Summary of Ron Paul's positio

I pretty nice story came out on the AP wire, and has shown up on ABC. From that story:

Bush "did nothing but increase the size of government. The Republican Party needs to move back to its core principles," Knapp said. Many Paul supporters share Knapp's disdain for what he called a "neo-conservative clique" and hope Paul can spark a Goldwater-style insurgency.

I think that's exactly what we are looking at. Except Paul is really like Goldwater, but replace his foreign policy with that of Taft, Washington, and Jefferson (i.e. non-intervention). Also there was decent article in the Wall Street Journal, which is surprising considering the neo-conservative leanings of that paper. I like how they describe the Iowa Straw poll (following two supporters).

On Saturday, Messrs. Morey and Hansen pulled into a parking lot alongside Romney buses. As mostly older passengers marched off in line behind Romney aides holding "Follow Me" signs, the two men chuckled at the contrast with the free-thinking, free-lancing Paulites.

Note that one inaccuracy is that it says he has "favored" gay marriage. It would be more accurate to say he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage, and would leave the issue to the states.

Finally, there is some video of Dr Paul's visit to New Hampshire on CSPAN - part 1, 2, and 3. Pete, of Pete's gun shop is quite a hoot. At one point he says that one of his friends says of Giuliani - "I'm not going to to vote for that son of a b...., he is against everything I stand for". And he wasn't too kind to Romney either - made fun of him saying he has hunted all his life, yet never had a hunting license. At the end, he tells Dr Paul to go kick some a...

The following is a letter to the editor from our very own Sue Mojica (a very dedicated member of the Boston Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group) which was published in the MetroWest Daily News on August 10th. We are publishing it here in its entirety; the last paragraph (in italics) was omitted.

To the Editor:

A bridge rated “structurally deficient” collapses and speculation abounds…how could this have happened? As our hearts go out to the people affected by this terrible tragedy, I would like to offer a little-discussed but very basic reason for the bridge collapse in Minneapolis. We have too much money.

A surprising statement, I know, but consider this: when an economy is based solely on fiat money, as ours has been for forty plus years because of a process set in motion some fifty years before that, there is never enough, because there is always too much. More units of currency = less value per unit = prices rise = calls for more currency = more units of currency = less value, prices rise, etc., a literal death-spiral to any society.

Consider what happened during the last decade of the 18th century when France tried such a system. The first several issues of paper money had a good effect, but after that it was all downhill to a ruined economy and a demoralized society. Their only recourse was to destroy the machinery, the plates and the paper, which they did on February 18th, 1796. No wonder our founders saw fit to prohibit the use of paper money as a tender in payment of debts (Art I Sec 10).

As I write this, I fear that we are now nearer to the end than the beginning of the inevitable course of fiat money. As the currency depreciates so do our values and the very stuff of our lives. There was enough money to build the Minneapolis bridge some forty years ago, but now there isn’t enough to either maintain the original or build a new and safer one if necessary. That doesn’t make sense, until you understand not only what has happened to our money but also how our relationship to government has changed.

During these last thirty to forty years our previously somewhat limited government has become very much unlimited. This is not surprising since as the money depreciates we all become needier, and the Federal Government, having given itself unlimited capacity to print currency, steps in to help. So, Minneapolis bridge, get in line with all the rest of us who no longer have the means to take care of ourselves. There is no money for you THIS year.

As it turns out however, that last statement might soon no longer be true. I wrote this on Friday morning and by that evening reports were coming in that there may be money for the Minneapolis bridge this year after all. Congress is currently considering an appropriation for emergency repairs and reconstruction, but first members of the House of Representatives must agree to waive the $100 million limitation on such appropriations in order to approve the estimated $150 to $350 million price tag for this one bridge alone. Something is seriously wrong here.

There is a silver lining however, and that is the one candidate in the 2008 Presidential election campaign who publicly acknowledges our predicament and promises to do something about it. His name is Ron Paul and his depth of understanding offers true hope for America.

Susan Mojica
Framingham

This old video just surfaced - an interview with Bill Moyer. They highlight his speech 6 months prior to the Iraq War:

"I rise to urge the congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit, one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with."

