Ron Paul and His Critics

For those who say I never give critics equal time:

"The Official MSM Guide To Attacking Ron Paul"

We in the main stream media all know that Ron Paul cannot win thepresidency because of his extremist views. Given this fact, it isimportant we don't allow him the same media coverage as our preferredcandidates. It is true that we must give him some coverage, but it isalso true that we must adhere to the 'Mass Media Ron Paul Rule' whengiving him coverage during this campaign season. Generally, the 'MassMedia Ron Paul Rule' can be summed up in two words:

Marginalize him.

Here are some wonderful tactics to utilize when applying the 'Mass Media Ron Paul Rule:

Continually label him as a long shot candidate. This is the mostimportant of all the tactics so we list it first. Sure, it is true thatRon Paul has won or placed high in many straw polls across the countrybut we must never mention it. Instead, in every article or televisionnews story copy we should use one or more of the terms 'dark horse','long shot', 'barely registering in the polls', 'quixotic', or'gadfly'. If we can do this consistently, our job is complete.

Attack his supporters. Ron Paul has a stellar personal record withhis marriage of over 50 years, 5 children, and 18 grandchildren. Hispolitical record is also exemplary with him never voting to raise taxesand always voting in accordance with the Constitution. Because of this,attacking him on his record is a daunting task. The best method tomarginalize him is to attack his supporters. This can be accomplishedby calling his supporters names like 'kooky', 'crazy', 'conspiracynutjobs', 'paultards', and the like. This is classic 'guilt byassociation' and works well on the apathetic electorate.

Call him 'Libertarian' as much as possible. Continually giving himthe libertarian label is a great covert method of Ron Paulmarginalization. This reinforces that he's not really a Republican eventhough he has held office as a Republican for 10 terms. We find that ifyou are in radio or television you may even say the word 'libertarian'using a negative tone during questions. This perpetuates the extremisminherent in Ron Paul's policies even though the word libertarian simplymeans: one who believes in liberty.

Continually ask him if he's planning on running as a third partycandidate. This tactic should be used often. It accomplishes twothings. First, it suggests that he is not a serious candidate for theRepublican party. Second, it will get him on record as saying he won'trun for a third party. If he should happen to run third party at alater date he can be attacked for changing his position.

Ask him if he would support the GOP nominee if he doesn't win. RonPaul is against the Iraq war and wishes to bring the troops home fromoverseas in order to help stem the tide of government overspending.This makes him different than all of the other Republican candidateswho support keeping our troops overseas indefinitely. As media we mustmake all attempts to not only marginalize his candidacy, but alsomarginalize his steadfast message of linking the cost of the war onterror to our economic woes here at home.

Focus on his campaign strategy rather than his message. Ron Paul'smessage of freedom, prosperity, and peace should be overshadowed bytalk of his successful grassroots campaign. The more we focus on how heraises money and the types of supporters he has, the less time he hasto talk about his message that is sure to resonate with most Americans.We must make all attempts to block or cloud that message. If it were toget out, it could spell doom for our chosen candidates.

Attack him for not returning donations from fringe supporters.White supremacists and prostitutes have donated money to Ron Paul andthat is bad. We can use our political correctness and superior moralityas a weapon and ask him why does he not return that donation money.After all a white supremacist would do more good with having an extra$500 in his pocket than a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babieswhile preaching peace and equal rights for everyone.

Abolishing the IRS is crazy. Attacking his stance on abolishing theIRS and replacing it with nothing is also effective. After all mostAmericans don't know that we could do without the income tax if we justwent back to the same level of government spending that we had in the1990's. A great method is to reply to his answer with an incredulous'replace it with NOTHING? How can the government function?' comment.This tactic will scare people into believing in how the governmentalways has our best interests at heart. It will help people ignore thefact that Ron Paul also wants to cut government spending drastically inorder to balance the budget.

Label him an isolationist for his foreign policy views. Since hewants to bring our troops home from not just Iraq, but all of the 700other occupied countries he should be deemed an isolationist. Itdoesn't matter that Ron Paul wants free trade and travel with othercountries and thus is not truly an isolationist. The people willbelieve what we tell them to believe.

This directive gives us several tactics to be used in the fightagainst Ron Paul's candidacy for president. We should use them all anduse them often. After all Ron Paul's message of freedom, prosperity,and peace is antiquated and has no place in our authoritarian world.

Sincerely,

The Main Stream Media Czar

"Bad Reporting on Ron Paul

David Weigel
Reason
Saturday, December 22, 2007

Seven months ago I predicted:

If he gets into another tussle with a frontrunner or if the campaign actually starts gaining ground in some state polls, Paul's controversies won't stay obscure.

Now Paul's winning the fourth quarter GOP fundraising race and polling at spoiler level in the first four primary states, so, voila: The E-Z Smears begin! The Associated Press chases down the story of Stormfront.org founder Don Black's donation to Paul, a story that had been reported elsewhere (including on this site) more than a month ago. Yesterday Paul was booked on Fox's Your World With Neil Cavuto for one of the most thuggish, ill-informed interviews conducted by a neckless man since MSNBC's Nachman stopped clogging news junkies' arteries back in ought-three. The segment began with Cavuto asking Paul what he thought of the leading candidates' Christmas-themed ad, noting "I can't see you doing these type of ads"—even though Paul actually did one nine days ago.

Then Cavuto pivots to the Black story:
CAVUTO: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

PAUL: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes?

