Dr. Paul and his Record Haul

It’s been quite a week for Ron Paul and his campaign. I’ve read hints online that this is the week he gets rocketed from obscurity into legitimacy, and you know, I think they’re probably right – except that the previous obscurity was always debatable anyway.

PBS’s program NOW aired “The Ron Paul Phenomenon” a 20-minute exploration of Dr. Paul’s grassroots campaign, trying to analyze the groundswell of support he’s received and determine how that will translate into real political influence. There was an unnecessary amount of incredulity in the mix, but for the most part, it was a fair presentation of this thing we Paulites affectionately call the r3VOLution.

(For anyone this logo could possibly have escaped at this point, that’s supposed to be a backwards rendering of the word “love” within “revolution.”)

Then we have December 16, the brilliant commemoration of the Boston Tea Party. Back on November 5, we procured a few “raised eyebrows” by donating a total of 4.3 million dollars – in small, private contributions – to the Ron Paul campaign. It was the most any Republican had raised in a single day. Did I already talk about this? Yeah, I think I did. Anyway, that all got blown out of the water this week, because we shattered the old record by raising 6 million and change in 24 hours! This puts Dr. Paul at number one, unqualified, in single-day fundraising. The previous record was held by John Kerry …the day after he won the Democratic nomination!! So is this lightning striking twice? Or have Ron Paul’s supporters proven themselves to be a large base of people, consistently dependable to do everything they can to promote this candidate? I’d have to argue it’s pretty clearly the latter. (Yes, I included that just for you! Haha!)

At any rate, we were quite confident that Paul would get his much-deserved attention following this record-breaking moneybomb. And indeed he has! To be perfectly frank, I think we were expecting this to develop after November 5, but it didn’t, and we did what we had to do… Ron Paul has since appeared in headlines, television news stories, and interviews all over the supposedly hostile “mainstream media.” Looks like money makes a difference after all. I’ve been quite happy to see Tucker Carlson having an excuse to talk about Paul; despite being on our side, prior to this fundraising blitz he wouldn’t have been able to justify dedicating much of MSNBC’s time to the “second-tier candidate.”

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul appeared on “Fox & Friends,” and last night Glenn Beck hosted him for a full hour. He interviewed him on a variety of topics, from the economy and federally-funded programs, to (of course) foreign policy, the war, and terrorism. Except for a bit of inappropriate grilling – by which I mean: “do you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy? Some of your supporters do!” – I found Beck to be surprisingly open to Dr. Paul’s message, and at the very least gave him plenty of time to express his views completely and in context. I mentioned earlier today that this is pretty much the best we can hope for from Glenn Beck (no endorsement on the horizon!) given his antithetical views regarding the “war on terror.” Quoting an email I sent to my father on the subject: "I think the net result of that interview was that no serious viewer could go away believing that Ron Paul is some kind of Liberal. He clearly came out as a Conservative who has foreign-policy differences with other Conservatives."

Now, Beck’s program airs three times nightly on CNN. That amounts to three hours of unadulterated Ron Paul coverage on one of the biggest news networks in existence. Some of us can recognize a viable candidate before the talking heads declare him to be such, but then, others of us can’t, and we need their votes too! So I feel that this is just the kind of exposure we need to help knock out the “unwinnability” objection that has been such a thorn in our proverbial side.

There have also been some exciting things going on in our local branch of the campaign, based in our Central New York Meetup.com group. We’ve been having weekly demonstrations downtown – nothing says dedication like waving signs in the bar district when it’s 5 degrees outside! – and there have been more of us there each week. The results have been pretty encouraging, especially here in Hillary country. Also, in an effort to unite the various campaigning efforts across New York State, we’re witnessing the birth of our own website, nysrevolution.com. This “Great New York State Revolution” could be called my brother Dave’s brainchild, but of course it only comes about as the result of lots of eager collaboration from our fellow “revolutionaries.”

If the whole “r3VOLution” thing has you puzzled, incidentally, I think I explained the background of it fairly nicely in an earlier Paul-related post.

I don’t like the idea of leaving off without tying this all together, so… what can I say? Basically, this has been something of a “status report” for the Ron Paul campaign from my perspective. Exciting things are happening for us, and like I’ve said before, this movement is very real. If you haven’t checked Ron Paul out for yourself yet, please do us all a favor and do so. We want you on board!!

Ron Paul on HR 1955

The following is Dr. Ron Paul's statement to Congress regarding this dangerous and unconstitutional resolution:

Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955
5 December 2007
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”
There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.