morrischuck@earthlink.net

If you care at all about your right to freely purchase and use supplements, I suggest you seriously consider looking at Ron Paul's history of supporting and proposing bills to protect our access to supplements, and to limit government interference in other aspects of our personal lives.

Being a medical doctor, Ron has a much better understanding of the importance of health freedom to Americans than the other presidential candidates. Along with several speeches (to educate his fellow congressmen) and bills he's sponsored in support of health freedom, Ron's written several informative tutorials about how far we in the U.S. have strayed from our founding fathers' intentions, and what to do about it:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/10/health-freedom.html

Discover what Ron Paul has done as a congressman. Imagine what he will do as president.

When health freedom advocates need a congressman to fight against attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements, they turn to Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the leader in Washington who is not afraid to fight the powerful special interests that want to limit access to dietary supplements.

When Dr. Paul learned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was trying to censor truthful health claims by supplement manufacturers, he introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 2117).

"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigate, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease," Dr. Paul explained.

Our health freedom is also threatened by attempts to "harmonize" American laws with those of other countries, thus forcing Americans to live under European-style restrictions of dietary supplements. Dr. Paul worked to add language to the 1997 FDA Modernization Act forbidding the FDA from harmonizing our rules with those of any other nation.

The primary instrument of "harmonization" is the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a group of international bureaucrats who are developing "health care standards" for the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. The FDA is an enthusiastic participant in the Codex process.

When Dr. Paul learned the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) contained language that might facilitate the imposition of Codex's restrictive standards on American consumers, he informed his congressional colleagues of this danger with a series of letters. In addition, Dr. Paul sponsored several briefings on the issue.

More recently, Dr. Paul has shown how the FDA is working with its counterparts in Canada and Mexico on a Trilateral Cooperation charter that could "harmonize" regulation of dietary supplements among the three countries. Dr. Paul led a congressional inquiry into the Trilateral Cooperation, forcing the FDA to go on record about its involvement in the Trilateral charter.

As a congressman for 10 terms, Dr. Ron Paul has fought to protect your health freedom. Imagine what he will do as president.

Donate today: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Congressman Paul's Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr032001.htm

The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr031501.htm

INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=776

Reimportation of FDA-Approved Pharmaceuticals: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr071701.htm

Introduction of the Patient Privacy Act: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr072401.htm

(For an eye-opening movie about the current healthcare industry and how health insurance employees are rewarded for the more sick people they deny claims for -- and cause the deaths of -- along with companies having special employees whose only purpose is to search for any small inconsistency in your papers and statements as reason to deny your claim, see Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko".

A Republic, If You Can Keep It: http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/republic.html

Sorry Mr. Franklin, We're All Democrats Now: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

The Original American Foreign Policy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm

Is America a Police State?: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

Neo-CONNED!: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

The Case for Defending America: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul11.html

Here is a recent letter from Ron Paul that illustrates the things he stands for, and why we need him for president in America:

Dear Friend,

... It is no secret that the elites and the political power-brokers do not want us to win this race. A victory on our part would ruin their plans, and they will do anything to keep that from happening.

I don't need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us -- every day -- and it is up to us to save it.

The world's elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good 'ol USA will only be a memory. We can't let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world's oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty, and they want to use our military to police the world.

Our right to own and use property is fading because bureaucrats and special interests are abusing eminent domain.

Our right to educate our children as we choose is under assault. "No Child Left Behind" is seeing to that, and our right to say "no" to forced mental screening of our school-aged children is nearly gone.

The elites gave us a national ID card. They also gave us the most misnamed legislation in history: "The Patriot Act". These same people are pushing to give amnesty (welfare and what's left of our Social Security) to illegal immigrants and erase our national borders.

Record government debt is putting a burden on our children and grandchildren that is shameful.

Yes, our American way of life is under attack, and it's understandable that many are concerned, even discouraged, about the kind of country our grandchildren will inherit.

But we must never let discouragement become surrender.

One reason I am NOT discouraged is because I know I am not fighting this battle alone. Each day I head out onto the battlefield I know that you and thousands of other patriotic, freedom-loving Americans are right beside me, standing brave and true for what is good and right.

... My wife Carol and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary early this year. We are proud parents of five children and 18 grandchildren. We love them very much, as I know you love your family.

As a U.S. congressman, I always keep in mind the well-being of my family and all the other families throughout our country when I cast a vote or introduce legislation. I also keep in mind that I have sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

For me, upholding that oath is the first and best way to preserve and protect our blessed American way of life for future generations, and now you know why I am writing for president.

Sincerely,

Ron

www.RonPaul2008.com


The State vs. Doctors
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

Note: Dr. Ron Paul was the June 2001 commencement speaker at the University of Texas-Houston Medical School.

Being invited to address you today is indeed a particular honor for me. In seeking advice about my speech I was told to observe three things:

1) Be brief; no one remembers graduation speeches and too often they are boring. Being brief is not the easiest request for a politician to fulfill. But I did decide not to read the 80-page speech I'd written.

2) Be positive; don't dwell on the problems medicine faces; this is to be an upbeat event. Now that's a little more difficult for one who titles his weekly legislative report: "Texas Straight Talk."

