100% of the people I know on the internet, support Ron Paul.
100%, not 99%, of the people I know personally support Ron Paul, unless they
just haven’t heard of him—which is now down to only a few percent.
BEFORE the jews who run the media selected the three stooges (Obama, Hillary,
and McCain [literally Son of CAIN]) as our “presidential candidates”, they were
LUCKY to win 4%, and usually won only ONE PERCENT, of the popular vote as
reflected by internet and media polls, while Ron Paul walked away with 50-93%.
This is NOT how the Constitution works.It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for alien enemy foreign jews to take control of
our communications channels, establish themselves as the fourth branch of
government, and take 100% control of the other three branches.
IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.The only
legitimate, qualified, popular, constitutional candidate is Ron Paul, and by our
LAW, he MUST be president.Nobody
else can LEGALLY take that office.
We are a nation of law, not jews, not emotion, not sound bytes, not media
hysteria, and not rule by alien enemy foreign agents.The following is our law and has been for 5,000 years:
When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt
possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me,
like as all the nations that are about
me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king
over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one
from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a
stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
Deuteronomy 17:14-15
Hillary is not our “brethren”, as she’s a woman.McCain is a jew, and Scripture, still our law and forever our law, refers
specifically to a jew as “a stranger”, as above, who is PROHIBITED from ruling
over us.Obama is so far removed
from that prohibition that his race is not even mentioned here, as this
prohibition was understood for thousands of years prior to Deuteronomy.Our Founding Fathers knew this well, and we need to relearn it fast.
Some IDIOT on Hannity and Colmes on
October 21, 2007, referred to Ron Paul as "certifiably insane", the
ONLY reference on this MISERABLE "show" to Dr. Paul
Ron Paul takes off the gloves about jews pretending to be
neo-conservatives!
You MUST see this video of Mark Larsen dressing
DOWN Bitch Romney! A
CLASSIC!!
When Ron Paul is EXCLUDED
from a poll, as he was in three "mainstream media" polls like the WBZ poll, joos like Giuliani get 23% of the vote,
pro-anti-abortion Romney gets 23%, and Manchurian candidate McCain gets
15%. BUT, when Ron Paul IS included, as he was in
14 other objective internet-based polls around the nation[where he received an
average of 59% of the vote], the joo is lucky to get 8%, abortionist Romney is
lucky to get 10%, and long lost Manchurian candidate McCain is lucky to get ONE
PERCENT.
Let’s be candid
here.The news media does NOT
represent American public opinion on ANY issue, in ANY manner.Every mediot is marching to the beat of
a drum which is the precise antonym to real American ideals particularly when
it comes to the Constitutional principles supported by Dr. Paul.
Counting both
Democrats and Republicans, Ron Paul gets 72% of vote, Jan. 5, 2007 in Colorado,
hitlery and jooliani both get 4%:
Ron
Paul wins 87% of the 2,745 votes on the CNN poll on the Florida
debate
You
Poll
Who won the CNN Youtube Republican Debate in Florida?
Fred Thompson
0.6%
Rudy Giuliani
1.1%
Mike Huckabee
5.8%
Duncan Hunter
1.2%
John McCain
1.7%
Ron Paul
87%
Mitt Romney
1.5%
Tom Tancredo
0.8%
You voted: Ron Paul
Not a single one of
these CNN “strategists” understood a THING about politics, much
less mainstream American opinion.Schneider and Begala thought Giuliani won the debate but only 11% of
their *own* audience agreed with them.By what process have they been SO MISLED about reality?How can a tv set make them this STUPID? Holmes
was even worse off, picking McCain when 6 TIMES as many out of her own audience
picked Ron Paul.
They couldn’t
even pick the best one-liners correctly.Begala struck out twice, picking two candidates who combined ranked
almost lower than Ron Paul, Schneider picked McCain who less than 9% agreed
with, and Begala picked Tancredo who, while he performed better in this
category than McCain, received a quarter as many votes as Ron Paul.
Can it get worse?Yup.NONE of these “strategists”
picked Giuliani as showing the worst performance, while a third of their
audience DID.In such an important
category, Schneider just horsed around by picking Bush who wasn’t even in
the debate, Begala picked Thompson who only 10% agreed with, and Holmes picked
Romney who only 17% agreed with.
