IRONY: Ron Paul asks UN to confiscate RonPaul.com, RonPaul.org from his own fans

In an ironic turn of events, former Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has asked the United Nations to seize a website from his own supporters, and hand it over to him without compensating the legal owners.

That's right.

RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org have been owned by grassroots supporters of Ron Paul since 2008. The sites were first registered in 1999 and 2000. At one point, Paul owned RonPaul.org, but let the registration expire, and for some odd reason did not attempt to get RonPaul.com or RonPaul.org in preparation for his 2008 presidential campaign.

Last month, Paul expressed regret in an interview with libertarian conspiracist Alex Jones that he didn't own RonPaul.com. Following that, the owners of RonPaul.com offered to give the former congressman RonPaul.org for free, and detailed reasons why they wished to keep RonPaul.com (details here). If he still wanted to get the .com site, they said that they would sell it to him for $250,000 and include their email list of 170,000 addresses (which he could tap for fundraising, and easily recoup the expense).

Instead of taking their offers, Ron Paul decided to go to the United Nations (of all places) and ask them to strip the domains - without compensation - from the current owners, and give them to him.


This situation prompted the Paul fans who own RonPaul.com to say this:

Paul's hypocrisy in going to the UN is just too ironic. Click here to read the entire story from Paul's grassroots supporters.

Tackett: The OKGOP convention - both sides messed up.

The following is a guest post from conservative activist David Tackett of Broken Arrow, giving what I consider to be the most fair and accurate assessment regarding the controversy from Saturday's Oklahoma Republican State Convention.

You know, conventional wisdom says I need to keep my mouth shut.  I'm a candidate for State House and I don't need to upset anyone inside the party lest they won't help me.

But I just can't be quiet.  And let me summarize it by saying this... Ron Paul people, you were right in principle, but wrong in execution.

First, let me try and say before the RPers completely ignore the rest of my diatribe...  Remember, I was the one who stood with you at the 1st Congressional convention, not because I'm a RP supporter, but because I believe in the rule of law.

So let me start off with the 1st complaint... Credentials... 
I was one of the volunteers who helped check in people. So I can answer exactly what the problem was....  new software, delegates who pre-registered incorrectly (we had several who registered as guests or typed their name differently than what was provided by their County Chair), and volunteers who entered in data wrong during the check-in (entering people as guests instead of delegates).

It was, frankly, insulting to hear people from the RP clan suggest fraud was committed by the credential volunteers. (I.e. badges weren't secured, etc.)  I know each and every single one of the volunteers who helped with the process and not one has EVER done anything unethical.

Could the badges been designed where they couldn't be easily forged? Sure.  But let me belabor this major point.  ALL of the populous counties (Tulsa, Oklahoma, Cleveland) and the other 20 or so counties that had off numbers, verified their delegates registered against the master delegate list.  And the two counties where the fraud could have been perpetuated the easiest because of their sheer size, Tulsa and Oklahoma, had each delegate verify, in person in the main hall, their status.

And don't forget the sheer size of this convention.  This is by far a record-breaker in attendance.  So were there problems?  heck, yes?  Was there fraud?  No.  Was their a conspiracy by the "establishment" to stack the delegates?  No.  In fact, I will argue that the delegates in question was about an even split between the 2 factions.

Voting
Now this is a point that frankly is the main issue.  Did the chair wrongly decide that the standing vote was OK for the slate vote?  Absolutely yes.  But the RPers had a recourse, and that was to appeal the decision of the chair.  They did and they lost by a vote of the delegates.  At that point, the body in essence had rewritten the rule. In roberts rules, you have no recourse from this issue.  You have a recourse in the RNC rules, and the chair advised of that process.

And let me step back for a moment here.  Just because you can call a point of order, doesn't mean you have to keep doing it.  It's called dilatory motions, when the only issue is to call motions just to impede the process.  And I would wager $1000 that if the RPers didn't try to stall the process with all of the points of order, we would have had time for a secret ballot... or even more important, if there had not been the hundred point of orders before the egregious error NOT to have the slate voted on I'm sure the delegates would have been on your side.

And aside from the dilatory motions, one thing I have learned in my short tenure in convention politics - It don't matter how right you are... if you keep pressing a point, the majority of people will shut you down.  If you think I'm just spouting off without any experience, then you weren't at the 2011 state convention.

Now let's hit another issue... It was clear from the first test vote that the voting came down 60/40 (about a 500 delegate difference) each and every vote...  be it voice vote (hey, let me give the RP people credit for having some MASSIVE lungs!), standing vote, or secret ballot.