3) Be non-controversial; well, that's just asking too much of a politician.

My task today is to remark on the relationship of medicine to society from my perspective as a physician and legislator. To me this is a very interesting task, but difficult to accomplish in a short period.

Before I begin, let me reassure you that I will try hard not to offend anyone, but that's probably not completely possible. If I do offend, I apologize.

But you need not worry too much about a disagreement you might have with what I say, because I'm an advocate of a political philosophy that believes social and economic problems should not be solved by passing more laws and using force, but instead, solutions should come through freedom and persuasion.

The same events that early on motivated me to go to medical school later motivated me to participate in politics. Clear memories of the horrors of World War II and the Korean War and the reports of loss of life of family, friends, and neighbors had an impact on me.

I knew very early on I never wanted to carry a gun in a war and, with the draft in place, I realized the odds were overwhelming that I would be called up to serve. I definitely knew at an early age that I preferred a medical bag to a gun, healing to maiming, life to death.

I'm sure all of your reasons to become physicians vary, but most young people deciding on the medical profession share the noble goals of promoting health, healing, and life.

There are two short stories I want to tell, one medical, the other political and economic.

First, when George Washington got a serious illness, the best physicians in the country were called in. Three of the best consulted and agreed that bloodletting was the treatment of choice, and the leeches were put in place.

Washington's weakened condition that was the result of a serious respiratory infection promptly worsened and he soon died. (There was no malpractice lawsuit filed.)

Good intentions and conventional wisdom were not helpful in saving the life of the father of our country.

Medical care involves more than good intentions.

Second, in 1620 the Pilgrims, under the guidance of Governor Radford, landed at Plymouth Rock. For the first two years the guiding principle was "from each according to ability, to each according to need - and by force."

Starvation ensued and the colony neared extinction. However, in the third year, Radford, in consultation with the adults of the community, agreed on a system of private plots and self-reliance. Results the next summer were astounding. Productivity shot up, and a community spirit of voluntary sharing replaced the harsh laws that guided the first two years.

Freedom solved the problem of starvation.

The second story reminds me of one of my early lectures in medical school. We were told that Kwashiorkor was the most common illness in the world, killing more persons than any other. Immediately, with delusions of grandeur, I dreamed of being the physician to find a cure for this devastating malady.

But later in the lecture I learned that Kwashiorkor was a different kind of illness - it is the end result of starvation. Later it dawned on me that the solution to this problem was more political than medical.

Because we in this country have enjoyed the benefits of the freest society ever known, true famine has never existed here. But a headline a few weeks ago read: "Rickets on the rise in the U.S." I wondered at the time, could this be an early sign that something is wrong? Have we undergone a reversal back toward the philosophy that nearly destroyed the Plymouth colony?

Currently the method of distribution of medical care in the United States is coming under attack by politicians, bureaucrats, hospitals, labs, service providers, doctors, and patients. More laws and more money are demanded from all quarters.

But could it be possible that distribution of medical care is now being criticized because of a return to a system of government similar to the early rules of the Plymouth colony?

Or is it possible that freedom combined with self-reliance no longer works? A basic understanding of economics helps one to understand why distribution of medical care today is becoming more difficult; quality is down while costs are rising; and everyone seems dissatisfied.

We have, unfortunately, at least for medicine, accepted the rules used in the Plymouth colonies for the first two years ... "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs by force."

I'm not convinced that more regulations and government laws - which are demanded on a daily basis - will solve this problem any better than Congress' similar attempts to deal with most other problems.

Managed care is not market-driven, it's government-mandated.

It has driven charity out of the system.

No more church-financed hospitals and free care for the indigent. Everyone is charged the maximum, and no test is left undone for fear attorneys will be ridiculing us in court alleging our negligence.

And if it's not the attorneys, it's the HCFA [Health Care Finance Administration] agents threatening us with fines and prison if we misinterpret any of the 132,000 pages of regulations. This system artificially pushes costs up, bringing calls for price controls, which only mean rationing and shortages.

Greater understanding of freedom and economics by the next generation of doctors would go a long way toward heading off the approaching crisis: the day when the taxpayer has been bled dry and no funds are available.

Even during the Great Depression, most people received medical care because of the system. Today that system won't function without taxpayers' money and can't function very well even with it.

The medical degree you receive today makes you a medical doctor. A state license will legally permit you to practice. However, it takes a lot more to be a caring physician to your patients. There are several challenges to the practice of medicine that you, the graduating class, will have to face in the 21st Century to achieve this goal.

Big Challenges Ahead

Managed care is the accepted method of delivering medical care today - to the frustration of many.

Read up!

There are 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations, compared with only 17,000 pages of the tax code.

A compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms is offered by your friendly attorney for a mere $7,000.

Additional employees are needed to file insurance forms and keep up with regulations in operating laboratories. Even more employees will soon be needed to implement the 1,500 pages of regulations protecting patient privacy - regulations that in reality turn control of all our medical records over to the US government and establish a national medical data bank.

Fines of up to $25,000 and 10 years imprisonment are possible for fraud and for mistakes that are hard to distinguish from fraud.

