Make your own free website on
« April 2019 »
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in

At Issue Info
Monday, 15 October 2007
Ron Paul Treated Unfairly at the CNBC Debate w/Proof
Now Playing: Story & Challenge by
Topic: Ron Paul 08

 Ron Paul Treated Unfairly at the CNBC Debate - Proof From the Transcript

(Story omits the fact that many official polls don't include Ron Paul or only call a pre-selected list of Democrats and Republicans. Some scientific poll. Random internet polls show more accuracey as to the public's interest. As Paulites can do, so can the others. MSM actions at this point are, shut down the poll... Paul is winning again. )


Some of the lower tiered candidates and their supporters have complained about the presidential debates thus far -- complaining that they favor those that are higher in the polls.

The justification given for this is that the voters are to see those candidates with a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, something that is measured by polling data and fundraising numbers. So before we get into the polling data and the fundraising numbers, let's see how much each of the candidates were allowed to speak.

Our methodology for this is actually quite fool-proof. We take a transcript of the debate and parse each of the words spoken at the debate and count who spoke how many words.

This is what we got.

Candidate # of Words % of Candidate Total
Mitt Romney 1357 22.8
Rudy Giuliani 1091 18.3
John McCain 781 13.1
Fred Thompson 728 12.2

Mike Huckabee

445 7.5
Duncan Hunter 431 7.2
Tom Tancredo 401 6.7
Sam Brownback 387 6.5
Ron Paul 343 5.8

The top tier candidates according to the latest national polls dominated the debate. Summing up the total number of words spoken by Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson, you would lead to 66.4% or about two-thirds of the debate.

Each of those candidates fall in line with about where they stand in the polls and in fundraisinig. Well, except for Ron Paul. He spoke the least of all the candidates. Now, we are not going to go so far as to say he should get as much time as Romney or Giuliani -- although it would be fair if all the candidates spoke the same amount of time.

But we will claim it irresponsible of CNBC to censor Ron Paul to the point that he spoke the least of every candidate including Tancredo, Hunter, and Brownback.

Here are the reason Ron Paul should have had more air time than Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback.

(Fundraising) Ron Paul raised $5 million dollars. This translates to REAL support and REAL people that want to hear his message. Ron Paul's fundraising numbers were comparable to John McCain. Mike Huckabee was only able to garner about $1 million dollars.

(Early States#1) Ron Paul is sitting at double digits among moderates in New Hampshire and and at 8% in Michigan (the state in which this debate took place). And the Republican party is doing a disservice if they try to silence the moderate voice. Read our article on "Ron Paul Surging in the Polls Among Moderates".

State Ron Paul
% among Moderates
New Hampshire 10%
Michigan 8%
Source:, via Link

(Straw Polls) Ron Paul has won 15 straw polls ( nationwide, more than Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback combined! Heck we could even add John McCain to that list and Ron Paul would have beaten them all.

Here is the list of straw polls that Ron Paul has won:

  1. Tulsa State Fair, Oklahoma 
  2. Oregon Straw Poll- Portland, Oregon
  3. Gwinnett County GOP, Atlanta, Georgia
  4. CWA New Jersey GOP Straw Poll
  5. South Sound Ronald Reagan Republican Club
  6. Manchester, NH Straw Poll
  7. Maryland Straw Poll
  8. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
  9. DeKalb County, Georgia Straw Poll
  10. West Alabama
  11. Ronald Reagan Club (Washington)
  12. Strafford County, NH
  13. Gaston County, NC
  14. FreedomWorks Straw Poll
  15. New Hampshire Taxpayers

Fourteen of said straw polls won August or later! That suggest a surge in support.

(Internet) Here is the traffic statistics to It is brought to you by He has more monthly visitors to his campaign website than any of the other candidates -- including the top tier. The graph is going up, yet more signs of a surge.

ron paul 2008 - traffic statistics

(Scientific Polls) There are now 8 states in which Ron Paul is averaging 3% or better over the past two months. Those states are New Hampshire (8%), Michigan (5.7%), Texas (5.0%), Arizona (5.0%), Pennsylvania (4.0%), Iowa (3.7%), South Carolina (3.0%), and Wisconsin (3.0%). Let's see about the other candidates. Duncan Hunter - only 1. Tom Tancredo - 3. Sam Brownback - 3. If you were to sum up the lower tiered candidates of Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback you would get 7 -- it was not enough to outnumber Ron Paul was it?

(Early States #2) In summary , Ron Paul is the only candidate of these "lower tiered candidates" to average more than 3.0% in the Top 3 states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And his fundraising numbers were good enough to launch him into top tier status. So why does such a candidate get the least amount of speaking time?

