Statement from Ron Paul On New Hampshire Recount

Ron Paul
Sunday January 13, 2008

After a careful investigation, I have decided against seeking a recount in New Hampshire. I am confident that not asking for a recount is the right decision.

I carefully considered the arguments for and against a recount before instructing my campaign staff not to pursue it. Without a firm belief that vote fraud had taken place, and without the possibility that a recount would have increased the chances for success of our campaign, a recount would have diverted campaign resources, time, and energy away from crucial battles elsewhere.

We have taken concerns about vote fraud seriously. In Iowa, campaign volunteers carefully monitored the caucuses. Campaign staff placed Paul supporters in every precinct to watch and verify the voting and count. We had supporters phone in results from their precincts to a campaign hotline while others ensured that those numbers were reflected on the official display board at the Polk County Convention Center. The numbers our caucus watchers reported agreed with the official tally, and both results also aligned with the campaign’s internal polling. In relatively pro-Paul counties, our sampling pegged support at 11.5%. This is consistent with an overall 10% finish for the entire state.

In New Hampshire, while I would have hoped for a better result than eight percent, I am convinced that vote fraud played no role in this result. Rumors of vote fraud were investigated, and in the end they proved to be the result of errors in early media reports that were not reflected in the official numbers. In one notable case, when a campaign staff member contacted an individual who had on the evening of January 8 claimed that his vote had not been counted, the person said that he had made a mistake and that the next morning the error in reporting on a newspaper website had been corrected both in the media and -- most importantly -- in the official tally.

Many have expressed concerns that those ballots counted by machine yielded a 2% lower total than those counted by hand. However, machine counted vote totals were more than 2% lower for both John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Hand counted votes were more likely to be cast in rural areas. Results almost always vary between urban and rural areas.

My campaign staff and I have analyzed the numbers in New Hampshire and I have reached the conclusion that it was the high turnout -- not vote fraud or counting errors -- that left us with eight percent of the vote. Our total vote count of over 18,000 votes was well within what we projected given the efforts of our extensive statewide get-out-the-vote program, giving me no reason to believe that vote fraud played any role in the results of the Granite State’s primary.

In both Iowa and New Hampshire there is much to be proud of. Taking both states together, I am honored that over 30,000 people cast their vote for me -- more than either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson. Unlike many other candidates’ efforts, our campaign for freedom is growing and our message is spreading.

Now is the time to redouble our efforts. Our resources must be spent on the upcoming primaries and caucuses, and on ensuring that, with your help, we organize every state yet to vote with our Precinct Leaders program.

We can't win primaries and caucuses that have already happened -- but we can win those yet to come. To become the Republican presidential nominee, a candidate must have 1,191 delegates. Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire determined only 32 delegates, so we have much opportunity remaining.

Today, I ask you to join me in focusing on the battles ahead as we continue our fight for liberty and our Constitution.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

Alex Jones - Artists of the Year

Alex Jones

by Steve Marsh

Texas isn't all bad. I mean, there's Austin. Austin's given us Willie Nelson, Dazed and Confused, Bottle Rocket, and a couple of okay Spoon records. And Austin broadcasts The Alex Jones Show, a radio show in which Alex Jones fights the New World Order for three hours a day.

"I'm tired of it," Alex will say in that deep-as-a-barbecue-pit boomer. He'll sigh—he's got a classic sigh—and he'll say, "I'm so tired of their propaganda, I don't know what to say anymore." Then he'll talk for three hours about the trans-American highway, the ruse of global warming, the use of psychotropic drugs in black ops, the mainstream media's attempt to discredit Ron Paul's candidacy, federally sponsored terrorism, the country's disgusting centralized food system, the devaluation of America's currency, and the general forfeiture of our sovereignty. He's transmitting a lot of unpleasant shit, so he needs that great radio voice, that basso profundo that rattles and soothes at the same time, like an expensive subwoofer in the trunk.

Just like a Radiohead album, or a Marvel comic book, or an Alfonso Cuarón movie, he proves that the gloomy truth doesn't have to be a snooze. Jones knows how to entertain. Each broadcast begins with the "Imperial March," from Star Wars. Duhn duhn duhn, duhn, duhn duhn. He's played clips demonstrating how Hillary uses different accents in different regions of the country, he had Charlie Sheen on to talk about 9/11, and he always spins incisive bumper music: Johnny Cash, Rage, Leonard Cohen, the Beatles. Sure, he gets excited, and he can kick up a bluster like Mean Gene interviewing Jesse the Body, but a champion has to keep his energy up when he's fighting global enslavement.

And Jones is only getting better. At 33, he's already been on the air for 12 years, and he holds his own against "serious" guests like David de Rothschild or Pat Buchanan. He's a documentary filmmaker, too, and this year's Endgame: A Blueprint for Global Enslavement was his best film yet, a comprehensive investigation of our brave new world that named names. And his new site, prisonplanet.com, is essential reading. So don't give up, people; we're on the march. And the Empire is on the run.

