Tag Archives: Anti-war

Ron Paul Lunatic Mob Zombies Threaten Yet Again

Ron Paul Lunatics

I suppose since there’s enough Ron Paul supporters that are made up of angry 9-11 Truthers, anti-war Democrats, free-drug Libertarians and Stormfront Neo-nazis, that it explains why the Ron Paul crowd acts more like Nazi Brownshirts than the grassroots campaign that brought Ronald Reagan to the White House.

Mobs are dangerous, and the Ron Paul bunch keeps illustrating why it is that Conservatives in the GOP are justified in their dismissal of their campaign and candidate.

While I can understand expressing anger and disatisfaction with what they perceive to be fraud – the way they vent those frustrations, and the manner in which they swarm and intimidate are not in any way the kinds of action grown ups and mature persons with a supposed zeal for a message of civility and peace they say their candidate stands for. Instead it reveals nothing but an unhinged mob of anarchists who are happy and eager to get in your face, and make threats and incite violence, even when it is obvious that the uncounted votes would not make a hair’s worth of difference to the outcome.

Some have said on other boards that ‘threats’ of death and violence by Ron Paul supporters are akin to the kind of “patriotism” our Founders had. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders never called for the heads of fellow countrymen and attempt to incite violence against other Colonists because they did not agree with them on going to war against the Crown. But dare disagree with Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy and watch yourself beset upon wailing and gnashing of teeth. Not only are these mob zombies eager to make threats on fellow countrymen who disagree with certain aspects of their candidate’s absurd political positions, some of them are eager to take their “RevolUTION” to the level of actual insurrection and violence.

Apparently these people refuse to understand that their entire movement is being tarnished by these kinds of actions and are being seen by many as nothing more than the fringe and out-of-control mob people like me are warning that they are.

What few grown-ups might remain in the Ron Paul campign better find a way to take control of this wayward bunch, or they will simply continue to fit a definition that their movement is nothing more than a bunch of unhinged Conspiratorial-Anti-war Left-Neo-Nazi Brownshirts.

Paul supporters ‘freak out’ town clerk
Vote-counting flub draws ire, threats

Monitor staff
January 12. 2008 12:20AM

Jennifer Call’s eyes searched the office for nothing in particular. Her arms waved and her fear spilled out.

“This is where I grew up,” Sutton’s town clerk said yesterday. “This is my hometown, this is where my family is, and all of sudden, my name is being splashed across the internet as this horrible person. And the frightening part is, I don’t know these people and they don’t know me.”

Call wants the nationwide army of boisterous Ron Paul supporters, believers in more conspiracy theories than Oliver Stone, to know that she’s committed no crime.

Not treason, as the dozens of phone callers screamed. Not fraud, as the dozens of e-mails charged. Nothing.

Human error, by someone unknown, caused Call’s office to claim Paul received zero votes from the town during Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary.

Paul actually got a whopping 31 votes.

Out of 920 cast.

Launch an investigation. Alert the media.

The mistake was corrected early the next morning, but that hardly mattered. The Paul machine, upon reading the number in print, quickly went into counteroffensive mode.

This is luck at its worst. Screw up Rudy Giuliani’s vote total. Or John McCain’s. Or John Edwards’s. Or Bill Richardson’s.

But never, ever get anything wrong when it comes to Paul and his voting tally. If you do, fans who shouted from the rooftops through the primary season will track you down and chew you out.

“Most of the these people are not rational,” Call said.

Call, 35, arrived at the Pillsbury Memorial Hall Tuesday morning at 7 for the start of a marathon day. About a dozen or so staffers coordinated the effort, guiding voters, counting votes, rechecking totals.

Paul’s 31 votes got lost in the shuffle, lost in translation between moderator Greg Hill’s voice and Call’s pen.

The slot next to Paul’s name on the original return sheet said 31, but a space on Call’s return, next to Paul’s name, remained blank.

“He’s (Gill) reading off his results, I’m writing them down on the return,” Call said. “I don’t know why it was blank. I don’t know if he skipped over it or if someone interrupted him to repeat the last name and it got skipped, or maybe I missed it. It was that simple.”

No it wasn’t.

Call was met by town officials the next morning at 9:30. They told her the mistake had been rectified. Call, her jacket still on, was confused.

“What are you talking about?” she asked.

She was told someone had come in and said he’d voted for Paul. The voter noticed the “0” in the local newspaper and wanted an explanation. When he got it, he left, satisfied.

Call phoned the Secretary of State’s office and re-faxed the form, the one with a circled “31” next to Paul’s name. Just to make sure.

Then it hit, like one of those snowstorms last month. Call got a call from someone named Bob. No last name. She remembers the man identifying himself as a reporter for the Associated Press, looking for the story on voter fraud.

She said she’d fetch the details, then call him back, thinking the media would need a strict timeline and every tidbit available.

“I’m thinking he’s legitimate,” Call said. “I call Bob back and it’s a fax machine. I called AP and asked for Bob. They told me a reporter would have given a last name.”

Others in the office received calls and e-mails. But Call was the name out front, the town clerk as well as the tax collector. She was labeled the brains behind the plot. She had the biggest target on her back.