If you set out to
intentionally select answers which would be just the opposite of the actual
answers, could you do worse than these “strategists”?It’s hard to imagine how,
isn’t it?Instead of horsing
around, Schneider could have decided that the worse performance came from
Duncan Hunter or Jim Gilmore or Mike Huckabee, as each of them received less
than 2%.They all three could have
voted that the winner of the debate was either Tommy Thompson or Jim Gilmore,
as a statistical zero percent selected them in this category.But as an overall resounding antonym to
public opinion, their choices were perfect.
Poll Shows Obama & Edwards Rallying in NH
11/28/2007
With
the New Hampshire presidential primaries just six weeks away, Hillary
Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama and John Edwards is shrinking, while
Republican front-runner Mitt Romney appears secure, according to a
7NEWS-Suffolk University poll.
Likely
voters in the Democratic Primary, which includes independents, gave 34 percent
support to Hillary Clinton, while 22 percent chose Barack Obama. Just 12
percent were undecided. However, in a June 2007 7NEWS/Suffolk University
poll, Clinton led Obama by 18 points compared to her 12-point spread today.
“If Obama could shave off another six points in the next few weeks,
he’ll be well within the margin of error – and John Edwards still
has a chance to make it a three-person race," said David Paleologos,
director of the Suffolk
University Political Research Center.
Republican primary
Mitt
Romney (34 percent) topped Rudy Giuliani (20 percent), followed by John McCain
(13 percent), Ron Paul (8 percent), and Mike Huckabee (7 percent), with 14
percent undecided.
In
the June 2007 7NEWS/Suffolk University poll, Romney had led Giuliani by four
points, as opposed to fourteen points today. In the meantime, Fred
Thompson, who polled 13 percent support in June, only garnered 2 percent in
this poll.
“The
dynamics are different on the Republican side,” said Paleologos.
“Romney’s up; Giuliani’s down; McCain’s flat; Thompson
is toast; and Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are trying to break into double
digits.”
Another
sign of Romney’s strength: When likely Republican voters were asked which
Presidential candidate they would trust to drive their children to school, 25
percent picked Romney; 17 percent chose McCain; 9 percent, Huckabee; and only 7
percent indicated Giuliani.
Choices not set in stone
Nearly
half of likely voters from both parties said that they may change their minds
before Jan. 8, 2008. Eleven percent were “very likely to
change their mind,” and 38 percent were “somewhat likely.”
The
poll also reveals some similarities among New Hampshire voters of both parties,
such as:
79 percent opposed driver’s licenses for
undocumented immigrants
76 percent believed New Hampshire will have the first
presidential primary in 2012
62 percent said selecting a candidate with similar
views on issues was more important than winning the White House
About the poll
The 7NEWS-Suffolk University poll was conducted from Nov. 25
to Nov. 27, 2007. The margin of error is for each party subsample of 300
respondents is +/- 5.65 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence. The
600 respondent margin of error is +/- 4.00 percent. All respondents were
likely primary voters in the New Hampshire presidential primary on Jan. 8,
2008. Marginals and 455 pages of cross-tabulation data are
available. For more information, please contact David Paleologos,
director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, at 781-290-9310.
The amount by which the following
‘Republican Iowa Caucus” is off by so much that it’s
criminal.
We MUST ask, and we MUST GET ANSWERS,
about how they are an order of magnitude off on the Ron Paul figure [an average
of 59% for Ron Paul on the above polls, vs. only 5%]!!
It’s not internet-based polls
which are wrong, or which don’t reflect American public opinion
accurately—it’s the jew-controlled “media”polls which
are!
> I posted Ron Paul's
speech as a blog. When I did that, I expected
> that there would be a storm of outrage from the GNN community. When I
> logged on the next night I expected to find hundreds of comments
> expressing anger over the use of the site to mislead people into
> taking a segregationist seriously as a presidential candidate. I
> thought that some of the people responsible might try to justify
> their support for Paul, although I had no idea how they would try to
> do that. Or that they would claim that it was all just a practical
> joke that got way out of hand. I really hoped that they would post
> comments apologizing for their past statements and asking everyone to
> forget about this and move forward.
>
> That didn't happen.
>
> There was one comment posted and one vote.
Do you know why it didn't
happen?
Out of THOUSANDS on GNN,
only ONE agreed with you--MAYBE.
