Ron Paul’s Good News

Antiwar.com Radio yesterday posted a very informative interview between Charles Goyette and Ron Paul. At about 10 minutes into the interview, Goyette asked Congressman Paul about my comment on the blog regarding negotiations with the Republican party for a speaking slot at the Republican Convention in September convention.

Congressman Paul replied: “I don’t know where he got that information because there will be no negotiations. And if they [the Republican Party] would call me up and ask – ‘do you want to speak at the convention,’ I would probably say yes.” Paul added that “there is zero chance of that happening – so there are no negotiations going on.”

I’m glad to hear that the Paul campaign is not currently negotiating for a speaking slot. It’s good that seeking the podium at the convention will not impede Paul’s criticism of Bush’s foreign aggression.

As I have said before, Ron Paul is America’s best congressman. It is great that Paul’s campaign has awakened many Americans to the perils of government and the value of liberty.

Paul’s comments in the Antiwar.com Radio interview are especially helpful in resolving the different signals from his campaign staff and other officials in recent months on this issue:

The Washington Post reported on May 6 that “Paul’s campaign hopes to turn such support into upward of 50 delegates for the party’s national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September, where he is gunning for a speaking slot.”

On May 9, the Boston Globe reported that Paul’s Maine coordinator, Ken Lindell, declared, “The goal at the national convention is to get a speaking slot for Dr. Paul to deliver that message.”

The Los Angeles Times blog on May 12 reported that Ron Paul supporters “hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot.”

Fox News reported the same day that according to Jesse Benton’s comments, “Paul is planning on having as big a delegation as possible at the convention, and he continues to seek a speaking opportunity there, something the party has not offered to him yet.”

The focus on a speaking slot has been mentioned by the campaign off and on going since early February. On February 12, MSNBC reported that after the Super Tuesday showings, “Paul’s goal, according to spokesman Benton, is to get a substantial delegation to convention (they estimate they’ll have about 42 delegates) get a good speaking spot, and ‘spread the conservative message.’”

These comments confirm what top operatives said at a meeting of a few dozen of Ron Paul’s key supporters in Washington in late April, according to one attendee.
**
I hope Ron Paul gets a great speaking slot at the GOP convention. Giving the delegates and the television audience a double-barrel dose of truth could be the best tonic the nation receives this Fall.

  • Eugene Costa

    One really likes the double-barrel part.

    • Brian R.

      Don’t give up on your country. WRITE IN Ron Paul for President. *****Election Day Write- In Bomb.**** Let’s shock the world and take our freedom back!

      • Eugene Costa

        Ron Paul is a hypocrite and a fraud. It gives me no pleasure saying that. And speaking of antiwar.com, at one point Paul supposedly had $35 million in campaign funds, much given by people who were crystallizing around the antiwar issue, which Paul and his crew managed to defuse.

        It is a pity indeed that antiwar.com begs for funds while Paul uses campaign money to lecture on his kindergarten economics.

        There is a serious flaw in the Austrian School–those motivated by material desires who become successful capitalists almost always buy the cooperating state, and turn capitalism into state and corporate capitalism.

        Why wouldn’t they?

        • Bleh

          >Ron Paul is a hypocrite and a fraud.

          That’s quite a claim, and I’ve certainly seen nothing to indicate that in his books, archive of speeches, or voting record. Perhaps you could clarify why you feel this way?

          >And speaking of antiwar.com, at one point Paul supposedly had $35 million in campaign funds, much given by people who were crystallizing around the antiwar issue, which Paul and his crew managed to defuse.

          Defuse? Out of the D and R contenders, I’d say that Paul was easily the most vocally opposed to the Iraq War. He advocated a policy of immediate and full withdrawal. He’s been vocally opposing Iraq since before the war started:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywYDhPeY8&feature=related

          and giving any number of speeches raising opposition to the war:

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html

          and promoting legislation that would end the war:

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul377.html

          Why do you feel that Paul defused the antiwar issue? I have a hard time thinking of anyone less likely to be the subject of such a claim.

        • R. Nelson

          Getting the best government money can buy is human nature, not a defect particular to the Austrian School of economics. I won’t speak for the libertarians as I’m not one entirely, but it seems clear that their solution to the government/business axis is to have no government at all, or one so minimal it wouldn’t be worth buying off.

