- Subliminal Messaging, or Over-Active Imaginations?
- VEEPBEAT: Contenders Off Radar as Obama Travels
- Team Clinton Gearing Up for 2012?
- Rice to Meet with North Korea Next Week
- The Note: Obama Poised for High-Profile Trip
- McCain Touts Surge Success Before Obama's Overseas Trip
- Hearing-Gate Exposed! McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama
- Bill Clinton Says He's Ready to Campaign for Obama
- Obama Blasts Conservative Attacks Against Wife: 'Debate Me Not Her'
- Biden hits back - More on Obama's Committee
- Obama Hits the Gym, With Multiple Repetitions
- Gore To Issue Clean Energy Challenge
- The Note: Foreign Trip Taking Shape for Obama
- Obama Raises $52 Million in June
- Religious Group Demands McCain Staffer's Ouster
« Eight-Year Old Edwards Wanted to Be 'Superman' | Main | RNC Chair Predicts Long Nomination Fight »
Ron Paul to Appear on 'The View'
December 03, 2007 5:56 PM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: It was a big moment for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex, and his presidential candidacy when he appeared in late October on the Tonight Show, sandwiched between Tom Cruise and the Sex Pistols.
But Paul will take his libertarian-tinged Republican ethos in another direction Tuesday, when he marches straight into the henhouse.
He'll appear opposite Whoopi, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar and Kate Walsh of Gray's Anatomy and Private Practice fame, who co hosting in the absence of Elizabeth Hasselbeck on ABC's woman-oriented chat show 'The View' Tuesday.
Its unlikely that the Texas OB-Gyn has ever himself seen The View. He doesn't watch much TV and says he has never watched a reality TV show. Paul is more knowledgeable about the Austrian School of Economics and why the United Sates Treasury should not be printing money, odd topics about which to crow on The View.
The other guest on Tuesday's episode of The View will be Abigail Breslin, the child star.
Paul is not the first Presidential candidate to appear on the show, but he will apparently be the first Republican.
In October, Sen. Hillary Clinton kicked off a week-long "Women Changing America Tour" with an appearance on the show.
Democrat and former North Carolina Senator Edwards and his wife Elizabeth cancelled their appearance on the show in solidarity with striking Writers Guild of America union members who work for the show.
Michelle Obama, the wife of Illinois Senator and Democrat Barack Obama, backed out on a temporary co-hosting gig for the same reason.
But the strike, which is entering its second month, will not affect Republican Paul, whose campaign has struggled to attract more coverage from mainstream media outlets.
Paul has raised large amounts of money in recent months -- $10.5 million since October -- and has shown some movement in polls in early primary states. But his national poll numbers remain low.
"Its an audience that we need to reach," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton of Paul's foray into daytime TV.
"The political junkies and the people in the early four primary states know how strong Dr. Paul is running, but we need to reach the demographic that is watching the view. Affluent, middle aged women. Those are people we need to introduce to Dr. Paul," he said.
Asked about Paul's appearance on the show, ABC Daytime spokesman Karl Nilsson said the show has had on many politicians, but would not otherwise discuss the bookings.
December 3, 2007 in Paul, Ron, Vote 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (42)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/23909246
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul to Appear on 'The View':
Can't wait to see you Ron Paul. You are the future of our country.
Posted by: Terry | Dec 3, 2007 5:58:30 PM
Ron Paul sounds alot like Beatlemania. Once you hear the unique sound The Beatles have, everything else just pales in comparison. It's time for "Something New" "Ron Paul" everyone else sounds like a broken record compared to Ron Paul's fresh views. Let's give him a chance.. who knows once you hear what he has to say, you might be singing YEAH YEAH YEAH with the rest of us zanies :).
Posted by: Ronda | Dec 3, 2007 7:38:40 PM
I'm just another self-employed, tax-paying, Ron Paul "zanie", with one son in Korea.. another just back from Afghanistan and a third son who served in Gulf Qar One. They're all Ron Paul zanies as well. Doesn't that just yank your crank... that folks like us are in Congressman Paul's camp?
