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

This is part three of three

It makes presidential races more cohesive!

In an August column for Newsweek, George Will argued that the electoral college somehow makes presidential elections more cohesive. Again, fine in principle, untrue in practice. Will first suggests that the system forces candidates to win a broad swathe of states, rather than just focusing on the most populous regions. But even if that happened, how is that worse than candidates focusing on a few random swing states? Or take Will's claim that the electoral college system prevents "factions" from "uniting their votes across state lines." What? Factions already exist -- white male voters vote Republican, African-Americans vote Democrat; evangelicals vote Republican, atheists vote Democrat. If our polarized country is a concern, it has little to do with the electoral college.

It gives legitimacy to the winner!

Finally, Will argues that the electoral college strengthens or legitimizes the winner. For example, Woodrow Wilson won only 41.8 percent of the popular vote, but his 81.9 percent electoral vote victory "produced a strong presidency." This suggests that voters are fools and that the electoral vote total somehow obscures the popular vote total. (If a candidate gets 45 percent of the popular vote, voters aren't going to think he got more than that just because he got 81 percent of the electoral vote total. And even if they do, do we really want a system whose aim is to mislead voters about election results?) Furthermore, there's no real correlation between a strong electoral vote showing and a strong presidency. George H.W. Bush received 426 electoral votes, while Harry Truman received only 303 in 1948 and George W. Bush a mere 271 in 2000. Yet the latter two were undeniably "stronger" presidents in their dealings with Congress. There's also no evidence that an electoral landslide creates a "mandate" for change. The landslides in 1984 and 1972 didn't give Reagan or Nixon a mandate for much of anything -- indeed, those two presidents got relatively little done in their second terms.

Direct elections would be a disaster

Even after all the pro-college arguments have come unraveled, college advocates often insist on digging in their heels and saying that a direct election would be even worse. They're still wrong. Here are the two main arguments leveled against direct elections:

1. The recounts would kill us!

It's true, a nationwide recount would be more nightmarish than, say, tallying up all the hanging chads in Florida. At the same time, we'd be less likely to see recounts in a direct election, since the odds that the popular election would be within a slim enough margin of error is smaller than the odds that a "swing" state like Florida would need a recount. Under a direct election, since it usually takes many more votes to sway a race (as opposed to a mere 500 in Florida), there is less incentive for voter fraud, and less reason for candidates to think a recount will change the election. But set aside these arguments for a second and ask: why do so many people fear the recount? If it's such a bad idea to make sure that every vote is accurately tallied, then why do we even have elections in the first place?

2. Third parties would run amok!

The ultimate argument against the electoral college is that it would encourage the rise of third parties. It might. But remember, third parties already play a role in our current system, and have helped swing the election at least four times in the last century -- in 1912, 1968, 1992 and 2000. Meanwhile, almost every other office in the country is filled by direct election, and third parties play an extremely small role in those races. There are just too many social and legal obstacles blocking the rise of third parties. Because the Democratic and Republican parties tend to be sprawling coalitions rather than tightly-knit homogenous groups, voters have every incentive to work "within the system". Likewise, in a direct election, the two parties would be more likely to rally their partisans and promote voter turnout, which would in turn strengthen the two-party system. And if all else fails, most states have laws limiting third party ballot access anyways. Abolishing the electoral college won't change that.

It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!


Bradford Plumer is an editorial fellow at MotherJones.com

You will want to see this.

http://brasschecktv.c...

This from Wes:

You have a sound choice this presidential election.

Yes each party, wars for the entitlement wand. The two parties radical neo-conn elements, the socialist and the fascist extremists,
serve each others needs. Freedom loving Middle Americans (70% of the voters) are acting with the human dynamic to over come the extremist of the two dominating camps. Middle America is subconsciously Going for the Best message of any of the others; the message of freedom. In Dr. Ron Paul, Americans see the integrity, the humbleness, the honesty, and the intellectual credibility. He walks softly; but dont underestimate for he wields a very big national defense stick if needed. His understanding of the monetary policy, and the urgency in restoring a strong middle class prosperity. You just dont realize how devalued the fiat FRN has become do you?
Paul represents sound fiscal solution, all others are trying to steal his thunder, but the american people are speaking and it is a phenominal thing to watch as it takes place. These are exciting times. Liberty is in Revival! God bless America again!

Get out on the streets and in your communites and let everyone know who the best hope for America is, Ron Paul. Hold Registration drives for the primaries, become a delgate SAY GO GOP!!! RAH RAH RAH but always say your still deciding.

