Martin Luther King Day - Strategy WHY is this such an important day for a moneybomb?

[EvilNight]

I have a homework assignment for you, as American Patriots. Many of you know what Martin Luther King Day stands for, but have you heard Dr. King's speech given in Washington? Heard, not read. Paper can never do it justice. It's not two minutes long - that's the cliff notes edition they feed you on the MSM. It's seventeen. Every word defines what it is to BE American. This is well worth being reminded of.

Take time and see it for yourself, again or for the first time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk

Many of us like to think we can pull off something like this again, right now. Make no mistake, if it does happen, it will be this momentus.

MLK is the next logical choice for a moneybomb. I'll lay the benefits out the way I see them.

1) On Jan 21st a hell of a lot of people know what day is being celebrated. MLK day will be covered in the news media by default. A surge of donations on that day is very obviously tied to a man who was one of the world's most influential and most respected civil rights leaders. No other parallels can be drawn and it is difficult if not impossible to smear and spin as anything else (unlike Nov 5th for example, which was nevertheless a good choice). If there is any Ron Paul money bomb it will color the news for the day - easy pickings to ride the coattails of a greater story.

2) It will resonate because Dr. King's message IS Ron's message. Ron and indeed all patriots always refer to the icons of American independence and freedom (constitution, declaration of independence, etc). Mainstream snakes are forbidden to use these references because they always get burned by them. Some things are indeed sacred, even in America.

3) It sends a clear message that Ron Paul's most active and committed supporters are not in any way white supremacist. Every time someone brings up that ridiculous racism angle (which is happening a LOT lately even now after being debunked), Ron gets to shoot it right back with, "My supporters donated $3M to celebrate Martin Luther King Day." It turns every attempt at racism smear into instant publicity FOR Ron. Stealing the racism axe away from the MSM would be a coup - especially now, before they even have a chance to smear him when he becomes a real threat. Know thy enemy.

4) It sends a very clear message to those people of color who might not take a second look at The Republican Party (and Ron Paul by extension). The Republicans haven't exactly gone out of their way to stand up for anyone over a prejudice issue like that in a very long time. It further distances Ron Paul from what everyone now thinks of as mainstream neocon republican.

5) It sends a message that is typically considered a democratic position by default these days. Independents and democrats who hear it coming from the Republican party will have their interest piqued if they believe in the stereotypical neocon Republican who would never do such a thing. This is good, aiming right for the people who haven't come over to Ron's message yet.

6) The timing is right. Too soon, and it'll be a small money bomb. Too long, and Ron has to wait too long for another donation to his war chest. We all know by now most of Ron's donors can come up with another $100 by then. Even if they only donate $5 their voice still supports the message.

7) It fits the theme we have chosen for ourselves with the 5th and the 16th. It was a good choice. The theme we play out in the political arena on this orchestra of moneybombs is the national anthem, loud as thunder. Every day that passes marking a true day of American history like that is just one more note we need to hit to finish the tune and draw a standing ovation. Every day we overlook is a failed note, and every day without universal American meaning is a wrong note. This is why we can't just pick randomly, or go with lesser known days any longer.

We can call it a "mini bomb" to take the pressure off of topping the tea party. That answers those who worry it will be too small.

I've seen it said that we will drive everyone away because Dr. King was a communist. Frankly, this is contrary to Ron's message. Americans come from all walks if life and all political affiliations. The anti-communist propaganda our government used to demonize the soviet union has mostly died out. Communism now is just another political philosophy. Is our message one of tolerance or not?

There's a poll here. Think it over and let us know how you feel.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=60404&page=2

The pledge site (like thisnov5th and teaparty07) is here.
http://freeatlast2008.com/

I'm donating that day regardless. I suspect enough Ron Paul supporters will do it anyway that it'll show up in the numbers regardless of what consensus is reached here.

 

[r3volution]

i wont , and i know for a fact that about half of the Paul supporters that i know personally will not vote for him if this takes place ..

 

[Nihilist23]

Good enough for me.

Everyone is a "person of color" by the way.

i wont , and i know for a fact that about half of the Paul supporters that i know personally will not vote for him if this takes place ..

Lies. I do not believe half the RP supporters you know will withdraw their vote from Dr. Paul because his supporters independently organized a money bomb on a date you didn't like.

 

[Original_Intent]

Yes, I am not a fan of the MLK money bomb, and certainly don't intend at this point to support it, BUT

Anyone that would withdraw his support from Ron Paul based on his supporters independently doing a fundraiser that they didn't care for - that's insane. Cutting of your nose to spite Jimmy Carter's face. Yes I realize that last sentence made no sense - there is a reason for that.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

If we do another one, I think the timing should be random and without any hype.