        • Eugene Costa

          It is the genius of the US Constitution to have hammered out a structure designed in various ways to minimize government, and to make it difficult to buy or otherwise appropriate its powers.

          That is the heart and soul of the Constitutional structure, and what makes it unique among such documents in the world, so much so that widely different minds, from Ho Chi Minh to Kurt Goedel, appreciated its cunning and structural subtilty.

          At the moment, any election, including the presidential, is much less important than a direly needed reassertion of the Consitutional checks and balances, and especially of the powers of Congress.

          It really does not matter what sort of men serve in the Constitutionally elected government, as long as they assert their designated powers individually and collectively.

          The framers knew themselves and one another, and were not naive enough to think they had stumbled upon, in their own persons, ideal rulers or philosopher kings. Instead, what they wrangled out was anti-idealist to the core, and that is a key point.

          It is on exactly that point, and not on a point of economics or ideology, that I do not follow how any Congressman doing his appointed duty, left or right, does not see the imperative of immediate impeachment proceedings.

          The shirkers are many, no doubt, but Kucinich has pointed the way in moving the impeachment of Cheney.

          That alone would pour cold water on talk of more war, and assert the intention of elected representatives to express the will of the majority of citizens.

          It will also prepare the way for later prosecutions.

          In regard to Mr. Paul, his refusal to take the lead in this initiative is just another indication, in my mind, of the shallowness of his supposed Constitutional principles, which he voices often enough, but has not seen fit to deliver upon in relation to the Republican executive, as he did–rightly, and on far less significant grounds–in relation to Clinton.

        • Eugene Costa

          Now and then one is tempted toward the Roykoesque.

          If, in regard to impeachment, appealing to Congress’ sense of constitutional duty falls on deaf ears, then perhaps to their sticky fingers?

          An independent Congress is more inherently consequential than a rubber stamp.

          What is more consequential attracts more graft.

          Ergo, an impeaching Congress is a well-greased Congress.

          Indeed, a Congress that makes AIPAC dance to their tune, rather than in reverse–is a wined and dined Congress indeed.

          Do your duty, Congressmen–impeach, and work those lobbyists into the ground.

          The populus Americanus will be forgiving in their gratitude.

          By hook or by crook, get out of Iraq, negotiate with Iran, and start dealing with the problems at home.

          Right now a James Michael Curley (yes, I know he was mayor, but I mean the type) or Adam Clayton Powell, who gets action on impeaching Cheney is worth all the empty principles mouths by a milquetoast and hypocrite like Paul.

        • Eugene Costa

          corr: “principles mouthed”

        • R. Nelson

          You brought a tear to my eye referencing Mike Royko. A few of his columns are still in my files, and hardly a week goes by when I don’t wonder what he’d say about this or that topic of the day. How the mighty are fallen.

      • John Lowell

        Eugene,

        “Ron Paul is a hypocrite and a fraud. It gives me no pleasure saying that. And speaking of antiwar.com, at one point Paul supposedly had $35 million in campaign funds, much given by people who were crystallizing around the antiwar issue, which Paul and his crew managed to defuse.”

        Amen! And when, pray tell, will we be granted the blessed relief of having Paul’s name disappear both from these pages and the very narrow segment of public consciousness that continues to have an interest in him politically? You are quite right to bemoan the squandering of money given by well intentioned people to Paul’s recent venture into narcissism when this site experiences very considerable difficulty in raising funds to support itself. And to read the oily obsequeosity of Bovard, himself something of a fraud, to the effect that “Ron Paul is America’s best Congressman” is neigh-on stomach turning. Please!

  • Jack D.

    I could care less who wins, Republocrat or Democon, there all CFR slime that got put there by the CFR. What should be important to everyone is whoever gets picked should fulfill their job according the country’s rule book, the Constitution. When you are watching professional sports everyone expects the judges to not take sides or have their own agenda. They are expected to make sure that both sides stick to the rules. I don’t see why a President or any other person “SWORN” to uphold and defend it should have a “platform” The platform has been laid out since 1776 and if the rules are to change, there are appropriate ways to do it and that doesn’t meant voting for the next Dictator because you like the platform of that Dictator. For those of you that think America is a Democracy or that the Federal Reserve is Federal, please do your country and the rest of us a favor by staying home on election day. You are far too ignorant to be choosing our next leader. The only exception to this is if you were to go and write in Ron Paul’s name.

