Archive for January 8, 2008

Sheriff: SWAT Team Necessary Because Man Is a “Self-Proclaimed Constitutionalist”

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

Reason Magazine

World Net Daily reports:

Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family’s home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.

The boy’s parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy’s father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.

The boy had apparently fallen and bumped his head. His father, who says he was a medic in Vietnam, says he examined the boy, determined he was fine, and saw no need to take him to the hospital. A paramedic called by neighbors forced his way into the home, then called police when the father refused to let the son go to thie hospital.

The police then sent social workers, who according to the Associated Press reported “a huge hematoma and a sluggish pupil.” That night, they sent in the SWAT team.

As it turns out, the kid was fine. After the raid, a doctor examined him, and told him to drink some fluids and take a Tylenol.

I’m even more troubled by the explanation for the aggressive tactics:

The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a “self-proclaimed constitutionalist” and had made threats and “comments” over the years.

However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father’s illegal behavior. “I can’t tell you specifically,” he said.

“He was refusing to provide medical care,” the sheriff said.

However, the sheriff said if his own children were involved in an at-home accident, he would want to be the one to make decisions on their healthcare, as did Shiflett.

“I guess if that was one of my children, I would make that decision,” the sheriff said.

But he said Shiflett was “rude and confrontational” when the paramedics arrived and entered his home without his permission.

Shiflett also home schools his kids. By the sheriff’s own admission, then, the show of force was more about Shiflet’s political beliefs and desire to be left alone than any real child neglect. “Constitutionalists,” beware.

Nanny State Update: Swearing In Bars….

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

Last update: January 8, 2008 – 3:53 PM

ST. CHARLES, Mo. -What the …? A St. Louis-area town is considering a bill that would ban swearing in bars, along with table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music. City officials contend the bill is needed to keep rowdy crowds under control because the historic downtown area gets a little too lively on some nights.

City Councilman Richard Veit said he was prompted to propose the bill after complaints about bad bar behavior. He says it will give police some rules to enforce when things get too rowdy.

But some bar owners worry the bill is too vague and restrictive, saying it may be a violation of their civil rights.

Marc Rousseau, who owns bar R.T. Weilers, said he thinks the bill needs revision.

“We’re dealing with adults here once again and I don’t think it’s the city’s job or the government’s job to determine what we can and cannot play in our restaurant,” Rousseau said.

The proposal would ban indecent, profane or obscene language, songs, entertainment and literature at bars.

A meeting to discuss the proposal is set for Jan. 14.




Find this article at:

The Ron Paul Backlash Hits Fox

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment
from “Editor,” <>   hide details 11:05 am (8 hours ago) 
  to “Editor,” <>
  date   Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM
  subject   The Ron Paul Backlash Hits Fox

One of the comments emailed to the Washington Post pretty much sums it up:
“There was a fundraiser tied to the movie “V” for Vendetta. But, in reality this revolution feels more like the movie The Matrix. Listening to Dr. Paul and being exposed to the ‘truth’ about our current situation is like choosing between the two pills. Take one and you will learn the truth and you can never unlearn it…”

The Ron Paul Backlash Hits Fox

By Jose Antonio Vargas

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Folks in downtown Manchester must be getting a little cranky right about now. All that tooting, honking and screaming? It’s the Ron Paul wagon, of course.
And it’s in full protest mode.
No campaign’s supporters, not even Obamamaniacs, can match the fierce intensity of the Paulites, Congressman Paul’s loud, passionate — some say obsessive — disciples. They took to the streets hours before the Fox News-sponsored Republican forum that excluded the Texas congressman, who, as Paulites are quick to note, is the top money-raising Republican in the fourth quarter.
And he placed fifth in Iowa — well ahead of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“How can Fox hold a debate without him? I mean, Dr. Paul is attracting more people to his movement than any Republican out there. You see any Mitt Romney supporters around? Any Giuliani supporters? Any McCain supporters? We’re it,” Vijay Boyapati told The Trail. Last fall Boyapai, a former engineer at Google, quit his job, packed his bags and headed to New Hampshire to campaign for Paul.

