April 09, 2008
THE TRUTH FROM RUTH GIBBS

THE TRUTH FROM RUTH GIBBS
About the 11th District Caucus, the Ron Paul and Doug Parris Slate,
the people on the slate and the people and groups who endorsed the slate.

Many people have contacted me with concern about the the blatant lies posted by Doug Parris on both HIS Reagan Wing Website and on the Public Blog at Sound Politics.org regarding what happened at the 11the District Republican Caucus smearing both 11th District and King County Republicans, Rev. Joe Fuiton and leaders in our 11th District. After careful consideration, consultation with trusted conservative advisors and much time researching the groups and people who were recommended and who endorsed on a 'slate' handed out at the 11th Caucus, we came to the conclusion that the facts uncovered by this research demanded that everyone know the truth. Mr. Parris claimed this was HIS slate of conservatives, and tried to lead people to believe that all who endorsed this slate were also. He also led some of the people who endorsed the slate to believe this when it was false.

The response, which is long, follows. It has to be long in order for all of you to know the whole truth.

The truth is shocking, disturbing and in some cases, may not be what you want to hear, but it is the truth. The information I have gathered from documented sources including the websites and blogs of some of the very people who were on the slate, endorsed the slate, Doug Parris and Ron Paul himself gives cause for much concern. Please read it carefully.

The outline follows here along with the body of the report. If you wish me to email you a PDF version of this blog, please email your request to me at RuthGibbs1@aol.com. Or call me at 206-947-4648. And do understand Doug Parris and any of the rest of you who think you can hide what you are and have said by deleting things from your websites - I have made PDF footprints of every single documentation in this expose.

I will address the following:
1) The 11th District Caucus with a suggested Republican Leadership Slate.

a) The Doug Parris lie that the leadership slate was composed of Pro
Amnesty people and liberals.
b) The Doug Parris lie of how a Leadership Slate is to be composed and that
I as temporary chair did illegal and unethical things.
c) The Doug Parris lie of unfair disclosure of the Slate to the McCain
Campaign
d) The Doug Parris complaint because the McCain Campaign thanked the
11th District
e) The Doug Parris lie of unfair advantage being given to the McCain
Campaign.

2) The Ron Paul Slate cleverly disguised as a conservative slate.

a) The Doug Parris lie of who put out the slate.

b) The Doug Parris scheme and lies phone banked to Delegates and
Alternates from the Precinct Caucuses.

c) The Doug Parris lie of who the true connections of those recommended on
the slate they passed out and the interesting professions of some of those
individuals including an artist who publishes almost nude, very graphic
paintings of women at his website and and art gallery online and several
who promote legalization of drugs.

d) The Doug Parris lie that all who endorsed the slate are true conservatives;
and information on the strange and subversive beliefs of SOME of these
individuals and groups including atheism, radical environmentalism,
population control, white supremacy, anarchism, sympathy with the
Confederate Army, secession from the United States, hatred for Israel,
legalization of heroin and other controlled substances, legalization of
prostitution and more.

3) The real truth about Doug Parris and the Reagan Wing, not what he tries to lead you to believe.

4) An Expose of the True Ron Paul, not the one his campaign is trying to make you believe in at his Jazzed up Website This includes Ron Paul's position on: Legalization of Drugs and Prostitution, No Federal Bans on Abortion, The War and our Military, The Patriot Act, No Internet Controls, No Support for Israel and The Monroe Doctrine.

SECTION 1 The 11th District Caucus with a suggested Republican Leadership Slate.

a) The Doug Parris lie that the leadership slate was composed of Pro Amnesty people and liberals.

A slate was placed on the chair of every single Delegate and Alternate recommended people in the 11th who supported the following statement that was placed on the slate:

"The 11th District Recommends the following individuals to be elected as Delegates to the Washington State 2008 Convention and the individuals on the back side of this slate to be elected as alternates. These are individuals within our legislative District who have demonstrated through their loyalty, willingness to participate in hard work and donation of finances that they are committed to electing Republicans to office at all levels of government. These individuals adhere to the Principles of the Republican Party - Fiscal Responsibility; respect for human life, private property and 2nd Amendment Rights; a nation founded on Godly principles; traditional marriage tetween on man and one woman; immigration policies that enforce the law; and a strong national defense in the tradition of President Ronald Reagan - 'Peace through Strength.' They support our President and Commander in Chief - President Bush. They support our foreign policies and troops; and affirm our presence in the Middle East, South Korea and Europe as a necessary part of keeping that peace in our Nation and the world."

Doesn't sound like pro amnesty and liberal people to me. In addition, Doug said on his website that I was pretending to be for Huckabee, but I was really supporting McCain. Huckabee had not yet dropped out, and Doug knows full well that I sent an email out AFTER that convention encouraging people to go to the polls in the Primary on March 4th and vote for Huckabee. One more lie by Parris!

b) The Doug Parris lie of how a Leadership Slate is to be composed.

How a slate of people in a political party is put together is non of the business of the State of Washington. This is the Republican Party, a private organization that makes its own rules and bylaws, not big brother. . It is none of Doug Parris' business either. There could be 200 slates put together recommended by 200 groups. It is perfectly legal for the Leaders of a Legislative District to decide that they want to recommend a group of people who, as stated before, have proven Republican credentials.

It was also perfectly legal AND ethical for me as temporary chair to point out that there were TWO slates of recommended people - on the Leadership slate mentioned above, and the other put out by SOMEONE or SOME GROUP that did not identify who they were. I pointed out that we don't do things that way in our 11th District - we are open and above board.

The District is also under no obligation to call a PCO meeting to decide who should be on that slate. The leaders can make those decisions if they wish. In addition, every PCO who could be contacted with much phone-calling, was asked if they wished to go. Some declined because of expense, distance or other commitments, so others who also have participated as detailed above but are not PCOs for one reason or another were chosen. Those individuals were recommended as alternates rather than delegates except for Jerry Gobbs who was recommended as a delegate.


c) The Doug Parris lie of unfair disclosure of the Slate to the McCain Campaign

Doug Parris lied on his website and Sound Politics and said that there was unfair disclosure and favortism given to the McCain Campaign. Absolutely false. Neither the Ron Paul OR the Huckabee campaign asked if we were making a District slate, and who was on the slate.

If they had, we would have told them the same thing I told the McCain Campaign when they called and asked to know if we were making a recommended slate, who we were recommending: NO.

The leadership team in our Legislative District wanted to be absolutely fair to all the campaigns, so we refused to disclose this information. If the campaigns wanted to make a slate, they could also do so. They could call all the delegates and alternates and figure out a slate for themselves. I told the McCain campaign that when they called. They decided not to do so. The Huckabee campaign did not do so. The Ron Paul campaign SEEMINGLY did not do so, but did- with Doup Parris' 'collaboration -as you will discover as you read on.

d) Doug Parris whined on his website because the McCain campaign publicly thanked me for our fairness and ethical behavior in treating all the campaigns equally.

Our 11th District Recommended list only included people who DEFINITELY COMMITTED that they would attend the State Convention and gave consideration to those who had done the most work over those who had done less. Some of the recommended ALTERNATES found out too late to change the slate that they could not attend, so others were elected. Emergencies happen. We cannot control that. On the last ballot the last 6 Alternates were elected.

Because some of the people on our recommended list could not go so were not nominated, the last 4 of the 6 elected in order of votes received were Ron Paul people from the slate that did not disclose it was a Ron Paul Slate.

My point with the Definitely Committed is that if people could not go, we did not recommend them to keep other people from attending. No one got up and nominated themselves or anyone else as alternates to keep the Ron Paul people from getting elected, even though by that time I had looked at my caucus sign in list and knew who they were. THAT would be unethical and lying. We don't operate like that in our 11th District. We follow the principles of what is right, decent, ethical, honest and uplifting. We don't rip, tear and beat each other down.

Doug also whined on his website because both my husband Jerry and I were on that recommended list for DELEGATES. Too bad. For many years, my husband has deferred, as the Bible says, "In honor preferring one another," to others. Jerry has chosen to either go to the State Convention as an alternate or as a visitor or not at all to give everyone a chance.

This time, I discussed with the leadership AND with everyone else who was on the list and my PCOs, that I would like for us to honor my husband, who gives to the party and to candidates, puts out 1000s of yard signs for the party, spends countless hours helping his wife with Republican efforts, and other things. To tell you the truth, MOST men would not put up with all the countless hours of time I have spent in the last 25 years to further the conservative principles of the Republican Party, much less help their wives do so.

Everyone agreed that, although other husbands and wives were divided up, Jerry should be recommended as a delegate. It is none of Doug Parris' business what the Leaders in the 11th District decide to do. He lives in the 32nd, over 30 miles North of our District not in the 11th.

e) The Doug Parris lie of unfair advantage being given to the McCain Campaign by the KCGOP.

Doug Parris on his website, the Reagan Wing, tried to smear the KCGOP also with false accusations that they shared information with the McCain campaign that HE (and the Ron Paul campaign by implication) did not receive. When both Huckabee and Ron Paul were active cndidates, which included both when the 11th met, the KCGOP gave EQUAL information to ALL THREE campaigns. It was the responsibility of each campaign, if they wanted to make a slate for their campaign, to call the delegates and alternates. It was ALSO their responsibility to do so in a polite and civil manner and BY LAW, to disclose that they were calling on behalf of a candidate. The McCain campaign chose not to make calls or a slate. The Huckabee campaign did the same. Not so with the Ron Paul campaign, and I cover that in the next section.

Doug Parris also tried to smear Reverend Joe Fuiton who would not give him information that had been given to the Huckabee campaign. The Huckabee campaign chose not to make calls or a slate. It was not the purview of the Huckabee campaign to give information to Doug Parris that had been given to them by the KCGOP. They had no more information than the Ron Paul campaign and Doug Parris was supporting Ron Paul. Doug Parris was waaaaay out of line attacking Rev. Fuiten in this manner.


SECTION 2 The Ron Paul Slate cleverly disguised as a conservative slate.a) The Doug Parris lie of who put out the slate.

a) Doug stated on his website and Sound Politics that: "The Reagan Wing has been a part of an effort to create delegate slates in every Washington Legislative District that includes candidates from all the presidential campaigns that pledge to oppose amnesty for illegals, support the right to life from conception to natural death, and oppose 'environmentalist' land and energy seizures." The Right to Life statement included 'No more abortion.' "In the 11th this conservative slate included several Ron Paul Delegates."

Several? Try ALL. That slate was put together by phone banking delegates and alternates in the 11th, endorsed by Ron Paul supporters and groups except for only two individuals whom I left off this list since they were lied to that I can find, and ALL the recommended slate they put out signed in as Ron Paul supporters at the Precinct caucuses except one. That one informed me on the telephone that he would not be at the 11th District Caucus, that he signed in as uncommitted but he supported Ron Paul, and that he was getting married March 1st.

This was not a Reagan Wing slate, it was a Ron Paul slate. At the Ron Paul Bothell Meetup group blog after the 11th caucus, they publicly stated that it was THEIR slate; and that they lost because the Ron Paul people didn't show up enough.

b) The Doug Parris scheme and lies phone-banked to Delegates and Alternates from the Precinct Caucuses.
As I said earlier, EVERY active campaign was given names and phone numbers of all the delegates and alternates elected in the 11th at the Precinct Caucuses.

On the last Sunday night of February, one of our leaders, Margaret Sackett, received a phone call from a man by the name of Robert Ream who said he lived in the 32nd Legislative District. He had called her and was quizzing her on her stand on Property Rights, The Right to Life and Border Security and Presidential Preference. She asked who he was and he refused to tell her. She told him she was calling me, the Chair, and that I would call him.

