Category Archives: Ron Paul

Ron Paul's group, "Campaign for Liberty," is trying to get him a spot on the U.S. Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, a senior politics editor with the Huffington Post reports.

Paul, a former GOP member of Congress from Texas, earlier this week criticized the Federal Reserve, saying it was manipulating the economy.

"We do not work on a free-market principle, we do not have sound money, it's all manipulated," he told Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Network.

"Prices are going to go up and the money's going to be so bent according to political reasons and not because of business decisions, so we want the government out of it, we want people to save money, create capital, but capital cannot come from the Federal Reserve working with a computer, that's the fallacy and that's why zero rates of interest didn't work because they weren't realistic."

The Board of Governors oversees the work of the Federal Reserve Banks and plays a major role in crafting U.S. monetary policy. There are seven members, all appointed by the president of the United States.

Paul established "Campaign for Liberty," his nonprofit political organization, during his presidential run in 2008 with the purpose of spreading his idea that the government should be limited in its role.

Paul also has run for president as a Republican and as a Libertarian.

2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Go here to see the original:
Ron Paul Wants a Spot on Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Ron Paul got an electoral vote today. (Getty)

With all the twists and turns in the election, nothing should surprise anyone. Hillary Clinton lost one electoral vote to the Native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle, and in Texas, Donald Trump lost one electoral college vote to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul was a big favorite in 2012, with many Republicans feeling like he was unfairly treated during the Republican primary, much like Democrats felt about Bernie Sanders this year. Well, it looks like someone still feels that way.

It wasnt immediately clear which person cast a vote in Texas for Ron Paul. But when the results were announced, out of 38 electoral votes, only 36 went to Trump. One went to John Kasich (as Chris Suprun had promised he would do.) And one went to Ron Paul.Later, Sean Walsh of the Statesman reported that the vote came from Bill Greene of CD 34.

Some Libertarians lamented Ron Pauls not runningas Libertarian in this race, thinking that he might have done even better than Gary Johnson considering the political climate of this election.

The reactions on Twitter to the news were enthusiastic:

To see a breakdown of electoral votes in all states, please see our story below.

What are the results of the electoral college election? Trump has received the 270 votes he needs. See a state-by-state count as they are announced here.

Read more here:
Ron Paul Takes One Electoral College Vote from Trump

Ron Paul, an eleven-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation's capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."After serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a civilian medical practice, delivering over four thousand babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of fifty-one years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests.""There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."

View post:
Amazon.com: Ron Paul: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks ...

A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties are endangered.

One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.

Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations from distributing factual information regarding a candidates positions for several months before an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidates views being the campaigns and the media.

Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books, movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stones biography of Edward Snowden, since it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing Snowden.

The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on fake news. Those leading the war are using a few viral Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation and even outright censorship of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

Those calling for bans on fake news are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clintons infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

The war on fake news has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US governments skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream medias pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

The attempts to ban fake news; smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politicians record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech.

See original here:
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : War on ...

Secret 12 Vitamin B12

Limited Advanced Release

39.95

29.95

Discover The Benefits of Super Advanced Vitamin B-12 with The Infowars Life Secret 12 Proprietary Formula.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/s12-300.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/secret-12-vitamin-b12.html?ims=biwuo&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

http://www.infowarsstore.com/secret-12-vitamin-b12.html?ims=biwuo&utm_campaign=Secret+12&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

Deep Cleanse

39.95

29.95

Scientifically formulated to use powerful nano-colloidal zeolites and organic ingredients to aid the body's normal function of cleansing itself from chemicals and toxic metals.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dc-300.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/deep-cleanse.html?ims=izkbo&utm_campaign=Deep+Cleanse&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

http://www.infowarsstore.com/deep-cleanse.html?ims=izkbo&utm_campaign=Deep+Cleanse&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver

29.95

19.95

The Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver is finally here following Alex's extensive search for a powerful colloidal silver product that is both free of artificial additives and utilizes high quality processes to ensure for a truly unique product that has applications for both preparedness and regular use.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sb-300.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/silver-bullet-40-off.html?ims=njcpn&utm_campaign=Silver+Bullet&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

http://www.infowarsstore.com/silver-bullet-40-off.html?ims=njcpn&utm_campaign=Silver+Bullet&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

Super Male Vitality

69.95

59.95

The all new and advanced Super Male Vitality formula uses the newest extraction technology with even more powerful concentrations of various herbs and extracts designed to be even stronger.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/smv-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=lyhju&utm_campaign=Super+Male+Vitality&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

http://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=lyhju&utm_campaign=Super+Male+Vitality&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

