[Chuck]

~~ Ron Paul - A Call To Action ~~

2nd Amendment Nationwide Ad Campaign

Ron Paul and his "Hope For America" Campaign is really SIZZLING!! How about his poll numbers at 33%, according to Fox News, after the most recent Republican debate?! Also, the fact that he raised more money over the Labor Day weekend, then all other GOP candidates combined -- receiving over $100,000 at a party/fundraiser in the swanky Highland Park, Texas, alone!

But friends, there is no time to rest -- we must take our campaign strategy to the next level and make Ron Paul, the seasoned Statesman, a more highly-visible candidate, bringing integrity back to our White House. As a leading advocate for freedom and a strong stance on the preservation of our 2nd Amendment -- this belief alone sets Dr. Paul apart from all other candidates.

Based on Dr. Paul's "Project Freedom", we have created an ad campaign that will spotlight his views. The reason we have chosen a 2nd Amendment theme is because, if you remember back to the 2000 George Bush election, it was the Pro-2nd Amendment voters who carried him into office. Appropriately, it was these same voters who carried the Republicans into Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections. That group has grown significantly in numbers over the past seven years, and they can NOT be overlooked. We believe that we can count on this segment of voters to know a Pro-2nd Amendment-friendly candidate when confronted with one, and those voters will follow thru with that recognition all the way to the ballot box.

The bottom line is this: WE HAVE 4 MONTHS UNTIL THE PRIMARIES. Voters are looking for a Candidate of character and moral values that they can support. Not only does Dr. Paul have the credentials and an impeccably flawless track record of 20 years of service as a Texas Congressman, he is also well equipped with the leadership skills to tackle the tough issues that face our country, to become our next President in 2008.

You may recall that Obama had 'Obama-girls' and Hillary had 'Hillary-girls'. Well, its time for Ron to have 'Ron's Resistors'. Since Dr. Paul is Pro-2nd Amendment, we have designed a print ad campaign that features a very clear Pro-2nd Amendment message. All ads will be clean, tasteful, classy, shockingly-appealing and inviting. (We're not interested in ads which are anything otherwise.) The Pro-2nd Amendment voter crosses a wide range of people in many cultures, both men and women.

We have already gotten this campaign off the ground, thanks to several generous supporters who have stepped up with contributions along with their time and expertise on the ad work / layout. NOW WE NEED YOUR HELP WITH FINANCIAL DONATIONS FOR THE ADVERTISING COST. 100% will go towards this Ron Paul Pro-2nd Amendment Campaign and may be tax deductible (please check with your tax consultant). We believe this Campaign will be a huge success and we plan to continue, with several other ads in the works.

This request is being sent out nationwide, to as many individuals and Meetup Organizers as we can possibly reach. The Meetup Organizers and Groups are doing a tremendous job all across the nation. We must get focused and united. Together, we can make the difference as to who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

HOW CAN YOU HELP? Specifically, we want to commit to running an ad at least six (6) times in the next four months, and we currently have funds in hand for two of the six ads. If everyone who reads this message and each Meetup Group would consider making a minimum donation of $50, we would have this campaign cinched. (If there is an excess of donations, we will move on to the next most popular magazine and begin ads there.)

IT IS TIME TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR BELIEFS ARE. If you are a RON PAUL Constitutional Supporter, please consider being a part of this very important campaign in any way, and for any dollar amount that you can afford, and as soon as you can. We believe that we are doing what we have been called to do, and we MUST move forward. We welcome your support.

All 2ND Amendment Ad Campaign Donations may be sent to:

ATTN: Ron Paul 2nd Am Campaign, c/o Paula A., Box 1463, Kamiah, ID 83536

Thank you for your generous consideration.

Paula
Organizer, N-Central IDAHO Ron Paul 2008 Meetup #345
www.ronpaul.meetup.com/345
[email protected]

PS. If you have ideas or talents -- please tell us about it!

"If...you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you." ~~ Vox Day ~~

 

[bkt]

Can someone clarify Ron Paul's position on 9/11? I read on some site (lgf or Malkin, probably) that he said he believed the gov't had specific foreknowledge of the event and deliberately let it happen.

Everything else I hear about Paul I like. This one thing is a real problem.

 

[Shooter]

I don't know Ron Paul's 9/11 stance but I'm curious to why you brought it up. What do you think about the theory the Government had knowledge it was going to happen?

 

[Chuck]

Can someone clarify Ron Paul's position on 9/11? I read on some site (lgf or Malkin, probably) that he said he believed the gov't had specific foreknowledge of the event and deliberately let it happen.

