Dedicated to the men and women of the United States Military and dedicated to the Conservative Cause betrayed by the elitists of the now positively defunct Grand Old Party. We will seek to either rebuild or replace said same political party.
I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom
For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.
If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page)That will be all. We now return to regular programming.
This Blog Is Moving
Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.
So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.
I learned from an article at the Examiner, that the Republican Jewish Coalition plans to exclude Rep. Ron Paul from their Dec. 7 candidate forum. They object to his expressed views on foreign policy and national security issues as I do.
While I sympathize with Israel, I take exception to the decision to exclude Paul from the debate because I believe that the voters should be exposed to the entire range of views expressed by the potential nominees. As a nominal Republican, I am embarrassed by his irrational rants. As an Islam hating lover of life & liberty, I am outraged by his treachery, but I believe that contradictory speech is the best antidote to expressed idiocy & treachery. Fools who cherry pick a single position with which they agree, neglecting critically important issues with political tunnel vision risk foisting another disaster on this nation. Both those fools and the rest of the GOP primary electorate should be exposed to the full range of ideas from the top level candidates for the nomination. I am not comfortable with the Jewish Coalition concept, in either party. Participants in American electoral politics should be American citizens and identify as such. Dividing ourselves by ethnic origin is the first step toward Balkanization, which is absolutely the wrong way to go; the polar opposite of the American way. We should coalesce around issues, not identity.
It is the shallow-minded fools such as this that would "Rather" have a Barack Hussein Obama as President in the hopes of a "Conservative Revival". I will say this to the poor child; that movement is here and now.
It is remarkable how many "conservative" commentators, who completely failed to see the credit crunch coming or anticipate its consequences, nevertheless did not hesitate to inform Americans that it was absolutely necessary to provide 5 percent of GDP – $700 trillion – to an unelected economics czar who was one of the men primarily responsible for the crisis in the first place. In light of this, there are three things to keep in mind as you contemplate the unveiling of corporate socialism in America: [...]
Obviously, the young lad hasn't been paying attention to the forces at work. Neither has the child been paying attention as to who has been trying to fix the problem for a very long time and who it is that has been blocking every attempt to expose the DNC induced fraud in oversight. It is people like this that make my skin crawl.
In the reader I use to monitor the various news sources, this is what was displayed: "Exclusive: Vox Day proves there is no point in choosing Republican duo on Election Day." Simply amazing. So, then, what shall we do? Vote for the fraud Barr? Vote for the fraud Paul? Vote for the non-Constitutional Constitution Party that Alan Keyes stepped away from because it is NOT a Constitutional anything?
[...] Regardless of whether you vote Libertarian, Constitution Party or do not vote at all, you can be sure that your vote will not be wasted. - because, as events have proven time and time again over the last eight years, the only wasted vote is the vote that is cast for a Republican politician. [END]
Poor thing. Youth is wasted on the young for far too many years. Ignorance is bliss and the ostrich Syndrome is so much better when you have no idea what one is talking about.
In order to bring about the change this inexperienced upstart would have us reign in in this particular point in time, one must begin at the ground level and work your way up. Ron Paul and Bob Barr haven't a chance in any way, shape or form to win in November. What this foolish and immature boy would have us all do is guarantee a Barack-Biden (or Hillary) ticket in the White House. This child is willing to sell the nation out to a damn Marxist Whore so that we can dig out of it for the 30+ years or so after the Marxist left office - if he ever does leave office.
Like I said, these punks piss me off. Whereas I look upon the bail out bill as a sell-out to the American People, something had to be done - that much is obvious. But, when it has been the young ones that have sat on their asses for seemingly forever and let the nation slip into the socialist quagmire it has become, it is rather late in the game 30 days out from an election to try and change the outcome for the likes of idiots like Paul and Barr. As always, the young ones, thinking themselves to be so much wiser than the rest, fall short of seasoned Common Sense.
Sorry VOX Daily. That was the most ignorant post I have ever read from you. Grow up. Your "proof" doesn't pass muster.
I know a little about Ronniev Pauliev. He has fooled so many people because he knows how to talk the talk but he does not know how to walk the walk. He talks pretty. He cites chapter and verse. He mouths off a lot but when he associates himself with the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Sean Penn, Adam Kokesh, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Students for Justice In Palestine (btw Palestine has never existed), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Cindy Sheehan, and idiots that say this:
This is an answer to the Jew Horowitz and the neo-conservative Zionists who dragged us into an imperialist war in Iraq and are spreading hatred against Muslims to support their war plans against the Republic of Iran.