Super Male Vitality

69.95

59.95

The all new and advanced Super Male Vitality formula uses the newest extraction technology with even more powerful concentrations of various herbs and extracts designed to be even stronger.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/smv-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=lyhju&utm_campaign=Super+Male+Vitality&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

http://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html?ims=lyhju&utm_campaign=Super+Male+Vitality&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

Survival Shield X-2 Nascent Iodine

39.95

29.95

Leading the way into the next generation of super high quality nascent iodine, the new Infowars Life Survival Shield X-2 is now here.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/x2-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/survival-shield-x-2-nascent-iodine.html?ims=ybieu&utm_campaign=Survival+Shield+X-2+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

http://www.infowarsstore.com/survival-shield-x-2-nascent-iodine.html?ims=ybieu&utm_campaign=Survival+Shield+X-2+&utm_source=Infowars+Widget&utm_medium=Infowars.com

Go here to read the rest:
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

While future neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was struggling with white nationalism in theworld of political journalism, most of the people who would later comprise the alt-rights online shock troops were involved in a different venture. They were fighting hard to make former Texas congressman Ron Paul the Republican presidential nominee, first in 2008 and again in 2012. Its more than uncanny how many current alt-right leaders backed the former Texas congressman in his quixotic bids to stop GOP mainstream candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Pretty much all of the top personalities at the Right Stuff, a neo-Nazi troll mecca, started off as conventional libertarians and Paul supporters, according to the sites creator, an anonymous man who goes by the name Mike Enoch.

We were all libertarians back in the day. I mean, everybody knows this, he said on an alt-right podcast last month. After Pauls second campaign failed, Enochcompletely disengaged from politics, he added.

Paul was also the favorite of Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, the two men who created the term alternative right and formed the annual conference where old-school right-wing racists met and mentored young and disaffected conservativeintellectuals.

The Texas congressman was also the preferred candidate of Jared Taylor and the readers of his white nationalist website American Renaissance.

That feeling of admiration was apparently mutual. In the 1990s, Paul in his famously racist newsletters repeatedly promoted Tayloras part of a paleolibertarian strategy designed to attract racist white people. (Paul subsequently denied writing them, however.) Later on, American Renaissance wrote a featured article stating that the race-realist section of the blogosphere is one of the most enthusiastic sources of support for Mr. Paul and praised his good instincts on race, despite the fact that the author believed that Paul was no longer interested in catering to overt racists, as he formerly had.

Paul had nonracist supporters as well who would later become alt-right figures. (The self-described neo-Nazi types refer to them as alt-lite.) Libertarian radio host Alex Jones of InfoWars, a man famous for his belief in lizard people and his elaborate 9/11 conspiracy theories, dislikes being identified with the alt-right. But he is an important figure in the movements history and a key link from Ron Paul to Donald Trump.Today Jones is known today as an ardent Trump supporter but his affection for Ron Paul and his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, was even greater while they were runningtheir respective presidential campaigns.

In the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Ron Paul was also by farthe preferred presidential candidate of the racist Politically Incorrect board known as /pol/ on 4chan. Throughout both of his unsuccessful runs, the forum served as a critical organizing portal and talent incubator for Ron Pauls youthful, tech-savvy supporters to pull off fundraising and digital feats that many political observers incorrectly attributed to hisofficial campaign staff.

The energy and enthusiasm of /pol/ and its associated imitators and rivals completely disappeared after Ron Pauls candidacies ended. He did manage to become a meme within the site, however. The digital shock troops who would later become the alt-right were waiting for someone to re-energize them.

Rand Pauls staff hoped that hed be able to build on his fathers success in 2016. It didnt happen, however. In somepart,that was because the senatorcouldnt galvanize the emergentalt-right afterhe started pushinganti-racist policies and rhetoric.

It was a roadthat the younger Paul headed down after he faced an uproar in 2010 for saying that he opposed the Civil Rights Acts public accommodation provision, which requires most private businesses to serve customers regardless of their race. Paul retracted the stance and began a minority outreach program. He also began telling his fellow Republicans that they could not remain a party exclusively for white people.

If were going to be the white party, were going to be the losing party, Sen. Rand Paul said in 2014,at an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the law.

He has stuck to his new position, even in Republican presidential debates. Sen. Rand Paul has repeatedly embraced the campaign to equalize criminal sentencing, particularly for drug offenses, forwhites and nonwhites. He has also called for police to wear body cameras when on patrol and for local governments to stop using law enforcement as a revenue generator, both positions favored by Black Lives Matter activists and mainstream libertarians like those writing forReason magazine.

