Jason,
A majority of the people, including myself, worked for Paul's campaign knowing we were going to lose but the point was to bring people together that would have not normally found each other and start a grassroots movement to do bottom up reform. Which has been very successful in the Henry GOP.

I know Paul lost the election but it is very important for the remnant to try and become delegates because we can still have influence on the party. By becoming delegates we can introduce resolutions at the county convention and the state convention that would: condemn not having a balanced budget, condemn going to war without a declaration, condemn the income tax, draft a declaration that would call for the abolishment of the department of education, a declaration that says the Republican party will work to implement a voucher system for schools, and the call for the establishment of a sound currency. Moreover, in the debates Paul was able to bring up subjects that were not brought up in many years and needed to be addressed. For example, making McCain look foolish when Dr. Paul asked him a yes or no question about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

In conclusion, you must try to understand the frustration of the Paul supporters. I also ask you to excuse the more excitable members' harsh rhetoric, their passion can be mistaken for something more radical. There is no attempt to "Hijack" or create an "Insurgency" against the GOP because that is a tactic of our opponents. I attend the local GOP meetings and overtly engage in healthy discourse allowing everyone to know where I stand. Theses friendly conversations has lead them to embrace me and they welcome my different opinion. Thus, helping prove Paul's point of being friendly with everyone creates better results than confrontation. If people claimed to be true Ron Paul supporters then they will engage in nothing more than peaceful discourse or civil disobedience.

I also am not pleased with Paul's lack of oversight of the people underneath him. That being said, I can not find any videos or writings penned directly by Ron Paul himself to lead me to believe he is a racist. His voting record also proves that he is a strong supporter of civil liberties and civil rights.

They can't be stupid enough to believe this will actually work, can they ?

There is such a lack of participation at the local level it only takes a handful of people to do it.

Ron Paul has the majority of delegates in many states, and in one state we have 70% of the delegates!

And what states would those be?

I voted for Ron Paul and I am trying to become a delegate for the 8th Congressional District.

I'm not sure where the email you received came from, but you can be sure that Ron Paul's supporters will be participating in the delegate process.

It's not my intent or the intent of any RP supporter that I know to do anything that isn't 100% above-board in this process. No RP supporters I know want to 'hijack' anything.

I've found that nobody in the GOP asks me who I voted for in the primary because nobody wants to reveal who they voted for. But if they asked I'd proudly tell them Ron Paul. And why shouldn't I? This was an historic campaign and everyone knows it.

I'm a lifelong conservative, and as such I know the GOP needs the vitality and enthusiasm of Ron Paul's supporters. It's to the GOP's advantage to find a way to include them.

Loren,

I cannot show you empirical data and graphs what the percentage of delegates that support Paul are. But, I can tell you that there has been much success at the caucuses and the local level on passing resolutions that are traditionally Republican and paleo-conservative. In Alaska, I forget which County GOP party it was but they attained a majority where they made the county party condemn going to war without a declaration and many other parts of Paul's platform.

To all the others who laugh and ridicule our efforts, policies, and political philosophy, I invite and urge you to participate in the local process that way your voices can also be heard.

Ryan,

Ron Paul’s has been an embarrassment to the libertarian movement. I’m not talking about the Libertarian Party, but the libertarian philosophy in general.

The newsletter controversy and his failure to address the down right racist comments they contained, his xenophobic position on immigration (I’ve already addressed those issues here here, so I won’t get back into them on this thread), taking money from a neo-Nazi, his failure to express the philosophy of Liberty without getting into a rant about foreign or monetary philosophy and his protectionist views on trade are all examples my issues with his campaign.

I don’t disagree with on monetary policy or foreign policy, but his inability to express those points articulately made him an unattractive candidate.

He also associated himself with Alex Jones, which prevents me from taking him seriously.

You’ll recall that we saw each other at the Ron Paul rally in Atlanta last month where I heard his Georgia coordinator tell the crowd to become delegates so they could influence the nominating process.