...he is no more a Constitutionalist than I am a proponent of Josef Stalin. What the hell is wrong with people? Have they lost their powers of discernment? Are they so taken aback that when he mentions the Constitution they begin to drool, froth at the mouth and say, "OH YEAH, BABY! HE CAN SAY THAT C-WORD!"? Give me a break. Sit the phuk down and shut the phuk up. Pull up a chair and lemme 'splain some thangs to yas.
I hear tell that some folks are so taken by this frothing clown and fraud that they fall for his shiite at every turn. I hear retarded comments like...
He has the right message but he is the wrong person to deliver it.
I call bullshiite.
I hear regurgitated comments like...
Look at the other GOP candidates as they snicker and laugh every time Ron Paul mentions the Constitution on stage at the debates! What do you make of that?
Well, when the mutants that ask that question, they have zero intention on letting you answer the damn question. I'll tell you what I think of that. The folks doing the snickering know what I know...the guy is talking out of his arse. That's why. The fool is a consummate liar.
A shortened history of Ron Paul is this: he is a Libertarian. WTF is he doing in the Republican Party, then? He tried to get elected as a Libertarian in a Republican district and failed. He tried to get elected as a Democrat, in a Republican district and failed. He learned to talk like a Republican and got elected. He is a fraud. He is not a Democrat or a Republican. He is a RINO and a DINO.
I hear other equally inane and uninformed and uneducated comments as such...
Then why does he keep getting elected?
That is a rhetorical and dumb question. Why does Kennedy keep getting elected? Why does Kerry keep getting elected? Why does anyone keep getting elected? They know what to say to GET elected and they know what to say to KEEP getting elected. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Ron Paul associates himself with the anti-Americanists of American Fascism Awareness Protest. Hello? Are you out there? Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. Ron Paul is a racist. He was a guest speaker at a "rally" and this is the flier for that rally:
Who Hates Americans? We Do.
Your typical American is:
A racist. A sexist. A homophobe.
An Islamo-phobe.
Is willing to invade other countries for oil and pleasure.
Is easily manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and Jews.
Is the cause of global warming.
Join Us For American Fascism Awareness Day
Place: Washington (Slaveholder) Monument
Date: November 31, 2007
Time: 12PM-2:00 PM
Speakers:
Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, congressmen Adam Kokesh, Iraq War veteran Chris Hedges, journalist Cindy Sheehan, Harry Karry, peace activists Michael Moore, Sean Penn, film-makers
Sponsors:
Peace and Social Justice Crusade, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Code Pink, Muslim Students Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Students for Justice in Palestine, Revolutionary Communist Party, International A.N.S.W.E.R., Moveon.org, DailyKos.com, Indy-Media.org, HuffingtonPost.com, Ivorypower.com
[...] On September 24, 2007, replying to an inquiry about U.S. policy toward Cuba, the campaign of Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas responded: "Congressman Paul believes that real free trade benefits both parties involved. His stance on Cuba would be to end the embargo, which only leads to the suffering of the people of Cuba while Castro is far from 'punished' and is in fact, strengthened by them. By setting a good example at home we can become an inspiration for countries such as Cuba, who may wish to emulate our actions." [...]
Clearly, as educated as Dr Ron Paul is, he sure is ignorant of the goings on of Cuba and Che Guevara. And this sorely uninformed rambling fool wants to be President? Please. While we are at it, if Ron Paul is such a constitutionalist, why in the world does he say to stop the war and spend that trillion dollars on health care? Where in the hell is that in the Constitution? Hell, even I can say and spell Constitution. It doesn't mean I know anything about it. Apparently, however, I know more about it than he does. Maybe I should run for President.
[...] In that vein, I had to wonder a little bit about Paul's supposed devotion to the Constitution. He said that we can't afford to spend a trillion dollars on health care because we're in a trillion-dollar war. Wouldn't an originalist also mention that the federal government doesn't have a Constitutional mandate to spend the trillion dollars on health care -- and at least acknowledge that it does have that mandate for national security, even if Paul thinks the policy is misguided? [...]
The man is a blithering idiot. A two-faced lying ass. He talks out of both sides of his face and both arse cheeks. More than likely, he is running for President to get out of Texas because he is finding it difficult to hold onto his district in Texas...we are on to him. Duncan Hunter beat him out in a Texas straw pole not too long ago.
[...] Zoom ahead to this election cycle, almost four years later. Recent polling by another Texas Republican pollster confirms that Paul's electorate doesn't appreciate the increasingly leftish libertarian bent of Paul's voting record. In the eyes of voters, Paul is now also wrong to oppose the Patriot Act, off base on energy policy that affects Texas enormously, and to be faulted for knee-jerk opposition to the fight against terror in the Middle East.
The difference this time is that Paul's critics have a bona fide challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, he'll likely lose to Peden on March 4. That'll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought. Good riddance. [...]
