Blog Archives

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

ronpaul.jpg

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.  

Advertisements

Here’s an Article We Pulled From White Supremacist site ‘Stormfront’ in Support of Ron Paul…

ronpaul_flag.jpg 

Is Ron Paul the One?

Do patriotic White Americans finally have a candidate they can vote for without fear of being sold out again? The Bush family has proven itself the equivalent of political toxic waste. The Bush family supports Open Borders and sees nothing wrong with filling America up with Mexicans. Bush Junior’s occupation of Iraq has cost the Republicans control of Congress. Many Republicans would like to see a complete change of direction. Ron Paul has been consistently against the Iraq War and he also supports securing the Mexican border.

One right wing web site reports that Ron Paul went from relative obscurity to a double digit lead after the first Republican debate in an MSNBC online poll. Jim Capo reports “Now in 2007, Ron Paul comes along last week and gives by most accounts of honest grassroots Americans the best performance in the first televised debate between GOP presidential contenders. Exclusively broadcast by MSNBC, Ron Paul led MSNBC’s post election poll from start to finish with nearly a double digit margin over his nearest challenger Mitt Romney. An even more crushing defeat of the rest of the pack occurred in an ABC News poll which at first had been posted on-line with only nine names on it — Ron Paul’s being the one missing. Irate Paul supporters who complained in the poll’s comment section at first saw many of their posts ominously deleted — some no doubt for language, others for editorial discretion bordering on the c word (censorship). After someone posted in the comment’ thread the cell phone number of a Senior VP at ABC News, the Paul name was added to the poll.”Admittedly the first Republican debate had a small audience. Most people have gotten sick of the “lock step” Republican support for the Iraq War and didn’t watch the debate assuming the candidates would be all the same. Most Americans didn’t know Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq. Still, it’s extremely significant that Ron Paul could jump ahead of the entire field based on a single performance. It also proves that the two biggest issues in 2007 are immigration and getting out of Iraq. Ron Paul is on the right side of both of these issues while the other Republicans (except for Tancredo on immigration) are falling short. If anyone can gain a great deal of momentum through the debate process, it’s Ron Paul.

Just a few weeks ago it looked as though we were going to be stuck with a liberal Republican in the form of Rudi Giuliani or Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney is famous for changing positions on key issues like abortion while Giuliani is famous for changing wives. No true conservative Republican wants anything to do with these two east coast liberals.

Romney’s net worth is estimated at being in the hundreds of millions. No doubt he is part of the New England country club elite that includes the Bush family. Someone should carefully check his stand on gun control since these New England elite types tend to sell us out on that issue.

The 2007 election is especially important because Hillary Clinton or the stealth candidate Barack Obama could easily be running. The Republicans need a rock solid candidate who will get us out of the Iraq War and secure the Mexican border if they hope to win. Any “compromise candidate” who wants to continue the Iraq War indefinitely is NOT going to win the hearts of the American people.

There will be more debates ahead and if Ron Paul continues to win the hearts of ordinary conservatives, he will survive the early culling as Romney and Giuliani finally face a serious challenge. Americans want to see a populist candidate, who is right on the key issues, defeat a system-approved candidate like Romney who showed up with his giant bags of money or the ridiculously overrated Giuliani who was mayor of one of the most liberal cities in America.

By: Charles Coughlin

Looks like the Nazi’s have their guy huh?

For the Record…Who is Eric Dondero?

eric.jpg 

 

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 Townhall.com 

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’s Jewish Problem…

 ron.jpg

People seem to think Ron Paul has a Jewish problem…and maybe he does. 

At an event on September 11, 2007 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.

His subtlety is what bothers me.

Given that Israel is armed as Paul suggests, really doesn’t seem to present a problem…or does it? 

Paul’s position towards Israel is not innately anti-Jewish, nor is it necessarily outwardly anti-Israel. In fact, Paul’s position is not particularly uncommon, especially within conservative 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. 