Everything else I hear about Paul I like. This one thing is a real problem.

That is the conspiracy theorists talking and the media is eating their crap up. Dr. Paul is for a non-interventionist foreign policy as did the Founding Fathers. He is for armed neutrality, sorta like T.R. Roosevelt's Big Stick policy. Dr. Paul believes, and this is well documented by his speeches, that the blowback principle was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. This has been confirmed by the CIA and the 9/11 Commission.

Dr. Paul is 100% for the US Constitution in its original intent. In addition, he gets a score of A+ from Gun Owners of America.

 

[Chuck]

I don't know Ron Paul's 9/11 stance but I'm curious to why you brought it up. What do you think about the theory the Government had knowledge it was going to happen?

Whether they did or did not, in my humble opinion, is irrelevant. Bring us back to a limited Republican form of government debated and ratified by the Framers of the Constitution and we will be in a lot better shape than the marxist police state we have today.

 

[Pounce]

Chuck....Jeezzzzz again! You pickin my mind???
I, personally, believe 9/11 was a inside job. More has to be done to check into it. The Warren...oops..9/11 commission white washed it.

 

[BLS33]

Ron Paul doesn't think it was an inside job. The incident occurred when some 9/11 conspiracy nuts asked if he though that 9/11 was an inside job. He responded saying something along the lines of "I don't necessarily trust what the government tells us". Than people like Malkin spun it to make it seem like he believed it was an inside job. He has clarified numerous times he doesn't think it is an inside job.

Now for anyone who believes it was an inside job I would like some evidence to back it up. To be honest thinking it was an inside job is hogwash in my mind.

 

[Duck]

I would probably support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. I don't like his stand on the war, but I don't really like any of the other candidates on that topic either. Some want out now, the others want business as usual. Neither is the right way. If the politicians could pull their noses out of it and let the military does what it does best, this mess would have been over within a year.

 

[Chuck]

I would probably support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. I don't like his stand on the war, but I don't really like any of the other candidates on that topic either. Some want out now, the others want business as usual. Neither is the right way. If the politicians could pull their noses out of it and let the military does what it does best, this mess would have been over within a year.

Congress did not declare war. In fact, they haven't done so since June 1942 when Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary entered on the side of the Axis. I work on Fort Stewart. We have over 400 memorials for soldiers that have given their lives for UN Security Council Resolutions. That is nothing short of criminal. Can you say "high crimes and misdemeanors"? As for Dr. Paul, he votes strictly in accordance with the US Constitution and has always done so. In fact, he sponsored a Bill (twice) to go after bin Laden by having Congress issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal - mentioned in Article I, Section 8 and for the second time, it will die in committee because nobody else inside The Beltway cares about their oaths to the Constitution.

 

[Chuck]

Ron Paul doesn't think it was an inside job. The incident occurred when some 9/11 conspiracy nuts asked if he though that 9/11 was an inside job. He responded saying something along the lines of "I don't necessarily trust what the government tells us". Than people like Malkin spun it to make it seem like he believed it was an inside job. He has clarified numerous times he doesn't think it is an inside job.

Now for anyone who believes it was an inside job I would like some evidence to back it up. To be honest thinking it was an inside job is hogwash in my mind.

Yup. In fact, I'm waiting on some pictures from a friend of mine who works for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department's Technical Rescue Team. He worked at the Pentagon for two weeks after the attack. The FBI confiscated all pictures taken by the firefighters but gave some back after they determined that there were no bodies showing. He assured me that there was an aircraft in there - as most conspiracy theorists deny. He and his team were tasked to go after the black boxes.

 

[bkt]

I don't know Ron Paul's 9/11 stance but I'm curious to why you brought it up. What do you think about the theory the Government had knowledge it was going to happen?

I believe they knew it was possibly going to happen in the same way they believe today that nukes will be set off in U.S. cities by AQ sometime, or that soft targets like schools and malls will be hit simultaneously.

In other words, it is a distinct possibility with no specific information about when, where or who.

 

[bkt]

That is the conspiracy theorists talking and the media is eating their crap up. Dr. Paul is for a non-interventionist foreign policy as did the Founding Fathers. He is for armed neutrality, sorta like T.R. Roosevelt's Big Stick policy.

What does "non-interventionist" mean, exactly? Don't interfere in the internal goings-on of a foreign government? Don't put up Starbucks or McDonalds in foreign countries? Don't protect U.S. interests in remote lands? What if doing some of these things benefits Americans at home as well as those living in the foreign countries?

