RON PAUL v. FOXY NEWS: WE REVEAL, YOU DERIDE
I am receiving heartfelt messages from some fine folks who say they were thinking of voting for Ron Paul, but now they will not because they have discovered one or another Paul position they do not share. For just one instance, broadcaster Tucker Carlson is supposed to be a Dr. No fan. He had me fooled because recently he brought a man to a Dr. No appearance in Nevada.
The man turned out to be Dennis Hof, proprietor of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, a local brothel. Hof was accompanied by two of his hookers, who apparently are still politically uncommitted, but Dennis made a substantial contribution and vowed to put a collection box outside the door of his whore house where customers can do their part for Dr. No on the way in or out.
A minor debate erupted about whether Tucker was trying to sabotage Ron or is just stupid. I don�t know which is correct, but the contretemps aroused inevitable headlines about �Pimping for Paul.� Indeed, that is what it says on the site of sodomite �conservative� Matt Drudge. For viewers as stupid as Tucker could be, the coverage even shows one of the hookers conducting a tour of the room where she does business. Fox News, the neo-con network owned by Hillaroid financier Rupert Murdoch, gave the (non) story mega-coverage, but did not show anyone talking about Mitt�s great grandfather�s five wives, or Rudy�s bra size.
Compounding the amusement is the fact that Dr. No is such a prude he declines to be alone with a lady other than his wife and family members, despite which I am now receiving messages from people who say they won�t support him, people who say they know he had never met Dennis Hof before the Carlson confrontation and didn�t even know who Hof is, but won�t support him anyway. Others are put off by his positions on drugs or pornography or abortion, because they are appear similar to the positions of ACLU (Anti-American Communist Liars Union).
First, let�s get rid of this last point. Are you sure you really want to condemn someone because an utterly foul, treasonous group temporarily says the same thing? Remember that the Communists love to pose as patriots. Should we stop saying and doing patriotic things? ACLU itself pretends to be American. El presidente Jorge W. Boosh has made an immensely successful racket out of pretending to be a Christian. Should we eschew Christianity?
But now what about the fact that you may take issue with one or another of Dr. Paul�s positions? Remember first that we are not talking here about the infamous �lesser of two evils� that has brought this country to the brink of dissolution. We�re not talking about whether cross-dressing serial husband Rudolph Giuliani or sodomy promoter Mitt Romney is the �lesser,� versus Hillaroid, the �greater.� We�re talking about a man everyone agrees is good, not evil, a man with whom we may honestly disagree.
By the way, Mitt Romney still boasts about the medical �insurance� scheme he imposed on Taxachusetts, which as President he presumably would inflict on the United States. It�s perfectly �voluntary,� of course, but, if you do not participate, you must pay a hefty fine. Among the benefits, says the state itself are �outpatient medical care (doctor's visits, surgery, radiology and lab, abortion, community health center visits).� Yes, abortion! And, just think, you would pay only $50 to kill your baby. Of course, Mitt opposed abortion before he endorsed it, before he opposed it before he endorsed it.
But here come Pat Robertson, Janet Folger, and other leaders of the Religious Wrong. The Religious Wrong opposes Dr. Paul with a passion because, although he personally opposes abortion, drugs and prostitution, he says the federal government has no power to legislate or intrude in those areas, which are properly the jurisdiction of the states. But the Religious Wrong doesn�t care. It demands federal intervention in everything; that is why it now supports Friar Huck, because a President Huckabee would make Hillaroid look like an isolationist. He believes God has ordained him not only to preach, but to force his whims � including a federal ban on smoking � down your craw. Pastor Chuck Baldwin says Friar Huck is �George W. Bush on steroids.�
The Religious Wrong totally ignores the fact that if the Constitution � the law � withholds power to do something from the federal government, then it is illegal for the federal government to do it. If the federal government does it anyway, it becomes a law breaker, which puts it in conflict with the Religious Wrong�s misinterpretation of Romans 13. But the Religious Wrong perversely persists in �improving� the Kingdom, �improving� on God.
Look at the record of the Religious Wrong. In the 1860s, they called themselves Abolitionists. The issue they used as a cloak for their true purpose was slavery; it could have been something else. Their motive was to destroy our republican system, a union of independent states. They provoked Lincoln�s Communist War to Destroy the Union for the purpose. That war destroyed the system the Founding Fathers bequeathed us and replaced it with an incipient Empire. They tricked us into many more wars.
Among their achievements was Prohibition, which banned alcohol. Prohibition also created the powerful criminal gangs that still plague us. If anything, it increased alcohol consumption, by adding to it the lure of the forbidden. It gave us the War on Drugs, which has created international drug trafficking so lucrative it can subvert whole nations; and drug use has exploded.
The War on Drugs was the original excuse for the Nazi/Communist superstructure the federal government has imposed. All of these effects are the product of the Religious Wrong�s lust to use that government to inflict its perverted version of Christianity, in which �Christianity� becomes the state.
