YouTube - Ron Paul's Nazi Connections

Damned that Kike was annoying.

That was amazing!!! I've heard some decent caricatures of jews on FTL but damn, this heeb is the benchmark!!!! Even has that phlegm thing going for him in the back of the throat. Our impressionists here have a lot of work to do....... :D

Simply fascinating watching this kike in his natural habitat. Did you notice how the lies just slid off his tongue so effortlessly?? It's like some kind of strange gift that only jews and carnies possess.

There was a nice buildup there that linked Ron Paul with Nazis and if only "we" had stopped Hitler and Hirohito early on..... "we" could have saved 50 million lives!!! Good stuff!!! I always wondered if we would have slaughtered all the Zionist and International Bankers back in '33......how many lives would that have saved??? :confused:

Here we go again: another Paul-hating Yid that America thinks is funny:

http://forthardknox.com/2007/11/15/jackie-mason-takes-on-ron-paul/

If it is so rediculous...so absurd..then why is it so offensive?

YouTube - Ron Paul's Nazi Connections

Here we go again: another Paul-hating Yid that America thinks is funny:

http://forthardknox.com/2007/11/15/jackie-mason-takes-on-ron-paul/

Thanks for posting links to those videos, Will, they were real eye openers. I didn't realize there was such intense jew hatred for Ron Paul. That means he must be right and it also means he deserves our support.

YouTube - Ron Paul's Nazi Connections (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZFhU3QalM)

Thanks for posting links to those videos, Will, they were real eye openers. I didn't realize there was such intense jew hatred for Ron Paul. That means he must be right and it also means he deserves our support.

I guess that Youtube was yanked once the Yids figured out it had backfired.

Here's a new article that shows how worried the powers that be are over Dr. Paul's phenomenal grassroots support that's coming from all across the political spectrum.

In Defense of Ron Paul*

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 29, 2007.

*Ron Paul's a wingnut, yes, but he's an anti-empire, anti-war wingnut who doesn't believe the president should be king.

Ron Paul has arrived, thanks in large part to the unrivaled intensity of his supporters. In the weeks since his dedicated -- some say obsessive -- online army organized a "money bomb" that delivered over $4 million in a single day to Paul's war chest, his quixotic campaign has gotten a boatload of media attention. It is officially the quirky, nontraditional candidate story of the 2008 race. If the campaign pulls off the $10 million "tea party" planned for Dec. 16, the spotlight on Paul will get hotter still.

With that attention comes a new level of scrutiny, as one would expect. But most of the media's analyses don't put the Paul "sensation" into a larger context. Often missing is the degree to which Paul's popularity is related to Washington's structural inability to handle the issues most important to American voters -- a flaw that extends to the corporate media as well. Lacking that context, the criticism flung at the Paul campaign is superficial and distracting.

Progressive bloggers have started to take notice of the insurgent campaign as well, and there's been a spasm of critical posts slicing and dicing the Ron Paul experience. Unfortunately, too many of them have focused not on Paul's record, his beliefs or why he's become such a phenomenon in the race for the White House, but on his supporters, who include a nasty little assortment of feverish nativists, half-baked ultranationalists, white supremacists, New World Order conspiracy theorists, etc., in addition to the (no doubt far more numerous) ordinary, pissed-off patriotic Americans who are attracted to his candidacy.

So we've recently discovered that Ron Paul is backed by: people minting their own "cuckoo bananas money" and members of an identity theft ring. We've learned that "Paul has the support of David Duke" and Stormfront has a YouTube audio commercial up supporting Paul. Also supporting him are the "Patriot" movement "nutjobs with guns and anti-government leanings" who were made famous by homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh. He's loved by the owner of a Nevada whorehouse and has even gotten the nod from Hutton Gibson, Mel's wingnut father and the man who taught him everything he ever needed to know about those damn Jews.

To which I can only say: OK, folks, we get it. If we accept guilt by association as a reasonable political argument, then Paul is as guilty as they come.

But not directly so. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out:

The Paul campaign has a hands-off approach when it comes to supporters' activities and political backgrounds. While grateful for the money, aides insist they aren't responsible for what supporters do online. "We don't know who a lot of these people are," says Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman … "Sometimes Ron Paul supporters get a little overpassionate and maybe a little more shrill than what some might like," Mr. Benton says.

Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and many of the bloggers making hay out of Paul's less savory supporters are happy to slam what the Clintons famously called the "politics of personal destruction" -- the tactic, popular on the right, of turning various public figures who support Democrats into pernicious liberal strawmen whose excesses are supposedly evidence of how out of touch progressives are.

But more than that, the typical analysis misses the fundamental dynamic driving Paul's popularity. His campaign occupies that political space where right- and left-populism intersect, and that space exists only because there are significant areas of national policy where neither of the two parties, nor any of the "mainstream" candidates, have shown any willingness to represent their constituents.

Polls show that a majority of Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq, but none of the leading candidates are calling for a complete pull-out. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a permanent military presence there, yet the same number believe that the United States would not withdraw even if asked by the Iraqi "government." A majority oppose the White House's claim that it can torture whom it likes, but the Democrat-controlled Congress confirmed an attorney general who wouldn't say that water-boarding -- prosecuted as torture by military courts since the Spanish-American War -- is illegal. More Americans think K Street's "trade" deals hurt Americans than believe they help, but among the first acts of the new Congress was to strike a new "grand bargain" with Bush on trade. Voters want to see movement on healthcare, immigration, retirement security and job outsourcing, and on all of these issues the Big Money candidates in both parties, with the possible exception of John Edwards, either stand moot or offer fluffy platitudes about change while ferociously defending the status quo.

Ron Paul is a reactionary, yes, but he speaks to these and other ignored issues -- speaks to voters' growing disenfranchisement and lack of trust in government, to their fears and insecurities about the future -- in a way that the rest of the field won't, and any analysis of the Ron Paul phenomenon that doesn't acknowledge that reality misses the heart of the story.

Stick to the record

Ron Paul is running for president, and I'm not suggesting that he's somehow above criticism -- an idea that Paul's supporters often seem to embrace. His is a brand of politics well outside the American mainstream, and that's revealed, clearly, in his legislative record. That record, and Ron Paul's governing philosophy, provide more than enough grist for the critical mill -- there's no need to indulge in cheap shots.

Paul's libertarian impulses don't appear to extend to the issue of reproductive choice -- he's introduced four bills, including a Constitutional amendment, defining human life as beginning with conception. That doesn't make him a run-of-the-mill, anti-choice conservative; the L.A. Times described the measure as part of an aggressive tactic "which could effectively outlaw all abortions and some birth control methods."

Some activists say they are fed up with incremental steps -- and are not interested in waiting years, or possibly decades, for a more conservative court to revisit Roe. Instead, they are out to change the legal status of embryos in hopes of forcing the Supreme Court to ban abortion.

"The concept that we're going to elect judges who will change everything has failed," said Brian Rohrbough, a former president of Colorado Right to Life. "The logical thing is to start with personhood. … It's the only legitimate tactic that does not involve a compromise."

The Times story noted that "every year since [Roe v. Wade], members of Congress have introduced a bill to [define human life as beginning with conception], but they never got anywhere." On several occasions, that member of Congress was none other than Dr. Ron Paul.

Paul's proposed a number of court-stripping measures, shutting the courthouse door to discrimination suits based on sexual discrimination; he's tried to prohibit the government from mandating a minimum wage; he's tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, which guarantees that workers on federal projects be paid a prevailing wage, and the Copeland Act, which bars kick-backs on federal projects; he has proposed freezing Social Security benefit levels and making the program fully optional, which would effectively destroy it; he has opposed measures that promote more voter participation; he would repeal key parts of American anti-trust law, gutting it; he's tried to deauthorize most federal agencies' regulatory powers; he's tried to eliminate all affirmative action programs; he's proposed altering the 14th Amendment to prohibit the children of immigrants from gaining citizenship; he's proposed eliminating or gutting a variety of environmental legislation; he's tried to kill the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and submitted legislation that would pull the United States out of the United Nations 12 different times; he has tried to eradicate the Department of Education, offered legislation to end federal involvement in educating kids; and he has proposed, at various times, the abolition of most taxes on wealth as well as income and the establishment of a flat tax. All of this is legislation that he not only supported, but proposed or co-sponsored.

