Blog Archives

Ron Paul Appears on ‘The View’ and Gets Grilled on Abortion Position…


Ron Paul wasted no time crossing the writer’s picket line to defend his anti-abortion position on the daytime talk show, The View…and he took a verbal beating while he did it.

“I don’t think we’re ever going to reach a stage where there will no abortions,” Paul said, before indicating he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Paul also repeated his position on state governments having the right to decide for themselves, “But I want to sort this out the way the constitution mandates, and that is at the local level.”

Ron Paul, a former OB-GYN, said his anti-abortion position was based on his view that a fetus was a human being with the same rights as any other person, just as he advocated personal privacy that would not give people the right to commit murder. Based on this, he does not view a woman’s claim to her own body as superior to the fetus’s right to life.

“It’s a legal position because I honor and respect the rights of the mother. I don’t want any government in your home: no searches without warrants, no cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.”

Paul is the first candidate to appear on the popular daytime talk show since a writers strike began last month. Democratic candidates have said they would not cross picket lines to appear on The View while the strike persists. However, Paul did.

That speaks volumes on his position dealing with organized labor (post for another day). 

Paul’s and all the other candidates who have taken the – let’s-push-the-abortion-issue-onto-the-states, position, fail to understand one basic idea, and that is that the abortion issue has traditionally been used as a wedge issue to divide the electorate with the hope of distracting us from the unabated corruption that is perpetuated by both parties, and that most people know better. In fact, the only people that still seem to give a shit are the radical Christian right, and they’re a bit ignorant and naive anyways in my opinion (i.e. murdering abortion doctors, trying to convince people that the founding fathers were pro-religion and pro-God in government, etc.) 

If the test to see if you are a true liberal is woman’s right to abortion no matter the circumstances, than I guess that makes me conservative too! Can’t people just use birth control? The ‘pill’ can be gotten anywhere for free along with a ton of other free services for both men and women who are sexually active. I mean let’s be real here – they practically give condoms out like candy in most schools around the country. So what’s with the single moms with three kids by different dads?

Laziness I think. 

But the central problem with Paul’s position is that society has always acknowledged that compromise is necessary in circumstances such as rape and health concerns. Paul doesn’t buy into that, and that’s where he is wrong. In modern times there is birth control, contraception, day after pills, in addition to traditional abstinence. If you can’t handle the responsibility of having a child than you should be able to figure out how to avoid that possibility. However, if you are raped, why should you be held accountable? 

The fundamental flaw in Paul’s thinking and in the thinking of other anti-Supreme Court conservatives who claim that ‘liberal’ judges are legislating from the bench,  is that no United States court has ever legislated anything…ever…really! It is traditional in an adversarial legal system as we have in the United States, that the judicial branch is to determine the ‘constitutionality’ of our laws. This is what they did with Roe vs. Wade. They did not write a new law; rather, they interpreted the permissibility of existing law in the light of what the Constitution says. Seeing guys like Thomas Jefferson have been worm dirt for a few hundred years and we really cannot ask them how they feel about the issue in a modern context, we are forced to rely on the courts. Pretty simple really.

With all that being said, I think Roe v. Wade is on pretty sound legal footing. We do have the right to privacy even though it is not explicitly spelled out, and abortion rights should be based on this ideal as well as a woman’s right to bodily integrity. 
Abortion is not a big deal to me. 

I think the question we need to ask is – Why do we live in a world where we feel we might need to kill our children in the first place? Paul, nor do any other Conservatives, address this.  


For the Record…Who is Eric Dondero?



In light of some fairly harse accusations regarding Eric Dondero, former Congressional aide to Ron Paul, that have been posted on our comment threads, I felt it necessary to reprint a post that he authored. The following provides some background on Ron Paul and Eric’s own position. 