To all the others who laugh and ridicule our efforts, policies, and
political philosophy, I invite and urge you to participate in the local process that way your voices can also be heard.

Loren and I are both believers in individual and economic liberty. I can’t speak for him on this, but I see that Ron Paul’s candidacy has done some damage to the libertarian movement. Even Reason magazine has noticed it.

Jason, why do you hang on to this meme that Ron Paul's a racist? The MSM never ran with that story, it was strictly The New Republic and the blogosphere that had a smearfest over it. THE NEW REPUBLIC! The journalistic minds there are the ones who promoted the Scott Beauchamp Iraq War Atrocity Fiasco.

I don't know why Ron Paul never distanced himself from the so-called racist articles written in his newsletters but I know he's no racist. He has praised Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks for their use of non-violent protest against unjust laws. He wants to end the War on Drugs which is responsible for the disproportionately large number of young black men in American Prisons and contributes to the destruction of black families.

You may think Ron Paul is a poor mouthpiece for the libertarian cause, but name me any libertarian (or Republican or Democrat for that matter) that has ever brought national attention to libertarian issues as well as Ron Paul has this past year.

Just for clarification, would the Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia welcome proud Ron Paul supporters as members?

Just for clarification, would the Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia welcome proud Ron Paul supporters as members?

Of course. There are Paul supporters active in the organization now. Some, however, share the sentiment that I have expressed.

Jason, why do you hang on to this meme that Ron Paul's a racist?

Because he has not done anything to convince me otherwise. The burden of proof is on him.

You may think Ron Paul is a poor mouthpiece for the libertarian cause, but name me any libertarian (or Republican or Democrat for that matter) that has ever brought national attention to libertarian issues as well as Ron Paul has this past year.

Rep. Jeff Flake has caused the issue of earmarks to become a national campaign issue.

The New Republic and the blogosphere that had a smearfest over it. THE NEW REPUBLIC! The journalistic minds there are the ones who promoted the Scott Beauchamp Iraq War Atrocity Fiasco.

What does this have to do with anything? Do you doubt that what they published was true?

Ron Paul acknowledged the newsletters exist. He denied authoring them, only lending his name to them.

I don't know why Ron Paul never distanced himself from the so-called racist articles written in his newsletters but I know he's no racist. He has praised Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks for their use of non-violent protest against unjust laws. He wants to end the War on Drugs which is responsible for the disproportionately large number of young black men in American Prisons and contributes to the destruction of black families.

“[S]o-called racist articles”? There is nothing vague or misleading about them. The content of the newsletters expressed an opinion that minorities were somehow less superior. Not only that, but they contain homophobic writings as well, which is just as troubling.

One of the newsletters contained a note from Ron Paul, or least it was attributed to him, where wrote that Martin Luther King, Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys” and “forced integration.”

If Dr. Paul did not write them, he should say who did. That only hurts his credibility.

How is it that the burden of proof is on Ron Paul to disprove a mischaracterization made by a media who openly admits that they ignore and despise him? Are you really saying that's the only way he would gain your approval? By trying to fight the media's mischaracterization of him?

I am a Meetup organizer for Ron Paul and have actively helped establish meetups across five counties in Middle Georgia. I don't feel like the Republican Party gives one rat's patoot whether I stay or go, and at this point, I'm pretty apathetic about it myself. So it's not hard for me to imagine how those Republican RP supporters who have a lot less vested interest in the success of the GOP might vote come November.

And, just so you know, though I admire Jeff Flake's stance on earmarks and some other issues, he falls far short of being in league with Ron Paul's ability to garner national headlines with his positions.

Ok, so you added a bit more to your last comment while I was typing mine.

Of course I doubt the veracity of an article written in The New Republic. The author of the piece on Ron Paul, James Kirchick, openly admitted to friends (who were RP supporters themselves) that he wrote the article because he enjoyed seeing Ron Paul's supporters "riled up." He also put out another smear article against Ron Paul, using a faked Ron Paul mailer with a racist image of a Mexican gang member.

