Why Ron Paul Will Be The Next U.S. President
by James Jaeger

No one can easily predict who will be the next president of the United States, BUT one can predict who will NOT be the next president. Thus by process of elimination, the winner CAN be deduced. This essay will argue why it's now possible to predict why Ron Paul will be the next president using process of elimination and data indicating extant polling patterns.

The three main issues most concerning the American people at this time seem to be a) the war in Iraq, b) the economy and c) business as usual in Washington, i.e., "change."

Given that 65% - 70% of the electorate want out of the Iraq War immediately and at least 5 out of the 6 Republican presidential candidates say they will NOT deliver that state of affairs, it's reasonably safe to say we can eliminate 83.3% of the Republicans as the next president.(1)

Given that most of the electorate are concerned about the economy, and the incumbent Republican Party is responsible for the economy, it's safe to say we can eliminate a Republican as the next president on this account as well.

Given that most of the electorate want a "change" in Washington, and the incumbent party in Washington is Republican, then, in order to deliver such "change," it's safe to say we can eliminate a Republican as the next president because to not do so would not provide said "change."

Thus we can eliminate the Republican from the presidency by reason of at least three predominant issues.

If Ron Paul leaves the Republican Party and runs under a Third Party, say the Constitution Party, only a Democrat or a Constitutionalist will now stand a chance. None of the other Third Party candidates, such as a Nader or a Perot, will stand a chance because they have not garnered enough exposure during the past year of campaigning and debating and will never reach the 15% threshold for the presidential debates.

So how can we eliminate either the Democrat or the Constitutionalist to determine who will win the presidency?

Here's how. As of 2007, there are about 169 million registered voters in the United States. Of this, 72 million are registered as Democrats (43%); 55 million are registered as Republicans (32%) and 42 million (25%) are enrolled to vote however they do not specify whether they are a Republican or a Democratic. Often they DO, however, specify that they registered with one of the so-called Third Parties, such as the Libertarian, Constitutional or Green Party. These voters are known as independents. Often times, registered Republicans and registered Democrats are not loyal to their party and they vote for someone other than a member of their party. They vote "independent" of party ideology. By the same token, often times independents vote either Republican or Democratic. These vagaries give rise to persistent and high speculation as to exactly what portion of the voting public constitutes the Republican "base" and what portion constitutes the Democratic "base." Base meaning those voters that are always loyal to their registered party no matter how insane or impractical their party becomes. This in turn gives rise to speculation as to what percentage of the voting public will vote "independent." Given all these vagaries, the percentage of people acting as independents has been steadily rising over the past half century. According to a September 3, 2006 Washington Post article, A Nation of Free Agents, by Marc Ambinder: "Independent voters comprise about 10 percent of the electorate, but the percentage of persuadable independents has shot up to about 30 percent. In the 27 states that register voters by party, self-declared independents grew from 8 percent of the registered electorate in 1987 to 24 percent in 2004, according to political analyst Rhodes Cook. Consistently, about 30 percent of U.S. voters tell pollsters they don't belong to a party."

As of 2006 approximately 38% of the voters identified themselves as independents and this figure may be as high as 42% in 2008. To the degree the Democrats and Republicans diffuse in the political soup and reach parity, the independent vote will decide elections. The governing factor will be how the independents cast their votes, i.e., to the Republican, Democrat or Third Party candidates.

Since about 65% - 70% of the electorate wants out of the Iraq War, the independents will most likely be amongst those who do NOT cast their vote to the party that wants to STAY in the war any longer than absolutely possible. This would be the Republicans. Since Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who dissents with the Republican base with respect to the war, he is, in essence, in alignment with the Democrats. The independents will thus tend to cast their votes to either the Democrat or the Constitutional candidate, especially if the Constitutional candidate is Ron Paul.

But what other factors will go into the decision as to where the independents cast their vote? Here's where the "economy" and the "change" factors come into play and why Ron Paul will satisfy both of these constituencies.

The major difference between the change the Democrats want and the change Ron Paul wants is a matter of degree and direction. Put bluntly, Ron Paul wants to change things drastically and the Democrats want to change things moderately. Ron Paul wants to change the size of government towards smaller and the Democrats want to change the size of government towards larger.

In sum, Ron Paul wants to drastically reduce the size of government and the Democrats want to moderately increase the size of government to accommodate more social programs for the poor.

So based on this, how can we determine who the independents will vote for? Since the majority of independents are Libertarians and Republicans and since Libertarians and Republicans traditionally share the sentiment that they, unlike the Democrats, both want smaller government and fewer social programs, we can predict that the majority of the independent vote will go to Ron Paul running under the Constitutional Party.

Most probably, the Republican candidate will be McCain, the Democratic candidate will be Obama and the Constitutional candidate will be Ron Paul.