She called and gave me the number, and I called him. Mr. Ream said that " 'we' are calling people for their stand on issues and who they want for President." I insisted he tell me who 'we' was. He told me 'we' was Doug Parris, Michael Budau (one of the Ron Paul people in the 11th on their eventual slate), a woman whose name he could not remember and himself. I

already knew who the other two men wanted for President. Doug Parris signed in to the 32nd District Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul Supporter. I insisted Mr. Ream tell me who he wanted for President. He reluctantly told me Ron Paul.

At this point, I realized that the Ron Paul campaign evidently was calling Delegates and Alternates in the 11th without identifying who they were. The next day, I called some others who gave me the same story.

I then called one of my other leaders.. He said he too had received a phone call that was from the KCGOP with the same questions. When he got home that night, he told me who showed up on the caller ID. I called that number on my other phone while talking to him, and a recording said, "Hello, you have reached the Ron Paul for President Campaign." Then I knew it was the Ron Paul Campaign.

On Tuesday, several others with caller ID also gave me phone numbers and the same story. One was told the Ron Paul campaign. Several were told the King County Republican Party. Mr. Ream had refused to identify who he was with to either me or Margaret. When I looked at all these phone numbers together including Mr. Ream's, I realized that they were the same area code 206, the same prefix, and four consecutive phone numbers. In other words, the Ron Paul phone banks.

I reported this information to the KCGOP, who contacted the Ron Paul 2008 NW Coordinator Maurine Moore. Her story to them, and to me when she called me, was that this was done without her knowledge while she was out of town.

Because of this intimidation of the 11th PCOs and illegal omission of identification of a campaign by the callers, the KCGOP then chose to censure further information dissemination that would inconvenience delegates and alternates with phone calls giving bad disclosure and/or phony and dishonest information.

Doug Parris on the Reagan Wing and Sound Politics chose to lie about the origination of the slate, and conveniently left this information off his website when he decided to tear into me, Rev. Fuiten, our District and the KCGOP and the McCain campaign..

c) The Doug Parris lie of the true presidential leanings of those recommended on the slate they passed out and the interesting professions of some of those individuals including an artist who publishes almost nude, very graphic paintings of women at his website and and art gallery online.

When I was shown the slate they passed out at the 11th District Caucus, I recognized the names, and when I checked the list as to the sign in Presidential Preferences at the Precinct Caucuses, I discovered they were as I said above a complete Ron Paul slate with NOTHING that disclosed that it WAS a Ron Paul slate. That is also ILLEGAL for a Presidential Candidate to not disclose what they are doing. In addidtion - ONE of these people signed into the Precinct caucuses saying he was a REPUBLICAN, but he is admittedly a LIBERTARIAN on the Libertarian blogs.

I have been able to reach by phone and interview 10 of the 15 people on that slate, plus one has a disconnected phone number, and one has a number out of service. I have been unable to reach the other three. A

ALL of these people were billed on the slate entitled: BORDER SECURITY, THE RIGHT TO LIFE and PROPERTY RIGHTS. My interviews with these individuals, which included full disclosure to them of who I was and represented, included the following questions: 'Do you support the woman's right to choose to have an abortion?' and, 'Do you support the legalization of now illegal drugs?' I already knew, which Doug Parris also conveniently left off his website babble that all of these people oppose the War in Iraq. They got up and said so at our 11th District Meeting.

The answer of all but one of these people was that they DID support abortion - plus one had only a rape and incest exception, the rest supported abortion in the first trimester. But they ALL said it was a States Rights issue and the Federal Government had no right to pas any laws to outlaw it.

The issue is not whether they support abortion or do not, it the issue that the slate handed out and put together by Doug Parris and the Ron Paul people LIED. It said the following on The Right to Life statement: No to 'Republicans for Choice': NO abortion. NO embryonic stem cell research. NO euthanasia. PRO-LIFE from conception to natural death.

They all told me they believe the statement from conception to natural death except one who got mad and hung up after I asked the woman's right to choose question and he answered that he did. However, they all except one think it is the woman's right to choose at least in the 1st trimester.

As I said, DOUG and his cohorts lied when he made the slate. These people read the slate just like the rest of us on the floor. THEY lied except for one. It said NO abortion. That is NOT the position of the majority of these people.

On the second question, ALL said they support legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, some for any purpose, some said cocaine and meth might be OK, and all disagreed with Ron Paul who has publicly stated that heroin should be legal EXCEPT two of the delegates.

These men who were on the slate are so ignorant about drugs that they said we should just make heroin legal and let the government wean people off of it by giving them smaller and smaller doses.

How ridiculous!!!! There is no such thing as injecting them with heroin in smaller and smaller doses and weaning them off. The drug is so horrible, that you become immune to the dose and have to have more and more. AND you can kick the habit of say $500.00 per day for a long time, but when the addict eventually takes another fix, $50.00 will not work. The addict has to start at the $500.00 per day in order for the drug to work.

The names of each person on their slate who was recommended to go as delegates to State are listed here along with their connections to Ron Paul, their professions and other information:

Robert Alleson,

Member Westlake Ron Paul Meetup - Joined Feb. 1, 2008 Signed into the Precinct caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct Seattle 11-1597 http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1148/members/6328853/friends/

Michael Budau,

Program Manager - Excell Data Corporation, Donated $445.00 to Ron Paul.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ Type in name for data.
Signed into caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct Renton 11-0997.

Wayne Cummings,

Wayne Cummings Signed in at Precinct caucuses as Uncommitted. He told me on the phone the week before the 11th District Caucus that he was supporting Ron Paul, but was not attending the 11th District caucus as he was getting married.

Jared Endicott,

Verizon employee. Donated $433.00 to Ron Paul.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ Type in name for data.
Signed into caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct Renton 11-0962.

Bradford Morris

Signed into the Precinct caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct Renton 11-0975. A professing Libertarian. Here are 4 of his documented sources:
http://www.ronpaulchristmas.com/2007/11/05/merry-christmas-ron-paul/ Bradford Morris comment #3.
Merry rEVOLution Ron Paul! Merry rEVOLution to all of you Paulite's too!
Together we can help Ron Paul achieve his fund raising goal of 12 million dollars and make this the BEST CHRISTMAS EVER!!! Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 12:38 am

Nice try Fred, but the only real conservative in this race is Ron Paul! He is the only one that will receive my vote.
Bradford Morris, Seattle, WA (Sent Monday, October 15, 2007 3:11 PM)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/15/411570.aspx

The Seattle Libertarians Bradford Morris's Libertarian profile "Hi, my name is Brad. I joined this meetup group to meet and network with like minded people who love all things Libertarian."
Stats: Member of Meetup since October 9, 2005 http://libertarian.meetup.com/46/members/2366985/
This site also shows his affiliation with the following two Ron Paul meet ups in Renton & Seattle:

Renton Kent Maple Valley Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group Bradford Morris's Ron Paul 2008 profile

Seattle Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group Bradford Morris's Ron Paul 2008 profile

William Benge

Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: Tukwilla 11-3233.

Charles Caron

Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: Tukwilla 11-1165.
This is his Web Page. Charles does tattoos including tatoos of the devil & skulls. http://dag7.freehomepage.com/

Elizabeth Ellerton

Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: Renton 11-3223.

John Jankowski

Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: 11-Margaret
Member of Seattle Ron Paul Meetup Group since July 21, 2007. http://ronpaul.meetup.com/72/members/4397813/


Charles Adam Peart

Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: Seattle 11-1928.
Owner of the: Adam Peart Studio 4015 Airport Way S Seattle, WA, 98108. His graphic nude paintings are displayed on the internet at both his website: http://www.adampeart.com/market.html
and even more at the website of this studio: www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/Adam+Peart/19981.html
Also check out his site on his bio page for a picture of Peart as well as the gallery page where he calls Christians 'sometimes laughable Christian zealots of the Bible belt.'

Tom Brookhart,

Carpenter with Chinn Construction. Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter.
Gave $550.00 to Ron Paul for President. http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ Type in name for data.
Precinct: Renton 11-0981

John Covey,

Engineer Seattle Safety . Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter.
Gave $525.00 to Ron Paul for President. http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ Type in name for data.
Precinct: Renton 11-0984.

Elijah Emerson

Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: Renton 11-0998.

Troy Mandeville,

Desktop Support Specialist - Bellevue Community College Gave $445.00 to Ron Paul for President. http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ Type in name for data.
Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: Renton 11-0990.

Jay Weeldreyer,

Financial Planner Gave $2,350.00 to Ron Paul for President http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
Type in name for data.
Signed in at the Precinct Caucuses as a Ron Paul supporter. Precinct: 11-Merrihill.
Jay Weeldreyer was a Field Director for Ron Paul in Iowa and California: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/3489/track He came 'Fresh in from Iowa' to Nevada and joined multiple meet-ups there: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1500/members/6068380/ He gets around!!!! He was also the Northern Nevada Field Director.
On the Ron Paul February FEC Reports, there was $8,948.23 dispersed by the campaign to Jay Weeldreyer. The breakdaown is as follows: 1/15/2008 $2000.00 for Consulting-Political Field Work; 1/11/2008 $1492.28 for Reimbursement for Expenses; 1/17/2008 $3,455.95 for Reimbursement for Expenses; and 1/31/2008 $2,000.00 for Consulting-Political Field Work.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M2/C00432914/B_PAYEE_C00432914.html
For the year end report, there was $1,875.00 dispersed to him by the Ron Paul Campaign. http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/YE/C00432914/B_PAYEE_C00432914.html
Wow! Jay gets around!!!! I guess we were the end of the line since he lives in Renton.


d) The Doug Parris lie that all who endorsed the slate are true conservatives; and information on the strange and subversive beliefs of SOME of these individuals and groups including atheism, belief in a shadow government that controlls us by information gathered from extra terrestrials, environmentalists, advocates of population control, secessionists, anti-smetics, supporters of legalization of hardcore drugs, sympathy with the Confederate Army, discriminators against the elderly and certain races and more.

The statement by made Doug Parris is so FAR from the truth it is scary. Following I will list the names of all the individuals and organizations that endorsed this Ron Paul slate except for two persons who I know were told by Doug Parris that this was a conservative, entirely pro-life slate with no mention that all were Ron Paul or the names of all the endorsers or who these people were, and thus deceived them. The individual endorsers were put on the list with the organization they represent.

There was no disclaimer that the organization had or had not endorsed Ron Paul. This could jepordize the non-profit tax status of 501 Cs. Perhaps those that are 501 Cs are unaware of this. I have listed all the rest of the people show. In some cases, I have provided extra information about the person of group because their organizations are far from conservative, constitutional, law abiding and/or Republican in principle.


ENDORSEMENTS OF THE SLATE BY INDIVIDUALS

Hal Washburn Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Washington

Hal Washburn signed a rebuke of National Minuteman CDC leader Jim Gilchrist for endorsing Huckabee. www.alipac.us/article2805.html
Hal Washburn supported Tancredo, Hunter or Ron Paul. Since only Ron Paul was left of the 3 by the time of our 11th Caucus, that left Ran Paul. He signed the letter threatening to leave the Republican Party and start a 3rd party if these people did not get what they wanted. http://www.reliablepolitics.com/2007/01/gop-needs-conservative.html


Glen Spencer, Founder American Patrol.

Glen Specncer has endorsed Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements


Brook Young, Immigration Watchdog.

Brook Young has endorsed Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements


Saul Lisauskas, Stop SPP.org.