  • Andy White

    I remain hopeful that when all the yuppies and kool-aid drinkers who know who Ron Paul is and what he believes but think he’s a nut will admit he was right when the dollar dies and they lose their life’s savings. I’m not hoping for a currency collapse of course, I just recognize thats probably what will happen in the next couple of years. And history shows when this happens the middle class always disappears. They never see it coming, even though its blistering obvious, and they never know what hit them. Ask any Ron Paul supporter if they’re getting ready for an economic crisis and they’ll inform you they already have.

  • Not even Ron can get through to the 30% that still believe.

  • Coolwise

    I would like to have Ron Paul speak at the GOP National Convention on prime time but not at sacrificing some his principles(which he won't). He get a speaking time due to overwhelming support within the GOP to demands it. Let the pressure be on the GOP leadership to cave and grant Ron Paul to speak at the National Convention.

  • R. Nelson

    As one who believes America should negotiate with its enemies, I see no problem with Ron Paul negotiating with the GOP. It all depends on his defense of his principles and what he’d be willing to trade for the privilege of speaking at the convention. In this dark year, what could realistically be better than a ringing call for liberty at a nationally televised political event?

  • DemsRNeoConsToo

    I had a dinner party over the weekend and being considered politically astute (go figure) was asked by one of my guests what I thought of Obama. This particular guest, while being a very intelligent man, would be considered a GOP redneck politically, but he really likes Obama.

    I said it wouldn’t matter who won, we were still going to attack Iran because of the Israel lobby, so I wasn’t going to vote for a presidential candidate because I didn’t want the blood of Iranians or anyone else on my hands.

    Another guest was outraged, “Not vote? Of course you have to vote!” So I said, “OK, I’ll write in Nader or Ron Paul. I became a Republican for Paul (I’m a former and future Independent)” She said, “That kook?”

    That irritated me to no end. I asked her privately if she knew anything about Paul’s platform. When she looked blank, I explained that Paul was against U.S. imperialism and for the Bill of Rights, plus he stands up to the Israel lobby, and at this moment that’s all I care about. I added that there is no way we can take care of our domestic issues until we stop spending money on Israel’s / war-profiteers wars.

    Another guest, a young, idealistic, woman, had chimed in that she too had tried to switch to GOP to vote for Paul.

    For 26 years I have voted for the lesser of two evils, whether they be Dimbocraps or Repulsives. But since my post-Sept. 11 awakening to the power of the Israel lobby and the military/ industrial complex, I realize that we have a uni-party. Or, to put it in the words of the good people at antiwar.com, one sole “war party” and I’m not going to be a part of this “two-party” charade.

    Fox “News” is # 1 in ratings. What does that say about this country? We must be the dumbest sh*ts on this planet.

    I do plan to vote my congressional buggers out, I voted Libertarian for congress last election, but since I know that the minute Obama gets elected he too will be sucked into the black hole of Israel’s wars, I cannot vote for him.

    So, go Ron go!

    My dad, an otherwise intelligent man, is a Fox “News” devotee, He was very pleased when I told him I’d switched my party affiliation to GOP. But then it hit him, and he said suspiciously, “You did it to vote for that nut, that Paul guy, didn’t you?”

    My dad knows me all too well, to be able to vote for Paul in the primary was exactly the reason I gave up my cherished “Independent” status. Too bad, in this case, father (who will grimace as he votes for McCain — McCain’s too “liberal” for him) does not know best.

    I do hope that Paul gets to speak at the convention because, to anyone who actually listens to him, he makes a heck of a lot of sense, and Americans need pure, good ol’ common sense now more than ever. Paul will show McInsane to be the Israel Lobby tool, inveterate war monger and nutter he really is.

    And I do think that Obama would be vastly better than McCain for Prez, I just don’t want one more drop of blood on my hands.

  • Leslie Webb

    Bring back the Ron Paul blimp to fly over Minneapolis during the convention, with END THE WAR! VOTE RON PAUL emblazoned on both sides.