Posted by: Dutch | Dec 3, 2007 7:42:10 PM
Correction: Ron Paul wants the Treasury to print money INSTEAD OF the Federal Reserve. He wishes to abolish both the FED and the IRS and save money by having the U.S. Treasury print our money and circulate it without the cost and interest that the FED charges Americans. He also wants Americans to use the money that they would pay every year to the IRS to inject directly into the economy through their use as a part of his aim to turn our economy back to a 'sound money' system!
I think that the View and the viewing audience is a great group of people for Ron Paul to get his message to.
Also of note is that there are huge numbers of supporters for Ron Paul -- the polls are calling pretty much just those who voted in the 2004 Republican primary. And only those with land lines. And if someone says they are supporting Ron Paul, the poll then branches off to ask them twenty some questions about how to cook rice and then on to many questions about the individuals sexual preferences---they dump from the stats anyone who does not make it to the end of the poll---have never come across polls like this!
Posted by: Bill Hicks | Dec 3, 2007 7:47:31 PM
Henhouse? Sexist much?
Posted by: Grace Foster | Dec 3, 2007 8:19:34 PM
Ronda,
God bless you and your sons! And yes, Ron Paul yanks my crank too!!!!
Posted by: steve | Dec 3, 2007 8:21:23 PM
Dutch,
I am so glad that you and your family are Ron Paul supporters. God Bless you and your family members overseas, we pray for you all everyday.
Hope you will be able to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries with absentee ballots, is that how it works?
Posted by: Terry | Dec 3, 2007 8:34:10 PM
Everywhere you go all you see is Ron Paul signs and his supporters and he seems to be out-raising every other candidate in this quarter....yet according to the mainstream media ...he doesn't exist???
Posted by: arthall33 | Dec 3, 2007 8:51:58 PM
I think he's too old and not quite up to par in foreign policies. We don't live in 1776 anymore. We are not fighting countries, we are fighting a religion. Never done before in our history, and Ron Paul has got it wrong. I like his social stands, but that's about it.
Posted by: cbeargal | Dec 3, 2007 9:32:25 PM
Cbeargal,
Fighting a religion? Are you serious? Attacking Iraq based on lies and killing thousands of civilians? Building permanent military bases while saying they are not there to occupy the country? Humiliating people in their prisons (Abu Ghraib)? You call that fighting a religion? Ridiculous.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 3, 2007 10:15:21 PM
First, Dutch, thank your kids for me in admiration of their service. I have a father-in-law coming back from his service in the Army just outside Baghdad in the next week, myself, and it couldn't be a moment too soon.
Posted by: Gary | Dec 3, 2007 10:33:29 PM
The one thing I like about Ron Paul is his support for the FAIR TAX ACT of 2007. While his penchant for strict adherence to the constitution is admirable, this is not 1787 and the world obviously has become much more complicated. The authors of the constitution were aware that changes would be needed and necessary in the changing world so therefore provided the means to accomplish this need by amendment, judicial review and congressional legislation. Mr. Paul's voting record reflects an inability to recognize these needed changes. The one candidate who would be a better choice is Barack Obama, who not only studied constitutional law, but also taught the subject for 10 years and understands the changes that have been necessary to support our infrastructure.
Posted by: GC | Dec 3, 2007 11:13:44 PM
Sorry Anthony, but you are wrong on where Ron Paul stands with regard to issues of gays, religion, and education.
With regard to gay issues, Ron Paul has explained that the Constitution protects the liberty and privacy of all individuals, whether the person is gay, straight,female, black, white, brown and so on.
On issues relating to education, Ron Paul does not believe that the federal government should dictate to the states on how to educate their children. The department of education on the federal level has only been around since the Reagan administration. Before that each state had control over matters of educational policy and children were much more capable of learning how to read and write. In the last 30 plus years education has been at a downward spiral since federal involvement.
With regard to religion Dr. Paul believes in separation of church and state.
