Campaign for Liberty at Rock the Debate

Adam Kokesh, former Marine who served in Iraq, speaking as a representative of Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty at Rock The Debate on the Ole Miss campus prior to the first presidential debate of 2008.

The video is a bit shaky during the first minute or so as I moved to a better vantage point, but I didn't want to miss the audio.

Enjoy!

Objections Addressed, Part 1

In October (Wow! I haven’t been here in awhile, huh?), I included a short post entitled Who is Ron Paul? All that was included in the post was a YouTube video and a simple observation and question: “He had me at ‘Constitution’. What about you?” Well, never ask a question if you don’t want to know the answer.

I received a few comments and emails with some questions and (passionate) responses that I wanted to address specifically and in some detail, so I will be doing that in a short series of posts over the next couple of weeks. Again, please leave a comment or send an email to agree, disagree, or otherwise propel the discussion. All I ask is that you do so civilly.

The most passionate response I received was from one of my dearest friends who I’ve known since college. I am christening him “Bill” for the purposes of this discussion. He and his wife are like a brother and sister to Frodo and I. Bill and Frodo usually get into intense religious and political discussions whenever they talk, and I always found this a little amusing since they probably agree 90% of the time, but if you walked in in the middle of one of their conversations, you might not believe it. It is like a tennis match between two relatively equally matched players but one has a slightly better serve and the other has the mildly superior backhand… neither is so superior that they become discouraged but their complimentary strengths make them better players in the end. Anyway, all that to say, I love him… be nice (to both of us). *grin*

Bill gave me his permission to publish his email:

Ron Paul is an insult to all those serving abroad, and does not understand the Constitution, at all. If he feels that only Congress should deploy troops, then STOP FUNDING THEIR MOVEMENT!

This is a symptom that afflicts so many - the idea that the military can have, in effect, 535 Commanders-in-Chief.

Of all the Republican candidates (and I don't know who I support yet), he is most offensive to me. Thankfully, most of America thinks so too.

Iraq is not a mistaken policy - sure, mistakes have been made, as in any war. To pull out of Iraq is shortsighted, and any potential leader that thinks so should be avoided at all costs.

I’ll start at the beginning:

Ron Paul is an insult to all those serving abroad, and does not understand the Constitution, at all. If he feels that only Congress should deploy troops, then STOP FUNDING THEIR MOVEMENT!

This is a symptom that afflicts so many - the idea that the military can have, in effect, 535 Commanders-in-Chief.

Dr. Paul is in favor of pulling our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. He has a few reasons for this, but the primary one is that the war was undeclared and therefore unconstitutional. After 9/11, Dr. Paul (as a member of Congress) approved the funds for our military to go into Afghanistan to accomplish a specific mission. In his address to the nation at the beginning of operation Enduring Freedom on the afternoon of October 7, 2001, President Bush enumerated our military’s goals as follows:

On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

As he concluded his address, President Bush stated:

To all the men and women in our military -- every sailor, every soldier, every airman, every coastguardsman, every Marine -- I say this: Your mission is defined; your objectives are clear; your goal is just.

The goal was clear, shut down the al Qaeda terrorist training camps, capture their leaders so they could be brought to justice, and maim the Taliban’s military capability. Our soldiers fought well, and on March 8, 2002 then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated:

We've now pretty much completed the phase of taking the Taliban out of Afghanistan's government and putting the al Qaeda on the run. They're no longer capable of using Afghanistan as a safe haven and that's terribly important…

…It is not possible for bin Laden to be using Afghanistan effectively as a haven for terrorism. He's not recruiting there. He's not training there. He's not raising money there. He's on the run.

Also, numerous sources (you can read some here, here, and here) believe that Osama bin Laden fled into Pakistan during the battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001.

My understanding of these events is as follows- We did not declare war when we went into Afghanistan because a terrorist group that was being actively supported by Afghanistan’s government attacked us on our own soil, therefore the government was complicit in the attack and in effect declared war on us. Therefore, we were retaliating to an active declaration of war by a foreign power. According to the War Powers Act of 1973, the Congress and President may use military force without an official declaration of war for 60 days. After the 60 days are over, Congress must either officially declare war or cease military actions. There are a few instances where this 60 days can be extended an additional 30, but after that, the Congress must declare war or forces must be brought home.

