Thursday, January 24, 2008

The Great Romney "Whisper in His Ear" Puppet Show

UPDATE: Friday, January 25, 2008. A POSSIBLE SECOND WHISPER is discovered! I have added the video of that alleged second whisper below! Y es, that's right, there are now two whisper clips! The first one says "raised taxes" and the second seems to whisper "support." Listen to them both.

UPDATE: Saturday, January 26, 2009. On that first, "raised taxes" whisper, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

In MSNBC Florida debates, when Romney is asked a question about Ronald Reagan - "will you do for social security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983"- you can hear a voice whisper "raised taxes" and then Romney says "I'm not going to raise taxes, what I'm going to do ..."

Watch this video, and listen for the clearly audible whispering voice, telling Romney what to say:



While the above clip replays the "raised taxes" whisper several times, below is a version that plays more of the exchange between Romney and Russert, and it is all the more clear that Romney's entire answer revolves around the catch term "raise taxes," as in "I'm not going to raise taxes, " while Russert uses different language:



Some have speculated that the whisper is a prompt for Russert to add on the rest of the question, "raised taxes," to what Russert said about Reagan, but listen to how incredibly fast the whisper comes after Russert finishes his sentence. Seems mighty fast to have been someone trying to get Russert to finish the question - how does the whisperer know that Russert is done? It sounds much more like a prompt for Mitt.

[Added Saturday January 26, 2008] Additionally, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that "raised taxes" whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is actually "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper is not as loud as the "raised taxes" part, and comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense. It makes far more sense that it was meant for Romney, and Romney alone.


THE SECOND WHISPER!

And now, an additional whisper has been discovered, this time when Romney is responding to Huckabee's question about why Romney supported and signed an "assault weapons" bill while Governor of Massachusetts and said he supported the federal assault weapons ban, and would have signed it's renewal, just as Bush would have (damn good question, by the way). Right in the middle of Romney's response, you can hear someone whisper what sounds like "support."

Here is the clip. Listen very carefully:




Did you hear that? The word "support" is whispered. Is that a prompt to Romney, picked up by his microphone, or is it another microphone picking up someone in the audience, or one of the moderators, as has been asserted by some people in response to the first whisper? Sounds to me like it is a yet another prompt to Romney. The whisper says support, and then Romney says support.

His defenders are decrying all of this as conspiracy theory, and dismiss it as nonsense, saying that it was someone else talking and not talking to Romney. I might have bought that for one whisper, but two? And both related directly to his answer? Come on! This is getting ridiculous.

And what is so outlandish about suspecting that one of the tools up on that stage is wired? Everyone up there (except for Ron Paul, who is his own man and thinks for himself during debates) has handlers telling them what to do and say at every turn. Why would it be such a shock if that was not just happening before the debate, but during the debate? Those men are nothing but mouthpieces anyway. But "they" don't want you to know that!

"They" don't want you to know that the men on the stage are puppets in a friggin puppet show. The puppet masters want you to think that the plastic, dancing Ken doll that is Romney is actually just answering the questions on his own.

New! From Romco! The Mitt Romney doll! You don't need to pull a string to hear him talk, just whisper what you want him to say in his ear, and he repeats it! Every time! Amazing! He'll even act like a real Mormon ... on command! Delight and fool all of your Mormon friends! They'll think Romney hears the voice of God, but they will never know it is really your voice the little puppet is obeying! (Blackwater national security advisor sold seperately).

That the Romney doll puppet is thinking and speaking on his own is all part of the grand illusion, and it just spoils all the fun whenever you see the strings, the bulge in some puppet's back, or hear the whispered answer.

What a shame! It was such a realistic, convincing puppet show! The McCain doll, the Giuliani doll (which comes with a prom dress), the Huckster preacher doll -they almost looked real! That was amazing!
And who can forget the Bush doll with that clever communications pack on its back, hidden under its cloths!


The JulieAnni puppet doll all dressed up in the deluxe queen of the ball ensemble (Jack boots and black leather "freedom is authority" undergarments sold separately).