None of that went unnoticed by the online racists who formerly had supported RandPauls father, especially since they had found a new champion in Donald Trump, after he descended his golden elevator and denounced Mexico for sending drug dealers and rapists across the U.S. border. As one of them put it onhis personal blog:

Ron Pauls performance in the 2008 and 2012 elections was due to disaffected voters, including many White Nationalists who supported him, not ideological libertarians. All those people have since abandoned Rand Paul and thrown their support behind Donald Trump because of his foolish decision to go mainstream.

During the 2016 presidential election, Jones and his team supported the younger Paul for the GOP nomination until the very end ofhis short-lived bid.Shortly after Trump declared his candidacy,Jones top lieutenant created his own anti-Trump conspiracy theory,declaring the former television star to be a stooge for Democrats, designed to make the GOP lose to Hillary Clinton. InJanuary shortly before the Iowa caucuses, a distraught Jones pleaded with Paul to come up witha possible strategy to save his campaign.Id really like to see you as president,Jones said. How do we get you elected president?

With 16other Republican candidates competing in the Iowa caucuses, Pauls loss of the white nationalists doomed his chances in the Hawkeye State, where every sliver of vote share mattered greatly. In the words of an anonymous Paul campaign strategist quoted by Politico: Trump got in, Trump zoomed ahead, we collapsed, he had a massive impact in caging our people from us.

Return forPart 3: How the American conservative movement paved the way for white nationalism by embracing the Christian right

View original post here:
How the alt-right became racist, Part 2: Long before Trump ...

President-elect Trump's choice of Gen. James Mattis to be Defense Secretary has raised more than a few eyebrows. Not only as a military officer in a traditionally civilian position, but also as an executive in a leading defense contractor. His views on Iran are also considered extreme and not grounded in reality.

The Iranian regime in my mind is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East. ...Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. They have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that ISIS creates."

Ron Paul asks "Will the mad dog be leashed?" in the following live discussion (starting at 12ET)...

* * *

As Ron Paul detailed earlier, President-elect Donald Trump told a Cincinnati audience this week that he intends to make some big changes in US foreign policy. During his thank you tour in the midwest, Trump had this to say:

We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. In our dealings with other countries we will seek shared interests wherever possible...

If this is really to be President Trumps foreign policy, it would be a welcome change from the destructive path pursued by the two previous administrations. Such a foreign policy would go a long way toward making us safer and more prosperous, as we would greatly reduce the possibility of a blowback attack from abroad, and we would save untold billions with a foreign policy of restraint.

However as we know with politicians, there is often a huge gap between pronouncements before entering office and actions once in office. Who can forget President George W. Bushs foreign policy promises as a candidate 16 years ago? As a candidate he said:

I am not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world saying this is the way its got to be. If were an arrogant nation they will resent us, if were a humble nation but strong theyll welcome us.

Unfortunately as soon as he took office, George W. Bush pursued a completely different foreign policy, attacking countries like Iraq at the urging of the neocons he placed in positions of power in his White House and State Department.

Some people say that personnel is policy, and that much can be predicted about Trumps foreign policy by the people he has appointed to serve his Administration. That is where we might have reason to be worried. Take Iran, for example. While Trump says he wants the US to stop overthrowing governments, on the issue of Iran both the candidate and his recent appointees have taken a very different view.

Trump's pick for National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has said the following about Iran: "I believe that Iran represents a clear and present danger to the region, and eventually to the world..." and, regime change in Tehran is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Trumps CIA choice, Mike Pompeo, has said of President Obamas Iran deal, The Iranian regime is intent on the destruction of our country. Why the President does not understand is unfathomable.

And Trumps selection for Defense Secretary, General James Mattis, was even more aggressive, saying, The Iranian regime in my mind is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East. ...Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. They have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that ISIS creates."

Donald Trump's words in Cincinnati don't seem to match up with the views of the people that he's assigning to high places. At least when it comes to Iran.

While I hope we can take President Trump at his word when it comes to foreign policy, I also we think we should hold him to his word especially his encouraging words last week. Will the incoming president have the ability to rein in his more bellicose cabinet members and their underlings? We can be sure about one thing: if Trump allows the neocons to capture the State Department, keeping his foreign policy promises is going to be a lot more difficult.

Original post:
Watch Ron Paul Ask If Trump Can Leash Pentagon "Mad Dog ...

Washington Post Peddles Tarring of Ron Paul Institute as Russian Propaganda, via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

The Washington Post has a history of misrepresenting Ron Pauls views. Last year the supposed newspaper of record ran a feature article by David A. Fahrenthold in which Fahrenthold grossly mischaracterized Paul as an advocate for calamity, oppression, and poverty the opposite of the goals Paul routinely expresses and, indeed, expressed clearly in a speech at the event upon which Fahrentholds article purported to report. Such fraudulent attacks on the prominent advocate for liberty and a noninterventionist foreign policy fall in line with the newspapers agenda. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob G. Hornberger put it in a February editorial, the Posts agenda is guided by the interventionist mindset that undergirds the mainstream media.