Within this 90 day time frame (assuming a 30 day extension), the majority of Taliban strongholds were toppled (the most notable being Kabul, Kunduz and Kandahar) and all known organized factions of al-Qaeda were known or presumed to have fled to Pakistan. Hostilities should have ended or war should have been declared.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the power to declare war is given to the Congress:

The Congress shall have power…

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, according to the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act of 1973, the United States Congress should have either declared war or removed our troops from Afghanistan by January 7, 2002 (90 days after the start of operation Enduring Freedom). Had the Congress declared war, the President then would have continued in his role as Commander and Chief according to the powers given him in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

No one, and definitely not me or Dr. Paul, is suggesting that there should be 535 Commanders in Chief. That would not only be ludicrous, but it would also be in violation of the Constitution. The founding fathers wisely separated the ability to declare and fund war from the ability to command the military. They wanted to provide an obstacle to the corrupting nature of power and try to prevent any one branch of the government (specifically the President given the tyrannical monarchy they had just successfully severed ties with) from having complete control of the military. It is rather difficult to use the military to establish a dictatorship if the purse has been welded shut.

Alexander Hamilton addressed this issue in Federalist Paper #24: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered:

A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.

If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.

As to Bill’s frustration “ If he feels that only Congress should deploy troops, then STOP FUNDING THEIR MOVEMENT!”, I am a little confused as to why this statement is included here. Since the original deployment of troops in October of 2001, Dr. Paul has not voted to continue funding the troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. Dr. Paul didn’t even vote to send troops into Iraq. He has earned his nickname of “Dr. No” by consistently voting against any unconstitutional legislations, resolutions, etc. that are introduced in the House of Representatives. On October 8, 2002, Dr. Paul voted against House Joint Resolution 144 which gave the President unconstitutional powers over the US military. Basically, the resolution hands over constitutionally established congressional powers to deploy the military to the executive branch. This clearly breaches the system of checks and balances the Constitution was meant to establish. On that same day, Dr. Paul voted against the Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 (which included funding for undeclared wars) as presented in HR5010. (These votes took place in the 107^th Congress.) He has continued to vote against such unconstitutional spending and troop deployments. (The Washington Post has a great site where they track the voting records of all members of Congress. It is a wonderful resource but can be a bit difficult to navigate. You’ll need patience to find older votes since they are listed chronologically with the most recent first. The New York Times also has summaries of voting records for all of the Presidential candidates for a variety of topics. You can see all of their voting records on the hostilities in Iraq here.)

Bill, in the case of finances as they pertain to current US military actions, I believe you are preaching to the choir. As far as your understanding of the constitutionally appointed roles of the Congress and the President where the military is concerned, I think you are severely in error.

I will address the remainder of Bill’s email in a separate post in a few days.

Also, I wanted to note again that these are my opinions and understandings of these issues. Although I believe that they align to those held by Dr. Paul and that I have faithfully represented his stances here, I encourage you to read his opinions for yourself. Check out his voting record at the sites I mention above or go to his campaign website or congressional website for more information.

The Ron Paul Phenomenon on PBS Friday 12/14

FYI, there will be a story entitled "The Ron Paul Phenomenon" on the PBS series NOW this Friday, December 14th at 8:30pm (I assume this is EST). You can see a preview of the segment here. The story looks like it is going to be less about Dr. Paul and more about why his supporters are so entrepreneurial and passionate in their support of him. (thanks to Heather at Stepping Heavenward for the heads up)

Also, there is a great interview of Dr. Paul (aka Dr. No) by John Stossel on ABC's website. There is a text summary of the interview, Ron Paul Unplugged, and a series of video clips, Paul & Stossel: Two Libertarians Talk, Ron Paul on Freedom of Choice, Ron Paul: Is War Ever Justifiable? and Paul on Drugs, Prostitution and Gay Marriage.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November

If you are from Britain or a history buff (or homeschooled *grin*), the title phrase probably recalls the story of Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was a member of a Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant group who attempted to assassinate King James I and blow-up the British Parliament on November 5, 1605 in what has become known as the Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes Day is still celebrated in Britain and involves fireworks, bonfires, and the burning of Guy in effigy. Recitation of the following rhyme is popular among British children as part of the celebration of Guy Fawkes' capture:

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;
I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'Twas his intent.
To blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below.
Poor old England to overthrow.
By God's providence he was catch'd,
With a dark lantern and burning match

Holloa boys, Holloa boys, let the bells ring
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, God save the King!

