Ron Pauls Tea Party Speech Ron Paul gave a stirring speech at the Tax Tea Party in Washington DC, calling for an end to big government and a return to a sensible foreign policy. YouTube- Ron Paul's Tea Party Speech
With the Tea Party Movement becoming so strong, if Dr. Paul selected someone like Colin Powell or Condy as a running mate and ran independent rather than chasing the Rino ticket, we might rewrite history. The moment is upon us.
I hate to disagree with you, but I disagree with you. In theory, you are right -from an optimistic perspective. However, just as the game of chess is defined by its parameters, so to is the game of life. A chess player cannot suddenly declare that he wishes to utilize a pawn to grant it the same role as a Queen, moving it wherever he chooses. The function simply does not apply. In order to successfully "vote" a man like Paul into the Presidency, we will first need to re-write the rules of this game to include an actual voting system that is not heavily swayed by corporate media, big business, agent provocateurs, and corrupt ballot counting. Then, we will need to assure that the Electoral College is not used to automatically declare the victor -shouldn't the voters themselves decide this? My entire point is that the system is rigged from the start: to expect a differing outcome would be illogical. It is hard to be an optimist when the system which operates is tyrannical. I don't like it any more than the rest, but there is only one solution, and it isn't pretty.
The moment that I am referring too isn't necessarily winning the election but rather, starting the revolution. With a blatant disregard for our displayed ballot, the third directive might just become imperative; the soap box, the ballot box, and ultimately, the ammunition box. The soap box is being ignored and ridiculed. We intend to cast an overwhelming vote. If this is usurped, there is left but one real option.
The voting process and the election results should be determined by the "populace vote" and the electoral college should be disassembled. The populace vote was what this country started out with to determine the election of its officials, and that is what it should go back to so that every persons' vote "counts and is heard".
The National Popular Vote bill <o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype> The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action. The bill is cu<st1ersonname w:st="on">rr</st1ersonname>ently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