The flake is certifiable and I am, as a Texican, sick and tired of the uneducated about Ronniev Pauliev yammering on like they know something and telling me and the rest of the world about leftist RINO Fraud Paul being a strict Constitutionalist...he ain't one of those and I will Indian Leg Wrestle you over it and you will lose.
Hell, I could go on and on. Ron Paul is a leftist and leftists love him. I dare say that his most staunch supporters are either devout socialists or communists. He is certainly NOT a conservative. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. Knock it off already about his constitutionalism...it ain't so.
Susan (Spree) at Wake Up America has a piece up from today, 1/9/08: she lists and quotes the various Paultard sites from the "rational" to the "spinners" to the deniers" to the "hold your nose and vote anyway" crowds. She has decided to be "brave" and is ready for the Paultard attacks and is requesting anyone woth input from the Paultards implosions to list them in her comments section:
Although I suspect that they are so busy with this "voter fraud" conspiracy theory, they may just not have the time to attack comment sections right now.
I have taken this little foray into the Pualites homefront one step further at considerable risk to my sanity, all for the readers, and am going through the Ron Paul Forums and will be adding to this thread as I come across anything about the newsletters or just general insanity and if anyone wants to help with this project, here is one of those forums and here is a page listing other Ron Paul dediated websites.
Leave anything of interest in comment section with a URL and I will add it to the updates with a thank you.
Happy hunting and tune back in for further updates as the day progresses....
MAJOR Hat Tip to Redstate. The beginning of the post threw me for a loop momentarily and I was soon relieved that my former impression of the contributors over there are still favorable. Just for a few moments, I thought someone had slipped some LSD into the various drinks of choice they partake of. This is the Headline that drew me in like a lamb to slaughter:
Media Conspiracy Refuses to Cover Almost 30,000 votes for Ron Paul
OMG!! Go to Redstate and read the entire post. You will see what we and others have been saying for a very long time. As for myself, I have the disadvantage of having known all about the Fraud That Is Paul for at least 14 years.
As of this moment, the zionist neocons in the media are claiming that Ron Paul has finished next to last in the Iowa Caucuses, and that he is trailing the imperialist Bush lackey pig Mike Huckabee by almost 30,000 votes. However, we at RedState have learned from reliable sources that there is a media conspiracy afoot to not report votes for Ron Paul! That's correct, although Ron Paul actually received over 40,000 votes, we have reason to believe that the corporate media is simply refusing to report on the last 30,000 votes that Ron Paul received so that they do not have to mention Ron Paul's name over their capitalist pig airwaves anymore. [...]
Good God Almighty...LOL!!
I used to drink quite heavily and stopped in 1999. THAT paragraph ALMOST sent me to the store.
One would think that an individual running for the highest political office in the United States would know better than to say that Iran has no Army, no Navy or no Air Force. And, because Iran doesn't have a military, Iran would never attack Israel.
As incredulous as that sounds, incredulous is the wrong word. Mr Ron Paul, an American Presidential Aspirant, making such statements on a national level news show, leads one to question whether or not the cluelessness extends into other areas.
One can also surmise that Mr Paul doesn't know that for many years, Iran and Iraq were the "super-powers" in that region up until Saddam was ejected from power. One can also pretend that the extremely bloody war Iraq and Iran fought for nearly 10 years was fought with toothpicks and spit balls.
Allahpundit pretty much sums the interview up thusly:
[...] Ron Paul, quite incredibly, thinks Iran has no army, no navy and no air force at all and therefore would never attack Israel. Evidently Paul doesn't realize the utility that ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons would offer an Iran whose president has repeatedly declared his personal desire to wipe Israel off the map. A couple of well-placed nukes could in fact do that, whether Iran has an army or not. Which, by the way, it does. Really. Iran does have an army. A navy and an air force, too, with an indigenously constructed fighter airplane leading the latter into the skies. Paul might want to bone up on that a bit. He'd do well to Google the Shahab series of missiles while he's at it.
Paul also might want to bone up on the US military's presence overseas and who actually pays for it. He's against it, though he doesn't even know how many troops we have overseas or what they're doing or why they're there. That also came out in the interview. And he thinks the US taxpayer pays the entire bill, which isn't true. We pay the bulk of it, but we don't pay all of it. Host countries pick up a sizable portion of the tab, funding everything from the cost of living allowances to the housing that our overseas troops need. All of that and more was packed into an interview that demonstrated once and for all that however well-meaning Paul is on the small government front (an area where he could and does make some sense), he's simply too ignorant on foreign policy and too quick to blame America for just about every bad thing in the world to be trusted with the power of the presidency. No good can come of it. [...]
The YouTube clip can be viewed at Allahpundit or here.