Posted by: Maria | Dec 3, 2007 11:24:47 PM
We were suppose to fightening 19 thugs, most were Saudis, none from IRAQ. Bush allowed the 911 leader's relatives to fly out of the US when all the other airplanes were grounded. Bush's goal has always been to go after the IRAQ oil. Bush is violates our consitution, spys on us, voided haebas corpus and illegally invaded IRAQ. All the republicans are following his footesteps, execept Ron Paul who again, was right about IRAN.
Posted by: Greg | Dec 4, 2007 12:18:54 AM
By the way, I was attracted to Ron Paul for his fiscal responsibility:
The Federal Reserve prints money and LOANS it to the United States at INTEREST.
The Federal Reserve isn't a government agency; it isn't federal at all and there are NO Reserves...it's a PRIVATE bank! In fact, the Fed is the only private central bank in the WORLD! And the INTEREST we pay down on the national debt equals what the IRS collects.
That's how we get rid of the IRS. Get rid of the INTEREST we pay to the Fed and presto; get rid of the IRS! It's that simple!!!
Posted by: Tor | Dec 4, 2007 12:28:03 AM
I too am a Ron Paul supporter he is the first one in a long time to share every single one of my views. I am getting everybody I know to vote for this man so far just about everyone I know is going to vote for him as well. I am telling everyone about him even at work , i'm a hairdresser so it's a great avenue for me to explain to people why it's in all of our best interests to vote for this great man.
Posted by: fedupwiththecurrentsystem | Dec 4, 2007 2:20:55 AM
I can't wait to see this on YouTube :) I can't wait for the media to eat their shorts and be forced to report seriously about the Ron Paul Revolution! GOO RON PAUL!
Posted by: Jeff DeRonde | Dec 4, 2007 5:24:37 AM
Your right tumbleweedin....I am voting for the first time in my life...I am 57..Finally a candidate worth voting for...RON PAUL 08
Posted by: arthall33 | Dec 4, 2007 8:22:12 AM
There are really only two choices for president this election cycle- those who cater to the big government/big brother mafia, and Ron Paul. He's the only one who has maintained his integrity during decades of public service. Anyone who can swim with the sharks in Washington for 30 years and not get eaten is OK in my book. That he also happens to extoll common sense solutions to the biggest problems facing our nation is bonus. We've had more than enough slick, self-serving liars (and lawyers) in the White House for one generation-- vote Ron Paul.
Posted by: h5mind | Dec 4, 2007 9:42:31 AM
I'm a big Ron Paul fan too, but those of you claiming that the Fed prints money may have gotten a bit confused. It is, in fact, the Treasury (through their Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint) that prints money. Though it is true that the Fed influences how much money is actually in circulation. The primary problem with the Fed is that it expands and contracts credit and the money supply according to its arcane technocratic formulas designed to smooth imaginary economic cycles. All they end up doing is distorting the market and causing a misallocation of investment, which of course leaves society as a whole worse off. Problems like the Great Depression were actually the RESULT of this government involvement in money and credit. We're always better off when the free market is allowed to do it's thing, which Ron Paul understands better than anyone else in the two state-sponsored parties (Dems and GOP).
Posted by: Darren | Dec 4, 2007 10:16:37 AM
He is going to win.
Mark my written words...the die is cast.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN WAITING FOR HIM, HE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR US.
Posted by: dean | Dec 4, 2007 11:14:38 AM
As a business owner and father I support Ron Paul. So does my dad who was a Marine-by-Choice in Korea and has three purple hearts. 30 years ago my dad predicted correctly exactly what has happened in this country. Dr. Paul sees it too. American's need to wake up and stop voting for the same media-anointed people that keep digging us deeper into a hole on all fronts. Dr. Paul will make a great president and restore the US as a respected world leader.
