List your links in here.

Jews are coming out of the woodwork to denounce Ron Paul because his positions threaten them, albeit indirectly. Let's use this thread to link to articles by jew columnists such as Mona Charen and Michael Medved to demonstrate to our fellow awakening Aryans that the jewish connection is crucial. Jews irrespective of political position hate Ron Paul, because his policies are as bad for jews as they are good for Whites.

Mona Charen Slimes Ron Paul

My colleague Dave Wiegel calls it "Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome," and there certainly seems to be something to it. Here you have a Republican running for president who's actually serious about downsizing the federal government, who gives a damn about individual rights, and who understands that big government overseas breeds big government at home, and reaction from the Beltway right is to dismiss the guy with eye rolls, patronizing lectures about "seriousness," and lame ad hominem attacks.

The latest comes from syndicated columnist Mona Charen who has written what's now her second column dung-flinging column directed at Ron Paul. I don't really agree with Charen on much, but I have found her to be a decent writer over the years. Her column on Paul is just plain lazy.

Her critique of Paul begins like this:

Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?

Of course, Paul doesn't say Libby was innocent of the crime for which he was accused, either. In fact, the clemency Bush granted Libby itself acknowledges his guilt. The pardon was overtly political in nature. Paul thinks Libby was given clemency not because he was innocent, but because the charges against him were related to how the administration advanced the cause of the war with Iraq. Paul believes Bush pardoned Libby because Libby's transgressions were in the course of advancing Bush's war. Paul disagrees with that war. Therefore, he disagrees with the reasons advanced by the right for giving Libby a pardon.

That's not even remotely the same thing as saying that even though Libby is innocent of the charges levied against him, he should be convicted anyway, of anything really, simply because helped push the war. Put another way, Paul isn't saying Libby should be convicted of something for which he's innocent simply because he's pro-war, Paul is saying Libby shouldn't get away with a crime for which he's guilty because he's pro-war.

I'm anti-war. I think both Bush and Cheney should be impeached. That said, I also think the charges against Libby were crap. He was essentially convicted of having a bad memory. But he was convicted. And given Bush's paltry use of his pardon and clemency power in just about every other context, the clemency Bush gave Libby reeks of political patronage. There are a couple thousand people more deserving. So Paul's position isn't remotely contradictory with his defense of individual liberty. Paul's position is that Libby oughtn't be granted special favors because of he privileged and pro-war. The people in power should be subject to the same laws, leniency, and mercy as everyone else.

Charen continues:

Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower "who stopped the Korean War" and including Nixon "who stopped the war in Vietnam." Let's recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran's Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.

Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of "minding our own business."

I don't know where Charen got those quotes. I'd like to see the specific speech where Paul credits either Nixon or Eisenhower for their isolationism. I spoke with his campaign today (Charen, incidentally, did not contact the campaign before writing her column. She might have checked with Paul's staff before attributing positions to him instead of relying on quotes that lack context. )

Paul has said has said no such thing about the actual foreign policies of the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.

What Paul has said is that Eisenhower and Nixon campaigned on ending the wars in Korea and Vietnam, respectively. And both were elected by comfortable margins. Paul's point is that the Republican Party has a tradition of peace and nonintervention. That is, Republican voters. That is, candidates espousing a peace policy on the campaign trail have not alienated their base support with those positions, and in fact have gone on to win election by wide margins. The context for Paul's remarks on Nixon and Eisenhower make this clear. He usually invokes the two when someone asks how an anti-war candidate could possibly expect to win the nomination in a pro-war party. Paul responds that Republicans have won in the past with anti-war platforms.

That Nixon and Eisenhower disappointed once in office is beside the point. Paul wasn't citing them as examples of presidents who carried out an isolationist foreign policy. He was citing them as presidential candidates who won with promises to end intractable wars.

This isn't really even a subtle point. Why was it lost on an otherwise smart writer like Charen? RPDS, I guess.

More from Charen:

Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.

I can find no interview or speech where Paul has said he would eliminate these or any other federal agency "within weeks of taking office." If he has said it, it was in jest. What he has said is that, philosophically, he supports a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, including eliminating the agencies listed above, and many others. I've heard him explicitly say that such dramatic changes wouldn't be prudent.

Again, I spoke with Paul's campaign this morning to verify. A Paul administration would move to gradually scale down the federal government, and would ease the transition by phasing in reforms over many years. He has no plans to gut the country's national intelligence, IRS, or other major federal agencies overnight. A simple phone call to Paul's office from Charen would have made this clear.

More Charen:

Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.

Stuff I've written has appeared on kooky websites, too. And frankly, I'd feel no obligation to respond if Michael Medved called me and demanded I answer to his "are you a kook" test. Because to be perfectly frank, Michael Medved's pretty damned kooky himself.

When you syndicate a column, you have little control over where it ends up. As Charen concedes, I doubt Paul knew the crazies picked up his column. Perhaps now that he knows, he ought to ask them not to run it anymore. But Charen's beef here seems to be that Paul hasn't responded quickly enough to Michael Medved. But maybe Paul simply believes Michael Medved isn't worth responding to.

Also, you know it's funny, I don't remember Charen raising much of a fuss when former RNC Chairman and current Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour spoke at the racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Confederacy Council of Conservative Citizens' annual shindig several years ago. And if you'll remember, when Barbour ran for governor the first time around back in 2003, the CCC put a picture of Barbour on their website, implying that he's a supporter. This was well after the CCC had made national news for their affiliation with various southern GOpers. After the photo was brought to his attention, Barbour declined to ask the CCC to take it down. Where were Medved and Charen then? A poked around on Google. Didn't see any condemnations directed at Barbour from either of them. Same for when then-Senator John Ashcroft sat down for an inerview with the pro-Confederate rag, the Southern Partisan. And which is worse, having a racist newspaper run your syndicated column without your knowledge, or voluntarily speaking to an organization that has already been exposed in the media as anti-black, anti-Jew, and that makes noises about white supremacy and bringing back the Confederacy?