  • A. Halsey

    I don’t think Ron Paul will be speaking at the convention – for two reasons:
    1. His noninterventionist foreign policy is the opposite of what McCain wants.
    2. He isn’t endorsing McCain.
    McCain holds grudges and isn’t open-minded about a change in foreign policy. If there is a speaking slot early one morning, he might offer that (at best) in the hopes that Paul supporters will then go away.

  • Pingback: truthseeds.org » Blog Archive » truthseeds 5/30/08()

  • It would be wonderful if Dr. Paul could speak at the convention and tell it “like it is.” And it’s still possible.

    People are always shocked when I tell them the U.S. will invade Iran no matter what president we have. Then I have to explain the state of our fiat currency and how our “leaders” have no choice to invade, sanction or bully Iran because if they don’t get Iran to stop selling in Euros and start selling in Dollars like they are supposed to, we risk currency collapse. That never fails to boggle their minds.

    Someone above mentioned that Faux News has extremely high ratings. It is a depressing sign of the mentality of this country, true, but think of it. If people were forced to face the reality that this country, through its horrible foreign policy of intervention has caused all the woes it is facing, that we are actually an empire taxing foreign nations through inflation, that the socialist lie has poisoned our minds into thinking we can have something for nothing, that the enemy isn’t a bunch of terrorist thugs puttering around in a foreign desert but *right here in this country*, in the *White House*, halls of *Congress* and chambers of the *Supreme Court*, well let’s just say that’s too much of a bitter pill to swallow.

    And they run back to Faux News to be told what they want to hear.

    • Mikael

      On the SPOT… you are… .but

      the history of empires of all times

      will repeat itself AGAIN…

      (But it´s nice to know that it´s a few of US left out there..)

      Only ” GOD have the answeres to all this meaningless history of ours”

      And I´m not a believer..

  • andy

    I fear the U.S. will continue its foolish policy of interventionism until something truly awful finally happens. I don’t know what it will be, but it will make 9/11 look like nothing in comparison. So long as there is no draft and little organized opposition and a complacent media, Washington feels there is no reason to stop fishing in troubled waters. Eventually something will happen. Like a compulsive gambler or the schoolyard bully, the U.S. will finally do the wrong thing to the wrong country. And suffer the consequences.

    • Bill K.

      I would prefer no more 9/11’s but an American Waterloo(or more significantly Borodino) may be required to end the US Government’s obsession with attacking other countries expecting no consequences.

  • Shahn

    I doubt highly the Republican Party will offer Ron Paul a speaking slot at the National Convention. period. His stance on the war is in direct contradiction to the position that will be adopted for the Party Platform and he will not compromise in his language for the sake of projecting party "unity" and they know that so he will not be allowed to speak. He will not be allowed to give any "aid and comfort to the enemy".

    This is a man who refuses to sign up for the Congressional Pension Plan, who sacrifices personal interest for the sake of upholding personal ethics. He won't compromise on his principles with the party to get a good speaking slot and I totally respect that, even if it would be nice to hear a lone voice of sanity ringing out at the RNC.

  • don

    I like the idea of the Ron Paul blimp at the convention. I am a republican who voted for Reagan but never made the mistake of voting for a Bush. I have voted third party, avoiding the voting for the lesser of two evils syndrome. However, in this election I will vote for Obama (assuming he is the Dem nominee) if AND ONLY IF it is an extremely tight election where every vote is needed to keep McInsane out. I believe that Obama offers a slim chance that war with Iran will be avoided. If McInsane is elected, the last 8 years of Bush insanity is vindicated. The wars, domestic spying, use of torture, and deficit spending are vindicated. A McCain win places the seal of approval on the most morally bankrupt Republican administration ever. I hope that I don’t have to vote for Obama. I will be proud to write in Ron Paul. if Ron Paul is completely disrespected at the convention, as I expect will happen, I will change my registration.