On Thursday, the Post published a new article by Craig Timberg complaining of a flood of so-called fake news supported by a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, To advance this conclusion, Timberg points to PropOrNot, an organization of anonymous individuals formed this year, as having identified more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season. Look on the PropOrNot list. There is the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperitys (RPI) website RonPaulInstitute.org listed among websites termed Russian propaganda outlets.

What you will not find on the PropOrNot website is any particularized analysis of why the RPI website, or any website for that matter, is included on the list. Instead, you will see only sweeping generalizations from an anonymous organization. The very popular website drudgereport.com even makes the list. While listed websites span the gamut of political ideas, they tend to share in common an independence from the mainstream media.

Timbergs article can be seen as yet another big media attempt to shift the blame for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintons loss of the presidential election away from Clinton, her campaign, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that undermined Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary.

The article may also be seen as another step in the effort to deter people from looking to alternative sources of information by labeling those information sources as traitorous or near-traitorous.

At the same time, the article may be seen as playing a role in the ongoing push to increase tensions between the United States and Russia a result that benefits people, including those involved in the military-industrial complex, who profit from the growth of US national security activity in America and overseas.

This is not the first time Ron Paul and his institute has been attacked for sounding pro-Russian or anti-American. Such attacks have been advanced even by self-proclaimed libertarians.

Expect that such attacks will continue. They are an effort to tar Paul and his institute so people will close themselves off from information Paul and RPI provide each day in furtherance of the institutes mission to continue and expand Pauls lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home. While peace and liberty will benefit most people, powerful interests seek to prevent the realization of these objectives. Indeed, expect attacks against RPI to escalate as the institute continues to reach growing numbers of people with its educational effort

Read the original:
Ron Paul Lashes Out At WaPo's Witch Hunt: "Expect Such ...

AnnouncementsEdit

On May 13, 2011, in Exeter, New Hampshire, Paul announced his decision to seek the Republican nomination in the 2012 election. The announcement was broadcast live nationally on ABC's Good Morning America.[4]

On May 14, 2012, Paul made a statement on the campaign's website that he would no longer be actively campaigning in remaining state primaries, but would instead continue his presidential bid by seeking to collect delegates at caucuses and state conventions for the Republican National Convention in August 2012.[23]

He participated in a debate on June 13, 2011 at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire.[24] On June 18, 2011, Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll with 41%, winning by a large margin on Jon Huntsman, who trailed second with 25% and Michele Bachmann with 13% (Mitt Romney came in fifth with 5%).[25] On June 19 he again won the Clay County Iowa StrawPoll with 25%, while Michele Bachmann trailed second with 12%.

Paul also participated in another debate on August 11, 2011, in Ames, Iowa, and overwhelmingly won the post-debate polls.[26] He then came in second in the Ames Straw Poll with 4,671 votes, narrowly losing to Michele Bachmann by 152 votes or 0.9%, a statistical first-place tie finish according to some in the news media.[27][28][29][30] He received the fourth most votes for a candidate in the history of the Ames Straw Poll.

On August 20, in the New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll Paul came again first, again overwhelmingly, with 45%, Mitt Romney trailing second with 10%.[31] On August 27, in the Georgia State GOP Straw Poll Paul came in a close second place behind Georgia resident Herman Cain, who had 26% of the vote, with Paul receiving 25.7%.[32]

On September 5, Paul attended the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina along with fellow candidates Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. The forum was paneled by congressmen Steve King of Iowa, senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Dr. Robert P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project which hosted the event.[33]

On September 12, Paul attended the Tea Party Republican Presidential debate broadcast by CNN. During the event, Paul received both unexpected "cheers" and "boos" for his responses to the questions posed by the debate moderators and fellow debate participants.[34][35] When Rick Santorum questioned Paul about his position regarding the motivation behind the September 11 attacks, some of the audience jeered his response that U.S. foreign occupation was the "real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism".[34]

When one of the moderators posed a hypothetical scenario of a healthy 30-year-old man requiring intensive care but neglected to be insured pressing Paul with "Are you saying that society should just let him die?", several audience members cheered "yeah!" Paul disagreed with the audience reaction stating that while he practiced as a doctor in a Catholic hospital before the Medicaid era, "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."[35] Paul elaborated further a few days later that he believed the audience was cheering self-reliance and that "the media took it and twisted it".[36]