Capitation depersonalizes medicine. FDA regulations, though designed to help, often delay the arrival and raise the cost of new drugs. An average new drug now requires 15 years of testing and $500 million in costs. Many question whether or not this process is cost-effective. A more liberalized approach to allowing patients and doctors to use experimental medicines could speed up the process and lower costs.

Medical privacy rules are expected to cost $22 billion over 4 years to implement - costs that must be passed on to the taxpayer or to the patient.

HCFA has actually requested authority to carry guns on their audits.

Another challenge to personalized care is the continued influence of technology and super specialization. It's easy for the patient to be lost in the process and become only an object in a scientific whirlwind. This challenge is not new, but it will continue to affect the practice of medicine to an even greater extent.

Legal challenges through lawyer-driven lawsuits are of epidemic proportion and will continue to plague our profession, thus driving up costs while prompting unnecessary testing. Threats of an actual lawsuit do affect the way we all practice.

The National Practitioners Data Bank has been set up to keep all the records of doctors' misconduct, which is also subject to the errors of politicians, bureaucrats and spiteful lawyers. Rectifying errors and avoiding misinterpretations in this process are difficult, if not impossible tasks. Centralized government bureaucracy won't solve the problems of ethics and measuring ability in medicine.

The Drug War

The drug war will continue to affect the way we practice medicine. Law enforcement pesters us to be their assistants in turning over to them patients who break the drug laws.

This encourages patients to hide rather than reveal vital information to their physicians.

Drug laws have also caused many physicians to inadequately treat the pain of the dying patient out of fear of the law. Nursing care has been affected as well.

Some day, hopefully, all drug addiction will be treated more like we treat alcoholism; as a disease or social aberration rather than as a crime. The drug war has done more harm to our society than the drugs themselves. The medical community should help to reeducate the public on this serious problem.

Life and Death

The greatest challenge young doctors face today in their journey to becoming caring physicians is dealing with the new attitude of our profession toward life and our closer alliance with death. Thirty years ago, taking early life was not a routine medical procedure; today it is. Many believe this has coarsened society's attitude toward life.

The changes regarding abortion have occurred in my generation and not without a lot of heated disagreements. The debate will continue until your generation answers a perplexing question.

Let me state it: If a woman in an automobile on her way to have an abortion is hit by another vehicle which causes the death of her fetus, does she have the moral right to sue and win a million dollar judgment in a "wrongful death" suit?

This is not meant to be a legal question but one pertaining only to our understanding of life and morality. An acceptable answer to this question on both sides of the abortion argument must be found if we ever expect the sharp debate on this crucial issue to mellow.

In the last 30 years, the medical profession has allowed itself to get closer to the implementation of the death penalty than previously. In the 1880s, technology was available to implement the death penalty by injection and was seriously considered.

Organized medicine at that time, however, strongly objected to even the principle - believing needles and syringes would portray medicine as a participant - and it wanted no part of it.

With the advent of electricity, the electric chair was chosen over lethal injections. Since the resumption of the death penalty in 1977, lethal injection has been commonly used to carry out the death penalty, with the advice and even the presence of physicians. The strong objections expressed by the medical community a century ago are no longer heard.

Euthanasia

Your generation will deal with euthanasia as we have dealt with abortion. I predict a major and heated debate will occur in the next 30 years. Already one state has legalized "doctor-assisted suicides." I'm not talking about reasoned restraints of heroic measures for the terminally ill at the patient's request. Euthanasia laws as they have progressed in some European nations permit active euthanasia.

We already have the Dr. Kevorkians and angels of death leading the charge in a dangerous and illegal fashion in this country. It's interesting that the promoters of euthanasia always want the doctors involved.

This is for a precise purpose, and that is to gain moral sanction not otherwise available. You never hear about having attorney or judge-assisted suicides, but they can figure out the details as well as the medical profession.

This trend is fraught with great danger.

Once physicians embark on making decisions over death, rather than always opting for life, they invite too many mistakes.

Subjugation to social pressure and family squabbles can affect decisions.

The government now assumes nearly a complete role in regulating and paying for health care; economic factors will surely play a role in this decision-making as time goes on. Already we have seen managed care and government regulations dictate rules that are not always fair as to who gets the organ transplant or some other expensive treatment.

Regardless of the law in dealing with these issues, I see no reason why the medical profession has to grant moral approval to the process. Let someone else deal with it and carry out the deed. It’s surely not an issue of know-how, and we need not give it credibility by pretending it’s part of our responsibility to heal.

Society needs and demands our endorsement to make it a medical procedure, which it is not. Our endorsement only prevents others from considering the morality of the issue.

Already a well-known former governor is strongly advocating active euthanasia, saying "the elderly have an obligation to die" and should not hang on to life that offers little.

The US Congress, although technically it has no jurisdiction to do so, has tried to undermine the Oregon law (the first state to pass a law that permits physician-assisted suicide) with proposed legislation that would severely micromanage the care of dying patients.

This attempt to do what some see as "the right thing to do" will only cause more problems by intimidating physicians in their efforts to relieve the pain of dying patients. New restraints by government on prescribing for the dying will prove to be an unnecessary aggravation. This is not the answer to a society moving toward euthanasia.