And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?

And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.

CAVUTO: All right. So, Congressman, when you find out that it's this Don Black who made the donation, and who ran a site called Stormfront, White Pride Worldwide, now that you know it, now that you're familiar after the fact, you still would not return it?

PAUL: Well, if I spent his money and I took the money that maybe you might have sent to me and donate it back to him, that does not make any sense to me. Why should I give him money to promote his cause? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Frank James of the Baltimore Sun has an interesting take on this, on the implications of Paul taking money from anyone with a check book. Wonkette responds in the typically overwritten, mirthless style that's killing the site. (How does a DC gossip blog lose traffic in the year of Larry Craig?)

Like I said, I expected a Paul rise to kick up some negative coverage of the candidate. I'm just surprised said coverage is so rote and lazy*.

*"Lazy" refers to the lack of reporters at the presser, not Crowley's smart post

---

Copyright © Infowars.net All rights reserved.

Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/221207_b_bad.htm

Iran, NIE, Pre-Emptive Strikes, Ron Paul, Controlled Oppostion and Disinformation

"Iran, NIE, Ron Paul, Controlled Opposition

I've been watching the monsters as they've been itching to attack Iran for several years now. Despite Iran's unequivocal and complete denunciation and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, Son of a Bush named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" in '02.

The Khatami administration tried its very best to reach out to the US and normalize relations from 2001-2005. The Iranian leadership helped the US, through conduits and weak covert diplomatic relationships with intelligence and logistics on the Taliban as admitted freely by the puppet Karzai. However, despite these attempts to coax the US into a renewal of diplomatic relations, Iran only drew attention to themselves as they were starting to become a strong regional force, with a slowly but steadily growing economy, by increasing defense spending, and by strengthening ties with noted competition for America's unipolar hegemony like China and Russia.

Because of the extensive Zionist influence on America, all efforts at overt diplomatic relations were squashed before they materialized and propaganda about Iran's nuclear intentions was steadily increased on ALL levels in the media.

It's important to understand that for the Zionist Mafia to remain in power there is to be absolutely no media beyond their control. They could never hope to do false flag terrorism like 9/11 and commit other seditionist crimes without almost perfect control of ALL media: mainstream, alternative, or hyper-alternative. They just have to keep it in perspective of its audience and be aware of what is already known so as to keep their cover.

Several "useful idiots" or "puppets" in the "truth movement" exemplify this science in operation; Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, "Birdman" Bryant, are just a few. As long as they offer sufficient amount of factual or "inside" information, spin it, and pepper it with outright lies and disinformation they can keep unsuspecting mildly cognizant, partially aware, "seekers" at bay from an accurate understanding and effective activist opportunities.

We highlighted the Ron Paul issue on this website, and while I certainly don't feel the need to expand on that any further, I will say, there is NO WAY, the Zionist media would allow a potentially harmful threat, as his most die-hard fans fancy him, to ever get so much positive and EXTENSIVE coverage in the media.

I view this now as an elaborate psy-op to diffuse the potential of a mass populist awakening into an irrelevant self-replicating support system for one man who is NOT A THREAT. This has soaked up money, time, effort and energy while the criminals who are ensconced in the most insidious ways in all key positions forming the cohesive networked structure of our country, will NOT be IDENTIFIED and will GAIN power and INFLUENCE as they diminish the effectiveness of the masses by providing them an avenue to express their disgust with the status quo, through the FLAWED system of vote fraud and puppets making promises, ENABLING the status quo.

This is undeniably, PRECISELY, what occurred on a smaller scale last November, when a populous thoroughly disgusted by the war and encouraged by the Democrats vow to “end the war” voted the Democrats into Congress again falling for the myth of “the lesser evil” or as I like to call it, the khancept of terd burgers tasting better than shit sandwiches.

Unbeknownst to the voting populous it elected in MORE Zionist Israeli dual-citizens, the sources of our problems, into Congress. The treasonous ideological zealots have mastered the art of controlled opposition and thoroughly control both Democrans and Republicrats with equal perfidious zeal and we were tricked into a SURGE to the war along with an indefinite time-table of withdrawal and MORE FUNDING. This is by design while the incompetence excuse so illogically and often used by Paul for 9/11, is used in their case to excuse their behavior and seeming inability to stop the almighty Puppet in Chief, Son of a Bush.

Quite ominously, Paul is praised in the “patriot” community as the anti-thesis to Bush despite connections with the same Texas gangs and an eerily similar message prior to election; a brave, greater than life Superhero who will resurrect the constitution and restore the Utopia this “great country” aspired to be, fresh off the Native American and African genocides.

Paul has all corners of the alternative media, bloggers, and radio hosts really believing his magic stick will scare away the mean ol’ bad guys. This is exactly what was expected out of the democrats last year and will continue to fool the ignorant into picking someone they feel is “different”, as they’ve done in the past with the likes of Perot, Buchanan, and Nader, who I personally feel is far better than Paul and whose track record shows strict alliance with the people over several decades.

Despite the fact that I don’t believe Paul to be a genuine threat in spite his cute vocal renunciations, nor a panacea, like most of his rabid evangelist fans, when I overhear conversations about the election and people talk about Hillary, Giuliani, Romney or Obama, I mention Paul as the one they should look into. I do this not in the hope that Paul will necessary win but rather in the hope, perhaps naively, that research on Paul and interaction with his fan club leads to more important research on why we are at this impasse which will help educate the millions who eventually join his campaign or vote for him. If this occurs the movement can transcend Paul as a figurehead and no matter if he wins, loses, gets killed, or has the election stolen, we will have an army of very educated individuals with a resolve to excise the criminals from government.