Reprinted from 

My name is Eric Dondero Rittberg.  For 12 years I worked on and off, mostly on, for Ron Paul.  I started on his staff in 1987 during his Libertarian Party Presidential campaign.  I served throughout 87 and 88 as his Personal Travel Aide.  Ron and I campaigned in over 40 states, including Alaska.   

In 1992, I organized Ron’s Presidential Exploratory Committee.  We operated the effort for about 4 months.  We aborted the effort when Pat Buchanan declared for the GOP primaries. In 1995, Ron agreed to serve as my “boss” as National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus.   

In 1996, Ron decided to test the waters for a Congressional Campaign.  I moved to Texas and served as his Campaign Coordinator.  Ron won first in the Primary and then in the General with 51%. 

In 1997, Ron hired me as his Senior Aide and District Representative.  My job title was to represent the Congressman at all functions throughout the District, to speak in his absence, and to handle all District Scheduling.  I was also in charge of Local Governmental relations.   I served in that capacity til February of 2004.  I can honestly say that the Congressman was more than just my boss, he was also my friend.  We had a good understanding, after years of working together, and were very good Travel mates. 

Him and I would literally spend hours in the car traveling from one event to another, during campaigning and for District events.  We would debate everything under the sun, in a friendly and fun sort of way.  Our differences were always over abortion – I am Pro-Choice, he is firmly Pro-Life, and over foreign policy – I am Pro-Defense, he has always been more Non-interventionist.  But we always maintained our friendship.   

Then September 11, 2001 hit.  My boss, Ron Paul, all of a sudden changed dramatically.  Whereas before he was a reasonable non-interventionist, he was now rabidly so.   

I must say that Ron always knew how to play the game before 2001.  He always campaigned as a die-in-the-wool rock-ribbed Conservative Republican.  Coming from the Libertarian Party there was always suspicions about him on this.  So, he went the extra mile within the District to allay such concerns. He also campaigned as a “Bush Republican.”  I recall two specific events when Ron publicly backed Bush for President, quite enthusiastically; Once during a big GOP dinner in Wharton, and another time during a Bush for President fundraising in Corpus Christi.  He also had Bush’s photo on the wall at our District Office in Freeport.   

I should also note that I personally spoke with Karl Rove twice in 1996.  After Ron won the GOP Nomination, mainline Republicans were unsure as to how to treat him.  We reached out to the Bush people.  After my conversations with Rove, he put out the word to key Houston-area, Austin and Victoria Republicans to back Ron Paul.  All of a sudden like a tidal wave all the GOPers came on board our Campaign.    

Though privately, Ron leaned non-intervenionist, publicly he was always Pro-Troops, Pro-Veterans, Pro-Defense and quite Patriotic, particularly in his Campaign style.   He made extra sure to attend as many Veteran’s events as possible.  And when he couldn’t go, he would always send me, as the only Vet on staff to represent him.  He always made it quite clear that I was to emphasize “my views on foreign policy” more so than his non-interventionist views at such events.  And I did.   

But after Sept. 11, things changed.  He became morose.  He became bitter, and quite pessimistic.   I had to literally beg him to support the vote authorizing the President to send Troops to Afghanistan.  I actually threatened to resign if he did not vote that way.  And another key District Staffer, practically threatened to resign, as well.  At the last minute  Ron voted in favor of the Authorization.  I suspected he only did it, cause he knew if he hadn’t he would cause the Republicans in the District to oppose him, and he wouldn’t win reelection.   But 9/11 served as a wake up call for me.  I started questioning how it is that I could work for such a man.   

Before it was always just a fun-loving disagreement; debating in the car from event to event to pass the time. Now, I saw he was quite serious, and cared even less for how others, even constituents took his views on foreign policy.Ron and I grew apart.  I served as his Travel Aide less and less in 2002/03.   

