Why a Ron Paul Revolution? Thank Congress!

If you are wondering why there is such a buzz about this Ron Paul Revolution you're hearing about lately you can thank Congress for it!

read more | digg story

Why a Ron Paul Revolution? Thank Congress!

by Gary Wood
©September 29, 2007

Have you heard about this Ron Paul Revolution buzz? It is a movement happening in towns across the country. The Republican Presidential Candidate from the 14^th District in TX, Rep. Ron Paul has started a revolution, or a revolution has started him, you decide. Now, don’t panic, there are no roaming armed gangs in the streets unless you count the armies of Ron Paul supporters waving signs and showing up at rallies in large numbers everywhere he goes. Perhaps you’ve seen one of the many Ron Paul Revolution signs hung around ManyTowns, USA. The first time I saw one I thought it was a tent revival meeting coming to town.

Its not about a religious revolution however, its all about a political revolution and the buildup is toward the big battle coming up early next year in the primary elections. The main stream media says he doesn’t have a chance. Don’t tell his army of volunteers across the country. Not only is money pouring in to his campaign but there are over 43,000 MeetUp.com members spending their hard earned money, time, and effort above and beyond everything the candidate’s campaign staff is doing. There are countless hours spent handing out brochures, manning booths paid for by the groups themselves, ninja sign hanging activities, and then there are the rally crowds at every event Ron Paul attends. The army of supporters is made up of a vast array of ages, cultures, monetary standings, and education levels. There are large numbers of young people, with their families in tow, coming to the revolution everyday. This shows no sign of letting up, as many in Paul’s own party had hoped it would. They expected him to be finished by now, they felt his campaign would have sputtered faster than Tommy Thompson’s campaign, yet it is only growing stronger.

His message is really basic speaking directly to the principles and documents which founded the United States in the first place. Called radical by many in the press and in politics, his form of politics was radical over 220 years ago but today it rings of the true history of our country. Liberty and freedom are at the root of his stump speech, with the supreme law of the land as his weapon of choice for dealing with the heavy challenges facing us today. The Constitution holds the answers if we will but turn to it and be brave enough to once again follow it, which is what I hear him saying in a nutshell. What makes this message and Ron Paul’s campaign a revolution?

Thank Congress and the political course our leadership has been following since the Wilson Presidency. Many of the people (remember “We the People”), believe the Constitution is being adulterated and power is being usurped away from the people, communities, and States. Growing numbers of the population are disgruntled and concerned their rights are disappearing. They are starting to remember their duty, to protect the Constitution. They see Ron Paul as the only candidate with the history and willingness to help them fulfill their duty. We only need to briefly review the news each day to see Congress at work helping to increase these fears.

Just this past week the Senate attached Hate Crime Legislation to the Defense Funding Bill. According to Senator Edward Kennedy, "The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood. We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons." Granted there were some voices of concern over this connection yet the efforts are in place to link any type of hate crime to the criminal being a terrorist and being treated as such. With the Patriot Act and Military Commission Act in place a very scary scenario is easy to envision. Picture two kids getting into a fight and one losing, doesn’t matter race, sex, or orientation the loser can scream hate crime and if this scream can raise a level of doubt the other kid is a terrorist. Far fetched some may say but the people have seen usurpation of power in action before and why take a chance this fictional account can happen in our streets?

The people are not afraid, however. Terrorism from outside does not make them afraid, they are willing to unite, fight, and die to protect our country. They are not afraid to be patriotic. They are not afraid to reach out and help their neighbors in time of need. No, the people know if we operate under the Constitution we have the spirit and will to withstand any attacks but the attacks from within coming out of their own, overgrown, out-of-control government. This revolution is against the internal plutocratic oligarchy running this country. Ron Paul happens to be the first political candidate to cross the awakening of the people to do their duty and participate in defense of their country and their Constitution. They totally investigated his entire life and found in him a patriot cut from the same cloth as the founders of our great land. So, whether you like the Ron Paul Revolution or not, take a moment and thank Congress.