Ron Paul didn't admit to saying any of the things that were attributed to him in the newsletters. He just fell on his sword and refused to 'out' their author. And if you read the actual newsletters they say nothing like what's implied in the Kirchick article.

So no, I certainly am not going to take the media's version of the story on faith. Those lying bastards will do anything short of spit on their own mothers just to get ratings.

This issue is close to my heart. It troubles me to see how we as a party have wandered so far as to believe the writings of a left-leaning rag like The New Republic over the word of a member of our party, a congressman with a 20 year record of voting against increasing the size of the federal government and supporting the return of power to the state and local governments.

We are definitely in trouble.

Ryan,

I cannot show you empirical data and graphs what the percentage of delegates that support Paul are.

Well, such data ought to exist somewhere, no? After all, those are empirical claims being made in the quoted email:

Ron Paul has the majority of delegates in many states, and in one state we have 70% of the delegates!

What is the "one state"? That's a pretty unequivocal assertion there, and it should have a simple, straightforward answer. No more than two words. There's no need for graphs or spreadsheets; just the name of the state would be a good start.

And "many states" obviously implies more than one, so what are the names of the other states? Again, graphs and reams of data aren't necessary in giving names.

How is it that the burden of proof is on Ron Paul to disprove a mischaracterization made by a media who openly admits that they ignore and despise him?

Their opinion of him is not what matters here. You are attempting to ignore the content of the letters and the fact that they were published in his name.

I ask you again, do you deny that the newsletters exist? Do you deny that they contained racist, xenophobic and homophobic remarks that were attributed to Ron Paul?

Are you really saying that's the only way he would gain your approval? By trying to fight the media's mischaracterization of him?

The “media’s mischaracterization of him”? It’s all the media’s fault. I keep forgetting that. They made Ron Paul, or someone writing for him, write this stuff.

Look, he did this to himself by allowing this crap to be published in his name. He could have stopped it. I’ve read that it was brought to his attention, so he could have stopped it if he desired.

He left himself open to the criticism and as far as I’ve seen, TNR has let individuals judge the content of the letters for themselves by putting them online.

Whether the publishers like Ron Paul or not is absolutely irrelevant if the content is factual.

I am a Meetup organizer for Ron Paul and have actively helped establish meetups across five counties in Middle Georgia. I don't feel like the Republican Party gives one rat's patoot whether I stay or go, and at this point, I'm pretty apathetic about it myself. So it's not hard for me to imagine how those Republican RP supporters who have a lot less vested interest in the success of the GOP might vote come November.

You’re probably right when you say that they don’t care about whether you are there or not.

Limited government principles need to be reintroduced to the GOP, but Ron Paul’s supporters have a way of alienating people and they don’t always present a position of freedom, Paul’s stance on trade agreements is not a position of freedom.

And, just so you know, though I admire Jeff Flake's stance on earmarks and some other issues, he falls far short of being in league with Ron Paul's ability to garner national headlines with his positions.

Jeff Flake has been able to get national attention focused on an issue whereas Ron Paul gets attention on himself because he raises money or because he said something in a debate. It doesn’t mean that he furthered debate in that area. A new poll I saw yesterday showed that 53% of those polled support action in Iraq.

I’d much rather have the focus on the issue.

Of course I doubt the veracity of an article written in The New Republic.

Then you aren’t a rational individual. Even Ron Paul has confirmed that they exist. It was also confirmed by former staffers.

He also put out another smear article against Ron Paul, using a faked Ron Paul mailer with a racist image of a Mexican gang member.

The campaign never denied that they put that out. In fact they specifically avoided the issue when I called and asked about it.

Ron Paul didn't admit to saying any of the things that were attributed to him in the newsletters. He just fell on his sword and refused to 'out' their author.

He didn’t have to admit to writing any of it, they were in plain English with his name printed on them.