Yet, much to his supporters’ dismay, Paul’s willingness to speak out against U.S. policy regarding Israel has effectively made him the sweetheart among those whom Presidential candidates would typically not desire support: white supremacists and anti-semites.

The Internet is filled with data that indicates 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. Among these people are Frank Weltner, creator of the anti-semitic website JewWatch.com, who in a YouTube video, accuses the “Zionist-controlled media” of attacking Paul’s candidacy.

Paul has also received support from the Vanguard News Network, a White Nationalist news organization. Then there’s the members of Stormfront, an online neo-Nazi community. 

Of course, Congressman Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of his extremist supporters. Yet, he isn’t exactly doing anything to distance himself from them. For instance, when his extremist supporters began providing a substantial amount of campaign funds, his campaign has a habit of not returning the funds. 

According to the Lone Star Times, White Nationalists like Don Black have become high profile donors to the Paul campaign. Black, the founder of Stormfront, and one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in America, has personally contributed $500 to Paul’s campaign.

To date, there is no conclusive evidence showing the Paul campaign has returned the money.

Paul’s campaign has no control over who sends them money. However, wouldn’t it make sense that if you do not wish to be identified with neo-Nazism, that you would send the money back? 

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

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.

I believe any other candidate would unequivocally reject that money as soon as its donor’s identity was known. Why not return the money immediately?

On October 26, nationally syndicated talk show host Michael Medved posted an open letter on TownHall.com that read: 

Dear Congressman Paul:
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
 

Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?
 

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press-a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto.  His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.
Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?
 

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?
As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?
Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.
 

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved received no response to the letter from the Paul campaign.

There is even evidence that suggests Ron Paul is anti-semitic on Shadow Democracy’s comment threads. A person by the name of Eric Dondero, who identifies himself as a former Ron Paul staffer wrote:

Ron Paul, my former boss, is not an explicit Anti-Semite, but he is most certainly anti-Israel and one could make a strong case – outright anti-Jewish.

During my 6-year stint with him, I served as his only Jewish staffer. He regularly touted me as proof against allegations that he wasn’t an Anti-Semite, even one time ordering me to wear Jewish clothing and attend a press conference of his Democrat opponent who was exposing his links to Anti-Semitic groups. I felt used.

(For the record, Ron did not know I was Jewish until I had already been hired.)

Ron and I finally departed ways, partly because I was ashamed to work for such an explicitly anti-Israel advocate.

If you still doubt his anti-Jewish/anti-Israel views, ask yourself this question:

Why is it that when Ron Paul talks about the evils of taxpayer dollars going overseas for foreign aid, he only singles out Israel as a recipient? Why does he never mention the billions we send each year to Egypt for foreign aide? Turkey, the Palestinians, other Nations? Never a peep out of Paul about those dollars. It’s just always the “Jews.”

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

He comments in a second post:

In fairness, the comments about Blacks being “fleet-footed” were written for Ron, though published under his name in his Ron Paul Newsletter, by his Top behind the scenes aide Lew Rockwell.

But the other comments about Israel being the most powerful lobby, were definitely Ron Paul’s words. In fact, I’ve heard him say similar comments on numerous occasions, some far more explicit, to private quasi-Anti-Semitic groups… the Jewish comments are very accurate.

Check out Eric Dondero’s website here: http://mainstreamlibertarian.com/_wsn/page5.html 

So what are we left with? Is Ron Paul anti-Jew? The facts posted in the article seem to suggest that. How extreme are his views and can the nation take a chance on electing him to find out? His fundraising is on the up-swing and his poll numbers are climbing. Some polls have him as high as 16% in New Hampshire.

I contend that Ron Paul is merely being coy regarding his racism towards Jewish people and indeed, people of color. Couple this with his many other extremist views, as well as massive support among racists of various stripes, and you are left to ask yourself – is this a guy who we should be considering on any level for the Presidency?

Based on this information, I say absolutely not. 