If they can raise record amounts of money online, they can surely take over downtown Manchester, where they’re waving signs (“Dr. Paul cured my apathy,” “Ron Paul Revolution”), protesting in front of city hall on Elm Street, making a pitch to anyone who’ll listen. “You gotta Google Ron Paul,” a Paulite tells a woman in a black turtleneck walking her way to a restaurant.
While I’m typing this, a young man wearing a big, black parka yelled, a la Mel Gibson in “Braveheart”: Freeeeddddoommm!”
And now, they’re heading to the forum itself.

Think secession!
Support our sponsors:
Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches


January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

The New Republic

Angry White Man

The bigoted past of Ron Paul.

James Kirchick, The New Republic Published: Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Congressman Ron Paul.
Getty Images
Congressman Ron Paul.

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation praised “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling–dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission’s plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon–but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years–Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report–but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a “distinguished counselor.” The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated–its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”–but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.”

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer–who advocated quarantining people with AIDS–praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, “Bring Back the Closet!” Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, “Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false. Paul’s newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague–also based upon the casual-transmission thesis–and defended “parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.” Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,” adding: “[T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

Paul’s newsletters didn’t just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia–specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and ’90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed “Ten Militia Commandments,” describing “the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” It warned militia members that they were “possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance” and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama–among them, “You can’t kill a Hydra by cutting off its head,” “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul’s obsession with the “industrial-banking-political elite” and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations–organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and “fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests” for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called “one of the saddest events in the history of the United States.” A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by “patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson”–as one of the newsletters called her–who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: “I can’t vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police’s tricks and crimes,” the newsletter said, adding, “Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL.”

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications–ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”

In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it.

What’s more, Paul’s connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones–whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos”–estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul’s congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment–because “the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.” North is perhaps best known for Gary North’s Remnant Review, a “Christian and pro free-market” newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, “Perhaps you already read in Gary North’s Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse.”

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week’s Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a “straight-talker.”

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges–that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

Corrections: This article originally misidentified ABC’s Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.


Copyright © 2007 The New Republic. All rights reserved.
Press Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

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

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

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

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

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




Sleepwalking into enslavement

January 8, 2008 1 comment

Sleepwalking into enslavement

Monday, 7th January 2008

Step by remorseless step, the free world continues in its trance-like state to attack, disable or paralyse its ability to defend itself against the global Islamic jihad. First, the ineffable UN has condemned not Islamic terrorism but the identification of and defence against it. As Robert Spencer reports:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, has succeeded in pushing through the UN a resolution condemning the ‘defamation of religions.’ That’s ‘religions,’ not ‘religion’ – yet according to Cybercast News Service, ‘although the resolution refers to defamation of ‘religions,’ Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.’ The resolution denounces ‘laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration.’ Muslims, it says, have suffered from ‘ethnic and religious profiling…in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.’ This is the fault, in part, of ‘the negative projection of Islam in the media.’ The UN voices its ‘deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.’

Perish the thought. Next, the western liberal mind now presents such a mortal threat to life and liberty that a group of anti-jihadi Muslims has been driven to denounce an American Reform rabbi, Rabbi Yoffie,for his sanitising of Islamic extremism and grotesque moral equivalence. In a column in The Jewish Week, they said they viewed with dismay a ‘partnership’ between the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which they said was not a legitimate representative of mainstream Islamic believers in the West.