Religious Wrong leaders trumpet totalitarianism. They want all the power to be in one place, so they can use it. They have contempt for our system of government, and its checks and balances. They don�t really believe in the efficacy of state governments, despite the fact that the states of course created the federal government. Ask yourself, isn�t there something the states are supposed to do? Isn�t it the things Dr. Paul says the Constitution gives the federal government no power to govern? If the federal government is supposed to do everything, why do we have states?
You leaders of the Religious Wrong are losers. After many decades of your unethical, illegal intervention, the moral situation in our country is worse than ever. We now suffer from much more and much worse of the things you claim to be against: abortion, drugs, alcohol, sexual perversion, divorce, illegitimacy, immorality and on and on and on. Sucking up to the Presidents in both parties has failed. You have lost even the last shred of credibility. You want everything big, but all you have for your efforts is a big head. You have victimized millions of genuine Christians. How dare you continue to claim that you know what we need?
Is there a perfect candidate? There is, a candidate who would be right on every issue, however complicated, a candidate the most persnickety voter would agree with every time, whose policies would easily solve every problem, a candidate who would leave Dr. Paul in the dust. The perfect candidate would be Jesus Christ; sadly, as I set this down, Jesus has not agreed to run. Friar Huck confirms that. Why not? Jesus is already King. Why would He step down? That means � whoever is chosen in either party � we are stuck for a candidate with the most deceitful, dishonest, dictatorial, sinful choice possible: a man. Remember, Hillaroid is not a woman.
Dr. No, like me, like you, is rotten with sin, utterly hopeless and riddled with faults. He is also redeemed by Jesus Christ, given to Him by the Father before the foundation of the world. He is the political champion of what you say you believe. Are you sure you want to discard him because you have found something you disagree with, however serious; discard him in favor of someone else with whom you agree much less? Because by dumping Dr. No, you are choosing someone else.
There are some things I strongly disagree with Dr. Ron about. He speaks favorably of Mike (�Martin Luther�) King, Jr. But Mike King was financed by the Communist Party, which wrote his speeches; he said himself that his �non-violence� consisted entirely of deliberately provoking violence. That is why violence almost always broke out in a �non-violent� King operation. Go to my archives to see the details.
His staunchest admirers, professors preparing his papers for posthumous publication, discovered that he was a career plagiarist who stole almost everything that appeared in his name; he was a sexual predator who hired prostitutes and chased a woman naked down the corridor of an Oslo hotel the night before he won the Nobel Prize; and he was not even a Christian. He wrote himself that he disbelieved the Resurrection. At the request of the family, a judge sequestered the FBI files about him until long after you and I are dead.
Another place I disagree with Ron is his belief that the only reason Muslim madmen attack us over here is that we are over there, that if we leave them alone, they will do us the same. It is certainly true that our presence there inflames them, but it is also true that from the beginning the central purpose of Islam has been the conquest of the world and the massacre of �infidels� who stand in the way. Islam has been perpetrating such massacres ever since; they continue today.
Typically, Muslims complain about the Crusades to �Muslim� countries. How did those countries get to be �Muslim?� Remember that they were Christian for more than six hundred years. They became �Muslim� through bestial conquest. The Crusaders didn�t go there to conquer them but to get them back.
Horrible excesses, aberrations, have been committed in the name of Christianity. In Islam the situation is reversed. Muslims willing to live in peace with other people are the backsliders, the aberration. The Islamic mainstream is murder and conquest. We need to remain aware of that.
So, yes, our presence there inflames them; but it constitutes throwing gasoline on a fire. It doesn�t mean setting the fire. Indeed, Ron is certainly right in that if we simply leave them alone many will kill each other. Remember also that the Soviets have been recruiting, financing, training and protecting Islamic terrorism for many decades.
Finally, my good friend Ron says we can come home from Iraq because no one has invaded us for 220 years. Didn�t the English invade us in 1812? Didn�t the Japanese invade us � the Aleutian Islands � during World War II? He says there was no �domino effect,� no bloodbath, in Southeast Asia after the War in Vietnam, but that country, Laos and Cambodia were the dominos that fell. There was a Communist bloodbath � the �Killing Fields� � in Cambodia; in Vietnam, the Communists still oppress and kill the Montagnards.
Is that enough? Were I of the same mind as some of the Religious Wrong people I am talking about, I would now indignantly rebuff Dr. Ron because he dares to disagree with me about something. Wouldn�t that be the enormously egotistical attitude of a spoiled brat? Who am I that a candidate must agree with every thought I have? Instead, I am doing everything I can to put Ron in the Oval Office. I have contributed to every money �bomb.� I attend Dr. No meetings. My wife spends all day handwriting letters to Iowa voters. Why?
Because I am living in the real world and recognize that I am dealing with a real man, an imperfect man, a man riddled with faults, a man who can�t be right about everything. I am weighing his virtues, his great qualities, against where he goes wrong, the way you evaluate everyone you meet.