And if you read the actual newsletters they say nothing like what's implied in the Kirchick article.

I did read them. I found much of it to be troubling for someone who claims to be a libertarian.

So no, I certainly am not going to take the media's version of the story on faith.

Again, you’re not rational. The newsletters and there content have been verified by Dr. Paul and former associates and staffers.

There aren’t any versions of the story. The newsletters contained racist and homophobic remarks attributed to Dr. Paul.

Perhaps you should read them.

This issue is close to my heart.

Perhaps this is the reason you are not thinking rationally.

It troubles me to see how we as a party have wandered so far as to believe the writings of a left-leaning rag like The New Republic over the word of a member of our party, a congressman with a 20 year record of voting against increasing the size of the federal government and supporting the return of power to the state and local governments.

I am not a Republican. Sometimes I’ll work with Republicans to advance issues I care about. That is one reason I am working with the RLC.

If he is wrong, whether he is a member of the Republican Party or not, you should call him on it and not have blind loyalty. In this case, he was clearly wrong and he must be called out.

We are definitely in trouble.

When people such as yourself will blindly defend this crap, I’d say we are in trouble.

Jason,
You are correct about not having blind faith. A great Voltaire quote is, "The perfect of the enemy is the good." There will never be a perfect candidate but just good ones. Paul has a lot of substance but you are correct about him not being the best messenger. If Paul was in Romney's body I think he really could have had a shot. I will vehemently defend Paul's policies where I believe he is right. I found the mailing card a little below his character. But about the newsletter, here is a link to him explicitly addressing the news letter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY01Lpg5kqw

And about the State Coordinator, that was pep rally, he was just using emotionally charged words to get everyone exited.

Ryan,

His explanation is simply not good enough. Matt Welch and Bob Gergen are absolutely correct. He needs to come clean about who wrote them.

I had a hard time believing that he didn't know about what was being written.

Also, I love how he says he doesn't see people in groups, but keeps using the phrase "blacks" and "the blacks."

And about the State Coordinator, that was pep rally, he was just using emotionally charged words to get everyone exited.

I have the audio, it was more than just trying to get people excited.

Ryan,

Still wondering about the states the e-mail claims Paul is winning. It's a simple factual claim, and the lack of a simple factual answer is making me begin to suspect it's a simple lie.

And lies from the Paul campaign do not help my opinion of Mr. Paul.

So I'm going to make it easy. Really easy. Below are the names of all fifty states. Just single out the ones in which Paul has the majority of delegates, and identify the one where he has 70% of the delegates. If the e-mail is telling the truth, this should be child's play:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Loren,
I am not the one who wrote the e-mail. I never made the claim that 70% of the delegates are Paul supporters. All that I said was that in some states at the COUNTY CONVENTIONS the Paul delegates had enough people to have the county parties adopt some of Paul's positions. For example, an Alaskan county had enough meetup groups members show up at the county convention to have the county Republican Party say that they believe the U.S. should not go to war unless there is a declaration. I do not know if your familiar with the convention process but it is not that big of deal but it shows a little bottom up reform progress.

Jason,

Regardless of what Ike Hall said and what that e-mail said there is going to be no "insurgency," "hijacking," or "upheaval." Any claims that say otherwise are sensational and purely speculation. If anyone has concerns e-mail Joe Shoemaker and ask if he expects any problems. He is the Chairman of the Henry County GOP. Joe and I get along and he has encouraged me to become the 3rd District representative to the congressional committee. He has welcomed the Paul supporters into the party and they have no desire to have a confrontation.

Ryan,

The reason you don't have problems with anyone in the Henry County GOP is because you are respectful and intelligent, the opposite of most Ron Paul supporters that I've encountered.

Any claims that say otherwise are sensational and purely speculation.

I would address this with Ike Hall.

Thank you, Jason. Something you might find interesting though, our ranks swelled to about 96 members around December but after February 5th there is only about 12 dedicated members left. The loudest and rudest ones are the first to leave.