Finally one day in the Summer of 2003, he called on me to accompany him to an event in Victoria.  He was acting quite strange in the car.  He kept prodding me on foreign policy.  I knew he was trying to get me to debate the War in Iraq with him.  But I kept my cool the whole trip. Finally, when we reached Victoria, I made a slight comeback, that I didn’t think his particular view on the War was correct.  He jumped out of the car and lunged at me. Poking his finger into my chest, he looked me in the eye and said, “I will have nobody working for me on my staff who supports the War in Iraq, even you.”  I’d only seen this look on Ron maybe once or twice in all my 12 years working for him.  He was clearly quite angry with me.   I knew he was trying to provoke me so that he could have justification to fire me.  But I kept my cool.   

For 6 months after than we didn’t speak.  Finally, Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo suggested that Ron and I not talking to each other was not helpful to the “atmosphere” in the District offices.  I offered to my friend Tom to resign.  We discussed a date, two months out, and a compensation package and I agreed.   I’ve been asked by others if my former boss is an Anti-Semite.  My answer is an emphatic NO.  I am half Jewish.  I am familiar with Anti-Semites.  Ron is not one of them. 

But I would say he’s very insensitive to issues concerning Israel and for other concerns of Jewish Americans.   Houston Jews were always suspicious of Ron Paul.  But Ron could always point to me as his “Jewish Staffer.”  He would even send me to Synagogues in the District and to  Jewish events.  But I do remember one time, when a group of Houston Jewish Young  Republicans wanted to lobby the Congressman on some issues.  I begged Ron to meet with them.  He was very hesitant.  He finally agreed.  But the meeting turned out to be a disaster.  The Jewish YRs came all the way from Houston, and all Ron did was berate them in our District Office about how the Israel Lobby was too powerful in  Washington, and other issues.  He also got defensive when the Jewish YRs expressed concern over Palestinian violence against Israel.   I ran down the hallway after the meeting chasing the group, and apologized profusely to them.   After 9/11 Ron also became much more upfront in his anti-Israel views.  He’d even criticize Israel in public speeches which would make me cringe.   

Ron Paul and I agree on about 95% of all domestic issues.  We disagree on a myriad of foreign policy and defense issues.  Still, he was my boss.  He was paying me, so I was obligated to toe the line. This is not why I think less of him today.  

Rather, what concerns me most was the fact that for many years he played both sides of the aisle.  In the very Conservative South Texas CD, he was always Mr. Red, White, and Blue.  If he couldn’t make a Veterans event, he made damn sure that his one Vet on staff could go, even if it was just 8 VFW guys meeting for a couple hours 3 hours drive away. Ron was very careful to portray himself in the District as Pro-Troops, and even Pro-Defense.   

But after 9/11 and most especially after the War in Iraq, he played up his non-interventionist side to a national audience.  This while still keeping the facade of Pro-Troops/Pro-Defense in the District.  As late as last year I got a constituent mailing from RP with 4 pages of nothing but Patriotic/Pro-Troops/Pro-Veterans information from the Congressional office.  I suspect the reason why RP has gone south on foreign policy for the national audience is simple: To gain more dollars from a National fundraising base, and to gain more National media attention from Liberal media sources.     


Ron Paul Excluded from Iowa Debate Due to Low Polling…


 The Iowa GOP has decided to exclude Ron Paul from their debate on December 4th because Ron Paul’s polling numbers are simply too low. Using a 5% polling threshold for participation in the next debate, the Iowa GOP has determined that Paul does not qualify…and his supporters are swarming as usual… 

From the USA Today

The Iowa Republican Party put out an advisory Tuesday setting standards for participation in a Dec. 4 debate it is sponsoring with Fox News. The phone has been ringing off the hook ever since.That’s because the sponsors said participants need to average 5% support among Republicans in recent national or Iowa polls—and so far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the candidates not making the cut.

News of the party’s decision and how to protest it was spread quickly over the Internet by supporters of the anti-war, anti-tax, anti-abortion libertarian. “We are getting bombarded” with calls and e-mails from Paul’s supporters, said GOP spokeswoman Mary Tiffany. She said there were 25 voice mails from angry Paul supporters before the start of business Thursday.