Ron Paul Excluded from Iowa Debate Due to Low Polling…

 baby.jpg

 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 Pollster.com’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%.

Theives Not Related to Ron Paul Campaign Caught – Paul Campaign Returns Funds Totaling $3000.00…

bio_sh2.jpg

Overseas theives have been identified as the donors to Ron Paul’s campaign using stolen credit cards according to Frost Bank.

Investigators at Frost Bank discovered that the stolen cards were being used to make $5 contributions to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, in an apparent attempt to test the cards, as previously posted on this blog. Frost Bank refunded money from nearly 100 customers and canceled all 500 of the credit cards that had been stolen from the bank. The Paul campaign has told news sources it has refunded all stolen funds back to the bank from the stolen cards, which amount to about $3,000, considerably more than the figure of $60.00 originally being tossed around and flippantly dismissed by Paul supporters.

Kerri Price, assistant director of communications for the Paul campaign, noted that the donations from the stolen cards represent “a very small percentage of money that was brought in.” She also stated that, “We don’t know anything about the criminals that did this.”

In fact…no one does.

The tactic of ‘test charging’ used by these criminals as confirmed by investigators, is a fairly common tactic among identity thieves, also previously noted on this blog.

Another Ron Paul spokesman, Jesse Benton, emphasized, “Ron Paul does not have anything to do with this.”

This is clearly the case, now that all facts have been presented and confirmed.

As I indicated in my last post and several times in the comment thread – no one ever accused Ron Paul or his campaign of being thieves. That is simply foolish. No serious presidential campaign would ever engage in such activity. But the question put forth in my last post on this issue still remains…who are these people and are any of them possibly inside or close to the Paul campaign? No one is explicitly or implicitly saying they are, but the question does need asking. Were they just fanatical, misguided supporters? Grass roots campaigns are virtually impossible to police, and as of today, no one knows how these thieves got these numbers, where they got them from, or why they were used to donate funds to Ron Paul. The Paul campaign claims they know nothing about these criminals, and I tend to believe them, but others aren’t so easily convinced.

One of the Frost Bank customers, Christine Horton, who had her I.D. stolen is quoted as saying, “He’s getting money, stolen money…Whether he’s affiliated with it or not, I have no clue. But it’s too fishy.”

Horton’s suspicion may be relevant.

Why steal credit card information and donate it to Ron Paul’s campaign? Is the status quo, pro big-government establishment, or perhaps another campaign, as suggested in the comment thread by Paul supporters, willing to commit fraud and be jailed for a felony simply to discredit Ron Paul – using stolen credit cards to do it? Is the anti-Ron Paul element that dedicated to pushing Ron Paul down by any means possible? Maybe so, but the whole ordeal seems odd to me.

Maybe the issue here is simply people not paying attention as usual. How many of the tens of thousands of donors actually check the URL carefully for accuracy before providing their credit card information to the Ron Paul campaign? Were these people duped into visiting a ‘phishing’ site by criminals and that is how their numbers were stolen? Do they have a person inside Frost bank? What assurance do any donors have that the Ron Paul campaign or any other presidential campaign for that matter, does not store credit card information in a database on someone’s laptop that could be stolen at anytime?

While the paul campaign has one of the most comprehensive privacy policies of any campaign and does scan its donation site with Hackersafe to ensure there are no intrusions, these aforementioned scenarios are all valid and open to discussion.

People must realize that presidential campaigns, and if you have ever worked on one you would know, are pretty loose knit operations. For instance, presidential campaigns are not subject to the same rigid credit card security regulations that online retailers like Wal-Mart.com or Borders.com are subject to. Those businesses must carry a substantial credit card security yoke to remain industry compliant. A political campaign site? Not so much. In fairness to the Paul campaign, this is not the first and certainly will not be the last incident of this kind in the world of political campaign contributions.