Rabbi Yoffie was cited by the Post in a number of statements with which we disagree. He said, ‘As a once-persecuted minority in countries where antisemitism is still a force, we [Reform Jews] understand the plight of Muslims in North America today.’ We are Muslims concerned to protect the rights of our communities in non-Muslim societies, but we consider absurd any attempt to equate the situation of Muslims in Western Europe and North America today with historic anti-Jewish prejudice and oppression. Muslims in Western Europe and North America have not been subjected, in recent times, to wholesale denial of civil rights. Free discourse about Islam in the Western democracies is occasionally abrasive, but has never resembled the wholesale libels directed against Jews — including by latter-day Islamists — and has not been embraced by or institutionalized by any government in Western Europe or North America.
Rabbi Yoffie continued, ‘Islamic extremists constitute a profound threat. For some, this is a reason to flee from dialogue, but in fact the opposite is true.’ We do not understand the intent of this statement. It appears that Rabbi Yoffie believes dialogue is possible with extremists. We do not agree. We believe that dialogue between mainstream Muslims, Jews, and Christians is necessary, but that the defeat of Islamist extremists is necessary for such interfaith efforts to succeed. We do not support ‘dialogue’ with Islamist and other apologists for violence, or proponents of restrictions on freedom under the pretext of religion.
To which one can only say ‘Bravo’ to these courageous Muslims for reasserting truth and sanity in the face of a lethally deluded Jewish liberal.Next, an intensely disturbing development in, of all places, the Pentagon. One expects the State Department to grovel to illegitimate force, but the Department of Defence has been assumed to be more robust. No longer. It has fired Stephen Coughlin, its most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism — because he committed the crime of identifying that extremism. The Washington Times reports that Hasham Islam, a key aide to the Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, tried to get Coughlin to soften his views about Islamic extremism.
Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive ‘outreach’ program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.
So much for America’s role on the battleground of ideas.
In Britain, one man does get it. The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, himself the Pakistani son of a Muslim convert to Christianity, created a storm when he wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that Islamic extremists have created ‘no-go’ areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. Already separate communities, he says, have been turned into areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.

Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an ‘Islamic’ character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer. Such amplification was, of course, unknown throughout most of history and its use raises all sorts of questions about noise levels and whether non-Muslims wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker. This is happening here even though some Muslim-majority communities are trying to reduce noise levels from multiple mosques announcing this call, one after the other, over quite a small geographical area.There is pressure already to relate aspects of the sharia to civil law in Britain. To some extent this is already true of arrangements for sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered? It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain.

For uttering these truths, the Bishop has been denounced by both Islamists (with the ever-more preposterous Inayat Bunglawala proving the Bishop’s point by asserting that church bells are just as much of a public nuisance in Britain as the muezzin’s call to prayer) and Nick Clegg, the new centrist Gramscian leader of the more mature infantile Liberal Democrats. Clegg described the Bishop’s comments as

a gross caricature of reality.

Once again, however, it was a Muslim who showed up both the idiocy and the arrogance of the western liberal. Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim forum, wrote of the Bishop in the Daily Mail:

He has been condemned for making ‘inflammatory’ remarks, distorting the truth about our inner cities and ‘scaremongering’ against the Muslim population. But, paradoxically, this reaction from the politically-correct establishment is an indicator of the weight of his case. If our ruling elite were not so worried that his views would strike a chord with the public, it would not have been so anxious to condemn him.

His statement about the dangers of the rise of radical Islam matches the reality of what people see in our cities and towns, where the influence of hardliners is undermining harmony and promoting segregation…However much his critics may sneer at his accusations, the fact is that the determination of some of my fellow Muslims to cling to certain lifestyles, customs, languages and practices has helped to create neighbourhoods where non-Muslims may feel uncomfortable, even intimidated.


It is encouraging that Muslim voices are now being heard more and more speaking up against Islamic extremism. Their task is made infinitely more difficult, however, by western liberals determined to do the extremists’ work for them.

The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved

If you thought the “Patriot Act” encroached upon our freedoms and civil liberties, watch this….