The assault picked up after lunch. Paul supporters phoning Call claimed to be from the media. Others just yelled, saying she had committed treason, fraud. One person said she should be shot. She received as many as 40 calls that day.

“One person said he was on a nationally syndicated radio station,” Call said, “and he has given out my phone number and they need to call the town of Sutton to find out why there’s voter fraud.”

The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.

A man from Texas e-mailed that he was “contacting, by certified mail, the Attorney General of New Hampshire . . . and requesting a complete investigation and prosecution of any and all parties involved.”

A police dispatcher in New London said yesterday she’d received inquiries about the clerk’s office phone.

Call got a handful of calls that night at home, refusing to pick up whenever an out-of-state number appeared on her screen.

She got about five more the next day in her office. She tried to get work done. She called the Massachusetts company that makes the licenses for dog owners in her area. The guy had heard of her.

“Wow,” the man said. “This is the second time this week I’ve seen your name.”

“Where?” Call asked.

“I’ve gotten a dozen e-mails about how you’ve destroyed the New Hampshire primary.”


“We make voting machines.”

“The problem is,” Call said yesterday, “we don’t use voting machines.”

She went home and locked her doors. She called her mother in North Carolina. She cried. The calls kept coming. She unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.

“I was drained emotionally and physically,” Call said. “That’s when I really started to freak out. Thursday it hit me, that most of these people are not rational. That’s when I became scared.”

It’s calmer now. The calls and e-mails had stopped as of yesterday afternoon. Call had the day off, but she went into her office to retrieve some paperwork.

She’s hurt and nervous, but she’s got a job.

“I’ve got a school board meeting Saturday,” Call said. “I’ve got to be ready.”

These kinds of things are the actions of Brownshirts, not patriots.


Filed under Politics

Wimps In The Face Of Barbarians


Great essay by Erik Rush here.

Cultural Cavemen & The Wimps of the West
World Erik Rush, Featured Writer
January 1, 2008

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen.” – al Qaeda commander and spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, referencing the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto; Adnkronos International News Service (AKI), December 27, 2007.

Lest I wind up standing back-to-back with actor Will Smith tomorrow morning defending myself against flying produce (Smith is taller, so I might not fare too badly), I’ll insert the disclaimer here: My personal, moral and religious values preclude a belief that any ethnic group is inherently superior or inferior to any other.

That being said, periodically I find it necessary and useful to state that such values do not preclude a belief that a particular culture might be inherently superior or inferior to another, and this is precisely the comparison I am making as regards Western culture versus the retrograde Indo-Arabic culture that spawns the mentality and social convention we glimpse in radical Islam.

True, the West and Western-influenced cultures do produce our share of sick freaks, however one cannot compare the body counts generated by one Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones or even Aum Shinrikyo to that of radical Islamists worldwide or the primal, inhuman barbarity that is the hallmark of so many of their atrocities. Islamic extremists around the globe are currently averaging one People’s Temple-sized massacre each month, according to a cross section of media outlets, both reputable and questionable.

Benazir Bhutto, like many heads of state, particularly in the Third World, was no saint. Though definitely a cut far above her craven killers, this wasn’t Gandhi getting gunned down. In addition to the charges of corruption that plagued Bhutto during her tenure, the former Pakistani prime Minister was party to the repression of religious minorities in Pakistan. As is the case with many foreign politicos America has supported (and perhaps should not have), being an open advocate of cooperation with the West was Bhutto’s chief appeal. It was widely expected that her pro-Western stance would result in a government more cooperative and less duplicitous than that of the Pervez Musharraf regime.

This brings us to the likely course that might have been taken by the Bush administration and whichever administration follows. Was the hope that Bhutto would have immediately allowed NATO forces into northern Pakistan to wipe out Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives – as opposed to sucking another $10 billion in American taxpayers’ money out of the invertebrates in high office as did Musharraf? The scenario is indeed reminiscent of that in Egypt, where a “cooperative” Sadat replaced the anti-West, anti-Israel Gamal Abdel Nasser, with Bhutto being an avatar of the former. As long as the U.S. aid dollars kept flowing, Sadat was willing to come to the table with Israeli leaders. It bears mentioning that he too was gunned down for his political coziness with the West.

America cannot bribe the whole world into “playing nice,” although many Western politicians and globalists think we can. If this sort of foreign policy strikes the reader as profoundly stupid, that’s because it is. For some reason, the West has a habit of employing such doctrines (profoundly stupid ones) in order to forestall clashes which seem inevitable to the lay observer, and which result in protracted global conflagrations (as opposed to transitory hostilities) as a result of inaction (or indecisive action) on the part of the West.

In the case of radical Islam, the establishment media conveniently skirts the magnitude of the Islamofascist problem. In the Sudan, 2.2 million people, mostly Christians, are dying slowly in concentration camps at the hands of Islamic militias who to date have killed tens of thousands of Sudanese. Al-Qaeda has even made inroads into Africa. Civil unrest, promoted by radical Muslims and allowed to fester into a full-scale and intractable insurgence in the southern Philippines and southeast Asia was apparent since the late 1990s, although it began long before then. Among the thousands of kidnapping, rape and murder victims of these thugs who claim Allah was an American missionary couple and most notably of late included the slaughter of Buddhist monks at Myanmar in Burma. I could easily go on…

Another key point that has been poorly analyzed by the press: “Radical Islam” is not monolithic. As evidenced in Iraq, sects not considered to be part of the global jihad have no compunction toward killing and persecuting one another. This is the way it has been in the Islamic world for centuries, and what we in America have to look forward to if we deny that elements of this religion are fundamentally incompatible with our culture, and therefore inassimilable.