Bill Moyer's points out: "You were almost prophetic in what you said, you were right."

How many other issues will we look back on years from now and realize that Ron Paul was right? He was warning about the housing bubble years ago, and now we are finding that he was right. He's a doctor who knows how to find the true cause of our ailments.

Ron Paul has really be the only candidate out there that is honest/brave enough to talk about the impending bankruptcy of our country. His dire predictions have gone ignored by the rest of Congress it seems. Well, now the Comptroller of the U.S. is actually speaking out, and much of what he is saying is exactly what Ron Paul has been saying!

The iraq war will be the deciding issue of 2008 election. The Iraq occupation is very unpopular, 70% of the country wants us out of Iraq. On election day, 70% of the country will cast their votes only for a peace candidate. And that candidate will be a democrat, if Republicans nominate a pro-war candidate.

You remember democrats? Guess who they'll nominate? Thats right Hillary Clinton. By nominating a pro-war candidate, we will essentially GIVE the election to Clinton. Because 70% of the country will vote for the only anti-war candidate even if they disagree COMPLETELY with that person.

If some of you hate Hillary as much as you claim you do, you will stop supporting a pro-war candidate and throw your suppport behind the only candidate who is against the Iraq war. That candidate is Ron Paul. I mean honestly think about it...take away the War issue from Ron Paul, which caused him to be painted as a traitor in the party(some democracy, disagreeing is now treason), and the man is the most conservative candidate we have to offer since Reagan. This is why he has the MOST grass-roots support among all candidates from both parties. You want to revitalize the republican party? Nominate Ron Paul and bring back the youth into the party. Bring back the disenfranchized voters, bring back apathetic voters, hell bring back people who turned democrat.

Now some of you will think "Ron Paul bah why should I waste my vote, he is not in first place"...this is the dumbest statement you can utter in the democratic society. You have the right to vote, so that you can pick who YOU agree the most with. Does not matter what candidates viability is. This is not a football game, you gain nothing by jumping on the bandwagon of the winner. And if you really think about it...you'll waste your vote by voting for a pro-war candidate...because your vote will end up being worthless in the general election which you've automatically given to the democrats.

In the primaries a vote for a pro-war candidate essentially ends up being a vote for Hillary. An uber liberal with some communist tendencies. Do you want 4 years of Clinton? What about 8?

The last thing I need you to do is read Ron Paul's position on the War and Foreign policy. I believe you should hear from the man himself, and not have some talking head on TV who lies to your face about the man's position. Yes I'm talking about Sean Hannity, he has blatantly lied to you numerous times about Ron Paul and his positions. Why you ask? Simple: he is a Rudy supporter(raised money for him), and when Ron Paul pointed out that Rudy didn't know what he was talking about when it came to 9/11, Sean lost it and started attacking him. This is why some of you have the erroneous position that Ron Paul is "leftist"...when the reality, is that he is the only conservative running

We all know Iowa doesn't count. Most front runners didn't participate, 2nd tier spent all their resources there .Romney spent millions to buy it. So whats the real GOP run look like? What do the active voters who will actually show up on election date w/o bribes vote like? 

The result: Ron Paul is the current front runner. Now I know some of you will say that the the results are not that telling because RP supporters are much more active(we will be on election day too)...and on election day you'll have many more sheep come out and vote for who the media tells them is the winner. But these straw polls are important to show that the Ron Paul has support all across the country. And is a GREAT talking point when speaking with people....here you have a candidate who wins poll after poll, and the media is silent against him.

Data taken from here
Ron Paul 30% 772
Mitt Romney 23% 581
Fred Thompson 18% 470
Rudy Giuliani 10% 266
Sam Brownback 7% 168
Mike Huckabey 5% 127
John McCain 4% 110
Duncan Hunter 1% 34
Tommy Tancredo 1% 15
Other 1% 24

Total 100.00% 2567

Ron Paul supporter being threatened by a city in Florida in order to silence his free speech.

Apparently putting up a Ron Paul sign on your own property within city ordinances is illegal.