A march for Freedom and the Constitution!
What an awesome idea:

Hope on the bus, Gus
Get on the track, Jack!
No need to be coy, Roy!
Just set yourself FREE!

Typical politician - first protect you fiefdom - then worry about what is right.

I predict the "march" never happens. If it does it will not be noticed by the M$M - it is just not on their agenda.

All of your freedom-loving readers are welcome to join us. This is about Liberty and the Constitution, something we all agree upon.

Ron Paul is the only one man enough to confront these lawbreakers head on and calling them out on all of their s**t.

Thanks for the props, Mom! I hope to God this March goes through with or without the press. People will go, people will know and youtube will show. We DO NOT NEED msnbs from the way folks are responding to the message. They have got to watch these vote counts close because the confusion by the gop combined with HALF-ASSED machines and their masters is happening at every primary. RP08

Oh, Mom you have a great website! I have never been but will be back soon.

http://paulcongress.com/Candidates.html

That's a list of known "Ron Paul" republicans. Some have better chances than others, and some can easily be contenders in their respective races. Hopefully he gains a few more friends from this "revolution".

Ron Paul will be the President, with or without the nomination. I don't bow down to anymore Kings.
If we want our money and our country, we take it. With the help of the media? No, with our legs and our voice.
Mother Jones doesn't seem to want out of Iraq. Mother Jones needs militarism to get people to read.
Ron Paul puts the "education driven by avarice" crowd out-of-business.
Liberty is now and Mother Jones is just another wedge in the way.

This isn't about the Libertarian movement Mother Jones, this is what the Republican party SHOULD be about. If this were headed to a Libertarian campaign all along then you would have a point. But Ron Paul is running on what should be the focus of a true conservative Republican.

I'm a Paul supporter, but I'm not just marching to support his candidacy. I'll be there on behalf of ALL of us, no matter who you want to elect in November. This is bigger than you, me, and anyone's political affiliation. We're going to show up, and show a force of will in the face of Washington and hopefully the press will be there to see it.

It's time our government starts treating ALL it's citizens like free democratic people and the press start actually playing fair.

Please do some reading first before these type of displays!

Great job Ron Paul!!!

We know from Ron Paul himself that the ideas are more important than the presidency. If we have to march on Washington to demonstrate that we should. I answered my country's call before and marched in the military around the world and served in a war. I will be proud to stand with you. I am glad that you are inviting us. I am proud to have the opportunity to be a part of something worth believing in. I am glad that we will be marching. Proud to be here happy to serve. Freedom!!!
Thank you Dr. Paul for reminding us how simple it really is! I am so eager. GOTTA START PREPERATIONS NOW!!!!

GO RON PAUL!!!!

This will be a rally that should unite us all.

Before there was Democrats,
before there was Republicans,
there was...the Constitution.
It is something to which we can all rally around. Why not come together again? Unite, to show the Establishment "Elite" that We the People shall not be suppressed.

I do take the authors point about the anti-war protests being ignored. I was one of them. Many of us Ron Paul supporters are die-hard anti-war protestors. But this is different. The Ron Paul r3V0Lution is not just a campaign, it really IS a movement! Already, we are taking over much of the GOP grassroots, and changing local platforms. This will work its way up, to the top of the party for a full renewal.

There may not be many Libertarians running, but already there are numerous "Ron Paul Republicans" that have a shot at being elected. And the infrastructure to support such is being created. And FUNDED. We will be there, to make this happen.

Please, join us on our Freedom march. It's for your freedom, too.

Will the March include Stormfront (Dan Black and son)? The KKK? Whitepower freaks? Gun nuts? Neo-nazis? How 'bout the John Birch Society?

Yeah bring all the fun lovin Paul supporters together in a march.

This will be HOOOYGE!

The M$M will have to take notice.

Just like Ron Paul was going to win the GOP nomination.

Do you Paulites have a clue?

"Typical politician - first protect you fiefdom - then worry about what is right.

I predict the "march" never happens. If it does it will not be noticed by the M$M - it is just not on their agenda."

Typical ignorant response to the freedom movement being led by Ron Paul. Do you comments about Ron Paul not worry about what is right imply that he has done something WRONG in the defense of civil liberties? If so please cite your grievance, otherwise shut your pie hole.

I predict that the march DOES happen and that freedom loving people from AROUND THE WORLD descend on Washington D.C., to make a stand and show that WE WILL NOT REMAIN SUBJECTS TO TYRANNY!

Storman's Law: An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

I couldn't care enough to list everything as it has already be listed ad nauseum but here is the short list:

Ron Paul has:

published racists and homophobic crud in twenty newsletters and fundraising letters over 6 years.

Made $5 million dollars from the subscribers reading the racists and homophobic crud - WHILE his wife and daughter and Lew Rockwell pulled a salary from the proceeds of the newsletter.

Wants to make abortion illegal while spouting off about personal liberty.

Wants to do away with the 1964 civil rights act. (but he is not a racist?)

Takes money from the leader of Stormfront - pretends not to know who these guys are while pictures of him signing autographs

Quoted as having “many friends” in the John Birch Society.

If he didn’t write the racist and homophobic he lied when first asked about it in 1996.

Promised to release all his newsletters in 1996 (never did so).

Etc. etc.

BTW - no reason to be rude.

You and the other Paulites are so clueless you thought Ron Paul was going to win? You have all the political acumen of a student council elections expert!

The march will never make any difference if it ever happens. It will just be an excuse for the Paul supporters to come out of the closet and expose yourselves as supporting a racist, bigot and a liar.

No politician can save you from yourselves. Nor RP not anyone.

Take a little personal responsibility and embrace the simple fact that Ron Paul is not a savior, not even an honest man - he is (when all is said and done) a petty politician. All politicians are liars and bums living off the public money they are entrusted to protect. RP is worse because he knew about the crud he published - that is why he was so surprised at the support people gave him. He knew he was not going to be elected now he want your support in his Texas seat.

Quit defending the indefensible it just makes you sound as stupid as your “shut your pie hole” comment.

"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..."

H L Menchen

Dear EvilPoet...

What a terrible troubled person you are...

If you believe the stuff about racism, I truly feel sorry for you. It has been refuted publicly over & over again. Just read anything Justin Raimondo has written about the lies.

I'll pray for your soul as you continue to be influenced by the devil...

Dear Globetrotter,

Don't waste your prayers - I'm an atheist.

In my world, the devil doesn't exist let alone have any influence.

I'll pass on Justin Raimondo - he's not my cup of tea.

I shall give this place the attention it deserves. BYE

barack obama mike huckabee vs machine

huckabee obama:
we understand your disgust.
subversion of democracy.

know this:
gravel kucinich paul nader
will fight any ticket
with clinton or mccain on it.

your eyes & ears are open...

Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Dr Ron Paul Ralph Nader
united by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

Too many lies,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

A Revolution Betrayed?
Posted by Justin Raimondo on February 13, 2008(takimag dot com)

Check it out - the operative word is betrayed.

Justin lost me, he is not a voice of reason but if you really think Ron Paul is anything except another lying petty politician - you should pick your source of support more carefully?

Maybe another that is completely blinded by fealty for a politcian?

"Examine what is said, not him who speaks."
~ Arab Proverb

Plese remember the Ron Paul Supporters Golden Rule =IGNORE TROLLS.

Jesus, Capt, give it up. The "Ron Paul is a racist" bit has been debunked - everyone that knows Dr. Paul (including the head of the Austin NAACP) is not a racist and did not write any racist newsletters. He's taken the blame for the statements being published in a newsletter bearing his name. End of story.

And now you're against antiwar.com, a rare voice of reason in our militaristic society?

get a life, dude

Have you read the newsletters?

What do you mean by debunked?

Click on my name to read 20 example of the racist hateful crud.

Racist, homophobic and anti-choice. That's your guy, eh?

Well, as someone who has been to several rallies, viewed COUNTLESS videos of Ron's speeches (past years and present), I find myself hard-pressed to see or hear anything contrary regarding this incredible statesman who has been elected to his Congressional post for 20 years. I would "think" that if any of the accusations had merit, we would have definitely heard about it here in "Texas" where he has represented us for 20 years.

The only one I am reading "hateful crud" from is seemingly Capt in his postings.

The Newsletters:

Since at least 1978, Ron Paul has attached his name to a series of newsletters--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter--that frequently made outrageous statements:

Race

"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

****

Click on my name to see photocopies of the original newsletters, fundraising letters (20 examples), his original defense (not a ghost writer), and much much more.

He claims he didn't write nor read his newsletter even during the time his wife and daughter were pulling a salary out of the proceeds from subscribers.

He claims to have had 100,000 subscribers at $50 - that's $5 million dollars selling racist rants and xenophobic crazy stuff.

That is all fine with some people, just not me.

["What do you mean by debunked?

Click on my name to read 20 example of the racist hateful crud."]

Here's ONE point, gleaned from among the scores of articles you've posted in your one-man anti-Ron Paul campaign that may help:

{"Paul survived these revelations.
He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — QUITE BELIEVABLY, SINCE THE STYLE DIVERGES WIDELY FROM HIS OWN."}
New York Times - 7/22/2007

Maybe you overlooked that part of the article in your rush to convince the universe that Ron Paul is a racist..?

Here's a challenge for you, if you're up to the task: Find something Dr. Paul has said in public, on camera, during his decades of public service that includes overtly racist comments.
Or..., find something in the years and years of published writings you can find here:
www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm

here: www.house.gov/paul/legis_congrec.htm

or here: www.house.gov/paul/legis_press.htm

...that supports the contention.

If you are NOT able to come up with any such evidence from among that multitude of articles and sources, then just MAYBE you should accept the fact that Ron Paul's QUITE BELIEVABLE denial of authorship of those articles you hold so dear is, in fact, the truth of the matter.

What a cop out.

Here:

“Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”

From the NYT's?

We all know the the John Birch Society.

Can't explain away the 20 examples so now you want video footage?

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

If people knew RP they will either love him or not care at all because he cannot run from his past. If you support him - it says more about you than anybody else.

BTW,

Attention Paultards each time yo post in defense of the little bigot I get 25 to 50 discreet hits of people curious enough to read the actual newsletters. They can form their own conclusions. (and I'm sure they do yea or nay)

Them reading the actual newsletters can't be helpful to your deceptions.

Maybe you shouldn't make false challenges?

Let the people be informed.

Thanks

"False Challenges"?

I gave you YEARS of Ron Paul's writings to use in support of your case!
Go For It!

Either you CAN support your contention with something OTHER than the 20 disputed examples Your Own Link says he QUITE BELIEVABLY denied writing, or you can't.
Take up the challenge to find something other than those quotes your own link disputes, or don't.
Simple.
Honest.
Ball's in your court.

I gave you ample material to work with so you wouldn't whine about the difficulty of the task. (to no avail)
Doesn't have to be video footage, as you whine. That was just one option I laid out to make the task as simple as possible for you.

Why are you throwing the John Birch Society chuckle into your contention that Ron Paul is a racist? What is it, precisely, that "we all know" about the John Birch Society?

Attention Captain of the Ron Paul Detractor Brigade: Who, besides you, cares how many 'hits' you get?
If the 'racist' case you keep pushing was as convincing as you want to make out, Ron Paul would Not have been returned to Congress FIVE TIMES since that nonsense first was tried in a campaign, and Failed!
But what the hell..., go on with it.
It speaks volumes...

"The most perfidious way of appearing to be a fool consists in repeatly pursuing a failed course as if it will miraculously begin to succeed This Time."
--Alternate Reality Check - 2008--

Racism doesn't bug everybody, there are people that support that kind of thing. Some by their silence others by passive acceptance and some actively.

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

You say Ron Paul, I say:
Monkey Virus

["Racism doesn't bug everybody, there are people that support that kind of thing. Some by their silence others by passive acceptance and some actively."]

What a cop out.

Are we to assume that you WON'T be providing examples of racist remarks from Ron Paul's UN-disputed writings, in support of your contention that he is, indeed, racist?
That the only 'evidence' you can muster is that batch your New York Times link disputes, and that the voters of his district dismissed 12 years ago?

Once again click on my name and read the 20 examples? Decide for yourself.

RP claims he didn't write, read of know about the real raw racist and homophobic rants published under his name on his newsletters and letterhead.

You believe him - I do not.

He made millions selling that crud.

You think that is okay - I do not.

RP claims he doesn't know who wrote that crud but the fact it was published under his name on his newsletters is not even disputed. Yet you pretend it is all a big lie?

You claim the examples don't exist? It is all a smear? Someone else had a plan to make RP out to be a racist and a bigot WAY back in the early 1990's so they made this stuff up and published it in RP's name?

RP is just another politician. Some people agree with him he was elected more than once.

That doesn't mean he gets a pass on the national stage where his history of publishing crazy stuff concerns most people.

That is why he was never going to break double digits on the national stage - people read and people make informed decisions.

RP hitting 3% nationally is a shame - 3% of the people think his hateful rants are okay.

I do not.

About what I thought.

Outside of the 20 quotes of disputed authorship you so desperately want to get another site 'hit' on, you can't come up with one undisputed example of a racist utterance by Ron Paul.
Not even after I gave you years of Ron Paul's published writings to scour for one.

It would stand to reason that if he is as confirmed a racist as you claim..., SOMEWHERE in amongst all that published and UNdisputed commentary by Dr. Paul SOMETHING racist in nature must have slipped out. No?
So where IS it?

["He made millions selling that crud.
You think that is okay - I do not."]
Exactly Where did I tell you what I think on that subject?

["Yet you pretend it is all a big lie?"]
Back that allegation up with an example, if you don't mind.
What I've pointed out is that the New York Times..., (YOUR link) notes that his denial of personal authorship is "QUITE BELIEVABL(E), SINCE THE STYLE DIVERGES WIDELY FROM HIS OWN." (The New York Times might just recognize SOMETHING about writing styles.., 'eh?)
Publicly, he's accepted moral responsibility for their publication under his name, regrets their publication and states that those are NOT and never were his views.
He obviously feels he has nothing to hide, and nothing more needs to be said on the matter.
I'm OK with that.

["You claim the examples don't exist?"]
I DO?!?! WHERE?!?!
I _DID_ challenge you to come up with Some OTHER example Outside of the disputed ones you keep trying to resuscitate.
ANY Other Example, whether from the massive body of works I provided for you, or anywhere else you can find a verifiable quote.
I'm still waiting.

["It is all a smear?"]
Putting words in my mouth again?
I don't think you'll find an example of my saying that, either, but hey; If the shoe fits.

As to your repeated claim that 'he made millions' off those newsletters, I don't think your math holds up.
You see, there's a very big difference between what a certain number of subscriptions at a given price GROSSES, and the NET Ron Paul personally would have made.
Unless you have some published figures on what Ron Paul personally earned from the newsletter (you haven't provided any such that I've seen), you should content yourself with saying 'Millions were PAID for those subscriptions'.
(That assumes accuracy and intellectual honesty is of any consequence to you...)

"Outside of the 20 quotes of disputed authorship"

I have no reason to question the authorship - it is in the Ron Paul Newsletter. He published the crud he made $$$ selling that crud.

That is enough for me and any other person concerned about race and the impact of hate in our culture.

What is your excuse for his publishing such crud (pretend he didn't write them)? What reason would he allow such things to be published repeatedly (over a 6 year period) in his newsletter under his name? Are you trying to say he never read them? HIS newsletters? While his wife was pulling a salary from the proceeds? Really?

Poor management? Lack of oversight? Did he just not care or was the money too good? ($904,000 in one year the same year his wife worked with Rockwell at the office)

No reason for the personal attack on me. You can believe anything you like I provide the actual examples - if that is not enough for you - that's not my problem.

So why were these things published (in your opinion)?

Why is fair question, no?

And why did Ron Paul lie about the original reason for publishing the crud if he is honest?

(Rhetorical as I am sure you cannot answer for him)

As links cannot be posted here just click on my name - I have created a webpage that includes:

Actual copies of the Newsletters

His Original Defense

He doesn’t want you to know this

online backlash

Expectations

Liberty of expression will get you fired

Who wrote the racist crud?

Swastikas?

Save my Fiefdom first!

(more to come as time permits)

Oh..., playing the "Capt as aggrieved victim" card again!
The phantom "personal attack" distraction from the underlying point that you aren't taking up the challenge put before you.

Seen it before.

What "personal attack" is it this time, capt?
Exactly what did I say directly about you that would comprise a 'personal attack'?
Point it out, if you please.
Be specific and thorough in explaining how it is a direct, personal attack, because I find no such incident in evidence.
(Or did I merely pose a question or a postulate you didn't like?)

You decline the challenge.
You don't ACKNOWLEDGE the challenge, because you know you won't FIND any examples to support your thesis of Ron Paul racism, outside of your desperately-clung-to 20 quotes of disputed authorship.

Plain enough.

Thanks for playing.

What is your excuse for his publishing such crud (pretend he didn't write them)? What reason would he allow such things to be published repeatedly (over a 6 year period) in his newsletter under his name? Are you trying to say he never read them? HIS newsletters? While his wife was pulling a salary from the proceeds? Really?

If you cannot find an answer just say so.

I not playing but clearly you are not serious.

That fact that you evade instead of answer is an answer just the same.

Thanks!

In my opinion it would be worse if Ron Paul is not a racist. That would mean he was publishing racist rants just for the money. That would make him worse than just a petty politician that would be an intentional and knowing misrepresentation printed under his name in his newsletters.

Either way - you love him - I do not. I have provided my reasons and whatnot - all you can say is I shouldn't have my opinion.

Tough - Ron Paul is a racist and a bigot. Either that or he is an even bigger fake than I give credit.

["That fact that you evade instead of answer is an answer just the same."]

If you had answered even 5% of the direct questions I've asked of you in the past, I might take that comment seriously.

Alas, it didn't happen that way.

["all you can say is I shouldn't have my opinion"]

THERE you go again...

EXACTLY Where did I say that, oh great constructor of Straw-Men?

And what about defining that personal attack you accused me of earlier?
I'm still waiting on that one, too.

Still have no answer? Don't chamge the subject.

Try it one last time:

So why were these things published (in your opinion)?

Why is fair question, no?

Name calling and such (Captain ____) is not necessary and is Ad Hominem. If you don't know what a personal attack consists of, I can be of no help to you in understanding the weakness of attacking the messnger in place of addressing the issue.

You support the guy that you admit printed the crud in his newsletter - you don't deny it - forget about the games and changing the subject and answer my one simple question.

I'll have to accept an non-answer if that is all you have to offer.

I won't ask again.

So:

What is your excuse for his publishing such crud (pretend he didn't write them)? What reason would he allow such things to be published repeatedly (over a 6 year period) in his newsletter under his name? Are you trying to say he never read them? HIS newsletters? While his wife was pulling a salary from the proceeds? Really?

WSY?

Thanks

From reason magazine:

Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?

[...]

The early 1990s writings became liabilities for Paul long before last week's New Republic story. Back in 1996, Paul narrowly eked out a congressional victory over Democrat Lefty Morris, who made the newsletters one of his main campaign issues, damning them both for their racial content and for their advocacy of drug legalization. At the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context." He finally disavowed them in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, explaining that his campaign staff had convinced him at the time that it would be too "confusing" to attribute them to a ghostwriter.

Besides Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001. Langford-Freeman did not respond to interview requests as of press time. Elam, president of M&M Graphics and Advertising, confirmed to reason that his company printed the newsletters, but said that the texts reached him as finished products.

The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.

Quit erecting straw-man positions that I haven't taken, to contend against, and I'll quit pointing out that you are doing so.
Fair enough?

As to your driving question, what is MY opinion of why SOMEONE ELSE published something they published:
The answer is fairly obvious.
My OPINION is irrelevant.

If you have some proof as to WHY someone published what they published, offer it.

Now, back to MY question that you've ducked and dodged for thousands of words now:

CAN you find something other than your dearly beloved 20 disputed quotes that shows Ron Paul to be a racist?
Yes or No?
Are you even going to ATTEMPT to take up the challenge?
Yes or No?

No strawmen - look it up, you are not using the term correctly, I just asked your opinion - the non-answer is still an answer and I said I would not ask again - so be it.

I have my opinion why the crud was published:

$940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates in one year - he published the racist crud and homophobic rants for over 5 years. The math is pretty clear.

Racist or opportunist?

Either way RP is just another lying petty politician.

You support him - I do not.

No reason for the useless blather about me or strawmen.

You question was answered above:

Click on my name - you will find a wealth of information about Ron Paul the racist homophobe - the 20 examples of his newsletters are just one item - plenty more to read if you are serious and sincere.

If not NBD.

Most of Ron Paul's support is likely to switch to Libertarian Party frontrunner Wayne Root. We're already seeing signs of this. Root as that "Ed Clark" feel about him. The LP is likely in for it's best race ever since Clark's 1980 run.

Root is glitzy, a great speaker and is a mutlti-millionaire.

Eric Dondero, CEO
MainstreamLibertarian.com

"Most of Ron Paul's support is likely to switch to Libertarian Party frontrunner Wayne Root."

That would be a good thing. I agree with some libertarian ideas and ideals. Nothing wrong with the movement. People getting together is a good thing.

Until we do something about the electoral college and the winner takes all stuff - a viable third party will be very challenging task.

That Ron Paul advocates decriminalization of substances and release of persons incarcerated for non-violent "use" charges is a current clue about Ron Paul's attitudes regarding race.

If elected, Ron Paul would have the best post in the nation to expose the history of drug use, where the drugs came from, the harm they have caused, and why harm-reduction is the science-based way to approach drug use. Clinton-Bush drug-war policy has been as harmful or more so domestically than external wars. It is time to end this war of empire along with ending other wars of aggression around the world.