Ike reads this blog. So I am sure he knows what is going on. But I agree with you, having a harsh rhetoric marginalizes Paul supporters even more. "Friends with all, alliances with none."

Are you going to attend your county's GOP convention?

Are you going to attend your county's GOP convention?

No, I am not.

Ike reads this blog. So I am sure he knows what is going on.

Yeah, he sent me an e-mail. Very unprofessional for someone working on a Presidential campaign.

Hi All,

I was just reading these comments and happened to notice that everyone who questions those racist letters never responded to this statement about Ron Paul. "He has praised Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks for their use of non-violent protest against unjust laws. He wants to end the War on Drugs which is responsible for the disproportionately large number of young black men in American Prisons and contributes to the destruction of black families." As a black woman, I'd really like to know your take on how he feels about "Black Issues" and whether or not you agree with him.

Rochelle,

I could better articulate a response for you if you tell me what you think about his statements. But I think he is correct about the disproportional affects on the black community.

But a staple of his classically liberal philosophy is that people have rights not because they are parts of groups but because they are individuals. I agree with that as well.

I followed some of the online discussions among Paul supporters online.

The intentions of the groups that I lurked in were not to hijack anything, just to get more limited government views in the GA GOP.

Hopefully that will be the legacy of the Paul campaign.

BTR

Wow, some pretty heated conversation here! I am a Ron Paul supporter: not because I idolize Ron Paul, or think he's a great spokesman, or some perfect person who's never made mistakes, but because Ron Paul was the ONLY major party candidate to talk about LIBERTY. He was the only one who seemed to understand the American principle of unalienable individual rights. He was the only one pointing to what everyone except Washington has finally realized - the coming downturn in the US economy. He was the only one talking about limited, smaller government. So gee, Jason, I'm sorry the guy isn't perfect, he was just the best spokesman for Liberty who was *running*. And he still is! So please excuse those of us who aren't crying about Ron's faults or blasting him for stuff he didn't even say (or write), we're just trying to support the only declared candidate for LIBERTY. Maybe if someone better comes along, we'll jump on their bandwagon.

Finally, though no one I know is seriously talking about "hijacking" the convention, it is a little cathartic to fantasize about "sticking it" to the Neo-Cons who "hijacked" the conservative movement. Besides, isn't the *purpose* of the convention to elect the nominee? Or are you naieve enough to think that's what the Primary was about? How do you think Abraham Lincoln got the nomination in 1860?

Hi Ryan,

Well as far as his statements, I believe they are fair and just. I have yet to understand how a person who commits a non-violent crime can end up in prison for 20+ years, but rapists, child molesters, and even murderers can do less than 7 years because of "good behavior". Huckabee was nice enough to grant a murderer clemency just for him to be released and kill again. Now obviously my opinion is going to be a little biased due to being of the same race that this unfairness is happening to, but I sincerely feel that when a man is brave enough to defend the constituttion(very important to me, I'm a vet), speak of liberty for all, and even educate people about our current economic failures, he should at least be given the chance to get his message out the same way the other candidates have.

So please excuse those of us who aren't crying about Ron's faults or blasting him for stuff he didn't even say (or write), we're just trying to support the only declared candidate for LIBERTY.

Troy, the point is that it was written in his name. This is a very weak defense.

He was the only one who seemed to understand the American principle of unalienable individual rights.

It isn't an American principle. It is the concept of natural rights, if anything it is a British principle considering the fact that everything Jefferson wrote was based on the writings of John Locke.

So gee, Jason, I'm sorry the guy isn't perfect...!

He can't be perfect. No one is.

But he never did the cause of liberty justice because he was never gave a response that didn't go into a rant about foreign or monetary policy.

I wrote this months ago, but I'll repeat it. Ron Paul was the only candidate running that truly understood liberty, but he its worst spokesperson.

The libertarian movement received a black eye due to Paul's run because of three issues...immigration, trade and the you add in the newsletters.