Jack Burkman, a Republican Party (GOP) strategist, was asked of Paul's performance in the debate. While Burkman stated that his national radio program's polling suggested Rick Perry won the debate (156 Perry votes to 151 Paul votes), he believed Paul's support is extremely deep like Democrat support for Bobby Kennedy decades before and predicted "he could come from behind as the horses turn for home and win the nomination."[37]

On September 18, Paul won the California state GOP straw poll with 44.9% of the vote, held at the JW Marriott in downtown Los Angeles. Out of 833 ballots cast, Paul garnered the greatest number of votes with 374, beating his nearest competitor Texas Gov. Rick Perry by a wide margin.[38]

On September 24, Paul finished fifth in the GOP's Florida Presidency 5 straw poll with 10.4% of the vote.[39] Paul won with 37% of the vote at the Values Voter Summit on October 8;[40] the highest ever recorded at the event.

On October 22, Paul won the Ohio Republican straw poll with the support of 53% of the participants, more than double the support of the second-place candidate, Herman Cain (26%).[41]

Paul won the National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll of Iowa voters on October 29 with 82% of the vote.[42]

On November 19, Paul won the North Carolina Republican Straw Poll with 52% of the vote, finishing well ahead of the second-place candidate, Newt Gingrich, who received 22% of the vote.[43]

In an August Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters across the political spectrum asking if they would vote for Paul or Barack Obama, the response narrowly favored Obama (39%) over Paul (38%), but by a smaller margin than the same question asked a month ago (41% 37%).[44] Paul finished 3rd in a late-August poll of likely Republican primary voters, trailing Rick Perry and Mitt Romney and ahead of Michele Bachmann,[45] climbing from 4th position which, according to another poll, he occupied only a few days earlier.[46]

In a September Harris Poll, respondents chose Paul (51%) over Obama (49%).[47]

In the Illinois Republican Straw Poll held in the beginning of November, Paul took 52% of the votes of those polled with Herman Cain coming in second with 18%.[48]

In a November 1012 Bloomberg News poll of Iowans likely to participate in the January 3, 2012 Republican caucuses, Paul was in a four-way tie at 19 percent with Cain, Romney and Gingrich at 20, 18 and 17 percent respectively.[49]

A Bloomberg News poll released on November 16, 2011 showed Paul at 17% in New Hampshire, in second place to Romney's 40%.[50]

A Public Policy Polling poll released on December 13, 2011 put Paul in a statistical tie for first in Iowa with Newt Gingrich, polling 21% and 22%, respectively.[51] The RealClearPolitics.com average shows Paul in second place in New Hampshire at 18.3% on December 28, 2011.[52] Public Policy Polling results from December 18 show that Paul is now leading in Iowa with 23%, followed by Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 14%.[53]

A January 2012 Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters across the political spectrum found that in a hypothetical two-candidate race between Paul and Barack Obama, respondents preferred Obama (43%) over Paul (37%).[54] The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls also found Obama (47%) favored over Paul (42%), in a two-candidate race.[55]

A January Pew Research Center poll of registered voters across the political spectrum on the eve of the South Carolina primary found that in a hypothetical three-way race between Obama, Romney, and Paul, with Paul running as a third-party candidate, respondents would choose Obama (44%) over Romney (32%) and Paul (18%). (Paul had repeatedly stated he had no plans for a third-party run.)[56][57]

In polls of likely Republican primary voters on the eve of the South Carolina Republican primary, Paul placed third both in South Carolina (15%)[58] and nationally (14%),[59] trailing Romney and Gingrich.

A Rasmussen poll in April 2012 showed Paul as the only Republican candidate able to defeat Obama in a head-to-head match-up. Paul beat Obama by one point in the poll with 44% of the vote.[60]

Paul's second moneybomb (the first being before his official announcement) was scheduled for June 5, 2011, the anniversary of the 1933 joint resolution which abolished the gold standard. The June 5 moneybomb, which was themed as "The Revolution vs. RomneyCare: Round One", raised approximately $1.1 million.[61] A third moneybomb themed "Ready, Ames, Fire!" was executed on July 19, 2011 to provide support leading up to the Ames Straw Poll on August 13, 2011, raising over $550,000.[62]

In the second quarter of 2011, Paul's campaign ranked second, behind Mitt Romney, in total dollars raised with $4.5 million.[63] This was $1.5 million more than his original goal of $3 million.[64] During that quarter, the Paul campaign had raised more money from military personnel than all other GOP candidates combined, and even more money than Barack Obama, a trend that has continued from Paul's 2008 presidential campaign.[65]

A fourth moneybomb took place on Paul's 76th birthday on August 20, 2011. It raised more than $1.8 million despite a cyber-attack against the site that took it down for several hours, after which the donation drive was extended for another twelve hours.[66]