Politicians have long been called puppets, but most folks took that as a metaphor, not a literal description. Oh, we many, we happy many, we band of suckers, to live in such an age, when puppets walk the earth, talking, blinking their eyes, smiling, and turning their empty plastic heads just like real boys!

Stewart Rhodes



ADDED COMMENT ON THE LDS CHURCH (MORMONS) AND HOW SO MANY SUPPORT ROMNEY

An anonymous poster has accused me of insulting LDS church members by supposedly assuming that they "follow the leaders of the church like sheep."

So, I want to make a couple of things clear. First, I do not think LDS are mere sheep, who will follow whatever the church says. As another commenter pointed out (correcting my error), the Mormon church has issued a statement declaring its neutrality, so there is no command from the church for members to follow, even if they were so inclined. Even before I was clear on that, I knew not all Mormons support Romney.

There are many members who do not support Romney. I am a member of the LDS church myself, though I no longer attend, and I do not support Romney. I support Ron Paul. Further, I know a considerable number of very devout LDS who do not support Romney. Instead, they also support Ron Paul. They consider Romney a wolf in sheep's clothing sent to fool the church.

Watch this video to hear the thoughts on one very strong member of the LDS church, Joel Skousen, speaking to other church members, on why he does not support Romney and supports Ron Paul, and why:



LDS who who do not support Romney are very disappointed in how many LDS do support Romney, despite the fact that he is a big government fake conservative who has supported gun control, socialized medicine, and a host of other very non-conservative positions, and will continue the destruction of our Republic.

Those LDS who support Romney can point to nothing about Romney that would convince me that Romney will be any different than the big government, pro gun control Bush. As Mitt admitted in the debate, he signed a state version of the "assault weapons ban" and would have signed a federal version, just like Bush would have! So, Romney is as at least as soft on gun rights as Bush, and likely even worse! In fact, I see nothing in Romney that tells me he will be any better a defender of the Republic than Harry Reid has been.

One of the things I like most about LDS members is they tend to be staunch constitutionalists, and to have a real reverence for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, it is all the more sad to see so many LDS not support Ron Paul, a man who is beyond a doubt the staunchest, most strict construction constitutionalist since Jefferson. Why do they forsake such a man of principle and devotion to the Constitution?

Part of the answer may be that like other conservatives, they have adopted the Bush Administration, standard GOP establishment views on the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" and just cannot see past their disagreement with Ron Paul on those issues. While I think such LDS are making a grave mistake in doing so, at least that is a reason based on a difference in sincere opinion on what is best for the nation (though still not adhering to the Constitution, in my opinion).

But the tremendous number of LDS who turned out for Romney in Nevada last week, along with what I have heard first hand from LDS members, tells me that foreign policy is not the reason for the support of Romney rather than Paul. For most of those who support Romney, it is simply because he is a member of the church and, for such people, that is all they seem to want to consider. What other reason could there be for the overwhelming numbers for Romney?

Thus, if Romney were not LDS, I think it very likely that Ron Paul would have won Nevada, and likely also Utah. Sadly, in a time when our Constitution is truly hanging by a thread, most LDS are ignoring a man who could throw it a lifeline and instead support a smiling fake conservative with a pair of scissors hidden behind his back.

Stewart

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Neocon Kool-Aid Drinker Gets Torn a New One

I checked out some of the places people have been linking to my post on why so many veterans support Ron Paul, which includes a great video from a currently serving soldier, and came across this gem of an exchange:

BOW'd UP (Kool-Aid drinker who is so afraid of "terra" that he is willing to sacrifice liberty on the alter of security) says:

Wher'd All The Paullocks Go
seriously, whered they all go??????
is the revolution finally over.??

I GUESS THEY FINALLY HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT DEFENDING THE NATION!

And here is the priceless reply from RedFoxx:

All right BOW'd UP, you want to talk about defending the US. Let's talk about defending the US.

Who is the only Congressman to offer a resolution to officially declare war on Iraq? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman to introduce a bill to deny student visas to students from "terrorist" nations? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman to introduce legislation to allow airlines to arm their pilots, which, by the way, would have prevented 911? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman who has introduced legislation to end the practice of birth-right citizenship? That would be Ron Paul.