Saul Lisauskas has endorsed Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements


Marureen Moore, Ron Paul 2008 NW Coordinator.

Wife of the National Campaign Manager for Ron Paul. Attended the 11th Caucus with the Ron Paul communications director Kyle Brotherton. Kyle Brotherton was seen handing out the unidentified Ron Paul slate at the doors. Maureen Moore has obviously endorsed Ron Paul. She put her name on the slate as an endorser of the slate, but there was NO indication that this was a Ron Paul slate. Doesn't that violate FEC laws? In addition to all the Ron Paul meet-up groups to which Maureen belongs where she controls the Paulites, she also belongs to the following meetups:

JOIN AN EXPAT FRENCH GROUP NEAR SEATTLE - Comment here by Maureen McMahan Moore:
"I want these local Meetups because I will do whatever it takes to help save our country. The very heart and soul of America is coming back alive in all of you. There is nothing more important than the tireless efforts we make
http://expatfrench.meetup.com/cities/us/wa/seattle/


SAME COMMENT HERE AT RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS METUP NEAR GOLDBAR
http://beararms.meetup.com/cities/us/wa/gold_bar/

SAME COMMENT HERE AT Free State Project.. This one is really strange - read up on them.

They want 20,000 people to pledge to move to New Hampshire (Maureen Moore has pledged), and when 20,000 have pledged, they will all move there, get elected, take over the State, and everyone will live in utopia. Most of these people are libertarians, and some liberal and some conservative. Many are what is called ascribers to 'individualism' rather than 'collectivism'. The objective is to have a state with no income tax, no sales tax, legalization of drugs and prostitution, etc. In other words, the individual rules, the Federal Government will have no say in what they do, and they will live happily ever after!!!! Whoopeee!!!!!! I would suggest misguided true social conservatives run as fast as they can from this bunch. On the other hand, who can afford to move to New Hampshire? On the other hand, some people don't mind sleeping under bridges.
www.freestateproject.org

And oh, by the way, Ron Paul has endorsed this Free State Project. Surprise, surprise!! http://www.freestateproject.org/intro


Chuck Baldwin Pastor, Crossroad Baptist Church - Pensacola Florida.

Chuck Baldwin has endorsed Ron Paul. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements
Chuck Baldwin was guest of honor at a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Ron Paul has been an honorary member here for the past 12 years and is endorsed by Sons of the Confederate Veterans.
Chuck Baldwin has stated in his writings that the South was right in the War between the States, and that the leaders of the old Confederacy were not racists. http://www.batr.net/batrcolumnists/modules/news/article.php?storyid=182


Michael Peroutka - Was Conservative Constitutional Party Nominee in 2004 - Chuck Balwin was the VP Nominee. Michael Peroutka has endorsed Ron Paul for President, as has the League of the South.

The League of the South endorsed Peroutka in 2004.

My point? They have endorsed Ron Paul this year.

The League of the South is a scary organization. They have announced their participation in the 3rd Annual North American Secessionist Convention, which is scheduled to be held in Charleston, South Carolina sometime this fall.

More information about this event will be posted as it becomes available. They have a petition for people to sign, and chapters in 26 states, as well as a new Preamble to THEIR Constitution. According to them, South is cool, no control by the Federal Government is cool, and they have this online to sign. http://www.petitiononline.com/union/petition.html

According to their website:

"The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic. To reach this goal, we intend to create the climate for a free South among our people by 1) de-legitimating the American Empire at every opportunity; 2) by proving our willingness to be servant-leaders to the Southern people; and 3) by making The League of the South a strong, viable organization that will lead us to Southern independence."

They talk about making a Southern Nation and 'Free the South'. Do understand that they also have a chapter in Washington, Idaho and other Northern states. http://www.petitiononline.com/cgi-bin/mlk?http://www.dixienet.org

It looks like the civil war never ended, the Confederates are alive and well, and secession from the Union is still being promoted. Run, people, run! The Confederates are coming! The Confederates are coming!

Jackie Juntti - WA Grassroots Electronic Network (WGEN)

Jackie Juntti has endorsed Ron Paul for President. I do not know if Jackie was informed of the connections and views of some of the other endorsers on the slate or of some of the Ron Paul connections. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

Norma McCorvey PRO-LIFE Activist, 'Roe' of 'Roe v. Wade'. Director, Cross-Over Ministry.

Norma McCorvey has endorsed Ron Paul for President. . I do not know if Norma was informed of the connections and views of some of the other endorsers on the slate or of some of the Ron Paul connections.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

ORGANIZATIONS

Life of the Party This is Michelle McIntyre.

Michelle has endorsed Ron Paul. I do not know if Michelle was informed of the connections and views of some of the other endorsers on the slate or of some of the Ron Paul Connections.

STOPTAX.org -

STOPTAX.org has endorsed Ron Paul for President.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements
This group wants to eliminate property tax on homes.

No More Invasion -

No More Invasion.com has endorsed Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements
This group tells everyone on their website at www.Nomoreinvasion.com that they should watch people's houses (Hispanics I guess), and if there are a lot of people living in what they call clown houses, the people living there are probably illegals, and they should be reported. "clown house" (meaning that likely WAY too many people live in there, indicating potential illegal aliens) from their website.

Talk about big brother watching you!!!! All these groups claim they want freedom from big brother, but they ASSUME if a lot of people live in the same house, they are here illegally. Scary!!!! I know families who have lived together with a lot of people in the same house to save enough money for each family to buy their own house.

One of our very well respected PCOs with a very high paying job lived in the same house with his family on one floor and his brother lived with his family on another floor for that very reason. Now the PCO moved to Sequim after building his own place. Each family had several children living there, including some of them young adults. Of course, THEY were were Caucasian, so I suppose this group never spied on them and turned them in as suspected illegals.

Years ago I used to teach piano and voice. I had an Asian student who lived in a condo with her mom, her her little brother, an adult brother and his wife and children, and her mom and grandparents. . There were a LOT of people in that condo. They were all LEGALLY here. Same thing, the adult brother wanted to buy a house, so lived there to save money. The grandparents lived there so the mom could take care of them.

THEY were the wrong color. Is this group advocating people like that be turned in as suspected illegals???? I am as concerned about the problem with illegal entry into our country as anyone else, but paranoia and big brother spying is OVER THE TOP!!!! My, my, the people Doug Parris hangs out with!!!!! Scary!!!!!

This group has rules about no racist remarks or name calling on their website, but then they tell people to racially profile people and judge by how many people live in a house. There is a huge disconnet here.

Voice of the Unborn Johnny, Gardner, Director

He has endorsed Ron Paul for President. I do not know if Johnny was informed of the connections and views of some of the other endorsers on the slate or of some of the Ron Paul connections.

VoteNoTax.org

This group has endorsed Ron Paul for President.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements They promote no Tax increses to pay for schools in Illinois.

Armed Females of America

This group has endorsed Ron Paul for President.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements They support the 2nd Amendment. They indicate that the problems will be solved by peacful means IF that is possible. (Whatever THAT means.) www.armedfemalesofamerica.com

MARCH FOR AMERICA (WA) www.mfawash.org/organizations.html
March for America (WA) is comprised of the following groups:

1) Let Freedom Ring America www.lframerica.com

I not could find that this group has endorsed Ron Paul. They seem to be a clearing house to direct people to multiple different organizations. HOWEVER, this was started by two women who are radical environmentalists and say so on their bag ladies webpage, plus they steer you to things like earth day and other environmental groups. Their concern with illegals is that they are polluting. http://www.lframerica.com/bagladiesintro.html

2) Washingtonians for Immigration Reform

I not could find that this group has endorsed Ron Paul. They oppose illegal
immigration.

3) John Birch Society

The John Birch Society does not endorse candidates. They are an educational group.
On April 4th, 2008, Ron Paul endorsed the John Birch Society. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45105

4) Minuteman CDC Washington

Although I do not believe the Minutemen Organization can endorse candidates either, as stated earlier, Hal Washburn has endorsed Ron Paul. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45105

5) Stop the Northamerican Union.org

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/Videos.html

If you watch the video here about the Portland Police, you will find that the writer of this seemingly concerned website to Stop the North American Union is really a radical, anti war liberal, who castigates the Portland Police for moving a crowd away from a hotel in Portland where President Bush was to speak in 2002.

The protesters were carrying Hate Bush Signs, Free Palestine Signs and other left wing liberal messages of hate that were clear threats to the security of a seated US President and the police were entirely within their rights to try to move this crowd away from potential harm to the President.

A VERY deceptive website trying to make well meaning right wing people believe that protection from evil forces is a 'Police State.' Although this woman seems supportive of Ron Paul, I cannot find an endorsement of him.

6) Numbers USA

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/environment.html
Read this website on the environment and related links to population control. Yes, they want to stop illegal immigration, because it hurts the quality of life in the US and the population control.

These people are pro-choice population control advocates who think the environment can only be saved by controlling how many people inhabit the planet. What happened to pro-life Doug Parris? Strange people you hang out with.
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/Videos.html

7) International Advocates for Health Freedom

This group has endorsed Ron Paul. http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/03/message-from-jo.html John C Hammell founded this health nut group in 1966. Hammell is a member of Freedom Force International and subscribes to the views of founder/author G. Edward Griffin.

Watch the Alex Jones on the video recommended here by John Hammell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFu_bYkomc Watch Alex rant and rave that we are all being controlled by fluoridated water to bring I the new world order. Watch him spew hatred, venom and incite radical stuff. http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/03/message-from-jo.html

Also watch this video recommended here. Should This Video Be Banned? YOU DECIDE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf4Q&feature=related It is absolute blasphemy against Almighty God and Jesus Christ! Doug Parris, what ARE you doing?

8) CANADIAN ACTION PARTY

http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/home.html. This group endorsed Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmjgFfpzXI Watch this video about the Canadian Action Party and Ron Paul. It will frighten you!!!!

These are the kinds of radicals Doug Parris, the supposed Republican hangs out with. They show President Bush as a jack booted Nazi, then him and Hitler. . They say - 'Same s........, different a...h........'

This makes me SICK!!!!! SICK I tell you!!!! I cried when I watched this video. It is beyond decency and beyond anything good or right and proper. Doug Parris, you should be ashamed of yourself!!!!! You are finally exposing yourself for who you really are.

9) Freedom Force International

http://www.freedom-force.org/ This group has endorsed Ron Paul. http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=ronpaul

They make it very clear on their website that they are USING Ron Paul as just one more vehicle to get people to join THEIR way of thinking ie: Individualism vs. Collectivism. In other words, both Fascism AND Communism are COLLECTIVE thinking, whereas THEY advocate Individualism Complete individualism.

Last time I checked, that was spelled ANARCHY!!!! Everyone does what is right in THEIR own eyes (wiccan philosophy - and do ye no harm) (also what was done in the days of Noah which was why God destroyed the earth).

These people support anything and everything that gives everyone the RIGHT to do whatever they please. That is NOT what our country and our constitution was all about. These people believe anybody or thing goes for God, anything goes for morals, anything goes period as long as it does not hurt anybody else. Just do your own thing.

If you dig around, you will find that the leader of this group, G Edward Griffin claims to be the oldest living member of the John Birch Society. I wonder if they have disowned HIM.

G Edward Griffin says it is OK to discriminate against hiring people because they are too fat, too thin, too old, of the wrong race, etc.
http://freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=age&refpage=creed

He says that Freedom Force is all about power rather than education like the John Birch Society. http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/jbschart.pdf

One of his key heroes was the Libertarian, Aaron Russo, the filmmaker who died last fall. Russo believed that people should not pay taxes, only corporations. I THINK that is communism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msfxiodoMQQ&feature=related

Griffin also touts Ayn Rand, whose philosophy is the epitome of Libertarianism.

