The realization comes when you take a look at the donations. Ron Paul has pulled in more donations from current and former members of the military than all the other republican candidates and Obama combined. Clearly there is something odd going on. A quick check of the major news headlines and you will see several articles regarding Mitt Romney as well as Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, but still little on Ron Paul. Also, the constant bleating from the talk radio pundits practically screams, “Don’t look at Ron Paul; he is a waste of your vote!” In fact, several Fox news anchors have outright stated, “Paul cannot win.” Rush Limbaugh, has gone on record saying, “All the Republican candidates available could beat Obama, except Ron Paul.” Yet, Paul appears to be either winning or in close contention in all of the early primary states as well as many of the later states.

So what is going on here? Just recently, Ron Paul won yet another major straw poll with a victory in the swing state Oklahoma. Now, Paul has won a total of nine major straw poll victories in extremely important events. Paul won California, Ohio, New Hampshire, Illinois, the Republican Leadership Conference, the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), the Value Voters Summit, and he was in a statistical tie for first in the important early primary state of Iowa. He has also won many countless other polls throughout the nation. His supporters are organized and turn out in mass to events and there are simply tons of them.

At the beginning of October, campaign donation statistics were turned in, and showed Paul receiving $8 million dollars in the previous 3 months from over 100,000 different people. This averages out to about $80 per person. Although Paul received the third most money overall, at the time, the total number of individual people who donated to Paul was more than the number of people who donated to all the other candidates combined. Clearly this shows the depths of Paul’s massive grassroots support and of his total support base.

So what is it exactly that is keeping Paul out of the headlines, off the Fox News shows, and causing Paul to constantly garner negative feedback from talk radio hosts? Considering Paul’s successes, and considering his classic conservative positions, he should be an easy sell to Republicans. In addition, several recent polls showed Paul beating Romney out as the candidate who is best suited to beat Obama in the general election.

“The Phil Valentine Effect” The main reason that Paul is not in a clear first place now relates directly to the media. After conducting a local and rather unscientific poll here on the Square in Murfreesboro it quickly becomes clear that most people either don’t know Paul is running or think that he has no chance and have not been paying attention to him. The second and smaller category is the people who know about him and are interested enough to have formed an opinion on him. This group is split into two; mostly it consists of his supporters. Even here in Murfreesboro, I see yard signs quite often with Ron Paul’s “Restore America Now” slogan displayed. The people who support him mostly truly love him and are willing to work to show it. The other segment of the people who know Paul are those who like some of what he stands for but have a few things that are keeping them from supporting him completely. This is where the Phil Valentine effect comes in.

Phil Valentine is a talk radio show host from Nashville who is nationally syndicated and broadcasts to places all over America. I use him as an example because he is very similar to the Rush Limbaughs and other conservative talk radio hosts who dominate the air waves throughout America.

His stance on Paul is about 80 percent positive, which is actually better than most of the talk radio hosts, who either completely ignore Paul or even refuse to take calls from people who want to talk about him. However, before the scandals forced Herman Cain to resign his campaign, Valentine spent massive air time shilling for Herman Cain. At the same time that Valentine started pushing Cain, nearly every talk radio show host and major TV news anchor simultaneously started pushing Cain all across America. To an unbiased bystander, the media’s dramatic uptick in coverage seemed almost planned out.

Of course, Cain faded quickly as his policies lacked real content, and he obviously suffered from some moral problems. So what will happen to Paul now that Cain disappeared in a similar fashion to Perry, and now that Gingrich slips as more and more of his record is exposed? The answer is clear; Valentine and all of the others will do the same thing they did in 2008. As the primaries drawl closer and closer, they will get behind the “default Republican” candidate Mitt Romney. I would like to address their reasons here, and hopefully convince them to POUR themselves into supporting Paul as though their lives depend on it. If I fail, then history will repeat itself and these same talk show hosts will be scratching their heads wondering how in the world the republicans just lost to Obama. Although these talk show hosts, and even the candidates themselves make it seem as though it would be impossible, we absolutely will see another four years of Obama if Romney, Gingrich or another mediocre and only remotely conservative candidate is the nominee.

Military As stated earlier in the article, Paul gets more donations from Veterans and active military members than all the other candidates combined. But Valentine and the rest of the pundits continuously pronounce Paul to be weak on foreign policy. They even say that Paul’s foreign policies would be dangerous to the security of Americans, as well as to the stability of the entire world. They love to say about Paul, “Well, I really like him but some of his ideas about foreign policy scare me.” Yet, military men support Paul in mass. I’d like to analyze why this is the case.

