December 16 money bomb set to be biggest ever
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, December 8, 2011
With Ron Paul now firmly established as a top tier candidate just weeks away from the crucial caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Paul campaign is set to launch what could turn out to be the biggest ever single day online money bomb in the history of U.S. politics.
Back in 2007, Ron Paul supporters made history by raising $6 million in online contributions in a single 24 hour period, beating the single day record for a national candidate.
That total could easily be topped on December 16th, when the Paul campaign launches its ‘Tea Party Money Bomb’ as part of a final mail, radio, and TV ad push in Iowa.
However, Congressman Paul has urged his supporters to donate as soon as possible so as to fund ad buys in Iowa. Paul’s TV ads have been devastating to his Republican rivals thus far, with the latest being targeted against Newt Gingrich’s “serial hypocrisy”.
The crucial Iowa caucus takes place on January 3rd with New Hampshire following a week later on January 10th.
“We need to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, because it’s very important for perception,” Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said to POLITICO after the Michigan debate. “It’s also important because the voters in those states are very adept and astute at evaluating candidates, so we need to be in the top three in those states, no question about it,” Mr. Benton added.
“If you were holding off on contributing until the Money Bomb later this month, I must ask you to please contribute today at least half of whatever you were planning to give on the 16th,” Mr. Paul said in a campaign email.
As Michael Brendan Dougherty highlights, the next few weeks could be the most exciting ever in the history of the Ron Paul Revolution. It’s no longer a stretch to say that Ron Paul has a genuine chance of building the kind of momentum that could see him secure the Republican candidacy.
“This is no longer a political novelty act. It’s not a seminar on the Constitution disguised as a campaign. This is the emergence of a populist-libertarian force that is growing into an organized movement in American politics. And if Paul shocks the establishment in Iowa, January 3rd 2012 will be recorded in history as this movement’s coming out party,” writes Dougherty.
As numerous polls have shown, should Paul become the Republican nominee, he has every chance of defeating Barack Obama in a head to head run off. The most recent survey conducted by NBC-Marist shows that Paul has the best chance of beating Obama compared to all the other Republican candidates. Paul is currently tied with Obama 42-42, whereas Newt Gingrich trails Obama 47-37 and Mitt Romney is behind 46-39.
There are also reports that Democrats are abandoning Obama in droves over his vast expansion of the U.S. Military’s involvement in foreign conflicts and registering as Republicans simply so they can vote for Ron Paul.
Now has never been a more important time to get behind Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, and we encourage all our readers to donate either before or on the day of the next scheduled money bomb by visiting http://www.ronpaul2012.com/.
Link to original article
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Iran - the "War Prediction"
Just heard a pretty sensible prediction about Iran and our future in going to WWIII . This is a prediction that many of us see coming so it's not too far fetched.
We will be at war with Iran. The Obama administration along with the UN & NATO will keep poking them with a stick until we go to war by forcing Iran to make the first move. This will be the beginning of WWIII. According to insiders, should Obama have his way, we will be in a war with Iran by September or October of 2012. The insider tactics? Very predictable (in fact, I had this very conversation last night!) Intimidate and harass Iran into launching the first move. If Tehran refuses to halt their nuclear weapons program, we'll continue to force their hand in making the first move.
I don't doubt this "plan" by the US because Obama has exhausted his credibility by launching undeclared wars so we'll need a significant event in the US that can be blamed on Iran and/or a first strike overseas in order to fully engage the middle east in all out war. Russia? They've moved in. China? They've already declared their support to Iran. I hope this never happens but again, it's what many of us have been discussing in recent weeks.
According to history, no sitting president has ever lost re-election during a time of emergency or war. The election is obviously in November so an October incident would put Obama in the same situation. He knows there is no other chance of his re-election.
Please keep this in mind and vote your conscious! With Ron Paul, we can change our future and prove that history doesn't have to repeat itself again.
In peace -
We will be at war with Iran. The Obama administration along with the UN & NATO will keep poking them with a stick until we go to war by forcing Iran to make the first move. This will be the beginning of WWIII. According to insiders, should Obama have his way, we will be in a war with Iran by September or October of 2012. The insider tactics? Very predictable (in fact, I had this very conversation last night!) Intimidate and harass Iran into launching the first move. If Tehran refuses to halt their nuclear weapons program, we'll continue to force their hand in making the first move.
I don't doubt this "plan" by the US because Obama has exhausted his credibility by launching undeclared wars so we'll need a significant event in the US that can be blamed on Iran and/or a first strike overseas in order to fully engage the middle east in all out war. Russia? They've moved in. China? They've already declared their support to Iran. I hope this never happens but again, it's what many of us have been discussing in recent weeks.
According to history, no sitting president has ever lost re-election during a time of emergency or war. The election is obviously in November so an October incident would put Obama in the same situation. He knows there is no other chance of his re-election.
Please keep this in mind and vote your conscious! With Ron Paul, we can change our future and prove that history doesn't have to repeat itself again.
In peace -
Friday, December 2, 2011
Why I support Ron Paul in 2012 (and did in 2008)
People ask me why I support Ron Paul.
If someone came to you and admitted being a liar and a thief but gave you some insurance or proof as to how they've corrected their behavior, you might be very leery about trusting them. Let's say you took a chance and for the sake of argument, trusted this person but remained cautious about such trust. After the person built a personal reputation with you over time, trust would build and if this person showed true honesty and loyalty - true values and morals (and didn't repeat the lying and stealing), the trust would continue to build right? If you witnessed high moral character, sincere regret for/and disembarking on previous immoral behaviors, this trust could definitely grow very deep.