This is just too much. I received an email on this subject matter below and, even though I have known about this for a while now, I suppose I must now air my own assessment.
Ron Paul is in serious need of mental therapy. Naturally, when the entire world is out to get you, paranoid is the best thing to be...I suppose. Then again, being a Paultard is also a mental illness as well. Behold Prison Planet...by the way, this is another one of those he said, she said, they said, so we think this and that, therefore, it is true. The Leftinistra are the same way and so are Troofers. No wonder they adore each other so...sort of like a herd of Guinea Pigs.
Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity.
Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today.
"I am getting information from my sources that there are people involved from a higher level of the American establishment who are seriously considering this has not been confirmed - but assassination is definitely on the agenda and I pray to God that this is not the case," said Estulin. [...]
[...] Ron Paul himself has stated on a previous occasion that he is aware of the dangers of being such a bold icon for freedom and understands that political assassinations have occurred in the past. [...]
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Anything on the SciFi channel?
In my 24-7-365 (sometimes 366) daily studies in the morning hours of each and every day, I run across very interesting topics, very boring topics, articles written by very intelligent people from all political spectrums and then, I run into things like this. This is an example of mental instability in much the same way as the proponents of Global Warming.
I was waiting for a few days to write on this but, in the light that the Des Moines Schoolmarm Club for the ignorant and confounded has endorsed Czarina and McCain for President, I thought to brighten up my evening by posting this link to the video of Israel creating earthquakes just to piss of the Arabs.
Naturally, there will be people that actually believe this kind of crap just like they believe that the Federal Government is plotting the assassination of Ron Paul.
And, rightfully so. The guy is a fruit loop and if his voice gets any higher he could play a part in the young boys choir. The guy is a flake. It seems as though some Paultards, Pauliacs, fellow membrane dissolvers were writing (read that spamming) Mona and this is her reply:
[...] Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. [...]
Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower "who stopped the Korean War" and including Nixon "who stopped the war in Vietnam." Let's recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran's Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power.) Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon. [...]
Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.
Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). [...]
[...] Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. [...]
[...] Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.
No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.
You'll have to go read the rest by clicking the link. The tid-bits I placed here really doesn't do the article any justice. Suffice it to say, the vast majority of Americans think Ron Paul needs serious mental help.
The whole story and the fruit loop web site is here. A key remark made withing the content of the whining letter is "Rather" interesting. It seems these clowns are printing their own money. We shall see.
[...] We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money. [...]
Apparently, by the verbiage transmitted in this letter, they were getting ready to distribute Ron Paul money...funny money. Is that legal?
Updates to our original story above. One from Italy where the writer makes a valid point. Not the one about George Bush being jealous: that's gratuitous Bush-bashing at its European finest.
The one about the FBI conducting the raid in the first place. From URU Net, Italy: "FBI Raids Liberty Dollar"
Good stuff here...and, Ron Paul knew about this and don't let his trolls and spammers fool you for one nano-second...
Ron Paul is having trouble in his home state of Texas. In September, Paul finished third in a straw poll of 1,300 Texas Republican activists who had been delegates to recent Republican conventions, according to The Hill.
The congressman corralled just 17 percent of the votes cast, trailing California's Duncan Hunter with 41 percent.
This outcome says Texas Republicans aren't terribly concerned about viability. Otherwise, one of the national front-runners like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney would have beaten these long-shots. But if they were willing to "waste" their votes on Hunter, why didn't most back a fellow Texan? The truth is that Ron Paul, the angry prophet, has little honor in his own land. He's about to lose his congressional seat.
They also point out the problems for his next reelection chances in his home state:
Zoom ahead to this election cycle, almost four years later. Recent polling by another Texas Republican pollster confirms that Paul's electorate doesn't appreciate the increasingly leftish libertarian bent of Paul's voting record. In the eyes of voters, Paul is now also wrong to oppose the Patriot Act, off base on energy policy that affects Texas enormously, and to be faulted for knee-jerk opposition to the fight against terror in the Middle East.
The difference this time is that Paul's critics have a bona fide challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, he'll likely lose to Peden on March 4. That'll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought. Good riddance.
The author of that piece is David Hill and is the director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.
Coming in behind California's, Duncan Hunter by 24% shows that the good state of Texas has had it with Paul shenanigans and there is a window of opportunity for Texans to boot him out at his next election.
What a crock! no matter the spin, Greenie, spin is spin and your version of spin is ineffective...we are on to you and have been for quite a spell. Ron Paul is a fraud, plain and simple. As most politicians do, he likes to waste tax payer's money, much like Kucinich trying to impeach VP Cheney for uncommitted crimes to satisfy the ill-fated and passe anti-Americanist Movement(s), aka, Convoluted Bowel Movements.