Hip hip Hoorah !
Hip hip Hoorah !

A penny loaf to feed ol'Pope,
A farthing cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down,
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar,'
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head,
Then we'll say: ol'Pope is dead.

(That's about as cheery as Ring Around the Rosy, isn't it?)

If you are a movie buff, the phrase "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" may bring to mind the Guy Fawkes mask clad freedom fighter (known as "V") of the fictitious, socialistic London of the future as portrayed in the movie V for Vendetta (based on the graphic novel). You can see V in the picture to the right. (The poster behind him is one of the many slogans used by the totalitarian government that attempts to place the government in the position of a god.) The movie's opening voiceover draws on the children's rhyme:

Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot... But what of the man? I know his name was Guy Fawkes and I know, in 1605, he attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. But who was he really? What was he like? We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them... but you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love... And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man... A man that made me remember the Fifth of November. A man that I will never forget.

And here is the speech given by V when he addresses the people of London and reveals his plans to overthrow the totalitarian government and expresses the importance of a unified citizenry if change is to take hold:

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

As of yesterday, November 5, 2007, "Remember, remember the 5th of November" has taken on new meaning. It is the day the Ron Paul Revolution took a giant leap forward. Yesterday, the Ron Paul campaign raised $4.3 million dollars in 24 hours. The fundraiser was prompted by an independent Ron Paul supporter through his website www.thisnovember5th.com, but was embraced by the campaign (according to an article by ABC News, Who Are Ron Paul's Donors?). Donations came from both already active supporters and donors and more than 21,000 donors who registered with the campaign for the first time yesterday. As of today (November 6th) at 3:30 central time, the Ron Paul 2008 website is reporting this quarter's total fundraising has reached just shy of $7.4 million which surpasses last quarter's surprising $5.1 million and is more than half of this quarter's goal of $12 million.

So, are you ready to join the Ron Paul Revolution and celebrate a victory next November 5th?

*Note: I haven't forgotten about responding to the comments I received (via both email and the comments section) to my last Ron Paul post. I am up against a work deadline, and a "cut and paste" post like this is easier than a researched, thoughtful post. I'll begin posting responses to the other post in a week or two (I hope... as long as I keep chugging along on this deadline).

Sorry about the weird formatting on the rhyme. Not sure what's going on. Looks fine in writing mode, but it's off when I post. Oh well.

Who is Ron Paul?

This is Ron Paul:




He had me at "Constitution".
What about you?

This video is professional and informative. It is a great introduction for those who would like to learn where Ron Paul stands. BTW, the CNN Situation Room segment shown at the beginning of this video is one of the better overall candidate bios that I have seen in awhile.

HT: Heather at Stepping Heavenward

An Open Letter and a Response

After hosting a GOP debate, CNBC thought it would be a good idea to put up an online poll to see how viewers responded. It didn't take them long to decide that their unscientific, online poll was resulting in an unscientific, unfavorable result and to take the poll down. You can follow the link below to read the letter by CNBC's Managing Editor, Allen Wastler explaining why they decided to remove the poll and his opinion on the matter:

An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful

There was a very well-written response to Mr. Wastler's letter by Michael van der Galien of The Van Der Galien Gazette (my apologies to Mr. van der Galien for the absence of the required umlaut in his name, but I have no idea how to make that happen here):

CNBC to Ron Paul Supporters: Knock. It. Off.