A fifth moneybomb began on September 17, the date of the 224th anniversary of the creation of the United States Constitution. Continuing throughout the following day, it raised more than $1 million.[67] Shortly after the Constitution Day moneybomb, a sixth moneybomb, entitled "End of Quarter Push", began on September 22 in an attempt to generate $1.5 million before the 3rd Quarter fundraising deadline.[68]

In the third quarter of 2011, Paul raised over $8 million.[8] A three-day moneybomb entitled "Black This Out" brought in more than $2.75 million in mid-October.[69][70]

On December 16, a moneybomb titled the "Tea Party MoneyBomb" took place and raised upwards of $4 million over a period of two days.[71]

Paul was also supported by a Super PAC, Endorse Liberty. By January 16, 2012, the PAC had spent $2.83 million promoting Paul's campaign.[72]

In June 2011, online publisher Robin Koerner coined the term "Blue Republican" to refer to U.S. voters who consider themselves to be liberal or progressiveor who generally vote Democraticbut plan to register as Republicans and vote in the U.S. 2012 Republican presidential primaries for Paul. The phrase "Blue Republican" quickly spread after Koerner's article "If You Love Peace, Become a 'Blue Republican' (Just for a Year)" was published in The Huffington Post on June 7. Social media entrepreneur Israel Anderson then promoted the term on Facebook, later teaming with Koerner to expand the movement.[73]

Five days after his original article coining the term, Koerner published a follow-up article on the term's popularity: "'Blue Republicans': an Idea Whose Time Has Come."[74] The article was shared on the social networking site Facebook more than 11,000 times by the time the second article was published.[75]

On June 21, 2011, Paul was the first 2012 Republican presidential candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge.[76] This pledge seeks commitments from politicians for changes of the debt limit, spending decreases, and taxation. The pledge also implores signers to endorse passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

During his previous presidential campaign, it was alleged by many supporters that there was a media blackout and suppression of coverage of Paul.[77] Similar allegations have arisen in the 2012 campaign and received some media coverage.[78]Politico columnist Roger Simon noted on CNN's Reliable Sources that Paul has received considerably less coverage than Michele Bachmann, despite earning a close second to her at the Ames Straw Poll.[79] Simon later opined in Politico that the media was treating Paul unfairly.[80]

Comedian Jon Stewart similarly complained about the lack of coverage, despite Paul polling much better than candidates who received coverage. Stewart presented a montage of mainstream media clips that showed commentators ignoring, and two CNN correspondents admitting to suppressing, coverage of Paul.[81]Will Wilkinson opined in The Economist that "Ron Paul remains as willfully overlooked as an American war crime", arguing that if Paul had won the Ames straw poll, it would have been written off as irrelevant, but since Bachmann had won, it was claimed to boost her campaign.[82] Other commentators noted that Paul has had success at past straw polls but has not turned that into broader success as a reason for the relative lack of media attention.[83]

Paul was asked in a Fox News interview "What are they [the media] afraid of?"[84] He answered "They don't want to discuss my views, because I think they're frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment." Later, he continued on Piers Morgan Tonight: "They don't want my views out therethey're too dangerous ... We want freedom, and we're challenging the status quo. We want to end the war, we want a gold standard, and their view is that people just can't handle all this freedom."[85]

During the November 12 CBS/National Journal Debate, Paul was allocated 90 seconds speaking time. Paul's campaign responded, saying, "Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard. CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites."[86]

Paul Mulshine a columnist with The Star-Ledger noted that the New York Times admitted to suppressing coverage of Paul. He quoted a column by Times editor Arthur Brisbane that said: "Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman."[87][88]

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found in August 2011 that Paul received substantially less coverage than other candidates in the 2012 race.[89][90][91][92] Pew released another study in October 2011 confirming that Paul has been receiving disproportionately low coverage in the media. Paul polled 6.09.8% during the study period, but only received 2% of media coverage, the lowest of all candidates. It also noted that Paul's coverage among blogs was the most favorable of all candidates.[93] In January 2012, The Atlantic cited the weekly Pew study. They noted that despite steadily rising in the polls, Paul has been losing his share of press coverage, going from 34% in late-December 2011 to about 3% in mid-January 2012. They also noted a sharp drop in positive coverage and a small rise in negative.[94]

In June, a group of lawyers and legal experts filed a lawsuit[95][96] in the US District Court against the Republican National Committee and 55 state and territorial Republican party organizations for depriving Paul delegates of voice in the nominating process as required by law, and illegally coercing them to choose Mitt Romney as the party's presidential nominee.[97] Supporters of the effort say there is "evidence that the voting rights of Ron Paul Republican delegates and voters have been violated by nearly every state GOP party and the RNC during the 2012 primary election phase."