National Association of Rural Landowners

This group? Has endorsed Ron Paul for President http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements Now we come to a real doozie!!!!

THIS is Ron Ewart of the Eastside. Ron Ewart is an avowed atheist - THE BAFFLING MYTH OF BELIEF An Article By: Ron Ewart© Copyright April 12, 2002 http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/baffling_myth_of_belief.html

Ewart babbles, with Doug Parris' approval on 'The Reagan Wing'' at the following: www.thereaganwing.com HOW DARE YOU OWN A CAR February 29, 2008 where he says "God save America! Unfortunately, God can't save America, or its freedom and liberty. Only WE THE PEOPLE can and we aren't doing a very good job of it."

Duuuhhhhhh! He's an atheist!!!! THIS is who Doug Parris has write some of his ravings!!!!

And then there is the one where he advocates we all need to start hating: thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/ only-anger-can-break-the-spell/
Here Ewart tells you that if you are not angry, you are under a spell, and that he has spent three years at his website trying to get you angry.

Go to Ewart's website. www.narlo.org Supposedly this is a charity. I thought charities could not endorse Presidential Candidates or lose their tax status? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYkdK6uDCA http://www.secstate.wa.gov/charities/search_detail.aspx?charity_id=22797 National Association Of Rural Landowners (NARLO) Mailing Address: PO Box 1031 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 Street Address: 4451 308TH AVE SE FALL CITY WA 98024 Registration #22797 Status Exempt Phone (800)682-7848 Email info@narlo.org Web Site www.narlo.org

Ewart is advocating everyone in rural America participate in anarchy this summer. http://www.narlo.org/dri.html

He is advocating a shut down of all the rural roads, just like the communists shut down the University Bridge in 1970.

He can't do that. That is not free speech, the roads don't belong to him or any other rural landowner. They belong to the government and always have for the benefit of ALL the citizens of this country.

If Ewart does this, he can probably count on the National Guard being called in. What a fool!!!! You too, Doug Parris. Who ARE you and what IS your agenda? YOU are scary!!!

In addition, Ewart was ordered by the State of Washington to 'Cease and Desist' selling public shares of a company a few years ago without documentation which he destroyed or a license to do so. http://www.dfi.wa.gov/sd/orders/SDO-42-01.pdf

SECTION THREE The real truth about Doug Parris
and the Reagan Wing, not what he tries to lead you to believe.

LAST GROUP ON THE ENDORSEMENT SHEET - THE KICKER OF ALL KICKERS:

National Federation of Republican Assem(b)lies (WA Chapt)

(misspelled on the endorsement sheet put out in the 11th.

THIS IS THE REAGAN WING!!!!!! THE REAGAN WING IS NOT A 'Proud Member of the NFRA' as Doug Parris touts on his 'TheReaganWing.com' website.

I checked with someone from the National Federation. THERE IS NO chapter of their organization in Washington State. There was at one time, but this is not it.

BUT DOUG PARRIS is not only claiming to be them, and using their logo (see his website - it is all over it with their unique elephant). HE IS the Reagan Wing. The Reagan Wing is Doug Parris.

He is licensed and registered with the state of Washington as a FOR PROFIT sole proprietor of the Reagan Wing.

Oooooooppppppssssss!!!!! Ya' goofed Doug. This is public record: You are licensed as follows: 600628256 ID:001 Location:0003 Douglass Monroe Parris 20024 Burke Avenue N Shorline, WA 98133 Licensed since 5/15/2004 NAICS Code 711510 http://dor.wa.gov/content/doingbusiness/registermybusiness/brd/Results.aspx?RequestType=3&UBI=600628256#brdResults

Bottom line, Doug, you are receiving $ at the wesite and I doubt anyone knows that a) YOU are the Reagan Wing, and that b) YOUR REAGAN WING IS NOT the Washington Chapter of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.

I have researched them. They have boards of directors, they are non profit groups, they have names, phone numbers and emails listed for their organizations in the states where they are set up. How come you are using their logo? I have made sure that they got this report on what you have been up to. You can rest assured of that.

.SECTION FOUR THE TRUTH about RON PAUL that you will NOT find at his website and a sharing of a personal heartache for my husband and I in relation to the evils of heroin.

a) Gays should be allowed to marry and abortion is a states right.

Ooooopppppsssss!!!!!! Ron Paul says he's pro-life! http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970423&page=1

b) I saw this man on National Television on New Years Day. He said if he is President, we would be out of Iraq and all the Middle East, South Korea and all of Europe in a month, and we would shut down all our military bases overseas. Let's see now.

He also said we should cut off all aid to Israel, and that they could just make it on their own. That would give us how long before Iran blew Israel off the map, S Korea blew the West Coast of the US including Seattle off the map, and the Muslims took over Europe?

c) Ron Paul has a TERRIBLE record on immigration. He has only become anti illegal immigration since he started running for President. You can look up this voting record for yourself:

Ron Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815 2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),
(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill).
(5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.

d) Ron Paul has been endorsed by DAVID DUKE!!!

Ron Paul has been endorsed by Stormfront!!!! http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ This group is so racist, facist and radical, that they have been banned on Google in Germany, and blocked on AOL in the USA. Their website is scary.

They are white supremacists. They donated $500.00 to Ron Paul last fall. Michael Medved demanded they give the money back. They refused and said so in a press conference on December 19th, 2007. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/

The owner of Stormfront is Don Black. Don Black is a former Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan, and was a member of the Nazi Party in the 1970s.

e) Ron Paul supports legalization of all drugs including heroin for adults and legalization of prostitution because after all, they are only prostitutes because they need $ for drugs!!!!!

What idiocy is that? This man is not fit to be President. He doesn't have a clue!!!! http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970423&page=1

My husband and I discussed this, and felt that I should get very up close and personal with everyone.

My husband and I used to help heroin addicts years ago. I can tell you that 100% of them told us that they ALL started by smoking pot and vowed THEY would never stick a needle in their arm and destroy their life. We were able to help some who have stayed off heroin for many years because they turned to the only One who could help them - Almighty God.

We saw one of the most personable men you could ever meet go back to the drug (the mistress - the monkey on the back) and he died on the streets of Seattle.

My husband Jerry and I pray every night for OUR dear grandson Jeremy, who will be 21 this month. Jeremy was like all the rest of the youth. HE would never stick a needle in himself either. Our Jer-Bear was smart, funny and had everything going for him. Then he gave in to the peer pressure and tried pot.

He still had everything going for him. By the time he was at the end of his Junior year in High School, he was the star of the track team, everyone at school like him, the teachers loved him, he was getting outstanding grades, he had been invited to be a part of the 'People to People' leadership program started by President Eisenhower, he had fund raised and earned enough $ to go to Australia that summer with other youth chosen for the program to meet with heads of state and leaders across that nation.

Then, the week before he left, some piece of slime convinced him that it would not hurt if he tried heroin just once. That's all it takes folks - once. One time, and you can be hooked forever!!!

When Jeremy came back from Australia, he had changed. He became angry, even somewhat violent. He dropped the track team. He started failing in school his senior year. He never got his diploma. He got worse and worse until he could not hold a job. He was living in squalor with his girl friend who could not hold a job either.

My husband and I suspected because of their behavior that they were both using heroin. Finally, a little over a year ago, his condition and hers became so bad, that we discovered his horrible secret that we suspected was true.

Since then, he has had 3 psychotic breaks and been hospitalized - twice in Seattle, and then he moved last fall to New York. It happened again when he did drugs back there. That includes pot folks. The THC in pot now is so powerful, it causes psychotic behavior.

The last time we heard from him was Christmas Eve when he called on his girlfriend's cell phone who is also a junkie to tell us that he loved us.

Jeremy knows he needs help, but he refuses to take the inpatient year long help we have offered to pay for that involves God. So every night we pray, and sometimes we cry. We are trying to trust God that he will accept help before he dies on the streets of New York.

Our offer to pay for him to get help and/or his beautiful Jewish girlfriend Mara to get help if either one wants it stands forever.

As for legalization of drugs, I can tell you right now that hell will freeze over before my husband and I will EVER support that. We have seen too much, know too much, and have experienced too much personal sorrow to think the whole thing is a laughing matter.

Ron Paul may holler 'Constitution' all he wants, but the founding fathers never intended this kind of idiocy. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly lays out what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Protection of the citizens from danger is NOT the only function of the Federal Government. It is also the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide for the 'general welfare' of the citizens.

That is not to say that States Rights are not important. They ARE. I am all for local control and States Rights. But when you start saying that the rights of the individual are the ONLY thing that is important, you have stepped over the line into anarchy, just like when you say that the right of the collective group are the ONLY thing that matter you step over the line into either right or left totalitarianism.

Ron Paul and most of these groups mentioned think the former - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Sooo - legalize everything! It is no one's business.

Right!!!! Lets just legalize heroin the way that Ron Paul promotes, and then do what the Netherlands have done, open clinics so all the junkies can come and get their daily 'fix'. No matter that they will need more and more to sustain their daily rush.

No matter that their bodies will become wasted, their teeth will rot out of their heads, the minds will be destroyed and they will eventually die far before their time. After all, they have RIGHTS.

If this is PRO Life, then someone somewhere has made a horrible mistake.

Nonsense!!!! The Federal Government can and SHOULD have laws governing these drugs and making them stay illegal. In fact, the Federal Government should have the right to even stiffer penalties against corrupting our nation with this evil stuff.

Hello, people!!!! Ron Paul is NOT a Democrat (Donkey) OR a Republican (Elephant), or a Libertarian (Ostrich). He is the hind end of a horse and that's it. This man disgusts me. All he cares about is himself.

And Doug Parris? Somehow, Doug, a lot of this explains your behavior that I have seen out of you for years and years. You don't care who you tear down including fine ministers of the Gospel like Rev. Joe Fuiten, or how many true conservatives you rip to shreds or lie about, as long as you get what YOU want.

I'm not sure what you DO want, but it sure is not to work with others and build up the conservatives, just to tear them down at every turn with innuendos, half truths and out and out lies. For years, I and many, many others have believed that you were just too intense and like a bull in a china shop with no manners or couth. After doing this research, I don't believe that anymore.

I believe the word for your kind of politico is 'operative', subversive operative, agitator. I have never seen you do anything else. You constantly cause confusion, paranoia, division, hatred and destruction to the conservative movement in the Republican Party. You make us look like idiots and fools.

In addition, I have not seen you put your money where your mouth is. I contributed $1,000.00 to my Presidential Choice, Huckabee. Your contributions don't show up for any candidate.

I have run for public office, as have many others who are 'pro life'. We have received the endorsement of Human Life. You do not get their endorsement unless you are really pro life. Where was your $ when I and other true conservatives ran?

Why have YOU not run for office and gotten endorsed by Human Life? Why do you think the people in your own district - didn't elect you to go to the Republican State convention as either a delegate or an alternate? You have stepped far, far over the line. Think about it Doug.

After what I have discovered in this research, I am encouraging everyone to do the same thing I am doing - SHUN you!!!!

If you are REALLY a conservative, then we will be doing you a big favor. If you are really sorry you have done what you have done, then denounce all these horrid people and groups and apologize to the people you deceived.

If you don't do so, then we must assume that you agree with the bunch of them. It's pretty cut and dried, pure and simple. Get it together or goodbye.

Ruth Gibbs - A true conservative Republican with a brain.

Posted by ruthgibbs at April 09, 2008 03:53 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Thanks for the truth Ruth. It's about time someone lifted the rock for all to see.