The Republicans will put up McCain because he's the most likely to keep the war machine working, a machine that is now necessary because the world has hit peak oil. The Democrats will put up Obama because he represents the most optimum change in their preferred direction. Clinton does not represent change because she will continue the status quo in Washington and represents a continuation of the dynastic presidency. The Founding Fathers were wise to limit the power of the executive and condemn, most vigorously, any presidencies that would in any way smack of kingdomship or dynasty. By ignoring this advice from the Founders, the American people have had to endure 12 aggregate years of a Bush Dynasty that is a major apologist for the Oil Establishment and an antagonist to regular people in the Islamic World. Consequently, we now find ourselves being terrorized by citizens from Saudi Arabia who fly jets into our buildings; oil prices that have skyrocketed; and over a trillion dollars wasted on a bogus and irresponsible war over the oil fields of Iraq.

Yes, dynastic presidencies, like nothing else, substantiate Lord Acton's adage: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So Dynasty perpetrator Hillary is out. War apologist McCain is out. Only Obama and Paul stand.

Now the argument will come down to economics and health care issues, both issues Ron Paul is an expert on.

Obama has never sat on a banking committee where he argued with expert economists like Alan Greenspam or Ben Bernake. Obama has never delivered a baby. Dr. Paul has done both. He's not only a medical physician, but a trained economist that has real world experience in both fields. Further, Obama has no experience working in Washington. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has decades of experience. Unlike Ross Perot, who had little or no temperament to handle Washington politics, Ron Paul has the savoir fare to handle politics. Obama, although a nice, well-meaning guy, possibly with a skin thicker than Ross Perot, would get skewered in Washington politics. He would be pushed around like you wouldn't believe and beat up by every entrenched politician on the block. An Obama presidency would be a bloodbath, a killing of a nice, well-meaning young man who just wanted to bring "change" to Federal Reserve-infested Washington.

So Obama is out of the question on these accounts. Next issue. Social programs and medical care. Obama, being a typical Democrat wants to expand the government so it can take care of the poor and protect the "less fortunate" from all the greedy rich Republicans. He wants to use big government to hammer down big business and level the wealth disparity playing field. All the usual.

But here's where things are different -- and where the public is quickly catching on.

Even though Ron Paul calls for smaller government, he calls for greater GENERAL WELFARE. Greater general welfare, the only term used TWICE in the U.S. Constitution, does NOT mean greater welfare IN GENERAL. It means, bringing the general standard of living of the average American up so much that such American has NO NEED of government social programs or handouts. Most Democrats say impossible. The poor must have Uncle Sam on their side otherwise Daddy WarBucks will plunder them. And this is true, and would be true under any other presidency other than a Ron Paul presidency. Why? Because Ron Paul wants to get rid of all the institutions that allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Let me repeat this: Ron Paul wants to get rid of all the institutions that allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Put another way, Ron Paul wants to increase the GENERAL WELFARE of the average American citizen so that there IS no wealth disparity. So that there IS a healthy and growing middle class. So that there IS an economy that is efficient and properly managed. An economy that is efficient and properly managed does NOT allow over $1 trillion to be spent on a needless war when that money could have been spent on research for alternative energy and research to improve health care. An economy that is efficient and properly managed does NOT allow a bunch of private bankers to sit in a secret meeting and set the price of money. An economy that is efficient and properly managed does NOT allow a bunch of congressmen to print up as much money as they want and thus run the nation into debt, destroying the value of its currency. An economy that is efficient and properly managed does NOT allow a bunch of special interests in the military-industrial complex to trump-up perpetual wars all over the planet to justify their existence. All of these gross out points in the government, the banking system and the military lead to a reduction of the GENERAL WELFARE. When the general welfare of the nation is POOR, the health care of the nation is poor. When the health care of the nation is poor the nation is in serious jeopardy of dying.

Who knows better how to keep someone from dying: a well-meaning dude or a well-trained doctor? Who better knows how to keep a nation from dying than Dr. Congressman Paul? Thus, who is in a better position to care for the needs of the nation's health care and general welfare -- an elderly medical doctor who has over 40 years of experience in government OR a young man who has little experience in government, NO experience in medicine and just a well-meaning celebrity behind him. As Gualiani might concede: the reality is that Ron Paul is the best man.

So there is no question that Ron Paul equals and supersedes Barak Obama on every level.

But let's take a look at this a little more closely. Let's look at some mysterious indicators that may be prescient.

Are you aware that FOX NEWS, and several of its major opinion leader employees, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, disdain Ron Paul? Are you aware that these two men have disparaged Ron Paul at every turn and that the FOX Network even censored Ron Paul from a recent debate, much to the chagrin of people, like Jay Leno, who took note? Are you also aware that FOX NEWS broadcasts to all 50 states? Are you aware that FOX NEWS has so far sponsored three Republican debates and after each debate they have polled their national audience as to who won. Are you aware that Ron Paul has won every single poll? The last poll, which was taken on the debate at Myrtle Beach, SC, showed that Ron Paul got 33%, Thompson got 19% and Huckabee got 18%.