The aforementioned lack of decisiveness on the part of the West that has served to embolden these cultural ubermenschen has its roots in one place: The political Left. A cursory study of history is all that is required to confirm the rot which began with Karl Marx and spread to putrefy first Russia, then much of Europe and parts of Asia, Africa and South America. In the United States, the “struggle” to bring about a socialist or communist model of government has been ongoing since the days of the Bolsheviks and Jack Reed. The degradation of America’s cultural fiber, the advent of moral relativism and the Orwellian representations of the press and far-Left politicians have been initiated by design in order to further this end.

As a result, Europe and the Americas have become overrun with intellectually pathetic milquetoasts, lambs for the slaughter by elitist secular-socialist gangsters in government.

It’s ironic that a nation – ours – which used to be unashamedly Christian also used to be intelligent enough to take prudent action against its enemies, even when that meant the regrettable tragedies associated with collateral damage. Now, a U.S. soldier on active duty overseas cannot accidentally bump into a civilian at the bazaar without it appearing on the front page of The New York Times; we legitimize manifestly criminal organizations like The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and are admonished by dull-normal entertainers to tolerate or even embrace our enemies’ point of view – regardless of the fact that our enemies have sworn to utterly destroy us and our way of life no matter what we say or do. The employment of this relativism in putting backward cultures on a par with America’s is ironic, an intellectually dishonest conceit and a dangerous example of false humility.

Cavemen emerged from the caverns in which they had dwelt since the seventh century, and the culture shock melted their brains. Are we expected to abide and endure their unformed primitive social paradigms and their antisocial reactions to the world that passed them by?

I think not.

All of which begs the proverbial question: If we abandon all restraint and show our enemy no quarter, are we not then in danger of perceiving him as the subhuman creature he perceives us to be, and “becoming what we behold?”

The answer: Only if we have hatred and bigotry rather than prudence in our hearts. If we objectively examine the extremes of our enemy’s philosophy, it simply comes down to an issue of self-preservation. The homeowner ought not be expected to pause and examine the motives of an armed home invader when he or she has the means to defend themselves, nor should the camper consider the legal ramifications of taking down the bear that’s about to rake his ribcage open with one swipe if he or she happens to have a rifle at the ready.

The individual who believes America is not entitled to that – at least – is a damn fool.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture War, War On Jihadists

Bob Parks: Last Word on Ron Paul and His ‘In Your Face’ Supporters

Ron Paul Mob Zombies

Mr. Parks nails it all in a nutshell with these two columns. Thanks Bob.

I know what you mean.

Last Word on Ron Paul
By Bob Parks (12/20/07)

While I agree with some of Mr. Paul’s positions, such as elimination of the Department of Education or the anchor baby magnet, there are some positions such as his belief that we should never intervene in the foreign crisis of others I find troubling. And let us not forget, that prior to Mr. Paul’s position on immigration, those who support him today called Republicans “racists” and “xenophobes” when we brought up those same points.

Many of those who support Mr. Paul are the first to align themselves with George Clooney et al on the humanitarian crisis that is Darfur. Should the United States decide to get involved and help the people there, it would involve a military mission, as those committing the atrocities wouldn’t just let us walk in and help out.

The very people who support Mr. Paul are always claiming to be the compassionate, specifically in their defense and support of Black people. I’ll never forget the late Peter Jennings’ numerous reports on the Rwanda refugee crisis and the urging for the US to help those poor people. The very people who support Mr. Paul, to this day, never criticize Bill Clinton for sending in our soldiers to aid in that crisis; a crisis in which we had no national security interests at all.

Those same people demanded we “do something” about the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, even though we had no national security interests there. But these people, under their newfound constitutionalism of Mr. Paul, would kick the people of Darfur to the curb. Or would they…?

Public pressure goes along with being the President of all people, not just Republicans, as Mr. Paul reminds us. Also, he’ll need the support of the members of the Congress and Senate to get his ideas implemented. That’s an ugly process. Will he take on the unions who support Democrats with the same zeal he attacks the war?

I also find it troubling that he takes the word of some like-minded, in some cases, short term former CIA agents who say that we are creating terrorists by our “occupation” in some Middle Eastern holy lands, while ignoring people like Frank Salvato and Dr. Daniel Pipes who document the intention of Islamo-fascists to kill everyone just because they’re not Muslim. There’s nothing in their rhetoric that says they’ll leave us alone if we removed every single base from foreign territories.

France and Spain pulled out of Iraq. What did they get as thanks? Bombings. Great Britain has reduced their presence in Iraq. What did they get as thanks? Bombings.

I’d personally have more respect (which is earned, not demanded) for Mr. Paul if he ran as a libertarian. Some of his views are not compatible with those of today, and if not for him, many that support Mr. Paul would be aiming all their slings and arrows at Republicans because, for the most part, they’re liberals.