  • richard vajs

    I will vote for whomever takes the firmest opposition to the Israeli Lobby. McCain and Clinton are charter members of the Israel-First club, Obama has had all independence beaten out of him, so who does that leave? Maybe Nader. Ron Paul doesn’t appear to have the nerve to go down swinging. Opposition to the Israeli Lobby is the most important issue in this election. The Israeli Lobby successfully pushed for the attack/occupation of Iraq and is relentlessly pushing for attacks upon Iran, Syria and Lebanon. This is destroying America, but the Lobby cares not – their minds are warped by their all consuming hatred of the Arabs and other Muslims. And, the Lobby controls the media. Given the constant flood of Zionist propaganda, only a fraction of Americans can sort through the lies and arrive at the truth. It is up to this fraction to try to save this country.

    • John Lowell

      It would be difficult to argue with your contention that the most important issue in the election is opposition to the “Lobby”, as the whole question of the free operation of our government is so central to it. The oft stated opposition by Democratic candidates to “special interests” ought to begin there, but it won’t; it is far more likely to focus on the sugar daddies of their opponents. Nadar is not timid about such things and can be counted upon to speak openly. I’d vote for him if it weren’t for his baby-killing proclivities. And Barr, cautious and deliberate to a fault. I wouldn’t anticipate his speaking directly to the matter, more likely he’ll talk around it, about the need to disengage from foreign commitments rather than the questionable reasons we had in making them in the first place. And Paul, one fervently hopes that the length of congressional terms is reduced to one year.

  • Will Blalock

    Man-o-man,
    What anti-war site did the above bloggers come from?
    Seems they want to start a war of their own, right here.
    From your posts I can tell you aren’t from around here.
    There are only 2 hopes for America:
    1)an honest President
    2)the total abject collapse of the Dollar
    I’ll take either one, but preferably number 1.
    Go Ron, GO!

  • Will Blalock

    Incidentally…
    The really really good news is that Ron Paul
    is sticking with his supporters and not bailing.
    How many men would face the monsters at the
    GOP convention with only 50 delegates?
    Name ONE politician with that much sand.
    NAME ONE, JUST ONE!
    And who is he doing it for?
    ME.

    • Eugene Costa

      One politician–Kucinich, who faced down his own party in regard to Cheney’s impeachment, a recount in New Hampshire, and on many other issues.

      Note also that Kucinich and some of his supporters may have rightly expected Paul’s principled support on impeachment, perhaps even co-sponsorship. Instead Paul opposed the initial motion, on grounds that do not jibe with what Paul had to say in regard to Clinton’s impeachment, and later tepidly supported sending it to Judiciary the second time around.

      None of this reflects well on Paul’s consistency or constitutionalism.

      Put simply, there are criminals in the office of President and Vice President, and Paul seems hard put either to recognize the fact or to end it with the only constitutional remedy still available, impeachment.

      Instead, all laze about worrying when Bush and Cheney will attack Iran.

      At any rate, though I have been vaguely familiar with Kucinich for some long time, his recent initiatives were the only pleasant surprise this campaign, and I recommend a look at his site for a profound structural and systematic analysis of what is wrong with the US.

      It is also interesting that I made my first contact with a local Kucinich group after having run into a canvasser at a local post office trying to get support both for Kucinich’s candidacy and for his impeachment effort.

      These Kucinich people are small in number but dedicated antiwar activists and hands on.

      At this point, Kucinich may now be more important out of the race than in it.

      Kucinich’s principles and courage against all odds, and with very little money or exposure, put Paul and his supporters to shame, I am sorry to say.

      Indeed, in some areas where there was crossover, Paul did nothing but take some committed anti-war votes away from Kucinich.

    • John Lowell

      “Name ONE politician with that much sand.
      NAME ONE, JUST ONE!
      And who is he doing it for?
      ME.”

      Every passing day brings more and more evidence of the unalloyed jackassity that parades as loyalty in the ranks of Ron Paul hanger-ons. The above remark just has to be right up there with one posted here not too long ago comparing Paul to Jesus Christ. One almost experiences a kind of paralysis when considering nostrums suitable for this type of disability. Ought one prefer spanking or enema in the presence of such imbecility?

      Earlier today I witnessed a You Tube of a crazed Clinton believer at the meeting of Democratic Party’s Rules Committee excoriating officials there for having reached a compromise on the Florida and Michigan delegates problem they were facing. Here’s the url:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

  • Eugene Costa

    Incidentally, I am not interested in either the Democrat or Republican parties–period.