Why not evaluate a candidate for President the same way? What is there about the presidency that makes us throw these normal, commonsensical principles into the garbage? I weigh the right against the wrong and guess what? Dr. No weighs in as a historic, American hero, a man who risks everything, who puts it all on the line. You know what I am talking about. The places he is right so far outweigh the places he is wrong that the latter seem in comparison like picking nits.
Would those of you who rebuff Ron Paul because you disagree about one issue or another be willing to give up all the other things he would do? Remember, for instance, that Dr. Paul favors the abolition of I.R.S. and the income tax. He has always said the same thing; he didn�t start to parrot that position last week, after promoting high taxes for years as governor of a state. He doesn�t want to replace them with anything. In fact, much of the time, you don�t even need to ask where he stands. Just read the Constitution. He will stand wherever the Constitution does. Dr. No�s integrity makes the Rock of Gibraltar look like a sand castle at the beach.
He favors abolition of the Federal Reserve and restoration of the money power to the people, thereby ending the disastrous, cyclical behavior of the economy that causes Great Depressions. He would encourage genuine free trade � between people � not the monstrous totalitarian misnomer that strangles it.
He would end the Vietnam-type no-win war in Iraq that is killing and maiming the best of our best. He would not expand the war to Iran. Unlike most of the other candidates, he spent five years in the military, as a flight surgeon. He would mind our own business and maintain a military so overwhelming that anyone who messes with us would cease to exist.
He would guarantee medical freedom, your right to choose the treatment you want. He would stop the invasion of our country across the Mexican border. He would restore our independence, kick the Communist UN out of our country, stop the North American Union and the Treason Highway that would destroy us. He would demand abolition of the Department of Education and end the federal handouts that inspire people to break into our country illegally. In one sentence, he would restore the freedom our country was founded to protect. I�m sure I have left a lot out.
Again, rebuffing Dr. No would mean choosing someone else. Who would that be? Instead, the Religious Wrong is presently trying to trick you into supporting the candidacy of Friar Huck, a man you probably disagree with much more than you disagree with Dr. Paul. Are you sure you want to give up everything Dr. Paul offers in exchange for the fact that Huckabee has been to divinity school?
Again, what I am suggesting is that we evaluate a presidential candidate the same way we evaluate everyone else, by looking at the whole person. We lay his faults beside his virtues, our agreements beside our disagreements; we assign the importance of each, and add up the totals. We don�t look at just one thing out of context. In short, we can work around a disagreement in the family.
Consider that you probably disagree with your wife more than you disagree with Ron. Why haven�t you kicked her out? And remember that Ron isn�t proposing anything near as important as marriage. All he wants is your vote for President.
Consider also that a President Paul would inspire the states to reassert the powers they have had all along; inspire them to do all the things the Religious Wrong says it wants. Would you give all this up because you disagree about some things? You�re kidding. Again, the Religious Wrong has zero credibility, none. Tell them to stow it and go home.
Another criticism of Dr. Paul is circulating in both the Prostitute National Press and the Religious Wrong. His campaign, we are told, is boisterous, unruly, unkempt, sometimes rude, so unlike the sissy style we are taught in government school. The Love Priestess explains this. She remains not only the most beautiful woman I have ever met; she also extrudes maternal (five kids) and other kinds of wisdom.
She says, yes, the Dr. No campaign is all these things, because it is masculine; it is run by men. That is one of the things the present, overweening bull dyke culture hates about it. In the Nanny State the bull dykes are constructing, the emasculated men walk behind them, heads down, terrified that some accidental gesture will land them in court, where other bull dykes will take away their kids.
In the Dr. No campaign, the men once again actually lead, which, by the way, is what normal women really want, decades of Communist propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. The Love Priestess has become a real expert in the art of manipulating men to take control. Look at me.
In the Dr. No campaign, the men and women walk hand in hand. It may not be an exaggeration to say that Ron Paul may represent the last foreseeable attempt for the restoration of political masculinity before the degenerates at the top of the conspiracy for world government allow bull dykes in shiny pants suits to impose their perversion from sea to shining sea. Remember that the Paul campaign doesn�t tell us what to do. We do it and tell them. Dr. Ron just happens to be the remarkably handsome, brilliant, utterly charming and charismatic candidate we men have chosen for the job.
At least 60% of the volunteers in the Paul campaign are men, happy men because we are not involved on one side or the other of the dialectical �wars� the Marxists who control our country constantly provoke to divide us. Instead, we strive to revive the Constitution that brings us together.
The more progress Dr. Ron makes, the more you will hear all kinds of fabrications about him, although I wonder what even the expert network prevaricators � the Limbags, the Hannitwerps, etc. � could say that is believable about a man who is so straight he makes an arrow look like a hula hoop. Do not let them deflect you. Remember that you don�t need to wonder about what Ron will do. Read the Constitution and find out. Stay the course.
Yes To No!
� 2007 - Alan Stang - All Rights Reserved
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace�s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang�s expos�s stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang expos� inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.
His first book, It�s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews.
Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN�s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in �Havana,� directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.
He didn�t because he wanted as many killed as possible to overcome the almost unanimous American desire to stay out of the war.