Ronniev Pauliev, although blessed with the gift of gab, is, at heart, an anti-Americanist himself and his following is no better than the likes of the crowds such as Code Pepto Dismal and similar pathetic minions. It is no wonder that the Leftinistra author for salon, a known Leftinistra rag, a mouthpiece for other anti-Americanist groups, would rally to the aid of another Leftinistra in GOP Garb.
News Flash to Greenie Waldo...Ron Paul is not a Republican. We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "supporters" for Ronniev Pauliev are part of the dire straights the Leftinistra are in and, whatever they can do to trash the upcoming elections, they will do. It isn't working. Ronniev Pauliev hasn't a snowball's chance in Kennedy's freezer to make it to the White House.
Orcinus has an in-depth look into Ron Paul's "record" and it clearly reveals an Isolationist and shallow politician that is not only unqualified to lead this Great Nation, he is unqualified to breath free air. This piece is what has Greenie Waldo's panties in a wad. This piece and the plethora of others past, present and future will sink Ronniev Pauliev and the supporters will go back supporting the likes of Kucinich...that is if the Mother Ship doesn't arrive in time.
LGF reader Shiplord Kirel alerts us to some very interesting excerpts at Free Republic from the old Ron Paul newsletter, being posted by a Freeper over the objections of the site's Paulians. The excerpts are from the mid 80s to the late 90s:
That is the $4.3M question . An impressive on-line Blitz raised eyebrows and concerns from some Presidential Aspirants. Myself, an Independent, know who the defenders of the Ronniev Pauiliev mantra of Blame America First are. They are of the same ilk as the Far Left Fruit Loop Brigades. Why else do they "march" lock-step and ignorant with the likes of ANSWER and Code Pepto Dismal?
Everywhere you go that an anti-war protest is going on, you will find Ronniev Pauliev supporters hanging with the anti-America crowds; the Blame America First Crowds; the Hate America Crowds.
Ronniev Pauliev is a fraud. Plain and simple. He and his blantantly ignorant supporters might as well be Leftinistra Bleeding Heart Liberals.
Lo and behold, it is from... you got it... Ron Paul supporters.
Anyone surprised?
Anti-spam researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) noted a disturbing new trend following Sunday's Republican Candidates Presidential debate. One of the candidates has a new spam campaign dedicated to proclaiming him victorious in the debate and extolling his virtues as the future president.
There is no reason to believe the current spam campaign is actually endorsed by Ron Paul or his official campaign engine, according to Gary Warner, UAB Director of Research in Computer Forensics,
Ron Paul is popular with the Internet and some of the recent Web polls that were taken down because of Ron Paul Spammers include:
Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate! Ron Paul Eliminates the IRS! Ron Paul Stops Iraq War! Vote Ron Paul 2008! Iraq Scam Exposed, Ron Paul Government Wasteful Spending Eliminated By Ron Paul
Warner says, "We've seen many previous emails reported as spam from other campaigns or parties, but when we've investigated them, they all were sent from the legitimate parties." The important distinction between the new emails and previous emails, Warner says, is the fraudulent nature of the message. Legitimate messages tell who they are from, and provide a means of "unsubscribing" from future messages from the same source.
According to the CAN-SPAM Act, the primary law under which unwanted email can be prosecuted in the US, one of the factors that makes a message spam is deceptive sending practices. In the messages reviewed at UAB, emails were received from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Nigeria already this morning. In each case it was clear that the computer sending the message did not belong to the person who was listed in the "From" address. Such as a Houston resident, whose email was sent from a computer in Italy, or a Silicon Valley computer worker, whose email was sent from Korea.
"Messages such as these harm the online eco-system by casting doubt on the veracity of other online communications", Warner said.
FYI: The UAB Computer Forensics program is a partnership between the UAB Computer & Information Science Department and the UAB Department of Justice Science. Warner and his colleagues research spam, phishing, malware, identity theft, and related CyberCrime issues.
One of the polls that had to be removed was from CNBC and after the poll was removed the Managing Editor of CNBC.com, Allen Wastler , issued an open letter to the "Ron Paul faithful".
Dear folks,
You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.
So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.
Sincerely,
Allen Wastler Managing Editor, CNBC.com
True Republican Ron Paul supporters should speak up loudly against this type of activity, such as the spamming emails and the deliberate attempt to skew results of online polls, because it is not doing the candidate any good at all.