Steve Marsh is an associate editor at Mpls.St.Paul Magazine.

Letter from Ron Paul: Vote Fraud Not Beyond These People

Ron Paul 2008
January 10, 2008

Did you see that funny YouTube where Mike Huckabee’s young Iowa spokesman endorsed me, “by mistake”? We know what was in his mind! Indeed, I am amazed at the friendliness of the supporters of other candidates. Many Obama voters, for example, in Iowa and New Hampshire are reading our literature, and studying our ideas. It’s just one of the reasons I am so optimistic about what we are doing, and where we are heading. And so were the 500 or 600 people at our New Hampshire rally after the primary. I talked to everyone there, and they are rightly enthusiastic about our movement.

This does not mean we will have an easy time of it — just the opposite, of course. After all, we are seeking to reverse more than a century of big government, of the warfare-welfare state, of Federal Reserve’s dollar manipulation, of a fat and happy military-industrial complex, of the subversion of our Constitution. So all the media and other “second-hand dealers in ideas,” as F.A. Hayek called them, who have a vested interest in the current order, will do everything possible to smear me. They will do and say anything to try to block our movement. Even vote fraud is not beyond these people.

And we have been successful. This movement has always operated on two tracks — intellectual and political, and must. The first and most important is the intellectual. Such heroes of freedom as Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and so many others like Rose Wilder Lane, John T. Flynn, Isabel Patterson, and Garret Garrett, have helped build the foundations of freedom, prosperity, and peace. We carry on their work, to change hearts and minds.

The other track is political. Here too, we have touched millions with our ideas, and recruited many, many thousands — not only in Meetup Groups and as voters, but as sympathizers and future voters too. Walter Block was kind enough to call this effort the most important in the long history of libertarianism. I don’t know about that, but I do know that even if we place a solid fourth, rather than the higher place we all want and are working so hard for, that is huge progress.

But we can never forget that this is a long struggle. Many great men and women have lived and died in this cause. I have been deeply involved in it all my life. It is a matter of educational work, and elections. We may not accomplish all we want, in one or even two elections. But we will accomplish it. Young people now living will see the free society that you and I dream of, as their everyday reality, an America at peace, prosperous and free, with the federal government chained down y the Constitution, as Jefferson said.

Does this mean our campaign has done everything right? No! We have made mistakes, and will make them again. Not only because errors are to be found in any human endeavor, but because an effort like this, to repeal a hundred years and more of evil, is brand-new on the face of the earth. But now is the time to stick together like the brothers and sisters we are, to stand side by side in this fight against the media toadies, warmongers, and Wall Street rip-off artists who stand against us, and who always remind me of Tolkein’s Orcs.

If you have suggestions for me to do better, I want to hear them. But beating back the enemy, teaching so many young people and others about liberty, that is our victory, and it is real and permanent. Won’t you link arms with me? We will have more vote victories too, if we stick together and do not let the enemy divide us.

As you know, and as our neocon enemies try to cover up, we are in a financial crisis. It may chug along at this pace, slowly into recession, or it might drop off a cliff, like the dollar. In that case, we will have the only coherent solution, and we must get our message out.

All my life, I’ve been working to make sure that when the Fed had done its work, and the special interests had looted the system to their hearts’ content, and there was a crisis, I would be in a position to speak the truth about why, and what to do about it. In this fight, I need your heart, your mind, your time, and your financial support. I also need you to become a precinct leader https://voters.ronpaul2008.com/grassroots/. What a fight we are in. What stakes there are. Together, we can build a new America faithful to the values of the framers. Bother the enemy, help the good cause: make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/, and let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work, together.

Sincerely,

Ron

In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm

By JOHN TIERNEY

Published: January 1, 2008, NY Times

Correction Appended

I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction.

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.

But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).

Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).

The most charitable excuse for this bias in weather divination is that the entrepreneurs are trying to offset another bias. The planet has indeed gotten warmer, and it is projected to keep warming because of greenhouse emissions, but this process is too slow to make much impact on the public.

When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.

Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, professor of economics and political science at Duke University, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome,” minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.

“Many people concerned about climate change,” Dr. Sunstein says, “want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.”

Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting — or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too.

Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they’re also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents. Two studies by NASA and university scientists last year concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention — and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs.

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

Guess which paper jibed with the theory — and image of Katrina — presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”?

It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn’t dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to “stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific,” and focused on other kinds of disasters, like “massive droughts” and “massive flooding.”

“In the last few months,” Mr. Gore said, “it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter.” But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier.

Correction: January 4, 2008

The Findings column in Science Times on Tuesday, about the way severe weather is tied to predictions of global warming, gave an outdated academic affiliation for Timur Kuran. He is a professor of economics and political science at Duke University; he is no longer a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California.