What I’m looking forward to seeing is the vote count. Mr. Paul’s supporters dismiss the polls because he registers around 4%, but I’ll bet they’d be shouting from the mountaintops if he were in the mid-thirties. Depending on the state you live in, many of his supporters are going to have to do something they thought they’d burn in hell before doing: register as a Republican so they can vote for him. Whether or not that happens will be interesting to watch.

His supporters are passionate, but in some cases, are immature.

Getting in people’s face is not the way to endear people to your perspective. Most of the time, we hear calls for honest debate. But the intolerance for alternative views, taught and tolerated, in colleges today will not work in the street, or America’s dinner tables. Many people are put off from Mr. Paul more for the actions of his supporters who appear to be yesterday’s liberals. Excuse me for having suspicions when today they insist we vote Republican.

Politics is not a fad.

Mr. Paul has some good smaller government ideas, some of which will meet stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. What will the Paulies do, flood the congressional and senate offices with angry, pushy, insulting phone calls? I thought these were the same people who believed in diplomacy?

As a student of politics, there are too many weird marriages taking place within the Paul phenomenon. When liberals are willing to call themselves Republicans, for at least the short term, especially after all they’ve said about our party for the last decade, pardon me for throwing up a red flag.


I’ve been writing columns for a few years now, so I’ve had the opportunity to see patterns when they look me square in the face and, based on my recent encounters with Ron Paul supporters, patterns have begun to emerge.

When looking at pictures of Paul supporters you see young and old alike, but you also see the peace signs, the word “love” reversed in the word “revolution”. What one clearly sees is a bunch of disenfranchised liberals who assume they’ve found a welcoming new home.

They’ve clearly identified with the anti-war message of Dr. Paul. Obviously, these people feel betrayed by the Democrats with whom they voted for in 2006 after being promised an end to the Iraq War. Democrats clearly have been unable to make good on their many promises. While that’s not news to real Republicans, the anti-war left has been left dismayed, betrayed, and rudderless.

Dr. Paul has the attention of the anti-war crowd, thus he’s attracted them into his camp, as they won’t trust a Democrat, at least for the foreseeable future.

I say they “assume” they’ve found a new home because these are the same people who’ve over the last few years have loudly and proudly called conservatives every name in the book. They’ve called us “racists”, “homophobes”, “bigots”, “hate mongers”, “sexists”, and more. They’ve called me an “uncle tom”, “wannabe white”, and that’s from white liberals. Look at what they did to Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and were damn proud of it.

However, now they’ve found a “man of principle” who just happens to be a… Republican.

Just because they now find certain conservative principles acceptable, doesn’t make any of them the real deal, and like elephants, Republicans never forget.

Paul’s supporters claim to embrace his message of smaller government. However, these are the same people who demanded federally funded student loans and free health care for illegal aliens. These are the same people who always advocate some new program for the poor and disenfranchised. And now, just because they’ve found religion, we’re to just open the door, forget about the years of slanderous shout downs, and say, “Welcome home?”

When certain candidates or a party realizes they are hemorrhaging support, the first thing they ask is “How do we get them back?” I’ve heard no Democrat presidential candidate attempt to lure the Paulies back home. Maybe… just maybe, that’s because they don’t want them back.

After all, would any of us open the door to people who occupy our offices, infiltrate our meetings, protest us in front of your workplaces, throw paint on our war dead memorials, and shout us during presentations in which we were invited? And now they expect us to say, “Welcome to the Republican Party” just because they now demand we listen to them and their candidate?

You’re damn right; there are sour grapes and deep suspicions here. I don’t trust these people for a minute.

Neither do I Bob. The threats, intimidation and worse are just hallmarks of this bunch who literally worship Ron Paul as some sort of political messiah. One supporter posted on several blogs and forums that Ron Paul was the Second or Third Coming of Christ.

In the many emails I’ve received from the Paulies, I’ve been talked down to like a child, had my intelligence questioned, cursed at, and all because I committed the mortal sin of not mentioning their candidate by name in a column where I was taking Republican presidential candidates to my own personal woodshed.

Their emails are all about their feelings. It’s all about “me”, “me”, “me”, and damn anyone who won’t hear THEM out.

Someone has to ask what the real motive is here.

Should Paul get the nomination and bring his supporters into our party, what kind of changes will they demand to bring from within? Will they demand political correctness be instituted? Will they attempt to stifle speech they don’t authorize? Will they shout us down? In fact, all the traits most of these people seem to have on display are those the Democrat Party seems to have no problem jettisoning.

And they’re jettisoning them right into the Republican Party.

That’s my conspiracy theory. I don’t think I’m that far off.

Not at all Bob. You’re right on target.

The rabidness of these Mob Zombies and the threats of everything from violence, death, lawsuits and shut down has only steeled my resolve from simply not casting a vote for their messiah, to actively campaigning AGAINST him as vigorously (if not moreso) than I am Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Hillary’s people have not yet threatened me with death for daring to write any disparaging remarks about their candidate. Ron Paul’s people have. If I had to judge the fruits – Hillary’s people respect the right to free speech, and Ron Paul’s supporters, those who supposedly support the Constitution – do not.