The general principle of "keep your hands to yourself" is a valid and good one. But every now and then, we may need to take some action of some sort off U.S. soil.

Dr. Paul believes, and this is well documented by his speeches, that the blowback principle was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. This has been confirmed by the CIA and the 9/11 Commission.

If by "blowback" you mean a predictable reaction by foreigners who are sick of American interference and intervention around the world, in this case, I have to disagree, the 9/11 Commission's and CIA's esteemed opinions notwithstanding.

I've spent the last couple years studying the history of Islam and nations which are considered "islamic". The propensity to attack anyone that appears weak is a very common theme, and the U.S. appeared weak in 2001 after our failures to respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing and more. Clinton's screw-up with Somalia didn't put our military in the best light.

Bin Laden's ever-changing complaints aside, the 9/11/01 attacks had precious little to do with American presence overseas.

Dr. Paul is 100% for the US Constitution in its original intent. In addition, he gets a score of A+ from Gun Owners of America.

No problem there!

 

[Chuck]

What does "non-interventionist" mean, exactly? Don't interfere in the internal goings-on of a foreign government? Don't put up Starbucks or McDonalds in foreign countries? Don't protect U.S. interests in remote lands? What if doing some of these things benefits Americans at home as well as those living in the foreign countries?

The general principle of "keep your hands to yourself" is a valid and good one. But every now and then, we may need to take some action of some sort off U.S. soil.

Nobody said that the USA has to roll over and play dead but remember this...

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” – John Quincy Adams, 4th of July Address 1821

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” -- George Washington

These guys knew what they were talking about because they studied other cultures, particularly Greece and Rome, and saw what happened to them.

If by "blowback" you mean a predictable reaction by foreigners who are sick of American interference and intervention around the world, in this case, I have to disagree, the 9/11 Commission's and CIA's esteemed opinions notwithstanding.

So, if the USA was invaded, you would just go back to watching American Idol.

I've spent the last couple years studying the history of Islam and nations which are considered "islamic". The propensity to attack anyone that appears weak is a very common theme, and the U.S. appeared weak in 2001 after our failures to respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing and more. Clinton's screw-up with Somalia didn't put our military in the best light.

Bin Laden's ever-changing complaints aside, the 9/11/01 attacks had precious little to do with American presence overseas.

So, why haven't the Islamists attacked Switzerland or Belize or Mongolia? They are relatively weak. They attacked us because we support Israel and have had our noses in the Middle East since World War I. If anything, we should be pissed off at the British for stirring up that hornets nest.

Now we can get back to the issue at hand - the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[Pounce]

Chuck, you should run for 'public office'. You know your stuff and say it well.

 

[bkt]

Nobody said that the USA has to roll over and play dead but remember this...

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” – John Quincy Adams, 4th of July Address 1821

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” -- George Washington

These guys knew what they were talking about because they studied other cultures, particularly Greece and Rome, and saw what happened to them.

It would be nice to work toward that, but because we are entangled with other nations an abrupt cessation of existing relations would not be good. Would you advocate immediate pseudo-isolationism with regard to Israel and other allies?

If by "blowback" you mean a predictable reaction by foreigners who are sick of American interference and intervention around the world, in this case, I have to disagree, the 9/11 Commission's and CIA's esteemed opinions notwithstanding.

So, if the USA was invaded, you would just go back to watching American Idol.

I find that grossly offensive, sir. I am in no way an apathetic, drooling idiot devoid of knowledge of current events. I deeply respect the Constitution and would like to see a return to small government and a reigning in of scope and power of government at all levels.

The assertion by some that our government had specific foreknowledge of 9/11 and/or executed it is, IMO, absurd. Hence my question on Paul. The assertion that 9/11 was due to U.S. interventionism throughout the world is equally wrong.

The events of 9/11 were brought about by power-hungry thugs exploiting a violent ideology to strike at an enemy.

I've spent the last couple years studying the history of Islam and nations which are considered "islamic". The propensity to attack anyone that appears weak is a very common theme, and the U.S. appeared weak in 2001 after our failures to respond to the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing and more. Clinton's screw-up with Somalia didn't put our military in the best light.

Bin Laden's ever-changing complaints aside, the 9/11/01 attacks had precious little to do with American presence overseas.

So, why haven't the Islamists attacked Switzerland or Belize or Mongolia

I invite you to explore The Religion of Peace and see the myriad locales they have attacked. You might find it eye-opening just how many place do get hit. Belize, Mongolia and Switzerland may not appear frequently. Neither do the polar regions or large swaths along the Amazon.

