If this is not understood, Dr. Ron Paul loses, he must get into the primaries and win, New Infomation

Very good news

http://www.gambling91...

Raymond

McCain's Desire for the whitehouse seems like a Bloodlust.

Here it appears that McCain is trying to send a message to Dr. Paul, to "drop out" or they'll mail him some Anthrax? I fear it would not be a wise move to harm an innocent, sincerely honest, and just man Like Dr. Paul.

http://blogs.abcnews....

ABC News' Rick Klein and Bret Hovell report: Sen. John McCain said Friday that only "contracting a fatal disease" will cause him to drop out of the presidential race before the primaries begin, as he vowed to take his campaign directly to the voters of New Hampshire and other early-voting states as a means of compensating for his financial difficulties.

[snip]

George Stephanopoulos Shows his Neo-Conn NWO loyalty in his interview with Ron Paul.

Betting against Ron Paul.
http://abcnews.go.com...

Dr. Paul nearly weeps when he realizes GS's revelation, "that's not going to happen" Neo-Con Colors, manifested; and the disappointment became almost more than he could momentarily bear. He then endeavored to persevere within stage 2 of the 3 stages of Truth.

Know now what true sacrifice means.
Freedom is popular. Know thy enemy and know thyself.

Wes
www.ronpaul2008.com
There are those who believe that prophesy is a distant early warning so that we may exercise the freewill to have peace in the world by avoiding preemptive war, while others believe they have no choice and MUST fulfill and make it come to pass.

It is time for a laugh

http://www.youtube.co...

Raymond

This is from Tessa Rose, Larkin Rose's wife. The corrupt court system did a job on them.
Read what Tessa has to say.
Raymond



Tomorrow morning at 7:00, I will cut off my ankle bracelet and go
out for breakfast for the first time in five months. As this
ordeal winds down, I would like to share some thoughts and feelings
with you.

For those who need a short synopsis, our home was raided in May
2003. Larken and I were indicted in February 2005. Larken went
into prison in December 2005, for a year. I went in January 2006
for 28 days, and then spent the next five months imprisoned in my
own home. It has truly been a long and trying journey. There have
been moments of heart-pounding stress, moments of despair, and many
days of loneliness and frustration. There were times when I came
close to thinking that what we did wasn't worth it. But I never
actually came to that point. Always, that pesky little voice
inside me would remind me that I did the right thing, I took a
stand for truth and for justice, and that truth and justice can
never prevail if nobody dares to stand for them. People have been
inspired by my example, just as I am inspired by the examples of
others before me. How would you feel now, the voice has asked me
so many times, if you had chosen the road of comfort?

Now, looking back at the long road behind me, all I feel is pride
that I had it in me to stay the course. While I wouldn't want to
go through it again, I wouldn't sell my soul to avoid it, either.
For a conscious, intelligent person, the experience of being
falsely convicted and imprisoned can be hugely educational, mind-
expanding, and inspiring, to the point of turning a naive idealist
into a seasoned activist who doesn't quake at the thought of a few
months in the pen. I would not give up what I have learned, and
what I have become, for the comfortable future I turned from all
those years ago.

I'm sure you all know that two days ago, Tommy Cryer was acquitted,
adding more cause for celebration to the ending of my home
imprisonment. It makes me feel, most of all, that it really was
all worth it. Nobody will ever win if nobody tries. Some are shot
down and wounded, and some make it through. And I am here to tell
you that even being shot down and wounded is not the end of world.
I have survived it.

I am not eager to see anyone I care about go through what I have
gone through. Be inspired at your own risk.

Tessa Rose

This will help everyone understand just how intelligent Dr Ron Paul is, solving the major problems we are facing today. If you would like the very tough questions answered by Dr Ron Paul, this site is outstanding.

Ron Paul will be on cspan 2, cox channel 98

http://video.google.c...

Raymond

These two people can explain in detail, why the Federal Income Tax is illegal. They are very dedicated to the election of Dr Ron Paul. They are very intelligent and well versed in this issue.

Say hello

--lou & dr. bob
www.wynman.com



The country that we love, the first in the history of the universe to be founded on the concept of individual rights, is being taken back to the pre-Revolutionary dark ages of omnipotent rulers and powerless slaves. We MUST resist. There IS an alternative. We've followed Dr. Ron Paul and watched his record for three decades. He's the only person in our government who CONSISTENTLY votes for the Constitution ... and against EVERY bill that gives government powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (which is most of the bills).