It wasn't close, the RP faction was in the minority.  And so whether it was standing vote or ballot, the state committee's slate would have been approved.  But, I know why all these motions and point of orders were happening... because I was told by several of the RP delegates that this was their plan... to drag out the process until everyone else left then they could redo the vote and get their slate in.

I'm sorry, but I get red faced in anger when I keep thinking about that above statement.  That is NOT the way to win the hearts and minds of those conservatives who aren't yet with you yet. And the only way Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or any libertarian leaning Republican is going to win the nomination in the future is by getting more conservatives to join with you.  You may have had 40% of the delegates, but you only had 9.6% of the popular vote in Oklahoma.  And in Oklahoma it's the popular vote that matters so that is what you all need to be focusing on.

Oh and on that point, you will lose me and thousands of Oklahoman Republicans who sympathize with your movement if pledged RP delegates try to vote for someone else besides the candidate they were assigned to on the 1st ballot. It's not about what's legal (jurisdiction, etc.) it's about what's the right thing to do.

The last point - Adjournment and the Rump convention

It stated on the agenda, we had to be out by 5pm. Clear as day.  No, the walls didn't go up because Matt told the facilities people to, the Embassy Suites people did it on their own.  How do I know?  They did it to us in the credentials room, they literally unplugged our computers in order to prep one side for another rental. (That explains for about 30 minutes of the delay in the credentials report, btw!)

I know there was other business to attend to, but if we have to leave, we have to leave.  The party rules clearly gives the option for the state committee to convene and consider any issues that the convention couldn't address.

So then the RP crowd did what they did at the 1st CD, they held an rump convention, not an extension of the current convention.  That convention adjourned.  You can't appeal the decision of the chair to adjourn.  When the gavel falls for adjournment, it's done.

And I was at a place in the hall to see both sides, (you could still see both sides from the stage as well at that point) and yes, it was the same 60/40 split. But the Ron Paul people screamed and hollered and made a mockery by holding a parking lot rump convention.

Yes, I said it... A mockery. Even if, and I say a MAJOR if... I accept that the parking lot convention was an extension of the first convention, you didn't have a quorum... not even close...  Remember those precious rules that you said were being violated by the convention chair?  Nothing you did mattered unless you had a quorum of the delegates present at the signed credentials report.  Even with the first reported number, that would mean you had to have over 600 in your "parking lot" convention. I think the number you claimed was under 400.

So what does it look like from the outside? If the establishment breaks the rules, it's a travesty, but if the RP faction breaks the rules, it's OK.

Please hear me what I am trying to say.  Thuggery can only get you so far. But the RP people MUST change the way they approach these conventions if you TRULY want people to change their minds and support your cause.

I will continue to come to the defense of anyone who is being wronged during a GOP event that I am at.  But in order to succeed in the future, the tactics of the RPers must be revamped.

I say this last point. One way to earn the respect of the rest of the delegation, and frankly to increase your influence, is to keep being a part of the party apparatus throughout the year, every year.  This is what the Christian Coalition did in the 90's throughout the country.  And by doing this, the RPers (And yes, I know ALOT of RP supporters are already actively working in the party) will not be seen as an outside faction, but an important wing of GOP working to advance their cause in the party.

David Tackett is a conservative activist from Broken Arrow, and is the Republican nominee for State House District 12 against Rep. Wade Rousselot (D-Wagoner). His campaign website is DavidTackett.com.

Persuasion, Marketing, and Mark Shannon on "Ron Paulies"

Oklahoma City talk show host Mark Shannon has had enough of the "Ron Paulies" - read below for his post today.

Black-Pauled

When I woke up Wednesday morning, I had nothing I felt strong enough to write about, (as you may have noticed,) so rather than forcing something, I just left it blank.

Nothing like a couple hours on the air to remedy that problem.

Here's the long and short of it: I've had it with the "Paulies." Those people who claim to be supporters of Ron Paul and the Constitution, but who have no common sense, understanding of how to present themselves or represent their candidate or their beliefs.

Never mind that I happen to be the guy who does the show, the "Paulies" have managed to alienate the host of one of the only call-in shows in the city that actually deals with political topics. They've also managed to do it to every major talk show host in the country from Beck to Limbaugh to Hannity.

They get screened out from the national shows most of the time, and now have managed to be annoying enough that they will be screened out or dumped by the digital time-delay we utilize normally for profanity.

Regardless of your political positions, if you are going to win in politics, which is a "people" business, you've got to be able to communicate with and work with all kinds of people.