We posted a piece the other day about Nick Griffin speaking at MSU and I added a side note there pointing out some of the supporters that Ron Paul seems to attract:
The reason I bring the side note up at this time is because by stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, you see that Preston Wiginton (who was with Nick Griffin) has ties with Stromfront (white supremacists), Stormfront supports Ron Paul as donations from Don Black, founder of Stormfront to Paul shows, Ron Paul is connected with 9/11 Truthers, by money (Alex Jones), and the group that invited Nick Griffin to speak at Michigan State University (Young Americans for Freedom) are Ron Paul supporters as their site Spartan Spectator shows.
And people wonder why Ron Paul creeps me out? Just look at the people he attracts!!! End sidenote)
After having seen Ron Paul speak at the Republican debates, I have mentioned before that he simply sounds like a kook and it is understandable why he attracts many undesirables- (White Suprmacists and 9/11 Truthers).
Today we see reports of Ron Paul supporters also being spammers, which is something we have mentioned before and has even caused certain blogs to stop allowing those Ron Paul supporters from commenting at all, Red State being one such example.
Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.
Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.
Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.
There was quite a bit of discussion about Red State banning Ron Paul spammers, some blog owners publicly stated they didn't agree and others fully understood the nature of the Ron Paul spammers.
Myself, I believe that who ever owns the blog determines the rules....period.
They have that right because it is their hard work that goes into making their blog a success and only they are in the position of knowing what is good for their blog and what is bad for it.
Red State made that choice and deserves to have their final word respected on the topic.
Interesting side point from the Rasmussen piece, found at the bottom shows that Ron Paul has yet to top the 4% level of support in the daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Title news first. Ron Paul received boos from the crowd at the Republican presidential debate. The only boos of the night, further evidence that the latest Zogby poll is representative when it says that 47% of the general population would never vote for Ron Paul, the highest number for any of the Republican presidential candidates.
His unpopularity is only topped by those that would never vote for Hillary Clinton, which is at 50%, Kucinich 49% and Gavel who ties with Ron Paul at 47%.
The top three are Democrats and then you have the Democrat in Republicans clothing...Ron Paul.
Ron Paul was repeatedly booed for comments on the war such as “over 70% of America wants the war over.”
Paul's rhetoric is very unpopular among Republican conservatives.
As the LA Times points out, Ron Paul is not the only Republican that has caught flack for anti-war rhetoric.
MOREHEAD CITY, N.C. — The Crystal Coast Republican Men's Club faithful were all smiles as they gathered at a restaurant to listen to their candidate for North Carolina's 3rd Congressional District.
But the warm reception wasn't for the Republican who since 1995 has represented this stretch of coast from the Virginia state line to the sprawling Marine base at Camp Lejeune. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., a soft-spoken, deeply religious man who two years ago turned against the Iraq war, was not there.
The GOP activists dining on fried fish were cheering Joe McLaughlin, a county commissioner and retired Army major who has launched a hard-charging bid to dispatch Jones in next year's primary by highlighting Jones' votes against the war.
Across the country, other Republican lawmakers who have broken with over the war are under fire from party loyalists.
In Maryland, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest -- who like Jones has backed Democratic proposals to set a timeline for withdrawing troops -- faces a well-funded Republican challenger. So too may congressmen in Florida and South Carolina who opposed the president's increase of troop levels.
Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska faced a primary challenge from the state's attorney general, who got into the race as Hagel escalated his criticism of the president's conduct of the war. Hagel announced last month that he won't run for reelection next year.
More examples:
In Florida, Rep. Ric Keller was labeled a "white flag Republican" by talk-show host Hugh Hewitt after he voted in February for the nonbinding resolution opposing the president's troop surge. Keller potentially faces two primary challengers, even though he has opposed every Democratic withdrawal plan.
There is talk of a possible primary challenge to South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis. He also voted for the nonbinding resolution in February but has remained loyal to the party line since.
Gilchrest, a Vietnam War veteran who has represented Maryland's conservative 1st Congressional District since 1990 and strongly opposes the war, is trying to fend off a challenge from a state senator who has targeted Gilchrest's war votes and won the backing of numerous GOP officials, including former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich.
Ron Paul shows he has no understanding of the "base" of Republican supporters, which is why he will not get near to winning the primary.
Back to the debate itself... some say McCain shined, others are very impressed with how hard hitting Fred Thompson was.
The transcript can be found at NYT and after going through it, a few comments stood out.
Many who have read this blog before, know I lean towards Fred Thompson, but I like Rudy Giuliani also, for different reasons and I have not personally decided who I will be endorsing.
This exchange between Rudy, Mitt and Fred did stand out from the beginning of the debate.
WALLACE: Gentlemen, good evening. You have all been arguing at long distance over the last week or two about who was the real Republican, who was the true conservative. I hope you will all be willing to discuss this directly with each other tonight.
Mayor Giuliani, Senator Thompson says that you're soft on abortion, that you're soft on gun control, and that you've never claimed to be a conservative.