Now THERE’S a twist of the surreal for you.


Filed under Politics

Iran Declares NIE Report An American Surrender

This is why I hate the anti-war movement and the zombies of Ron Paul. They tout the NIE report as vindication of their cause to paint America and Bush as the bullies and HAND Jihadist madmen like Iran’s Ahmadinejad and mullahs who are preparing the Muslim world for the conquest of the Great and Little Satan, victory.

Iran says U.S. report a “declaration of surrender”

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a “declaration of surrender” by Washington in its row with Tehran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.

“It is too far-fetched,” he said when asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran following two such resolutions since last December.

Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, told a rally earlier this month that the December 3 publication of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate was a “victory” for Iran.

He said on Sunday: “It was in fact a declaration of surrender … It was a positive action by the U.S. administration to change their attitude and it was a correct move.”

Washington is still pushing for more sanctions on Iran despite the U.S. intelligence report, which also said Tehran was continuing to master skills needed to make nuclear weapons. U.S. President George W. Bush said Iran was still a danger.

An exiled opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), last week said Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but said restarted it a year later, dispersing equipment to thwart international inspectors.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and designed to make electricity. It says it has never had a nuclear weapons program.

“It would be beneficial for both Iran and them (the West) to cooperate with Iran,” Ahmadinejad said. “Of course it would be more to their benefit than Iran’s.”

Iran regularly calls for a change in behavior from the United States, which cut diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980 after radical students seized the U.S. embassy and took diplomats hostage during the 1979 Islamic revolution.


Filed under War On Jihadists

The Disconcerting Truth of the Company Ron Paul Keeps

Thankfully, other people are starting to notice the dangerous cabal of misfits and revolutionistas that make up the Mob Zombies of Ron Paul supporters.

I’m not alone in my observations.

Ron Paul’s Fair Weather Friends

Much has already been made of the interest shown in the Ron Paul campaign by groups on the reactionary right, from 9/11 ‘truthers’ to white supremacists. Less widely reported but of growing concern to those watching the Paul campaign and wondering if it is going wildly astray is the involvement of far-left groups who are flocking to Paul’s banner for reasons which may be genuine or may mask an effort to undermine the entire Republican primary. I like Ron Paul and what he stands for on a great many issues and especially his devotion to the Constitution, but I can’t help but worry about the unsavory character his campaign is beginning to develop.

Stories are circulating on GOP email lists of interested Republicans attending Ron Paul meetups around the country and being confronted by openly hostile leftist/progressive/socialists who seem to be supporting Paul, but have no love for regular Republicans who also support the candidate. There are accounts that confrontations have become heated at some of these meetups, particularly the one held in Las Vegas earlier this month. Suspicion particularly focuses on attendees who are believed to be MoveOn.org operatives and why they are so interested in Ron Paul. Is their interest genuine, or is it only part of a campaign to disrupt the Republican primary?

The involvement of MoveOn.org in the Paul campaign can be confirmed on their page at meetup.com where they are shown as co-sponsoring a number of the regional Ron Paul meetups and they have also released a video ad in support of Paul. Paul’s campaign has also received positive public response from a variety of prominent leftists, including Cindy Sheehan. One socialist in the Netherlands of all places, makes a compelling argument for why US socialists should support Ron Paul.

Most Republicans see the objectives of MoveOn.org as inherently antithetical to the basic beliefs of the Republican Party. MoveOn.org is an openly anti-Republican, anti-Conservative and anti-Libertarian organization which is openly funded by a wealthy international socialist whose goal is to undermine and control the Democratic Party, and it is largely run by people with past associations with the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America. With its position at the far left of the American Political spectrum and as the main instrument through which George Soros seeks to undermine and control the American political system, it is understandable how Republicans might be concerned about MoveOn.org’s interest in and support of Ron Paul.

The key to Paul’s popularity on the left lies with his opposition to the Iraq War, but also with the suppor the has from a segment of the traditional Libertarian Party constituency, the left-libertarians or social anarchists. This element of the broad alliance which makes up the Libertarian Party, where Paul was once a prominent figure and presidential candidate, is philosophically compatible with the most extreme parts of the socialist leaning wing of the Democratic Party. As typified by Justin Raimondo, they are the anti-property, anti-war and anti-nationalist element of libertarianism. They differ from typical ‘minarchist’ libertarians and neolibertarians in their outspoken hostility to the Republican Party and their unwillingness to compromise their extreme principles in the interest of political reality. Strangely they don’t have the same hostility towards the Democrats, and many of them see socialists as their natural allies. As the Democratic Party becomes more dominated by socialist factions it becomes more appealing to them. Their enthusiastic support for Paul means that there is a nucleus within his following which is already allied with forces within the farthest left part of the Democratic Party, and they have been drawing on that association to bring more leftist/progressives into Paul’s camp.

Paul seems willing to take support from wherever he can get it and doesn’t seem particularly concerned that socialists may try to influence his campaign or distort the nomination process in the Republican primaries. Although he has promised that if he fails to get the nomination he will not jump parties and run as a Libertarian, he doesn’t seem to care that the newly registered pseudo-Republicans he’s creating will leave the party the moment the primary is over, even if one of the more moderate somewhat libertarian candidates wins.