There are also legitimate concerns about some ugly racist stereotypes that were included in a newsletter that Paul sent out in the early 1990s. Paul claims he didn't write the words, but they were included in a publication called The Ron Paul Political Report and his supporters' insistence that (a) he knew nothing about the content of The Ron Paul Political Report and (b) he shouldn't be held responsible for the contents of The Ron Paul Political Report ring hollow. (As a New Yorker myself, nobody can convince me that Rudolph Giuliani isn't the really hardcore racist in this race -- he's just a hell of a lot smoother about covering up the fact than are people like Paul.)

Paul says that he'd slash the size of government by 40 percent, a dramatic restructuring by any account. As I've written before, people may respond positively to the idea of limited government in the abstract, but when it comes to specifics most Americans love big government and most (though certainly not all) of what it does. They want a government that will educate their children and put out forest fires and make sure that big chemical companies aren't poisoning their water. They expect cheap student loans and meat inspections and smooth highways, and even the lowest of "low information" voters know they're not going to get that stuff from the private sector.

And it's here where Paul deserves some respect, even from his detractors. He does, after all, have the courage of his convictions. In an era when balanced pandering has become the highest of campaign arts, Paul, unlike the rest of his Republican brethren, is perfectly straightforward about his desire to roll back much of the 20th century. As blogger David Caspian put it: "The reality is: Ron Paul, though crazy, is consistently crazy. He is not trying to hide his batshit ideas, in fact he's running on them. And though they might not understand all of it, people like it."

Some of Paul's supporters insist that his stark, slash-and-burn anti-governmentalism and isolationism don't matter. As president, he'd still have a Congress to deal with, and the burden of actually having to govern would likely inject a note of pragmatism into Paul's ideology. It's a unique argument: Ignore my candidate's more extreme ideas because they'll never get past Congress. The problem is that ideology matters -- it helps guide every decision one makes in office -- and the president of the United States of America is, as most people grasp, a pretty powerful person.

Of course, that's an academic discussion. Regardless of his supporters' passion or his ability to raise funds online, Paul has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2008 as the average gay Mexican pornographer. He is, after all, running on an anti-war, anti-"free trade" and pro-civil liberties platform in a Republican primary. Add to that a media that's unable to seriously cover political beliefs that fall outside the narrow discourse of mainstream Republican versus Democratic food fights, and it's clear that Paul will not be leading his party in 2008.

And while he's no threat, he's helped disrupt the GOP's nomination process, adding more volatility to the polls and more issues to the debate. Plus he's made things a hell of a lot more interesting on the GOP side.

While I would never suggest reaching out to the white power movement, many of Paul's supporters are simply disenfranchised nonvoters who have been animated, many for the first time in years, by his campaign, and that's not a bad thing in a nominal democracy where complacency rules.

YouTube - Ron Paul's Nazi Connections (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZFhU3QalM)

Thanks for posting links to those videos, Will, they were real eye openers. I didn't realize there was such intense jew hatred for Ron Paul. That means he must be right and it also means he deserves our support.

Justin Raimondo is not so hostile to Dr. Paul. Here's his read on the CNN debate of a couple of nights ago.

Note!: When the 160 anti-war demonstrators showed up outside the hall where the CNN Republican debate was held to protest the War Party's Iraq mess they were met by hundreds, if not thousands of Ron Paul anti-war supporters. What's to protest? :confused:

---
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11981
November 30, 2007
McCain's Mangled Metaphor
Has the Third Reich reappeared in the Middle East?
by Justin Raimondo

Never mind Hillary's plants or that guitar-strumming singing wannabe pundit, the real news out of the Youtube/CNN GOP slugfest is that John McCain's failing, cash-strapped campaign was dealt another heavy blow in his embarrassing tiff with antiwar Republican Ron Paul. As Paul accurately pointed out that we could ameliorate a lot of suffering – including the pain of tax hikes and a decaying infrastructure – right here in our own country with the $1 trillion we're spending on the Iraq war, McCain grimaced: the truth hurts. Unable to contain himself – not a very presidential trait, but essential to any demagogue – McCain replied:

"I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.

(Applause)

"And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...

(Applause)

We allowed ...

(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed – we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience booing)

And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is – the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, ‘Let us win. Let us...'"