Romney spoke almost 4 times as much as Ron Paul.

The biggest evidence of such blatant censorship of Ron Paul came when Rudy Giuliani challenged Ron Paul by name saying "Where was he on 9/11?". Ron Paul would have wanted to rebut that to say that no country had attacked us. When a candidate is addressed by name it is only common courtesy to give him time for a rebuttal. Nope, they did not even give him the courtesy of standing amongst the candidates -- always at the edge and having the least amount of speaking time.

Help Me Donate to Ron Paul

In fact, I am so upset right now that I am going to make a personal donation to the Ron Paul campaign. And I want your help. I usually pay SEO companies in India/Thailand to do what is called "link building" -- they send out emails to other political sites asking them to link to me. In return, I get good search engine rankings. But I figure why give them money when I can use that money to give even MORE to Ron Paul in his quest to prove that the media does not always have to win.

Since the money comes from my personal account, I am a bit strapped for cash but heck, if you help me out, I help Ron Paul out.

So this is what I would like to see, create a link to this article promoting Ron Paul and how the media is biased then email me at with the link of said article. And for every link generated, I will add $5 to my personal donation. Let's see how it goes. I guaranteed someone that it would be 100+ links in total -- don't let me be wrong folks.

Posted by oxfnord at 1:34 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 15 October 2007 1:42 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Action Needed
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: Make Congress Stop the War March
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Subject: The immediate mortal danger of attacking Iran

There is increasing evidence that President Bush intends to bomb Iran. This would . . .

* Reverse the progress we have made with Iranian public opinion
* Further entrench the Iranian Muslim regime
* Further radicalize the Muslim population across the Middle East
* Recruit countless numbers of new terrorists
* Place us in a state of irreversible war with Iran and its people
* Threaten oil shipments from the Persian gulf

The combined impact would be to destabilize the entire region, fostering bin Laden's goal of creating radical Islamist regimes throughout the area. Most chilling is the potential impact on Pakistan.

If Pakistan's population becomes further radicalized because of U.S. attacks against Muslims the result could be the creation of an Islamist regime. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and elements of Pakistan's security service has close ties to the Taliban and Al Queada, dating back to the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

If President Bush bombs Iran the result could be exactly what he thinks he's trying to prevent -- nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

In addition, bombing Iran could slow that country's nuclear program, but it would not stop it. The Iranians could just begin again, with more secure underground sites, just like the Nazi's did in response to allied bombing during World War II.

What would we do then? Use nuclear weapons? Vice President Cheney is said to already favor this!

There is nothing to be gained by bombing Iran, and everything to be lost. And yet, there are more and more reports that President Bush plans to attack Iran before he leaves office. Worse yet, he already has Congressional authorization to do so because of the loose wording of previous war authorizations resolutions.

The whole world is at the mercy of President Bush's notoriously bad judgment, unless ALL OF US take action to constrain him. There is something we can do, in the short term, to stop an attack, and many things we can do in the long term to stabilize the situation and bring lasting security.

In the short term . . .

* We must demand that Congress pass a resolution prohibiting an attack
* We must demand this of the Democrats even if the Republicans would resist
* We must focus extreme pressure on Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid
* We must work to turn key Republicans in the House, and especially the Senate
* We must recruit more people to apply more pressure

Even if all we got was a majority vote in the House, because the Republicans blocked action in the Senate, that might be enough to stay the President's hand. We will tell you what to do and how to do it below.

For the long term . . .

We must compel Congress to recognize the truth of what Congressman Ron Paul and official reports of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon assert. Blowback against U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is the main problem, which means pullback is the answer.

We must eliminate our footprint in Islamic countries. When we do that the process of radicalization will recede. This is the best path to peace and security for the American people. Specifically . . .

* We should exit Iraq, leaving the surrounding Islamic countries to create a settlement there
* We should renounce pre-emptive war and regime change, and adopt a policy of retaliatory deterrence
* We should recognize the government of Iran and establish formal relations with it
* We should apologize directly to the Iranian people for the 1953 C.I.A. coup and our support of the Shah
* We should lift trade sanctions on Iran to foster civil society there as a balance against extremism

Many facts form the basis of our proposals . . .

We have a history of regime change in the Middle East, and especially Iran. We overthrew a democratic and secular Iranian government in 1953, and established the tyrannical Shah. The Iranians remember this. We have also just changed the regime in Iraq and placed Iran on the same target list. Given these facts . . .

You would want a nuclear weapon too, if you were part of the Iranian government!

We must take every possible step to make the Iranian regime feel secure, no matter how much we may dislike their form of government. It is possible . . .