In a recent interview with LibertyWatch Paul makes very clear that he’s aware of his appeal to the left. He commented that:

“Right now, liberals are the most enthusiastic about my campaign. If I get a speech on the House floor on foreign policy, I’ll get many hundreds — sometimes thousands — of comments sent to my office. I would say 90 percent of them are from Democrats.”

He doesn’t seem particularly concerned, and even accepts the idea that these supporters are ‘liberals’, even though it’s pretty clear that they don’t believe in most of the same liberal ideas that Paul or other libertarians in the Republican Party support. Paul even acknowledges this:
“liberals are very, very frustrated with their own Democrats. Although they know I have shortcomings from their viewpoint — because I’m for free enterprise and free markets — they love my position on civil liberties and they love my position on war.”

He’s clearly willing to take support from wherever he can get it, which is understandable, but it does put his loyalty to the Republican party and true libertarian ideals in question, as much as his unwillingness to speak out against the racists, conspiracy fanatics and other extremists who support him does.
It is Paul’s anti-war position which seems to drive much of the interest of the left in his campaign, which begs the question of whether their support is genuine, or just based on the single issue of the War in Iraq? Do they support Paul and everything he stands for or do they just see his candidacy as a chance to strike a blow against the evil Republican warmongers in their own primary. What will leftist/progressives who are flocking to register Republican so that they can vote for Paul do if he doesn’t get nominated? Would they stick with a candidate like Mike Huckabee or Fred Thompson who share many of Paul’s positions on issues other than the Iraq War, or will they flee back to the Democratic party once Paul loses the nomination and they’ve done as much damage to the primary process as they can? Perhaps the most important question for Republicans is whether Paul could hold onto some of their votes in a national election if he were a Vice Presidential candidate?

Paul seems to have decided that whatever advances his campaign is a good idea, no matter where that support comes from or what strings may be attached to it. Distressing though it may be to admit, it looks like ambition is turning Ron Paul into a real politician.


Filed under Politics

Ron Paul Attracts Kooks, Nuts, Jihadists and Brothels


I’m convinced.

Ron Paul is a bug light.

One of theose blue light zappers that hang on many a porch in the humid nights of summer that attract bugs from miles around.

Like a magnet to the nation’s anti-war nincompoops, peaceniks, conspiracy theorists, Precious metal peddlers, Che Guevera lovers, Anarchists, neo-nazis, and anyone who hates something, or anything about America.

It should come then as no surprise that because Ron Paul attracts the outcast and disaffected of America, that he should also attract the Whorehouse vote.

Yes, Brothel lovers of free, unhindered debaucherous sex everywhere, toss their – um…..underpants and whatever else into the Ron Paul campaign for President.

They support a guy that truly believes in ‘feel the love’.

Ron Paul Endoresed by Bunny Ranch Brothel Owner

RENO, Nev. — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, an underdog Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, has picked up an endorsement from a Nevada brothel owner.

Dennis Hof, owner of the Moonlite BunnyRanch near Carson City, said he was so impressed after hearing Paul at a campaign stop in Reno last week that he decided to raise money for him.

“I’ll get all the (working girls) together, and we can raise him some money,” Hof told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “I’ll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1, $5 contributions.”

Hof and two of his prostitutes, Brooke Taylor and a woman who goes by Air Force Amy, attended a Paul news conference.

(More at link)


Filed under Politics

Ron Paul – the non-interventionist, white-flag-waving appeasement anti-war surrender monkey


Yes, I’m once again going to risk the threats of violence and death from the Ron Paul Mob Zombies. Let’s see how quick the U-boat Commanders in the RuPaul Sub Net fleet picks up this ping and sends their pack herds to try and torpedo the blog.

The CNN YouTube debate last night was a clear illustration of the fact the Clinton News Network is part and parcel an operative propaganda arm for the Democrat/Stalinist Left. It been learned that there were at least 4- countem FOUR – political plants that either asked questions or had videos shown asking questions, including the Homosexual General who has been a CNN guest in the past as well as Edwards, Obama and Hillary supporters who asked questions for the purpose of harming the candidates rather than finding out what they stand for. CNN made an obvious display of it’s willing propaganda to paint the GOP in the brushes of how the Left views the GOP, by framing the debate and choosing stupid, silly, irreverent agenda-based questions that are provinces of the Democrat Left. I do not recall that Gays in the Military, abortion, the death penalty or that the Confederate Flag were major issues concerning all Americans right now. Of course those issues are the heart and soul of the Democrat Left.

However, the only bright spot in that sickening display – was that all of the candidates handled the attempted sabotage very well – including Ron Paul. The silver lining being that the true colors of each candidate began to emerge as well. Only one of the candidates displayed any real sense of Conservatism – and NO – it was NOT Ron Paul. Most showcased moderate liberalism, polished political rhetoric, and the typical Establishment Blue Blood Urban Elitism that disgusted the majority of Conservatives and had them sitting home in November 2006.

