(February 12th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Paul takes money from neo-Nazi groups because they support his views, and he does theirs.)

You must be the guy that made up that lie. Because even the NAACP have claimed that it’s a lie. But of course, it’s not about pointing out racism is it?
It’s about fear. Using fear to force an warranted opinion. Just like the Goverment is using fear to continue an unpopular war abroad while slowly taking away our liberties here at home. And fear of someone who is actually an honest politician trying to bring the truth of our Nation’s plight to millions.

There’s a good chance that Scott A. Joseph, MD lives in an all white neighborhood and sends his kids to an all white private school. But hey, he’s out to protect the Black people.

Just as long as there aren’t any moving into his neighborhood.

aw15.2.8.06

In 2006, the Democrats won back both houses of Congress because of the Republicans stance on the war, and the war on terror. And no matter how hard they tried to make us believe that stuff, it didn’t work. Right?

And now, we have three candidates that are “anti-war”. Two Democrats and one Republican. Out of those three, only one candidate has committed to having all the troops out of Iraq by the end of the first 4 year term. (notice how quickly the other less proffitable “anti-war” candidates dropped out…Kusinich, Gravel etc etc)

Now, what do we have left. Absolutely no MSM coverage of Ron Paul. It seemed like the more money he raised, the more online polls he won, the more meetup groups that were formed, the less media coverage he recieved. (not that there was a lot from the start)

With every slip of the tongue by a talk show host, or a news broadcaster, or anyone affiliated with just about any type of media, it was always “the long shot candidate”. “The dark horse”. “No chance of winning”, etc etc……

And for the people who don’t use the internet, would never have any reason to think anything different than what they are told. And the ones who do use the internet, but buy’s into what the media says, would never bother checking Ron Paul out either. They wouldn’t bother checking out his voting record, his stance on immigration, abortion, states rights, gay marriage, or even what he could possibly mean by bringing back the Gold Standard.

The GOP, don’t want to look like they were wrong about the war. And the Democrats don’t want Ron Paul to look normal. So he has it coming at him from both sides. So which ever side controls the media, controls Ron Pauls campaign. ( I’m glad this text is in black & white, because that is just how clear this is)

Ron Pauls movement being strictly internet based, is absolutely 100% correct. And his supporters are raging throughout the internet because they can’t get through to the MSM. Why? For reasons I just explained.

In Black & White.

rel:dr:15.02:04.52

My friend if you care about your future, the future of your kids, do you think you can achieve it through 100 years of war or massive deficit spending using fiat money?? Every empire that did this in the history of the world failed and the american empire is failing before our eyes. Did you hear about the 3 trillion budget? Who do you think will pay for that? The politicians? Yet the masses, the media, the candidates running have no clue the empire is failing so how can they talk about it or look for a solution? Only Dr. Ron Paul understands the problem and how to solve it.

Go ahead forget about your future and the future of your kids, you can cry when it comes, and vote for the clueless candidates.

Perhaps the term “whoa” has disturbed some deeply imbeded memory cell from the authors younger experience. A wet diaper, a spilled glass of milk? Who knows?

Why does this “jopurnalist” denigrate the political process? Why shouldn’t Americans support with pride whatever candidate they like? Is a return to peace, prosperity, limited government, and personal responsiblility such a threat to media types that they feel compelled to denigrate Ron Paul and his supporters?

If a candidate is not a clear front-runner from the beginning, should Americans avoid him or her from the outset, even if they agree with that candidate and not the others? Should we always vote for the front-runners, just so we can feel good about backing a “winner” even if that candidate espo9uses views and policies we find abhorent?

I have been a lawyer for 25 years, and have listened to journalists and others complain ad nauseum about ethics, or the lack thereof, in the legal profession. They ought to examine their own lack of ethics instead. In spite of some heroic attempts by the writer’s press colleagues, I don’t think I have ever before heard such asinine, juvenile, snivelling commentary from the press. And, dear friends, that is saying a hell of a lot.