, he was just the best spokesman for Liberty who was *running*. And he still is!

In case you haven't noticed, Troy, the race is over.

Rochelle,

I totally agree with you. I do not think your statements are biased, unfair is unfair no matter what color you are.

I did read the newsletters, Jason.

My cynicism and disbelief is directed toward The New Republic, a paper who states that they think Ron Paul is dangerous and crazy. Your cynicism is toward Ron Paul, the man you voted for in the primary. Who is more irrational, me or you?

I've got no fight with you, Jason. You make sense on many other issues, that's why I subscribe to your blog. I hear what you're saying about Ron Paul's faults, particularly his ineloquence at critical moments during the campaign and his tendency to turn all arguments back to long-winded discussions of foreign or monetary policy. But, give the man his due, Jason. A libertarian movement has been reignited. Years from now Ron Paul will be called its founder.

My cynicism and disbelief is directed toward The New Republic, a paper
who states that they think Ron Paul is dangerous and crazy.

Your cynicism is toward Ron Paul, the man you voted for in the primary.

I cast my ballot on December 31st, the week before the newsletter story hit. If I had to do it over again, I would not vote in the GOP primary.

Who is more irrational, me or you?

You, because you ignore the facts of the newsletters and blame the source.

A libertarian movement has been reignited.

The libertarian movement was doing well and gathering steam long before Dr. Paul jumped into the race.

He has promoted a few very un-libertarian principles in his campaign, such as his opposition to free trade and immigration.

Years from now Ron Paul will be called its founder.

That is ridiculous. It’s fine if you want to say he was a voice in the movement or a significant part of the movement, but to insinuate that is or will be called the found of the libertarian movement is absurd.

John Locke is the founder of core libertarian beliefs. Many have further defined the principles like Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman among others.

I appreciate that you read this blog, I really do. But I not backing down from this because the facts are on my side.

No need to back down, you're entitled to your view. It is your blog after all.

However, history will have to decide whether or not I'm being "ridiculous" about calling Ron Paul the founder of a new libertarian movement, not Jason Pye.

Jason,
I too was bothered by the newsletter business. That was inexcusable. I was not satisfied with Paul's answers either.

My questions, however, are taken from the quotation regarding words and actions that you recently posted on your blog regarding Casey Cagle:

1) Which national politician who has actually held office for a significant period of time has a more libertarian voting record than Paul?

2) Has Paul ever voted in a way that would make you think that he is a closet racist?

My point is to distinguish between words and actions. I vote libertarian in every election. Yet the libertarian candidates usually have little or no actual experience in government. Paul was attractive to me because he has actually "walked the walk."

I do think that the Paul campaign has been flawed but it has brought classic American libertarian issues out into the open (monetary policy and foreign interventionism). More modern libertarian issues -- i.e. sexual autonomy issues -- have largely been a product of the 1960s. Paul focused on older American issues. I thought that this was a good thing.

[H]istory will have to decide whether or not I'm being "ridiculous" about calling Ron Paul the founder of a new libertarian movement, not Jason Pye.

Actually, I wrote that the notion was absurd. If you want to quote me, at least get what I wrote correct.

If you were to ask my opinion of who the leading voices are in the modern libertarian movement, I would said David Boaz of the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie of Reason.

Rick,

First of all, where have you been? I still owe you dinner.

I agree with about 90% of what Ron Paul says and how he votes.

There are some fundamental issues that I believe he is wrong about that are key points of the libertarian philosophy.

Valerie says:

Years from now Ron Paul will be called the [new libertarian movement's] founder.

Jason Pye says:

That is ridiculous. It’s fine if you want to say he was a voice in the movement or a significant part of the movement, but to insinuate that is or will be called the found of the libertarian movement is absurd.

What was incorrect about quoting the first part of what you wrote? Are you really that rattled by me? I swear I'm harmless.

Haha. You got me there. I was just looking at the end where I wrote that it was absurd.