This subject will be with us for a long while. Your generation of physicians will have no choice but to deal with it one way or another. You can’t escape it -- even total non-participation in the debate is taking a position.

Obviously, problems do exist in medicine, but the profession you have chosen is the best of all. It is a noble calling to enter medicine. You have learned the science, you will get your license, and the only task left before you is to become a caring physician. I am sure that nearly every one of you thought of service to your fellow man when deciding on a medical career. And that’s a noble ambition that should never be forgotten.

The true physician draws on this and must be reminded of it throughout his or her life. This is what makes us approach our patients with kindness, gentleness, caring, and concern. Being a good listener is essential. Someday, a sincere thank you or a small gift will remind you of this, and at times it will even surpass in value the fee that you have received for your services.

Good intentions can kill any patient, just as they did George Washington. Good science, without compassion and understanding,will not allow you to practice great medicine. Compassion and care and good science will make you become the physician you dreamed of being. This will require tolerance for alternative medical options -- since some may actually work -- and a recognition that faith and prayer have a healing quality. Intolerance of this view will not enhance a physician’s ability to heal.

Carry These Thoughts With You

A few simple but important reminders are in order. Always remain inquisitive, studying and keeping up with new medical knowledge. This is your easiest task. You have proven your ability just by being here today.

But also be inquisitive in other areas. Economics, politics, and the arts (that you so far have had little time for) are vital subjects that can provide satisfaction and challenge us.

Remain productive. Medicine has discouraged many in the past years and too many are retiring in their prime -- that’s disappointing. It’s expected that one-third of all the nurses are likely to quit practicing in the next year due to problems in medicine.

But regardless of the system, a physician should always be willing to practice the art of medicine for as long as possible in some capacity. We have all heard about the "greatest generation." You are joining the "greatest profession."

There can be no better job than being a physician in that it’s always possible and easier for you and others to follow the adage "it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness." Every patient facing illness, death, or stress deserves your lighting a candle.

I’m convinced that the freer the society is the better this job can be done, and that can only be achieved through education and political action. Freedom is never automatic. Without due vigilance, the only thing that is automatic is that the good intentions of the politicians, like the good intentions of George Washington’s doctors, will not suffice -- they will only make our problems worse.

In politics, always opt for freedom. Today, this country is starved for a greater faith in freedom and less dependency on government and management of our lives and our medical system.

LewRockwell.com August, 16, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/) is one of the few physicians in the US Congress. Although he is not a natural medicine physician, I admire and agree whole-heartedly with his position on decreasing government's involvement in medicine.

That is one of the reasons why I belong to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (http://www.aapsonline.org/aaps/). If you are a medical doctor and share similar views, I would encourage you to join this organization which actively promotes Dr. Paul's viewpoints in the real world.

As Ron Paul’s campaign for president continues to gain momentum -- largely from an Internet-based movement -- people are beginning to wonder not only if Ron Paul could really win … but what would happen if he did.

Paul’s ideals are directly in contrast with the “carefully concealed oligarchy” that currently runs the United States. Both Democratic and Republican candidates are typically “puppets” of the establishment, but Ron Paul is a freelancer, and his three central ideas radical:

1. The federal government must follow the strict guidelines of the Constitution.

2. America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world, and practice a non-interventionist foreign policy.

3. America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency, and return to hard money.

Considering the massive bloodshed that has occurred historically any time the oligarchy was challenged, this LewRockwell.com article questions the lengths and powers that he will go to keep Ron Paul from changing the status quo.

Every premise of Paul’s campaign is “unacceptable, repellant and hateful to America’s ruling elite.” A plan to keep their existence intact would include the following sequentially escalating, steps:

Ignore him and, if possible, exclude him from debates
Ridicule and fear-mongering that distorts Paul’s ideas
Scandal, real or fabricated
Threats through the criminal justice system (with a “plea bargain” to drop his candidacy)
Ensuring his presidency ended in failure, if he was elected

In short, Ron Paul’s ideas have the power to threaten the core of the American establishment’s worldwide empire. As for Paul’s campaign, the article points out, “This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution.” LewRockwell.com July 31, 2007
 
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
I don't believe the powers that currently control our political system ever factored in the enormous influence the Internet can have on changing our culture.  When you combine this, with the courage and conviction of a true Patriot, amazing things can happen.  Dr. Paul speaks the TRUTH, and support for him is like nothing I have ever seen before. (I read nearly three dozen blogs every day, and about 5,000 posts a week, so I have a good sense of what people are feeling.)

The establishment’s plan to ignore Dr. Paul and hope he disappears from the radar is clearly not working. He was recently featured in a complimentary New York Times article, and received an enormously favorable response from his interview with Google executive Elliot Schrage.

I am confident that this momentum is only going to get stronger as the election grows nearer. We’re in for a very bumpy ride and -- (if Dr. Paul gets elected) -- some changes in the United States, that have been a long time coming.


RON PAUL FIGHTS POWERFUL PLUTOCRACY
The more support Texas representative gains, the more the global elite are taking notice
By Steven LaTulippe (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ron_paul_fights_.html)

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is gaining steam in his presidential campaign and the establishment is preparing to stop him at any cost. His fundraising statistics reveal a blossoming, Internet-based movement that is uniting libertarians and other concerned citizens from across the political spectrum.

