Skip to comments.Ron Paul says he raised nearly $20 million in final quarter of 2007
Posted on 01/01/2008 12:39:23 PM PST by rfaceEdited on 01/01/2008 12:48:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ron Paul said today his presidential campaign raised nearly $20 million in the last three months of 2007 from 130,000 donors.
Ron Paul brought in nearly $5.3 million that quarter.
Paul's campaign said that more than 107,000 donors were new and the average donation was about $90. More than half of the total came from two 24-hour online fund-raising events organized by supporters -- one on Nov. 5, and the second centered in Boston on Dec. 16.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Then you vote for him, I won’t.
Right, refund checks from Soros isn’t stupid, but a small government guy who esentially wants gubmint to get out of our lives is. Right. Interesting perspective.
“Its difficult to buy with a straight face the claim of Ron Pauls supporters to be patriotic when theyve rallied behind a man who has openly admitted that, if it had been up to him, the United States of America would not exist as a single country today.”
Time-travel gotcha is kind of stupid. Why not play with the reverse and wonder what the framers of the constitution would say of the monstrosity that is our federal government today? What would the referenced President Lincoln say, seeing the long-term result of the civil war and reconstruction(which I do not believe he would have allowed had he survived).
The republican party had cancer long before Paul entered the race.
Go Ron Go!!!
And the organganizer said what??
Niki, what did the organizer say, a stinking college student?
Joshua Light, says he wants no part of racial hatred or prejudice.
And you want to hang a college student's rally on George Bush? When the kid want's no part of them.
Your candidate Ron Paul accepts dollars and support from America's leading racists and Jewhaters of the last 30 or 40 years.
Yes, I know, they've got bucks, and bucks are bucks.
Go Ron Paul!
You accede to their support for your candidate, you're as bad as they are. Your unfounded slanders of GWB, and your cohorts slanders of Bush I and RR stink.
Your candidate is a moral coward.
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
He had a chance to make whatever point he wanted, and he chose to characterize Lincoln as a blood-drenched tyrant ( sounds like an endorsement of the Booth position), in spite of the fact that South Carolina and several other states had seceded prior to his inauguration, and in his first Inaugural he bent over backward to be conciliatory.
Just wait.. it seems there is something brewing.. the question is, how does Stormfront leader Jamie Kelso have such close access to the Paul campaign? How can he get into areas even the press can’t?
There is a BIG difference between ‘guilt by association’ as the Paulvestites try to make it and a relationship based on mutual choice.. let’s see how this plays out.
Yes, but there is no guilt by association, that's something the left, and the honorable FreeRepublicPaulPatriots try to hand on Republicans.
Bush I, GWB, RR, Atwater and many others spoke out directly against the hate purveyed by Paul's folk.
And you're right, it will play out.
That website looks like it was designed by a high school student.
I'm sure SJackson will be by to explain to you that Paul is actually a gun-grabber. *snort*
That explains it. No wonder I did not know “money, 100s”, never had that much. ;-)
..and these kids look and act like High School Students:
...your point is?
You mean the Neo-Con Party.
as I said, he does not address the underlying reasons for the north-south sectionalist problems in the United States in the 19th century, nor does he deal with the political environment leading up to the 1860 election.
The civil war is such a complex set of factors finally combining to split the republic up that I don’t think any candidate can get face-time to actually discuss it in any detail, if they even understand it in the first place, which almost none of them do.
yeah, the party of Lincoln, whom Paul hates.
My Conservative Identity:
You are a Freedom Crusader, also known as a neoconservative. You believe in taking the fight directly to the enemy, whether it’s terrorists abroad or the liberal terrorist appeasers at home who give them aid and comfort.
Under the current laws of the United States of America, tax-exempt educational organizations like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (of which I happen to be the founder and executive director) are strictly prohibited from engaging directly in electoral politics. That's why it's important to make sure you understand thoroughly that the following opinions are entirely mine, at the present moment, and do not necessarily reflect those of JPFO.
I have before me an article in which the Anti-Defamation League's "Assistant Director of Civil Rights", Steven Freeman is attempting to take Republican Congressman -- and dark horse Presidential Candidate -- Ron Paul to task for receiving a small campaign contribution from an otherwise obscure individual who turns out to run a white supremist website.
Aside from noting that, rather like the American Civil Liberties Union, the ADL's devotion to civil rights is rather hypocritically selective -- for example, they can't abide the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and can barely tolerate anyone who employs his or her right to free speech in order to defend the private ownership of weapons -- there are one or two questions this sudden concern evokes.