Get on the lcoa Ron Paul Meetups at www.meetup.com Get Active. Iowa Straw Poll August 11th.

LESS TAXES, LESS INFLATION, SOUND MONETARY POLICY, AND LESS GOVERNMENT. A Strong National Defense - Ron Paul.

Wes
www.ronpaul2008.com

Pssssssst Do Something

Trere are over 1.000.000 people who have not filed the illegal Federal Income tax, year after year. Why, because there is no law.

Today the jury find the Defendant, Tommy K. Cryer.........
ON COUNT 1, NOT GUILTY
ON COUNT 2, NOT GUILTY

There is no law, however in the past you will be taking a big risk of going to jail because you have taken your case to the corrupt lower courts, in most cases they will suppress all your testimony buy calling it frivolous.

Tom K. cryer opened a Pandora box, the government is now sick to it's stomach. Don't you just love it?

This will be sent in three parts




TRUTH ATTACK

NEWS FROM THE PRESIDENT?S DESK

EXCLUSIVE TRIAL SUMMARY EDITION

July 13, 2007

We the jury find the Defendant, Tommy K. Cryer.........
ON COUNT 1, NOT GUILTY
ON COUNT 2, NOT GUILTY
By Gary Thomason
gt@truthattack.org

Dear Fellow Truth Troopers,

Early reports have been spreading, circulating around the tax honesty
community that Shreveport, Louisiana lawyer, Tommy K. Cryer has been
found NOT GUILTY of 'willful failure to file' charges by a 12-0 jury
verdict in the Federal District Court for Western Louisiana, in
Shreveport, LA. My friend it's TRUE and what follows is a summary of
the trial leading up to the emotionally inspiring verdict including
exclusive quotes courtesy of Mr. Tommy Cryer.

First, I want to thank each and everyone of you who attended the trial
for your unwavering support and peaceful, respectful nature during
every phase of this historical trial where Mr. Cryer, the truth AND
the rule of law prevailed today, July 11, 2007 in the United States of
America. Truth Attack had approximately 25 Truth Troopers (some from
as far away as 1,200 miles!) attending the three-day proceedings
topping the historical event off with a "victory for the rule of law"
celebration after the unanimous not guilty verdict was read in open
court.

Today, July 11, 2007 Mr. Tommy K. Cryer, a lawyer from Shreveport,
Louisiana was found not guilty by a 12-0 verdict on two separate
counts of violating Title 26 Section 7203, willful failure to file
federal income tax returns for the "tax-years" 2000 and 2001
respectively, which carried a two-year prison sentence had the
government prevailed.

The trial began July 9. 2007 at 8:30 AM at the United States District
Court for Western Louisiana located at 300 Fannin Street in
Shreveport, Louisiana. Judge Maurice Hicks presided over the trial,
Earl Campbell represented the Internal Revenue Service by and through
the U.S. Department of Justice and Mr. Larry Becraft represented Mr.
Tommy K. Cryer as lead defense counsel, with Mr. George Harp assisting.

Day One: July 9, 2007
The first order of business was a government Motion To Dismiss two of
the total four counts of the government's indictment. Originally, the
indictment was brought with two counts of "tax evasion" and two counts
of "willful failure to file" a federal income tax return. Mr. Cryer
was facing 5 + 5 years in federal prison and with the government
dropping its two counts of federal income tax evasion, Mr. Cryer's
exposure to jail time had been reduced to two years.
After the government's Motion to Dismiss was granted, jury selection
took place and the panel of 12 jurors and two alternates were seated
and were listening to opening arguments of the parties by 4:00 PM.
After opening arguments the Court recessed until 9:00AM Tuesday.

Day Two: July 10, 2007
Day Two...... Day Two started with the government presenting its case
in the morning session and Tom taking the stand and offering his
direct testimony until the close of yesterday's proceedings... The
government first brought an IRS supervisor to the stand... her
testimony established the paperwork flow and indicated that Tommy
filed "employer" documentation for his "employee" but did not file his
individual returns.

Next was Tommy's secretary... she did not show up as a hostile witness
towards the prosecution... but in the same breath, she did not give
the government any help when she testified that she fills out all of
her own IRS from required of the employer, and even writes and signs
most of the checks! The DOJ tried to get in a point in that area...
and she said that Tommy gave her the option to file or not-- then he
abruptly stopped her... then on another question... she added that it
was her choice to file even after she found out that there was no law
making he liable-- where of course, he cut her off again.

The CPA took the stand and testified to profit and loss statements
related to Tommy's practice of law... he simply established the
numbers but never stated with authority to the lawful and legal
definition of income... Larry was able to establish that the CPA had
only a very insignificant understanding of the IRC.