I only hope that the Ron Paul crowd knows what they are doing. That originally reported $60.00 that Ron Paul supporters were casually dismissing just days ago, morphed into $3000.00 pretty quickly, and could have evolved into something much larger still, given the right set of circumstances.

I remain steadfast in my advice. Be careful when donating to Ron Paul or any political campaign when using a credit card. PayPal, pre-paid debit cards, and money orders are valid and safer alternatives.

Ron Paul Campaign Supporters Possibly Stealing Credit Card Numbers to Boost Fundraising???

id0123.jpg

Proof has surfaced that the Ron Paul campaign received monies from people resorting to some unscrupulous donation tactics – in short, credit card theft.

According to Jaye Ruffino, a political contributor, identity thieves tried to run a test charge on her account and it was frozen.

“I told them this doesn’t make any sense, because this isn’t a credit card, it’s a check card, and I’ve got plenty of money in there, so what’s the problem?” Ruffino said.

A customer service representative for her bank informed her of a suspicious charge.

The bank representative explained that someone by the name of Ron Paul has been trying to take $5 out of the aforementioned account.

As it turns out, currently unidentified credit card thieves used Ruffino’s card to run a test charge, with the money allegedly going to the Ron Paul presidential campaign fund.

Identity theft usually works this way: Thieves gather up stolen credit card numbers online and run the test charges to see which numbers will work. If the charge goes through, they know they have an active card. Later, the hit the card for more money. It appears that is what happened here.

Representatives for the Ron Paul campaign said they have discovered more than a dozen mysterious $5 contributions in the past three days and said they’re working with banks to return the money.

A representative for the Texas Attorney General’s Office on Friday said these crimes are rarely prosecuted, because by the time thieves are tracked down, they’re often in other counties, and the Web sites are shut down.

We know that there have been campaign contribution improprieties in other campaigns, but those incidents usually involved one large donor. This situation suggests that the Ron Paul campaign cannot be trusted with credit card security or donations from small donors, and appears to be the first time this issue has come up in any political campaign among any of the current presidential candidates.

In the mean time, you may want to think twice before giving your credit card information to the Ron Paul campaign.

If You Had any Doubts that Ron Paul is a Conspiracy Nut, Check this Out…

paul2.jpg

This letter was hand written a few weeks back by Ron Paul as a fund-raising appeal to his supporters. It has been authenticated as genuine…

The original copy is a bit tough to read so we re-printed it for you here…

Dear friend,

Our American way of life is under attack. And it is up to us to save it.

The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they succeed, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ol’ USA will only be a memory. We cannot let that happen.

The UN wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.

Our right to own and use property is fading because bureaucrats and special interests are abusing eminent domain.

Our right to educate our children as we choose is under assault. “No Child Left Behind” is seeing to that. And our right to say “no” to forced mental screening of our school-aged children is nearly gone.

The elites gave us a national ID card. They also gave us the most misnamed legislation in history: The Patriot Act. And these same people are pushing to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and erase our national borders. Record government debt is putting a burden on our children and grandchildren that is shameful.

Yes. Our American way of life is under attack. And it’s understandable that many are concerned, even discouraged, about the kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit.

But we must never let discouragement become surrender.

One reason I am NOT discouraged is because I know I am not fighting alone. Each day I head out I know that you and thousands of other patriotic, freedom-loving Americans are right beside me, standing brave and true for what is good and right.

I need your help now, more than ever, to save the country we love…for the people we love.

My wife Carol and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary early this year. We are proud parents of five children and 18 grandchildren. We love them very much, as I know you love your family.

As a U.S. congressman, I always think about the well-being of my family and of all the families of our great nation when I cast a vote or introduce legislation. I also remember that I have sworn a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.

For me, upholding that oath is the first and best way to preserve and protect the blessed American way of life for our children and grandchildren.

And now you know why I’m running for president of the United States.

Anything else Ron? Maybe lions and tigers and bears!?!

Paul made a few interesting points in this letter but overall..does it get any weirder? At least his grammar was okay.