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment
  from “Editor,” <>   hide details 2:44 pm (0 minutes ago) 
  to “Editor,” <>
  date   Jan 8, 2008 2:44 PM

Everyone should be aware of H.R. 1955.  If you thought the “Patriot Act” encroached upon our freedoms and civil liberties, watch this:

Ron Paul’s Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 1955

Read the bill:

Wikipedia Entry for H.R. 1955

H.R. 1955 in PDF Format


Ron Paul on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno  1-07-2008  (3 Parts)

part 1

part 2

part 3

Transcript on Ron Paul on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

Ron Paul Revolution Covered by the UK Guardian

Ron Paul Hit Piece on Tucker Carlson  1-07-2008

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC Talking About Ron Paul Supporters, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly

A Song for Ron Paul by Camelot Castle, England

The Liberty Song by Steve Dore


Coast to Coast’s Art Bell Comments on Ron Paul and Fox News

Howard Stern Mentions Ron Paul  1-07-2008  (Warning Offensive Language)

Howard Stern Talking About Ron Paul  1-08-2008  (Warning Offensive Language)


Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee:  How Do I Say Thank You?

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee:  Other Candidates Parrot Dr. Paul’s Message of Liberty & Limited Government

Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk:  No Sunlight on the Omnibus

ABC News:  On Primary Eve, Paul Does Leno

Burlington Free Press:  Letter to the Editor – The Choice Is Clear, Ron Paul for President

Craig Daily Press:  A Sound Off On Politics, Presidential Race

CBS News:  Huckabee Sounding A Little Like Ron Paul

Digg:  Huckabee, False Prophet,  Steals Ron Paul’s Ideas

Fact Beat:  Mitt Romney Botches Fact in Terror Spar with Ron Paul

Houston Chronicle:  Weather Good, Turnout Brisk in New Hampshire

Huffington Post:  Battle for Concord, NH

Huffington Post:  Memo to Fred Thompson:  America Has an Empire

Los Angeles Times:  Ron Paul, Muffled by Fox, Wows Jay Leno

Los Angeles Times:  Ron Paul Launches Eight-State Ad Blitz

Napa Valley Press:  Ron Paul Is A Man of the People, Constitution

New York Observer:  Ron Paul Says He’s Not Anti-Israel

Reuters:  Ron Paul – McCain’s Reckless “100 Years in Iraq” Comment Endangers Americans

Seacoast Online:  Federal Forecast Predicts Paul, Obama Will Come Out On Top

Yahoo:  Ron Paul Wins Nevada Republican Assembly Straw Poll

Yahoo:  Ron Paul Song Goes Number One in UK on YouTube

In Liberty,

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
1-877-RON-PAUL (1-877-766-7285)
Independent Grassroots Support Network

* is 100% grassroots and is not paid for nor approved by any candidate.
47 W. Polk St. Suite 100-408, Chicago, IL  60605

Think secession!
Support our sponsors:
Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches

The Essence of Liberty #217, The Washington Factor

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment
The Essence of Liberty: Part 217 

Compiled by 

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

A Summary of Gutzman, Kevin R.C. The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution 

(The book is available from the Ludwig von Mises Institute at 

Chapter 4: Judges: Power-Hungry from the Beginning 

The Washington Factor

George Washington loomed large over the debates. The general understanding that he would serve as the first president was highly influential on the constitutional design of the executive branch. The delegates trusted that he would behave as a good republican.

Washington made Alexander Hamilton the first secretary of the treasury. Hamilton was an admirer of the British constitution and the British financial system, which he wished to replicate in America . He had suffered hardship, cold and hunger at Valley Forge . As a result, he felt that the federal government must be stronger in order for the united States to be able to defend themselves.

So, he wanted the first Congress to assume the debts that had been incurred by the states during the Revolution. But, under the leadership of Patrick Henry, the Virginia House of Delegates adopted a formal resolution declaring this to be unconstitutional. They said that the federal government had not been expressly granted any such power. But, as is all too common in politics, Hamilton cut a deal with the Virginians. The federal capital would be located between Virginia and Maryland in exchange for their accepting his debt assumption program.

Thomas Jefferson joined James Madison in opposing another of Hamilton ‘s financial measures that was intended to create an American version of the Bank of England to manage the government’s debt. The House of Representatives classified the bill as unconstitutional on the grounds that there was nothing in Article I, Section 8 that gave congress the power to create any kind of corporation.