You Socialist, big government neo-cons that have hijacked the Republican party attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with your Bill Clinton-style, nation building and policing of the world foreign policy as un-American and unwilling to defend the country. It's not going to work with me.

I'm sorry that you're upset that there are at least a few of us left in the Republican party that believe in limited government and believe in a strict adherence to the United States Constitution.

How, sir, is the United States any safer by our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Is it that two billion dollars that we borrow each day from the Communist Chinese in order to build trillion dollar embassies (with 30 foot walls) in the middle of Baghdad that makes us safer? Is it the fact that our trillion dollar per year foreign policy causes us to be faced with massive debt and rampant inflation that makes us safer? Is it the fact that Al-Queda is now stronger than ever that makes us safer?

Is it the weakening of the US dollar due to our overextension overseas that makes us safer?

Or perhaps it's our surrendering of our sovereignty to the United Nations that makes us safer. Let's don't forget that enforcing UN resolutions was one of the main reasons for invading Iraq. I'm sorry that some of us in the Republican party still believe that the US should, and by right ought to be, A FREE AND INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION.

Is it the fact that our borders are wide open? How can you be so scared of a bearded, middle eastern man attacking you, yet you're ok with us securing the border of Iraq, while our very own borders remain wide open.

If you neocons really believed in what you argue (that the Muslims are coming!!), then why are our borders wide open? Why?


Here is the link to that particular post, and here is the link to the whole thread. Very well said, RedFox! So funny, but sad, that so many people think the only way to be in support of a strong national defense is to blindly support whatever war the current president thinks would be cool. There is so much more to national security and defense than blindly continuing on a disastrous course. But such flag waivers rarely have the capacity for rational thought, especially when it is their guy, from their political party, who is in power. Stewart

Monday, January 21, 2008

A Soldier's Revolution - An Iraqi Vet Explains Why He Suports Ron Paul

Below is a compelling, and very well said statement of principle by a U.S. Army E-5, on why he has come to question the wisdom of current U.S. foreign policy and has come to support Ron Paul for President.

It is most certainly worth your time to take a look.


What this soldier says in this video is in accord with my own convictions as a former combat arms soldier and what I have read from the many hundreds of veterans who have voiced their support for Congressman Ron Paul for president. Here are just two examples:
“I unreservedly support Ron Paul for president because he is the only candidate that has kept his oath of office and has promised to do so as president. The least that a soldier should expect from his commander-in-chief is that he is faithful to his oath of office and will not put our troops at risk by sending them to fight unconstitutional, undeclared wars.” Dan Gibson, Combat Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps (1962-1966)

“As a soldier sworn to the Constitution, I cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate for president but Ron Paul. He is indeed the champion of the Constitution.” Arthur Curtis, Army Staff Sergeant, Bosnia (’97/’98), Iraq (’03/’04), and Afghanistan (’05/’06); Awarded two Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Read others here at the official Ron Paul 2008 website.

Here is a page of additional testimonials on a site not associated with the campaign, and here is a page for testimonials from veterans that includes their photos.

The recurring theme in all of those testimonials is that, as soldiers, we all swore a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We took that oath deadly serious then, and we still take that oath seriously now, as former soldiers.


Many people, especially politicians, just cannot understand what that oath means to a soldier or a veteran. Unlike politicians and most lawyers, who merely mouth their oaths of office as part of some mere formality they undergo before attaining their cherished positions of power, soldiers speak that oath knowing they may very well die in fulfilling it. Those men meant it, and they still do in a very primal, emotional, and soul stirring way.

This is something the treasonous, lying pack of wolves inside the beltway had better think long and hard about. For the vast majority of soldiers I have known, the entire reason they joined up was to be a defender of freedom. They knowingly, and willingly, took their place in the long line of men who have volunteered to place themselves in harms way to act as a physical barrier between their families, their countrymen, and whoever would dare to attack them. That line of service stretches back through time, right back to the men who stood their ground at Concord bridge on April 19, 1775 and fired the shot heard round the world.