If you oppose the war, says McCain, you're – pro-Hitler. :swastikasmiley: It was inevitable – the return of Hitler, that is. The third-rate painter and homicidal maniac always turns up when the War Party gets desperate. After five years of war, and nothing but a reinvigorated al Qaeda and thousands of dead and grievously wounded to show for it, there's just one way to stanch the loss of support for our Iraqi adventure, and that is the return of Hitler to the international scene. In John McCain's world, it doesn't matter that we were lied into war: it doesn't matter that there were no Iraqi links to al Qaeda; we only have to know that Saddam was a Middle Eastern Hitler, who has now been replaced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and everything falls neatly into place.

It's all nonsense, to be sure. To compare the ramshackle fourth-rate Iraqi military – and bin Laden's ragged insurgents – with the military might of the German Army at the height of the Third Reich's power is worse than absurd: it involves a major misperception of what we are up against, and the very real threat posed by the worldwide Islamist insurgency whose spearhead is al Qaeda. Hitler had overrun most of Europe and a good chunk of the Russian, French, and British empires before hubris and the weight of his own evil brought him down: the rag-tag legions of Iraq's Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias are not exactly the Wehrmacht. And yet the Iraq war has now gone on longer than World War II, and still dead-enders like McCain are telling us "victory" is right around the next corner.

The misuses of historical analogies in politics are legion, and this one in particular is extremely problematic for the War Party. To begin with, McCain has his facts wrong: Hitler came to power not due to any "appeasement" by the Western powers, but because of World War I. He was elected by the German people – isn't democracy wonderful? Isn't it really the solution to all the world's problems? – due to resentment of the Treaty of Versailles, and the heavy burden of reparations which unleashed inflation such as the world had never seen on the German economy. This created the conditions under which German national socialism flourished – and when Hitler was installed in the German Chancellory, it was long past the time when anyone in Europe's capitals or in Washington could do anything about it.

The rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party was "blowback" from the Great War – just as the wars of the future will be visited upon us and our children as a direct consequence of the Iraq war and the growing conflict in the Middle East.
"Let us win," brayed McCain – just like we could've won in Vietnam. So if the bellicose Senator had his way, we'd still be fighting the Vietnam war, as he clearly is: talk about not learning the lessons of history! Oh, but Vietnam is different, he avers, because the Vietnamese just wanted to build their "workers paradise" in their own country, but the Iraqis we're fighting will come after us – so there's no safety in withdrawal. This only encourages them. But is this really true? Will the Shi'ite militia of Moqtada al-Sadr, for example, come looking for Americans to kill in, say, Baltimore, if we don't fight them in Basra? Don't bet on it. As for al Qaeda: they're winning recruits, not only in Iraq, but throughout the Muslim world, on account of our campaign to "transform" the Middle East at gunpoint. As Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's al Qaeda unit, put it: we're bin Laden's best friend and "indispensable ally," since our policies couldn't benefit him more if they had been designed for that purpose.

McCain is rivaled only by Rudy Giuliani in the absolute looniness of his foreign policy prescriptions, all of which involve war, and preparations for war, unto eternity. He has never been capable of restraint, neither in his personal demeanor nor in his pronouncements on international affairs. Whether we are talking about the Middle East, Russia, China, Serbia, or whatever, McCain has one and only one solution to the problem: force, i.e. "boots on the ground."

The War Party hates Ron Paul because he takes them on without euphemism or hesitation: it is worth it having Ron up there if only to bask in the uneasiness he causes, which is all too visible on the faces of the other contenders, who would rather not have to deal with his iconoclasm. That's why the Stuart Rothenbergs and the Sean Hannitys would much prefer to exclude him from participating in the debates, but it's too late for that now: the Ron Paul Revolution is shaking up the GOP Establishment, and it sure is fun to watch. McCain staked his campaign on the war, and his political fortunes are sinking as fast as support for the war in the polls – yes, even in the formerly solid ranks of the GOP. Over half the Republican voters in Iowa want us out of Iraq within a year. A full third of GOP voters nationwide are war-weary to the point of supporting a rapid withdrawal. Paul owns this vote, and – thanks to the fundraising prowess of his spontaneously self-organized supporters – now has the resources to pursue it. McCain's star is sinking, as Ron's is rising – and that, my friends, is good news for opponents of this rotten war, and the dangerous foreign policy that made it possible.

There's already a thread for anti-Paul article by Jews, but I think we need to post positive articles about Ron Paul in one place, and I like this thread because the Subject title is my favorite quote from another Dr. P, William Luther Pierce:

A shocking report: Inside the Ron Paul conspiracy
Andrew Malcolm
L.A. Times

Maybe you've heard rumors about an explosive newspaper expose on a major political figure that would rock the political world just as the presidential voting is about to begin.