Valentine’s, as well as most neoconservative arguments typically go as follows. Muslims and other people throughout the world hate Americans because they hate democracy and they hate freedom. Valentine maintains that these people hate us so much that they will go to all lengths to attack American interests anywhere they can even if it means suicide attacks. Valentine believes that it is necessary to maintain a policy of leadership replacement throughout the Middle East region, and that it is necessary to maintain a huge military presence in the region. He is particularly concerned about our Israeli allies and their safety if we were to leave the region. He has stated on several occasions that he believes that if Iran had a nuclear bomb, they would use it on Israel.

His arguments are flawed for several reasons. To begin with, there are tremendous problems in almost every aspect of current military strategy. Consider the logistics and cost of maintaining bases throughout foreign regions. As a country who is rapidly approaching bankruptcy, this alone should be enough of a reason to leave. On a deeper level, consider what we are doing; for the last 40 years in the Middle East, our strategy has been “regime change” over and over again. What this means is to remove the ruling party and replace it with someone who is sympathetic to our purposes. Now, consider what happens to power structures when you remove those in charge. Naturally the result is the creation of small independent divisions which form internal leadership and function similarly to how the American militias did in the Revolutionary War.

As a military strategy this makes no sense. Since it is of utmost importance to know your enemy, the most logical strategy is to leave strong leadership intact. Creating logistic, intelligence and ground strategy is far easier when your adversary is defined clearly. Why would we pursue a policy that makes our enemies more difficult to fight? Between the U.S., and the former Soviet Union’s policies, we have created a monster now. The command structures of the forces we are fighting in the Middle East region are so broken that any war we pursue in the region has become virtually unwinnable. Even when we destroy the figurehead leadership, small insurgent elements indefinitely fight on and ultimately cost us in the form of American lives and American resources. In one of the presidential debates, Ron Paul talked about how the Soviets were in Afghanistan indefinitely fighting an unwinnable war just before they went bankrupt and collapsed. Now America is in the same position. Yet we don’t seem to have learned history’s lesson.

Stronger power structures throughout the Middle East mean battles that can actually be “won” when war becomes necessary to protect our allies. The end result of allowing these power structures to develop in the Middle East is a safer Israel and a safer USA. Strong leadership means that Israel and the U.N. can actually hold leaders accountable for the actions of their people when they cause harm. The origin of that leadership, be it Muslim or secular is unimportant, as long as the power structure is strong and defined.

Another major issue that should be addressed as part of military strategy is that evidence shows that in times of constant war or constant economic depression, cultures will turn to religion as a way to cope with their trouble. In essence, by pursuing a policy of manipulation in the region, we have given strength to the hard-line Islamists we claim to be opposing. This is evident in the writings and words of several of the people who have attacked American interests over the last 20 years. If you watch or read the 1998 interview of Bin Laden, he declares war on the U.S. unless Americans remove troops and bases from Arabia (which is considered to be Muslim holy land). In no part of the interview or any other documented sources does Bin Laden ever talk about destroying the U.S. because it is a democracy, or because it is free. Conceptually this makes no sense, and there is no evidence to support people like Phil Valentine when they try to make this argument. Consider that Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda movement only gained power through religious zealotry that was made possible because of U.S. policy. As would happen in America or any other place that was invaded, they fight because they protect their home. Religious extremism is a byproduct of the challenges their people and their leaders face when they are confronting endless war, endless sanctions, and foreign invasions.

Regarding Iran and Nukes The general consensus from the pundits is that Iran is full of suicidal Muslim idiots who would stop at nothing to destroy the U.S. Some may be, but as a people, Iranians have history and culture they seek to protect as well as extremely important land. In fact, Iran is the home of several of the oldest and most holy cities in the Arab world. The policy of mutually assured destruction applies just as strongly to Iran as anyone else in history. If Iran was to use a nuclear weapon to attack Israel or any of our other allies, the result would be the complete destruction of Iran by a rain of nuclear hell by the United States as well as Israel. Iran would be reduced to a landscape of glass. Does anyone really think Iran would knowingly allow itself to be completely vaporized in exchange for the destruction of Israel? The answer is very clearly no, despite what the media in this country has indicated. MAD does apply and there is no way to get around it. In addition, Israel who is Iran’s enemy has over 300 nuclear weapon. Although Iran has not stated that they intend to build nuclear weapons, would it be surprising if they did want one? Without one Iran lacks the ability to balance power and provide the deterrent necessary to make the policy of MAD actually function.

Another great argument against those who think Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear weapon is the fact that Israel is home to the city Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the site of one of the holiest and most sacred places in the world to Muslims called the al-Aqsa masjid. It is also a place that has deep rooted tradition within Islamic history. Their prophet Muhammad was said to have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem where he was said to have “visited heaven.” It is simply illogical that Iran would consider the complete destruction of one of the holiest places in the world to Islam.