“I’m all about the First Amendment, but at the same time, how is this productive?” she asked. “They need to start calling voters and start door-knocking instead of calling the Republican Party of Iowa.”

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and California Rep. Duncan Hunter also fall below the 5% threshold at this point. Tiffany said Thursday there had been a few e-mails from Hunter fans and no word from anyone about Tancredo. No campaigns have objected so far, including Paul’s, she said.

In’s latest averaging of national poll results of Republicans, Paul’s support comes in at 2.7%. The website calculates Paul’s support among Republicans in Iowa, based on polls there, to be 3.8%.

Ron Paul Has Shown Himself to be an Anti-Semite and a Racist…


For all those on the fringe, including white supremacists I hear, who are getting really excited about anti-war, libertarian Republican Ron Paul, it’s worth noting that he’s is nothing more than a racist and anti-Semite hiding behind Constitutional rhetoric. Of course this makes sense as well seeing our founding fathers were racists as well. You remember that whole 3/5 of a person thing…right? 

Mr. Paul once wrote that “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism. (ref. Wonkette)

These and many other racist comments, some veiled, some not, have been out there since the mid-1990s, but Ron Paul has been below the radar until now. The problem for him now is that his fringe supporters cannot un-ring the bell, and they get downright snooty when the issue comes up. If Ron Paul is going to stay in this fight then debate moderators should press him on a few of these ramblings…

The blog Wonkette quoted a 1996 story in the Houston Chronicle about a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter:

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined to criminal behavior and lacking sense.

For instance, on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented:

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

Paul is also quoted as saying…

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

In that same 1996 AP story, Ron Paul said his 1992 comments were taken out of context.

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul said this week. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.

He also wrote:

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

I guess meaning the other 95% don’t?

I have not been shy about the fact on this blog or my radio show that I believe many Republicans are racists by default anyway. Ron Paul is trying to cover his racism and anti-Semitism by back peddling during campaign stops and claiming that the Constitution dictates where he stands on race.


Paul is a good old fashioned country boy from Texas and if he had his way, we would have Christian theocracy, a white landscape, no Jews and a full scale retreat to Jacksonian ideals. His social conservative agenda is dangerous and outdated. Turning backward will not solve the complex problems that face our nation today, only level headed, progressive, common sense policies in the areas of international trade and domestic policy will help us out of this current funk. Three out of the last four presidents, all Republiacn handed us the hand we have now by the way…do we really need another one, moreover…this one? 

One can only hope Ron Paul’s effort fizzles with white supremacists and fundamentalist Christians. I believe we need a long overdue break from that crowd.

Some Twisted Humor for Friday…

I enjoyed this. Maybe you will too. 


You have to wonder what some people are thinking…

Ron Paul…Constitutionalist or Just Another Christian Fundamentalist Nut?


I do not support Ron Paul. In my eyes he is akin to so many other, few-sandwiches-short-of-a-picnic social conservatives that seem to travel through life wearing horse blinders while they’re busy thimping a bible. All the symptoms are there. He talks of crazy conspiracy theories, thinks theocracy can work in America, and prides himself on being a Constitutional expert. So, I checked some of his writings, only because his name has popped up a bit more than usual this past week due to his increase in fundraising.  

How well does he know the Constitution you ask? He wrote this:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

“Replete with references to God?” That seemed odd to me, so I checked it out. By the way, replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So…how many times is God mentioned in the Constitution? Roughly about zero. I confirmed that fact by visiting Ron Paul’s own congressional website where he has posted a copy of the text. If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, just do a page search for “God” and you will be bombarded with all zero results that are returned. 