Posted by: Alicia on April 9, 2008 04:17 PM
2. ruth, you're my new hero.

thanks for shedding some light on this whole situation... keep up the good work

Posted by: snackattack on April 9, 2008 05:17 PM
3. Just a note:
We've been aware that Ruth has been busy attempting to compile this hit-piece for more than a month with the same obsessive diligence she always applies to her latest obsession.
This is the best you could do, Ruth?
Almost no actual point in this long, bizarre, rambling, irrational diatribe is true, but since it amounts to almost nothing as an allegation, anyway, I'm not going to take the time, right now, to document her distortions and fabrications.
Certainly the anonymous dufflepuds at Sound will take it as gospel and trumpet its hard-to-follow conclusions, because they are liberals and I oppose their objectives, but the only conclusion conservatives need to understand is that Ruth is working for McCain. Working for his McAmnesty, his Environmentalist fuel and electricity rationing, his tax funding of medical experimentation on unborn children (that earned him the enthusisatic support of Republicans for Choice), his restrictions on free speech to protect incumbents and his treaherous blockage of Bush judicial appointments. She's working for McCain, now, under the direction of Michael Young, the king of character assassination... and she's lying about it. This we will document.

Posted by: Doug Parris on April 9, 2008 05:23 PM
4. Watch out. The Parrisite is on the loose and he is full of vinegar that someone would actually call him on his dirty tricks. How ironic!

Where is Michelle? It is surprising that she has not piped in yet to support her buddy.

Posted by: Alicia on April 9, 2008 06:45 PM
5. I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Doug Parris has misled all of us in a big way. His lies and despicable behavior detailed in this research are enough to make me hope that he leaves the Republican Party. We don't need someone like him associating with us. He brings us down, not up. It's time for you to go away Doug. Go far, far away and take your lies, deceit and childish behavior with you. I'm joining Ruth in officially shunning you and all of your cohorts. I am also going to report you to the NFRA for misusing their logo on your web site. To think I used to believe your smut makes me sick to my stomach. I'm glad the 32nd District woke up to your antics and let's hope everyone else does as well.

Doug, your response is lacking as there seem to be very valid points raised by Ruth. It amounts to a lot more than an allegation: it reveals your sinister plot to deceive Republicans across the state into unwillingly voting for a Ron Paul slate. It also reveals your willingness to do anything (even lie) if it serves your objective. It appears that everything Ruth brings up is well sourced... Do you dispute anything she wrote? Or are you just going to flap away in the wind with empty rhetoric like usual.

My heartfelt thanks to Ruth for finally revealing Doug's sinister motives!

Posted by: Convinced on April 9, 2008 09:30 PM
6. A little paranoid aren't we?

Posted by: BigTex on April 9, 2008 09:46 PM
7. Ruth,

Without going into this whole utterly ridiculous story of yours. I would just like ask you
about one thing. Who is it that you spoke with at NFRA? Because. either you talked with someone who doesn't know who their state organizations are or one
of your KCGOP leadership buddies
told you this or you just pulled this out of the sky.


It is not TRUE!! The Reagan wing is in fact a member of NAFRA.Before anyone says well that's just good old spackman just supporting Doug Parris. No it isn't, you see I have seen the actual documentation stating that the Reagan wing is a member
of NAFRA and no they are not forgeries. Not only that but NAFRA has a national convention
every couple years which the Reagan wing has sent delegates to. I can say this because I know who some of the past delegates were.


For the record the Reagan Wing isn't just Doug Parris. I will have you know there are members
across the state.They are good men and women Ruth who you just
slandered with this garbage.All they have ever tried to do is stand up and fight for what they believe in.


Ruth I am very very disappointed in you. Your better than this I know you are. I hope you and your friends aren't planning on doing anything deceptive at the KCGOP convention this saturday.
Because if you are this party
Will have hard time recovering from it.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on April 9, 2008 10:51 PM
8. Ruth,

Wow, you've really spent a great deal of time on this historical fiction piece! I applaud you for your talent. It's a tad bit overkill on the vitriol though.

As for my endorsement of this slate, yes I was aware that it was Ron Paul delegates I was endorsing, and that there was an effort to include delegates for other candidates as well. Hence the phone calls out to other delegates asking their positions on these issues and their presidential preference. Our purpose was to send delegates to the convention who would vote for a presidential candidate who would support the positions on the issues listed on the slate. So regardless of the positions of the other endorsers (which you've largely distorted) or even the delegate candidates themselves, the point was to help elect a presidential candidate who would stand for these. I do not have the time (that you have dedicated to this hit piece) to refute every single distortion you've made against Ron Paul's positions, so I'll limit my comments to where Ron Paul stands on the Life issue, where my endorsement was meant.

On Life. He is 100% pro-life (unlike McCain who has the support of Republicans for Choice and whom you are now helping). Ron Paul says you cannot defend Liberty (which he strongly does) without defending Life. He has introduced legislation repeatedly in Congress that would define Life as beginning at conception. This would directly challenge Roe vs. Wade and pre-born children would then become protected under the 14th Amendment because they are "persons". His legislation would only need a simple majority to pass. And yet, we are led by the GOP and the "pro-life" groups to sit on our hands while the slaughter of 4,000 babies per day continues. Wait until we get the right number of Supreme Court Justices. Wait to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which will take years, and nobody is even promoting it yet. True, he doesn't want the Federal Government making laws against abortion, but it wouldn't need to once it is clarified (through his proposed legislation) pre-born children are protected by the Constitution. It then becomes the responsibility of the states and local governments to enforce the law, as they already do with laws agaisnt murder. McCain doesn't even come close to matching this man's pro-life credentials (his "pro-life" voting record is only about regulating abortion, and he supports the destruction of human embryos for research), and your guy Huckabee, well, he's endorsed McCain now.

As for his supporters who have disagreements in this area, well, they are his supporters anyway, and if they are dedicated to helping elect a truly pro-life president, then I see that as a good thing. Maybe he'll persuade them. We need more Republican candidates who can persuade and attract people with different perspectives. You know, the "big tent" that we're always getting preached to about? You're doing your best to make it smaller.

Posted by: Michelle on April 9, 2008 11:06 PM
9. The only 'hero' I see here is someone who has maneuvered the deluge of leftist rhetoric spouted by cronies of the current party establishment, in order to garner support for the ONLY truly conservative candidate remaining.

It is clear that the party will NEVER unite under the 'presumptive candidate' and smear tactics against Doug Parris or Ron Paul won't change that fact. Nor will it change the focus and tenacity with which these and other REPUBLICANS fight to restore our party and our nation to traditional, conservative Republican values!

Posted by: C.B.Ross on April 10, 2008 12:04 AM
10. WOW! I am SO AMUSED by you Republicans tearing each other apart. It does seem to me that Mrs. Gibbs has done her research yet no one wants to accept her work as true. Michelle, especially, seems to be extremely obtuse - you Republicans are hilarious-where do you find people like her? Under a rock somewhere? Good luck with the election this fall! Can you say President Obama?

Posted by: Deep Blue WA on April 10, 2008 12:22 AM
11. I just cut and pasted Ruth's attack into MSWord and it says she used 9,607 words. I tried to run a spell check on it, but a little window popped up that said, "Word cannot run Spelling and Grammar; Document is too boring"

I would think that a document that purports to publicly expose me as a liar would generate enough interest (in ME of all people) to make me want to read it, but Ruth is so lacking in reasoning skills and so easy to refute, I just can't finish the thing. It's like reading the phonebook. I suppose Olivier or O'Toole could have made us cry reading it, but I can't stay awake. I even had someone call me (or I wouldn't have known it had been published) and try to read it to me, over the phone and I started to doze off.

But I suppose for my dozens of fans, worldwide, I should make some pretense at a defense, so people don't think I'm admitting it's true.

Well, let me say, off the top, nothing significant in it is true. A good case could be made that Ron Ewart is (or was) an atheist... or an agnostic. True enough. But so what? He's twice the conservative and intellect Ruth is and that's a fact. He actually understands and supports the Constitution and that's more than Ruth's Presidential choices do.

Let's choose another one... at random... let's see...
She says, "Doug Parris also tried to smear Reverend Joe Fuiton who would not give him information that had been given to the Huckabee campaign."
This is typical. The fact? I never asked the Huckabee campaign or Joe Fuiten for information or anything else. (By the way, it is spelled "Fuiten" not "Fuiton.") I never called Joe Fuiten at all and never claimed that I did.

Ruth made the whole thing up.

She is shooting in the dark.

She'd better put that gun away or she eventually might hit something.

Posted by: Doug Parris on April 10, 2008 12:24 AM
12. It is with a heavy heart I must acknowledge that "Convinced" (at 5) has decided to shun me. It is indeed a sad moment. We must all pause for a moment of silence.

No more will I see that big "Convinced" name tag across the table from me at Reagan Wing dinners... or that pink rhinestone-studded jacket "Convinced" always used to wear... even in the pool.

We won't have his huge hands continuing to clap after every other sign of applause has died away after every speaker... clapping... clapping...

We're going to miss you, "Convinced." You and that "Convinced" vanity plate on the back of your '74 Eldorado. I guess we won't have to try to push-start it anymore.

We won't catch that powerful whiff of Aqua-Velva every time you pass, or get stuck with your bar tab anymore.

And with a big name like "Convinced" shunning me, I don't know how I'll get recognized at conventions or snag those big print media interviews anymore.

Adieu, fair warrior! Adieu!

Posted by: Doug Parris on April 10, 2008 12:47 AM
13. It's because of people like Ruth Gibbs that I and so many of my generation are driven away from the Republican party.


You, Ruth, are a shame to conservatives everywhere, and a shame to anyone calling themselves Republicans.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 06:05 AM
14. How sad to defend Ron Paul's supposed Pro Life position when he voted NO on legislation to protect vulnerable people such as Terry Shiavo and voted NO on legislation banning assisted suicide. Those bills strike me as about Pro life as you can get, yet Paul didn't act to defend them.

Also, how sad to attack Ms. Gibbs and others with sarcasm and name calling. That would seem to be the only defense of the indefensible.

I looked online for the Wa. State chapter of the NFRA. There isn't one.

Posted by: Camille on April 10, 2008 06:07 AM
15. Oh noes! Charles does tattoos! Of the devil and skulls!

And look at the guy with the nude paintings? OH MY GOD, HOW DARE HE?

My disdain for you cannot possibly get any worse.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 06:15 AM
16. Oh, and one more comment. I couldn't resist.

Regarding the Free State Project...

"They want 20,000 people to pledge to move to New Hampshire (Maureen Moore has pledged), and when 20,000 have pledged, they will all move there, get elected, take over the State, and everyone will live in utopia. Most of these people are libertarians, and some liberal and some conservative. Many are what is called ascribers to 'individualism' rather than 'collectivism'. The objective is to have a state with no income tax, no sales tax, legalization of drugs and prostitution, etc. In other words, the individual rules, the Federal Government will have no say in what they do, and they will live happily ever after!!!! Whoopeee!!!!!! I would suggest misguided true social conservatives run as fast as they can from this bunch. On the other hand, who can afford to move to New Hampshire? On the other hand, some people don't mind sleeping under bridges."

Can I take this quote to mean that you support an income tax, sales tax, and collectivism, Ruth?

As for the final bolded and italic part, I guess that was just a freudian slip.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 06:35 AM
17. "The protesters were carrying Hate Bush Signs, Free Palestine Signs and other left wing liberal messages of hate that were clear threats to the security of a seated US President and the police were entirely within their rights to try to move this crowd away from potential harm to the President."