My father in law, John Adams, was such a man. On December 10, 1941, just three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he lied about his age to join the Marines so he could fight the Japanese in the Pacific. He fought them at Iwo, among other places. Until his death in 2006, he was a dedicated patriot who still took his oath deadly serious.

Corporal John Adams. Note the date of enlistment - December 10, 1941. Now that is what you call stepping up.

Every soldier takes his oath with the memory of those men, and all who followed, in his mind. The whole point of serving is to be a defender of liberty and that is what they thought they would be doing as soldiers.

Those veterans get mighty upset when they find that they have been used for other purposes, even for opposite purposes, by men who have utter contempt for the very Constitution the soldier swore an oath to defend, and countless others died in defending. And when the veterans wake up to the internal enemies of liberty who are far more dangerous than any foreign foe, those vets tend to take it very, very personally. They tend to feel a rage toward those internal enemies that far exceeds whatever they may have felt toward an external foe.

for now, at least, those awakened veterans are channeling their anger and disgust into support for the one man in Washington that they know takes his oath of office as seriously as a soldier does. That man is Ron Paul. The vet knows, from Dr. Paul's record, and from his demonstrated courage, that Dr. Paul is as dedicated to the cause of liberty and the Constitution as he is. The vet knows that Dr. Paul would lay down his life in defense of liberty just as the vet would. The vet knows a fellow defender of the Constitution when he sees one.

Those who are working to destroy liberty in America had better beware. The true sleeping giant they need fear is that great body of American veterans who are now waking up, and who are righteously pissed off.

Stewart Rhodes

Former U.S. Army Airborne soldier

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Bush Admin Lawyers Attack Second Amendment - Saluted By Brady Campaign!

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership.
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment.'
A faithful apprentice strikes again. Yet another fake conservative legal tool gleefully guts the Constitution for his Master - this time coldly disemboweling the Second Amendment.

Here is an excerpt of the Worldnetdaily.com article:

Since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.

Read the rest here.

My Comments:

There you go! Bush lawyers have sided with the District of Columbia against gun owners, not only arguing that D.C.'s total ban on handguns is constitutional but that all current federal gun laws should be upheld, winning praise (a salute no less!) from the gun grabbing victim disarmament crowd over at the Brady Campaign. So nice to see yet another "bipartisan" assault on the American people.

So much for the old saw that Republican politicians, if only they could, would get rid of all of those unconstitutional federal gun laws, but we just need to be patient until they are in a position to do so. Now, when a case is before the Supreme Court, and they actually have a chance (however remote) of striking down those federal gun laws by convincing the Supreme Court to rule those laws unconstitutional, we have the US government, in the form of the Bush Administration controlled Justice Department, chock full of Republican lawyers, arguing to the Court that all of those federal gun laws are perfectly constitutional and nothing in the Second Amendment can be used to strike them down. To the contrary, doing so would be "dangerous"!
We now see the final nails being hammered in the coffin of the right to bear arms in America.

First, we had the Gonzales v.Raich decision, where the Republican lawyers of the Bush Administration argued that there is no limit whatsoever to Congress's law making power since Congress can even regulate what a person does in her own back yard, growing a plant, not for sale, but for personal consumption. That decision had a direct and almost immediate impact on gun rights.

In United States v. Stewart, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Stewart argued that his manufacture of homemade machine-guns was not for interstate commerce and was therefore beyond the power of Congress to regulate. He won! The Ninth Circuit agreed! That's right, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress lacked the power, under the Article I, Section 8 commerce clause, to regulate homemade machine-guns. An amazing decision, which truly surprised many a constitutionalist who thought the federal courts were beyond hope.
But then came the Supreme Court's Raich decision. In the aftermath of Raich, the U.S. government, once again with Republican Bush appointed lawyers leading the charge against the Constitution, appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to follow Raich, and to reverse its decision in Stewart, because lo and behold, Congress could regulate even home-made machine guns (and any other home-made firearms). So now Mr. Stewart, an American gun owning patriot, is still in federal prison thanks to the Bush lawyers and thanks to the Raich decision the Bush Administration pushed for.

So now Congress can make any law it likes. There is no longer a commerce clause challenge to the power of Congress to pass any law, much less a gun law. Forget about pointing out that the federal government is only supposed to have certain, limited, enumerated powers. Your only remaining way to challenge such laws is to argue it violates your rights.