We haven't either.

But we do know that today is when this newspaper blows the top off of the Ron Paul Conspiracy, that vast unorganized protest movement that has silently become one of the more interesting political phenomena of the current election season.

A Times reporter -- we'll call him James Rainey to protect his identity -- has managed to penetrate the Paul presidium.

In his story he recounts for the very first time the shockingly ordinary details of a movement of thousands of disparate, dissatisfied people, some of whom want an end to the Iraq war, an end to gun controls and the IRS, an end to laws banning marijuana and a return to the gold standard, whatever that means.

These Paulites believe the government has been hijacked by a bevy of big interests that threaten the freedoms of ordinary Americans. They're not going to take it anymore. Locally, they're even organizing a re-enactment of a brazenly defiant act, the BostonTea Party, except it'll be in Santa Monica and won't involve tea or white people dressed as Indians. And the protestors promise not to leave anything foreign floating in the water.

These committed partisans, bonded by their suspicion of authority and venal influences like the mainstream media that ignored them until they did something, have united behind a 72-year-old...

Air Force vet and ob-gyn from Texas who has managed to win 10 elections to the House of Representatives as a Republican with two first names and strongly libertarian leanings.

This man believes that U.S. sovereignity is threatened by many things, especially including consistently ignoring the Constitution and by a planned mystery superhighway that would unite with a ribbon of inexorable cement all three North American countries--Mexico, the United States and that other larger one on top that can only afford to have three downs in its football games.

Apparently he's not talking about I-15, which already does that.

"Rainey's" account describes how this man's followers appear to be ordinary citizens with jobs and family by day. But at night they gather openly in chat rooms and living rooms to plot how to promote a tiny unassuming man whom they call reverently Dr. Paul. With little central direction but tons of commitment, idealism and passion, Dr. Paul's followers do everything they can think of to mobilize voter support.

They patrol the internet day and night seeking Paul slights to right. They stand on windy interstate bridges holding inflammatory signs saying: RonPaul2008.com.

Even as you sleep at night some of the 1,200 Paul meet-up groups are handwriting letters to all 700,000 independent Iowa voters urging them to consider their long-shot leader. A couple of weeks ago Paulites raised $4.2 million on the internet in one day, a near-record, and a sum they intend to more than double on Dec. 16, the anniversary of that rebellious tea party. How's that for insignificance?

As one result, the ultra-lean Paul organization has been able to buy advertising in New Hampshire and to pump its poll numbers up near double-digits in some places. Rainey's story describes the commitment of one Ron Paul meet-up group in Southern California and the regular folks who drive it with their political beliefs and energies.

Few professionals -- well, to tell the truth, no one -- actually gives Paul any chance of winning the Republican nomination. But then up until Yorktown back in the 1700s, all the smart Vegas money was on the British.

--Andrew Malcolm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...paulconsp.html

Be sure and click the above link to see the many positive comments to this article.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/theronpaulconsp.html

This link might work better.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_greg_alb_071203_why_the_internet_com.htm

December 4, 2007 at 16:32:58

Why the Internet Community Promotes Ron Paul

by Greg Albert
http://www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

If Ron Paul has a handicap, it's that his ideas are complex and difficult for quick consumption. He doesn't resort to the easy-out demagogy that seems to be political par these days. Instead, he engages the more robust discussions that Americans entertain in coffee shops and academic quarters. As Glen Greenwald at Salon.com explained, "While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional wisdom, Paul's campaign -- for better or worse -- actually does so, and does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way."

This sort of thinking is ill-suited for the soundbite-oriented mainstream outlets. It can only be understood in its entirety by doing enough research on the Internet. Thus, the Internet is where Ron Paul flourishes.


Second, he regularly challenges the conventional wisdom of Washington D.C. Objectively, his points are equally valid; he pits trade against war, low taxes against corporate welfare, lower grocery prices against agriculture subsidies. But again, the common assumption that politicians succumb to the whims of Washington can only be overcome by researching the theories that underlie his beliefs. Why, for instance, was he the only Congressman who opposed casting a posthumous gold medal for Rosa Parks? It turns out, he wasn't opposed to casting the medal per se, "Rosa Parks is a hero of mine...I believe in civil disobedience", he said. Instead, he offered to help pay for it with his own money and encouraged other Congressmen to do the same. They would not.