Signs are a clear threat to the security of a President?

God, how do people this stupid get elected?

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 07:21 AM
18. Doug has yet to respond to a single claim made in the piece above. Doug has thrown away all his principles to support a loser candidate that is on the verge of endorsing a Libertarian for President. Maybe then, Doug will wake up from his fantasy and start working for real Republican candidates. But that in itself is a fantasy based on his track record.

Andrew Brown did you seriously just defend the free state project? It's official, we have reached the dead end of taking you seriously. Please move to NH, and make it sooner rather than later.

So Doug, how do you feel about all the clowns you're running around with supporting a mass exodus to NH? Maybe you're involved in that movement also...

I find it incredibly interesting that the RP campaign has done everything possible to distance themselves from theNutJobwing and everything Doug Parris. Perhaps your involvement and support isn't truly welcome? Comments?

Posted by: Convinced on April 10, 2008 07:44 AM
19. I'm going to assume that 'Convinced' is actually Ruth, because only Ruth could read what I wrote and see a defense for the Free State Project in there, when all I asked was if we could go ahead and assume she supports income taxes, sales taxes, and collectivism.

Also, only someone as desperate to force everyone to conform to her beliefs could be so offended by people who want to just live their life without being bothered by others.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 07:57 AM
20. I'm convinced! Convinced has convinced me with multiple ad hominems. Truly astounding.

Posted by: Big Tex on April 10, 2008 07:59 AM
21. the nutwing has done it again...

i will personally pay for the Parrisite and his cult followers to move to NH.

you are not republicans, you are not conservatives and you are not wanted.

ruth - you are a good american, keep up the good work.

Posted by: convinced #2 on April 10, 2008 09:11 AM
22. This is a real e-mail address I check everyday.

I am glad this is on sidebar and not on a hijacked thread. Thank you Ruth and Doug.

The article and response affirms my opinion the Rs need to turn the party over to the young 'uns, let them screwup and eventually, get the party turned around.

The in-fighting (and I am not sure Doug Parris and Spackman can be considered in the party) is boring and the exact reason the R party is doing so rotten.

Lighten up. Throw some fun events. Make it more interesting. Don't take yourself so serious, even though the mission is serious. Right now, it is more important to bring people like Andrew Brown into the party than excluding him.

Posted by: swatter on April 10, 2008 09:12 AM
23. This is a question for Doug:


Doug, what endorsed Republican candidates have you worked for and supported since 1980, federal, state, county, and local, by year?


The reason I am asking is that I can not remember a single endorsed candidate that you have supported.


All I can remember are the many Republican candidates that you have opposed. But I want to be fair, perhaps it is simply that you give more energy to denunciations than to positive efforts.


But really, can you please give us a list?


And if you have a moment, many of us have been surprised by your embrace of Ron Paul and your management of some of his caucus efforts.


Many of his supporters (and positions!), if not most, are so much farther from the Republicanism you claim to espouse than the typical Republican activists and candidates you attack so viciously that it is hard for me to see how you justify this to yourself.


And, since honesty is so important to you, why did you countenance instructions given to Paul supporters to engage in deceit at the caucuses, where they were instructed to claim to be supporters of other candidates?


You trained Paul supporters for a number of caucuses, and would have met many who are clearly not Republicans. I am talking about 9-11 Truthers, active Libertarian party members, John Kerry supporters, antiwar activists, and the like.


Did you make any effort to confirm that these people were actually Republican before they attended our caucuses? So many of the Paul supporters I have met truly HATE our party, and were supporting Paul because of his antiwar stance only. Were you not concerned that giving non-Republicans influence over our caucus, delegate, and platform process would damage the party and pollute our platform?


And speaking of the Republican platform, Doug. What was the last KCGOP and WSRP platform that you supported without reservation? Has there ever been one. How about the national platforms?


And Doug, to see you of all people supporting a pullout from Iraq, a pullback of the US military from all foreign bases, and a return to an isolationist foreign policy, on the basis that we will have LESS conflict with Islamic Radicalism, leaves me stunned.


Why, Doug, have you embraced the antiwar movement, pacifism, and a policy of appeasement with Islamic radicals who are out to destroy our nation, our faith, and our Judeo-Christian heritage.


G

Posted by: G in GOP on April 10, 2008 10:19 AM
24. G, you lost all credibility when you called it an isolationist foreign policy.

It is NOT isolationism. You can repeat it a million times if you want, but the word(s) are non-interventionist.

As for your assertion that isolationist OR non interventionist foreign policy would lead to more conflict with radical Islam than our current military action against it... that doesn't even make sense, sir.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 11:00 AM
25. Andrew Brown - you lost all credibility when you supported ron paul.

you can play semantic games about ron paul's loser foreign policy all you want or you can face the facts.

paul is a foreign-policy coward and history has already proven that a "non-interventionist" stance has disastrous effects.

but you can continue to believe in paul's conspiracy theories and rants about 9-11 being our fault and israel being our step-son.

have fun in NH.

Posted by: P in the GOP on April 10, 2008 11:17 AM
26. G,

You'd be hard-pressed to prove that Doug and other Ron Paul supporters believe an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is best. In fact, because a person favors a candidate for office does not mean that said person is 100% in lock-step agreement with that candidate.

To imply that Mr. Parris supports and agrees 100% with the Ron Paul platform is dubious at best. How many McCain supporters are 100% in agreement with him?

Posted by: Big Tex on April 10, 2008 11:18 AM
27. 25 - I'm not moving to NH - I'm staying right here in Washington.

If you seriously think that supporting Ron Paul removes any credibility from me, then we really have nothing to discuss, Ruth. It's already obvious that you want big government that taxes and spends; You want to control everyone's life and force them to accept your social conservatism; You want to spout comments about failed foreign policies without giving examples, and even if you decide to provide the usual world war examples, you'll still ignore the differences.

That's up to you. But no, I don't think I'll take my vote elsewhere and leave this sort of illogical thinking unbalanced from a vote standpoint.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 11:33 AM
28. Careful there, Big Tex. You just exposed one of their big lies here at Sound Politics: that Doug won't work with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%.

I really am interested in knowing anyone who agrees with McCain 100%.

Posted by: Michelle on April 10, 2008 11:34 AM
29. If there are any pro-lifers reading this and want to know the truth about where Ron Paul stands on the Right to Life, please read my endorsement of him where I detail his position and his approach (which also indirectly explains where he stands on drugs and other matters):
http://lifeoftheparty.typepad.com/life_of_the_party/2008/01/life-of-the-par.html

Posted by: Michelle on April 10, 2008 12:56 PM
30. If I were a GOP candidate running for office, I would no more want an endorsement from Doug Parris than I would want one from NARAL, NAMBLA, or the KKK.

The ReaganWing could be a source of information for conservatives instead of the yellow journalism toxic cesspool that it is. It qualifies as a superfund cleanup site.

As things stand with Doug Parris, he's responsible for pushing more conservative Republicans into the mainstream, to get away from his malice, than he was ever sucessful in attracting recruits to his cause.

Posted by: Camille on April 10, 2008 02:21 PM
31. Regarding Pauls Pro Life position. He is pro life in that he feels abortion should be illegal. He however is a strict follower of the constitution and the constution clearly does not give the federal government jurisdiction over murder regardless of whether the victim is an infant or an adult (such as Schaivo).

I disagree with him on abortion but agree 100% that it is NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Conservatives would do well to recognize this.

Posted by: Lysander on April 10, 2008 10:06 PM
32. Doug Parris is a Tertullian for our times.

His militant spirit and his attack on the false postulates of both the Dems and GOP, and everyone in between, is what angers so many. Doug has attacked the ignorance of the world and its absurd idols. Their anger is a test of his success.

In doing so, Doug has confronted not only corrupt ideas--which is easy--but men, the defenders of those ideas--which is difficult. Such action involves suffering--as you can see from the attacks on him. They use boycott or shaming as has been advocated above. Where boycott cannot be applied he will have to endure the reputation of a crank, of an absurdity. Whatever irrelevant truth or falsehood can be dragged in against him will appear. The more plainly he speaks the more he will be accused of paradox. The stronger his appreciation of the national past the more will he be accused of foreign taste. He will lose affection. Just review the absurd comments posted above.

Doug has taken to heart a good and sound rule of combat, "First find out what particularly annoys your enemy and then do it as often as you can." That is the spirit in which victories are achieved. To challenge the active hate that propels so many as the proper means to a good end, as Doug has done, is excellent.

When all else has been exhausted there remains calumny, which Doug has endured and will no doubt continue to endure.

I would ask everyone on this thread where they were when it came time to defend the private business owner pharmacists of this state against the fascist alliance of the State Board of Pharmacy, Barr Laboratories, Planned Parenthood/state-aligned abortion industry, DOH and Governor's office? Doug Parris was there. His speech to the paid agents of death and slavery, heard by the crowd of citizens for and against the rule, was greeted with cheers and a standing ovation. I think even the pro-aborts were on their feet!

I'll tell you who wasn't there -- Luke Esser. The same Luke Esser who supported Christine Gregoire's attack on the First Amendment rights of all citizens by the wicked rule promulgated by the BOP.

Rob McKenna wasn't there. McKenna in fact advocated behind the scenes to pass a rule that could stand legal muster and deny pharmacists their rights and force them into either slavery or unemployment. He told the pharmacists he wouldn't support them. Fortunately, a Federal District judge overruled McKenna. Yet, the 80/20 Republicans will fawn and swoon over an AG who actively attempted to deny a group of citizens their First Amendment Rights. Why haven't the "Christian conservatives" called for his resignation? Why haven't the "libertarians"? Why haven't the "free-enterprise" conservatives? Why are the "personal responsibility" Republicans silent? Then they have the nerve to attack Doug of all people.

Ron Ewart the "atheist", in contrast, recognized the obvious fascism in the actions of the BOP and AG when he saw it.

The only difference between the GOP and the Dems is that while the GOP continues its internal argument over which people we should kill and how to regulate the abortion/euthanasia/human experimentation industry, the Democrats open their door to all comers. They'll kill anybody that can't vote or donate money. That is where the 80/20 Republicans want to take the party. Luke Esser said as much when he told the party that people where going to have to pony-up the cash if they wanted to see their "issue" addressed. What a scandal!

As an endorser of the 11th District Pro-Life, Pro-Sovereignty, Pro-Property Rights slate I would like to point out that the pro-life position taken by the candidates on the slate, as reported by Ruth, is the same one taken by the beloved SCJ Anthony Scalia. Would that fit your definition of "mainstream"?

As far as the "credentials" of the 11th District slate goes, my response would be the same as Joe Fuiten's: "Jesus Christ isn't on the ballot."

Here is the only legitimate position a true pro-lifer can take: Any politician who advocates the killing of children, born or unborn, automatically disqualifies himself from consideration from public office. (I hope that isn't too obtuse for you Deep Blue WA.)

Ron Paul has never advocated such killing. He understands that the government has no authority to authorize the use of violence by one group against another. I personally interviewed Ron Paul in January and he made it clear that "pro-choice" women probably wouldn't be interested in voting for him except if they were "pro-life" on the war. On the other hand, Republicans for Choice has made John McCain their number one choice now that Giuliani is out of the race. What is it that pro-choice women like about John McCain but not Ron Paul?

There is, however, a long list of current and former Washington state GOP politicians who DO advocate such a heinous and extreme position:

Rob McKenna
Toby Nixon
Shirley Hankins
Ralph Munro
Mike McGavick
Dan Evans
Doug Sutherland
Joel Pritchard (deceased but alive in spirit)
Slade Gorton
Sam Reed
Luke Esser
Bill Finkbeiner

Dear reader, please add to the list if I've missed anyone.