The government's final witness was an IRS "special agent" in the
Criminal Investigation Division who testified to the 'audits' of Tom's
business and on Larry's cross-exam made it clear that the 'Code" is
enormous and he only knew small bits and pieces of some of it... The
IRS used Section 61 of the IRC to prop up its claim of liability to
file and pay income taxes... but failed to clarify the first phrase of
Section 61... which state, "Except as otherwise provided..."

After lunch Tom took the stand... There were some fireworks during
Tom's testimony and the judge was clearly aggravated with the rule of
law being presented in 'his' courtroom... and several times stopped
Tom's testimony. One of those times the judge brought up the "Cheek"
ruling where Larry and the judge went around and around on Tom's right
to present his beliefs to the jury. The judge overruled and objection
of the prosecutor on another occasion but also warned Larry about the
"very narrow" path he's taking the case and will not allow Tom to
argue that the IRS is unconstitutional... which of course Tom never
intended to do and has not done in the least.

Day Two ended with the judge calling counsel into the judge's chamber
and unloading... venting his frustration mainly aimed at Larry and Tom
taking over the courtroom and plowing ahead with getting the Internal
Revenue Code... the Code of Federal Regulations the Constitution and a
plethora of Supreme Court cases in front of the jury. At the close of
the preceding day?s hearing... the judge ordered Larry to turn over
Tom's notes and research to the DOJ as the court believed that Tom's
notebook filled with law and supporting Supreme Court cases was
"discovery" and therefore the DOJ was entitled to it, which is a
crucial turning point that must be noted.

Larry agreed with the court and the defense team looked forward to
seeing more of it in the record and presented to the jury during
cross-examination of Tom's beliefs. The U.S. Department of Justice
walked out of "Day Two" with years of Tommy Cryer's research that was
condensed into a very well organized presentation, which proved

Part two of three

Day three promises to be very interesting! The parties will meet prior
to the start to discuss jury instructions before the jury is brought
in and seated. The DOJ opens day three with cross-examination and
Larry's re-direct may well occur before noon and closing arguments
will surely take place before the close of today's proceedings...

Day Three: July 11
Tommy Cryer was seated at the witness stand and the U.S. Attorney
opened his cross examination of Mr. Cryer with a series of questions
establishing the fact pattern aimed at 'proving' that Mr. Cryer had
'income' and earned 'income' in the course of practicing law. Mr.
Cryer had no effort to deny that he earned fees in exchange for his
labor.

The line of questioning turned to finer points of the Internal Revenue
Code related to Sections addressing the 'tax imposed' one 'income'
from whatever source derived. Listening very carefully Mr. Cryer
addressed the spin on commonly used terms and pointed out that certain
terms in the law had application of strict construction as ruled
consistently by the U.S. Supreme Court. An argument of sorts ensued
between the U.S. Attorney and Mr. Cryer on these finer points and
ultimately the judge stopped the exchange and commented that the court
reporter was having difficulty making the record.

Stepping back, the U. S. Attorney turned to Mr. Cryer and engaged a
line of questions that addressed two U.S. Court of Appeals cases and
asked Mr. Cryer if he had any occasion to read the rulings in those
cases. Mr. Cryer explained to the jury that one of the cases the U.S.
Attorney quoted was in the form of a footnote, and the other had
nothing to do with a 'willful failure to file' action to which was the
matter before this court.

The U.S. Attorney read into the record the 'footnote' of the first
case he had asked Mr. Cryer about, and Mr. Cryer leaned forward and
noted for the record and the jury that the full statement the Court of
Appeals issued in its footnote clearly stated that neither party
briefed the issue on appeal and it had no bearing on the opinion of
the Court.

It should be noted that (with Mr. Cryer's trial notes in hand) at this
point the U.S. Government (the IRS and the DOJ) did not make any
effort to contest any of the content of Mr. Cryer's testimonial
notebook, which was organized in such a fashion that anyone with
experience in legal research could follow the line of reasoning that
Mr. Cryer had used in order to arrive at his heartfelt beliefs.

The U.S. Attorney held up Mr. Cryer's 108-page Memorandum and cited
one phrase coined from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that pointed out...
that the income tax (Internal Revenue Code) is
unconstitutional--expecting a "yes" or "no" answer. Mr. Cryer kindly
directed the U.S. Attorney back to the Memorandum and stated that HE
didn't say that the Internal Revenue Code was unconstitutional... but
that the U.S. Supreme Court had held that AS APPLIED the income tax
WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

"No further questions your Honor."