But I digress. This issue of controlled opposition is very closely related to what we are hearing about the Iranian nuclear issue since the NIE has come out with its report stating that an Iranian weapons program has not existed since 2003.

Most of us welcomed this news with a feeling of accomplishment rather than further galvanizing opposition to the Elite’s desire for illegal war on Iran. However, the NIE report, it is claimed by some alternative media sources, “might strengthen the case for military action against Iran.” If we are to believe this author, Simanowitz, the NIE admitting that there WAS a nuclear weapons program might provide the justification for the Zionist warmongers. This idea that an illegal “preemptive” strike on Iran is still likely is also espoused by Scott Ritter in this audio file .

“This concept that the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program that was shut down in 2003 continues to be only an assessment, not a statement of fact… because the Bush administration continues to pound away at the notion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. That it may be shut down today but that they could restart it… Now their big contention is that Iran must come clean about the program they had. Well what if Iran had a program? How can you clean about something you never had”

We can view this in a couple of ways.

1) They feel that we should not let down our guard and continue to oppose any encroachment, in rhetoric or political strangulations via tougher sanctions, on Iran.
Or

2) They want us to get used to the idea that nothing will stop the “Bush administration” from going forward with military force pursuing “regime change” in Iran.

I feel it is the latter. It seems to me like they want us to feel it is hopeless for us to impede the progress of the Warmongers in attacking Iran and just as they were successful in forging the evidence and forcing Iraq to prove a negative, so will they be successful in pursuing the same course of action in Iran.

The NIE was a tiny victory, admittedly. It still operated on the unproven notion that Iran ever wanted nuclear weapons as Ritter pointed out. However this attack on the NIE by many quarters, including several key Zionist democrats in congress like Feinstein, Schumer, and Lieberman, is highly coordinated and transparent in its ulterior motives.

The pink elephant dances naked in the room and most folks are still arguing about whether there is anything there, whether it’s really an elephant or if it’s really pink.

-Khanverse

Ron Paul: Seeing Through the Glittering Generalities

"

Saturday, December 22, 2007
Ron Paul: Seeing Through the Glittering Generalities
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Allow me to preface this article with the statement that I hope Ron Paul wins the Republican primaries. Sometimes we need a Santa Claus to believe in if only to inspire us to hope. Sometimes we need a stooge to show us the way to empower ourselves.

Whether Paul wins the primaries, or not, the American People have won by way of an example as to how to organize and side step the media. That said, I am not naive. I have observed that the organization in support of Ron Paul has not come from the grass roots, but rather from the gold mines, gold merchants and Zionist Hollywood Jews. But do not let me spoil your belief in Santa until we have found a way to replace the illusion with American factories and sound currency issued by the People for the People.

Gold is not sound currency. It is a limited commodity the supply of which can be artificially and privately reduced and increased by way of fraud and collusion. Jewish bankers will demand the "freedom" to treat gold as a privileged commodity, the "freedom" to monopolize it in cartels, etc.

True freedom is best secured by a well educated and prosperous populace, and Ron Paul's domestic policies will not get us there.

I suspect that Ron Paul is running for President for one reason and one reason only. He is a tool of the Jewish bankers and their goal is to make us clamor for "banking reforms" which they have drafted and which will grant the bankers amnesty and/or immunity for their crimes; and which will bail the bankers out at the expense of the taxpayer; and which will secure debts owed to the bankers with hard, seizable assets and make them profits off of precious metals and allow the international Jewish bankers to continue to control the American money supply, regulate price levels, govern international trade, hinder or stimulate growth, etc.

Jewish organizations, Jewish controlled politicians and the Jewish controlled media are undermining our civil liberties, making us desperate to secure our natural rights which are recognized in the Constitution. Since Jewry has made us clamor to protect our rights, they are using Ron Paul to forward a deceptive message that the Constitution is our guarantee of rights and that it must be strictly adhered to in terms of Ron Paul's interpretation of it. They have created a dilemma and they are proposing their solution to the dilemma that they have deliberately created.

Our rights are secured by our existence and our ability to defend them, not by Ron Paul or the Constitution. The Constitution is rather a social contract which recognizes our natural rights and serves as an enforceable agreement. If the courts and other branches of the government are corrupt, the Constitution is not a protection, but only a guide, and the contract has been breached. However, our rights and other means of enforcing our rights remain.

I believe that Paul is wrapping himself in the Constitution for one reason and one reason only. He, and those who pull his strings, want us to interpret the following part of the Constitution to mean that we should operate our economy on gold based currency:

"Article 1, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

This is why Paul speaks in glittering generalities of "freedom" and honoring the Constitution. In fact, he wants to take away our freedom to issue our own money through our government and without the intercession of the Jewish gold merchants. He wants to take away our freedom to recover our losses from the Jewish bankers. He cowers from confronting the traitorous Jewish fifth column which is stealing away our civil liberties.

If we truly want to secure our liberties and enforce those rights iterated in the Constitution, then we have to fight back against organized Jewry. This does not interest Paul. For him all that glitters in his glittering generalities is gold, and our fundamental human rights are only props on the stage.