Ron Paul simply showcased why he is a better running mate for Socialist Dennis Kuccinich than a GOP Candidate. While most of the Republican field is filled with moderate and liberal establishment politicians, Ron Paul’s rabid kook Libertarianism makes him a stand-out white-flag waving appeasement anti-war surrender monkey.

The booing of John McCain by Ron Paul Mob Zombies in the audience was one of the low points of disgust in last night’s debate.

But it is Ron Paul’s own words that continue to illustrate him the same Defeat At All Costs Surrender Monkey that Murtha, Pelosi and Reid are. Ron Paul insists we are losing in Iraq – when even the Liberal media has had to concede in the past few weeks that the surge is achieving huge success.

Here is an exchange from last night’s debate – the transcript directly from CNN.com:

“Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.”

Ron Paul more-or-less just granted a Jihadist, who has shot at and killed Americans and Brits, CREDIT for establishing a peace, as if the efforts of our troops had nothing to do with it.

It is SHAMELESS. It’s DISGUSTING, and it showcases exactly why Ron Paul is the kind of nitwit kook that needs to be ignored and shunned by this party and the electorate. He is as invested in defeat and retreat as the Democrat Leftists are.

While Duncan Hunter states that he will “never Apologize for America”, all Ron Paul is capable of is BLAMING America at each and every turn and time he gets in front of a microphone.

McCain called Paul’s position the same kind of “Isolationism that caused World War II” to which Ron Paul vigorously shook his head in the negative while smiling smugly, even while McCain was relaying the message from troops he had Thanksgiving with IN Iraq, to “Let us win”.

Ron Paul does not think we are winning, and will NOT let us win if he has anything to say about it. Ron Paul’s idea of winning, is running home and engaging in an INSANE version of Isolationist “non-Interventionism” that has America retreat from the world while sitting down to tea and trade talks with anyone and everyone – REGARDLESS of who they are or whether or not they are Al Qaeda nutjobs with intents to nuke NY. Ron Paul operates from the ridiculous and stupid premise that America’s enemies are merely reactionist to our presence in their nations when the simple fact of Jihadist Islam’s expansion into non-interventionist nations is well documented.

I’m not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel.

He wants to be a rock star. Well gee whiz! Even North Korea trades and talks with people in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and every other America-hating regime on the planet. The difference between the Isolationism of North Korea and what Ron Paul wants for America is that Ron Paul will trade and chate with EVERYONE – regardless whether or not they have intentions to blow us off this rock.

But I don’t want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live.

Of course not. Ron Paul is content to let those people who, plan, plot and train to kill America and Americans to live their dreams and fantasies of bringing Islamic Prophecy to pass unhindered.

Ron Paul buys into the notion that if you leave a hornet’s nest alone near a playground when you know it is there – no harm will ever come to kids playing there.

We would object to it here and they’re going to object to us over there.

Ron Paul AGAIN thinking that the world thinks just like he does. Of COURSE the world objects to America being involved in the world! We prevent despotic madmen and movements from taking it over and subjugating neighbors and entire regions to brutal slavery and death – whether it be Communism or Jihadism.

Ron Paul would rather we simply leave them all alone. That kind of lunacy has no business being in the office of the CINC.

I would rather the GOP leave Ron Paul alone, to his Libertarian insanities where he better belongs.

Despite his non-answer of whether or not he will run 3rd Party – I think when he does not get the GOP nomination – his Mob Zombies will impress on him to run anyway as a 3rd party.

Which will then fulfill what I’ve been saying all along, Ron Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot.


Filed under Politics

The Mob Zombie Cult of Ron Paul


While I consider Ron Paul’s Blame America Pacifism and Isolationist platform to be totally insane – some of his rabid followers are totally off the deep end. In the last few months, I have witnessed the absolute foam-at-the-mouth mobishness that is propelling the Ron Paul campaign to cult status.

The subtle and direct threats of violence, death and harm levied against those who question or oppose Ron Paul on forums, chat rooms and blogs is truly frightening. Reading these threats has brought to mind stories I’ve read about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the thuggish Brownshirt mobs in Berlin during the 1930’s. Some of these people have suggested that the Nazis had the “right idea”, and that people like me who oppose Ron Paul should be “rounded up”. Some have stated on forum boards that “neocons” (like me apparently) need to be “Tried for treason and given the death penalty”, which is ostensibly funny considering the messiah they support opposes the death penalty. Others have been more direct – stating that people like me “need to be shot on sight”. Obviously when the Ron Paul zombies are talking “revolution” – they somewhere in the dark recesses of their minds are willing to entertain a bloodletting revolution.

It’s no wonder then that Ron Paul supporters adopted terrorist wannabe Guy Fawkes, as an icon for their fundraising ‘revolution’ last week. Guy Fawkes, was a terrorist wannabe who tried to start a revolution by blowing up Parliment and killing King James I of Britain. They adopted that icon for an internet push to raise money for Ron Paul’s campaign – some of which apparently was ill-obtained by fraud and has to be returned, and some of which apparently was donated by neoNazis at Stormfront. In a push to capture the spirit of bombing parliment and killing a King on November 5, 1605, the Ron Paul brigades said they wanted to create a “money bomb” or other such euphanism to stoke the idea of a real revolution. While the recent neoLeft movie and comic “V- For Vendetta” is what probably stoked the romantic notion of their cause – it’s no mere coincidence that the idea of a real revolution festers in their minds. In fact – they are now calling for a 2007 “Tea Party” to continue the romatic notion that they are noble rebels of an oppressive regime. Given what some Revolutionistas have said – they are willing to kill fellow countrymen to get their way.