 

[adwads]

We know that there are 5 birthdays of American Patriots in January:

Jan 1 - PAUL REVERE's birthday.
Jan 12 - JOHN HANCOCK's birthday.
Jan 17 - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN's birthday.
Jan 21 - MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.'s birthday.
Jan 29 - THOMAS PAINE's birthday.

And I was initially suggesting mini-money bombs on each of those days, but a suggestion of Antonious Stone really caught my eye...we should incorporate those birthdays with fundraising AND campaigning/canvassing type activities...

Jan 1 - New Year's Day and Paul Revere's B-day. Kick off "PATRIOT MONTH" Use the symbolism of Paul Revere kicking off the 1st American Revolution (and new years day) to kick off the Ron Paul Revolution. Have a mini money bomb for $1,776,000.

Jan 12 - John Hancock's Birthday. Use the symbolism of JH's b-day to signal our "independence" from the corrupt 2-party system and special interests that have destroyed America. Have a national signwaving day signaling our independence.

Jan 17 - Benjamin Franklin's Birthday. Pass out slimjims explaining how rational Dr. Paul's ideas are for this country. (or something else.)

Jan 21 - MLK's Birthday. Have our biggest Moneybomb on this day. Really aim for $10 million this time. Use MLK's message of peace and unity to unite Americans behind Ron Paul.

Jan 29 - Thomas Paine's b-day. Have a National "Common Sense" day of canvassing and campaigning for Dr. Paul. Come up with a pamphlet on why Dr. Paul makes sense for America at this day and age and how that corresponded to American History and the American Revolution in 1776.

 

[Sematary]

i wont , and i know for a fact that about half of the Paul supporters that i know personally will not vote for him if this takes place ..

You won't vote for Ron Paul if the grassroots has a money bomb on January 21? And you speak for another half of the people who support Ron Paul? Are you kidding?

 

[Wayne Hammond]

2) It will resonate because Dr. King's message IS Ron's message. .

COMPLETE and UTTER B.S.

Read this from the Lew Rockwell website:

Fair use, from:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

Myths of Martin Luther King

by Marcus Epstein

There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.

Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King’s death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.

In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don’t mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.

Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.
King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.

Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.

In National Review, Roger Clegg wrote that "There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto, E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all." Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.

Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed "our nation was born in genocide," and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.

Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.

Ralph Reed claims that King’s "indispensable genius" provided "the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics." He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition "adopted many elements of King’s style and tactics." The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King’s struggle against segregation. In a speech entitled The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill Bennet described King, as "not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs."

Both King’s public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.

FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man’s private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.

King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to ban school prayer, King responded,

I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.

While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments on abortion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitled Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern which he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say "there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."

Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.

In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Reviewapplauds King for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.

King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."

Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.

Myth # 5: King supported the free market.

OK, you don’t hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitled Civil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,

A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country's civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: "With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away," and he predicted that such growth would "Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation."

King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 he said,

You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.

King called for "totally restructuring the system" in a way that was not capitalist or "the antithesis of communist." For more information on King’s economic views, see Lew Rockwell’s The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Myth # 6: King was a conservative.

As all the previous myths show, King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." He believed that Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."

King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."

Despite King’s harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King’s FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.

Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.

OK, even most of the neocons won’t deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that "no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree." In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.

When faced with these facts, most of King’s conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren’t part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King’s morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality."

Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King’s views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men "by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.

.

 

[Knightskye]

Can the Donate2008 moneybomb be rescheduled for January 1st? It's still New Yearsish, but we'd have one more day to prepare, and a Paul Revere theme to use.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

I would NEVER stop supporting Ron Paul because of something that someone else does! That's like saying that you won't vote for Ron Paul because white supremacists give him money. It's absurd! Ron Paul doesn't have anything to do with them and he won't have anything to do with a possible MLK moneybomb. I won't donate for the MLK moneybomb, but I don't have a problem with those who choose to assemble and do so. I'm going to donate before the end of the year to get the total up to $20 million! Go Ron Paul!

 

[Highstreet]

Bump for the Civil Rights support.

Paul is a staunch supporter of Civil Rights and that is what MLK is best know for and represents.

 

[Lucid American]

An MLK Day moneybomb is just a bad idea . . . opportunity for blow back is too great.

1) Paul is white and is not widely known yet as being as colorblind as he is.
2) There have, however, been reports linking him with white supremicists, which, while it's insignificant, the media has spun it otherwise.
3) Paul, having reported "links" with white supremicists having a money bomb on MLK's day would definitely have negative implications.

Not to mention the possible political ramifications that have been brought up in prior threads.

It's just a potential flashpoint for controversy that is totally unnecessary.

I personally am against further money bombs but even moreso where there are such potentially deep-seeded fault lines aggravated.

 

[jd603]

It is a terrible Idea.

 

[adwads]

We know that there are 5 birthdays of American Patriots in January:

Jan 1 - PAUL REVERE's birthday.
Jan 12 - JOHN HANCOCK's birthday.
Jan 17 - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN's birthday.
Jan 21 - MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.'s birthday.
Jan 29 - THOMAS PAINE's birthday.