The plaintiffs claim that the party violated federal law by forcing delegates to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, before an official nominee is selected. The suit alleged that there had been "a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions," employing rigging of voting machines, ballot stuffing, and falsification of ballot totals. The suit further pointed to incidents at state conventions, including acts of violence and changes in procedural rules, allegedly intended to deny participation of Paul supporters in the party decision-making and to prevent votes from being cast for Paul. An attorney representing the complainants said that Paul campaign advisor Doug Wead had voiced support for the legal action.[97] Paul himself told CNN that although the lawsuit was not a part of his campaign's strategy and that he had not been advising his supporters to sue, he was not going to tell his supporters not to sue, if they had a legitimate argument. "If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules. I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules."[98]

In August 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter, who described most of the plaintiffs' claims as vague and largely unintelligible. The judge said that the one intelligible claim they had lodgedthat the Massachusetts Republican Party had illegally excluded 17 elected state delegates from participating in the national convention because they had refused to commit to a particular nomineefailed because political parties have a right to exclude people from membership and leadership roles. The judge left the plaintiffs "a third and final opportunity" to amend their complaint.[99] The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint just days before the scheduled start of the convention.[100]

Despite ceasing most campaign activities, the Paul campaign did some fundraising in July 2012, in an attempt to fund the transportation expenses of Paul delegates traveling to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.[101] Paul said one of his goals at the convention was to "plant our flag and show that our Liberty movement is the future of the GOP".[101] He also said he was expecting a conflict over "credentials" and the party's platform.[101] As of late August, Paul's pet issue of auditing the Federal Reserve is on the draft version of the Republican Party's national platform.[102] Presumptive candidate Romney is calling for the plank's final inclusion.[103]

Paul finished third in the Iowa Republican caucuses, held on January 3, 2012. While all of the votes have not yet been counted, he is behind leader Rick Santorum (24.56%, 29,839 votes), and second-place Mitt Romney (24.54%, 29,805 votes), with 21.43% of the vote (26,036 votes).[104][105] Paul has been projected to receive 7 delegates out of 28, as many as Mitt Romney and one less than Rick Santorum, making him tied for second place in the delegate count at the time.[106][107]

Paul placed second in the New Hampshire Republican primary, held on January 10, with 22.9% of the vote, behind Mitt Romney with 39.4%. He gained 3 delegates from this contest. In the South Carolina Republican primary on January 21, Paul placed fourth and gained no delegates. Paul also gained no delegates in the Florida Republican primary on January 31, after he did little campaigning in the state because of its "winner-take-all" delegate apportionment.

The Nevada Republican caucuses were held on February 4. Paul finished third behind Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney with 18.73% of the votes and 5 of the delegates, behind the winner Romney's 50.02% and Gingrich's 21.10%.[108] The Colorado and Minnesota Republican caucuses were held on February 7. In Colorado, Paul finished fourth with 11.77% behind Santorum (winner with 40.24%), Romney, and Gingrich. In Minnesota, Paul finished 2nd (27.1%) behind winner Rick Santorum (44.9%), with Romney (16.9%) and Gingrich (10.8%) placing 3rd and 4th.[109] A non-binding vote in the Missouri Republican primary was held on February 7 as well, and Paul got 12.2% of the vote. The primary did not apportion any delegates; that will be done at the Missouri caucuses, scheduled to begin on March 17.[citation needed]

On February 17, with 95% of precincts in the Maine Republican caucuses reporting, Paul was running second to Mitt Romney with 34.9% of the vote to Romney's 39%.[110] Neither of the frontrunners have pressed for a recount, and the Maine Republican Party's chairman has stated that recounts are impossible due to the votes being physically thrown away.[111]

The Michigan and Arizona Republican primaries were held on February 28. Paul came in third place in Michigan, with 11.9%; and fourth in Arizona, with 8.45%.

A large portion of the delegates for the Republican National Convention were awarded in March, which includes the Washington Republican caucuses on March 3, Super Tuesday on March 6, and several other states later in the month. Paul came in second in the Washington caucuses, with 24.81%. On March 10, he picked up one delegate in the U.S Virgin Islands Caucuses while Romney added four delegates to the three super-delegates previously known to support him.[112]

Paul received 1.23% of the vote in the Puerto Rico primary, coming in sixth, his lowest polling of any territory during the campaign.[113][114][115]

On The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Paul said he forewent Secret Service protection because he considered it "a form of welfare" and that he believed he should pay for his own protection.[116]