Apparently there's a small handful, out there, of similar websites which, for some reason defying all logic, offer support to a man who is, in fact, their mortal ideological enemy. Paul, as I interpret what he has said over the past 20 years, is for individual freedom above all other considerations. Obviously racists and neofascists are collectivists, meaning that to them, it is the group that comes first, far above and beyond the interests of any "mere" individual. They are, therefore, socialists of one stripe or another (never forget that Hitler considered himself a socialist), and the enemies of freedom.
"Nazi" is an acronym for "National Socialist Workers' Party".
Why these socialists should admire Paul is a puzzlement. But then, they are what they are -- racists and neofascists -- so none of their lunatic thought processes should be taken very seriously, nor should the object of their irrationality be held in any way responsible for them.
Of course the ADL's real objective here is to force a candidate whom they see as their ideological enemy (once again, much more a matter of the eye of the beholder than of any character flaw their enemy may possess) to do a little dance for them whenever they feel like it. They want to push him through the ceremonial meat-slicer of renunciation, regret, and remorse that so many others have been pushed through in recent years. The trouble is that, like every other form of blackmail, it never ends. The instant he complies with their demands, he becomes their property, their toy, their organ-grinder's monkey, no longer a threat to the anti-Constitutional establishment they are part of.
It's clear that, before the ADL starts accusing anybody else of being unduly influenced by political undesirables, they have a few questions of their own to answer under the harsh light of public scrutiny. For example, to how many self-proclaimed Marxists might some tiny minority of donations to the ADL be traced? It's statistically inevitable that such a thing has happened, probably more than once. To my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge, they have never renounced such supporters or sent any money back. Does this make ADL a communist front group? I certainly don't think so, but by ADL's own standard, it does.
Much more importantly, the ADL has a little housecleaning of its own to do before they start pointing fingers. How can anybody take anything about them seriously as long as they continue to defend a blatantly unconstitutional federal law -- the late Senator Thomas Dodd's infamous 1968 Gun Control Act -- that is very little more than a translation into English (one performed at Dodd's written request by the Library of Congress) of Adolf Hitler's evil weapons legislation of 1938?
Go to http://www.jpfo.org/images02/handbill-adl.jpg to see for yourself a photograph of the actual letter that Dodd received from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian of the Library of Congress, cheerfully replying to Dodd's request for a translation of the original Nazi legislation which the ADL presently supports. You might enjoy this http://www.jpfo.org/images02/handbillpoliticians.jpg too. ADL's shameful approval and compliance have helped turn a once-insignificant bureaucracy into a new Gestapo and a once-free America into a police state.
Furthermore, in light of the incontrovertible fact that every one of history's massive genocide campaigns was preceded by the forcible removal of weapons from private hands (as what politician wouldn't want to make sure the individuals he or she was planning to murder in cold blood couldn't fight back?), how can the ADL justify any kind of gun control laws -- more accurately termed "victim disarmament" -- at all?
Surely Abe Foxman, current national director of the ADL ought to know better. As a boy, most of his relatives were murdered by the Nazis precisely because they had been deprived of the means to defend themselves.
By contrast, see http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20040304.htm a webpage dedicated to the impressive accomplishments of a 2003 JPFO movie Innocents Betrayed where Paul himself is quoted as saying, "Innocents Betrayed has an important message for America. It shows why gun control must always be rejected, and it shows it very convincingly."
It's long past time for the ADL to do a little dance of their own, a dance of renunciation, regret, and remorse for the hundreds, or the thousands, or perhaps even the millions of innocent individuals that the policies they advocate are responsible for having injured or killed.
They must apologize to the shopkeeper, robbed, maimed, and killed because government, at one level or another, under policies the ADL has helped to shape -- allowed him nothing with which to defend himself.
They must apologize to the helpless woman who was raped and murdered because she wasn't permitted the physical means of self- defense.
They must apologize to the families of those who died needlessly because pressure groups like the ADL would rather see them all dead in a darkened alley somewhere than see them alive with a gun in their hand.
Go look at that handbill again. Send it out (along with this message, of course) to everyone you know, to all your friends and associates, to every enemy of freedom you have an e-mail address or URL for. ADL's hypocrisy must be exposed for what it is. Encourage everyone you know to write to the ADL and ask about their repulsive double standard. Ask them exactly what sort of moral compass Abe Foxman has that can allow that double standard to influence his own organization.
Visit ADL at http://www.adl.org/contact_us.asp .
Please understand, we are all living -- or at least we ought to be -- in a Bill of Rights culture, and that the ADL and racist groups have a right to express their opinions freely, although I personally think they're both festering boils full of pus on the derriere of the American body politic. But for the ADL to refer to itself as a civil rights organization is pure humbug. It is the Anti-Defamation League, and not Congressman Ron Paul, who are guilty by association -- with themselves.
ADL, burn in Hell.
He also called Reagan an utter failure, so I guess he is left with the Taft party?