And now here comes the Bush Admin arguing that not only can Congress pass any law it pleases, but you cannot challenge the constitutionality of those laws by evoking the Second Amendment. Sure, they throw us a bone by saying that the Second Amendment somehow protects an individual right, but then they argue that your right to bear arms can be regulated by Congress, and that none of Congress's regulations violate that right. That's right. Not one of the current multitude of federal gun laws and regulations violates your rights - not even outright bans on whole classes of firearms. I'm not clear on what restriction these so-called conservative lawyers would find to ever violate the Second Amendment. Perhaps a total ban on any and all private possession of firearms? Would that do it? So, short of that, any restriction is constitutional so long as you are at least theoretically "permitted" to own some kind of firearm?

This is like saying in grand language that "the powers of Congress are few and defined, and limited to those enumerated," but then saying that among the powers enumerated is the power to regulate commerce and everything is commerce, so Congress can go ahead and regulate whatever it wants. What a farce of the concept of limited and enumerated powers. What an empty limit on the power of the federal government.

Same here: The Second Amendment protects an "individual right" but that right may be regulated in any way Congress pleases, including banning entire categories of firearms and ammunition, and may track you and your arms at will. What an empty right and a non-existent limit on power.

So now we have a "conservative" administration that argues that the federal government may pass any damn law it pleases, and any damn gun law it pleases.

Forget the illusion that the men in the Bush Administration care about the Constitution. Forget the illusion that your rights are somehow safer with Republicans in office. You have been fooled. Many of us knew that long, long ago. But now perhaps other Americans, especially those who consider themselves conservatives, will finally, after all these years, wake up to this fact.

We are seeing before us a constitutional republic in its final death throes, killed by a thousand treacherous cuts, and we are now seeing the final slashes being inflicted by cold reptilian lawyers who fancy themselves "conservatives" working for a man who truly does treat the Constitution like it is "just a goddamn piece of paper."

Stewart Rhodes

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Ron Paul Speaks Out on Racism and the Old Newsletters

Here is Ron Paul's full press release:
Ron Paul Statement on the New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

And here is Ron Paul's his statement on racism:

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

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.

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. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

And here are more of Ron Paul's writings on this issue:

What does freedom mean?

None of Your Business!

More writings (with a list of subjects)

OK, I think I'm done with this issue. Now let's get back to saving our country. - Stewart

Friday, January 11, 2008

I am a Mexican-American, I worked for Ron Paul in the 1990’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist!

By Stewart Rhodes
January 11, 2008
Digg It!

There is now underway a full-blown smear campaign to paint Ron Paul as a racist. First, there was the lame attempt at guilt by association, with a mere campaign contribution by some red neck racist being touted as “proof” that Ron Paul is racist. And then there were equally stupid Kevin Baconesque degrees of separation attempts to connect Ron with various so-called “hate groups.”

Now the muckrakers are dredging up ancient, obscure newsletters written by some equally obscure ghost writing employee(s) of Dr. Paul’s way back in the early 1990’s. This only tells me that Ron Paul is a real threat to the political establishment, and they are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the Ron Paul Revolution.

I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it. My family on my mother’s side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa.I am also part American-Indian.

My great-grandfather, Jacinto Sandoval (a rather fierce man) who rode with Pancho Villa, poses for a photo with two of my great-uncles.










My great-grandmother, Ruth Gasca Parra, with her indian braids.

That heritage not only makes it rather difficult for anyone to smear me as somehow being a white racist (which is good for me if I am ever foolish enough to run for office), but also cuts against Ron Paul's supposed "ties" with white supremacists and this latest smear campaign based on what some employee of his wrote fifteen years ago.

Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don’t work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul’s staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No. The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise.

There are many different segments of society who are drawn to a man like Ron Paul. People of a wide variety of backgrounds support him because people of a wide variety of backgrounds support liberty and have a fundamental distrust of excessive government power.