Why is Ron Paul Creating Grassroots Excitement?

by Gary Wood
©September 29, 2007

There really is no denying it any longer, there is a grassroots fire burning across the country for this former Air Force flight surgeon, baby doctor, Texas Representative by the name of Ron Paul. He looks like anybody’s grandpa. Literally, the guy did not even want to run again (he ran in 1988 as a Libertarian of all things) but enough people bugged him he agreed to test the waters. He was nearly convinced the country did not want to hear his simple message of Liberty and Freedom through restoration of the quality of the Constitution. He knew most of his fellow Congressmen didn’t and his nickname on the hill is Dr. No. On the Internet you’d think it was Dr. Yes!

Asked what Internet guru has helped him use the Internet so effectively he states quite honestly his campaign had no guru. There was no whiz kid or googled mind that knew just the right algorithm to run in order to bring the surfers to his shore. He did not market and find the Internet crowd, they found him. To his surprise the message was attractive to many surfing the web looking for a politician they could like and message they could really believe in. But hey, these are just Internet nuts so no biggie according to most main stream media outlets and his opponents. Many say it is not real grassroots because it is all cyber and goes away when the monitors are switched off. These naysayer types simply point to the latest poll and laugh.

Yet, these Internet junkies that sit around their glowing screens at 4am, with pizza boxes and soda cans strewn about, are not performing to the main stream script. Some started to meet each other in different forums and blogs, and then came Meetup.com and the tides began to rise. Once the group started realizing there were others out there who like Ron Paul and his Constitutional message there began to be gatherings away from the keyboard. The cyber began a steady morph into reality.

A counter message was started by the main stream media again, claiming that the one’s getting together were radical and nuts. Even the unofficial banner they made, “Ron Paul Revolution” with the ‘evol’ tilted to indicate Love was a sign they were revolutionaries, not serious votes. There little sign ninja parties wouldn’t amount to much and they would tire of the game and go play Halo 3 as soon as it was released. Besides, where’s the money, they asked.

Then came the 2^nd Quarter financial reports and the money was flowing in. At the rallies and straw polls the crowds were showing up, enthusiastic and cheering as if they were at a rock concert instead of a political event. Now there is an attempt to all but ignore the crowds because the face of the crowd is not what was expected. In the crowd are young families with their children, involved in politics and cheering loud, cheering proud. There are young college students studying engineering, medicine and more. There are young republicans and democrats, all races, religions, and sexes. There are radicals, liberty and freedom are important to them but look closely to find standing next to them business people, social leaders, and those prominent enough who surely should not be in with this group of cyber nuts, should they? Looking again across the crowd and we find more than just young, together are the old and the middle-aged as well, don’t they know better? These look like our neighbors, family, and friends, can it be? Look at the polls people, come to your senses, but they march on chanting primaries, primaries!

You hear it laughed at, as well as scoffed at, this Ron Paul revolution but the rumble grows. You are hearing it more, feeling it more and wondering, is it real? Why? Who is this guy? What is all this excitement about? Is it time to switch off the TV and Google Ron Paul and get excited? Perhaps it is and even if you don’t catch fire at least you’ll really know what all the excitement is about! Just beware, critical thinking and searching could lead you to join this revolution, look at me, I did it and now I'm writing you!

No Show - No Focus: That is how it should be!

by Gary Wood
©September 28, 2007

Last night there was a Republican Debate moderated by Tavis Smiley, hosted at Morgan State University, and broadcast on PBS. This was a debate speaking directly to the concerns and questions of ‘people of color’ and it was a critical opportunity for the country to unite and listen to what the candidates had to say regarding the issues discussed through direct questioning. Six Republican Presidential candidates attended. As Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) put it, “I’m here because I was invited....” You see, he and the other candidates are running for President of the United States which means they will represent all voters, all citizens, no matter and those candidates choosing to attend, debate, and share their messages should be given the focus by the media.