It appears that Ron Paul's goals are to secure the interests of the bankers, not our freedom. As the Jewish bankers maintain control over our economy and monetary system, they will maintain control over our lives. We have to fight for our rights, not by enslaving ourselves to gold, but by bettering ourselves through education and hard work, through savings and personal and social discipline; and by confronting our enemy directly and unapologetically.

World Jewry has brought us into perpetual war, which nets them profits and forwards their Zionist agenda for Mid-East hegemony and World rule. By controlling the cast of candidates for US President, Jewry has left us shredded on the two horns of another dilemma. We can elect their openly warmongering candidates, or we can elect their gold plated stooge. Our interests are not served by either side of the bull charging from behind to gore us in the rear.

We already elected a supposedly anti-war Congress and they have betrayed us. This traitorous Jewish controlled Congress can declare war at any time, no matter who is, or is not, elected President. We have to raise our voices in outrage and demand our government serve our interests. We have to demand the Congress prosecute the criminals Bush and Cheney. Then we will have power.

Electing Ron Paul gives him power, not us. We will have power when we exercise it directly through boycott, demonstrations, public debate, civil disobedience, etc. I do not see Ron Paul organizing such action which empowers the People, but then he is a politician trying to get elected and what he is doing is working.

I wish him success. Perhaps, if by hook, crook or miracle, Paul wins the Republican primary, or even if he gives a strong showing, some genuine candidate will appear to run as a third party candidate. In any event, it will be healthy for Americans to become enthused about having alternatives, if only in an illusion. This will make it easier for others to enter the arena, but I caution against the hero worship which is being so heavily promoted.

Ron Paul is not a great man. His policies are unoriginal, scripted, simplistic and little more than disingenuous gimmicks to win support from the gullible and uninsightful for the Jewish bankers to again seize control of our money supply. By wrapping himself in the Constitution without enunciating sound policy, Paul is just like Huckabee, who is trying to win and serve Jewish interests by standing on the cross. We need to elevate the debate so that we can empower ourselves, not childishly worship the rather mediocre Ron Paul and play follow the leader.

Let Paul continue with his glittering generalities—that is politics in Jewish controlled America. We have to raise the level of debate among ourselves. No one will do it for us, and we have to defeat those who stand in our way."

Was Ron Paul Threatened Or Warned???

"For those who are aware that our government is and has been for some time, a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), it should be no surprise that one of their mouthpiece/minions known as Tim Russert (probably not his real name) was in full attack mode towards Ron Paul this morning on Meet The Press. Notice how quickly the illegitimate state of Israel was brought into play during this interrogation - er, I mean interview.

To the ruling Zionists Ron Paul is the devil and must NEVER see the Oval Office. But what concerns me is how this "interview" ended and I quote Tim Russert, "Be safe on the campaign trail". Was this a veiled threat? Knowing how Zionists operate, I would say so for they will attempt anything to achieve their goals. Below is the YouTube link for parts 1 through 4.

Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 1 of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

Part 2 of 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM

Part 3 of 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4

Part 4 of 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSY438wpCk

Added: December 23, 2007

For more infomation on Ron Paul's constitutional position as a presidential candidate go to: http://www.youtube.com/ and search "Ron Paul" and you will learn exactly what Ron Paul stands for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA"

"Ron Paul-haters on the Right and the Left unite i..."

December 24, 2007

Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters Paul-haters on the Right and the Left unite in a common cause