The Paul campaign pursued a strategy of gathering support from state delegates as opposed to outright winning states.[117] For example, Paul had a strong showing in Romney's home state, Massachusetts, with supporters getting the majority of delegates there (though they are compelled to vote for Romney in the first round), causing a battle between the Paul delegates, the Massachusetts Republican Party, and the Republican National Convention Committee.[118] A similar situation played out in Louisiana, with the Paul campaign initially winning 17 of 30 available delegates before procedural and legal challenges changed the allocation.[119] Paul also managed a delegate win in Nevada, with 88% of delegates supporting him.[120] Paul won 21 of 25 delegates in Iowa.[121]

On May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would no longer actively campaign in states that have not held primaries, but rather focus on a strategy to secure delegates before the convention.[122] Paul remained active in the race through the 2012 Republican National Convention.[123] Leading up to the convention, he won bound-pluralities of the official delegations from the states of Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon (but not the Virgin Islandsdespite winning the popular vote there). During the credentials committee meetings the week prior to the official opening of the convention, the Paul members of the delegations from Louisiana, Maine, and Oregon were disputed (as well as the Paul delegates from Massachusetts), and many of his delegates from those states were unseated. At the same time, Paul delegates from Oklahoma disputed the credentials of the official Oklahoma delegation, but they did not succeed. In the end, he had bound-pluralities from Iowa, Minnesota, and Nevada; however, he additionally had nomination-from-the-floor-pluralities in the states of Oregon and Alaska, plus the territory of the Virgin Islands. Under the 2012 rules, this total of 6 from-the-floor pluralities was sufficient to earn a fifteen-minute speech on national television; the rules were changed at the last minute to require 8 from-the-floor pluralities, and thus he did not speak at the convention.[124] Although he wasn't named the 2012 Republican nominee, he did not officially end his campaign or endorse nominee Mitt Romney for president.[125][126] At the convention, he received second place with 8% of the delegates; Gingrich and Santorum had released their bound delegates to Romney the week before the official opening of the convention. Paul's state-by-state delegates tallies were not verbally acknowledged by the RNC.

Paul would end the campaign with 118 delegates, coming in fourth behind Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney."2012 Republican Delegates".

View original post here:
Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 - Wikipedia

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan recently signed an executive order forbidding Maryland public schools from beginning classes before Labor Day. Governor Hogans executive order benefits businesses in Marylands coastal areas that lose school-aged summer employees and business from Maryland families when schools start in August. However, as Governor Hogans critics have pointed out, some Maryland school districts, as well as Maryland schoolchildren, benefit from an earlier start to the school year.

Governor Hogans executive order is the latest example of how centralized government control of education leaves many students behind. A centrally planned education system can no more meet the unique needs of every child than a centrally planned economic system can meet the unique needs of every worker and consumer.

Centralizing education at the state or, worse, federal level inevitably leads to political conflicts over issues ranging from whether students should be allowed to pray on school grounds, to what should be the curriculum, to what food should be served in the cafeteria, to who should be allowed to use which bathroom.

The centralization and politicization of education is rooted in the idea that education is a right that must be provided by the government, instead of a good that individuals should obtain in the market. Separating school from state would empower parents to find an education system that meets the needs of their children instead of using the political process to force their idea of a good education on all children.

While many politicians praise local and parental control of education, the fact is both major parties embrace federal control of education. The two sides only differ on the details. Liberals who oppose the testing mandates of No Child Left Behind enthusiastically backed President Clintons national testing proposals. They also back the Obama administrations expansion of federal interference in the classroom via Common Core.

Similarly, conservatives who (correctly) not just opposed Clintons initiatives but called for the abolition of the Department of Education enthusiastically supported No Child Left Behind. Even most conservatives who oppose Common Core, federal bathroom and cafeteria mandates, and other federal education policies, support reforming, instead of eliminating, the Department of Education.

Politicians will not voluntarily relinquish control over education to parents. Therefore, parents and other concerned citizens should take a page from the UK and work to Ed-Exit government-controlled education. Parents and other concerned citizens should pressure Congress to finally shut down the Department of Education and return the money to American families. They also must pressure state governments and local school boards to reject federal mandates, even if it means forgoing federal funding.

Parents should also explore education alternatives, such as private, charter, and religious schools, as well as homeschooling. Homeschooling is the ultimate form of Ed-Exit. Homeschooling parents have the freedom to shape every aspect of education from the curriculum to the length of the school day to what their children have for lunch to who can and cannot use the bathroom to fit their child's unique needs.

Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education emphasizing the ideas of liberty should try out my homeschooling curriculum. The curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes courses in personal finance and public speaking. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education.

Parents interested in Ed-Exiting from government-run schools can learn more about my curriculum at ronpaulcurriculum.com.

See more here:
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Education ...