His performance in the media has been sharp, and his organization is honing its message. But if Paul remains a viable candidate, he faces a set of obstacles unlike any other. When evaluating his chances, it’s important to understand contemporary America: This is not a democracy and not a constitutional republic.

America is a carefully concealed oligarchy. A few thousand people, mostly in government, finance, and the military-industrial complex, run this country for their own purposes. By manipulating the two-party system, influencing the mainstream media, and controlling the flow of campaign finance money, this oligarchy works to secure the nomination of its preferred candidates (Democratic and Republican alike), thus giving voters a “choice” between Puppet A and Marionette B.

Unlike the establishment’s candidates, Paul is a freelancer running on specific ideas. The federal government must function within the strict guidelines of the Constitution, should deconstruct its empire, withdraw troops from around the world, reestablish a foreign policy based on noninterventionism, abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency and return to hard money.

This is not a political agenda or party platform. It is a revolution. The entire ruling oligarchy would be swept away if these ideas were implemented. Every sentence, every word, every jot and tittle of this agenda is unacceptable, repellent and hateful to America’s ruling elite.

The reasons for this are obvious. Through its control of the Federal Reserve, the banking elite makes billions of dollars in unearned profits and exerts enormous influence over the American economy. Countless industries and special interest groups (both foreign and domestic) have sprung up around our so-called defense and national security budgets. The bureaucratic elites who dominate the federal government despise the Constitution’s limitations on their power and view the document as just an archaic “piece of paper.”

They will not “walk away” if Paul is elected president. When its authority over the Southern states was challenged in the 19th century, the oligarchy suspended the Constitution and launched a bloody war that killed three quarters of a million people. They arrested newspaper editors, deported antiwar congressmen, and burned down American cities.

When its marginal interests were threatened in Southeast Asia, the oligarchy launched a devastating war that killed over a million people and left the region marinating in toxic defoliating chemicals.

To further its interests in the Middle East, the oligarchy slapped horrific sanctions on Iraq that so far have killed 250,000 children (and then trotted out Madeleine Albright—one of Clinton’s blood-stained trolls—to smugly declare that the deaths were “worth it”).

If the oligarchy would behave this way to protect its often marginal interests, what would it do to stop a devastating assault on its very existence?

The attack on Paul will begin in earnest when it appears he has an even remote possibility of winning. It will follow a fairly predictable path: The first step is already in play. The establishment will start by simply ignoring him, by using its power in the mainstream media and their influence over campaign donors. It will try excluding him from debates. This strategy is already failing. The Internet and talk radio are outside the elite’s direct control and are being used effectively by Paul to “get the message out.” The establishment will generate ridicule and fear mongering.

Paul’s ideas will be grotesquely distorted in establishment media “hit pieces.” They’ll say he wants to permit heroin use in public schools, or that he wants old people to die in the streets without their Social Security checks, or that he wants to allow greedy industrialists to dump toxic waste into your drinking water.

The next arrow in the oligarchy’s quiver will be scandal—real or fabricated. Usually, this takes the form of pictures, billing records, etc. involving financial or sexual hi-jinks. For these folks, it would be child’s play to implicate him in some sort of phony ethical, moral, or financial skullduggery (doctored pictures, sordid media accounts from “eyewitnesses,” etc.).

If Paul somehow survives this assault, the oligarchy will move on to the criminal justice system. On some fine day, a stretch limo will pull up to the Capitol Building and one of the establishment’s hit men (Jim Baker or maybe Vernon Jordan) will ooze into Paul’s office for a “chat.”

Maybe Paul forgot to fill out Form X109/23W on his 1997 income tax return? Or drained a mud puddle when he built his new house that could be classified as a “wetland”? Or maybe a close relative is in hot water with OSHA/FDA/IRS/youname-it (federal prosecutors love to go after relatives
in order to gain “leverage”). Paul’s sentence could be lessened if he agreed to drop his candidacy as part of a “plea bargain.”

Ayn Rand once stated that the hallmark of authoritarian systems is the creation of innumerable, incomprehensible laws. Such systems make everyone an un-indicted felon and allow for the exercise of arbitrary government power via selective prosecution. If all this failed and if Paul remained a threat to win the presidency, the establishment may decide to let him take office and then use their considerable influence to ensure his presidency ended in failure—mostly through their control of Congress, the federal bureaucracy and the mainstream media.

The oligarchy’s problem with this strategy is that it entails considerable risk. As president, Paul could use the powers of the office to inflict untold damage to the imperial structure (especially if he chose to withdraw American troops stationed overseas). Worse, he could appoint anti-tyranny “ideologues” to a variety of positions in the federal government. The damage to the oligarchs could take decades to undo.

Steven LaTulippe is a physician practicing in Ohio. He was an officer in the Air Force for 13 years.


Finally -- Ron Paul Makes Front Page of NY Times 

Not long ago, I reported on how supporters independent of Paul’s campaign raised $4 million online, and an additional $200,000 over the phone in a single day -- a record among this year’s Republican candidates. That support has had even more results than the money alone, since Paul says it has caused an additional “$10 million worth of free publicity.”