by Justin Raimondo

The Ron Paul campaign has generated a lot of excitement, especially among young people. It has made political history by raising more money in a single day than any other presidential campaign, ever. It has inspired thousands and given hope to those who had given up on politics altogether – as well as thrilling longtime libertarians who have been laboring in the vineyards all these years and haven't seen anything like this before. On the other hand, it has inspired – if that's the right word – a counter-movement, an anti-Paul coalition that extends from the extreme Left to the neoconish Right, and all points in between. What's interesting is that the lies told by these anti-Paulistas amount to pretty much the same tiresome mantra, no matter what the politics of the perpetrator, and it amounts to this: Paul is a secret neo-Nazi. I kid you not. How, you may ask, does someone invert reality to such a degree that the kindly country doctor, whose good name is a byword for integrity and principle, suddenly is turned into a monster with a hidden agenda? Well, it isn't easy, and they're having a really hard time of it… The anti-Paul Popular Front is wide-ranging, extending from the neocons over at the Weekly Standard and the editorial offices of National Review to the left-wing Web sites priming their readers for Hillary's candidacy – and leading, finally, to the lair of something called the American National Socialist Workers Party (ANSWP), a neo-Nazi outfit run by a weirdo by the name of Bill White. White's contribution to the smear campaign is a cock-and-bull story, posted on the Vanguard News Network forum, which claims that Paul and his aides have regularly met with neo-Nazi nut-jobs such as himself, supposedly at a series of dinner meetings organized in Washington, D.C. Says Fuehrer White: "Comrades: "I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism. "Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic [sic] Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens. "I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy. "For his spokesman to call white racialism a 'small ideology' and claim white activists are 'wasting their money' trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position. "I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to 'expose' this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable. "Bill White, Commander, American National Socialist Workers Party" To begin with, who the heck is Bill White? Here's what the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has to say about him: "Along with his media savvy," they aver, "White is known for spreading propaganda and lies about his perceived enemies." Go here for his extensive criminal record. White started his career as a dingbat of renown with the founding of the Utopian Anarchist Party when he was just a lad. The UAP's 15 minutes of fame occurred after the Columbine High School shootings, when White or one of his wacked-out confreres issued a statement praising the shooters. This guy loooooves attention, and he got plenty of it when, after his evolution into a Sieg-Heiling, uniform-wearing neo-Nazi, he published the addresses and home phone numbers of the Jena Six. His "career" as a major nut reached its zenith with his leadership in the National Socialist Movement, which at one time claimed to be the biggest collection of losers and criminal misfits since George Lincoln Rockwell and his gang first blighted this country with their presence. But that outfit blew apart, mostly on account of White's penchant for factional manipulation, and this effort to derail the Paul campaign is this would-be mini-Hitler's latest claim to fame. Secondly, the man who organized the dinner meetings "Commander" White refers to, Peter Gemma, has this to say: "I ran those dinners – Ron Paul was never there… If Bill White ever came to the meetings, he didn't use his real name – he doesn't even get the name of the restaurant correctly." There's nothing worse than a sloppy smear, but then again, Paul's enemies aren't too particular about the quality of the slime they sling at him. Charles Johnson, the anti-Arab fanatic who runs the Little Green Footballs Web site, has absolutely no compunctions about teaming up with a neo-Nazi goofball like White if it serves the purpose of discrediting Paul. Yet by acting as a megaphone for a crazy person, Johnson only winds up discrediting himself. Oddly, it turns out that Johnson the ardent Zionist and White the goose-steppin' Nazi have an awful lot in common: hatred of Paul and of libertarianism – and that clearly outweighs the hatred they have for each other. Yes, it's all about hate, and that's the irony of it: these people accuse Ron of being a hater, but if we investigate the perfervid fever swamps of anti-Paulism, the one emotion that hits us in the face, like a blast of hot, fetid air, is pure, undiluted malevolence. (Just go here, if you can stand it, and breathe that fetid air!) Of course, White deals in hate. His whole identity and crazed persona as the second coming of Adolph Hitler is wrapped up in bile and brazen evil: another "outsider" gone bad. Yet if we go to the other side of the spectrum and meet White's opposite number, we see the same bile, expressed in the same style. I want you to meet Victor Vancier, AKA Chaim Ben Pesach, head of something called the Jewish Task Force, a splinter group originating in the extremist Jewish Defense League: If this was just another Internet clown parading around on YouTube making a fool out of himself, well, that would be one thing. But Vancier is no ordinary clown. He is a follower of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach movement is an officially designated terrorist organization, and Vancier is a convicted terrorist himself. In 1987, he was arrested and charged with masterminding several bombings. He was convicted, along with his co-conspirators (though one committed suicide), and sentenced to 10 years in prison. In this context, Vancier's declaration that Ron Paul's supporters deserve to be killed is ominous in the extreme. The hate just jumps off the screen and comes right at you. In this sense, Vancier reminds me of… Bill White! They both have a penchant for stormtrooper-semi-military drag, violent hyperbole, and the sort of hectoring, wide-eyed hysteria and outright viciousness that repels any ordinary human being but attracts fellow miscreants and social rejects. In short, they're both crazy, and in practically identical ways. But that's not all they have in common: both hold ideological grudges against Paul and his fellow libertarians. Vancier hates Paul's foreign policy views, which he sees as a threat to Israel. White, who has attacked libertarians – and myself in particular – resents Paul's success because the good Dr. No has a non-racist, nonviolent, anti-collectivist explanation and solution for what White and his fellow Nazi nutsos attribute to a nonexistent "Jewish conspiracy" – the Federal Reserve, bank credit expansion, and subsequent waves of bankruptcies and foreclosures. Paul offers his growing audience of politically and often economically disenfranchised voters a rational explanation in the insight of the Austrian economists and the works of Ludwig von Mises, while White and his tiny cadre of National Socialist Workers look to the discredited pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Don