* The Iranian government has repeatedly said that the main thing it wants from the U.S. is respect
* The Iranians have offered to defund Hezbollah as part of a broader settlement with the U.S.
* The Iranians have offered to help us against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which they also dislike
* The Afghanistan government favors Iranian aid against the Taliban, but we have blocked it

Our government has repeatedly snubbed Iranian overtures. We must stop doing this. We recognized and negotiated with the Communists in China and the Soviet Union to good result, and we can do the same with the Iranians.

We must remove the MOTIVATION for the Iranian government to develop nuclear weapons, and give them strong incentives for peaceful relations!

We must also bolster our relationship with the Iranian people. They have come to dislike their own government and are tending to have a neutral or even positive opinion of the U.S. After the 9-11 attack Iranians flooded the streets, demonstrating in support of America!

Bombing Iran would once again make us the enemy in the eyes of the Iranian people, when instead we could restore and foster their good opinion of us. It is important to repeat that we can do this by . . .

* Taking Iran off our enemies list
* Apologizing loudly and publicly for the 1953 coup and our support of the Shah
* Lifting trade sanctions

Trade sanctions do not work. They cripple civil society and permit oppressive regimes to blame their own failings on foreign powers. They are counterproductive. We should end the sanctions unilaterally and bring Iran into the world community.

We have it in our power to enhance the peace and security of the whole world. All we have to do is stop provoking people. This does not mean that the radicals will stand down, but it does mean that the process of radicalization will slow, and perhaps even stop. But first . . .

We must prevent an attack on Iran. Here's what we need to do . . .

* Send a message to Congress demanding a resolution prohibiting an attack
* Call the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and demand a vote on this issue
* If one or more of your Senators are Republicans, call them too

Pelosi and Reid are blocking a vote on this issue because they're afraid of appearing soft. We must give them the courage to do the right thing. Republicans in the Senate are the key to getting a vote in that chamber. We must make them fear public opinion.

* Send your message to Congress
* If you have Republican Senators, call them
* Call Nancy Pelosi at this number: 202-225-4965
* Call Harry Reid at this number: 202-224-3542
* Forward this message to others
* Make a contribution to further our work

Please, disaster looms. Take action. Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project is sponsored by, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Posted by oxfnord at 2:03 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 18 September 2007 2:13 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 10 September 2007
I am NOT afraid
 I've sent my message twice so far, send yours to wake up Congress. I don't want them "representing" me with freedom restrictions. How about you? -LexTitan
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Today, we roll out a new kind of campaign. We call these campaigns, "Strike at the Root" campaigns, as in . . .

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
-- David Thoreau

These "Root" campaigns will be defiant statements by free people against the encroachments of government. We aim to change the political environment with these campaigns. We want to penetrate the Congressional echo-chamber with messages they aren't used to hearing.

The success of these campaigns will be based, in large part, on your evangelism. We need you to share these messages and campaigns with others.

Our first "Root" campaign deals with how an overblown fear of terrorism leads to a bigger, more intrusive, and less focused government . . .

Quote of the Day:

"Courage is grace under pressure."
-- Ernest Hemingway

Subject: Please participate in our "I am not afraid" campaign

Terrorists aim to cause fear, and by feeling fear we've given them what they want.

We believe it's possible to win the war on terror instantly. All we have to do is stop being afraid, and stop acting out of fear. 

This makes sense not only in terms of defeating the terrorists' intentions, but also in terms of managing the terrorist threat.

To us, America's fear of terrorism is like a cat being afraid of a mouse. Actually,  it's worse than that, because all the terrorists in all the world amount to no more than an anemic mosquito on the snout of a whale. The fact is . . .

We're in far more danger from our own cars than we are from terrorism.

Nearly 800,000 people have died in car accidents in the last twenty years. During that time there have been exactly 2 Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, with less than 3,000 total fatalities. That's more than 200 TIMES as many Americans dying in their cars as at the hands of Islamic terrorism. And yet . . .

We've turned the whole world upside down in response to the two terrorist attacks. We've launched a pre-emptive invasion, created vast new bureaucracies, shredded the Bill of Rights, compounded regulations, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and disrupted travel and commerce. But no one is suggesting that we do 200 times as much to address the driving risk, which is 200 times greater. 

Can we conclude from this that American's are brave when it comes to their cars, but cowardly when it comes to Islamic terrorism?  

We think the proper conclusion is that Americans have VASTLY OVERREACTED to the threat of Islamic terrorism, and that the politicians have encouraged and exploited this overreaction to expand the power of government. 