Paul makes an excellent point here: Why is congress willing to raid your Social Security and tax you for a medal that they're not willing to pay for themselves? Meanwhile, they have a lucrative pension plan in which Ron Paul refuses to partake. If you use the Internet, you can delineate these points. But if you get all your information from the major outlets, you'll hear "Ron Paul hates Rosa Parks".

This article also evidences this phenomenon. It says that Paul blamed the attacks on 9/11 on American foreign policy. That was a demagogic simplification of his statement. It was first misconstrued by the moderator at the debate, then by Giuliani, and now Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reiley. Bill Maher corrected Chris Dodd about this, "Excuse me Senator, but that is just what the Republicans at the debate were trying to do, they were trying to say that he blamed America for 9/11". Yet, he wasn't talking about a good-and-evil blame-game that informs most of our Bush-era understanding of the world. He was talking about geopolitical cause-and-effect. The fact that he is correct according to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA's declassified intelligence, and Paul Wolfowitz himself seems to matter little to voters who don't have the time to do internet research.

The fact is Paul addresses the issues that America faces. There is no doubt that Social Security is crumbling. Rogue economists who set out to buy time cannot overwhelm the weight of economic wisdom that a system of IOUs backed by IOUs that the government wrote to itself, simply cannot sustain. The value of the dollar is deteriorating and inflation will be our next biggest long-term financial crisis., according to Greenspan. The cost of our war is increasing with no viable end. Not to mention the cost of maintaining troops deployed all over the world. All of these put together are recipe for financial collapse.

Paul's wisdom hails from the school of foresight. While conventional politicians go to great efforts to secure legacies by pushing problems down to their successors, Paul stands for the idea that we can address them now, on our terms. One thing is certain though; we *will* address them. Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani may be in wheelchairs when we do. But an entire generation of Americans who will be worried about putting farm-subsidized bread on the table and will suffer the real, difficult consequences of government largess...well, they also use the Internet.
---

Born and raised Alaskan. -Veteran of the Armed Forces, 1996-2000 -University of Washington, Department of Philosophy, 2001-2004 -Veterans' Advocacy, 2001-2004 -University of Washington, School of Law, 2006-Present

There's already a thread for anti-Paul articles by Jews somewhere on VNNF, but I think we should also post positive articles about Ron Paul in one place, and I like this thread because the Subject title is my favorite quote from another Dr. P, William Luther Pierce...:

This is about as positive as it gets, and from a Xian leader, Pastor Chuck Baldwin:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071218.html

Who Are These Kooks?

by Chuck Baldwin

December 18, 2007

According to the Associated Press, "Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term congressman's campaign for the White House."

The AP report also said, "The [Paul] campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million."

According to the Paul campaign website, "In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.

"During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul's campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.

"The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million."

Now, if one listens to most of the political pundits in the major media, Ron Paul is some kind of "kook," and his supporters are also a bunch of "kooks." So, the question must be asked, Just who are these kooks that are supporting him, and why are they giving Ron Paul all this money?

First, let's take a look at this "kook" who is receiving all this money. Ron Paul was born the third son of Howard and Margaret Paul, and was brought up with a work ethic in which one worked six days a week and went to church on Sunday. His first job was at age 5 helping his uncle wash bottles. He worked all the way through his youth mowing lawns, delivering newspapers, working in a drug store, delivering furniture and laundry, etc.

In high school, Ron was a track star, winning state as a junior in the 220-yard dash and running 2nd in the 440. His time in the 100-yard dash was 9.8. That's pretty good. I was never able to break 10-flat in the 100. Although, I bet I could have beaten him in the 50-yard dash. He also wrestled in high school. Coincidentally, so did I. But here Ron leaves me: he was president of the student council and an honor student. I never accomplished that. I was just glad to get promoted to the next grade. Even as a senior statesman, Ron Paul keeps himself in terrific shape. Have you seen him lately? He still maintains a rigorous exercise regimen.

Ron's two brothers are both ministers, and he became a medical doctor. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine. When the Cuban Missile Crisis arose, Ron became a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. He also served in the Air National Guard.