However, I felt that a "letter" posted in a comment to Mr. van der Galien's response was intelligent and concise (I am printing it in it's entirety here as it is impossible for me to link to a specific comment):

Dear Allen,

I’m sure you’re getting plenty of emails attacking your character and judgment after your latest admission of tampering with the polls due to activism that favored Ron Paul. I apologize for my fellow Americans who have foolishly clung to the oddball notion that politics is a participatory process and that by getting active and supporting their candidate, they are exercising the democratic imperative. As we both know, real election-day polling doesn’t rely on the activism of a voting base. I, like everyone else, am required to hand over my voters’ registration card to Zogby and wait for my phone call.

As a Ron Paul supporter, it’s embarrassing to see my fellow Americans taking steps to organize themselves in order to make a good showing in these online polls for their candidate, when it’s clear that the voting bases of these other, more popular candidates are not willing to match the efforts with the same kind of activist enthusiasm. As the saying goes: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. America is truly being serviced by your hammer.

In Sincere Apology,
(me)

*Note: The "(me)" above is not me, it's some other me.

HSLDA Shouldn't Endorse Federal Candidates

I learned this evening, through the MeetUp group Homeschoolers for Ron Paul, that the Home School Legal Defense Association Political Action Committee (HSLDA PAC) has endorsed a candidate in the GOP Presidential Primary race... former governor Mike Huckabee. This endorsement by HSLDA President J. Michael Smith and HSLDA Chairman Michael P. Farris was actually made in July via a letter to member voters prior to Iowa's Ames Straw Poll. (Obviously, the news took a while to trickle down here. Probably couldn't stand the heat.) I searched the HSLDA website, and could not find any mention of the endorsement. HSLDA is a 501(c)3 non-profit and prohibited by law from making political endorsements; HSLDA PAC is not a non-profit and can endorse candidates to their hearts content even though they have ties to HSLDA. Nice little loophole there, huh? (This would be so much simpler if the government would simplify the election process, but that is a post for another day.) I was able to find a copy of the letter here if you are interested in reading it.

As a member of HSLDA, I felt I should write to them and express my disappointment at their endorsement. Here is what I wrote:

Greetings!

I am writing to express my disappointment at HSLDA's endorsement of former governor Mike Huckabee for the position of Presidential Candidate in the 2008 GOP primary.

I agree that former governor Mr. Huckabee is a friend of homeschooling families, however, I do not believe that HSLDA should be endorsing ANY candidate on the federal level. Using the rule of subsidiarity, education of any kind (government school, private school or home school) should be handled on the local level. When national education organizations, such as HSLDA, promote a Presidential candidate, it is not only purporting its favor of a specific candidate but also condoning the federalization of the education system in America. This federalization is a losing situation for homeschoolers. In the event that HSLDA feels it must endorse a candidate on the federal level, it should reserve that endorsement for a candidate who supports the de-federalization of America's educational system.

HSLDA could be a better resource to its members by educating them on the stands of every candidate and pointing out which are friends of homeschooling by emphasizing their voting records and other actions in this realm.

Please take a constitutional stand and help reduce the interference of the federal government in the lives of homeschooling families by refusing to endorse candidates for federal positions based on issues that should not be handled at the federal level.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to seeing a list of all homeschool friendly candidates for races at all levels of government on HSLDA's website in the near future.

Blessings,

Seriously, I think that they should not endorse any federal-level candidates, and that includes Ron Paul. The only possible exception that I could think of would be if they endorsed a candidate who was determined to eliminate the Department of Education for being unconstitutional, but since that is obviously not something they plan on doing, I would rather that they endorse no one.

Some interesting tidbits that I uncovered while I was preparing my letter to HSLDA:

1. According to The American Spectator, the Federal Election Commission is investigating HSLDA's endorsement of Huckabee saying:

"It doesn't appear from the materials we've been given that HSLDA PAC was involved in any way with the planning of this endorsement," says an FEC staffer. "Everything was through the nonprofit arm. It doesn't appear that these folks even attempted to build a firewall, so it makes us wonder about coordination."

That's just what you want to hear about the organization that you pay in case you have need of legal representation, huh?