It has landed him both on Face the Nation (see Paul’s masterful handling, and sincere responses to tough questions in the video above), and in a front-page story in the New York Times.

What Can Ron Paul Do For Your Health?
Ron Paul supports all the basic principles of the Constitution – including limited government involvement.

What does this mean for your health?
Just as I encourage you to Take Control of Your Health, Ron Paul seeks to maximize your individual freedom, including those basic rights that pertain to your health.

Already, Paul has introduced The Health Freedom Protection Act, which would strongly and positively affect Mercola.com and many other natural health organizations and advocates, along with the field of natural health in general. This bill would curb restrictions imposed by the FDA and FTC regarding health claims for dietary supplements, preventing the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative or preventative effect of dietary supplements.

The fact that we need serious healthcare reform, and wider access and education about preventative health, is nothing new. Ron Paul understands these issues, and as President, he would have even more opportunities to introduce positive, and much-needed, change in the health-care arena. In terms of your health, Ron Paul:

Wants to expand the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

Opposes legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers.

Believes the government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

What Can YOU Do to Support Health Freedom?
If you agree with Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty then JOIN THE CAUSE!

I have never donated to any politician in my life. However, I am going to break that pattern now by contributing to the next Ron Paul drive on December 16th. If you are considering donating to Ron Paul do NOT do it until that time.

You see, it is NOT directly about the money. He is only going to use the money to gather media attention, and by collecting so much money, he gathered millions of dollars of media that he could never afford to buy. This helped spread his message about freedom and liberty, and the lack of which that is currently enslaving the U.S.

If you can't afford to donate that is no problem. What you CAN do is SPREAD the word.

Search my site for previous Ron Paul videos and send them to ALL your friends and relatives, and encourage them to sign up for the December 16th campaign.

1.3 million people receive this newsletter. We CAN make a HUGE difference. If only a small fraction of you spread this message in your networks, your communities, and at work, just imagine what we can do.

So inform everyone you know, and have them join the Ron Paul Boston Tea Party Campaign on December 16th, which is the celebration of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party in which the founding fathers of the U.S. made a difference that ultimately freed them from the largest military force on the planet a that time.

If you saw the amazing water buffalo video you can start to realize that if we all unite we really do have a chance to overthrow the lions that are trying to eat us alive .

Related Articles:

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Limit the FDA's Authority Over Supplements


Ron Paul and the Empire
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/02/ron-paul-and-the-empire.aspx

As Ron Paul’s campaign for president continues to gain momentum -- largely from an Internet-based movement -- people are beginning to wonder not only if Ron Paul could really win … but what would happen if he did.

Paul’s ideals are directly in contrast with the “carefully concealed oligarchy” that currently runs the United States. Both Democratic and Republican candidates are typically “puppets” of the establishment, but Ron Paul is a freelancer, and his three central ideas radical:

1. The federal government must follow the strict guidelines of the Constitution.

2. America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world, and practice a non-interventionist foreign policy.

3. America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency, and return to hard money.

Considering the massive bloodshed that has occurred historically any time the oligarchy was challenged, this LewRockwell.com article questions the lengths and powers that he will go to keep Ron Paul from changing the status quo.

Every premise of Paul’s campaign is “unacceptable, repellant and hateful to America’s ruling elite.” A plan to keep their existence intact would include the following sequentially escalating, steps:

* Ignore him and, if possible, exclude him from debates
* Ridicule and fear-mongering that distorts Paul’s ideas
* Scandal, real or fabricated
* Threats through the criminal justice system (with a “plea bargain” to drop his candidacy)
* Ensuring his presidency ended in failure, if he was elected

In short, Ron Paul’s ideas have the power to threaten the core of the American establishment’s worldwide empire. As for Paul’s campaign, the article points out, “This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution.”

-- LewRockwell.com July 31, 2007

 Dr. Mercola's Comments: 
I don't believe the powers that currently control our political system ever factored in the enormous influence the Internet can have on changing our culture.  When you combine this, with the courage and conviction of a true Patriot, amazing things can happen.  Dr. Paul speaks the TRUTH, and support for him is like nothing I have ever seen before. (I read nearly three dozen blogs every day, and about 5,000 posts a week, so I have a good sense of what people are feeling.)

The establishment’s plan to ignore Dr. Paul and hope he disappears from the radar is clearly not working. He was recently featured in a complimentary New York Times article, and received an enormously favorable response from his interview with Google executive Elliot Schrage.

I am confident that this momentum is only going to get stronger as the election grows nearer. We’re in for a very bumpy ride and -- (if Dr. Paul gets elected) -- some changes in the United States, that have been a long time coming.

Related Articles:
  Ron Paul's Candidacy Gains Momentum 
  Ron Paul Stirs Up Presidential Debate 
  Spotlight on Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

Ron Paul on the Tonight Show:
The reason why Ron Paul's popularity is skyrocketing is easy to understand after hearing him talk with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show: his message makes sense, and it resonates with the American people.

Earlier this month, Ron Paul even set an online fundraising record when he raised over $4 million in just 24 hours.