Charen goes on:

Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it's rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They've already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Paul's campaign confirms that he has appeared on Jones' program, well more than three times. He doesn't agree with Jones on much, but he appears on the show because he likes Jones personally, and because it's a chance to talk about his ideas. Again, I've appeared on countless radio shows whose hosts I don't agree with. I don't know anything about Jones, and judging from Charen's description of him, he sounds like a nut. So is Glenn Beck. And Michael Savage. And countless other right-wing talk show hosts. Do we infer that everyone who has appeared on those shows adopts the views of the hosts?

Mona Charen once appeared on nutjob Alan Keyes' short-lived TV show. Does Charen, like Keyes, believe that Barack Obama is a racist, who stands for "a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country."? Does she believe that gay adoption will lead to incest? Does she need to explicitly renounce everything Keyes has ever said because she let him interview her? By her own standards, she apparently does.

Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn't a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I'm concerned."

Sounds to me like the host asked Paul an overly hyperbolized quesiton, and Paul politely responded, agreeing with the general premise that the Republicans deserved a spanking, but declined to buy into the hyperbole.

Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.

This is the most common criticism of Paul floating around the web right now. I wonder, does anyone really think $500 will make Paul adopt Stormfront-approved public policy? The Paul campaign's position is, if people like Black are stupid enough to give him their money, the campaign is more than happy to take it.

Would I give the check back? Probably. But Paul's campaign convincingly explains that once you start screening donations for ideology, you risk giving the implication that you then do agree or endorse the positions of those people who send the checks you don't return. Paul's a huge underdog. I don't see anything offensive about his campaign's position: We'll take money from anyone. Again, it's not as if there's any reason to think that the guy is going to be influenced by campaign contributions from shady sources. He has spent his entire political career taking unpopular positions that would've sunk most candidates for federal office. Appeasing campaign donors--or anyone or anything other than his own conscience--isn't a high priority for him.

Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there...

Sorta' like the ol' "Southern Strategy," in which Charen's beloved Republicans used code words to win support from southern racists throughout the 1980s, no?

...but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties...

Um, what country has Charen been living in the last 20 years? I don't know what "dark" means, but there are forces out there threatening our civil liberties. See the way the drug war has eviscerated the Bill of Rights. See White House claims that it can search the records of American citizens without a warrant or judicial review, arrest them, deny them access to a lawyer, detain them indefinitely without trial, torture them, and the threaten to arrest and charge with treason any journalist who dares to write about it. One needn't be a Truther, a Birchite, or a Stormfronter to be disturbed by all of this. There are plenty of honest conservatives bothered by it, too.

...he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) ...

Can we retire this cheap smear? Question for Charen: Do you believe Ron Paul hates Jews? If so, say so. Stop with the insulting insinuation.

"Neocon" is the name for a particular brand of big government, aggressive-foreign-policy conservatism that morphed from New Deal liberalism. Equating it with the word with "Jew" is a cheap, slimy ploy by some neocons to insulate themselves from criticism. It's akin to likening any criticism with Israel with anti-Semitism. There are Jewish neocons. There are many more extremely influential neocons who aren't Jewish. There are Jews who loathe neocons. Criticizing neo-con policy is not criticizing Jews. It is amusing, though, to watch the right play the group victim card.

No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.

Ah, an inspired rhetorical flourish to end the column. In a single sentence, Charen manages to both equate Ron Paul with a pederastic cult leader and belittle the senseless slaughter of 79 people, including 21 children.

I happen to think Ron Paul is the best candidate running. But I'll be the first concede that there are legitimate issues on which to criticize him. But that would require actually addressing his policy positions and his rationale for taking them. It's quite a bit easier to cough up 650 words of ad hominem attack and call it a column.
Posted by Radley Balko on November 17, 2007 | TrackBack

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028347.php

The Jews Have a Ron Paul Problem!

It is essential that jews be labeled jews. Essential.

Most middle-class readers of National Review don't know that Mona Charen is a jew, let alone why it matters.

It is the specific mission of jew Charen and jew Medved to keep the bourgeois in line by insisting that any jew-dangerous, White-friendly political idea is irresponsible and disrespectable.

Call Charen a jew. Call Medved a jew. Not once. Not twice. EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU MENTION THEIR NAME. Jew is an argument in itself: different, odd, weird, dangerous, alien, destructive - everything they try to pin on us must be pinned on them. Always, always, always pin the earlock on the kike.

So Michael Medved demands that Ron Paul repudiate racists who happen to donate money to the campaign of someone who has written the following:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

If Medved's claim is even true, it certainly does not demonstrate a very wise investment considering Ron Paul's known views, as demonstrated above and elsewhere.

Of course it is Medved who practices the Marxist-collectivist "guilt by association" smear tactics. This kind of smear will certainly continue and increase as Ron Paul becomes more and more a threat to the warfare/welfare-ism of what passes for the Republican establishment.

Jewess Charen's concluding remark about "Branch Dravidians" shows both fear and arrogance. Interesting.

MP3 of Jamie Kelso responding to jew Medved:

http://www.stormfront.org/audio/stormfront_radio-jamie_kelso-response_to_medved-10-29-07.mp3

November 14, 2007

The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

By Andrew Walden

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

I'm not familiar with this Andrew Walden - does anyone know if he's a jew?

In any case, this thread is for everything - all jews denouncing Ron Paul, and anyone else linking Paul to nazis/Whites etc.

I believe that Jamie Kelso went to high school with jew Medved out in California. Their class was written about in a book that came out years ago.

The Kelso stuff is great!

Regardless if you find him a bit Panish, as he can be, that's just his type, and he certainly isn't that way on this broadcast. He's a very smart guy, and we need a lot of those to defeat the jew.

That was a great gambit by SF to send Ron Paul $500. I don't half wonder if we shouldn't do the same ourselves.

I accidentally posted this twice, and then deleted both of them, but I re-did it.

November 15, 2007
Website claim: 'Jews for Ron Paul' a fraud
Found Here (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/website_claim_jews_for_ron_pau.html)
Thomas Lifson [Who is DEFINITELY a JEW that writes on the ISRAEL FORUM (http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=1109740)
The website Sultan Knish claims the group "Jews for Ron Paul" is a fraud. These are serious charges, and the documentation behind the unclear to me, so I urge the blogger in question to go into serious detail on them on the IP address tracing or other methods he used to make these claims:

Jim C. Perry, the Executive Director of Jews for Ron Paul and heavily featured as the spokesman for the front group. Like many Jews for Jesus figures, Jim C. Perry claims to be an Orthodox Jew. [....]

