Posted on 06/07/2007 7:08:11 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man? Thursday, June 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.
The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).
FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336
Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.
“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”
And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”
At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.
To be sure such amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html
Sam Brownback cash-on-hand: $806,626
Jim Gilmore cash-on-hand: $90,107
Rudy Giuliani cash-on-hand: $11,949,735
Mike Huckabee cash-on-hand: $373,918
Duncan Hunter cash-on-hand: $272,552
John McCain cash-on-hand: $5,180,799
Ron Paul cash-on-hand: $524,919
Mitt Romney cash-on-hand: $11,863,653
Tom Tancredo cash-on-hand: $575,078
Tommy Thompson cash-on-hand: $139,723
Source: CNN
Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
“Bin Laden would be proud of your allegiance to a self-serving traitor like Ron Paul.”
And THAT is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
We had the only manufacturing sector in the world that hadn't been destroyed by the war. We had a worldwide monopoly. And that's how the American Middle Class as we know it was created -- by the union movement.
Thanks to that monopoly and the unions, a man could drop out of high school, go down to the union hall and get his card, sign up for work at the local assembly plant, marry, have 2.3 kids, buy a car, a house and a vacation home -- and retire after 50 years to a nice fat pension. But that priced American goods out of the world market once other industrial bases came back on line. Once the Third World came on line, the cost of American labor forced companies to move offshore. It was not overt taxation that drove them away, or even environmental regulations, but the indirect taxation of high labor costs due to the Wagner Act of 1935.
A gold standard and low taxes will not get companies to repatriate our old manufacturing capability. You'd have to finish off the unions first.
Before WWI even started, there were movements around the world to move to a fiat currency.
In Europe it started in 1909 when the French government started paying its civil servants in paper, not gold coin. And it happened because France saw quite clearly that it was going to have to fight the Germans again.
We are too set on this paradigm of victory and defeat.
When we see a clear paradigm of victory and defeat, we win, as we did in World War II and the Cold War. When we don't, we lose, as we did in Vietnam. I can recall all too clearly the people who told us it would be good for the nation to lose in Vietnam. We would be a better people for it. Based on what happened to us after Vietnam, I would see us reliving the Seventies under a second Carter, with other nations running rings around us. We could easily be cut off from the region's oil. I can't see that being good for America.
Your view of the Middle East following an American departure strikes me as being unrealistic. Were the shah still in charge, I could see a Persian return to historical norms, but not with the current whack jobs in power. Regime change is necessary. Regrettably, religious hysteria is still too strong in that region for a positive outcome.
I can live with certain groups having weapons of this nature because their will to survive is as strong as ours. Mutual assured destruction and all that rot. Iran, Iraq and other, I can’t leave that as my only defense.
Of course not. That's another reason why Paul is a conservative.
Supporting terrorists is Ron Paul’s position.
That is not true. You need to study Ron Paul’s record more.
When a man chooses to slam his country first when approaching the War on Terror that man has chosen his allegiance. Suggesting that some how we who not only stood by Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo have provoked Osama Bin Ladin and other extremists is ridiculous and any many who believes such nonsense has not the credibility to be President no matter what his fiscal policy is. We have also pressured Israel over and over again to ignore the constant attacks they face and give more and more back to a people who will accept nothing more than the destruction of Israel as a salve for their anger. Ron Paul and those like Moore and most of the Democratic party just can’t wait to hit America. Well I’m tired of America being the piñata for every small man’s trouble and I most certainly don’t want a President who wants to try to justify the reasons for a hateful enemy that would snicker with their hands out and hit us for our charity.
What he said, he had every right to say but we most certainly don’t need a Chomskey for President and that is what he sounds like. He had many ways to approach that answer and he chose to hit America first. America has enough thankless idiots standing in line in the Democrat party with their sticks out. Ron Paul should learn to separate his justified anger for a system here that is increasingly broken from a very real enemy that has the desire to break the back of America in the world.