Ron Paul’s message is one of freedom and liberty for you as an individual. In terms of your health, Ron Paul is committed to making positive changes in the health-care arena, which is one of the reasons why I want to share his views with you. Paul believes in:

* Expanding the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

* Opposing legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers.

* The notion that the government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.


U.S. Presidential Candidate Most in Favor of Raw Milk
U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) has introduced legislation (HR 4077) that would allow the transportation and sale of raw milk and raw milk products. His bill would remove an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell these products, and people who wish to consume them.

Ron Paul took this action after he heard from many people who would like to purchase unpasteurized milk -- people who had done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk.

“These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health,” Paul said.

“I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting consumers’ rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products,” he continued.

Ron Paul is committed to making positive changes in the health-care arena, and this move to legalize the sale of raw milk proves that.

Raw milk is truly a health-promoting food, but the way the laws are currently configured, many Americans are forced to break the law to obtain it.

As Ron Paul stated, most of you who drink raw milk are doing so because you have done the research, or experienced the benefits first-hand. The federal government really has no place telling you what is healthy for you and your family.

Ironically, the same government that allows trans fats, fast food and corn syrup to proliferate the market thinks that you need to be “protected” from the valuable nutrients in raw milk. If you follow the money trail, you will indeed find out the very precise reason why this is.

If this legislation is passed, it would make obtaining healthy raw milk so much easier for many of you, and I applaud Ron Paul for introducing it.

In case you aren’t familiar with some of Paul’s other health-related opinions, he believes in:

Expanding the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
Opposing legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers.
The notion that the government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.
More so than any other presidential candidate, Ron Paul is trying to improve the fatally flawed health paradigm in time to benefit you and your children.


Making a Recession Great
by Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst031608.htm

House Democrats recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford them.  By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% as well.  Estates would again be taxed at 55%.  The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500.  Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by increases in dividend and capital gains taxes.  It's not just that the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich.  They want to raise taxes on everybody.
 
The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere.   The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion.  The Democrats' budget gives the President all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war.  While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.
 
Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well.  Over half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements.  The total cost of government now eats up over half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate.  Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.
 
The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction.  While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend over $3 trillion of your money in various ways. While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place.  Many so-called "Iraq War critics," criticize this administration rather than truly opposing the decades old policies that led to war.  They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home.  The American people want peace.  Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it.  Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved. 
 
This spending spree is exactly the wrong policy for an economy on the brink of recession.  History has shown that all empires eventually crumble under a worthless currency and with an exhausted military.   Since too many of our nation's leaders haven't taken the time to learn from history, we are seeing mistakes repeated through recently enacted policies such as the new House budget.


Freedom Force International

Ron Paul for President 2008

Ron Paul Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.

During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

WORK FOR RON PAUL OR FREEDOM FORCE?
That’s a trick question that needs to be explained. Some of our members have asked to be excused from working on Freedom Force projects because they feel it is more important to devote their time to the Ron Paul campaign. I am delighted to know that they are doing that because, as we have stated many times in our Monthly Reports, that is a top priority of Freedom Force. However, this is not an either-or situation. Being active in the Ron Paul campaign IS the number-one project of Freedom Force.

Political campaigns come and go. Every four years, large numbers of people become motivated for political activism because they can see (or hope for) a specific victory with a specific date. When that date passes, most of them drop out. They return to inaction and wait another three years before doing much of anything.

THE BATTLE WILL NOT BE OVER IN 2008
The battle to restore the Constitution is not going to be won in 2008 even if Ron Paul is elected. Please re-read that statement. It is naive to believe that getting a Constitutionalist into the White House is going to change the collectivist orientation of Congress, the Courts, and the huge bureaucracy of civil servants that make the wheels of government turn. Getting Ron Paul elected would be a huge accomplishment and a giant step in the right direction, but members of Freedom Force understand that he would be surrounded by enemies, and his every move would be resisted. This struggle eventually will span many years and spread into every branch of government before we can even come close to claiming victory.

We work in the Ron Paul campaign, not because we expect the election of a single man to restore freedom in America, but because we know that political campaigns are a powerful educational and recruiting tool that, because of the passion attached to them, allow us to reach many more people with the message of freedom than is possible in off-election years. Regardless of the outcome in the primaries, regardless of the outcome at the convention, regardless of the outcome in the November election, we know that we have just begun. The long battle will continue into the next election or, if meaningful elections are no longer held, into whatever arena we may find ourselves, and we must be laying the groundwork for that now.

The Ron Paul campaign is not the end-all of our efforts; it is a means to that end. We must work mightily within the campaign, but we also must be preparing and building a foundation to carry the battle, far beyond 2008, to future action and ultimate victory.

http://www.freedom-force.org/


Why Ron Paul Can Win!
When a Candidate is running for the Presidency of the United States, even if they win the popular vote in the state primaries or caucuses, they do not automatically get the delegates as projected on the news.  These delegates have to be voted on first in the county, then state conventions. 

Did you know that the delegates can actually vote to unbind their delegates that are bound by state rules and change their vote to another candidate of their choice? Did you know that delegates can actually overturn the previous vote? Did you know the delegates have control of the entire process?