The focus by the press should have been on what these candidates had to say, what type of audience response there was to their comments, the mood of the audience before, during and after the debate, how well the debate was moderated, and just how well each one of the candidates in attendance performed under the direct questioning. There are countless ways this debate could have been covered in the press. So much valuable insight and information was shared entire segments of TV and radio shows could have been filled with it to help educate the voters on what the different candidates’ views are. Newspapers would have been able to fill columns of print with quality insights from the candidates.

Yet, find it anywhere in the main stream media and the focus is on those that chose to avoid the debate. Their names were repeated over and over, giving further name recognition to the no show candidates who did not share their views on the important questions asked. Quotes from the candidates that did care enough to attempt to earn our respect and votes were limited to the comments from the first question on what they thought of those that didn’t show. There was no coverage of the massive showing of support by Ron Paul grassroots volunteers outside, that was quite a display of numerical support which is not to be found anywhere in the main stream press reports. Nothing was quoted from the other important questions and the answers provided by Huckabee, Keyes, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul. Six important views fell silent due to the wrong focus, the focus on the four, the focus on all the ramifications and implications signaled by the Republicans against people of color.

Despite the RNC chairman, Newt Gingrich, and other Republican Party leaders either in attendance or fully supporting the forum, despite six candidates who deserve to be understood and heard, despite the critical nature of the election of 2008 our main stream media once again falls short of their duties.

It gets real simple CNN, NBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, Time-Warner, and all; No Show – No Focus!

Visit: http://hearmythunder.org

Hillary & The 7 Dwarfs

Democratic Debate on MSNBC

Hillary & the 7 Dwarfs

by Gary Wood

© September 26, 2007

What an interesting two hours of Democratic Debate watching, did you see this one? Taking place at Dartmouth University, in New Hampshire, there were 8 candidates on the stage. Tim Russert, of MSNBC, was the person asking most of the questions. Now, I’d use the term moderator but he showed very little sign of being a moderator so I’ll leave it at the person asking most of the questions.

Many of the questions were very good yet a candidate may or may not have the chance to answer one since the questions changed rapidly from candidate to candidate. Some were specific to a point while others seemed formulated to garner a more broad view. This was good until a broad question would be asked of a couple and then a specific of the others. Watching it unfold I began to feel there was a pattern of broad, thought inducing questions asked to the few front runners and more specific, defensive inducing questions asked of some of those trailing. Former Senator Gravel was specifically asked about business and personal financial challenges, attempted to answer and then was cut off abruptly while trying to expound on the answer.

This was a pattern that was too obvious and too widely used. During the so-called lightning round, each candidate only having 30 seconds, it depended once again on who the candidate was. Representative Kucinich went 35 seconds and Tim Russert was calling time. The previous candidates were allowed to go from 40 to 70 seconds without a word from Russert. If you were not a front runner it was a night of little opportunity and strict timing. Aside from the first time Sen. Gravel was called on he was rarely heard from. Perhaps that is because at the end of his first answer, when he was discussing the vote in the Senate today which was very similar to the legislation on Iraq but this time named Iran, he praised Senators Biden and Dodd for voting against it. He then turned to Senator Clinton, as if he were her father, and stated, “...and you Hillary I’m ashamed of, and Obama wasn’t even there to vote!” It was priceless but it may have cost him precious camera time the rest of the way.

There was a lot of leeway given on time if you were Joe Biden, John Edwards, or Barack Obama. Each had ample opportunities to run past their allotted time in each of the different rounds. Chris Dodd had a little less time to voice his opinions. The four were all treated relatively respectfully at all times, as well, which was not the same for Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel. It speaks well of their fortitude to be able to stay at their lecterns. If I had been treated the way they were I would have been tempted to walk off the stage in protest.

One that should not protest at all is Senator Hillary Clinton. Tim Russert gave her inordinate amounts of time to answer her questions. If she were rambling she was allowed to ramble. If there was confusion about her answer Mr. Russert would even be kind enough to ask it another way and then give her equal amounts of time to answer again. At first it looked like he was confronting her and I thought he was just upset that she was dodging an answer, which she was. As the debate wore on it became quite apparent, this was his way of allowing her to dominate the debate. There can be no doubt Tim Russert manipulated the questions and time to favor Hillary Clinton. Even on the final, traditional ‘Yankees or Red Sox’ question Mr. Russert allowed her to answer and then interjected the scenario of her other favorite team, the Cubs, getting in and they enjoyed a nice conversation which she finally said she would have to basically switch between the two during the series (why not, she switches her politics depending on the audience, might as well do the same for her baseball teams). The others it was straight up and down, which one.

Another slanted aspect was when Tim Russert said one of the candidates would face a Republican in the General Elections, and it may be Rudy Giuliani. Then he proceeded to ask a question regarding a stance by Giuliani so all of a sudden it was the Democrats, mainly Hillary, against Giuliani in the General Election. He mentioned no other Republican by name. Nice try Mr. Russert and MSNBC. Tonight you not only tried to help the Democratic race be Hillary and the 7 Dwarfs but you also are trying to then make it Hillary and Rudy.

I’ll let you dig into the questions and responses to determine what was said. As can be expected there was a talk of nationalist controls, higher taxes, fiscal responsibility, caring for us, and denials of State’s ability to do so. Oh...Ok, just one of the questions. It was asked if elected would the candidate support ending the manipulation of Federal highway dollars to persuade States to keep the drinking age at 21 and instead allow each State to decide the age with no Federal penalty (robbery) of funds. Quickly the answers started ‘no’ which I expected, since that would mean giving more power to the States instead of in the Federal level. But, in a flash, the question was turned into whether they would lower the drinking age to 18 and Tim Russert even used that as the question to push for quick answers from 5 of the candidates after allowing 3 to go well beyond time limits. It was as if none of them care to address the real question, one of State power over Federal power and one of the Federal manipulations of tax dollars from the people to control not only the people but each and every State as well. That’s Nationalism folks, and each candidate but Kucinich and Gravel were all for it!

All in all it was the worst excuse of a ‘debate’ I’ve ever seen. On the eve of the 47^th anniversary of the Kennedy – Nixon televised debates it was comical. I have to say comical because the longer it went and the more obvious the slanted nature toward Hillary became and one could only laugh and not take any of it serious. The debate formats used these days are bad enough and cannot really be classified as debates but this was the Hillary and Tim comedy hour. Bring back the Lincoln - Douglas debates, they can work even in a crowded field! After watching this display, I simply felt sorry for the poor 7 Dwarfs while hoping to never have to endure another Tim Russert, MSNBC sponsored Hillary coronation.

Shadow Government

There’s a shadow not cast from you nor me,
Threatening our very liberty!
It stretches far from Washington D.C.,
Not from our votes, neither you nor me!

Oligarchy control by a party of two,
Whipping our reps into their line.
Was this our founder’s future view,
Of how our country should be aligned?

There’s a majority whip who’s often thought
To be in control of his party’s truths.
A minority whip who has not forgot
The majority desires of his supporting crews!

Taxpayers are not asked if they want to pay,
The salaries required by the whip’s gathered team!
Pay though we do without any say,
These whips only espouse their solo stacked steam!

Gathering numbers, independents should rule,
Yet elections are lost to the two party plights.
Casting of ballots in all States as we drool,
Control of our country never reaches our sights!

Can we not see our control is long lost?
Republicans and Democrats laugh at our miss.
Their whips will demand no matter our cost,
The two-party joys of control bring them bliss!

There’s a shadow not cast from you nor me,
Threatening our very liberty!
It stretches far from Washington D.C.,
Not from our votes, neither you nor me!


Visit: Hear My Thunder.org Today!

Beware the Labels

So are you a ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’? Perhaps you are a ‘wingnut’ or a ‘moonbat,’ yet you could well be a ‘moderate.’ Do you know one of those ‘left-wingers’ actually was seen conspiring with a ‘right-winger?’ The ‘neoconservatives’ are blasting the ‘libertarians’ while the ‘reactionaries’ applaud the downfall of the ‘progressivist’ who fell victim to that ‘socialistic’ orator who suddenly championed ‘constititutionalist’ concepts yet failed to explain which constitution they referred to . One can imagine how the ‘capitalist’ collapsed under the scrutiny of ‘modernistic’ correctness combined with the compassion of ‘sociatalist’ caring. Did you notice that group of ‘radicals’ waving their signs? I suspect them to be ‘pacifists’ who are up to some tyranny or another. It shocked me to hear the one person state clearly, “oh boy...” which indicates what a ‘racist’ they are, probably some ‘neo-Nazi’ ‘communist’ gun toter. If nothing else we should be able to stick to proper party support, be it ‘democratic’ or ‘republican’ instead of waffling between the two, wouldn’t you agree?

The art of modern labeling, in history, has its roots in the aftermath of the French Revolution. It was based on where people sat in the French National Assembly. Over the past two plus centuries however labels have been morphed into pejorative rhetoric used by many to describe, categorize, and confuse people about the subject or person being discussed.

The other day I was inviting someone to a rally for a Presidential Candidate and I mentioned the person was a Republican Presidential Candidate. “Oh, I’m a Democrat so I have no interest in any Republican,” was the reply. My fault, I used a label which sparked an immediate response based on a belief of what the label meant by the person I was speaking with. In an instance they believed they fully understood what would be said and that they would find no grounds for agreement with the person, they walked away.

I couldn’t help but think back to the 1960 Kennedy campaign and how very Republican it would be considered today yet it was the Democratic thought then. Meanings change with time yet our perceptions often don’t or what you believe to be ‘liberal’ and what I believe to be ‘liberal’ can, and probably are, quite different yet we assume we understand each other. Political labels are ambiguous in nature and through this ambiguity they are dangerous.

Confusion and disconnection are direct results of using labels. If used skillfully the media, politicians and others can easily cause large groups to dismiss issues or opponents simply by attaching a label to the issue or opponent. A magician uses misdirection much the same way, we know what we see and believe yet it is merely an illusion of what is real. Mark Skousen states, “Categorizing someone's ideas as either "liberal" or "conservative" is often used to avoid real thinking about actual issues.” Labels are often used to subjugate critical thinking. When reading, discussing, or contemplating any person or ideals please do yourself a favor; beware the labels!

Link into a good glossary of terms here.

Ron Paul Campaign Flaws - Justifiable, Debatable, or Hyperbole

In our local Meetup group discussion board an active member shared a link to a supporter who felt there were many flaws in the Ron Paul campaign which would doom his and all other supporters in the cause of electing Dr. Paul. In carefully analyzing many of the flaws this supporter discussed I found most were not flaws at all, merely an unwillingness to fully embrace the Constitutional courage to press for the changes. However, there was one statement I read which had me saying, “Yes, that is a flaw that could end this campaign, literally derail the train!

Keep in mind; it was due to this discussion forum I moved from a sideline admirer of the campaign to an active supporter. Research performed as a result of many posts found within these forums led me to place a sign in my yard, open my wallet, and dedicate many hours this weekend to working a gun show booth this weekend in an effort to better educate others on the message of ‘Hope for America’ found only in the Ron Paul campaign. However, the comment directly spoke to the one weakness I have seen in every debate and a flaw that continues to leave Ron Paul open to Soundbite attacks against him which the uninformed will accept as fact, that being he is an extremist with radical ideas. Here is the quote that had my head nodding in the affirmative:

"If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now."

You can trace my comments and find my one major concern is the ineffective articulation of his stances and plans. Ron Paul supporters are not some band of blind mice following a mesmerizing flute. We understand it will take more than one man, more than one term, and more than mere lip service to force the changes necessary to turn us away from socialism and restore us as a prosperous Federalist Republic founded in democracy and capitalism We study the Constitution, embrace the principles that made this country so very strong early on, and will make us strong again. We understand and have no fear or false impression! However, as long as clearly articulated plans are not communicated to the public there are risks and flaws, IMHO.