Jefferson himself was lukewarm on the teachings of Christians and had little compassion for priests. Jefferson believed he was a Christian only in one sense, that he thought the moral teaching of Jesus made sense. I tend to agree with him. He did not believe in prayer, divine revelation, the trinity or the resurrection..and all this is documented in case Mr. Paul wants to check it out. However, right wing lunatic Christian fundamentalists are busy pushing their their view of American history in order to fit their theocratic brainwashing agenda. To this end, as his writings suggest, Ron Paul is willing to contribute. 

I must assume Ron Paul has read the constitution. Why lie? He brags about his in depth study of the Constitution. He has the Constitution on his website. So why claim that it is filled with references to God when there is not a single mention of God anywhere in the document? The answer, concentration of political power around the Chritian right with an eye on imposing their theocratic agenda on this country…no matter what it takes – lying included. 

The problem with Ron and all the other Christian fundamentalists who yearn to control government is that their views are rigid and their agenda reactionary. They simply do not critically analyze things and think through the consequences of their actions to the logical conclusions. A few examples…

If Roe v. Wade was overturned, as Ron Paul and other Christians would like to see, what would happen to all those seeking abortions? Answer – they would still get them…1920’s style – in some store front backdoor clinic or by some quack in their own bedrooms. Of course death rates among these women would skyrocket, but hey, all is good in the name of Christ. How about a return to strict constitutionalism? Well, I guess that means we bring back slavery. Ron Paul is so in tune with the founding fathers, then he must know most owned slaves. You can also kiss the U.S. Federal Reserve System goodbye, all social safety nets enacted during the New Deal, the U.S. Tax Code and everything it funds, the U.S. Highway System…I could go on but why waste any more time. The mere thought of all this is shear lunacy.  

It is well know by the liberal bloggers that Ron Paul’s cult (and that is exactly what they are) spreads vicious rumors around the Internet with the goal of boosting him and his Christian revisionist lies, while ambushing anyone who disagrees with him, labeling those people socialists and liberal conspiratists. He is also up in the fundraising race because other like minded Christian-Jesus-Freaks are fueling his hateful and deceptive message, much the way they fueled another liar…George Bush. If America has an ounce of brainpower, they will avoid Paul and the like during this and every other election cycle. I’ll stick with candidates that actually think before they speak…thanks.

Too bad we couldn’t reincarnate Jefferson.

People Watching at Starbucks…


Okay kids, pay attention, this is important life learning you will not get anywhere else.

I have a theory.

After visiting my local Starbucks and eavesdropping on conversations, I have concluded there is an indisputable link between coffee, politics and sex. To support my theory, I have devised a coffee-politics-sex matrix that allows the causal observer to identify ones political and sexual orientation by simply observing how random people order their coffee.

Anarchist > Espresso > Asexual

Radical > Black Coffee > Heterosexual -or- Homosexual

Liberal > Cappuciono w/Straw > Gay

Centrist > House Blend > Heterosexual (Not monogamous)

Conservative > Maxwell House w/Viagara Pill > Closet Homosexual 

Libertarian > Vanilla Steamer > Only one gay encounter in college

Christian Right > Water > Hard to tell…wasn’t allowed to attend Sex-Ed class

Know anyone who fits these??? I do. 

Powerful stuff my freinds…powerful stuff 🙂

Jesus Siting at Wal-Mart…


Wal-Mart is set to release a new Jesus Christ action figure into select stores. You knew this was coming. My question is, next to Spiderman and Superman, what kind of “action” would a Jesus action figure do that would appeal to violence addicted kids? Let us examine the situation.

The new Jesus doll wears a white robe, and has Kung-Fu grip. He doesn’t come with loaves and fishes, he apparently doesn’t perform any miracles, and he has no weapons (because Jesus is anti-violence and anti-killing for that matter…remember?) So in order to actually use the Kung Fu grip he’ll have to steal a sword or machine gun from another figure…oops, wait a minute…thou shall not steal either? Boy this is rapidly evolving into a marketing nightmare. 

He’s 12″ tall, so he’s compatible with dolls like Barbie and G.I. Joe, but he can’t date Barbie or fight G.I. Joe? So what will he do exactly beesides be ‘Jesus?” Turns out he talks via an embedded computer chip and he says Jesus-like-things, for instance, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Swingers will love that. Maybe you can simply have him be the perpetual martyr. You can have GI Joe beat the crap out of him constantly while Joe calls him a lefty loon and remind him that the ‘REAL’ Jesus is in favor of the war in Iraq…just ask the Republicans. He could tie Jesus to the back of his jeep and drag him around Texas to make his point I suppose. Come to think of it, maybe Jesus should just keep his mouth shut altogether. 

I’ve got it! They can make Jesus a campaign toy for the 2008 election. You could press his forehead and he could try to convince future voters that the Republicans really are compassionate instead of the narrow minded racists that they really are. Or maybe they can just simplify the speech feature to some catch phrases for American kids with short attention spans like, “9/11 bad!”, “Globalism good.”, and “Terroists everywhere, beware!”

As long as Jesus keeps his mouth shut, you can enage in all sorts of good old fashioned anti-Muslim fun. How about pretend Jesus has actually enlisted in the army, to fight side by side with G.I. Joe as he uses divine powers to make the American army invincible (because we all know the U.S. government and Christians are right and the rest of those people who live in the sand are wrong.) Maybe you could pretend that terrorists have kidnapped Jesus and use that as a news story, written by Barbie of course, to promote the struggle against fundamentalist Islam. If he was lucky enough to not get dead, he could maybe hook up with Barbie and learn to drive the convertible or crash at the beach over some wine and complain how all the 7-11 stores are owned by Muslims. Now that I think about it, the possibilities are endless. 

The Pit and the Viper…

In a recent proposal by President George W. Bush, he has suggested a new Amendment to the Constitution that will resolve the entire Iraq quagmire which he and his personal God, “Cheney” got the nation into in March of 2003. This amendment is based on the Biblical paradigm of the “Viper in the Pit”. The story goes that once upon a time, in a land far far away, a man was walking in an isolated desert, and came upon a very deep pit in the sand. Upon getting closer, he heard desperate cries of help, and so he went over to the pit and saw a Viper which was trapped in the bottom of this depression. Well, lo and behold, when the Viper  saw this man, he begged the man to please save his life by helping him out of the pit. Otherwise said the “Pit” Viper, I will surely die. The man felt sorry for Little Pit, but decided to take precaution since he knew that this was a sand pit-viper, which is known to be an extremely poisonous snake capable of inflicting death within minutes after a bite. So … the man negotiated a deal with the viper that if he saved pit’s life by taking him out of the pit, the viper would not harm the man. The Viper, seeing that he was against a rock and a hard place, agreed to the resolution, and thus the man did what he promised on his end, and saved the snake’s life by fishing him out of the pit. Within seconds after being saved, Petey the Pit-Viper turned and bit his savior. As the man was lying and dying, he asked Petey why he had gone back on his word, and violated their joint-agreement, upon which Petey answered by saying, ‘You knew what I was when we made a deal, so why are you surprised with this outcome. Now the moral of the story, on which President Bush’s proposed amendment is based on. He {Bush} compares himself with the savior, while the Pit-Viper represents Saddam. However, because of the divine powers with which George claims to be blessed with, he plans on reversing the outcome of the biblical paradigm, and therefore the outcome of the war. He [Georgy} figures that when the story is changed to one in which the saved pit-viper being gracious and thankful for his life befriends the Man who saved him and they both live happily ever after, then the ending will change and the Iraqi outcome will change along with it. But, the catch is that first, Congress and three-fourths of the nation’s governors must help to ratify Amendment number 28, which when ratified will serve to reverse the US shorcomings in Iraq thus far, because St. Bush, who has a direct line to the Almighty, as he claims he does, has prayed for this to come true, and the Creatore has answered his call. To be continued.Posted by O.K. 03/14/07