Ron Paul For President

If Google search hits are any indicator of actual American public opinion, then Ron Paul has ALWAYS been 100 to 1000 times more popular than Obama. Even during this last election he continually got more hits than Obama:

Note that Ron Paul continually gets more than 10 times as many hits as Gingrich, 5x as many as Hillary, 2-3 times as many as Romney, and 100 to 1,000 times as many as Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Mike Huckabee, and TEN THOUSAND more hits than Rudy Giuliani and Jim Gilmore.

iow, your belief that Obama enjoys widespread public support is based strictly on media hype and hot air.

Even in the height of the 2008 election, Ron Paul got twice as many hits as the Republican candidate John McCain UNTIL the Republican Party got STUPID and selected McCain as their candidate, who got even STUPIDER and selected Sarah as his vp. He even got more hits than the Democrat candidate Obama UNTIL the Democrat Party got even STUPIDER and selected him as their candidate and spent $TRILLIONS supporting him.

Do you think the putative once-mighty Republicans might have figured this out? Probably not: they're too STUPID to want to beat Obama. They're still whining about their OWN candidate Romney claiming that Obama is Santa Claus, as if to admit that this is THIER job.

About the only person less popular than Obama was John McCain. Mitt Romney and McCain were equally as unpopular UNTIL Romney spent $BILLIONS, at which time he DID receive twice as many Google hits as Obama: which he enjoys to this very day, more than ONE WEEK after the election.






























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



Who won the CNN Youtube Republican Debate in Florida?

Fred Thompson


Rudy Giuliani


Mike Huckabee


Duncan Hunter


John McCain


Ron Paul


Mitt Romney


Tom Tancredo


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


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:

bullet79 percent opposed driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants
bullet76 percent believed New Hampshire will have the first presidential primary in 2012
bullet62 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!


   6   0.26 %

votes: 2346

Thanks for voting.

ronpaulnewhampshiremsnbc.jpg (48151 bytes)



scandal sheet wrote: 

> 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.



The Iowa Poll lists Ron Paul at ZERO PERCENT (0%) );



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 -- 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 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 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 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.

For more information on the web traffic statistics, go to

To see how well Ron Paul is doing in the scientific polls, go to




Glen Beck Show

ronpaul42percent.jpg (117075 bytes)

ronpaul35percent.jpg (37682 bytes)


ronpaul36percent.jpg (56394 bytes)

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:

ronpaul52percent.jpg (43505 bytes)

ronpaul54percent.jpg (39455 bytes)


ronpaul39percent.jpg (37960 bytes)








A Man Who Should Be President -
Rep. Ron Paul Blasts Big Business,
Media & Congress
By Rep. Ron Paul


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
Copyright 2007, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company

May 19, 2007



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

ronpaul51percent.jpg (66373 bytes)



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.




Ron Paul - The Revolution & The Anti-War Movement
Corporate Media Admits Media Conspiracy to stop Ron Paul. Corporate Media Attempts to Marginalize Ron Paul by Ignoring Him
G. Edward Griffin's Video on the
Capitalist Conspiracy - An Inside View of International Banking
Intelligent Americans from all political prospectives are offended by fabrication in the news.
Alex comments on the Ames Iowa straw polls results and media coverage of Ron Paul --- From
Alex Jones Show, Monday, August 15 2011.
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
Iowa Straw Poll - Ron Who?
Their ignoring of Dr. Paul is so blatant that it is becoming an advantage as more people see the obvious and decide investigate Dr. Paul more.
Cnn And Politico Admit Media Conspiracy to stop Ron Paul !
Candy Crowley Lies About Ron Paul Polls - 8/14/11
Ron Paul "I challenge Any Other Candidate to Baikr Ride 20 Miles in 100F Heat with Me"
Has the Media Suppressed Ron Paul's Coverage?
Stewart on Paul, Paul Not Fringe, Perry Backpedals on Mandate
McCaa Uncut: Political parties alike in downplay of Paul, Tsongas

Bought and paid for shills of the Corporate controlled Media are at it again. Taking tactics out of their 2008 Play Book, Corporate Media Propagandists say Ron Paul is unelectable. Of course, that is what they are paid millions of Federal Reserve Notes to say.
Now, what will we to do about this? Bypass the Corporate Media. Spread the word to those who do not yet support Ron Paul!