Civil Rights Ron Paul’s viewpoints on civil rights are very simple and very clear. He uses the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights to define his position. Yet somehow, these so called “conservative” talk radio show hosts oppose Paul and the Constitution. Recently, nearly every conservative talk show host in America all stated their support for the killing without trial of American citizen Anwar Al-awlaki. Actually, I have to mention that Ron Paul received an odd endorsement from Michael Savage regarding his stance on this issue, but almost unanimously, Phil Valentine and the other pundits fell in line and supported President Obama in declaring it legitimate to kill without the necessity for a trial. This is a disastrous slippery-slope policy, and I welcome anyone who is an American to even try to argue for these killings. The Bill of Rights is exceptionally clear regarding this issue. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, I remember Valentine’s arguments quite clearly. He talked about how in American history there were cases where it was necessary to kill criminals, and gave the example of old west criminal Billy the Kid. I sent Phil an email at the time to which I received no reply. Here is the text:

“The fact that legally, there may be precedent to execute an individual without trial does not make it just.

It is a dangerous slippery slope that you are putting American civil liberties on when you start allowing any federal government to bypass the Bill of Rights in any case, for any reason. To justify it based of the classification of an individual, as “enemy combatant,” which is based solely on the proclamation of the federal government is akin to the arguments which put Hitler in power. The concept, that someone who is not a citizen is not entitled due process, is also equally dangerous. There is a reason the Declaration of Independence holds the phrase “we hold these truths to be self evident.” The fact is at that time of the American revolution, there was no such things as citizens of the U.S. Everyone who was declaring their rights was doing so because they believe that those rights were innate, and came from being human and from God alone.

The concept of God-given rights is very simple. It means that no individual or government body gives us rights. The phrase “inalienable rights” means rights which are granted to all those which are human, and can never be separated from anyone for any reasons. To deny this, and to allow any government official for any reason to kill any person without due process is akin to allowing whatever government is in office at any time to play God.

Of course, you justified this by saying that if there ever came a time when an American citizen was assassinated, there would be revolution. Unfortunately, you are incorrect. You provided the argument against this yourself when you stated later that there were times in American history where people were killed for various reasons by our government. The precedent exists for this behavior to happen again in the future, and as in the past, without revolutionary result.

You also justified the killing by saying that the military men who carried out the raid were in a make or break situation and they had to make the decision there and then. This may or may not be true. But we the people cannot be and will never be made aware of the evidence to that effect. This is conceptually a problem in itself. But, you then went on to discuss the necessity for government assassination based on time of war conditions. The moral and logical implications behind this are terrible. The beginning of this problem is that endless declaration of war gives the federal government endless power to choose whom is worthy of execution. The problem goes far deeper though when you consider that the American value system is a big part of what has made America the greatest country in the world. As an example, remember the post war trials of Nazi and Japanese war criminals? Remember the executions of those war criminals that followed those trials? The America we were then realized that the necessity for the rule of law was more important than anything else, even when the lives of people who murdered millions were in question. Today’s terrorists pale in comparison to some of the war criminals of the past. Yet, those war criminals were still granted trial. The exact same reasons that those trials were necessary in the past apply to today’s situation. If America is to be an example to this world in the areas of freedom, morality, and justice, then the rule of law is the ultimate precedent.”

The points are clear and stand firm. If you believe that our government can choose when it wants to obey the Constitution, then I urge you to leave this country. While I believe that our democratic republic should be able to grow and shift based on public opinion and changing environment, the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill Of Rights is simply non-negotiable. The letters and words contained in those documents are the core of what we as a country are. If these ideas are allowed to be circumvented based on whatever circumstances the current President deems appropriate, then I submit that this is no longer America. As far as Dr. Paul’s civil liberties record is concerned, he is simply the best. He has fought his entire life to preserve our liberties, and he will continue to do so as president.

In closing, I would like to once again appeal to the Phil Valentines of the world to look at the fact that Paul gets so much support from active military members as well as veterans. Those are the guys who know the situation on the ground. They realize that our policy is a major part of the reason why the Middle East is trending towards a fundamentalist version of Islam. These military men and veterans support Dr. Paul because he is the single candidate who has even mentioned national defense. The wisdom of these people is amazing. Our Department of Defense has been turned into a department of offense, and in turn it is costing us trillions. Those trillions of dollars are the reason why my generation’s kids will grow up with less than their parents for the first time in many years. I implore you Mr. Valentine, support Dr. Paul and stop the madness that is pervading our system.

“Who are the true patriots? Those who conform or those who dissent to wars without merit?” – Ron Paul