Forum Post: Free Speech: How To Overcome Money in Politics
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 22, 2011, 6:56 p.m. EST by jaktober
(286)
from Sonoma, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have been working with the Ron Paul grassroots movement and have learned a lot about how to overcome money in politics. It takes actual work on the part of supporters. I also interviewed Anita Stewart, a Green in Florida that won her Water and Soil Board seat with $300. It can be done, here is my article on how to do it:
http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/free-speech-how-to-overcome-money-in-politics/
[Removed]
I would not trust anyone who worked with or near this liar-racist-homophobe
A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” In another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”; in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”
Other issues of Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992
Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading
The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”
In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author--writing in the first person--states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
The article isn't about the positions of the candidates I took advice/ideas from. It is solely about how to run a campaign without large contributions, and how to run a campaign from the grassroots level. It mentions having a clear "message" but what that message is depends on the cause/candidate. What I wanted to do was share a focus on how to win elections.
It is a good idea to look at the actual policies of Ron Paul though. Anti-Drug war (which is hugely racist), Anti-Death penalty (because it has been used to kill minorities), and anti-War (which has led to the death of nearly a million Arabs). So, you can look at a few excerpts from a Newsletter with his name on it, or you can look at actions taken by the current and previous administration that actually lead to the DEATH of minorities. Which is more harmful?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
Ron Paul on allegations of being a racist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg&feature=related
An intelligent black man on the issue who isn't dumb enough to fall for this crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs&feature=related
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate that thinks racial profiling is wrong and 100% unconstitutional.
Ron Paul also voted against the anti-gay legislation that wanted to define the term marriage as being between a man and a woman.
This is off point and Ron Paul said he didn't write or agree with anything said in the newsletters you cite.
This is not off point. He still hasn't said who wrote these things if he in fact did not, and he admits he published them, and made money off them.
Also, libertarians are all for money in government. Their money in what they don't exactly call government. "Private" roads. "Private education." "Private healthcare." You name it. They'll try to control it.
He said he does not know who wrote the newsletter and that there was a shift as well. Watch this interview.
Ron Paul on allegations of being a racist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg&feature=related
An intelligent black man on the issue who isn't dumb enough to fall for this crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs&feature=related
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate that thinks racial profiling is wrong and 100% unconstitutional.
Ron Paul also voted against the anti-gay legislation that wanted to define the term marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Also getting rid of the department of education does not get rid of public schools. Public schools are a state issue there guy and Ron Paul won't change state issues. The department of education got us awesome programs like No Child Left Behind.
Healthcare is already privatized. And Obama has no new intention of trying again for Universal Healthcare and neither does any upcoming candidate.
You make good points, but he is against all government. Libertarians do not like public education or healthcare or any of that. They do not like federal government or state government. Once the federal government is gone, then goes the state's.
Thanks for the links. I watched them both. I think Ron Paul needs to tell us who wrote those items and not be so flippant about them. He acts as if they are not important. They are vile and no one running for President of the U.S. should be responsible for language like that. His explanation is way too vague. Also, very smart people can hold deep racism within them without anyone knowing. Was he just caught this one time?
I definitely think they are questionable for sure but I don't give them a lot of credence. I do think though that he will follow the constitution despite of the beliefs he may or may not have or may have had and then changed.
I have a lot of trust in Dennis Kucinich and he has high praise for Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18
Kucinich is an interesting guy. I think he cares a lot more about the poor and middle class than Ron Paul does. I still want to know who wrote that crap. If it was, say, his assistant, or a family member, a close adviser, that is a huge problem.
And Hitler said he did not want Hungary THEY WERE HIS NEWSLETTERS
His name was on them; he's not responsible? He puts them out; he doesn't know what's in them?
He will be better than George Bush --- how?
He will not continue our Imperial Foreign Policy. Will end the War on Drugs. Will actually use his veto power to balance the budget (Bush didn't veto anything for nearly 6 years until a stem-cell research bill came to his desk). He will do what he can to overturn the PATRIOT Act (Bush signed it). He will conduct himself as President strictly as the Constitution directs him to.
He will do these things or lose all the grassroots support he has relied on. He will do these things or face a Democratic Majority in Congress in 2014. He will do these things or become completely irrelevant and incapable of doing anything else.
He is not bought by the banks, corporations and military industrial complex.
He will not put Halliburton lobbyists in the Defense Department like Bush. He will not put Monsanto lobbyists in the Department of Agriculture like Obama.
He will not continue our Imperial Foreign Policy. Will end the War on Drugs. Will actually use his veto power to balance the budget (Bush didn't veto anything for nearly 6 years until a stem-cell research bill came to his desk). He will do what he can to overturn the PATRIOT Act (Bush signed it). He will conduct himself as President strictly as the Constitution directs him to.
He will do these things or lose all the grassroots support he has relied on. He will do these things or face a Democratic Majority in Congress in 2014. He will do these things or become completely irrelevant and incapable of doing anything else.
He is not bought by the banks, corporations and military industrial complex.
He will not put Halliburton lobbyists in the Defense Department like Bush. He will not put Monsanto lobbyists in the Department of Agriculture like Obama.
He will free the banks and other corporations to do whatever they want to us. Monsanto won't need lobbyists, as he will free them from the regulations that prevent them from poisoning the environment.
The President doesn't get to decide those things. Regulations are the duty and power of the Congress. His philosophy would end regulations on banks and corporations, but that would also mean they'd loose their advantage in the current market where they get subsidized and bailed out. Corporations lobby government for advantages, not to even the playing field. The Libertarian philosophy would simply create an even playing field.
But we aren't voting on making the libertarian philosophy the law of the land. We are voting on an individual for a single, specific office.
He will actually stay within the confines of the constitution in regards to that position.
The President has three unrestrained powers; commander-in-chief of the armed forces during time of war (he will end the wars), veto (which can be overturned by 2/3 majority of Congress, and the executive order (which he has stated he won't use to legislate).
His appointments to the cabinet must be confirmed by Congress. His nomination of Supreme Court judges must be approved by Congress. He submits a budget to Congress, which they then rework and send back for approval (each member of the House use to submit a budget, but that got out of hand, so they decided to have the President submit a budget that they could then work on).
In reality, the only thing President Paul can and will do (without consent from Congress, which in theory means; consent from the People and the States), is end the Wars overseas, veto an unbalanced budget and any unconstitutional legislation, and override previous executive orders.
I'd hope he would use the executive order to downgrade marijuana to Schedule 2 so that medical marijuana laws are in sync with federal law, but he may still look toward Congress to do that.
If you know something I don't please explain how President Paul will deregulate everything without the support of Congress, which, if you follow trends, will most likely go to a Democratic majority in 2012 if a Republican takes the Presidency (very rarely, is a President elected with his Party in power of Congress (both houses). Obama had his first two years with a democratic majority in both houses (you can thank the anti-Bush vote for that) and he did what with it?