During my time in his office, as now in the grassroots movement, there were fundamentalist Christians (and I mean really fundamentalist), working right next to proud and opinionated atheists. There were budhists, anarcho-capitalists, Big L Libertarians, objectivists, old school "Reagan" conservatives, and people of all manner of ethnic background, all working side-by-side. I have even seen gay people in those circles. They did not agree on many things, or even like each other, to be blunt, but whatever their personal background or orientation, they all saw value in working for a strict constitutionalist and a man of deep principle and courage.

They were and are all part of the broader Freedom Movement – which contains a very eclectic mix of people who all share a desire for liberty. But as eclectic and diverse as his staff was in other ways, I never knew anyone on his staff to be racist, and I think it is because racists are so directly at odds with Ron Paul's philosophy of individual rights - such people just would not have fit in. Racists are collectivists, who see people as members of groups only, rather than as individuals. Such a viewpoint is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism. As Ron Paul himself notes:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

You can read the rest of his statement about racism at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

White Power Nazis are no exception to the rule that racists are collectivists, being, after-all, national SOCIALISTS. Such people are not only my permanent enemies because I am not pure white, as they have sworn me their enemy, they are also my ideological enemies - as much as any Marxist - because their beliefs are entirely incompatible with the concepts of individual liberty, personal self determination, and reason that is the heart of libertarianism. That makes them Ron Paul's ideological enemies as well because Ron Paul is a libertarian’s libertarian.

But some of these collectivist racists now at least claim to support Ron Paul. Why? I suspect for the same reason the far left collectivist anti war protester does. There is something they fear or detest so much in the current Federal government that they are willing to support a man who clearly does not agree with them on fundamental philosophical principles. I'll bet the far lefty anti war protester and the White Power skin head consider each other mortal enemies, but they both support the same man for very similar reasons. Fear of excessive government power, and a desire to return to more limited government under the Constitution makes for strange political combinations sometimes.

If Ron Paul is somehow racist because some racists support him, does that make him a socialist lefty hippy because some far left anti war hippy supports him? Does it make the lefty hippy a racist too, because he supports Ron right along with the skin-head? There are also gay people who support Ron Paul. Does that make Ron gay? Does that make the Nazi guy gay too, or a "gay lover" because he also supports Ron? No, of course not.

People from all of those backgrounds support Ron Paul because they all have a desire to return to Constitutional government. Though they don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, they fear what comes from unconstitutional government.

It would be absurd to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are racist, gay, atheist, socialist, or whatever because people of those persuasions value and support those documents. The same is true for Dr. Paul because he is the Champion of the Constitution. What all those people really support is not a man, as much as it is the Constitution itself.

It seems that even racist dumb asses prefer the Constitution, at least for now (that is how dangerous the federal government has become!). I have my suspicions about their professed devotion to the Constitution, since their world view really is so collectivist, but I'm not going to reject the Constitution or Ron Paul just because the racist idiots don't realize that a restor

ation of the Constitution will not get them to their mythical "White America" like they may hope. What it will do is get us all to a place of liberty and justice for all, and the racists can then whither away like the outdated fools they are.

The latest smear against Ron Paul stemming from the old newsletters written by some employee.

Ron Paul, in his official press release on this issue, says:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
....
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Go to his site and read the whole statement.

I believe him. Despite the fact that racism is incompatible with libertarianism, I have in fact known some people (thankfully few) who like to call themselves libertarians who are racist - there are stupid bigots in any movement –and just as we have seen that there are even some self-professed racists who express support for Ron Paul, it does not surprise me that at some point in Ron Paul’s long career in the Freedom Movement such a closet, collectivist racist was able to worm his way into working for Ron.

Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race, no doubt because he presumes that those who call themselves libertarians are not racists. In hindsight we can say that he should have been more careful in monitoring what his employees wrote long ago, and no doubt he has since become far more careful about watching what goes out with his name on it. But Ron Paul, being a sincere libertarian, is a very hands-off kind of guy, as Tucker Carlson noted in his recent article, and perhaps a bit too trusting by assuming that the people who work for him will be consistent, principled libertarians just as he is.