Black donation brouhaha involves $500 from someone who is a top leader of the Stormfront Web site made under extremely suspicious circumstances. Black's last known political activities were undertaken on behalf of George W. Bush during the Florida recount, when Black and his fellow racist crazies drove Jesse Jackson off the stage during a Democratic Party rally. The Black contribution was soon discovered by the anti-Paulistas, who demanded that Paul return the "tainted" money – and, presumably, undergo sensitivity training under the aegis of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Paul, however, refuses to return the Black donation, and rightly so: after all, he's not spending the $500 to advance, say, Holocaust denial or any objectives that could even remotely be connected to neo-Nazism. He's spending it on promoting his own program of economic freedom, individual liberty, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Anyway, who put the anti-Paulistas in charge of vetting each and every contribution to the Paul campaign – and why should Ron concede that role to them? Over 70,000 people gave this quarter – is the campaign supposed to comb through each and every one of those names and vet them for political correctness? Naturally, the Paul-haters would answer "Yes" – they'd love to see the campaign consumed with policing itself according to their strictures. What exposes this as a brazen attempt to set up Dr. Paul for a smearing is the publication at Little Green Footballs of photos showing Don Black and his son standing next to Ron – at an event where the candidate was easily accessible to one and all and hundreds of people were in attendance. Anybody could – and did – walk up to the candidate, and, never having met Black to begin with, Paul didn't know him from Adam. It is ludicrously transparent that Paul is getting a bum rap on this obviously staged incident. This reminds me of an odd occurrence that took place years ago at the Long Beach convention of the Reform Party that nominated Pat Buchanan for president. I had come out onto the front courtyard of the hotel to catch a smoke or two and was conversing with some of the delegates, when someone with a camera approached me and said: "Justin, someone would like to meet you." I didn't know the guy, but, being a friendly sort, I said "Sure," and in the next moment I was face to face with a wizened old guy with gray skin and huge ears who held out his hand and said "I'm Willis Carto." At that moment, the guy with the camera was getting ready to snap a photo, but I turned away in time. If that wasn't an ambush, then it sure felt like one. (A photo of me turning away from the camera was subsequently published in Carto's anti-Semitic rag, The Spotlight, with some kind of crazy caption detailing how "sodomite Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, spreads his deviant lifestyle at the Reform Party convention," or something to that effect.) Surely Black, as the leader of a neo-Nazi group, is very well aware that his "support" is hardly welcome and would actually hurt Paul: Stormfront members discussed this openly when "Commander" White posted his statement. For Black to publish those photos on his own site when he knew they would be immediately picked up by the anti-Paul witch-hunters' brigade – the controversy over his donation was already in progress – pretty much demolishes the idea that he is any kind of Ron Paul "supporter." With supporters like that, Ron doesn't need any enemies. Essentially, Black did exactly what White did and what professional witch-hunters such as David Neiwert and neocon idiot Michael Medved have tried to do, and that is to smear a good man who doesn't have a racist bone in his body as a "white supremacist." What's even more ludicrous is the accusation of "anti-Semitism." Let's be clear about this: no libertarian, particularly of the Rothbardian variety, of which Paul is one, could possibly entertain the idea of becoming an anti-Semite. In order to do so Paul would have to repudiate his two primary intellectual mentors and guiding lights: Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, both of whom were Jewish. Indeed, this is what led White to attack Antiwar.com and libertarians in general in a screed that described us as a "Jewish think tank" – because our webmaster and several employees are Jewish. Oh, and I am supposedly "one quarter Jewish," which White should tell my Sicilian grandparents. "Commander" White is just the kind of tar baby the War Party would love to stick Ron Paul with, and it's a role he's played in the past. Who can forget Stephen Schwartz's crazed piece in Frontpagemag.com describing me as a "fascist" and linking me to… yes, that's right, our old "friend" Bill White. Schwartz wrote of "Raimondo's prominent association with the Russian Jew-baiting website, Pravda.ru, and its American contributor, the neo-Nazi Bill White," but the reality is that there was never any association, prominent or otherwise. Schwartz points to articles by me posted on the Pravda Web site, where White's diatribes – sometimes attacking me – also appeared. Yet I never gave my permission to Pravda to post my work on their site, and the moment I saw that my columns were appearing next to White's diatribes, I demanded that Pravda cease and desist, which, to their credit, they did. The point is that, in the case of Ron Paul, the tar-baby method of smearing someone has been used again, with the same tar baby but a different victim. When the "he's a 9/11 Truther" meme didn't take, the smear campaign got really down and dirty with the Paul's-a-Nazi theme. Given Paul's most un-Nazi-like ideology and demeanor, however, this one isn't going to fly, either. This has all the marks of a coordinated hit job, and although I wouldn't venture to guess who's doing the coordinating, it seems clear to me that the Republican Establishment is frightened to death of an independent run by Paul in the general election – a possibility Paul hasn't completely ruled out. By marginalizing him now before he cuts into the GOP base, they can save themselves a lot of trouble – and if they have to get in bed with a lot of truly sleazy types, such as Messrs. White and Black, well, then, that's why they call them "dirty tricks." No bag of tricks, no matter how dirty, is going to be enough to stop the Ron Paul Revolution: his appeal is only increasing, along with his visibility, and smear campaigns like the one exposed above are only going to cause thinking people to wonder what the smear-mongers are so afraid of. What they're afraid of is that the politics of principle represented by Paul and his followers will finally get a hearing, in the debates and on the campaign trail, on account of the millions of dollars contributed by Paul's supporters nationwide in a spontaneous and truly phenomenal outpouring of donations and independent activism. The sheer breadth of the anti-Paul Popular Front is an astonishing sight to behold, extending all the way from avowed Nazis to radical Zionists, from Noam Chomsky to Glenn Beck. Both Fox News and the International Socialist Organization are out for Paul's scalp – and you can tell an awful lot about people by their enemies. What this tells me about Ron Paul is that he's just what many people on both sides of the political spectrum have been waiting and hoping for.