The real Jim C. Perry though is not an Orthodox Jew, though he makes a point of dressing up like one until he's virtually a cartoon. He's gay and a self-identified Churchgoing Unitarian Universalist. Here he identifies himself as a Seminarian. He has another account where he calls himself Reverend Jim C. Perry H.P., M.D.A. (he also claimed to have a doctorate in English which he apparently modestly left off here all at the tender age of 22) and a Pagan Minister. Briefly he appears to have gone Ward Churchill and began calling himself Jim FlyingEagle. (He may have also used James L. Rush and posted at Cherokee Pride as James L. Rushing River pretending to be Cherokee)

Now Jim C. Perry, Gay Pagan Unitarian Minister (possibly also Cherokee and Mormon), thanks to a few photos in costume, is being passed off as an Orthodox Jew. A clear and unambiguous lie. Like everything else in the Ron Paul campaign, Jim C. Perry and Jews for Ron Paul is a lie.

Under the user name XSOIDEI, J
if the charges are false, I hope the campiagn will rebut them. But if they are true, they add yet more disturbing questions.

---------------------------------------------------------
A day later this was posted:

2007-11-16
The few, the proud, the Jews for Ron Paul
By Beth Young, Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Found Here (http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=18512)
Jim Perry, a 22-year-old Libertarian, made a name for himself in college when, shortly after moving to New Hampshire to live free or die, he strapped a gun to his side and marched into a local Borders book store and proceeded to rip up a copy of his Massachusetts income tax return.

That sort of fighting spirit is a job requirement in his new post: executive director of the group Jews for Ron Paul.

Paul's candidacy was dismissed early on due to his support from white supremacist, Libertarian and other fringe groups, but the campaign has begun to pick up steam on college campuses and on the Internet, in part due to his staunch anti-war stance.

A longtime Texas congressman, Paul raised $4.2 million on Nov. 5 from 37,000 individual donors who agreed to give as part of a "money bomb" on Guy Fawkes Day, the anniversary of the failed plot of a British mercenary to kill King James I in 1605. In September, he announced that he'd brought in $5.2 million in the previous three months, putting him ahead of John McCain in the Republican money race.

Even as Paul makes headway in some circles, organized Jewish support for his Republican presidential bid is nearly nonexistent, thanks to the candidate's longstanding stance against providing foreign aid, including U.S. assistance to Israel.

And last month, The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) pointedly did not invite him to participate in its candidates' forum. His reported support from extremist groups hasn't helped win him favor among Jews.

Still, Paul commands a loyal, albeit small, Jewish following. This Jewish support has followed the same pattern as Paul's backing from other groups -- coming from out-of-the way places on the Internet and taking mainstream media and political organizations by surprise.

In addition to Perry's Jews for Ron Paul, there is Zionists for Ron Paul -- an outfit launched by Yehuda HaKohen, an American immigrant to Israel, and some of his friends back in the United States.

Some of Paul's Jewish supporters believe that it would be best for Israel if the United States kept out of Jerusalem's affairs. There are also those who believe that American aid to Israel is dangerous because it feeds the perception that Jews wield too much influence over U.S. foreign policy.

"Many of us believe the current relationship between the United States and Israel is a very unhealthy relationship, like that of a man and concubine, or a slave and master," HaKohen said.

While traveling from Washington to New Hampshire to campaign earlier this month, Paul provided a statement to JTA explaining his position on Israel.

"I support free trade and friendship with all nations, meaning that my administration would treat Israel as a friend and trading partner. Americans would be encouraged to travel to and trade with Israel," Paul said.

"Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war."

In fact, combined U.S. aid to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and other friendly Arab nations is roughly commensurate with the $2.4 billion military aid package Israel currently gets.

"We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington," he added.

Paul is an obstetrician from the small town of Lake Jackson, Texas, who served in Congress in the 1970s and 1980s as a Libertarian, then worked as a doctor before returning to Congress in 1997 as a Republican. He's fiercely pro-life and opposed to gun control, believes American monetary policy must be reconnected to the gold standard and advocates an isolationist foreign policy.

Paul's campaign manager, Lew Moore, deflected questions about Paul's support from neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups

Ron Paul's Jewish Problem
Daniel Sieradski, November 9, 2007
jewcy article found here (http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/ron_pauls_jewish_problem)
Daniel Sieradski JEWY-JEW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sieradski)

Ron Paul has a Jewish problem.

Last month, the dark horse Republican candidate was barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Candidate’s Forum due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel.

Typical of his view, at an event on September 11 of this year at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies, Paul argued for withdrawing from the Middle East, telling his audience that “Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself” — though interestingly adding that US policy has “hurt Israel tremendously.” Paul also downplayed the threat Iran poses to Israel, saying that even if Iran does develop nuclear arms, that it would not be a serious danger to Israel, which, he added, possesses roughly 300 nuclear weapons of its own.

Paul’s position towards Israel is not innately anti-Jewish, nor is it necessarily even anti-Israel — particularly with such a caveat about America impeding Israel’s interests. Such a statement lends weight, for example, to Zionist extremists who wish to terminate Israel’s Herodian dependence on the US, such as the members of Zionists for Ron Paul, a group run by American expatriates now living as religious settlers in the West Bank.

Nor is it a particularly uncommon position, especially within paleoconservative circles. Pat Buchanan led the charge in March of 2003, writing in The American Conservative that neoconservatives participating in and advising the Bush administration were steering the United States into wars that were not in America’s interests, but rather Israel’s.

Now fed up with the neocon’s wars abroad and the diminishing of civil liberties at home, many conservatives are rallying behind Paul, whom they view as the only Republican candidate who isn’t in the pocket of the Israel lobby. They have helped him become an Internet sensation — the Republican Howard Dean, if you will — who in the last quarter raised over $5 million, outpacing more mainstream candidates like John McCain.

Even with his hardline protectionist stance, Paul has managed to garner the support of Jewish Republicans and Libertarians alike, some of whom have banded together to form an ad hoc coalition called Jews for Ron Paul, which condemned the RJC’s decision to bar the Congressman from their Candidate’s Forum.

Yet, much to his Jewish supporters’ chagrin, Congressman Paul’s willingness to stand up to the neocons has also had the effect of making Paul a popular candidate among those from whom Presidential candidates would typically not desire support: Bona fide antisemites.

Indeed, Ron Paul has become the most popular candidate among right-wing extremists, including white separatists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists who believe that “the Zionists” were behind 9/11. This group includes Frank Weltner, creator of the antisemitic website JewWatch.com, who in a YouTube video, accuses the “Zionist-controlled media” of attacking Paul’s candidacy. Paul has also received favorable coverage from the Vanguard News Network, a White Nationalist news organ, members of Stormfront, an online neo-Nazi community, as well as the National Alliance, the “mainstream” White Nationalist group featured prominently in Marc Levin’s 2005 film Protocols of Zion.

Of course, Congressman Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of his extremist supporters, unless he publicly acquiesces to those views. Yet, when his extremist supporters begin providing a substantial amount of campaign funds, things get a bit dicier. And that’s Paul’s biggest problem.

According to the Lone Star Times, White Nationalists have become a noticeable source of financial contributions to the Paul campaign. Indeed, even Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, and one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in America, has personally contributed $500 to Paul’s campaign.

Though it’s true that Paul’s campaign has no control over who sends them money in advance, once it becomes apparent that a neo-Nazi leader is sending money, any sensible politician who does not wish to be identified with neo-Nazism should send the money back. Not so for Ron Paul, however, whose campaign is still making up its mind as to whether or not to return Black’s money.

Paul’s spokesman Jesse Benton told the Lone Star Times:

At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black’s contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days.

Frankly, this is a no-brainer. Any other candidate would unequivocally reject that money as soon as its donor’s identity was known. That Paul’s campaign needs time to think about it is shocking.

Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview.

Which leads me to conclude the following about the Congressman from Texas: Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews.

in the middle of the above article: "Even with his hardline protectionist stance, Paul has managed to garner the support of Jewish Republicans and Libertarians alike..."

This guy let this one slip! LOL This should BLATANTLY tell us that jews are AGAINST Americans being "protectionist". Why would they be against something like that? Of course we know the answer: They want America to be a mongrel, ethnically diverse "nation" that by virtue of being a melting pot is unable to muster any kind of threat to them and their tyranny, and ULTIMATELY to drive the whites into extinction willingly, with a docile and complacent attitude.

The Jews' Ron Paul Problem

The jews have a Ron Paul problem.

His call to end foreign aid and restore free association would wreck their plan to destroy America for Israel's benefit. To make sure he never gets the chance, jews across the spectrum have come together in an undeclared war to destroy his reputation.

The Jews' Ron Paul Problem

The jews have a Ron Paul problem.

His call to end foreign aid and restore free association would wreck their plan to destroy America for Israel's benefit. To make sure he never gets the chance, jews across the spectrum have come together in an undeclared war to destroy his reputation.

Alex, I don't think we've seen anything yet, and suspect they're holding back until they get forced into a full court press because of the traction that he's having. Once the media can no longer avoid him, then we'll see the fireworks fly...:mad:

Ron Paul's only REAL opponent
Ron Paul's Only REAL Opposition | podblanc

Alex, I don't think we've seen anything yet, and suspect they're holding back until they get forced into a full court press because of the traction that he's having. Once the media can no longer avoid him, then we'll see the fireworks fly...:mad:

Yes. It's our job to make sure the American public understands the real forces doing battle: JEWS vs. WHITES.

There's a veiled war going on. We must strip the veil.

Why settle for some withered old man to represent our powerful race in abstract and individual terms?

If grandpa can do it, what about all us strapping 20-40somethings?

Ron Paul's only REAL opponent
Ron Paul's Only REAL Opposition | podblanc (http://podblanc.com/node/10162)

What did he say his name was? Can we get some information on this guy?

What did he say his name was? Can we get some information on this guy?

YouTube - JTF (Marbus exposes Chiam Ben Pesach of Terrorisim)

Yes. It's our job to make sure the American public understands the real forces doing battle: JEWS vs. WHITES.

There's a veiled war going on. We must strip the veil.

Why settle for some withered old man to represent our powerful race in abstract and individual terms?

If grandpa can do it, what about all us strapping 20-40somethings?

Since they are most likely going to kill him, I think Ron Paul is being a good Grand-dad by paving the way for us. He is not scared in the slightest...he has 18 grandkids right...his genes are protected. I think that this is his swansong and he knows it.

If they kill him things will get crazy. We all feel it...we all know things are going to be...well, we all know. And after this thread has many pages, we'll be able to trace jewish responsibility back step by step, word by word.

What did he say his name was? Can we get some information on this guy?
If you go to podblanc and click on this movie, the comments section has a lot of info thanks to Craig's research.

In the Kikepedia article written about the organization "Jewish Task Force" [JTF] that he is the leader of, it says something very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Task_Force

JTF, like all other extreme right wing organizations, are considered racist due to their firm belief in the absolute correctness of their views, and the supreme authority with which they express their opinions on current events. This "chosen-people" inspired feeling of supremacy manifests itself in the many invectives against Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam, Illegal Aliens and their protectors, Croatians Neo-Nazis (Ustaše), Bosnians, and Arabs. JTF refers to Palestinians as "PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis" [9] and to black muslims as "unspeakably evil Amalekite beasts" [10]

Like there's any philosophical difference between JTF and any other jewish org. They ALL believe jews are superior to everybody else. They ALL believe the rest of us are animals at their disposal.

What did he say his name was? Can we get some information on this guy?His name is Chaim Ben Pesach (birth name Victor Vancier), a convicted Jewish (Kahanist) terrorist. I posted one of his anti-nigger rants in an FTL chatroom a few months ago.

The best way to pronounce his name (and many Hebrew names, for that matter) is to pretend you're hacking up phlegm from your throat while you're saying it.

Like there's any philosophical difference between JTF and any other jewish org. They ALL believe jews are superior to everybody else. They ALL believe the rest of us are animals at their disposal.

Indeed. It's not too often that Kikepedia will allow this kind of "vitriol" to be spewed at jews. They must have allowed it in order to separate themselves on the surface from the extreme views for the lemming-goy, yet all the massive amounts of evidence for their deeply reprehensible and sociologically fatal ethnocentrism reveals blatently that they agree with this "organization's" intensely stated view.

Graphics I found...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/Daniellemd/ron-paul-08.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/Daniellemd/pic_11922056724865.jpg

Besides the obvious give-away that Mr. Leslie "wayne" writes for the Jew York Times, every other article this guy writes is in some way involved with jews. For example, scan the results of the following:
[Google "Leslie Wayne" + jew, or just click on this] (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22Leslie+Wayne%22+jew&btnG=Search)
or
Google "Leslie Wayne" +jewISH, or just click on this] (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22Leslie+Wayne%22+jewish&btnG=Search)

One can see quickly by adding all of the above together that if this man is not jewish, he at least has to be an appeaser of the highest order. Although I could not find a biography or wikipedia article on him anywhere, the feminine first name and could be an indication that he is. Also, the last name being "Wayne" could be an indication since jews typically change their last names to anglo-saxon sounding first names to cover up their ostensibly jewish family lineage, such as the case with Bob "Dylan" and Ralph "Lauren" who are Robert "Zimmerman" and Ralph "Lifshitz" respectively.

Below, in blue, are some especially subliminal tactics that make Ron Paul look like he is stiffing his supporters, with the very subtle implication that there is some apathy due to the greedily hoarding of money.
November 20, 2007, 12:44 am
Ron Paul’s Tight-fisted Campaign
By Leslie Wayne

Jew York Times Political Blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/ron-pauls-tight-fisted-campaign/)

Voters looking for a candidate who will be tight with their money might have found their man in Ron Paul, if campaign spending is any indication. At the moment, Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, is rolling in cash. He already had raised $5 million this year when a one-day Internet drive tied to Guy Fawkes Day on Nov. 5 brought in another $4 million.

Yet, spending is another matter. As of earlier this month, Mr. Paul’s campaign had spent only 46 cents for every dollar raised, compared to most campaigns that spend whatever comes in. Where other campaigns freely give out yard signs, posters and other handouts, the Paul campaign tells supporters to make their own or buy them from the campaign — at cost.

Originally, this was born of necessity as Mr. Paul started out in January with just $25,000. But it has since helped generate grass roots involvement by supporters, who design and print up their own Paul promotions. Even a large pro-Paul billboard strategically placed outside the Des Moines airport was designed and paid for by a supporter, not the campaign.

“They call us and say, ‘Can you send me 20,000 handouts,’ ” said Kent Snyder, campaign chairman. “I tell them we can’t afford it and to do whatever they want.”

The campaign has been running television advertisements in New Hampshire, and more media spending is on the way. Supporters, though, have another one-day Internet fund-raiser planned for next month.

Now this article is not RIGHT IN YOUR FACE SMEARING, but the undertone is definitely present. Especially if someone who barely knows about Ron Paul comes across this little blurb in between huge three page articles about jewliani or mitten romeny, they will store it in their brain as a "I wonder what he is upto" kind of thought, rather than being amazed at the Ron Paul supporters ABSOLUTE WILLINGNESS AND DEDICATION which makes them pay for the sign's and such.

Here's something KIND OF interesting I found:

Bill Clinton, Kanye West -- and Ron Paul -- are among GQ's men of the year

There he is -- the only current presidential candidate in the mix.

Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been awarded one of 36 "men of the year" honors from GQ magazine.

He gets his for being "dark horse of the year."

It took a while for us to find him at GQ's Web package on the honorees. If you open up the "rundown of this year's big winners" or click on the "slideshow" line, his photo comes up as No. 57 of 59.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton says in a statement that the candidate "is humbled and honored."

The cover subject and biggest winner of the "big winners" is, as had been widely reported, former president Bill Clinton.

USA Today Blog Article (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/bill-clinton-ka.html)

I looked up the term "Dark Horse", and there is a kikepedia article that gives credit to the first use of it to none other than Benjamin Disraeli, the father of Isaac Disraeli, whom Ramsay repeatedly mentions in "The Nameless War":

A dark horse candidate is one who is nominated unexpectedly, without previously having been discussed or considered as a likely choice. Often a dark horse is selected as a compromise when other, more prominent candidates' factions cannot come to an agreement. This metaphoric expression originally alluded to an unknown horse winning a race and was so used in a novel by Benjamin Disraeli (The Young Duke, 1831). Kikepedia Article Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_horse)

I wonder why they call him a "dark horse"? Hmmm.

I'm not familiar with this Andrew Walden - does anyone know if he's a jew?

I believe Walden is a jewish name.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot."

It would be dumb for a politician to reject anyone willing to contribute to his or her campaign.

I believe Walden is a jewish name.

Yeah, it is.

All of this from RonPaul2008.com: (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)


Many of you have called and emailed the campaign asking for a defense against Mona Charen's column last Friday. Our Communications Director, Jesse Benton, has done just that and issued a letter to the editor that appeared yesterday in the National Review Online.

November 20, 2007 1:00 PM
Ron Paul (And Mona Charen's Column)

To the Editor:

I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.

1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.

2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.


Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.

Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.

"Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits"

Hmnn....88
coincidence? or "secret" nod?

Paul's Supporters Clash With Media
By AMY SCHATZ
November 24, 2007; Page A4

Article Here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html)

Early Halloween morning, "Taco John" posted a message-board call to arms: "Baltimore Sun Hit Piece...TAKE ACTION NOW!"

The paper's political blog had an item marveling at how Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had raised more money than "better-known Mike Huckabee, who is taken more seriously." Taco John took to an Internet forum frequented by Paul supporters, providing a link to the offending item, as well as phone and email information for the newspaper's public editor and advertising department. "They're trying to pigeonhole us," he wrote. "If we don't fight back, they'll keep doing it."

Taco John, the online moniker of Isaac Lopez, a 32-year-old technology marketer in Vancouver, Wash., is one of many cyber-soldiers for Dr. Paul, the Texas congressman, gynecologist and vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. The Paul brigade has largely drawn attention for its fund-raising prowess, raising a record $4.2 million online in a single day in November and leaving the 72-year-old politician with more cash on hand than several rivals and a $1 million TV ad budget for New Hampshire. But some Paul supporters are displaying an aggressive side that seems to spill beyond advocacy into harassment of those who disagree or fail to show Dr. Paul sufficient respect.

Taco John, for example, posted contact information for a university professor who called Dr. Paul "unqualified to be president." He also provided information on how to reach several reporters with whom he quibbled, as well as the Iowa Republican Party after it helped set rules for a debate -- later canceled -- that could have excluded the low-polling Dr. Paul.

Taco John -- the handle comes from Mr. Lopez's appreciation of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway and tacos -- is a neophyte activist, who says he was inspired by Dr. Paul's libertarian platform.

Some blogs have booted Paul supporters for leaving incendiary comments. They have also been frozen out of Internet surveys and accused of electronic ballot stuffing; Dr. Paul rarely loses online straw polls even though he barely registers in national telephone polls. His supporters argue that they win online polls because there are more Paul supporters and they're better organized.

Many of Dr. Paul's supporters say they're simply fighting a media and political establishment that won't give him a fair shake. The big Nov. 5 "moneybomb" fund raiser was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day and inspired by the 1980s comic-book series "V for Vendetta," in which a vigilante in a Guy Fawkes mask wages war against a totalitarian British state.

The Paul campaign has also drawn support from antigovernment fringe groups and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Since mid-September, a large "Ron Paul for President" banner has flashed at the bottom of white-supremacist Internet forum Stormfront.org. "Really, we haven't seen a candidate like Ron Paul in some time. The closest would have been Pat Buchanan" in 2000, says Don Black of West Palm Beach, Fla., the group's founder and a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, who donated $500 to Mr. Paul's campaign.

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.

Mr. Benton declined to make Dr. Paul available to comment. "Sometimes, Ron Paul supporters get a little overpassionate and maybe a little more shrill than what some might like," Mr. Benton says. "For the most part, our supporters are polite and mannerly." He has his own conspiracy theory: Some other candidates' supporters may be masquerading as Ron Paul supporters to hurt his campaign.

The impassioned campaigning threatens Dr. Paul's efforts to convince undecided Republicans that he appeals to more than antiwar libertarians and fringes of the Republican Party.

"Basically, it got to the point where someone could put up a post saying they were going to the bathroom, and a dozen Paultards would comment, 'Vote for Ron Paul while you're there,' along with another dozen warnings of the Zionist conspiracy in the toilet," says Erick Erickson, founder of popular conservative blog Redstate. A month ago, the site banned posts from some Paul supporters, branding them "MoRons."

Afterward, the site was "deluged" with comments and "swarms and swarms" of hate mail, Mr. Erickson says. He changed the site's phone number, and says other blog owners have contacted him seeking advice on discouraging Paul supporters from posting.

Cris Vanricma of Ludington, Mich., removed Dr. Paul from his bipartisan presidential poll, StrawPoll08.com, after receiving nasty emails from some Paul supporters, contending some polls that Dr. Paul wasn't winning were rigged. The 31-year-old Web designer made a blanket offer: If the messages stop, the congressman goes back on. So far, Dr. Paul remains off the poll.

With issues like the Iraq war and civil liberties at stake, some supporters argue that now isn't the time for half-measures. David Chesley, 33, of Van Nuys, Calif., put his law practice on hold so he could support Dr. Paul. Mr. Chesley says he was attracted by the congressman's views on protecting the Constitution after what he considers President Bush's assault on civil liberties since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "I have an obligation to make this my full-time job," says the former Democrat. "All I do every day is go on the Internet or make phone calls or email the media."

When he felt the media paid too little attention to the Nov. 5 fund raiser, Mr. Chesley, who posts as "RP2008" on a Ron Paul message board, was furious. On Nov. 9, he urged others to "ceaselessly bombard" media outlets. "You need to organize, call, boycott, protest and sue the media that is lying to us, and if you don't, it is your own d- fault if Ron Paul loses," he wrote.

Some Paul supporters preach restraint. "I cannot stand to read another reporter/blogger complain about how they have received profane/threatening/intimidating responses from Ron Paul supporters," wrote "Hestia," a frequent poster on the Daily Paul, a popular pro-Paul site. "Sending hostile and abusive emails will not win supporters or encourage bloggers or reporters to write positive articles," Hestia adds.

Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Jamie Kelso and Mike Medved both went to school together when kids. Many years ago Medved did write a book about his childhood and an entire section was about Jamie Kelso. This was before Kelso became well known.

Here's something KIND OF interesting I found:

Bill Clinton, Kanye West -- and Ron Paul -- are among GQ's men of the year

There he is -- the only current presidential candidate in the mix.

Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been awarded one of 36 "men of the year" honors from GQ magazine.

He gets his for being "dark horse of the year."

It took a while for us to find him at GQ's Web package on the honorees. If you open up the "rundown of this year's big winners" or click on the "slideshow" line, his photo comes up as No. 57 of 59.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton says in a statement that the candidate "is humbled and honored."

The cover subject and biggest winner of the "big winners" is, as had been widely reported, former president Bill Clinton.

USA Today Blog Article (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/bill-clinton-ka.html)

I looked up the term "Dark Horse", and there is a kikepedia article that gives credit to the first use of it to none other than Benjamin Disraeli, the father of Isaac Disraeli, whom Ramsay repeatedly mentions in "The Nameless War":

A dark horse candidate is one who is nominated unexpectedly, without previously having been discussed or considered as a likely choice. Often a dark horse is selected as a compromise when other, more prominent candidates' factions cannot come to an agreement. This metaphoric expression originally alluded to an unknown horse winning a race and was so used in a novel by Benjamin Disraeli (The Young Duke, 1831). Kikepedia Article Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_horse)

I wonder why they call him a "dark horse"? Hmmm.

Abraham Lincoln was called a dark horse in 1860. I'll check some old history books for an original source, if you don't find one first.

Jamie Kelso and Mike Medved both went to school together when kids. Many years ago Medved did write a book about his childhood and an entire section was about Jamie Kelso. This was before Kelso became well known.

Yeah, this is the way to backstab a worthless jew, Medved! LOL! Yeah, right on!

The thing to remember here is not that RP has a chance of being President. He will be destroyed one way or another. Think of it this way--the guys pulling the strings of the Federal Reserve aren't just going to let some elderly libertarian waltz into DC and expose the largest financial scam in the history of mankind, not to mention the fact that the Jews aren't going to let Iz go down because a few million 'Kwans got uppity with where their tax dollars go and 'lost their nerve' in the battle with Israel's enemies. Of course, he knows this.

Still, we should be thinking along the lines of how to tailor our moves before, and especially after. My guess is that we have a couple dozen X thousand RP die-hards who are mostly male, and still have some faith in the political system. The outcome of RP's campaign needs to be seen by us as a "teaching moment" for these people, to show that the system can't be changed because the system doesn't want to be changed and will muster its full capacity if it must in order to resist that change.

The people who print the dollars are in collusion with the people who print the papers, and they're not about to let the peons off the plantation without a fight. I don't know if they're going to do the job in broad daylight as with JFK, or through media as they did with Howard Dean, but we must be ready to "jam" the lines with blogs, broadcasts, demonstrations, rallies, and more as a way of realizing Jew Chertoff's nightmare of internet users "self-radicalizing."

"The thing to remember here is not that RP has a chance of being President. He will be destroyed one way or another."

If Ron gets destroyed, there will be guns ablazing. Ever wonder why the jews want to ban guns in Washington, D.C.? Oh yeah, it's all coming together.

[QUOTE=Alex Linder;665354]I'm not familiar with this Andrew Walden - does anyone know if he's a jew?...QUOTE]

If he's not, he's missed a good chance to be one. Here's another hit piece of Ron Paul by him published today:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_odd_alliance_supporting_ro.html

November 25, 2007
The Odd Alliance Supporting Ron Paul
By Andrew Walden
"Watch what you write ‘cause American Thinker is taking your excerpts"
Here and there, the mainstream media is noticing the disturbingly enthusiastic support coming Ron Paul's way from distateful quarters. In a November 20 column titled "Ron Paul isn't that scary", LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg calls stories about Ron Paul's racist and 9-11 troother supporters "overblown", but he does let slip the following:

"Republican consultant David Hill condemns the candidate's ‘increasingly leftish' positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul ‘too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists.' Film critic and talk radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds ‘an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white Supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.'"
Goldberg is the exception.

GQ magazine just named Ron Paul one of its "Men of the Year." Yep, the man described on the website of ex-KKK honcho and convicted fraudster David Duke as "our king" is now officially a male trend setter.

Molly Ball November 20 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal swoons:

"He (Paul) is a grandfather crowd-surfing on a youthful wave. The purity of his message, he said, has combined with young people's natural idealism, with the Internet catalyzing the reaction."
And no, that is from a news article, not an opinion piece. Ron Paul is nowhere in the polls, so primary states are hopeless. But Nevada is a "caucus" state where Democrats and other Ron Paul nuts dream of mobilizing hordes of surrender monkeys to swamp the real GOPers on January 19th. (Which would also help Hillary Clinton by reducing the turn out for Barack Obama on the Democrat side.)

The Paulistinians are cheered by coverage such as the Las Vegas paper. On Ron Paul's national Meet-up site, a poster identified as "Steve Martin" calls media coverage of Paul's Las Vegas rally "awesome." "Steve Martin" is a Maine Ron Paul supporter with over 3,000 Ron Paul Meet-up posts whose on-line bio identifies him as "911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review." The Barnes Review is a Holocaust denier magazine founded by Willis Carto who also founded the American Free Press and the Institute for Historical Review.

It gets weirder.

The Communist Party organ, People's Weekly World, imitates Ayn Rand, asking: "Who is Ron Paul?" Their answer:

"Alone among the Republicans, he opposes Bush's wars and occupations abroad. He absolutely despises ‘so called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO and CAFTA.' He wants to stop the NAFTA highway. He condemns government spying on the citizenry, and would like to overturn the Patriot Act. He seems to support Social Security...." Do you feel the love?

The Communists crow, "Ron Paul of Texas is driving some of the other Republicans crazy...." They make some mild criticism of Paul's position on the gold standard, but don't say even a single word about Ron Paul's KKK supporters or racist statements tied to Paul. These are the same Communists who regularly call George Bush a fascist.

The CPUSA shacking up with Ron Paul is not new. Here is an article quoting Paul favorably for his (failed) effort to block US support to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution (thus helping Russia, always the key to the CPUSA's positions). A search of the PWW archive shows several other articles favorable to Ron Paul.

(An alliance of communist and fascist is not unprecedented. After forming the August 23, 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, Poland was divided. Hitler then had an easy time defeating a French army whose enlisted men were thick with communists under orders from Stalin's Communist International not to fight and whose officer corps was infested with fascists. The alliance ended June 22, 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Now the Communists are again allied to the fascists both American and Islamic. I wonder what the late W.E.B. DuBois or Paul Robeson would say about their comrades' new KKK buddies?)

With the media flacking for Ron Paul where it counts-in caucus states-one might expect the Paulistinians to all be as thrilled as Martin is, but they aren't. The MSM no longer has a media monopoly. A Google search of Ron Paul KKK now finds 371,000 hits. Ron Paul supporters [more like ADL & SPLC watchdog infiltrators] on Meet-up are ratting each other out to the Meet-up admin (a private company not part of the campaign) which has banned some them for writing racist or anti-Semitic material.

One Ron Paul meetup discussion thread reads: "Watch what you write cause American Thinker is taking your excerpts." Underlining the fact that the Paulistinians' banning each other are engaged in a cover-up, not a clean-up.

Capping off the farce is the presence of Martin the self-identified Barnes Review writer and 9-11 trooth researcher who pulls himself away from articles proving Auschwitz was a health spa or something in order to helpfully suggest, "If Will said ‘niggerberry,' that's enough for me. I wash my hands of people who are that insensitive to what harms others..."

Political correctness has even reached the Holocaust deniers.

Martin then says: "I am also no longer a ‘supporter' of the AFP (American Free Press), though I will read it if someone gives it to me. They do report a lot of stories way before anybody else." Martin continues:

"For the record, Willis Carto, in my opinion, goes too far in blaming the ‘Jews,' and does not do enough to educate his readers about: 1. other elements (like the oil magnates--especially the Rockefellers--the British crown, etc.) in the global conspiracy. 2. the important difference between the vast majority of good, hard-working Jewish folks, and the tiny extremist Zionist minority."
Martin also points out an error. He did not run for US Senate but rather the Maine State Senate. This is the first and only error of fact identified in my entire 3,500+ word article: "The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters" which ran on American Thinker November 14 and now appears on about 140 websites .

Apparently that is good enough for the Paul supporters who are teaming up with Meet-up administration to boot racists who are too stupid to keep their mouths shut from Paul's Meet-up campaign. "White Will" "Glenn Miller" and others who admit some affinity for David Duke have suddenly been "disappeared."

Check out this exchange:

Theresa: "OMG, I see former member all over the place, with 600+ posts down to the 50+ posts. Are they all leaving (or) getting booted?"

Steve Martin: "Could some of them be exposed infiltrators getting out while the getting is good?"
Is it a Jooish neo-con conspiracy to "plant" fake Nazis on the Ron Paul meet-up board? No, the headline of the (now buried, available only in cache) discussion board? "Neo-Nazi Conspiracy to subvert Ron Paul meetup groups exposed." The Paultroons can spot a Zionist gang wiring explosives in the World Trade Center from 1000 miles away, but they didn't notice the ‘conspiracy' behind postings like, "Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?” - and hundreds of other anti-Semitic comments spread all over the internet by Paul supporters.

Will "White Will" Williams, author of the "Jewish Masters" post is a well known as the former Southern coordinator for the National Alliance Party. He is not the fake Jooish Nazi of Paultardinian delusion. As "White Will" (now listed as "former member, Mountain City, TN") helpfully explains: "BTW, I first learned about Dr. Paul reading The Spotlight tabloid, predecessor (SIC) to the American Free Press, 22 years ago. So did hundreds of thousands of other patriots over the years." I bet he still "reads it if someone gives it to him."
Some are a bit less dishonest about this. As a poster identifying himself as "Douglas Jones" explains: "We don't want racists having the ability to post extremely damaging headlines." Exactly. But their money is welcome. And so are their volunteers.

Will it work? As Steve Martin and someone named "Jim :[] InLisle" team up to boot him, "Glenn Miller" explains his history:

"founding and leading the largest active white civil rights group on this continent in the past 30 years then paying the price with 3 years of my life in a Zionist Occupation Government prison cage, running for public office 4 times including for governor of the rebel state of NC, driving an 18-wheeler coast-to-coast, making and raising 5 beautiful European American children, and now working for Dr Ron Paul for president of the United States ??? I disavow none of it. And ‘reform', you say ?? Ha. You must be nuts. I've just begun to fight."
Was this the same "Glenn Miller" who was subject of a nationwide FBI manhunt in 1987? Quote:

"Federal agents began searching for Mr. Miller on Friday when they obtained a letter to white supremacists calling for ‘total war' against the government, blacks and Jews."
Is that why he spent "3 years of (his) life in a Zionist Occupation Government prison cage?" Move along, nothing to see here. In sharp contrast to the invective Ron Paul supporters dish out to anybody not toeing their line on the internet, "J Smith" of Honolulu offers this to Miller:

[Note!: there is a good chance that "J Smith" of Honolulu, who claims to be Oriental, and Andrew Walden are one and the same man]

"...the hatred because of the color of another person's skin, IMHO, is wrong....It was hatred that destroyed Adolph Hitler....I wish you good luck in your journeys through life."
It was also hatred that created Adolph Hitler, but I digress.

It's not over yet. Paul supporters are petitioning Meet-up admin to restore Williams' account. They are led by David Sadler, a losing 2002 candidate for US Congress in Illinois District 12. Just days after kicking Williams off, Steve Miller signs the petition to put him back. Sadler explains his opposition to the ‘neo-cons' thusly:

"the suicide bombers are defending their nation and region from foreign invaders with space-age weaponry."
I'm sure the residents of DuQuoin, Illinois are very proud.

Meanwhile the neo-Nazi Stormfront site has updated to link to Ron Paul's next big fundraising day, December 16. Readers can find the announcement right below a link to "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting" with another Ron Paul link and then directly to the KKK website which has a third Ron Paul link - directly from the KKK to his official campaign website. The "Brotherhood of Klans" and invites readers to, "Discover what Ron Paul has done as a Congressman. Imagine what he will do as President." A right click on the article headline brings a popup message which says it all: "Property of BOK Knights of the Ku Klux Klan."

Anyone think GQ, the Las Vegas Review and Journal or the Peoples Weekly World will pick this up anytime soon?

Andrew Walden is editor of Hawai`i Free Press in Hilo.

The fact that the Jewish media came out so strong to condemn Paul was what finally made up my mind about supporting him.

He is definitely the non-kosher candidate. As far as I can tell the ONLY non-kosher one.

List your links in here.

Jews are coming out of the woodwork to denounce Ron Paul because his positions threaten them, albeit indirectly. Let's use this thread to link to articles by jew columnists such as Mona Charen and Michael Medved to demonstrate to our fellow awakening Aryans that the jewish connection is crucial. Jews irrespective of political position hate Ron Paul, because his policies are as bad for jews as they are good for Whites.


I doubt Joshua Holland is a Jew, but he sounds like one, a worried one, here:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/69139/?page=entire

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.

I doubt Joshua Holland is a Jew, but he sounds like one, a worried one, here:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/69139/?page=entire



I betcha Joshua Holland IS a Jew(by his first and last name). Joshua or Josh is not only used by Jews, but since it is Hebrew and with a Yiddish surname, that brings me to conclusion.

Here is a Jewish Supremacist by the name Adam Holland who criticized my blog.

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-911-truth-movement-leader-working.html

I betcha Joshua Holland IS a Jew(by his first and last name). Joshua or Josh is not only used by Jews, but since it is Hebrew and with a Yiddish surname, that brings me to conclusion.

Here is a Jewish Supremacist by the name Adam Holland who criticized my blog.

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-911-truth-movement-leader-working.html

Joshua is definitely a Jew name (from the Hebrew Yehoshua: G*d is salvation), but there are a lot of us goyim answering to Josh and Joshua thanks to our thoroughly judaized parents. I guess I'm influenced by the all-American Holland boys I grew up with who were anything but Yids.