Posted by: Lfredette | Dec 4, 2007 11:45:35 AM
Ron Paul was right on Iraq and now right on Iran. Ahmadinejad wants the US to attack Iran because it will rally nationalist support behind him and be a benefit to radical islam. GWB is playing into this rhetoric and putting good people (like Dutch's kids(Thank you!) at risk. Bin Laden and his crew have set-up shop in Pakistan, but their recruiting base is world wide, thanks to the internet. They will use any aggression toward the Middle East or occupation as propoganda to recruit radicals to their cause and train them to be suicide bombers, which they can do over the net (ie Subway Bombers in London). You cannot wage a traditional war against an enemy without a front. Intelligence experts (CIA) have suggested that de-escalating our invovlement in these countries will reduce the ability of Al Qaeda to spread their message of hate and intolerance, thereby reducing the number of suicide bombers. This theory worked in Israel and is the only way to approach peace. The only other alternative and likely the Bush doctrine is to continue escalation, force a conflict and eradicate an entire race of people to kill a few radicals. This alternative will only divide the muslim world and create more enemies. Ron Paul doesn't watch much TV, because he is too busy reading books, studying history and economics. He is the most intelligent candidate running and America needs a President who weighs his decisions carefully, before acting for the good OF THE PEOPLE. GO RON PAUL!
Posted by: Uniblogger | Dec 4, 2007 11:57:32 AM
Oh Dear God, NO! Now I have to watch The View!? Ok, just for you Dr. Paul! :)
Since the media marginalizes you and you rarely get face time, I will suffer through the view and the disgusting Woopi Goldberg just to watch you! Ron Paul gets it. Wake up America and take back your country. Or you could waste your vote on thieves and liars like Guilani or Hillary.
Posted by: Joey | Dec 4, 2007 12:09:46 PM
The only problem is he does not understand islam and how it is entrenched in their teaching to hate us...it is not because we invaded iraq and afghanistan...it is because we are infidels...his approach will weaken us and only increase the jihadist threat against us...especially with iran pursuing the bomb...but I do agree with his domestic policy
Posted by: matt | Dec 4, 2007 1:48:16 PM
Matt,
If it's about us being 'infidels,' why are they bombing the infidel countries of Switzerland, Norway, China, and others? I'll give you a hint: it has a little something to do with the fact that those countries have not spent the past 50 years invading, stationing troops in, and otherwise meddling with the affairs of Middle Eastern countries!
Posted by: Darren | Dec 4, 2007 2:52:37 PM
Darren,
I wish it was as easy as you say it could be just by pulling our troops back home. But if we leave iraq it will only embolden the terrorists because of the perceived victory. remember that there has been more than 10,000 terrorist attacks all over the world since 9/11/01....all in the name of Islam. Norways police have even stopped attempted terrorist attacks and China has as well. I agree President bush is doing alot wrong in this war...but going into iraq and afghanistan will help us in the future, it is just hard to see it right now...Here are some quotes from the quran and hadith:The Qur'an:
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the overall context of these verses is defensive war, however, there are two worrisome pieces to this passage. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."
Sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of killing Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Remember that thomas jefferson was even fighting the barbary pirates hundreds of years ago before any invasion of that area at all.
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2007 3:22:05 PM
Matt,
First, there's no way I'm going to read through all that you just posted. Second, our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is the best possible recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. There's absolutely no way it's beneficial to us now or in the future--under any conceivable set of circumstances. Third, the terrorist leaders have said over and over again that the reason they are targeting us and our allies is because of our decades of meddling in their countries' affairs. We know this is the case, the CIA and DOD know this is the case, the rest of the world knows this is the case. Quoting their religious nonsense has no bearing on anything. I could quote violent nonsense from Christian and Jewish holy books all day long, but you don't claim what our country does is because of religion, do you?
Posted by: Darren | Dec 4, 2007 3:38:38 PM
The terrorist leaders keep saying that in between lines where they are quoting the quran...we had to go into afghanistan to disrupt al qaeda...we cannot let them keep doing what they do...You need to pick up a quran and educate yourself on islam too see where their mind is. If ron paul gets voted into presidency and pulls us out of the middle east it will embolden the terrorists even more and be even more of a recruiting tool because it shows how weak we are. They are implementing sharia in europe right now as we speak....especially in places like Amsterdam and London. being a superpower gives you responsibilities to protect your interests.....that is exactly what we are doing and Iraq is now a better place for it and will help us in the future....good will come of this.