Ron Paul Dismantles the Establishment

Posted by Lew Rockwell at December 24, 2007 08:24 PM

There was a time when smears from a Bill Kristol or the New York Times could destroy someone, but that time is long gone. Today, Ron Paul supporters and potential supporters--and all young people--get their information from the internet, and not from a mouldering sheet like the Times, let alone a neocon talking head.

Today, the Times, which declines in circulation and influence every quarter, is taken seriously by the Manhattan and DC rich, period. When average Ron supporters hear that the NY Times has attacked him as a "Nazi," it makes them hate the Times, and see it as a pack of lies. And note that among regular Americans, the Times has no more status than the Wichita Bugle. "Wichita Bugle Attacks Ron Paul." If you saw such a story, you wouldn't think, Oh no, what has Ron done? You'd think, biased MSM! And indeed that is the response of all Ron Paul revolutionaries to the libels.

Then we have the fact that no one under 30 reads a newspaper, and few under 60. And very few pay attention to a neocon like Bill Kristol or believe him. Few even know who he is. So if they should tune into Murdoch TV and see him calling Ron a "crackpot" and a "crank," and warning Americans not to pay any attention to him, it only diminishes Kristol. Or rather, it makes him disappear, as they turn the channel."

I'm one of the few readers the Times has left, and I have turned on them!

Agents of Disinformation, The Smearing of Dr. Ron Paul

by Anthony Wade December 26, 2007

Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” This old truism seems to be playing out in the case of the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for president. At first he was ignored. He was ignored in the early republican debates, getting one question for every 2.5 his opponents received. He was ignored by the corporate media in the early running too, as they assumed everyone would naturally gravitate toward their pre-selected candidates. Something funny happened on the way to our corporate election though; the people weren’t buying it anymore. Paul started to receive huge grassroots support across party and ideological lines. Once they could not ignore him, they tried to laugh him out of the race by marginalizing him at every turn. The proceeding debates saw the opponents microphones elevated so you could hear the snickering at Dr. Paul when he was answering questions designed to make him look foolish. I remember Moderator Chris Wallace actually asking Paul if he took his marching orders from al Qaeda and Paul slapping the fake reporter back into his place by answering that he took his orders from the Constitution. I recall post debate “analysts” dismissing the post-debate poll results showing Paul had clearly won the debates. One actually cried, “Oh no not again! Ron Paul did not win this debate!” Paul’s answers were mocked and his positions derided. But something funny happened on the way to dismissing Dr. Ron Paul. The people weren’t buying it. In fact, his contributions exploded to the point where he now is better positioned financially then all of his opponents and it was all done through local folks, not mega-corporations. Unable to ignore him and laugh him off the national stage, we now see the third tactic in the Gandhi truism taking place; they are now attacking him.

The real problem is not the attack but the disinformation associated with it. Politicians with records as long as Dr. Paul should have plenty of ammunition lying around for opponents, but people are resorting to distorting that record and either boldly lying about what would occur under a Paul administration or simply being so ignorant, as to not understand how our system of government works. This is an attempt to clear the smear. I write this with full disclosure that I do not know if I would vote for Dr. Paul, as I would like to hear more specifics on certain policy issues. I am neither a registered democrat nor republican. I am a registered American. I believe that we are bound to a responsibility to listen and discern what would be in the best interest of our country and the people residing in it. If that person comes from the left, so be it and if not, so be it. I have written over 200 articles in the past five years about the abuses we have suffered under the Bush administration, so do not assume that I am some right-wing guy. I believe in the truth.

The truth is that I have heard a lot of reasons over the past several days why people think they could not possibly vote for Dr. Paul and a lot of them are just inaccurate on their merits. The first reason I have heard is that he is a republican. While that is true, the notion that you cannot vote for a republican, highlights what has been wrong with this country for too long now. The two-party system is designed to make the two parties rich, that’s it folks. While there are some fundamental differences, they exist for the continual existence of each other. They pit one against the other so you have someone to blame for your lot in life or the perceived shape of the country. They introduce “wedge issues” to make us argue about minutia, while the larger problems are barely discussed. I could go on about the problems with blind party loyalty but since I just did an article yesterday about it, I will simply link it here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071224_blind_partisanship_i.htm

The next rationale I have heard is that you cannot vote for Dr. Paul because he is a corporatist, meaning he will allow corporations to do as they wish at the expense of individuals. This is patently false on its face. In fact, Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is actively speaking out against fascism in this country. He has consistently voted against corporate control and does not take a dime from lobbyists. Do you know who takes the most corporate donations in either party? Hillary Clinton. Paul is the only electable candidate who is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. It just really worries me when I see well intended people who consider themselves “progressive” who will not vote for Paul because they think he likes corporations over people but they will have no problem pulling the lever for someone like Hillary, who is bought and owned, pure and simple. So are Obama, Edwards and the entire GOP field except Paul. Judicial Watch just put out their 10 most corrupt politicians list and among the ten were Hillary, Obama, Rudy and Huckabee. This is the same Judicial Watch that has been suing the Bush Administration for years now. We have had seven years now of a corporate president and I do not want another. If the machine gets what it wants however, we will have two choices both owned by the corporate powers that be. The only voice for the people in the field is Dr. Ron Paul. So if you are deciding the not vote for him, fine; but don’t do it because someone tells you an untruth. Listen to what the man has to say and examine his voting record. There are people who either wish to purposefully mislead you or are simply misinformed.