Why is this?

Why is it that after three debates, FOX NEWS, which may even hate Ron Paul, can't get their computers working? Why can't FOX NEWS stop all those Ron Paul supporters from voting so enthusiastically, yet they were able to amass a room full of citizens that proclaimed Fred Thomson the winner and Ron Paul the looser? Surely, something fishy is going on. How can RON PAUL win all three debates on the FOX poll broadcast to 50 states, yet the room full of "unbiased" citizens (probably selected by Sean Hannity) place him last and the "official" and "corporate" polls show him to be only at 8% - 15%? Don't you think this is weird? Ron Paul's poll stats flying in the face of FOX NEW'S disdain and their room full of citizens? Well here's why this is happening. The FOX NEWS polls are being directly generated by the public in real time. These polls are being texted-in by viewers as it happens, thus there is less opportunity for manipulation. This poll also has an open-ended sampling, thus there is a greater opportunity to draw a statistically relevant sample before closing the poll. Also the poll samples from all 50 states rather than from just one state, a 1/50th of the nation as drawn by a poll from any given state primary or caucus. And lastly the poll is not done by any intervening "tabulation" entity opening the door to special interest manipulation. All these factors make these polls more significant than any single state's poll (such as the Iowa Caucuses or the New Hampshire primary) AND they are less susceptible to manipulation. And evidence of this is the probability that if FOX NEWS could have altered, or spun, the poll, it probably WOULD have done so. Instead, this "anomaly" has been an unavoidable embarrassment to FOX NEWS three times. And if you were watching closely (when Sean Hannity was interviewing all the candidates after the Myrtle Beach debate), you will note that Mr. Hannity didn't once invalidate the poll as he had tried to do in the previous two post-debate polls. The reason for this is because the computer experts at FOX NEWS told Hannity that the FOX computers record the IP address of everyone polling thus making it impossible for people to vote multiple times.

A Ron Paul win once seems like an anomaly. Twice is a surprise. But three times is a consistency. Thus the FOX NEWS poll, which the mainstream media has quietly swept under the carpet, is prescient as to what the future holds.

Lastly, FOX NEWS has previously attempted to discredit their own poll by saying that the Ron Paul voters are overly supportive. This is ridiculous, because if the Ron Paul supporters are more energetic in the polls, why would they not be just as supportive at voting booth?

So, based on the fact that Ron Paul has been CONSISTENTLY getting about 33% of the FOX NEWS poll vote and the fact that 41% of the electorate are independents, I would say the bases are loaded in favor of Ron Paul being elected. Add to this prediction the above factors derived by process of elimination, and I would say: IT'S INEVITABLE THAT DR. RON PAUL WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES . . . unless:

1. Al Gore unexpectedly decides to run;

2. There is another major terrorist attack;

3. Ron Paul is black propagandized by the money masters and corporate plutocracy, and/or;

4. Ron Paul has Bobby Kennedy's fate and is assassinated.

Undoubtedly Ron Paul has gained universal exposure by running on the Republican ticket. As a consequence, and unlike Ross Perot who gained notoriety only late in the campaign, and Nader who was blamed for taking the vote from Al Gore, every American knows that Ron Paul exists by now and that the independent vote is large enough push him over the top. Further, every American has formed an opinion of Ron Paul by now. They either like him, dislike him or have no opinion. No opinion is actually a "virtual" opinion because it means, given a little more information, an opinion can and will quickly emerge. This vacuum is what gives rise to the expectation that the entrenched money masters and corporate plutocracy will do their best to fill this vacuum with negative. This is what is meant by black propaganda.

The reality of this analysis plus the fact that Ron Paul raised more money than anyone else last quarter, will make him subject to all manner of black propaganda attacks, and as he rises in popularity, a possible assassination attempt. So Ron Paul people, spend money wisely on top security.

And indeed the money master-dominated, corporate media has already started its black propaganda campaign with insinuations that Ron Paul is a racist or white supremist. Both of these accusations are ridiculous yet standard operating procedure from the bigoted, secular, mainstream media -- a media dominated by fewer than 8 multinational corporations who derive all manner of perks and concessions by supporting the congressional status quo and its covert and unconstitutional funding machine: the Federal Reserve System. (See Ron Paul in the documentary, FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution c/o http://www.FiatEmpire.com)

Given this environment, it is certain the money masters and corporate plutocracy that control the Republican Party will make sure someone OTHER than Ron Paul is nominated. This is inevitable because they know Ron Paul wants to dismantle all or part of their debt/tax enslavement system. This is also inevitable because they know Ron Paul wants to dismantle all or part of their military-industrial complex system. And lastly, this is inevitable because they know Ron Paul wants to dismantle all or part of their fraudulent corporate campaign-election system.