Dr. Ron is risking his life to lead us, as our next President. If you care to help, please click "Join Us" & register at http://www.ronpaul200... & help as many friends as possible to do the same. If they don't yet know about America's only honest politician, be sure they explore that website! We have just a few months to wake enough real Americans to ensure Ron receives the Republican nomination. He's our last chance.

Not everyone thinks like us, we are devoted to Congressman Dr Ron Paul MD. The man sending this email is from the Freedom Lawschool Group. He is answering to Subject: [FreedomLawSchool] George Stephanopoulos Shows his Neo-Conn
>loyalty.... Has McCain Made a veiled threat
Interesting
Raymond

I have seen that, but it's not neo-con loyalty, it's socialist liberal,
Democrat, Hillary Clinton loyalty. GS fears Ron Paul and tries to destroy
anyone not a Democrat. His underhanded, low life methods are typical of the
entire mainstream media. Fox is basically the same but had Tommy Cryer on 3
times I read and Josh Gibson gave him some decent air time, yet you people
on here trash Fox worse than mainstream media . Once in awhile something
decent skips thru Fox, I know they are turning the same but that's because
Clintons threatened all free media years ago with IRS audits, how many of
you know that? Roy Masters, World Net Daily etc were all hit with IRS audits
they barely survived.
I don't like LABELS, and it seems all you 9-11 truthers, some tax honesty
movement people, Ron Paul followers have this I hate Bush/neo-con deranged
syndrome as shown when you accuse Stephanolopus of being pro neo-con.
We wouldn't have an IRS I am 95% sure if Clinton hadn't been elected, we had
the momentum with Armey. How many of you even know who Dick Armey was? He
was only Speaker of the House and was against IRS and was for getting rid of
it. I don't like LABELS, that's all some of the Ron Paul followers do.

>From: "Wes Collins" <cwcpsc@bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: FreedomLawSchool@yahoogroups.com
>To: <FreedomLawSchool@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [FreedomLawSchool] George Stephanopoulos Shows his Neo-Conn
>loyalty.... Has McCain Made a veiled threat
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:45:00 -0400
>
>Robert, you are familiar with the 3 stages of truth, right?
>
>+ + +
>George Stephanopoulos Shows his Neo-Conn loyalty in his interview with Ron
>Paul.
>
>Betting against Ron Paul.
>http://abcnews.go.com...
>
>Dr. Paul nearly weeps when he realizes GS's revelation, "that's not going
>to
>happen" Neo-Con Colors, manifested; and the disappointment became almost
>more than he could momentarily bear. He then endeavored to persevere within
>stage 2 of the 3 stages of Truth.
>
>Know now what true sacrifice means.
>
>
>Wes
>www.ronpaul2008.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert LaFevers" <robertlaf700@hotmail.com>
>To: <FreedomLawSchool@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [FreedomLawSchool] Has McCain Made a veiled threat toward Dr.
>Paul
>
>
> > McCain hates Ron Paul, yes I know that, we all know that. Never mind,
>it's
> > a
> > select group of Ron Paul followers against the world I guess. This kind
>of
> > post makes Ron Paul followers look like kooks.

Rob Widit
Widit Productions 2007
Truther & Musician, Rob Widit releasing his 5th fully independant album "XVII" has been donated and dedicated to Ron Paul and all those who support him.
"I love this country, and the good people in it. I fight those that don't. In support of Ron Paul, and the truth movement XVII is for you RON PAUL, and to you Americans that chose not to live in ignorance."
"XVII"- is now being handed out at Ron Paul Rallies, and meet-ups, and as always is being played on OZCAT in Nor Cal.
Featuring the hit single "RP FUNK"
Bring the truth,
Bring the freedom.
www.restoretherepublic.com

This information is about the election process. In my opinion 95% of the people have no idea how this process works. This is a must read by everyone.

I will send this in three parts

The Indefensible Electoral College

Please send this to everyone on your email list
Congressman Dr Ron Paul MD (I just love this man and what he stands for, get to know him and you will to)

Pssssssssst Do Something

Raymond

Commentary: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong.