The fact there is a lack of clear, transitional plans being communicated needs to be addressed and corrected. I have heard him say we cannot merely pull the plug on many of these Federal abuses overnight, nor could he as President. We know it will take more than even two terms to turn this boat around. However, it would be nice to have him and his campaign outline clear and easy to grasp transitional plans as many of our fellow voters do have a fear (false evidence appearing real) that he will be some radical, extremist ripping apart everything they the socialized cling to. As long as there are no clear transitional plans his attackers have an easy, Soundbite begging, target they will continue to hit dead center to play on this fear. You play on their fear enough and he may get past the primaries yet will not survive in the general election.

Ron Paul supporters, am I way off base here or is this something we need to elevate to the campaign headquarters? We need him to be the Republican candidate but, even more, we need him to win!

Link to article prompting this.

Nothing Flat in the Income Tax

There is a ground swell effort to reform, once again, the tax code. While growing support exists for completely eliminating the income tax and repealing the 16th Amendment too many prominent politicians and lobbyists are unwilling to allow a national debate on this approach. However popular it is to talk of income tax reform too much control is lost if it is replaced. Too many inside and outside of politics would lose the leverage and power an income tax provides. So what do many say to catch the ear of the citizenry? Often we hear how we should make the income tax a flat tax.

This brief article will not attempt to educate on the many complex reform proposals or adjustments being bantered about. Instead, we will examine the flat tax in its simplest form, an even percentage of tax required on every citizen required to pay taxes. Initially the idea of a flat tax sounds good. Citizens everywhere, convinced we have always had the income tax and always will, believe flattening the tax is a fair way to equal out the burden of funding the government. There is also a sigh of relief the filing of taxes would be easier and less expensive than the current, disastrous complexities faced by most prior to April 15th.

Many prominent politicians and businessmen have proposed various forms of flat tax legislation over the past decade, notably former Majority Leader Dick Armey and publishing mogul and former Presidential Candidate Steve Forbes. Examining their proposals shows inherent advantages to the richest citizens by formulating definitions of earned income, to be taxed at a flat percentage rate, and unearned income, such as capital gains, interest and dividends. Without delving deeply into the proposals this is far enough to begin to realize the problem with a flat income tax is it still is an income tax and can still be easily manipulated to the advantages of some and resulting heavier burdens to others.

There is nothing flat in the income tax which is why Hamilton wrote against it in Federalist No. 10 and why, for the first 124 years of our existence as a nation, it was unconstitutional. In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the unconstitutional nature of income taxation in the landmark decision handed down in the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company case. Due to this ruling the ‘soak the rich’ campaign began in earnest which finally culminated in the 1913 ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

Many will be surprised to learn the original income tax affected only those few citizens earning in excess of $4,000 per year (a large sum then), could be filed on a single form, had a tax code of only 14 pages, was considered simple, and would grow for 94 years into the menace we face today. With over 45,000 pages and countless forms it has become a root cause of problems facing the average citizen today yet we are too busy to realize the burden. The problem is not whether the income tax is flat or graduated or who is exempt or...or...or. The problem is it is an income tax and needs to be sent back to the unconstitutional status the founding fathers wisely gave it.

There are many options, this author happens to favor The Fair Tax Act but study and support any plan you care to as long as it ends income taxation, kills the IRS and repeals the terrible beast known as the 16th Amendment. Remember there is nothing, ever, flat about an income tax!

Also, choose a candidate that supports ending the income tax, not one who wants to dance with the devil and woo you into believing flattening the income tax will work just fine and fair. To do this you must be bold as the major media candidates love their income taxing powers. There are several candidates this year who support an end to the IRS. Here is a link to their sites;

• Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
• Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AL)
• Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

Visit Hear My Thunder Community