More Proof Ron Paul is a Racist…

paul2.jpg

To add to my previous post, Ron Paul and his position on racism…

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.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

This explanation is lucid and relevant, but it fails to address the fact that white people enslaved an entire race of black people, then proceeded to systematically rob them of their civil rights and wealth for another 100 years after they were freed! Only in the last 40 years have many people of color been able to lift themselves up economically and socially, as a result of affirmative action and other common sense programs that have averted an all out racial war in this country. The very policies Ron Paul opposes are still needed to battle institutional racism today.

This explanation by Paul might also provide some insight as to why he is the darling of white supremacists.

It’s no secret that until he became the horse for the anti-war crowd, Ron Paul extensively pandered to racists. He’s been endorsed and has ties to Larry Pratt and Pat Buchanan. He has a 100 percent approval rating from the John Birch Society. We have already exposed his newsletter on this blog and the statements that most black men were criminals, welfare recipients or looters. He’s also blathered on about Jews controlling America and Asians embezzling the banks.

At the Storm Front website, a white supremacist web site, and in response to an article from the David Duke website (a well documented racist), racist Ron Paul supporters couldn’t heap enough praise on the man.

Some examples…

Cheimon: Ron Paul would collapse the Jewish infrastructure in this country.

AllWhiteAllRight: Anyone who doesn’t vote for Paul on this site is an ass clown. Sure he doesn’t come right out and say he is a WN, who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we “get there” without having to raise hell, who cares; as long as we finally get what we want. I don’t understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong” is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn’t have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Storm Front, for God’s sake David Duke is behind this guy!

Woodsy: I believe Ron Paul represents a true opportunity for most of America. He’s the real McCoy. A humble, educated, honest and determined man who is a real, patriotic American. You want business as usual? Cast your lot with Giuliani the Mayor of Jew York or Obama the dark horse from Minnesota (?). This coming election represents the Internet vs. the Jew-controlled mass media.

President of Peach: Step foot outside of your cave/basement and start looking at the big picture: Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has for just 10% of its survival, much less America… And how do you know that’s not his priority? Remember: the game is rigged. Paul can’t come out swinging.

Ron Paul on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964…

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

More analysis here…

Ron Paul’s comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are unfounded and a bit foolish.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not drafted or passed to promote racial harmony as Ron Paul claims, it was passed to correct inherent injustices that were leveled at the black population at the hands of white conservatives in the South.

By defending the rights of property owners at all costs, he is implying that people have the right to be racists.

By claiming the act robbed people of individual liberty, Paul reveals his ignorance regarding people of color being able to vote, ride in the front of the bus, use public restrooms, marry white people, own certain properties, or eat at the same lunch counter as white people. I guess none of these things qualify as individual liberties in ‘Ron World.’ No pursuit of happiness here, huh Ron?

More to come on why Ron Paul is not fit for president…

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

bio_sh2.jpg 

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.

Hogwash.

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.

Ann Coulter Proving Once Again Conservative Christians are Racists…

coulterhandsup.jpg 

When is it going to stop? That is to say, when are television and radio outlets going to ban Ann Coulter? Hasn’t the insanity gone far enough and hasn’t this idiot offended enough people? There must be a point where a decision maker somewhere must look at Ann Coulter and realize that the point of diminishing returns has definitely been reached.

This time, Coulter fired at the Jews saying that they should be “perfected” by accepting Jesus and America would be better off if everyone was a Christian.

Perfected in the image of the Christian ideal? Since when are Christians representative of perfection? Most Christians I know are inflexible racists, much like Coulter. They claim they are peaceful and compassionate, yet more have been murdered in the name of Christ than for all other reasons combined through recorded history. In the modern era, Christians have demonstrated their perfection by burning churches, dragging people to death behind pick-up trucks, lynching innocent people simply because their skin color was incorrect, starting wars based on monstrous lies, and murdering abortion doctors. Evidently Coulter is too busy picking out the latest and greatest push-up bra for her next schizophrenic television appearance, rather than engaging in some light historical reading or looking at the paper once in a while. 