As I noted above, that is usually a fair and accurate assumption, and I never heard one racist comment from any staff. But it is certainly possible that one or two racist jerks slipped through the cracks. As I said, every movement has its idiots. As a case in point, look at Eric Dondero who used to work for Ron but after 9-11 transformed into a raving Kool-Aid drinking, Bush cheerleading, torture loving, warmongering neocon when it comes to the war on terror. Who would have known he was such a raving maniac? No doubt about it, that idiot had to have said, written, or done something that was embarrassing to Ron while working for him.

I have seen nothing, in all my interactions with Ron Paul, to ever suggest to me that he himself is racist. To the contrary, I have every reason to know he is not. And the same goes for his supposed hatred of gays. That is also total hogwash. Ron Paul does not care what someone is. He sees us all as individuals with God given rights. If you value liberty and the Constitution, then you are Ron Paul’s brother or sister in liberty, whatever your color, creed, or sexual preference.

This smear campaign reminds me of how the whole militia movement of the 1990’s was smeared as racist, even when some of the leadership in that movement was non-white. It also reminds me of how the Branch Davidian victims of government abuse were portrayed by the vast majority of media reports as being a bunch of religious extremist white people with guns, with the not-so-subtle implication that they were white racists. Most Americans thus never knew that the majority of the Branch Davidians were in fact non-white.

Four Branch Davidian women survivors attend the July, 1995 House Waco Hearings. I'll bet you didn't know they were so multicultural, did you? That is how effective a media smear campaign can be.

There were an estimated 40 blacks in that homestead church of 120 members, and among the Blacks killed in the fire were Wayne Martin, a 42-year-old Harvard trained lawyer, and four of his seven children. There were also entire families of Hispanics and Asians among them, and many mixed-race marriages and children. But the facts never stop the media or the wanna-be media in the blogosphere. Racism in general, and especially antisemitism, has always been the smear of choice against the Freedom Movement.

This is just a desperate attempt by a desperate establishment to silence this resurgent freedom movement by smearing Ron Paul with that same old smear of choice, racism.

Stewart Rhodes

Yale Law graduate, veteran, Mexican-American, and proud former Ron Paul staffer

Digg It!


UPDATE:

David Codrea, over at The War On Guns, makes some very good points:

Paul's public record spans decades. Have his bloviating accusers list all the quotes by him--along with a credible source--where Dr. Paul has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement--and by that I mean a statement advocating that whites are superior and other races are inferior. Find a statement by him where he advocates either an enhancement or reduction of liberty for individuals belonging to any group of people based on their ethnicity.

If they can't, just remember your Shakespeare: "[I]t is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Here's my bet: Anything they come up with will be so indirect, or out of context, or possibly even true, just politically incorrect to admit in today's environment of conditioned Nazi-like sensitivities, that the reaction by anyone of fair an open mind will be: Is that all you've got? That's it?

Read the whole thing here, and check out the comments section, as David has challenged the accusers to post what they've got - to put up or shut up.

I agree with David that all that should really matter is whether Ron Paul himself has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement, not whether he was an overly trusting, hands off supervisor of an employee who wrote stuff in his name (even his accusers admit that Ron did not actually write the statements they are digging up from the old newsletters). You can find over 1,000 of Ron Paul's articles and speeches here. Go look.

Stewart

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Vote Fraud in New Hampshire Against Ron Paul?


There are disturbing rumblings coming out of New Hampshire that people voted for Ron Paul but their vote was not counted at all. These are becoming more than just unsubstantiated rumors, with one New Hampshire district admitting that votes for Ron Paul were not counted. The below article delves deeper into that particular case, speculating on whether a recount will be needed.


I think a recount is absolutely called for, if for no other reason than to put all future primaries and caucuses on notice that Ron Paul supporters will be watching very carefully and that the campaign is ready and willing to go to bat for a recount if need be. There is also suspicion that Hillary Clinton's supposed last minute win over Obama in New Hampshire was the result of vote fraud.


If we cannot count on fair, clean elections, then our political system is truly broken. What then? More to come - Stewart Rhodes


New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted

Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetWednesday, January 9, 2008

'The head clerk of the New Hampshire township of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.';
The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.
As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.
Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate?


Read the rest here