As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies, and he and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than 50 years. They have 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. Ron Paul is currently in his 10th term as a congressman from Texas.

As a congressman, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. He is not accepting a government pension. He returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. As a member of Congress, he has never voted a raise for himself. Do you know any other member of Congress that can make such a claim? Of course you don't, because Ron Paul is truly one-of-a-kind.

Former President Ronald Reagan said this about Ron Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Perhaps this helps explain why many of the "kooks" supporting Ron Paul are active-duty military personnel. In fact, Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active-duty military personnel than any other Presidential candidate from either party.

But who are the other "kooks" supporting Ron Paul? What kind of people give more than $18 million in a quarter-year to a Presidential candidate that is almost universally ignored by the mainstream press? What kind of people give record contributions to a Presidential candidate that is lampooned by his fellow Republican Presidential contenders?

For example, Mike Huckabee recently said he could support any of the other Republican Presidential contenders (including Rudy Giuliani), except Ron Paul. That means, Mike Huckabee would rather support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control liberal such as Giuliani than support the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment candidacy of Ron Paul. Why is that?

Furthermore, why are the entire major media and establishment Republican machine either ignoring or lampooning a distinguished Air Force veteran, medical doctor, and ten-term Congressman? What is it about Ron Paul that the elite are so afraid of?

Here is something else: while Ron Paul's contributions have exploded, Mike Huckabee is all but broke! How can that be? How can a political "front-runner" be out of money, while a man who "doesn't have a chance" is breaking fundraising records?

So, who are these "kooks" who are sending Ron Paul so much money? And just why are they sending him so much money? I will tell you who they are, because I am one of them. They are rank-and-file, tax-paying citizens who are sick and tired of out-of-control federal spending and deficits. They have had it with an arrogant federal government that runs roughshod over both the Constitution and the liberties of the American people. They are people who have had enough of the IRS, the BATFE, and a thousand other federal agencies that have "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." (Declaration of Independence)

They are people who see through the phony, disingenuous federal politicians who only want to fleece the American citizenry for the purpose of building their own personal fortunes. They have had it with the Military-Industrial complex that desires to build international empires at the expense of the blood and sacrifice of the American people. They have had it with David Rockefeller and his Council on Foreign Relations. They have had it with the arrogance of George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.

They are sick and tired of paying outlandish taxes for a public education system that produces high school graduates who cannot read and write. They are sick and tired of working for 30 years to pay off a mortgage, only then to be forced to pay extortion money (a.k.a. property taxes) for the rest of their lives to the feudal state. They are sick and tired of the government telling them what they can and cannot do with their own property. They are sick and tired of watching people with food stamps buy T-bone steaks and expensive Nike tennis shoes while they are forced to buy fatty hamburger and cheap sneakers.

They are sick and tired of watching their manufacturing jobs go to China and India. They have had it with money-hungry businessmen who hire illegal Mexicans at slave labor wages. They have had it with labor unions promoting politicians who support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA. They are sick and tired of being bled dry at the gas pump.

They have had it with this phony "war on terrorism" that sends trillions of dollars to nations throughout the Middle East, but refuses to close our own borders to illegal immigration. They have had it with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" being used as excuses to trample people's freedoms. They have it with Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon. They have had it with Bush's North American Union. They have had it with Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. In short, they have just had it!

They also know that a vote for any other Presidential candidate is a vote for more of the same. Democrat or Republican: it is more of the same. Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, will bring a revolution of freedom and independence to America. Believe me, the Ron Paul revolution is bigger than Ron Paul. This is the beginning of a movement.

No matter what ultimately happens to Ron Paul's candidacy, the fight to return America to its roots of freedom and independence has started. The fire is lit. There is no putting it out. There will be other Ron Pauls, other campaigns, other spokesmen, other fundraising. The people supporting Ron Paul will not be silenced; they will not be ignored; they will not be intimidated. In truth, Ron Paul's campaign may just be the beginning of the end of the elitist, globalist, stranglehold over America.

As one who is also fed up with the globalist goons that dominate the two major parties, I join the Ron Paul revolution and vow to fight for the rest of my life for the freedom and independence of these United States. This means I will never again support a business-as-usual, millionaires-club, globalist toady from either party ever again! I will only support candidates who are fully committed to restoring constitutional government. If that makes me a kook, so be it.

© Chuck Baldwin