Also, the violent verses in christianity were set in a time and place and not meant to be followed after that. The quran is the holy immutable word of god and is to be followed exactly as it is said...how many terrorist attacks have been committed in the name of christianity in the past 100 years? Maybe ten? and the people that did it were definitely not christian. meanwhile over 10,000 have been committed in the name of allah in just the past 7 years...
Posted by: matt | Dec 4, 2007 3:45:32 PM
It sure is a good thing Ron Paul doesnt have a chance in winning...less than 1% of republicans surveyed in the gallup and rasmussen polls have said they would consider voting for him...that shows alot
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2007 3:49:10 PM
Darren,
Agreed - this nonsense about 'fighting a religion' is just that.. nonsense. What most americans fail to do is to put themselves in the place of the persons who attack us. What exactly motivates someone to KILL themselves just to kill their enemy? suicide terrorism has been a factor for a very long time - because of oppression and desperation.
If someone came and took my land, confiscated my house, and put me in a slum surrounded by walls and barbed wire - patrolled my neighborhood with tanks I would be more than a little ticked, and might just take an RPG to one of those tanks like Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn. Wake up, thats what is happening to the Palestinians. The USA helps to fund it. We have had a presence in the middle east for over a decade - therefore muslims see us as the enemy. Unfortunately, if you speak out against funding Israel, you are automatically labeled as an anti-semite. If you speak out against the war, you are labeled as unpatriotic. Hogwash!
Does anyone really think that building a military base/embassy in Iraq is going to make the Muslim world love us? Is that REALLY going to suddenly lessen the chances of a terrorist attack upon American soil? Heck no. That is what is motivating them to fight us!
Everyone else is calling Ron Paul crazy, when he is the only one talking about a sane foreign policy!
Posted by: Jason | Dec 4, 2007 4:10:28 PM
Oh and as for the barbary pirates - they were extorting money from the USA for the safe passage of our vessels since the time that Jefferson was an ambassador. Finally when he became president, he denied to give them money because our Navy had become fortified and we no longer needed to pay for "protection". Congress did not issue a declaration of war, however, they did authorize that armed vessels defend themselves and seize all vessels from barbary if encountered.
Posted by: Jason | Dec 4, 2007 4:24:08 PM
Ok Jason, History lesson time...Are you aware that the disputed territories never belonged to the "palestinians" and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which egypt, jordan, syria and lebanon all massed forces at israels border in order to "push the jews into the sea". The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the muslims do not want to lose territory to Israel then they shouldnt start wars? Do agree agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peave with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity-making the desert bloom...while the residents of 19 adjacent arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2007 4:47:16 PM
Did you know that the "Palestinians" could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan w hich gave Israel AND the Palestinians countries of their own on land which the Jews had lived on for thousands of years before mohammed ever had a dream about virgins? The arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli Nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2007 4:50:02 PM
Can you tell us any arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have any of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldnt you just love to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2007 4:51:58 PM
Have you heard "People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are dommed to failure and misery"? Can you see the Parallels to the Arabs, who are blesed with land and oil but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill jews? have you heard Golda Meirs words to the effect of "There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours?" Who do the Arabs hate so much?
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2007 4:58:23 PM
I am a Ron Paul supporter big time. For the person that stated we are not living in 1776, that is true but if you follow our Federal Constitution it works today as well as it did back then with a few amendments as necessary. As far as Dr. No being too old that is preposterous. With age comes wisdom. He will be the oldest President ever elected. We should not be responsible for policing the world. Do any of you stick your nose in other families business and let your own family go down the drain. That is what is happening and I am sick and tired of it. All the so-called top candidates belong to the CFR which is an organization to do away with our sovereignty, disarm us, plant chips under our skin to keep track of our every move, take us down the road to the New World Order. We should not allow ourselves to be taken by consent. We need Ron Paul more than we have ever needed someone to straighten out this up-coming collapse. I'm just afraid that by Executive Order Martial Law is about to take place and there will not be a 2008 election so we must give until it hurts because we finally have a man with testicles. And he is fearless. God Bless Ron Paul. And vote for this man and support him with all your might. This is our last chance.
