endorse his unwavering support for the flat tax, his call for a
radical reform of the Food and Drug Administration and his hostility
to overseas military conflicts like the war in Iraq and his
disapproval of any and all federal trampling of states rights.

Michael Barone, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, once
noted in a profile of Dr. Paul that his agenda has marked him as
an "oddball." He concluded: "Of course, in Rep. Paul's view, it's
the rest of the nation's politicians, with their devotion to an
inherently inflationary currency and self-defeating government
programs, who are the oddballs."

-- John Fund

Ron Paul to appear in first Presidential debates in April

2007-02-11T21:10:00.000-08:00

This is excellent news! The first Presidential debates have been announced, and Ron Paul has been invited:

CNN/WMUR/Union Leader to host first presidential debates
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New Hampshire's two leading news organizations will partner with CNN to host two presidential debates in April, executives with the three media companies announced Friday.

CNN, WMUR and The New Hampshire Union Leader will hold the back-to-back debates on April 4 and 5, the first such events to be held of the 2008 presidential campaign. CNN's Wolf Blitzer will moderate the debates with questions coming from WMUR's Scott Spradling and Union Leader's John DiStaso. WMUR's Jennifer Vaughn will be moderating questions from the audience. The debate will be televised live nationally on CNN and throughout New Hampshire on WMUR.

--

The South Carolina GOP has announced it will be hosting a debate among the GOP Presidential candidates on May 15 in Columbia. Let's make sure Ron Paul is included in that debate as well!

--Tom

Let's lay the groundwork NOW for a Ron Paul race

2007-01-31T23:43:00.000-08:00

Friends,

If we are serious about a Ron Paul campaign, we need to get started ASAP. Non-election years are the easiest time to secure seats on county Republican Executive Committees and of course we can always join our local GOP clubs. We need to get Ron supporters in as many GOP clubs as possible *before* the presidential campaigns get into high gear.

This is crucial, as these positions will be invaluable for setting up speaking events and fundraisers for Ron and they will also give us direct access to Republican primary voters. Through these venues we can participate in the crucial straw polls such as Presidency IV.

Here's what I recommend right away:

1. Join your local municipal or county GOP club, or run for a seat on the county REC. If you are under 40, join the Young Republicans. Attend their monthly meetings.

2. Plug in to the libertarian network in the GOP. Join the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) at: http://www.rlc.org/Pay/Dues.asp?ref=RLCFL

3. Show Ron you want him to run. Send a nominal contribution to the

Ron Paul 2008 PEC, 837 W. Plantation Drive, Clute, Tex. 77531.

You can send more later if he officially announces.

This is a great opportunity for the libertarian movement. Let's make the most of it.

-- Philip Blumel, www.rlcfl.org

Bruce Bartlett Op-Ed on Ron Paul in NYT

2007-01-31T23:21:00.000-08:00

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/eg/paul-nyt.html