Who is more conservative: you or Fred Thompson?
GIULIANI: I can't comment on Fred. I can tell you that George Will wrote a couple of years back, toward the end of my time of being mayor of New York City, that I ran the most conservative government in the United States in the last 50 or 60 years. So I would think that was a pretty good indication of the things that he was drawing on. I brought down crime more than anyone in this country -- maybe in the history of this country -- while I was mayor of New York City.
GIULIANI: I brought down taxes, $9 billion, cut them 23 times. I balanced the budget that was perennially out of balance; removed $2.3 billion surpluses -- deficits and replaced them with surpluses.
So there were many -- I drove pornography out of Times Square. There were many, many things about my governing of New York that particularly in that environment -- one of the most liberal cities in the country -- I had more success than anyone ever thought I could have with a city council that was 45 Democrats and, I think it was, six Republicans -- then it went down to five at one point.
GIULIANI: So I think that was a pretty darn good conservative record. I think, in every case, you can always find one exception or two to someone being absolutely conservative or absolutely this or absolutely that, but I think I had a heck of a lot of conservative results.
WALLACE: Governor Romney, Senator Thompson says that you run to the left of Teddy Kennedy in 1994, that you were proudly pro-choice, as recently as 2005, and that his philosophy doesn't depend on geography.
Who is more conservative: you or Fred Thompson?
ROMNEY: You know, this is a critical time for our nation and fore our party. We have to decide which direction we're going to head. And, in my view, we're going to have to bring together the same coalition that Ronald Reagan put together; conservatives fiscally, conservatives from a military standpoint and conservatives socially.
ROMNEY: And I believe that a candidate -- and all of us here are Republicans, all of us are trying to put together that same coalition, but it's essential that the strength of the house Ronald Reagan built is going to lead us to become the successful nation that we've always been, and our party to be successful.
Because we're not going to -- we're not going to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House by acting like Hillary Clinton.
Now, I'm proud of my record. Not just of the words, but of the record of the governor of Massachusetts. Like Mayor Giuliani I had a tough state to be running in. I was a conservative Republican in a very Democrat state. My legislature, 85 percent Democrat. We face a $3 billion budget gap. We solved it without raising taxes, without adding debt.
We solved the problem in health care in our state not by having government take it over, the way Hillary Clinton would -- with private free-enterprise approaches.
My approach, I believe, is best for our nation.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Senator -- Senator Thompson, have these two guys convinced you that you're wrong and that, in fact, they are both consistent conservatives?
THOMPSON: Well, we've got an hour and a half.
Maybe they can work on it.
(LAUGHTER)
But, they...
(APPLAUSE)
Actually, Mitt, I didn't know there was any room to the left of Ted Kennedy, but maybe there...
(LAUGHTER)
In fact, I didn't know there was any room to the right of him, either, but maybe...
(LAUGHTER)
I was conservative as soon as I put down Conscience of a Conservative when I was in the college.
I came back to a little home town of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, started the first Young Republicans Club.
In eight years -- in eight years in the United States Senate, I fought for tax cuts, a balanced budget, and welfare reform, all of which we achieved, and I also fought for judges who would abide by the Constitution and the law and not make it up as they went along.
(APPLAUSE)
All that time, I compiled a 100 percent pro-life voting record. Now, both of...
(APPLAUSE)
They're only giving me a minute here. So both of these gentlemen have done some good things in their respective jobs they've had.
But you mentioned Mayor Giuliani first. Mayor Giuliani believes in federal funding for abortion. He believes in sanctuary cities. He's for gun control. He supported Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat, against a Republican who was running for governor; then opposed the governor's tax cuts when he was there.
So I simply disagree with him those issues. And he sides with Hillary Clinton on each of those issues I just mentioned.
They came out swinging, which is good, it keeps the audience lively.
McCain had a statement too that struck a chord from the crowd:
WALLACE: Senator McCain, if I may -- Senator McCain, you didn't like it much when Governor Romney said recently that he spoke for the Republican wing of the Republican party.
Who's more conservative: you or Mitt Romney?
MCCAIN: I think it's pretty obvious that that statement was a paraphrase of Howard Dean's statement about the Democrat party.
The fact is, I'm running on my record as a reliable conservative of 24 years. And the indicators of that, obviously, is that I've fought wasteful spending, I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism.
I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training.
I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. For 20-some years, including leading the largest squadron in the United States Navy, I led. I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism.
There are 21 pages to that NYT transcript, I have only highlighted a couple things that instantly struck me about the candidates I lean towards.
After reading all of the transcript, I would have to say Thompson and McCain came out ahead, in this debate.