I said both. You got me.

Troy, the point is that it was written in his name. This is a very weak defense.

That's not a defense. I'm merely saying that in spite of those failings (and I agree they are failings), I chose to support him because he was still the only major party candidate promoting liberty.

It isn't an American principle. It is the concept of natural rights, if anything it is a British principle considering the fact that everything Jefferson wrote was based on the writings of John Locke.

True, Jefferson's source was Locke, though the idea didn't originate with Locke; but I contend it is indeed an American principle because that's the primary philosophical position that America was founded upon (at least, on paper). It also being a British principle if you wish, the two are not mutually exclusive.

But he never did the cause of liberty justice because he was never gave a response that didn't go into a rant about foreign or monetary policy.

Your opinion. For me, these are all connected. We can't claim a true belief in liberty if we're forcing our ways or values on foreigners; nor can true economic liberty be achieved in a nation where a small oligarchy controls the money supply. So while for some, the 'ranting' may be a turn-off, it didn't bother me.

...truly understood liberty, but he its worst spokesperson.

I stand by my earlier statements. As the only spokesman for liberty running (for a major party), he's the best one running - by default.

The libertarian movement received a black eye due to Paul's run because of three issues...immigration, trade and the you add in the newsletters.

For a whole-agenda-only Libertarian, I can't argue that point. But I personally happen to agree more with Paul on immigration and trade than with the big-L Libertarians - and you'll find open borders to be a tough sell around here these days.

The point is, the entire "libertarian movement" is not uniform in it's (individual) positions; if you're talking about the Libertarian Party, that's another thing entirely.

In case you haven't noticed, Troy, the race is over.

Indeed. But Paul hasn't officially dropped out, reports to the contrary notwithstanding. Since he's staying in it to push his agenda, I'm happy to back a loser when he's right.

The libertarian belief, and I am not referring to the party, is free markets.

Immigration and trade are essential parts of capitalism, and ostensibly libertarianism.

I do not care if advocating open borders is a popular position, it is the correct position to take when talking about keeping markets free.

Paul's inability to keep on point hurt him. They may be connected to you, and they are connected to me, he threw too much at one time to the average voter and did it far too often.

I watched him at least two times turn a question about healthcare into a rant about foreign policy. It's just a bad idea to do that in terms of political strategy and his handlers should have known better.

I just attended the GOP meeting of Spalding.I went there as a Libertarian who would work with them. I had no secret agenda. I told them who I was and what I do. I also had with me the Ron Paul supporters.We have been very upfront in Griffin about being Libertarian leaning. They welcomed us with open arms.In fact the chairwomen pulled me to the side and thanked us for bringing people to the convention.(btw I did attend the Libertarian convention a couple of weeks ago and brought at least one Ron Paul republican who joined the LP).I was also selected to go as a delegate to the state convention. 40% of the people elected were Ron Paul or Libertarian types.The great thing is they knew it. We did not hide anything.I had A good time

We've wondered why we haven't heard from Ron Paul supporters for a while ... because they are too busy establishing their own community containing 100% Ron Paul supporters. I guess its like The Villages.

www.Paulville.org Info
"The goal of Paulville.org it to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.

The process is forming a co-op of people buying shares in the community and these people would be granted land use at a minimum of 1 acre per share, for as long as they homesteaded the land. The community would be privately held by the co-op to establish private property for the general community thus preserving the community is 100% freedom and liberty lovers. The community votes on all community efforts, such as utilities etc. However no one is forced to consume these utilities and or pay for them, AKA people can be off grid on their share of land. This is in line with the ideals that you're free to live your life the way you want and not be forced to do or pay for other people's life styles you may not agree with.

These communities are not for the faint at heard they will start as undeveloped land in non city locals, as this is the way to secure large tracts of land needed for these efforts.

However the goal is a minimal financial outlay of around $500 per share to establish this community.

If you're interested and willing to attempt to literally change the world one community at a time then please Join us if your interested."