That the Reagan Wing has had to partner with the intelligent skeptics of our culture is a reflection of how far from the truth self-described "Christians" of our culture have wandered. These so-called Christians wave the words "Republican" and "Christian" and "Conservative" in the air like a talisman waiting for them to work their magic. Reasoned thought, logic and intelligence have been abandoned for superstition. Fighting these people is like fighting smoke, and just as frustrating.

Sadly, I suppose it is only a matter of time before some in the Ron Paul camp make the same despairing motions. How many of them will settle into a comfortable seat at the table too lazy and ignorant to confront the hollow and rotten ideas that haunt the country, and too cowardly to battle the men who promote them? If it happens Doug Parris will be the first to recognize it and the first to lead the battle against them.

Doug Parris celebrated his birthday earlier this month. May you live a long, long life Doug! Happy birthday!

Posted by: Mary on April 10, 2008 10:14 PM
33. mary... you obviously drank the parris kool-aid

please seek professional medical help immediately and you may have a chance at recovery

Posted by: kool-aid on April 10, 2008 10:48 PM
34. Kool-Aid,

Its so typical of you and your friends here. Don't ever address the substance of what is being said,you just resort to name calling and
character assasination.


All of you are so willing to believe whatever Ruth Gibbs is saying. I mean afterall if Doug
Parris said it must be a lie.It
matters to none of you that everything he has said there have been multipile witnesses to
back it up.


Yet when Ruth Gibbs make these outrageous claims about Doug Parris without one shred of proof to back any of it up. Then its bravo Ruth for doing your homework and exposing that rotten so and so for who he really is.


Well if that's all that it takes
then some of you really have become lazy and don't care about the future of this state and this once great political party and that's sad.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on April 10, 2008 11:47 PM
35. We are thinking of starting an organization of everyone who has been maligned and disparaged by Doug Parris. We'll call it "The Republican Party"

How is it that can you people dish it out day after week after year, but cry foul when a compilation of your misdeeds lays you open to some of the same criticism in which you have for so long revelled?

Posted by: Camille on April 11, 2008 06:02 AM
36. Camille,

It has nothing to do with not being able to
take criticism. Its one thing to be critical of
someone based on their political positions. Its
another thing however to just sit and take it when distortions,falsehoods and outright lies are
being stated for public consumption.


Just remember Camille there are two sides to every story. Not just the one your so willing to
believe hook line and sinker.

Posted by: Phil Spackman on April 11, 2008 10:58 AM
37. Funny. I don't ever remember a "Camille" or an "Alicia" being the subject of any Reagan Wing articles. Nor have I met anyone named "convinced" or "G" or "P". But these rare names at Sound Politics sure pop up here when the discussion is about Doug Parris.

Posted by: Michelle on April 11, 2008 11:05 AM
38. Just because someone isn't mentioned on the Reagan Wing doesn't mean they don't have opinions about what is right or wrong.

Personally I think anyone who even READS the Reagan wing on a regular basis has severe issues.

Doug who?

Posted by: Jim Johnson on April 11, 2008 05:14 PM
39. Michelle @ 37 - I think it's pretty obvious that these people who happen to post with the same style, lack of tolerance, and vitriol demonstrated in the original post are only differentiated by the displayed name... but that's just me.

Of course, I'm usually pretty good about identifying AEs on internet forums.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 11, 2008 07:36 PM
40. Oh and Ruth.. If you don't want the Ron Paul people in your party, that's fine.. they can join other parties.

Posted by: JayDee on April 11, 2008 07:41 PM
41. Ruth youre so dense. Ron Paul is for protecting YOUR civil liberties too, not just everyone else in the country.

Posted by: bob on April 11, 2008 08:38 PM
42. Ruth youre so dense. Ron Paul is for protecting YOUR civil liberties too, not just everyone else in the country.

Posted by: bob on April 11, 2008 08:38 PM
43. Ruth takes it up the ass from McCain Posted by: Ruth takes it up the ass from McCain on April 11, 2008 08:46 PM
44. This is sad. Anyone wo spends this much effort attempting to attack and destroy other human beings is seriously disturbed. God have mercy on your soul. You will need it.

Posted by: WD on April 11, 2008 10:01 PM
45. I don't believe that someone would expend this much effort, time and energy on this subject. Maybe I've been living in a world of maturity and political ignorance for too long, but I didn't realize that there were actually ADULTS who behaved like petty little immature CHILDREN! Ruth, GET A DAMN LIFE WOMAN! Don't you have anything better to do with your time? The reason more good people don't get into politics is because of pettiness like this. If I knew you, I'd be ashamed to admit it.

Posted by: Thera on April 11, 2008 10:03 PM
46. Are the Neo-cons getting nervous?

With this type of attitude towards Liberty loving Americans, no wonder the Democratic base is growing while the GOP is in decline.

Posted by: Jim Liberty on April 12, 2008 07:25 AM
47. This is a poorly thought out hit piece. I'm a Christian and I'm appalled by the basic lack of understanding of how human emotions work. In a previous comment I read:

G @ post 23: "And Doug, to see you of all people supporting a pullout from Iraq, a pullback of the US military from all foreign bases, and a return to an isolationist foreign policy, on the basis that we will have LESS conflict with Islamic Radicalism, leaves me stunned."

Response: Think about your logic, correct it, and you will no longer be "stunned." By some accounts, we have killed ~1 million Iraqi's during the "war on terror." That's 1 million people that are probably related to 20 other Iraqi's that NOW HATE AMERICA because we KILLED THEIR FAMILY. If someone killed my family, I would hate them and fight them to the death. That's exactly what our misdirected foreign policy is doing - creating more enemies. I support a strong national DEFENSE but this pre-emptive war direction is hardly Christian, no matter how you slice it.

"Why, Doug, have you embraced the antiwar movement, pacifism, and a policy of appeasement with Islamic radicals who are out to destroy our nation, our faith, and our Judeo-Christian heritage."

Response: I agree that there are large numbers of radicals who want to destroy everything non-Islam. However, we are creating far more radicalism with our foreign policy than would exist otherwise. It is very difficult to convince a person to take up arms if there is no enemy attacking them. In case that's not direct enough for you - OUR POLICIES ARE STRENGTHENING THOSE WHO WANT TO DESTROY US. (Not to mention bankrupting this country.)

Just think about it before you respond.

Posted by: Scott on April 12, 2008 11:10 AM
48. RE: Jackie Juntti - WA Grassroots Electronic Network (WGEN)

"Jackie Juntti has endorsed Ron Paul for President. I do not know if Jackie was informed of the connections and views of some of the other endorsers on the slate or of some of the Ron Paul connections. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements "

Has it dawned on anyone here that some of the endorsements, especially mine, are based on the FACT that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate of any party who has a long running record (documented)of voting based upon the Constitution of the bill he is voting on? Not one of the others can even lie enough to match Ron Paul's voting record in that manner.

Plain and simple - it seems most of the comments here are based on personal emotional statements instead of whether or not America is going to go down or begin the return to Constitutional Government. What I have observed is everyone will say they want Constitutional government as long as it doesn't interfere with their piece of the pie.

I challenge all to examine the things that we have allowed government to intrude upon - education, health care, and many other areas - all places that are NOT covered by our Constitution and areas that our Founding Fathers were trying hard to get aways from. Read the Bill of Rights and see how many of those GOD GIVEN RIGHTS (not government given) have been usurped by those too lazy to be FREE MEN and WOMEN.

If you are asking for more government rule in our lives then vote for ANY of the other candidates as it makes NO difference which of them you vote for as they will all (except Ron Paul) make sure you get MORE GOVERNMENT.... and we will all pay highly for it.
For each one pimple you find on Ron Paul I can give you a full blown set of boils on the other candidates.

Jackie Juntti

Posted by: Jackie Juntti on April 12, 2008 01:55 PM
49. In reading this thread it reminds me very much of reading comment threads from Ron Paul articles throughout this primary season. Reason and logic are met with name calling and false assertions. Openess to discuss and properly debate issues is confronted with belligerent rambling and blatant character assassination.

As a core volunteer for the Paul campaign this year I had several chances to meet with Mr. Parris. I found his enthusiasm for conservative values and his eagerness to expose the left-leaning local GOP leadership for the Republicrats they are not only refreshing but inspriring. I might also add that in our first meeting Ruth's name came up as leadership in the 11th and Doug had nothing but good things to say about her. I can tell you that Ruth Gibbs depiction of the Conservative slate at the 11th district caucus is utterly ridiculous. It should have been to no suprise to any of the body that the members of the slate were endorsed by the Paul campaign, or Paul delegates themselves since it was clearly printed on the slate that it was endorsed by Maureen Moore, WA state coordinator. She acts like she's broke the Davinci Code, when in fact she is revealing she would have a hard time painting by numbers. Her effort to connect members of the slate to fringe conspiracy theories through loose, abstract connections from organization to organization reeks of the conspriracy theory rationale she is trying to paint her targets with. She is a pot calling the kettle black! Her endorsement of collectivism all but shows her ignorance to the princibles and philosophy this great country was founded upon; that each individual is granted rights from the creator, those being the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She treats "Individualism" and "Collectivism" as these new fangled terms that these strange tattooing, naked picture drawing, junkie maniacs must be throwing around. Ruth you mentioned author G. Edward Griffin, I suggest you pick up something of his and read it.

I've been a conservative all my life and I am a young/middle aged member of the party. I voted for Bush twice and if not for the Paul campaign I would have kissed this party goodbye forever. The energy, enthusiasm, and articulate nature of the campaign has cured my apathy and turned me into a conservative activist once again. The GOP would be well served by opening up the doors to the big tent and finding a way to work with us. Let's face it, like it or not, without us, the party doesn't stand a chance. We are the new face and a new generation who is willing to work with you. So you have a choice; step on a hornet's nest like Ruth Gibbs has done here or make the party stronger and pool all this energy to fight the socialists and collectivists.

Kudos to Doug for having the courage to stand up to leadership. "In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause suceeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain.

Posted by: Josh on April 12, 2008 04:31 PM
50. It's called classical conservatism, Ruth, and it's as Republican and American as apple pie. Social conservatism is simply an authoritarian hijacking of the true conservative principle. I don't care what your church thinks is a sin against God, or a sin against oneself. I only care about violence and fraud carried out against other free citizens of our society. The only reason an official Libertarian Party exists (founded in 1971) is because the Republican Party abandoned classical conservatism for social and neo-conservatism. It was people like you who hijacked the party in the first place. We are merely trying to take back what is ours.

Oh, and regarding the Free State Project... when did moving across a continent to avoid persecution become a shameful thing that only nutjobs do? Isn't that the same tendency we admire in the people who founded the American colonies and declared their independence from England? You may believe that it will fail, and it nearly already has, but that does not make it a shameful thing to be associate with. The only shameful thing to be associated with today is the status quo - be it an R or a D.