You're so used to thinking
the jewsnews represents mainstream American opinion that you just can't
believe how MUCH of a SMALL, TEENY WHEENEY, extremist minority in this
country you represent. Essentially, NOBODY agrees with you.
Those with eyes to see and
ears to hear KNOW that Ron Paul is RIGHT, that the "civil rights
act" has been nothing short of A DISASTER, for both Whites and niggers.
Internet based polls
reflect reality, not the jew controlled "news" media.
Popular
online web site dedicated to election polls proves that the online support
of Ron Paul is legitimate and not the work of spammers.
Washington D.C.
(PRWEB) May 29, 2007 -- USAElectionPolls.com ran its first ever straw poll
on May 27, 2007. The poll read as follows "Who's Your Republican of
Choice?" and the possible choices were Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Rudy
Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
Of the 342 that
participated in the straw poll, Ron Paul received 310 votes (91%).
The authors of
USAElectionPolls.com admit that because this is an unscientific poll, there
is no correlation between these results and the true feelings of voters in
America as a whole.
David Terr of
USAElectionPolls.com did want to disprove the commonly held belief that the
reason Ron Paul does well in Internet polls is the result of spammers. He
says "the users voting in these polls come from all across the United
States. Fox News tried to suggest that Ron Paul's popularity was confined
to a group of friends in a dorm room who just click on every poll. It could
not be further from the truth."
The users of
USAElectionPolls.com will be resetting their polls on a daily basis. It is
expected that once the whole electorate becomes interested in the 2008
election, Ron Paul will drop in these online straw polls.
Guliani:
"I would ask the congressman [Ron Paul] to withdraw that [ACCURATE]
comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that".
Guliani, McCain,
and Romney were called "the first tier
candidates" who were "pulling away from the rest of the
field"--BUT RON PAUL WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED?
Andrea Mitchell:
A Man Who Should Be President -
Rep. Ron Paul Blasts Big Business,
Media & Congress By Rep. Ron Paul
10-14-00
other day, I made a huge
"gaffe" on national television, I told the truth about the crimes
of the U.S. Government.
As you can imagine, the ceiling
fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressman are supposed to support the
government, I was told. 'Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges but
there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not
supposed to bring up.'
I was interviewed on C-SPAN's
morning Washington Journal, and I used the opportunity, as I do all such
media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen
by the federal government. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we
would have no federal meddling in our schools, no Federal Reserve, no U.S.
membership in the UN, no gun control, and no foreign aid. We should have no
welfare for corporations or the "poor," no American troops in 100
foreign countries, no NAFTA, GATT or "fast-track," no arrogant
federal judges usurping states' rights, no attacks on private property and
no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of
the agencies and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal
and limited.
That system is called liberty.
It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the
greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no
coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been
accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards.
The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill - working hard, all day long
to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not
America. It's not what the founding fathers gave us.
So, on that TV interview, I
emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of
our civil liberties at the hands of the federal police. There are not
supposed to be any federal police according to the Constitution.
Then I really went over the
line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim
those 81 men, women, and children, burned down their own church and killed
themselves, and good riddance. So, they put a few survivors on trial and
threw them in prison for 40 years.
We're not supposed to remember
that the Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - talk about an
unconstitutional Agency - rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular
morning jog, called in the TV stations for a big publicity bonanza and sent
a SWAT team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door,
guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship to shoot at the roof
of a church full of innocents.
The Branch Davidians resisted,
and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off
food, water and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through
huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls
of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas.
Now, CS gas is banned under the
Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war.
But it could and did use it against American civilians.
After the tanks did their work
on the church, the place burst into flames and all 81 people - men,women,
children and babies - were incinerated in screaming horror.
Did some feds set the fire? Did
flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were
using lanterns? striking one of the bales of hay being used against the
thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians,
as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?
Whatever the truth, there's no
question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its
hands.
In my interview, in answer to a
caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby
Ridge, Idaho, especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head
of a mother holding her baby, caused many Americans to live in fear of
federal power.
Then I uttered the sentiments
that caused the media hysteria. I said that a lot of Americans fear that
they too might be attacked by federal SWAT teams for exercising their
Constitutional rights or merely for wanting to be left alone.
You've never seen anything like
it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, big
business, establishment Republicans, and of course, the media in Washington
- and my home state of Texas.