     The link for the RNC Delegate Rules:
     http://www.gop.com/Images
   
    How to become a delegate, 50 states:
     http://www3.webng.com/ron...

Ron Paul Can Win The Republican Nomination Just Like Abraham Lincoln
Posted March 14th, 2008 by Jdayh

The delegates are bound to McCain only for the first few rounds of voting at the convention. You see, the national convention is, in and of itself, an actual election. Only this time is the only election the really matters in determining who the party’s nominee will be. Some states send “bound” delegates to the convention who must vote for the candidate who garnered the popular vote win. Those delegates must vote for that person whether or not they support him or her. Each state has different rules, but the delegates are not bound forever. If, for example, McCain fails to get 1191 of the delegates to vote for him in the first election round at the convention, some of the delegates (depending on what state you’re from) are “released” and then can vote for whomever they want in round two… some are still bound and are not released until round 2 or three. I believe that after round three, however, that ALL delegates from ALL states are “released” and can vote for the candidate of their choice and it doesn’t even have to be a candidate who is even running!!

This is exactly how Abraham Lincoln was nominated. He went into the convention with virtually no delegates bound to him. The front runner at the time was a divisive figure (much like McCain is today) and was unable to garner the requisite number of delegate votes in round one. As delegates started to be released after each round, Lincoln garnered more and more votes until finally, after the 5th or 6th round, Lincoln received the requisite number of delegate votes and became the party’s nominee.

Bottom line… you’re state’s primary election results mean next to nothing in the overall nomination process.

Read these posts from actual Ron Paul Delegates:

We only need the majority

On March 9th, 2008 plunix says:
We only need the majority of delegates from 5 states to be put on the ballot NOT THE POPULAR VOTE OF 5 STATES and I assure you we have picked up the majority of uncommitted delegates for Dr. Paul in more than 5 states.

For clarification of that point read the rules for the Republican national convention:

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
(c) The total time of the nominating speech and seconding speeches for any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes.

One delegation nominates and 4 others second the nomination.


The Sausage Factory by Rep. Ron Paul (August 1, 2005)

Congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching.  Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government. 

Late-night arm-twisting by House leaders to get votes is of course nothing new.  We witnessed far worse when Congress passed the ruinous Medicare prescription drug bill in the dead of night two years ago.  Yet even after months of unprecedented wheeling and dealing by corporate lobbyists, congressional leaders, and the White House, the Washington establishment still failed to pass CAFTA in the US House.  That’s right, when the 15-minute voting period expired last Wednesday evening, CAFTA seemingly had been defeated.

Here’s how.  As the vote progressed, the tally was neck and neck.  When the 15-minute period ended, CAFTA had gone down in flames.  But pro-CAFTA forces were so determined to get what they wanted, they broke the rules.  House leadership ignored the time limit and kept twisting arms and making deals until they finally had the votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later.

What kind of deals?  Well, one member of House leadership told reluctant legislators, “We've got to have you; you tell us what you want.”  And tell they did.  Lawmakers in textile producing states were bought off with promises of textile subsidies.  Lawmakers in sugar-producing states were bought off with promises of special treatment in the 2007 farm bill.  On and on it went, with promises of new bridges, parks, and whatever else it took to pass CAFTA.

Rest assured that you will pay dearly for these bribes used to buy votes.  Every favor granted and every pet project funded comes on top of the pork-laden appropriations bills already passed in the House this year.  These new goodies will be added to the final House-Senate versions passed later this year.  One of my colleagues estimated that the price tag for buying the CAFTA vote will be at least $50 billion.  That’s right, $50 billion to win a vote.  Is this what you want from your representatives in office?

Perhaps the strangest vote buyoff occurred two days before the CAFTA vote.  Lawmakers from hard-hit manufacturing districts steadfastly have opposed CAFTA, arguing that it would accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to nations with cheap labor.  So House leaders scrambled to craft last-minute legislation to “get tough” on China, which is the real source of concern for most American manufacturers.  A bill was drawn up, and a hasty vote cast, so lawmakers could explain that they traded a yes vote on CAFTA for action against China.  One small problem presented itself, however: the China bill failed on the House floor!  So House leaders went back to the drawing board, struck some and held a second vote on the same bill the next day.  This time it passed, but its chances of surviving the Senate or a White House veto are virtually nil.  So members from manufacturing districts literally sold their votes for nothing.  Their months of double-talking, coyness, and vote peddling resulted in nothing more than an empty promise.

The president’s press secretary called the CAFTA vote “a real victory for the American people.”  The problem is the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of CAFTA, and those who have overwhelmingly oppose it.  CAFTA was conceived and created by corporate interests, and to claim otherwise is preposterous.  The CAFTA vote had nothing to do with the American public, or even trade policy per se.  CAFTA was driven by politics and nothing more.  Multinational corporations and political globalists share the same goals, namely the centralization of political power in international bodies and the diminution of national sovereignty.  What we witnessed last week was not just the selling of votes, but also a sellout of American control over our own trade regulations.


Freedom Links:

http://www.realityzone.com/freedom.html

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/

http://www.freedom-force.org/

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/

http://www.gata.org/