2. I did a search on HSLDA's website for "Huckabee" and came up with 11 hits. Six of these were for interviews with the former governor on HSLDA's radio spot Homeschool Heartbeat. The remaining 5 pertained to Mr. Huckabee's thoughts and policies on education (with homeschooling implications) or homeschooling specifically, generally all pro-homeschooling. (If you do your own search - for anything - on their site, ignore the hit count in the upper right-hand corner of the window. It is not accurate. You have to scroll through and hand count.)

3. I also did a search on HSLDA's website for "Ron Paul" and came up with 25 hits. All 25 hits pertained to legislative decisions or opinions of Dr. Paul. All were in support of less government intrusion into the lives of homeschooling families. None were related to interviews. (As with the hits for Mr. Huckabee, some of the hits for policy were for a single piece of legislation or issue that was being discussed multiple times.)

4. A search for "Fred Thompson" at the HSLDA site yielded one hit. It was for a vote HSLDA found favorable (in 1997).

5. A similar search for "Giuliani" yielded no hits.

6. A search for "Mitt Romney" yielded one hit. It was in regards to sex education in Massachusetts schools. HSLDA mentions in the alert that the purpose of sending the alert is not directly related to homeschooling but to "family issues in Massachusetts."

7. And just a little FYI... there is no constitutional right to education stated (explicitly or otherwise) in the US Constitution. (This has been upheld in numerous Supreme Court decisions, including the case of San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez- see Section II,B, paragraph 9 of Justice Powell's court opinion.) Therefore, education falls under the stipulations of the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I am definitely against HSLDA endorsing any candidate, but I am a little disturbed that they don't even seem to be logical in their endorsement. Given my discoveries in #2-6 above, HSLDA has mentioned Ron Paul more times when speaking of legislators who support freedom for homeschoolers than of any other candidate. So why aren't they endorsing Ron Paul instead? The lack of logic all-around on the behalf of HSLDA just astounds me.

If you are a member of HSLDA, please go to their website and send them an email (you'll need your login information) letting them know that you believe their endorsement of Mr. Huckabee, or any federal-level candidate, is an endorsement of federalized education which is bad for homeschoolers.

If you are not an HSLDA member but would like to make them aware of your disapproval of their endorsement of federalized education via their endorsement of federal candidates, go to their website for contact information. (If you can't find it, let me know and I'll dig it up for you.)

And no, I won't ban you or anything if you contact them and give a different point-of-view than I have expressed here. Why? It's your right.


For purposes of full disclosure, please note that I am a member of both HSLDA (although not of HSLDA PAC which is, as far as I can tell, a separate entity) and of Homeschoolers for Ron Paul. I am also a member of a local Ron Paul MeetUp group.

Update: (09/20/07 @ 8:09pm) I have added a link to HSLDA PAC's website above. Also, according to HSLDA's "About & FAQ" page, they are a 501(c)4 non-profit, not a 501(c)3 as stated in the American Spectator article that I referenced above. What's the difference? I haven't a clue, really. All I learned about 501(c)s I learned on Wikipedia, here and here.

Okay, I get it... I'm Libertarian...

You scored as Libertarian, For you, government has no right to limit personal or economic freedoms whatsoever. You want government off your back and out of your pockets! For you, national government should be as small as possible, providing only essential services, such as mail delivery and national security. Local authorites have a better understanding of the needs of its citizenry. Libertarian 92% Anarchist 83% Conservative 67% Socialist/Marxist 33% Liberal 25% Environmentalist (Green) 17% Fascist 17% Centrist What is your true Political Ideology? created with QuizFarm.com

HT: Heather at Stepping Heavenward

Why do I take these quizzes? I already know the answer. Well, the "anarchist" thing threw me a bit (I'm just a jumble of contradictions, huh?), but generally, I knew what was coming. I guess I should just admit that I am a political junkie and I think stuff like this is fun. So sue me.

On a related note:

Have you joined your local Ron Paul Meetup Group yet?

Want some Ron Paul gear? My personal favorites:

This one is proudly displayed on our fire-engine-red Suburban.



Again, hat tip to Heather. I've gotta get me one of these!

And don't forget to order your official "Ron Paul 2008" signs, buttons, and literature at the campaign website. Order enough to hand out and spread the word!