They are relatively weak. They attacked us because we support Israel and have had our noses in the Middle East since World War I. If anything, we should be pissed off at the British for stirring up that hornets nest.

May I conclude you are anti-Zionist, then?

Now we can get back to the issue at hand - the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

You have my sincere apology for taking this thread off course.

 

[Chuck]

Chuck, you should run for 'public office'. You know your stuff and say it well.

Thanks but I'm too trustworthy.


...and I haven't had my vaccinations.

 

[Chuck]

It would be nice to work toward that, but because we are entangled with other nations an abrupt cessation of existing relations would not be good. Would you advocate immediate pseudo-isolationism with regard to Israel and other allies?

When it comes to American sovereignty - in a second.

I find that grossly offensive, sir. I am in no way an apathetic, drooling idiot devoid of knowledge of current events. I deeply respect the Constitution and would like to see a return to small government and a reigning in of scope and power of government at all levels.

It wasn't directed specifically at you but the US citizenry in general. If you want to see a return to limited government, there is only one candidate that will do it. The others are simply taking the talk.

The assertion by some that our government had specific foreknowledge of 9/11 and/or executed it is, IMO, absurd. Hence my question on Paul. The assertion that 9/11 was due to U.S. interventionism throughout the world is equally wrong.

The events of 9/11 were brought about by power-hungry thugs exploiting a violent ideology to strike at an enemy.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. I do, however, subscribe to well established history. Do you remember the 80s movie "Red Dawn"? If that scenario actually happened in the United States, don't you think that most people would react to an invasion? Actually, who knows these days. Most would probably cry out for the government to come to their collective rescue. That scenario is what is happening over there. Our system of government was founded on the principle of liberty and self-determination. Let the rest of the world "self-determine".

I invite you to explore The Religion of Peace and see the myriad locales they have attacked. You might find it eye-opening just how many place do get hit. Belize, Mongolia and Switzerland may not appear frequently. Neither do the polar regions or large swaths along the Amazon.

Nobody is denying that Islam does not have a history of violence. Most cultures do.

May I conclude you are anti-Zionist, then?

Not specifically. I am anti-everyone who has influence in the American political process, not just the Israelis, but the Europeans, the Arab nations,China, and anybody else. AIPAC is one of the strongest lobbying organziations in Washington and they are not all Jewish. Cheney speaks at their conventions regularly.

You have my sincere apology for taking this thread off course.

No problem.

 

[bkt]

Nobody is denying that Islam does not have a history of violence. Most cultures do.

No other so-called culture comes even close to paralleling Islam. Having a distant history of violence is one thing. Having a 1,200+ year history of uninterrupted violence is quite another.

So where do you stand with the likes of Hillary and other proto-communists and those who would follow them blindly? You've said you're willing to leave foreign friends to their own devices, which may mean their demise. How would you treat domestic enemies? One would hope you would treat them more harshly than our friends.

One more question: Why do you think Dr. Paul, as President, would have such significant influence? What if we had a Congress like we do today; would he not suffer the similar ignominious charges as Bush does today? How would he be effective at cutting through that crap?

 

[Chuck]

No other so-called culture comes even close to paralleling Islam. Having a distant history of violence is one thing. Having a 1,200+ year history of uninterrupted violence is quite another.

Maybe you'd better brush up on some European history.

So where do you stand with the likes of Hillary and other proto-communists and those who would follow them blindly? You've said you're willing to leave foreign friends to their own devices, which may mean their demise. How would you treat domestic enemies? One would hope you would treat them more harshly than our friends.

One more question: Why do you think Dr. Paul, as President, would have such significant influence? What if we had a Congress like we do today; would he not suffer the similar ignominious charges as Bush does today? How would he be effective at cutting through that crap?

My stand with Hillary is that she and the Democrats are one and the same with the Republicans. With the exception of a few social issues, the two parties are identical. Those social issues, like abortion, are used constantly to divide and conquer the populace.

As for our "friends", remember this. "Nations don't have friends. Nations have interests." -- Winston Churchill. Take care of Number One for a change. In additioni, I would treat domestic enemies with the rule of law.

Finally, for Dr. Paul, he would be more successful than you think. How would you like to be one of the Congresscritters being embarrassed in public for not upholding your oath to the Constitution? That is what will happen with Paul in office. On the other hand, the general population is too damn dumb to understand the proper role of government.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 45

 

[Chuck]

H.R.1096 : To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/15/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Judiciary; House Ways and Means

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007'.​

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.​

In addition, Dr. Paul has voted...

• Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
• Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
• Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
• Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
• Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)

Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rate A+ by Gun Owners of America