    I am interested in what this Kucinich has to say:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyQo5ZrYbSM

    There is much talk about conservative “economics” and principles among certain people who call themselves Libertarians. It is curious fact, however, that the banner of the Constitution and real opposition to the status quo of the tyrannical warmongers is being carried most loudly by people like Chomsky and Kucinich, who many identify naively with the “left”.

    If one thing is certain in my mind, as the Neo-Cons themselves have cunningly shown by their hijacking of “conservative”, the old categories “left” and “right” are now obsolete in American politics excect insofar as the Neo-Cons can manipulate large segments of dupes with their supposed support on “socially conservative” issues.

  • Will Blalock

    “people like Chomsky and Kucinich,
    who many identify naively with the “left”.

    My point exactly. And why are they
    identified with the Left?
    Because they ARE of the Left.
    Yes, Kucinich has stones but where is he
    now when YOU need him? Probably arguing
    with himself in a mirror somewhere.

  • Will Blalock

    Oh, and by the way…
    If you still aren’t sure if Kucinich
    is a Lefty (or any other politician)
    here’s a simple test:
    Compare thier voting record to RON PAUL’s.
    That should sum it up for you.
    As for him being shut out of the commie
    Democratic Party, watching sadists eat
    their own is always entertaining.
    Go, Ron. GO!

  • Will Blalock

    Sorry to post again but I just
    gotta say, who is that standing
    next to Kucinich in the video?
    Is that is third or fourth wife?
    Maybe it’s a rent-a-babe?
    I think Kucinich should promise
    free VIAGRA to Democrats. That
    outta get him nominated.

    • Eugene Costa

      You must be “right wing”, thus also obsolete. Take up your Neo-Conesque ad hominem’s about Kucinich’s spouses with Kucinich. I am sure he will give you the response you deserve.

  • Bill K.

    I am not sure I read any good news above. Does Ron Paul plan to become an Independent if he won’t go to the GOP convention? Or does he plan to end his campaign? I would hope it is option 1. Because as of this moment I don’t think there is any Candidate better than him.

    • Eugene Costa

      I stongly suspect the “Good News” of the title is a mordant play on “Gospel”, and the Hot Gospelers thereof.

  • martinx09

    What I like about both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is on their anti-war stance, civil rights, and they both stick to their party’s true agendas. Though, they both disagree on the economy.

    Ron Paul talks about Dennis here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM
    Ron Paul asked about having DK as running mate:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&feature=related
    DK asked about RP:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

  • Craig I

    Although I agree with some (many) of Mr. Pauls position, I maintain that it is dangerous for folks in general (and Antiwar.com in specific) to align themselves with EITHER the GOP or that perceived notion called “Right”.

    Neither of them have had ANY relationship with Antiwar, anti-interventionist or libertarian principles in the last couple of generations! And that is a long time……

    It’s the age-old argument….what if I tried to talk to people about the good things that Hitler did or the visionaries in his government? Get the point?

    In the “simple” world of today, most folks cannot fathom complex ideas and policies. All they know is:

    GOP= Old White guys, war, corruption
    Dem=Everyone else, and corruption (of course).

    Having been at MANY antiwar rallies in the 1960’s, I can assure our good readers that there were very few Republicans in attendance. Also, we “hippies” and “leftists” were ridiculed for “make love not war” “legalize it” and “do your thing”…..recognize those talking points? Yes, those are so-called libertarian values!

    So be careful what you wish for. Putting ANY faith, even a little, in the Right…..is like skinheads wishing for the return of Hitler. There is really nowhere to go back to – hence the name “progressive” – think about it….

  • Craig, Point taken but as they say, politics makes for
    strange bedfellows.
    Ron Paul is doing an excellent job of embarassing and
    shaming the GOP. He has exposed them as statists
    and hypocrites (which they have always been but not
    quite so publicly.)
    Ron Paul is sucessfully discrediting the Party system
    in general before the whole world. Every penny he
    spends doing this is a penny well spent.
    The Soviet Union had ONE establishment party.
    America has TWO establishment parties.
    Wow, do I feel free or what?
    NOT!
    See all of you at the R3volution March in D.C.
    this July, 12th. Bring your passports because the
    cops are starting to set up checkpoints.
    Go, Ron. GO!