Posted by: Carmel Bailey | Dec 4, 2007 6:32:45 PM
Amazed to see such strong support for Dr. Ron Paul. He's almost too good to be true! He's gaining wider and wider support thanks to his internet popularity and massive fund raising.The problem has always been a worthwhile candidate couldn't garner financial support to advertise effectively, but not so with Ron Paul. If the people are exposed to his wonderful message enough, maybe even the average stupid american won't vote for another dictator like President Bush AGAIN!!!!!
Posted by: woody | Dec 5, 2007 3:26:14 AM
"It sure is a good thing Ron Paul doesnt have a chance in winning...less than 1% of republicans surveyed in the gallup and rasmussen polls have said they would consider voting for him...that shows alot"
Um, that is NOT what the poll says. It says that 1% of Republicans surveyed are planning to vote for him. Big difference. In addition the numbers you cite is wrong (ALL national polls currently show him at 2-4% of the Republican vote with NH and Iowa showing him closer to 10%). Finally, the actual number that said that they would not vote for him in the Republican primary is 61% but with 8 candidates running, he can win every state with the 39% that would consider him (and that 61% will come around to vote for him over Hillary).
Posted by: Carolyn Wu | Dec 5, 2007 4:19:55 PM
Ron Paul opposes separation of church and state. He writes in "War on Religion" in 2003, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
Thomas Jefferson, in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, regarding the 1st amendment wrote, "........BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE."
Ron Paul is not a libertarian when it comes to religion.
Posted by: perk23 | Dec 15, 2007 11:36:50 AM
Robert Muller of the FBI said that the list of the accused 19 supposed hijackers is wrong; it has now been proven that at least 9 of the 19 are alive and well and were never in the United States during September, 2001. The people of Islam are routinely blamed for this horrible crime, without proof. Within 24 hours bin Laden denied any involvement in this crime, even saying he had no foreknowledge. Swiss investigators have proven that the infamous video released by the Pentagon, where a supposed bin Laden brags about destroying the World Trade Center, is a fake; look for yourself. Look carefully. It is obvious. Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstaag, Remember the Maine, Pearl Harbor: History does tell the future. Regardless, what ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?' Regarding the history of Islam its role in the advancement of civilization is obvious. Robert Briffault in the Making of Humanity states that if it were not for the Islamic effort "there would be no modern sciences." Regarding the oft-repeated war mongering of the people of Islam, this forcing people to submit 'before the sword,' yes, this is the impression given in the media. However, do people have any other source besides this? What about the historian, author, and British Secret Service Agent, Byng, who said in the Story of the Arabs that the whole claim for the intolerance of Islam and also this idea of this faith 'spreading by the sword' "couldn't be further from the truth."
Regarding Dr. Paul he is an honest man. His wife is also very straight-forward. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change in a sea of lies? He obviously cares about the American people and hates to see further needless bloodshed? A good characteristic? People, give it thought. There is something special about this man.
People, before making posts do consider history, for the sake of the human race and for the sake of peace. Base your posts not on isolated quotes from scripture but rather than actual facts proven by documentation rather than impressions on television or newspaper stories.
Another issue: most people learn about the Middle East from newspapers, magazines, and the television. Do you know who owns these devices? It is people who consider Islam their enemy.
No one in the U.S. media reported on the attempt to blow to shreds the George Washington Bridge, September 12, 2001, at about 2:30 a.m. They caught the perpetrators. They were foreign nationals in the country illegally. Look it up for yourself. It was not reported because rather than Arabic people of Islamic people they were Israeli nationals.
May the real perpetrators of the horrible crimes of September 11th be found; people are still dying from this horror.
Posted by: khaleel | Dec 30, 2007 10:18:58 AM
ron paul's wisdom and depth of knowledge in the international dynamics of the recent hostility and aggression we have been subject to is insightful and needs to be looked at in a bi-partisan fashion..for the greater good!
Posted by: jan | Jan 6, 2008 7:42:38 PM
Post a comment