Nevertheless, Congress passed the bill. Washington then asked his cabinet if they thought that the bill was unconstitutional. Jefferson responded with what the Constitution actually says and means. ”… powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, no prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, how was someone supposed to know if a power had been delegated to Congress by the Constitution? Simple, there is a list of delegated powers in Article I, Section 8 and that list says nothing about the chartering of corporations.

Hamilton and supporters then turned to the so-called elastic clause—i.e. the Necessary and Proper Clause at the end of Article I, Section 8 which says that Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers” But, chartering a bank was not “necessary” to carry out any of Congress’s enumerated powers.

But Hamilton countered Jefferson’s argument with ”necessary” did not really mean necessary, but that it might mean “helpful,” “useful,” “convenient” or “desired.”

Note the distinction between the two. Jefferson started with the assumption that congress has only those powers that are expressly delegated to it. On the other hand, Hamilton started with the assumption that Congress was analogous to the British Parliament in having all powers the Constitution did not expressly deny it. This is a model that the Philadelphia Convention had rejected. Furthermore, it is directly at odds with the 10th Amendment and much of what Hamilton had written in The Federalist.

But in the end, Washington eventually followed Hamilton ‘s advice and signed the bill.

Next Previous

Copyright ©2004,

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of living a life of crime.”

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL can be contacted at

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.


Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise



© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

MUCKRAKER REPORT – An Awful Embarrassment For Fox News

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

Ed Haas

An awful embarrassment for Fox News

Please Go To Muckraker Report Here!

It’s Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

It’s Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process
Posted By Bobby Eberle On January 8, 2008 at 7:25 am

Over the years, there have been attempts by some members of the Republican National Committee to change the process by which the GOP presidential nominee is determined. Years ago, there was talk of “smoke filled rooms” at the national convention in which deals would be hashed out to determine a nominee. As the years went on, the state primary/caucus elections become more powerful, and the nominee was determined long before the convention.

The change from “smoke filled rooms” to putting the power in the hands of the voters was a good thing. However, a new set of dynamics has been created which hurts the process and again requires changes. States at the end of the primary schedule were becoming irrelevant. So, more and more states began “front loading” the primaries — moving them up in the schedule. As more and more states have their primaries earlier and earlier, the race for the nomination becomes a defacto national election instead of a state by state contest as it should be.

With so many primary elections and caucuses up front, only candidates with serious reserves of cash or media attention can compete. There is no time to build momentum and use that momentum to help generate new funds. Here is how the months of January and February are laid out in 2008 for state primary elections and caucuses:

January 3 — Iowa
January 5 — Wyoming
January 8 — New Hampshire
January 15 — Michigan
January 19 — Nevada, South Carolina
January 29 — Florida
February 1 — Main
February 5 (Super Tuesday) — Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, West Virginia
February 9 — Louisiana, Kansas
February 12 — Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia
February 19 — Washington, Wisconsin

That is a total of thirty-four states plus the District of Columbia which will hold their elections before March.

In addition to eliminating “front loading,” something should also be done to reduce the artificially inflated importance of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. These two states often spell doom for a candidate who doesn’t get off to a fast start, yet these two states provide only a small fraction of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. No candidate’s bid for the presidency should be determined by how he or she finished in one state, yet that’s exactly what we see now from the media. They pronounce gloom and doom or anoint an heir apparent after one or two contests. That is not fair and not right.

So, what can be done about it? A number of proposals have been floated by various Republican activists and party leaders. As noted in a story by the Austin American-Statesman, some of those proposals include the following:

Texas plan: Primaries would be spaced from February through May, with states and territories broken into four groups taking turns starting off the presidential election years. Under the plan, each group of states and territories is balanced by a similar share of electoral votes, convention delegates and states won by either the Republican or Democratic presidential nominees the previous election. Texas voters would act at the same time as voters in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Delaware plan: States broken into four groups by population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-size states and finally the 12 largest states.

Rotating regional primaries: The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed regional primaries, with the order of regions changing every election cycle. While ensuring that all states in a given 20-year period would have a chance to be among the first primary dates, it would make retail politicking, or meeting voters individually, very difficult.