How about a second type of person. Someone comes to you and never mentions any history of fraud, deceit or immorality. But you did your homework and researched this second person. In the process you found some acts of fraud, amoral behavior and low behavior. Wouldn't you be far more skeptical about trusting this person than the first type of person? Most people would be apt not to even bother trusting this second person. Here is why I believe that Gingrich and Cain are the definition of this second type of person.
Let's examine their prior ethical practices (or lack thereof)? Since there really isn't any difference between the Republicans and Democrat choices (i.e. Obama has done everything McCain promised to do upon campaigning against Obama and Obama has done the opposite of what he has promised to do once elected), I've adopted a common term: Republicrats.
I start and end with Gingrich since he's probably the juiciest and probably the most evil (if possible). Will most likely be out of the race soon after Cain, Bachmann and Santorum.
Gingrich is a "big ideas guy" claims to be a fiscal conservative even after taking huge compensation from special interest groups such as the heath insurance industry and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right before the bubble burst.
The marital affairs are a distraction from the real issues. That said, if true, these allegations do demonstrate the level of morality beyond serving the Federal Reserve (Cain) and securing sub-prime mortgage holders fates through government sponsored entities such as Freddie and Fannie (Gingrich). In addition, everyone who has a memory beyond 1996 remembers Gingrich going after Clinton's impeachment with Ken Starr even though he himself was having an affair all the while. Forced to exit from his position as speaker, it seems inappropriate to me to call him "Mr. Speaker" in the debates though I know this is trivial. I liken it to calling someone demoted from General to Private the previous rank of General. Makes no sense but what in politics usually does?
What can I say? I'm sold on Ron Paul and I pick my "battles" in educating people quite carefully. In other words, those who insist that they are "proud to have a well spoken and well liked president" don't get any argument from me. I feel that my support of Ron Paul is not just for me or those I care about but for the world - including those who are married to the notion of left vs. right (four legs good two legs bad?).
I cannot however help but poke some fun here at how bright the current Commander in 'Chief is. Does anyone who has pontificated how smart Obama is remember him saying he'd been to 57 states so far and had one to go? "Take it to the bank" - the promise to end the war in Iraq, close Gitmo and not build any permanent bases in Iraq (even though what we've done under his "leadership" is build a base larger than the Vatican in Iraq and send more troops into the middle east and now we're poking Iran with a stick again.
There's lots we can do but we must act. Do we want a crash landing or a free fall? If you want the former, let's talk Paul.
If someone came to you and admitted being a liar and a thief but gave you some insurance or proof as to how they've corrected their behavior, you might be very leery about trusting them. Let's say you took a chance and for the sake of argument, trusted this person but remained cautious about such trust. After the person built a personal reputation with you over time, trust would build and if this person showed true honesty and loyalty - true values and morals (and didn't repeat the lying and stealing), the trust would continue to build right? If you witnessed high moral character, sincere regret for/and disembarking on previous immoral behaviors, this trust could definitely grow very deep.
How about a second type of person. Someone comes to you and never mentions any history of fraud, deceit or immorality. But you did your homework and researched this second person. In the process you found some acts of fraud, amoral behavior and low behavior. Wouldn't you be far more skeptical about trusting this person than the first type of person? Most people would be apt not to even bother trusting this second person. Here is why I believe that Gingrich and Cain are the definition of this second type of person.
Let's examine their prior ethical practices (or lack thereof)? Since there really isn't any difference between the Republicans and Democrat choices (i.e. Obama has done everything McCain promised to do upon campaigning against Obama and Obama has done the opposite of what he has promised to do once elected), I've adopted a common term: Republicrats.
I start and end with Gingrich since he's probably the juiciest and probably the most evil (if possible). Will most likely be out of the race soon after Cain, Bachmann and Santorum.
Gingrich is a "big ideas guy" claims to be a fiscal conservative even after taking huge compensation from special interest groups such as the heath insurance industry and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right before the bubble burst.
The marital affairs are a distraction from the real issues. That said, if true, these allegations do demonstrate the level of morality beyond serving the Federal Reserve (Cain) and securing sub-prime mortgage holders fates through government sponsored entities such as Freddie and Fannie (Gingrich). In addition, everyone who has a memory beyond 1996 remembers Gingrich going after Clinton's impeachment with Ken Starr even though he himself was having an affair all the while. Forced to exit from his position as speaker, it seems inappropriate to me to call him "Mr. Speaker" in the debates though I know this is trivial. I liken it to calling someone demoted from General to Private the previous rank of General. Makes no sense but what in politics usually does?
What can I say? I'm sold on Ron Paul and I pick my "battles" in educating people quite carefully. In other words, those who insist that they are "proud to have a well spoken and well liked president" don't get any argument from me. I feel that my support of Ron Paul is not just for me or those I care about but for the world - including those who are married to the notion of left vs. right (four legs good two legs bad?).
I cannot however help but poke some fun here at how bright the current Commander in 'Chief is. Does anyone who has pontificated how smart Obama is remember him saying he'd been to 57 states so far and had one to go? "Take it to the bank" - the promise to end the war in Iraq, close Gitmo and not build any permanent bases in Iraq (even though what we've done under his "leadership" is build a base larger than the Vatican in Iraq and send more troops into the middle east and now we're poking Iran with a stick again.
There's lots we can do but we must act. Do we want a crash landing or a free fall? If you want the former, let's talk Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)