And I was initially suggesting mini-money bombs on each of those days, but a suggestion of Antonious Stone really caught my eye...we should incorporate those birthdays with fundraising AND campaigning/canvassing type activities...

Jan 1 - New Year's Day and Paul Revere's B-day. Kick off "PATRIOT MONTH" Use the symbolism of Paul Revere kicking off the 1st American Revolution (and new years day) to kick off the Ron Paul Revolution. Have a mini money bomb for $1,776,000.

Jan 12 - John Hancock's Birthday. Use the symbolism of JH's b-day to signal our "independence" from the corrupt 2-party system and special interests that have destroyed America. Have a national signwaving day signaling our independence.

Jan 17 - Benjamin Franklin's Birthday. Pass out slimjims explaining how rational Dr. Paul's ideas are for this country. (or something else.)

Jan 21 - MLK's Birthday. Have our biggest Moneybomb on this day. Really aim for $10 million this time. Use MLK's message of peace and unity to unite Americans behind Ron Paul.

Jan 29 - Thomas Paine's b-day. Have a National "Common Sense" day of canvassing and campaigning for Dr. Paul. Come up with a pamphlet on why Dr. Paul makes sense for America at this day and age and how that corresponded to American History and the American Revolution in 1776.

 

[Noble]

I don't care how good of a person MLK was, using him as a fundraising icon is not only tacky and in bad taste (since he's DEAD, and cannot consent), but its too controversial (as evidenced by his most hardcore supporters), and therefore is not a good choice for a fundraiser.

If you ignore this controversy and continue to promote this, you are doing the campaign a disservice.

 

[Teflon Master]

Can someone explain to me why this is a bad idea? I read some posts saying it would be bad because of implications from the WN. Why is this bad? We need to give a big LOL at them, and doing this on MLK Day would be great. Fuck the White Nationalists, we don't need them in his campaign.

 

[Sematary]

I don't care how good of a person MLK was, using him as a fundraising icon is not only tacky and in bad taste (since he's DEAD, and cannot consent), but its too controversial (as evidenced by his most hardcore supporters), and therefore is not a good choice for a fundraiser.

If you ignore this controversy and continue to promote this, you are doing the campaign a disservice.

This sounds like the same crap we heard about Nov 5 and yet, There was virtually zero blowback and the event, in fact, garnered a shitload of positive press (as would this).

 

[LukeNM]

Don't forget Inauguration Day is January 20th every 4 years! We can celebrate Ron's inauguration a year early...

 

[cicatrice]

An MLK Day moneybomb is just a bad idea . . . opportunity for blow back is too great.

1) Paul is white and is not widely known yet as being as colorblind as he is.
2) There have, however, been reports linking him with white supremicists, which, while it's insignificant, the media has spun it otherwise.
3) Paul, having reported "links" with white supremicists having a money bomb on MLK's day would definitely have negative implications.

Not to mention the possible political ramifications that have been brought up in prior threads.

It's just a potential flashpoint for controversy that is totally unnecessary.

I personally am against further money bombs but even moreso where there are such potentially deep-seeded fault lines aggravated.

I completely agree.

You guys should really consider the misconceptions that can stem from this--it can be entirely detrimental. And sure, perhaps the supporter is all for it but it may turn off a non-supporter (hence a former potential Ron Paul supporter). I'm just trying to be objective and not intending to rain on your parade...

 

[ladyliberty]

I like MLK a lot better than I did Guy Fawlkes (whoever HE was), and I donated on that day didn't I? As a matter of fact, I have donated in each and ever money bomb y'all have posted, because i like Ron Paul and I LOOOOVE his message.

I think MLK would be more of a gesture of good will towards those who are falling for the Old Media's "white supremeist" and "racist" remarks - unless y'all would rather pick someone else to honor like Rosa Parks, George Washington Carver, Maclom X, etc., etc., etc.

Unless you think it will make all of them thar white supremists mad and they withdraw their support for Ron Paul?

edited to add this little tidbit:

I was at a Christmas parade that was held in a mostly black community - and we were passing out Ron Paul slim jims. There were many who were talking about voting for Barak Obama. My friend wanted to start attacking Barak's color when I stopped her - I said something to the effect that Barak Obama does not have enough political experience. Ron Paul has 20 years of being in Washington on his side. Then my friend wanted to start bad-mouthing Oprah for endorsing Barak! So I stopped her by saying that I would rather vote for Oprah than for Barak Obama, because she is a self-made woman. If she was running, old Hillary Clinton wouldn't stand a chance!

One never knows who you are going to encounter when you start a meetup group, and this friend turned out to be very racist, and is no friend of mine. However, I will not let her attitude deter me from my efforts to help get votes for Ron PAul.