If Ernest Hemingway had the right definition of courage -- "grace under pressure" -- then our country has shown little grace in the face of not much pressure. To us, the official government War on Terror amounts to one giant national cringe. 

We can do better, with less effort and more grace.

There is really only one way to win a war on terrorism. Stop being afraid!

Achieving this victory does not require large armies, pre-emptive invasions, illegal spying, torture, detention camps, Kangaroo courts, or multi-billion dollar Congressional appropriations. Neither does it require us to shred the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Conventions. All it requires is a little backbone. And a little common sense.

The minute the first politician proposed the first imposition on the Bill of Rights, or the first call to invade Iraq, or the first request for large new bureaucracies to fight the anemic mosquito, the terrorists won, and we lost.

And they've been winning, and we've been losing, ever since.

Can we stop being afraid?

Can you?

Here's what it means to not be afraid, here's what it means to fight a real war on terror, and here's what it means to win that war, instantly . . .

  • It means that you do not participate in the public hysteria when terrorists attack, but instead react proportionally, placing the terrorist act in its proper place in the vast array of crimes, accidents, disease, natural disaster, and generic tragedy that is man's lot on earth.
  • It means that you do not permit the politicians to feel terror on your behalf.
  • It means that you discourage them from fomenting and exploiting hysteria to expand their own power at the expense of traditional American principles.
  • It means that you view terrorism as a matter for international police work, under the rule of law, and not a justification for bloated government programs, reckless wars, or the shredding of the Bill of Rights.
  • It means that you recruit others to adopt your war winning strategy of not being afraid.
The biggest obstacle to implementing this strategy is the politicians, for two interlocking reasons . . .

  • First, the politicians are afraid of public opinion. They're scared to look weak and uncaring by not doing something big and noticeable to fight terrorism, no matter how overblown or counterproductive.
  • Second, they love the opportunity to exploit public fear to expand their own power and importance.
There is one solution to these two problems. Tell Congress that you've already won your war on terror, and that you've done so by not being afraid. We encourage you to send the following message to your representatives in Congress:

"I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid."

You can add to this any additional points you would like to make in your own words, criticizing one or more elements of the official government war on terror.

Next, you can take a step to deal with the underlying problem that enables politicians to work their mischief: public hysteria. We need to recruit massive numbers of Americans to win the war on terror instantly, through our "I am not afraid" campaign. After you've sent your message to Congress, please tell other people about our "I am not afraid" campaign using our Tell-a-friend mechanism, or you can forward this Dispatch to others.

You can send your "I am not afraid" message here.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

Jim Babka
President, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project is sponsored by, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Posted by oxfnord at 1:00 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 10 September 2007 1:21 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 16 August 2007
At Issue
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: Read The Bills

This is a Cut-N-Paste Blog, info from other sources. There are far too many bloggers out there and not a lot of great ones. So, I'll pass on what I run across I think is valuable to repeat here. -LexTitan 


D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Monday, July 30 was a busy day. The House of Representatives passed 36 bills. Assuming a 9-hour day, a bill would have been read, debated, and voted on every fifteen minutes. But that couldn't have happened, because the House also managed to pass 17 resolutions.

How could the House accomplish so much in one day? By not reading or even considering the bills and resolutions they passed.

All in all, the House passed 48 bills in the last week before the August recess, and the Senate passed 32. We normally tell you the total number of pages of legislation Congress passed, but this week, we just don't have the time to add it all up. And we don't think that is needed to prove the point: members of Congress can't possibly have time to read and understand the bills they pass.

Perhaps Congress needs to pass all these bills to keep Big Government running. But that's just the problem. If we want Big Government, we can't have truly representative government. Representation means more than just getting elected. If Congress truly represented the people, they would be reluctant to infringe on our freedoms and spend our money. They wouldn't pass 36 bills in one day. But the more responsibility we place on the federal government, the less time and attention Congress can give to any particular issue. So instead of reading and debating the bills before them, they rush to a vote. That's not accountability. That's not representation. If we want a truly representative government, we must Downsize DC. And we must pass the Read the Bills Act.

You can tell Congress that you don't want them to pass 36 bills in one day ever again. You can tell Congress to slow down. You can tell Congress to stop rubber-stamping bills. You can tell Congress you want to be represented. You can tell Congress to pass the Read the Bills Act.

Do you want to spread the word about the Read the Bills Act and promote your website at the same time? Then consider joining the Read the Bills Act Coalition. It's quick, easy, and free. Click here for details.

We welcome three new members to the Coalition this week:

The Awareness Network

The Original Drug Manual for Kids

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President, Inc.


D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project is sponsored by, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Posted by oxfnord at 3:11 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 18 September 2007 2:15 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older