MI6/CIA went into Iran with hundreds of millions of dollars; the whole coup d’état was done with under 20 people, around 10 MI6 agents and 10 CIA agents. This was done through staging false-flag terror events in Iran and bombing Mosques. Also, they printed up flyers which said and I’m paraphrasing: “down with Mossadegh, down with Communism, up with Allah.” These flyers were distributed throughout the country and people bought into the propaganda.
Mossadegh also kicked the Communists out of Iran.
Another part of the coup d’état was bringing the Mullahs back into the fold. Basically, if you read Kermit Roosevelt’s after action reports, they convinced the Mullahs that democracy was anti-Islamic. He was such an Anglophile, Kermit Roosevelt, with his glowing after action reports to 10 Downing Street.
For further reading, I would recommend CounterCoup by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.
Iran no longer wished to be a British Petroleum colony.
Also:
The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup - U.S. National Security Archives
In regards to Ajax, Mossadegh originally wanted 20% of the oil revenues for Iran, so he could embark on modernizing Iran’s infrastructure. The AIOC originally had contracts giving Iran ONLY 1-3% of the oil revenues.
MI6/CIA went into Iran with hundreds of millions of dollars; the whole coup d’état was done with under 20 people, around 10 MI6 agents and 10 CIA agents. This was done through staging false-flag terror events in Iran and bombing Mosques. Also, they printed up flyers which said and I’m paraphrasing: “down with Mossadegh, down with Communism, up with Allah.” These flyers were distributed throughout the country and people bought into the propaganda.
Mossadegh also kicked the Communists out of Iran.
Another part of the coup d’état was bringing the Mullahs back into the fold. Basically, if you read Kermit Roosevelt’s after action reports, they convinced the Mullahs that democracy was anti-Islamic. He was such an Anglophile, Kermit Roosevelt, with his glowing after action reports to 10 Downing Street.
For further reading, I would recommend CounterCoup by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.
Iran basically no longer wished to be a British petroleum colony
Also:
The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup - U.S. National Security Archives
Ron Paul, unlike Moore, supported the Afghanistan invasion.
Uh, no, Nixon was the one who got us out of Vietnam. You are correct, though, insofar as it was the LEFT that pulled funding from the AVRN three years later so that the Communists could overrun Saigon.
I agree with another poster who replied. You really need to actually listen to what the man says in context. he is definetly not pro-terrorist (this is simply an absurd thing to say if you actually understood what the man believes). he wants to commit more troops and resources toward finding Bin laden and others. Blame America? No, he simply repeated what Bin laden and others have said reguarding their motives. read the 9-11 commission report. American policy is not the same as America herself. Anti-American? please, i suppose if adhering strickly to the U.S. constitution means one is anti-american then he is guilty as charged. :)
an isolationists does not engage the rest of the world. he does not advocate this. he is not anti-war either. merely anti-undeclared war, and wars fought under united Nations sanctions.
“HAVE YOU EVER READ THE REASONS WHY THEY ATTACKED US?...”
Go back and listen to Mccain in the New hampshire debate carefully. he repeatedly stated the “iraq conflict” he never stated “war”. Furthermore, when he was about to say war - he immediatly corrected himself and said “conflict” there is a reason for this. Sorry but there has not been a declared war since WW2, you know, the last war we actually won.
Welcome to FR.
We won the Gulf War I (liberated Kuwait)
We won the Cold War (collapsed the USSR)
We stopped the Serbs in former Yugoslavia and toppled Milosevic
We freed Greneda from a communist takeover
We removed Noriega from power
We assisted Afghanistan in expelling the USSR
We saved S. Korea from falling to the communists
We had the communist north Vietnamese on the ropes before we withdrew. (Note Reagan called the Vietnam War a noble endeavor..but the quislings in our country pulled the rug out)
These are just recent examples. There are dozens of “undeclared” wars in our earlier history. Almost all successful.
Yes, I have, and, if you had read what you’re replying to, you wouldn’t have to ask. Have you ever read the resolution (aka, declaration of war) that the Congress passed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.