By Bradford Plumer

October 8, 2004


TOOLS
E-mail article
Print article

Digg
del.icio.us
Reddit
Yahoo MyWeb

BACKTALK
E-mail the editor


StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Netscape
Google






Three More Iraqi Media Workers Killed Risking Their Lives For Our Headlines

Vitter Watch: If You Guessed Rehab Was Next, You're Probably Right

"We Have Made Remarkable Progress" ? GWB Video Smackdown

Answers for Morning Political Trivia for July 13

Peggy Noonan: Bush is "Extremely Irritating," "Unnatural," and "Weird"

Vitter's New Orleans Prostitute Same One He Was Linked To In 2004

Morning Political Trivia for July 13

Daily Republican Sex Scandal Roundup

Iraq Status: Duck and Cover, Wait and See

Leaked Army Karbala Report Shows Iraqi Police Collaborated in Ambush on US Troops


What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They're not alone; according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore -- thanks to the quirks of the electoral college -- won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral college still has its defenders. What gives?

As George C. Edwards III, a professor of political science at Texas A&M university, reminds us in his new book, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, "The choice of the chief executive must be the people's, and it should rest with none other than them." Fans of the electoral college usually admit that the current system doesn't quite satisfy this principle. Instead, Edwards notes, they change the subject and tick off all the "advantages" of the electoral college. But even the best-laid defenses of the old system fall apart under close scrutiny. The electoral college has to go.

What's wrong with the electoral college

Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off-chance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.

The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the same vein, "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. This year, one Republican elector in West Virginia has already pledged not to vote for Bush; imagine if more did the same. Oh, and what if a state sends two slates of electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so "without establishing a precedent." What if it happened again?

Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.

At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it.

This is part two of three

The best-laid defenses ...

So much for the charges against the electoral college. The arguments in favor of the electoral college are a bit more intricate. Here's a quick list of the favorite defenses -- and the counterarguments that undo them.

The founding fathers wanted it that way!

Advocates of the electoral college often appeal to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers -- after all, they set up the system, presumably they had something just and wise in mind, right? Wrong. History shows that the framers whipped up the electoral college system in a hurry, with little discussion and less debate. Whatever wisdom the Founding Fathers had, they sure didn't use it to design presidential elections. At the time, most of the framers were weary after a summer's worth of bickering, and figured that George Washington would be president no matter what, so it wasn't a pressing issue.

Most of the original arguments in favor of an electoral college system are no longer valid. The electoral college was partially a concession to slaveholders in the South, who wanted electoral clout without letting their slaves actually vote. (Under the electoral college, slaves counted towards a state's electoral vote total.) The framers also thought that ordinary people wouldn't have enough information to elect a president, which is not necessarily a concern today.

It protects state interests!

States don't really have coherent "interests," so it's hard to figure out exactly what this means. (Is there something, for instance, that all New Yorkers want purely by virtue of being New Yorkers?) Under the current system, presidents rarely campaign on local issues anyways -- when George Edwards analyzed campaign speeches from 1996 and 2000, he found only a handful that even mentioned local issues. And that's as it should be. We have plenty of Congressmen and Senators who cater to local concerns. The president should take a broader view of the national interest, not beholden to any one state or locale.

It's consistent with federalism!

All history students recall that the Great Compromise of 1787 created the House, which gives power to big populous states, and the Senate, which favors small states. The compromise was just that, a compromise meant to keep delegates happy and the Constitution Convention in motion. Nevertheless, the idea that small states need protection has somehow become legitimated over the years, and is used to support the electoral college -- which gives small states disproportionate power in electing a president. But what, pray tell, do small states need protection from? It's not as if big states are all ganging up on Wyoming. The fiercest rivalries have always been between regions, like the South and North in the 1800s, or between big states, like California and Texas today. Furthermore, most small states are ignored in presidential campaigns, so it's not clear that the current system is protecting anything.

It protects minorities!

Some college buffs have argued that, since ethnic minorities are concentrated in politically competitive states, the electoral college forces candidates to pay more attention to minorities. This sounds great, but it's wholly untrue. Most African-Americans, for instance, are concentrated in the South, which has rarely been a "swing" region. Hispanic voters, meanwhile, largely reside in California, Texas, and New York, all uncompetitive states. It's true that Cubans in Florida have benefited wonderfully from the electoral college, but they represent an extremely narrow interest group. All other minority voters have less incentive to vote. It's no surprise that the electoral college has often enabled presidential candidates to ignore minorities in various states -- in the 19th century, for instance, voting rights were poorly enforced in non-competitive states.