Mr. Becraft approached Mr. Cryer and addressed each of the
government's efforts to derail Mr. Cryer's beliefs. One after one, the
defense closed each open gate espousing the government's contentions
and ended the re-direct with Mr. Cryer confidently stating that he
swore an oath to defend the rule of law and he had no other option
when it came to his beliefs, which are today as they were yesterday
and as they will be tomorrow, "There is NO LAW making me liable for
the federal income tax."

Counsel delivered closing arguments with the government addressing the
jury first and reserving time for rebuttal. The U.S. Attorney
stressed his argument that there is a law and the law made Mr. Cryer
Liable for the federal income tax system. Asking the jury to rule our
willfulness and in due turn, convict Mr. Cryer of breaking the law and
seeing to it that Mr. Cryer is found guilty of failing to do his duty
of filing federal income taxes.

Part three of three

Mr. Becraft started his closing arguments by informing the jury that
?today in this court room?? there are, in a sense, four branches of
the United States Government. Mr. Becraft pointed to the federal law
books and said that those books were written and the laws forged by
the legislative branch of our government, Congress. He continued by
giving generous praise to the U.S. Attorney for doing a fine job
representing the Executive branch of the federal government in the
courtroom. Mr. Becraft gestured to the judge and remarked that the
judicial branch of the government presided over this proceeding making
certain that justice and the rule of law remained intact according to
our Constitution.

Then, Mr. Becraft turned to the jury and said the fourth branch is the
jury? the American people that our founding fathers believed to be the
ultimate deciding factor as to whether justice is done.

Mr. Becraft?s eloquent summation of the jury?s duty to weigh the facts
in this case were so very vital to this ensuring that our system of
justice moved forward intact and secure. Mr. Becraft reviewed the
flow of testimony reminding the jury that nowhere during this trial
did Mr. Cryer deny or object the government as to advancing its
intention to show that he had earnings.

He went on to say that the issue in this case is Mr. Cryer?s beliefs
and the fact pattern that Mr. Cryer used as he presented his beliefs
were so convincingly delivered that even if they did not fully
understand the legal interpretations testified to, Mr. Cryer
undoubtedly believed those conclusions.

The Judge Hicks recessed for a break and upon return read the jury
instructions and the jury retired to the jury room. After a little
more than two hours of deliberation the judge called the parties into
the courtroom. There was a question as to jury instruction 17, which
centered on reasonable doubt and to willfulness. The court reviewed
the various jury instructions referencing those terms and after about
30 minutes of discussions and the approval of the parties, the court
delivered a clarification to the jury.

By this time it was 4:30PM and the judge asked the jury if they wanted
to recess for the day or continue? The reply was they wished to stay a
little longer to deliberate. The judge informed the parties and the
courtroom was cleared. Together, Mr. Cryer?s legal team and
supporters returned to the first floor waiting area of the courthouse.

At 4:33PM the U.S. Marshal summonsed Mr. Becraft and company and
announced that the jury had reached a verdict. Approximately at
4:35PM the jury returned to the courtroom and the customary tradition
of the passing of the verdict to the judge for entry into the record
and reading of it in open court took place.

Unanimously, NOT GUILTY.

Please stay tuned to www.truthattack.org for exclusive audio, video
and written interviews with Mr. Cryer and his legal defense team.
For questions please contact gt@truthattack.org

Mark your calendar! ! ! Larry Becraft has a radio show on Republic
Broadcasting on Saturday mornings from 9 to 10 AM, (central time).
Tommy Cryer's radio show is the same day, but at 2 to 4 PM, (central
time). Please make note! Tommy will be appearing on Larry?s show THIS
Saturday, July 14, 2007 and Larry will join Tommy at 2 to 4PM taking
your questions and discussing the historical win in Shreveport?so tune
in if you want to find out more.

Find it here? http://www.republicbr...

Gary Thomason

PS? Please share this message with your friends and encourage them to
get involved ! ! !

Slay the BEAST with a MOUSE - www.truthattack.org

This article has been the source of much confusion and problems. The article confuses the electoral college and Republican presidential nominating convention. Worse, it advocates fraud and deception in a way that Dr. Paul would not support nor could presidential convention delegates be chosen under those ways (the candidates file their slate of delegate candidates with the respective state Secretaries of State and are usually legally bound to them at the convention) and is linked from a site with faulty information.

This is the strategy or it is over.

Become a Delegate or Ron Paul will Not be President

Before Ron Paul can get elected, he has to be nominated by delegates at the
Republican National Convention which will take place in St. Paul, Minnesota.
September 1-4, 2008.