American plan: Also known as the California plan, it suggests randomly selecting states to hold their primaries or caucuses over 10 two-week intervals, with a gradual increase in the total population of states and territories holding primaries/caucuses.

Of those current plans being discussed each has merit and offers an approach to changing a broken system. However, something like the Delaware Plan makes the most sense. I would even consider using more groups than just four.

Under the Delaware plan, smaller states would go first in the process. This is a good practice in that 1) the smaller states (other than Iowa and New Hampshire) often get overlooked, and 2) candidates don’t have to worry about a large bankroll so early in the process. Success in smaller states has just as much to do with organization as it does with money — e.g. Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Candidates with lower name ID and money but who have a good message would have a better shot at scoring a victory or high finish and using those results to build some momentum and generate fundraising interest.

Then the candidates would move along to slightly larger states. More delegates would be at stake, but as the size of the state increases, the strategies for campaigning also change. Money becomes much more important, and candidates would have had more time under the Delaware Plan to raise money if they generated voter interest.

Former Republican National Committee member John Ryder was quoted in the Memphis Daily News as saying he sees “clear skies ahead for a reordering of the presidential primary process starting in 2012.” Ryder, who advocates the Delaware Plan, noted:

“Nobody would be able to assemble a majority of the delegates until they got to that last group of states, which means that every state is in play,” Ryder said. “The principal problem with the present system is that only the early states seem to count. If you hold a primary in May or June under the present system, it doesn’t matter. The nominee has already been selected. The primary becomes irrelevant.”

Regardless of what plan is adopted, the process definitely needs to change. By spacing out the process and going from smaller to larger states, more candidates could compete, more states would be involved, and a nominee more representative of the will of the entire Republican electorate around the country would be more likely to emerge.

Republican National Committee contact info:
Phone: 202-863-8500
E-mail: e/

>> Discuss this topic in The Forum

Article printed from The Loft:

URL to article:


January 8, 2008 1 comment

By Carey Roberts

January 8, 2008

It’s no secret that Hillary Clinton views herself as a member of the God Squad, divinely anointed to shepherd the masses to greater gender consciousness.

“Hillary acts as though she has been chosen by God,” recounts Edward Klein, author of The Truth about Hillary. “I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known,” explains former New York Times reporter Bob Boorstin. And during her senate campaign Hillary glowed approvingly whenever Black preachers declared her “a woman of God.”

But how many persons know how Mrs. Clinton’s messianic streak may lead to her political undoing?

During her childhood Hugh Rodham treated Hillary as Daddy’s favorite, sparing her from many of the chastisements and chores he imposed on her hapless brothers. As brother Tony remarked enviously, “Little Hillary could do no wrong.”

Hillary’s teenage involvement with the local Methodist church only reinforced her emerging priggishness. By the age of 17, Hillary’s “messianism and sense of entitlement” were already evident, reveals Carl Bernstein in A Woman in Charge.

During her college years, Hillary Rodham’s self-righteous streak fueled her many political pursuits. Those culminated in her 1975 marriage to Bill Clinton, a man she fully expected to one day become president.

But after Bill lost his 1980 re-election bid for the Arkansas governorship, a distraught Hillary began to speak at church meetings around the state. One day she traveled to a church in North Little Rock to deliver a homily on “Women Armed with the Christian Sword – To Build an Army for the Lord.”

Hillary’s unconventional blend of Christian faith and feminist ideology was taking shape.

Five days after his 1992 inauguration, Bill named Hillary to head up his Task Force on Health Care Reform. But her political miscalculations soon turned into an electoral fiasco. On November 8, 1994 the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress, and Hillary was banished from the West Wing of the White House.

Smarting from her self-inflicted wounds, Hillary invited a group of New Age savants to Camp David. As recounted by Bob Woodward in The Choice, one of her guests was Jean Houston, a psychic who had conducted LSD experiments and claimed to communicate regularly with Athena, Greek goddess of wisdom.