Posted by: George on April 12, 2008 04:34 PM
51. Thanks Ruth! I'm flattered you mentioned me in this, uh, what is this? Oh, a lot of random insinuation and slander, mixed with a diatribe of misinformation and half truths. It reminds me of the time you attempted to immediately discredit the slate which I was on at the district convention. I was amazed at how undemocratic that little act of positioning was. Anyway, yes, it is me, Charles Adam Peart, the "artist" who publishes graphic nude artwork of which you speak. Ruth, obviously you're not an artist, nor able to appreciate art. First, let me start by saying that Michaelangelo happened to paint A LOT of nude women, even in a Christian cathedral! The horror! Were you in control you'd likely have all of his works burned! Oh wait, Renoir painted nudes also! Burn his stuff too! And Gustav Klimt, Picasso, Degas, Magritte....all artists who painted nude human bodies! Burn it all! Quick! Secondly, there is NOTHING pornographic about my work, which you were blatantly insinuating in this willy-nilly "expose'" of Ron Paul Supporters. My nudes were inspired by another artist, a profound Austrian expressionist named Egon Schiele. I wouldn't expect you to know who that is, since he painted "graphic" nudes as well. Funny story about Egon... he was imprisoned by Nazis because of his pervasive art. Let me state that again. He was PUT IN PRISON for painting artwork by FASCISTS. Anyway, my work has been collected worldwide, from France to Japan to Texas. Art is an INDIVIDUAL expression, maybe that's why I like Ron Paul's message so darned much! That being said, I've been a Republican most of my life, never a Democrat, and have even voted for Senor Bush in 2000(fool me once...). I was a Christian missionary, ironically, in Perth, Australia, I've smoked marijuana in the past, and have never tried, nor seen heroin in my life, and have never hurt anyone in a psychotic rage(this was one of your more asinine assertions). I've been around and even had access to other life-killing drugs such as meth, but have never partaken because I practiced what is called "willpower." I thank my good Christian parents for raising me with Christian principles like "Free Agency." Maybe you've heard of that Ruth. Whether it's presently legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol, or heroin and marijuana it all boils down to willpower and personal responsibility, and I'm sorry for your son's condition, but I don't believe that someone forced a needle into his arm, he just lacked in willpower and self respect. Unfortunately I must go, but I will be back tomorrow to continue this response.

Posted by: adampeart on April 12, 2008 05:01 PM
52. Last time I checked, McCain had the pro amnesty record and rhetoric.

What's shocking is thinking about how can a human being put so much time and effort filled with hateful lies into discrediting a Republican (Dr. Ron Paul) with one of the greatest conservative voting records of all time.

Posted by: jsquared on April 12, 2008 05:08 PM
53. To add,

After checking out both this blog and Doug Parris's blog, I've concluded that Mr. Parris's blog holds more substance.

Doug, you've got a new subscriber.

As for this blog, this will be the first and last time I will be visiting it.

Posted by: jsquared on April 12, 2008 05:12 PM
54. Why don't you take a look at this platform from the GOP in the 1840'. Lincolns party. You want to say we aren't Republicans now asshats? We're just taking the Republican party back. It's you that's not a Republican. In fact you have more in common with left wing socialist than the real Republican party. Except you want to build other nations rather than our own. You want to build up Iraq fine, move there traitors.

Real Republicans:

http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

Posted by: To the Republican Retard that posted this. on April 12, 2008 07:07 PM
55. I sit here reading through the sundry comments of Ruth Gibbs and all I can think is "ignorance is bliss." I could take exception to many points Ms Gibbs put forth as fact but I shall choose just one that shows Ms Gibbs "facts" are not facts at all.

Ms Gibbs states, "Chuck Baldwin has stated in his writings that the South was right in the War between the States, and that the leaders of the old Confederacy were not racists."

Now, quite obviously, the insinuation is that the "leaders of the old Confederacy" were racists. Following Ms Gibbs' logic, that would also make Chuck Baldwin a racist, also by insinuation.

Unfortunately, Ms Gibbs initial statement is incorrect for two reasons:

1) the war between the states was NOT about slavery. As such, her contention that Confederate leaders were racists is erroneous; her claim that Chuck Baldwin is a racist equally erroneous.

2) the war between the states was about the right of states to secede from the union of states; a right that comes from Article II of the Articles of Confederation -- agreed to by Congress on November 15, 1777; in force after ratification by Maryland, March 1, 1781, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Me thinks Ms Gibbs should do more research before she contends the Civil War was about slavery.

"Honest Abe" Lincoln should have been impeached and tried for treason for declaring war on the southern states that chose to secede. They had every right to do so.

Posted by: Lynn M Stuter on April 12, 2008 07:46 PM
56. Ruth, if you want my vote you'll have to start by wearing shoes for the duration of caucus and party meetings. Your ideas are as archaic as your personal dress code.

Posted by: natalieanderson on April 13, 2008 12:57 AM
57. No wonder nobody wants to be involved in politics.. this article is atrocious. You go on ranting, and raving "Ron Paul is sooooo racist", shaking your guilt by association finger, and then turn around and decry gay marriage. Get over yourself, you basically live in Seattle, which has the second largest community of gays, lesbians, and transgendered citizens in the U.S. But I guess true conservatives with a brain can't support life if it comes attached with "undesired tendencies". Discrimination, whether it is based on sexual orientation, religion, race, etc. is equally destructive. And calling someone a racist while you turn around and criticize other walks of life is hypocritical, even if it does seem to be the present Republican Party's status quo.
And I also have something very personal I want to share with everyone.. I have lesbians aunts and you know what, they're the best damn aunts anyone could ask for.

Posted by: Disgusted on April 13, 2008 03:45 AM
58. Shakespeare observes "Me thinks she doth protest too much"
Ruth,Do you think you can make yourself taller by cutting off another's head?
Pleas do not respond. I have taken too much time already to relie on your verbage.
Al Schaefer

Posted by: Al Schaefer on April 13, 2008 11:32 AM
59. I was at the King County Republican Convention

We Paul supporters were very neatly prevented from having input on the platform.

Ruth, and most of the long time Republicans seem to think social conservatism is more important than fiscal, or foreign policy conservatism.

This attitude makes the Republican party irrelevant going into the future. The 50s are over, people!

The government has become bigger than it's ever been, under a "Republican" president. NeoConservative is more like it.

So Ruth, you have done your part to keep this country on the road to ruin.

Posted by: SFC Wayne Cummings (Ret) on April 13, 2008 12:13 PM
60. I especially liked John Carlsons speech in support of McCain! He tells us how McCain voted against the tax cuts twice and that made him upset but now we must vote for McCain because he is for Tax Cuts! Haha! What does he take us for idiots? Oh wait...

Posted by: Lysander on April 13, 2008 02:13 PM
61. I especially liked John Carlsons speech in support of McCain! He tells us how McCain voted against the tax cuts twice and that made him upset but now we must vote for McCain because he is for Tax Cuts! Haha!

Posted by: Lysander on April 13, 2008 02:13 PM
62. Reading Ruth's diatribe makes me REALLY, REALLY appreciate Ron Paul. --didn't before.

Posted by: sharon on April 13, 2008 04:30 PM
63. The one really good thing that Ruth Gibbs has done with this expose is that all the crazy people have come out of the woodwork and have identified themselves in one place. This makes it that much easier for the rest of us to avoid them.

Thanks Ruth!

Posted by: Jim Johnson on April 13, 2008 04:41 PM
64. Hey Wayne, how goes it? Well, after the resounding debacle of the foreign policy platform "debate" during the District Caucus I knew that the county convention would end up a sham. As you have solidly pointed out, it ended up being exactly that, a sham. It's rather humorous to think that Neo-Con's and Bushies call we, the backers of the constitution, paranoid, when they're the ones afraid of closing bases around the world for fear that we would be suddenly destroyed by all nations the second we got home. Hell, there's one idiot(I use this insult to mirror the maturity of Sean Hannity) who actually believes that Europe would be overtaken by Islamists!? What? Then there's Ruthie(I call her this to mirror the condescending arrogance of Bill O'Reilly) who states in this blog-job that "S.Korea" would blow the western states off the map, "including Seattle." Firstly, I doubt the nation of Samsung is going to get us. Now, I know what she really meant was NORTH Korea, the makers of Kim Jong Il, who occasionally shakes the U.S. down for a few billion greenbacks(which is like, 100 pesos) once every so often by making a little noise. Isn't it funny how she criticized a typo, then a few lines later mistook South Korea with North Korea? Unless it WASN'T a mistake, and she's just THAT clueless. What this bitter old woman(I just use blatant rudeness and crassness to mirror John Gibson) obviously doesn't know is that N.Korea's army would starve in a week, China wouldn't tolerate it, Japan wouldn't tolerate it, we wouldn't tolerate it...it would be over in a month. Besides, if paranoid kooks like Ruth(back to childish name calling- Sean Hannity) are afraid that we're going to be missile-attacked from across the pacific, then why the hell do we spend billions and billions and billions of dollars(that's like, 20 Euros?) on all of these fancy missile defense systems and a Pacific war machine that stretches from Hawaii to Guam if none of it works? And also, don't you people read books?(That's just me.) Have you never studied the rise and fall of empires, from the Persians, to the Romans, to the British? Do you really believe that our nation is so infallible that it can't be affected by elements of greed, fascism, and destruction? I mean, take Ruth for example. Her slate of delegates won 26 of 30 delegates/alternates and yet she STILL was so full of venom that she researched every person and organization on the constitutionalist slate. She collected addresses, employment and public records- essentially everything but our jock size, and spent a month of her life in the pursuit of smearing her fellow Republicans. Does this not seem somewhat psychologically unbalanced to anyone other than me? It's creepy frankly. She's a gestapo agent reincarnate. Or worse, a citizen spy in the making. I suggest that neo-con's, instead of just remembering what Mussolini's first name is(it's Benito by the way), they should study what his form of government was in Italy- it's called "corporate fascism." When you start seeing the parallels you can write me and thank me for opening your eyes and mind. And really, if we're going to go along with the whole "preemptive strike" scheme, shouldn't we at least make the terminology fit by calling it "National OFFENSE" instead of "National DEFENSE." I mean, c'mon, does a general defend a fort by scattering all of his forces into the hillside or does he keep his soldiers in and around the fort to defend it? Hmmm. And keep in mind the fact that Nazism only took a decade to take root in Germany... a decade, that's like, 2 4-year terms. I admonish anyone who feels they can defend anything robber-baron Bush has done to let me know ONE thing that is better in the lives of the common man. ONE thing that benefited the average American- not the oil tycoons and corporate fat cats(I mean, Bush DID normalize trade with COMMUNIST China, which made rich executives and owners greatly richer at the expense of working class individuals who lost their manufacturing jobs and buy toxic crap made over there) - but everyday you and me. Ah yes, queen of the paraphrase-Gibbs. If anyone takes the time to visit my site, you will find a "statement" describing my current body of work entitled American Life. Inspired by my exodus cross-country from hurricane ravaged New Orleans in '05, I produce paintings of social commentary on middle-American culture, creating pieces both nostalgic and iconic. The phrase "sometimes laughable Christian Zealots" which I used was to describe some of what I had witnessed on my journey. Yes, I call erecting a 25 foot cross in one's front yard with Christmas lights wrapped around it...in the month of August, zealotry. Would JFK want to come back and find three-story carbine rifles complete with twinkle lights mounted in front of everyone's home? I'm a huge fan of Christlike principles and attributes, so don't get me wrong, but if someone lends an ear to what Pat Robertson has to say, then they too are zealots, or at the very least ignorant and weak. Oh wait, Gibbs was a "Robertson '88" gal. Ruth, if you're reading, I had to laugh when you made it a point to make mention that one could see a picture of me on my site. You mean the one of me with a shaggy beard and somewhat long hair? Like that image of me, what, discredits me as a Republican? You probably couldn't recognize me from the District Caucus, see, I was one of the only men under the age of 50 wearing a full suit...short neat hair, clean shaven, polished shoes (which I like to keep on the ENTIRE time I'm in a public meeting).....remember? You know, handsome, eloquent, somewhat charmi