We have to get elected as delegates to the convention. Electoral
college delegates have to be constitutionalists because they elect the
president by casting their vote.

Those who support Ron Paul must begin the process now of getting
elected as a delegate to the convention or it's all over and the GOP
faithful will get the shadow government's choice shoved down their throats -
again. The power players behind the scenes will orchestrate the show and the
people will be the losers - again. The same applies with getting nominated
as an electoral college delegate because America got a good lesson in civics
during the 2000 pretend election regarding the popular vote vs the electoral
college system.

A word to the wise: if you present yourself as a supporter of Ron
Paul, you will never get elected as a delegate. Wave the flag, shout power
to the GOP, rah, rah, rah, get elected and then begin your campaign to get
Ron Paul nominated. Now, some might say this type of stealth isn't right.
Here's what's not right: back room deals and big money giving the American
people no choice in these elections and anyone who thinks this isn't how the
process has been working for the past century is in a state of denial.

Get together with your friends or people you know and plan your
strategy now and work to get elected as a delegate. Time is quickly slipping
by, every minute counts.

SOURCE: Devvy Kidd, NewsWithViews.com

Please, before posting such nonsense, at least make some effort to understand the positions of the campaign we support.

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule

by Dr. Ron Paul

Today?s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the Electoral College, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be ?undemocratic? to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it?s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don?t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states? rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states ? derided as ?flyover? country ? tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states? rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

November 2, 2004

http://www.lewrockwel...

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

Hello Brad:

Thank you for posting the information.

I am aware of, The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule by Dr. Ron Paul, you posted congressman Dr Ron Paul MD article before I did.

I posted, The Indefensible Electoral College Just to show what is out there on a subject the average person knows nothing about. Dr Ron Paul's article was next.

Raymond

FYI: The monied global "elite" has been actively working to stop the free flow of information and ideas on the Internet from the first moment they realized the Internet was the first medium that was truly interactive, in which a single individual's voice could reach millions of people all over the globe almost instantaneously. They know that if the free flow of information and ideas is allowed to continue on the Internet that all the lies and deception they have carefully crafted and nurtured for centuries to keep the "working" people (their "human resources") all over the world subjugated and under their control will be exposed and swept away.

Please act on the information in the e-mail below or they will be very close to achieving that goal in America. -- Rick

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Don't Let THEM Shut Down The Internet - Act Now!!


From: Save The Internet.com www.savetheinternet.com

We have only three days left to defend a free and open Internet with the FCC...

Save the Internet : Press http://www.savetheint...

The Agency needs to hear from you about Net Neutrality -- the principle that stops AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from controlling where you can go online.

Thousands of people have already told their stories (see below) urging the FCC to protect Net Neutrality. Now it's your turn:

Tell the FCC to Save the Internet <http://action.freepre...

You need to act now before the FCC closes its comment window. If we flood them with comments in support of Net Neutrality, the FCC will be pressed to stand up to the giant phone and cable companies that seek to undermine free choice on the Web.

At SavetheInternet.com <http://action.freepre... ,

you can read stories from others, view photographs, and join the fight to make the Internet affordable, open and accessible to everyone. You can even create your own personal comment page to share with others. Go there now to see our new video:

Watch Our New Video and Save the Internet <http://action.freepre...

This may be the best chance we have this year to demonstrate to Washington that protecting the free and open Internet is an issue that matters to millions of Americans. The FCC needs to know why Net Neutrality is important to you. Tell them how an open Internet impacts your daily life, your business and your ability to connect with others.

To save the Internet, we need to flood the FCC with stories from people around the country. You could ask five friends to send their stories to the FCC:

Tell Your Friends to Take Action
<http://action.freepre...

With your help, we can send a message to the FCC that they cannot ignore.

Onward,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
www.savetheinternet.com

P.S. Here's what others are saying:

"The greatest hope that this country has is the reconnection of American voices with our political system. The Internet is the first medium that is truly interactive, in which one person's voice can reach millions. This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it." Read Jennifer's full story. <http://action.freepre...

"In rural America, the Internet is very important in staying informed. We read several national newspapers every day to get the news our local paper does not thoroughly cover." Read Charles & Carol's full story. <http://action.freepre...

"Currently the media is not diverse at all, and the only option I have found to escape from it has been the Internet. ... If the Internet is controlled by powerful people with money, will it ever be what it has been? Will we be able to enjoy diversity?"

Read Norie's full story. <http://action.freepre...

To read thousands of other stories visit: www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory/galler y
and <http://action.freepre...