Newspapers foamed at the mouth,
calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George
III called Thomas Jefferson?"
I was even blamed for the
Oklahoma City bombing. And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the
full truth on that, either.
All my opponents were outraged
that a congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like
Washington, resign," said a typical big city newspaper editorial.
But the media, as usual, were
all wet. Do they ever get anything right? The average congressman may go to
Washington to wallow in power and line his pockets with a big lobbying job
for special interest - so he can keep ripping off the taxpayers.
But that's not why I'm in
Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not
why I refuse a plush congressional pension.
I'm in this fight for a reason.
I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in
Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share,
for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America.
That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses and to cut the government -
its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its
meddling overseas and every single unconstitutional action it takes.
Not much of the federal leviathan
would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you
earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local
school would be tops and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or
vicious foreign war to fight for the U.N.
When I say cut taxes, I don't
mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS and
replace them with nothing.
Recently, I asked a famous
Republican committee chairman, who is always talking about getting rid of the
IRS, why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors.
"They need it for their
computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us
as it is?
I won't play the Capitol Hill
games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the
Gestapo more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them
to squeeze out of you.
I also want to abolish the
Federal Reserve and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job.
The value of our dollar and the
level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few
members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace.
The Federal Reserve is
unconstitutional, pure and simple. Without the Federal Reserve, our money
could not be inflated at the behest of big government or big banks. Your
income and savings would not lose their value.
Just as important, we wouldn't
have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions,
with each bust getting worse.
I also work to save our schools
from D.C. interference. Not only do the feds' new curricula smear the
Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb
down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading
and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new
"fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and wrong answers.
But ever since the beginning of
federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the
rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools,
with very few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids,
we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let
parents rule.
And then there's my least
favorite topic: the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It
undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why
I want us out of the U.N, and the U.N itself taking a hike.
After all, the UN is socialist,
and corrupt. Many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of
scotch," one UN ambassador once said. It costs many billions' and it
puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them
off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars.
When Michael New, one of the
finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked
out of the Army.
Not one dime for the UN, and not
one American soldier. Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in
Rwanda. I know it's radical, but how about devoting our efforts to
defending America, and only America?
_____
Rep. Ron Paul is a Republican, congressman from the 14th
district in Texas
Mitt
Romney leads Republicans By JONATHAN ROOS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER Copyright 2007, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company
May 19, 2007
17 Comments
Mitt Romney has sprinted ahead of presidential competitors John McCain and
Rudy Giuliani in a new Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucus participants.
The Des Moines Register poll shows Romney, a former Massachusetts governor,
is the top choice of 30 percent of those who say they definitely or
probably will attend the leadoff Iowa caucuses in January.
McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, nips former New York Mayor Giuliani
for second place — 18 percent to 17 percent.
Other polls taken in Iowa this month, presenting a different lineup of
candidates that included Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, have shown
Giuliani, McCain and Romney bunched together. The former U.S. House speaker
and former Tennessee senator have said they are considering presidential
bids but have not taken steps toward running.
Giuliani leads in recent national surveys of Republican voters, although
there are has been some slippage in his support at a time when his position
in support of abortion rights
Sept. 14, 2007: The "mainstream"
NBC/Wall Street Journal, who still
hasn't figured out who Ron Paul is, reported the following for the
Republican candidates:
32% = Giuliani
26% = Thompson.
14% = McCain
11% = Romney
at exactly the same time, an MSNBC internet poll reports that Ron Paul get's
FIFTY PERCENT of the vote, and the other eight candidates must share the
other HALF. Giuliani seems to be VERY popular with these "expert"
talking heads, but he's literally HATED by the people. It's only when Ron
Paul is removed from these polls that Faggot Fred Thompson and
pro-anti-abortion Romney are OVER-REPRESENTED by 50%, and grumpy John McCain
is over-represented by 100% . It's not just that the "mainstream
media" is out of touch with REALITY--it's that they are LIARS and CRIMINALS
who "think" they are permitted to hijack and dictate the electoral process.
There's no provision in the U. S. Constitution for this fourth branch of
government. It's "we the people", not they-the-jew-controlled-corporate-media,
who are given this right, and we the people must *reject* their claims and
LIES and CRIMINALITY at all costs.
Modified
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Copyright @ 2007 by
Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party