"Paulies" don't get it. They think they've got the only "CONSTITUTIONAL" position on every issue, and are just sure the light will all come on for the rest of us ("not really") conservatives in this country.

They heckled Tom Coburn at the Republican State convention, a real TURN OFF. They will talk you into a corner ranting about the FEDERAL RESERVE and how taxation is slavery and one or two other of their limited points, another TURN OFF.

Call your internet radio stations with the other fringe members and have a ball sounding brilliant to each other because no one else wants to listen to you.

If he has any connection to these guys, Randy Brogdon, candidate for Governor, would do well to distance himself from these guys, because he's going to have enough difficulties to overcome trying to defeat a very popular Mary Fallin without having these immature and political novices representing him in any way.

Good job guys. You've slit your own throat.....again.

Although I theoretically line up with quite a few of the positions the "Ron Paulies" hold, I must confess, I agree with Mark on much of what he said. Let me elaborate, by paragraph.

Regardless of your political positions, if you are going to win in politics, which is a "people" business, you've got to be able to communicate with and work with all kinds of people.

This is key. One of the major downfalls for the "Ron Paulies" is their nearly across-the-board inability to communicate with those who do not agree with them. Far too often, they resort to name-calling, which leads to absolutely nowhere.

Politics is the art of persuading opponents to your line of thinking, and it demands the ability to articulate your positions clearly, and in a non-insulting manner. It requires debate, but it must be rational, logical, and courteous.

Sometimes, people won't agree with you 100% of the times. Okay, very rarely, if ever, will someone agree with you 100% of the time. However, you must be able to put aside your differences, and work towards achieving a common goal, despite your lack of total philosophical unity. If the "Ron Paulies" truly wish to accomplish something, they must learn this valuable lesson.

"Paulies" don't get it. They think they've got the only "CONSTITUTIONAL" position on every issue, and are just sure the light will all come on for the rest of us ("not really") conservatives in this country.

This is something that has bothered me in regards to supporters of Ron Paul (as well as other libertarians; the RPs are just the most prominent). It's almost as if they are the only ones who can interpret the Constitution - and heaven forbid if you question them! They tend to have this almost arrogant attitude about it; 'We're Constitutional conservatives, and since you don't agree with us, you're big-government liberal establishment socialists!!!!!!'

They heckled Tom Coburn at the Republican State convention, a real TURN OFF. They will talk you into a corner ranting about the FEDERAL RESERVE and how taxation is slavery and one or two other of their limited points, another TURN OFF.

I definitely agree in regards to Tom Coburn. Sen. Coburn, albeit making a mistake in my eyes regarding the TARP vote, has been the conservative's best friend for years (would the RPs have rather had Kirk Humphreys or Brad Carson?). Some people, in their quest for philosophical purity, would 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', and completely disregard any good Dr. Coburn has done, and continues to do. As I said previously, we'll never agree with someone 100% of the time - we must be able to lay aside those differences, and still work for a common goal (smaller, more limited government, et cetera).

On the other issue: sometimes, in order to persuade a person to your side, you find something that you both agree on, and work from there, rather than starting with something that seems 'extreme' or 'radical' to the normal person. For instance, instead of beginning by ranting about the Federal Reserve, how about discussing wasteful government spending, intrusion into the private sector, or even policies that lead to inflation. Those topics are more mainstream, but are still related in a general way to the Fed. The more varied your portfolio of issues, the more likely you can find an area of agreeance, and the more likely you can persuade someone to your line of thinking.

If he has any connection to these guys, Randy Brogdon, candidate for Governor, would do well to distance himself from these guys, because he's going to have enough difficulties to overcome trying to defeat a very popular Mary Fallin without having these immature and political novices representing him in any way.

Absolutely! To win in a election such as the Governor's race, Brogdon must be able to appeal to voters of all persuasions, not exclusively the libertarian, Ron Paul-ish type. While avoiding pandering, he must expand his outreach to Republicans who may not agree with him on some issues (i.e. non-fiscal conservatives or non-social conservatives) if he wishes to beat Mary Fallin. Belonging and appealing too much to one strict faction will not lead to victory for Randy Brogdon.

Good job guys. You've slit your own throat.....again.

This is a prime example of what I've just written about. Mark Shannon and the "Ron Paulies" probably agree on many issues, but the manner with which they've presented themselves has alienated a potential ally.

In addition to politics being the art of persuasion, it also demands marketing. If you can't persuade or market it in such a way as to appeal, you won't win many victories.