By the same token, the money masters and corporate plutocracy that control the Democratic Party will make sure whoever is nominated will covertly follow the exact same policies as whoever is nominated by the Republican Party. This is inevitable because the money masters covertly control both the Democratic and Republican parties. This is also inevitable because whatever Democrat or Republican is nominated they will be installed to ensure the debt/tax enslavement system, as well as the military-industrial complex and corporate campaign-election systems all stay in place.

In summary:

When the primary dust settles there will be a money master-, corporate-controlled Republican and Democratic, non-Paul avatar standing. The public will be expected to elect from these two "choices."

If Ron Paul then jettisons his now useless Republican launch vehicle and ascends to the ranks of a Third Party, say the Constitutional Party (or forms a brand new Third Party), he should be able to easily garner more than the 19% vote Ross Perot received in the 1990s.(2)

Given the huge amounts of money Ron Paul has raised (much more than Ross Perot); the exposure he has received over the Internet (even though the mainstream media has done its best to ignore and suppress him); and the fact that the United States is headed for the largest depression in its history (thanks to crass and irresponsible leadership of almost all presidents since the crime-ridden Nixon Adminsitration), Ron Paul should be able to garner at least double the vote Perot managed. This will give him more than enough clout to break through the 15% threshold arbitrarily set by the two-party Establishment watchdog Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) and be present in the presidential debates.(3) As he debates with an Obama or Edwards and a McCain, it will become obvious to the electorate who the only man is that can cure America's war wounds, debt insanity and ill-will generated around the world as a result of an imperial foreign policy replete with unbelievable touches of hubris.(4)

(1) See http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm. Also note the Iraq War has cost almost $500 billion dollars to date and when one considers the costs over the long term, many place the final bill at over $1 trillion. At $275 million per day, this sum breaks down to $4,100 per household. To date almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died and more than 60,000 have been wounded. What's worse is as many as 700,000 Iraqis have been killed and 4 million are now refugees. Also see http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

(2) Joseph Leiberman jettisoned his Democratic launch vehicle and ran as an independent after losing the primary in the state of Connecticut. He was then successfully elected to continue to serve as a Senator.

(3) In 1988 the Commission on Presidential Debates (the CPD) seized control of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters, and it has sponsored every presidential debate since. The CPD claims to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners," and it purports to objectively determine who will participate in the debates and under what conditions. In reality, however, the CPD is a corporate-funded, candidate-controlled, bipartisan cartel that exists to strengthen the Republican and Democratic parties at the expense of voter education. Every four years, the CPD awards virtually absolute control of the presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic campaigns, resulting in uninspiring debate formats, the exclusion of popular non-major party candidates, and the avoidance of pressing national issues.

The co-chairmen of the CPD, Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Paul G. Kirk Jr., are the former heads of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee respectively. The honorary chairmen of the CPD are former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.

The CPD's requirement that candidates reach 15 percent in national polls to participate in the presidential debates has yet to be changed, and it remains the greatest obstacle to democratic presidential debate. The Seattle Times editorialized, "The 15 percent threshold suits the two parties. It unduly restricts the American people."

The nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission was formed because the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored general election presidential debates during the past four election cycles, fails to adequately serve voters' interests. The Commission on Presidential Debates, which was created by the Republican and Democratic parties, secretly awards control of the presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic candidates, thereby limiting voter choice and restricting subject matters of political discourse.

The Citizens' Debate Commission is a nonpartisan organization and consists of national civic leaders from the left, center and right of the political spectrum who are committed to maximizing voter education. The Citizens' Debate Commission has an Advisory Board comprised of over fifty civic organizations that broadly reflect the composition and concerns of the electorate. For source of footnote (3) see http://www.citizensdebate.org and http://opendebates.org/theissue/15percent.html

(4) On 24 January 2008, we had another GOP debate sponsored by MSNBC. Guess what, after the debate another text pole was taken. The question was "Who won tonights debate?" RESULTS:

Romney --- 41%
Paul --- 40%
Huckabee --- 8% McCain --- 7%
Giuliani --- 4%

The above stats are consistent with the three FOX polls cited above.

12 January 2008

If you agree with at least 51% of this article, please forward it to your mailing list. The mainstream media may or may not address this subject, thus it's up to responsible citizens to disseminate important issues
so that a healthy public discourse can be pursued.

Don't forget to click on the below link to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
so you will have a better understanding of what fuels many problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute.

Permission is hereby granted to forward, quote, excerpt or publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited. For articles written by James Jaeger, you are welcome to credit yourself as author, provided you at least get this information out. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://home.att.net/~cyberfilms/Journel2.html.

Source URL: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org

| Home Menu | Mission | Balanced News | Movie Publications |
| Jaeger Research Institute |