Another rationale I have heard is that Ron Paul will eliminate everything the government does! Ehh, not exactly if you understand how government works. The first mischaracterization is that Paul would allow services to disappear. Not true. He would return the power to the state level as was designed by our founding fathers. I have heard, “but what about the Department of Education?” What about it? Has the federally mandated “No Child Left Behind” worked? Was it even funded correctly? Go ask your local teacher if they like having the federal government interfering in their curriculum. Go ask them if they like having to stop teaching their kids to prepare them for tests so their schools can pull down federal dollars. I worked in education for eight years and I do not know if eliminating the Department of Education and returning power to the state and local levels can work, but I know what is not working. The second mischaracterization is that Paul can somehow do all of this on his own. The Executive Branch cannot. There are precious few people in Congress who lean libertarian folks. Dr. Paul would be forced to come to the center and soften his positions if he were to get anything done. But at least he would start his move to the center without a dime from corporate lobbyists. At least his core principles include ending war, restoring civil liberties and a sound understanding of the problem we face with our devalued currency. The notion that any president can walk in and impose his will on Congress is ludicrous. The only way that can happen is if the congress sets aside their responsibility like the last six years out of blind party loyalty. That could happen under Clinton or Obama, but not under the libertarian Paul. He would be forced to work with Congress and he would. The reason for the corruption the past six years is not that the people were republican; it was because they had absolute power. They had no checks and balances. The same would have happened if it was all democrats. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When faced with the inability to smear Paul on the above mentioned issues, we see them turn to the wedge issues. These are designed to distract us from what is truly important and to have us argue over issues that truly do not matter to the powers that be. I have heard, “I can’t vote for Paul because he is pro-life.” That myopic view of voting is dangerous on both sides. I would not encourage any of my Christian friends to solely vote pro-life without considering the entire candidate and I would not recommend any liberal to solely vote for pro-choice. It is simply an ignorant way of voting. But moving past that, even if you are pro-choice, Dr. Paul can still be a viable candidate. As a libertarian, his stance on abortion is that it should not be the role of the federal government to decide the abortion issue. It should be left up to the states. Is he personally pro-life? Absolutely. He is a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Is that personal belief so surprising? The larger point is that he would not interject his personal beliefs into his governmental beliefs. To say that because he is pro-life personally so you cannot vote for him is to completely not understand how he views the constitution. He does not want the federal government in the people’s bedrooms or doctor’s offices. This of course leads to the next boogy-man, who will a President Paul nominate to the Supreme Court? His beliefs are that the federal government should not police the world or the citizenry. He is actually quite progressive on that, more so then the democratic front-runners. He would not nominate pro-corporate judges like Bush did or strict anti-abortion judges. He would nominate judges who believe as he does that the government should be protecting our civil liberties, not taking them away. Another wedge issue I have heard bantered around is what he believes regarding evolution. When I hear this I know the end of the attacks are coming because his opponents are running out of things to say. First of all, Dr. Paul did not raise his hand in the debate when the moderator asked for a show of hands those who did not believe in evolution. It is my understanding that he does in fact believe in evolution but once again, the larger point is not what he personally believes but what he believes the role of the federal government is. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in determining education. That should be left up to the state and local officials.

Look, I may not believe in everything Ron Paul believes in but the illusion is that any one candidate represents everything you would want. They sold you this two headed monster and you bought it. You believe that party is somehow more important than country. It is not. You fear the lie that Dr. Paul would side with corporations over people but are willing to vote for people like Hillary who is bought and owned by corporations. You fear Dr. Paul because you hear the lie that he wants to eliminate public education when all he wants to do is restore power to the states and localities but you will vote for people who got behind the ridiculous No Child Left Behind debacle. You fear the fact that he is pro-life and the lie that he doesn’t believe in evolution when neither would be an issue in a Paul presidency. You hear niceties such as universal healthcare and pre-k but do not realize that the candidates that are selling you these notions do not have the money to pay for them. I know we hear the amount of the national debt and shrug our shoulders but only Dr. Paul is talking about it for what it truly is, the greatest threat to our nation today. If our currency collapses we would see an economic 9-11 that would devastate this country. You are willing to vote for a candidate that supported this Iraq War and will not even commit to bringing all the troops home but Paul is somehow dismissed?

I do not know if I will vote for Dr. Paul, should he survive the primaries or run as an independent. But I do know that the main three planks of his platform are pretty appealing and progressive. He wants to bring all the troops home, stop using war as a policy and restore the constitution. Secondly, he believes in restoring civil liberties and is against a national ID card. Third, he understands the disaster looming in regards to our currency and will commit to paying down the ridiculous debt. The current debt is over 9 trillion dollars folks! Do you think it is “progressive” to add to it? Those are three pretty good places to start as a candidate. Remember, Paul could not do everything he wants. He would have to come to the center. Bush did not have to because he had a GOP Congress that abdicated their oversight responsibilities. Paul will not have a libertarian congress to work with, ever. He will always have to compromise. But at least he will do so from a fundamental position listed above; ending the wars, restoring civil liberties and paying off the debt to stabilize our currency. He is the only sane voice amongst the GOP. He is the only one not taking lobbyist money so he is not beholden to special interests. He is the only one speaking about fascism, curtailing the expanded powers of the executive, CIA and FBI. He is the only one outside of the machine that has a legitimate shot of winning. That makes him dangerous to the powers that be.

So dangerous that we have seen smear after smear on him. They tried to ignore him but the people liked what they heard. They tried to laugh him off the stage but people started sending him money. Now they are attacking him, spreading lies and disinformation; hoping to scare people away from him. The only thing left is for him to survive that and win. I am not endorsing him because there are still 11 months before the election. Of course I would endorse him for the GOP field because he is the only one doesn’t want to blow up half the world. I am not suggesting you make your final decision either. Just remember what Gandhi said. They are attacking him for a reason. They are throwing fear dust in your eyes, hoping you will be blinded from the truth. Listen to what the man says. See what he has voted for. Inform yourself so you cannot be misinformed by others. The only thing that matters is the truth and Dr. Paul is the only electable candidate who is not reading off a script. It is actually quite refreshing.

Authors Bio: Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 40-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.


Anthony Wade's Archive:

http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm"