Should we really have stricter gun laws? All restrictive laws can do is restrict an already obedient public. Those that would circumvent the rule of law in one manner, through robbery or pre-meditated murder, are really not likely to fret over the violation of a law restricting arms.
This 20/20 video on ABC has some interesting revelations concerning the effects of gun laws in real life situations. Maybe it’ll surprise you, but it shouldn’t.
Read about Peter Schiff here.Â
Oh yeah, ABC must not have thought the interview would be interesting enough for ratings. Yeah… controversial views on drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, health care, foreign policy, and the proper role of government in society… no ratings there. No. Wait… It’s because Ron Paul has an Internet following, so we’ll air it online. And only online. That’s what John Stossel said happened:
Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That’s in part because he’s raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It’s one reason we’re posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active.Â
Â
More from the Huffington Post.Â
Ron Paul’s campaign would keep the money. Why? According to Jesse Benton, spokesman for the campaign, “Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money.”
I agree. I don’t criticize any candidate for the individuals who send them donations. That’s getting ridiculous, and it’s a sign of desperation from the opposition. A person can only donate $2,300 each, and I doubt such a generous donation from one person could have the power to sway the ideals of even Hillary. Settle down everyone.
When this is the best attack against the Ron Paul campaign, it shows just how few skeletons there are in his closet. I’m not saying he’s perfect. But it wouldn’t matter, anyway. He’s shown consistency between his ideals and his voting, and I agree with his ideals. That’s what we need in the White House, and I think that’s what voters are really looking for. Get ready for an upset.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.Â
- Mahatma Gandhi
Â
Looks like we’re well into the third stage, folks.
I’ve heard more than I care to about newspaper and celebrity endorsements for ’08 Presidential candidates lately. But one interesting way to look at endorsements in this Internet, free-for-all, YouTube-infused campaign cycle is the kind of endorsement from bloggers and independent news sources online. Maybe someone with plenty of fervent readers might actually make a difference. Clearly the Internet has been a huge source of grassroots recruitment for Ron Paul’s campaign. How do we measure this? One way, though completely unscientific, is through Amung.Us, a new experiment that tracks strength of endorsement through the size of an online publication’s reader base. (But really, how scientific have endorsements ever been?) Everytime I’ve checked, Paul has been beating the rest of the candidates by a landslide. Check the latest results: http://candidates.amung.us/ Let’s take a look at some of those online personalities/publications that endorse Ron Paul:
Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. (read more)Â
Â
And it’s from a single source. I’m making note of it only because it’s a pretty funny tirade about the typical election coverage. Ron Paul’s supporters raised over $6 million in 24-hours, breaking the previous record for single day donations and did it all without the help of the campaign. Astonishing. But instead of that making headlines, the news of Monday looked more like this:
Next, it’s back to Hillary. CNN has been pimping her for months so it’s no surprise that she’s covered twice and that neither time is it actually news. This piece was about how she is traveling around Iowa. You’ll never believe this. She’s using a helicopter. I know. Amazing. I’m sure that several of her campaign aides got together and brainstormed and decided that even though helicopters are brand new technology, they’d risk it because they had heard a rumor that they are faster than ground transportation. Â
First it was on Guy Fawkes day. The most ever donated to a candidate online in one 24-hour period: $4.3 million. Today it broke that record, and John Kerry’s one-day donation record of $5.7 million with over $6 million. And all with a grassroots effort from TeaParty07.com. That’s just within the 24-hour block, but donating continued even after midnight EST, leveling off at about $6.2 million.
Never heard of him? I’m not surprised, the media’s definitely snubbing him. I don’t know why, it’s excellent news. Competely Internet-driven grassroots effort continuously raises millions in one-day moneybomb events.
And people are getting excited about him merely because his message just makes sense. He’s not a flashy candidate. He doesn’t promise different groups of American people that he’ll “work for them,” like your run-of-the-mill options. Honestly, I think this guy’s sign is a sentiment for a lot of Americans. I have completely non-political friends getting excited about Ron Paul.
It’s a different kind of support than you’ve ever seen on the campaign trail. It’s not about hating the other candidates. I won’t be voting for Ron Paul because he’s the lesser of two evils. I love his message, and this will be the beginning of a big change for this country. Finally, Washington will see what happens when people have an honest candidate they can get excited about.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Awesome. But I can’t possible tell you everything you need to know about Dr. Paul. Except that I donated today, and I definitely don’t even have the expendable income to be doing that. But I believe in his message, and when he speaks, I don’t feel like I’m being fed a line by someone with googly eyes pointed at the White House.
Speaking of Google, find out more, and follow the grassroots advice: “Google Ron Paul“