There will be dozens more debates before the 2008 elections, any politicians from either party can stick their foot in their mouths at any given moment and blow their chances, so it is still too early for me to to determine who I will endorse.
Some other reactions to the Republican Debate last night:
Rudy Giuliani is now supported by 24% of Likely Republican Primary Voters while Fred Thompson is the top choice for 19%. Mitt Romney is the favorite for 16% while John McCain is at 12% and Mike Huckabee has 8% support. (see recent daily numbers). No other candidates attracted more than 2% of the vote.
This poll did not include Sam Brownback for the past three nights of polling.
The Tygrrrr Express gave a great rundown on the whole debate, calling it a "Relevant Republican Debate and ended with this:
Fred Thompson was sharp, Rudy Giuliani nailed the education question, and the crowd loved any anti-Hillary red meat. McCain is a fine man, but just does not sell himself well. Romney spoke in generalities and did not offer specifics. Huckabee did not help or hurt himself. The other candidates offer so little that I almost turned on the baseball game. I then remembered it was baseball, and at least Rupaul is entertaining.
Thompson and Giuliani won this debate.
Techpresident points us to a YouTube Clip of McCain speaking about the ridiculous measure from Hillary Clinton to give a million dollars to the Woodstock Museum (For those unaware, McCain was held as a prisoner of war when that event was held)
He deserved that standing ovation, great line!!!
Captain's Quarters gives the debate to McCain, although he thinks Fred did better in this debate than in his first one:
The top four candidates all fared well, at least on the transcript. I'd have to say that Thompson did even better than in his first debate. He answered Giuliani's criticism of his earlier votes on tort reform by arguing for federalism, and he skewered the laziness smear effectively. Giuliani gave the classic Rudy approach, with "You gotta be kidding me" when Brit Hume suggested that people see no difference between Hillary and himself. Romney scored points for himself when he noted that Hillary has never run anything in her life, while he has run a state, a successful business, and an Olympics that had almost collapsed from the weight of its own corruption.
This debate, however, went to John McCain. He gave better answers on the specifics of foreign policy. He noted that his leadership has been tested in ways that none of the candidates on stage with him have ever had to face. He gave perhaps the best response to Hillary Clinton by noting her efforts to provide earmarks to the Woodstock Museum went beyond his understanding because he was "tied up at the time" of the concert -- as a POW in North Vietnam. But even more than that, McCain sounded -- on paper -- like the senior statesman on stage. He sounded confident, bold, and well prepared.
Right Wing News has a full analysis also, declaring Thompson the winner, saying Giuliani as #2, McCain as #3, Romney #4, Huckabee #5, Hunter #6, Tancredo #7 and declaring Ron Paul as the LOSER!!!!
If you know anyone else that liveblogged the debate and you want them seen too, leave the URL in the comments and I will add them to this list.
(Note to Ron Paul fans: As far as my blog is concerned, Ron Paul is a certifiably insane freak and anyone that doesn't like that can pound sand. Save your insane ramblings and indignation for someone who cares and don't piss and moan to me about your free speech rights in MY BLOG's comment section because your free speech allows you to say what you want, or go write your own blog, but those rights do NOT trump MY OWNERSHIP rights for this blog)
In other words, to be clear, if you don't like what I have to say about Ron Paul....TOUGH. There is a little X in the top right hand corner of this window, click it and do not let the proverbial door hit you on the ass on your way out.
The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves.It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups.It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.
It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech.Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance.Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”
Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way.Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society.Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines.Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot.This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
He hasn’t thrown in yet, either. This is an exploratory site…still waiting for his Presidential website.
Debt and TaxesOn Debt and Taxes: Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending. (sounds good but the remaining “treatise” is extremely vague in the “how” to fix it…sorry Ron…too vague) -
On American Independence and Sovereignty: So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America. (this is what I mean about having CONVICTION…not vague at all and I agree with the remaining verbiage) + + +
On War and Foreign Policy: The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. (sorry…small minded here and has fallen prey to the Leftinistra rhetoric and is out of touch) - - -
On Border Security and Immigration Reform: The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own frontdoor is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: (EXCELLENT 6-point plan…I am in TOTAL agreement) + + +
On Privacy and Personal Liberty: The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. (well, some good concepts but attached to some kook fringeness…not exactly small minded but limited in realities) +On Property Rights and Eminent Domain: We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. (good points and valid points for the most part…in 90% agreement) + +
Ron Paul ran as a Republican because he was not “getting in” as a Libertarian. I myself, border Libertarianism but I am a STAUNCH Reagan Conservative. He “spoke like” a Republican to get elected. Ron Paul has a way to go before I could throw in with him.
He certainly does NOT come remotely close to Hunter, Gilmore, Huckabee and Newt.