The fanatical devotion in literally treating Ron Paul as some kind of messianic figure in the mantle of Moses to deliver America from the slavery of “Neocon” Pharoahs is disconcerting to say the least. The scary thing is that it is not just a few supporters here and there that act as though Ron Paul is the equivalent of the Second Coming of Paul Revere, but that he is the spiritual embodiment of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Chomsky.

What is revealing is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of Ron Paul people scouring the internet like U-boat commanders hunting down any pings that bode ill for their captain. I fully expect this entry to hit their sub nets and result in volley after volley of Ron Paul torpedoes attempting to sink my right of free political expression the moment their sonars hone in on this entry. I mean, not even the Hillary People in the Clinton Crime Family machine have threatened me with imprisonment and death for daring to defy her Thighness’ campaign. I find it interesting that the Ron Paul Revolutionistas will support a candidate that supposedly stands for liberty and freedom by attacking the rights and liberties of those who either disagree with or call Ron Paul’s positions into question.

I think that is instructive.

Instructive and frightening if you remember not to discount the stupidity of people in large groups, and the make-up of this particular group of zombies is worth taking note of.

The Ron Paul Revolutionistas are made up of a misma of anti-war Leftists, Che Guevera admirers, MoveOn.org Anti War zealots, anti-Capitalists, Pot- Loving Hippies, Free Drug Libertarians, Anarchists, Christian Pacifists, Secular Pacifists, Yellow Dog Democrats, Yellow Bellied Cowards, Gold Bugs, Silver Bugs, 9-11 Truthers, Alex Jones Conspiratorialists, Bush Derrangement Syndrome ideologues, Neonazis, Stormfront White Supremacists, Disaffected Socially Conservative Democrats, Disaffected Socially Conservative Republicans, Disaffected Liberal Leftists, Disaffected anti-war Marxists, Amish Isolationists, Hugo Chavez of Venzuela, Dr. Ayman Zawahiri of Al Qaeda and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Interesting list is it not? As one Revolutionista said to me recently – “See? Ron Paul is a UNITER of peoples”. I had to laugh.

Ron Paul unites them on one issue only: his anti-war positon, and it’s fleeting at best. All these ideologically opposed mindsets all purporting to support the Constitution? It’s like suggesting that God and the Demons are united on the common foundation of the Ten Commandments. It’s absurd.

Each kind of these ideologues support the Ron Paul campaign for singular reasons – mostly his Isolationist (read:”non-Interventionism) anti-war, blame America stance since 9-11. Some support him on his monetary positions. Some on his tax ideas. Some on his Bring The Troops Home positons. Oh sure, they will cite their supposed love of the Constitution – but in reality, they are one-note opera singers when it comes to the rest of the document they pay lip service to.

But comes a doubter, the Ron Paul Revolutionistas become a crazed zombie mob, complete with wide eye gnashing of teeth, that beset upon forum boards, online polls and blogs with limitless vitriol and argumentation against those hapless souls that happen shine a light in their direction.

Care to experience what it must have been like to be a Jew in 1930’s Nazi Germany if the internet had been around? Write an opinion questioning Ron Paul or supportive of our war effort and count how many times you are labeled a ‘neocon’. It has me wondering what color stars the Ron Paul people will make those of us who do not genuflect in the presence of a Ron Paul position wear. Oh yes, one Revolutionista already told me: boiling tar and feathers.

Doesn’t that make you want to go out and support a guy this mob would gladly lift to Fuhrer status?

I think Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity might have an idea of what I’m talking about considering the happenings in their little corners of Americana this week with the Revolutionistas. The absolute foam-at-the mouth zombies want a pound of Michael Medved’s flesh to shred too.

I’m not the only writer to make note of this mob cult mentality. The Lonestar Times, Squawkbox and The American Thinker and even the Left-leaningStanford Daily all had pieces that note the insane actions of those who support with jihad-like devotion – their Prophet of Conservative Constitutionalism.

If one is known by the company one keeps, Ron Paul has the admiration of those who oppose everything the Constitution actually stands for. When he is cited by America’s enemies and repeats the same talking points that the Leftist George Soros Anti-war movment groups do – one should wonder aloud if this is really a person any American can support.

But what drives the point of my opposition currently, is when the mob Revolutionistas of Ron Paul warn through subtleties and suggestions of impending violence if they do not get their way; constantly concoct conspiracies of everything from rigged polls to assassination plots by ‘neocons’, romanticize the notion of another “civil war’; to outright threats of death and harm for opposing their chosen deliverer – it is time to stand against such a mob.

When people who supposedly support a guy who champions the Constitution, and then suggest violence and death for those who are exercizing their free political speech opposing their candidate – something is seriously wrong with such a mob movement.

Perhaps they had their brains eaten by other zombies, and they forgot that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution that they pay so much lip service to.


Filed under Musings, Politics