A national Catholic organization also criticized Coulter’s remarks. 

“I’m just dumbfounded that a Christian would even say this in America,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United.  Korzen also said it was “particularly dangerous” to be mixing religious conversion with discussions of what it means to be an American, and he said Coulter’s comments reminded him of John McCain referring to the US as a “Christian nation.”

This is not what the founding fathers wanted, no matter how many times fundamentalist Christians try to ram it down our throats. Anyone who has read American history knows better. The problem is I think most conservatives don’t read at all.

“I don’t believe I read anything in the constitution about Jesus Christ dying for our sins,” Korzen said, and he is right. Much like other lunatics, including Ron Paul, Coulter believes that this nation  is inextricably tied to Christianity and that all other denominations are basically inferior, irrelevant, or criminal in their purpose. These fools have conveniently forgotten that the fundamental reason why this continent was settled by Western Europeans was a direct result of religious persecution in their home countries! These comments by Coulter simply reinforce her ignorance and unbridled hubris.

 “We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say,” Coulter said.

Speaking to Donny Deutsch, on the magazine show, The Big Idea, she went on to say, “I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, Rev. Jerry Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is ‘Christ died for our sins,'” Coulter said. “We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.”

I’m having trouble just following that statement based on Coulter’s incoherence. Is she saying that Jews must follow Christian doctrine while their alive? She said she believes that Jews go to heaven anyways, so why are they less ‘perfect’ again?  

Another Catholic group blasted Coulter’s remarks, saying they “show profound ignorance of both religion and American history.” “Ms. Coulter embarrasses Christians with her arrogance and insensitivity,” said Alexia Kelley, Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and she does not speak for those Christians and Jews who struggle together every day for justice and the common good.”

Ann Coulter’s latest insensitive, ignorant and racist comments are indicative of the latent lack of intelligence that plagues all fundamental Christians. Most thinking people are reasonably familiar with American history as it encompasses politics, science, culture, and war, along with the internal dynamic of tolerance that has kept this country peaceful and free for over 200 years. This continual attack by Coulter and other zealots who anoint themselves as the ‘perfect’ and the righteous, as well as experts in the area of Western Judeo-Christian values, are the very same people who are working to destroy the fabric of tolerance within our culture. Much the same way they accuse liberals of being secular humanists, who try to use the education system and the media to destroy Christian values, Coulter and the Christian posse of the ignorant, have a goal of transforming America through its education system, by taking control of colleges, textbook publishers and the media, with the help of conservative state legislatures and the Bush administration. This is evident in a recent push by some Southern school districts to supplement or replace Darwinian teachings with curriculum referred to as ‘Intelligent Design’, and a vote just days ago by the FCC to further relax restrictions on monopolization of media markets by gigantic conservative corporate interests – many of whom are these same racist Christians. 

Christians are deliberately trying to put a strangle hold on our culture by brainwashing youth and destroying their sense of cultural and religious tolerance. They are people who fervently believe, with a religious zeal, in a radically different worldview than the one in which average Americans believe, and one in which this nation was founded and which has underpinned every bit of its moral and economic success.

This is a cultural war between the informed and the ignorant. Coulter’s view is based on faith in a divine creator, and a moral imperative to love and obey Christian doctrine at all costs, even if that means burning the American village to acheive that.

The other view is based on rejection of hatred and ignorance along with tolerance for the views and beliefs of others. People who follow this other world view do not pray on the desperate, not not kill those who disagree with their religious or philosophical views, are not racists, and attempt to advance American culture through mutual understanding, instead of trying to impose the often bizarre and violent teaching of the bible upon us.

In my opinion, Jesus would be embarrassed and appalled by Ann Coulter.

Ron Paul…Constitutionalist or Just Another Christian Fundamentalist Nut?

ph2006070801123.jpg

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.