What transpired that weekend – equal parts group psychotherapy and feminist consciousness-raising – may rank as the most bizarre episode ever involving a First Lady.

Hillary’s healthcare debacle was emblematic of the female crucifixion, Ms. Houston believed. Speaking as if a witness to the Second Coming, Houston told Clinton she was carrying the burden of 5,000 years of female subservience. Driving her point home, Houston compared Hillary to Joan of Arc, the French woman who was burned at the stake in 1431 for heresy.

The best was yet to come.

In April 1995 Houston came to the White House, this time to conduct a séance. Seated around a circular table in the White House solarium, Houston instructed Hillary to close her eyes and engage in a conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt.

Hillary readily complied and was soon comparing Eleanor’s epic struggles with her own. Houston intoned that the First Lady’s woes were caused by self-important men who refused to accept women as equals — ignoring how HRC’s clumsy attempt to overhaul the healthcare system had exposed her political naiveté.

Now sounding like Daddy’s little girl, Hillary asked why people kept saying things that hurt her feelings. The pity party was just getting started.

Over the next year Jean Houston continued as Hillary’s spiritual and political mentor, constantly urging her to continue the fevered crusade on behalf of women’s rights.

But some would ask, What’s wrong with a candidate who casts her candidacy in the aura of historical inevitability and views every issue through the moralistic lens of right and wrong?

For starters, Hillary comes across as arrogant.

Friend Sara Ehrman once warned about Hillary that “God is on my side can be arrogance.” Former Moynihan aide Lawrence O’Donnell believed Clinton’s haughtiness was her most prominent difficulty.

And remember Hillary’s recent encounter with CBS News anchor Katie Couric? Asked how she would feel if she didn’t become the Democratic nominee, Hillary acidly shot back, “Well, it will be me.” [Read]

Lloyd Bentsen, who served as Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration, observed how Hillary’s “holier-than-thou” attitude often lead her to demonize her opponents – remember Hillary’s paranoid remark about the “vast right wing conspiracy”?

Let’s not forget all those who ended up on Hillary’s fabled enemy list: Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kenneth Starr, Senators who doubted her, and even the Washington Post. Biographer Carl Bernstein notes how “Hillary’s willingness to demonize her enemies had left [Daniel Patrick Moynihan] with lasting caution about her.”

Enemy lists, paranoid fantasies, a supercilious attitude, and self-righteous crusades – shades of Richard Milhous Nixon.

© 2008 Carey Roberts – All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to, he has published in The Washington Times,,,, Men’s News Daily,, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, researcher and consultant.





January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

January 8, 2008

What is it about Ron Paul that the Establishment finds so disturbing? This is a man who perhaps personifies Christian character and integrity, American patriotism, and family values more than any other public figure. Ron Paul is a committed family man whose marriage to Carol has lasted for more than 50 years. He is a lover of families and children. As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies into this world. His life demonstrates a commitment to life and marriage.

Furthermore, Ron Paul’s devotion to Christ is very personal and deep. Unlike many politicians (especially in the Republican Party), Ron Paul does not wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn’t need to. Anyone who knows him knows his faith is exhibited on a daily basis. His life and family are testaments to his Christian faith.

Beyond that, Ron Paul’s record in Congress is so unblemished, so honest, so full of integrity that it is difficult to describe. This is a man who actually takes his oath to the Constitution (an oath every congressman, senator, and President also takes–but then ignores) seriously. So much so that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a congressional pay raise, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government.

In addition, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. Even though he is a 10-term congressman, he is not accepting a government pension. He also returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. No wonder Ron Paul was declared to be the “Taxpayer’s Best Friend.”

Now, how in the name of common sense can a man such as Ron Paul be hated? Maybe it is because he is a man of integrity and honesty. Remember, our Lord said that men who love darkness hate the light. And if there is a word that describes the Establishment in America today, it is DARKNESS.

Name it: the establishment Democrat and Republican Parties, the establishment media, the establishment financial institutions, and even the establishment churches all seem to be run by people who exude the power of darkness. It should not surprise us, therefore, when a man arises who personifies the light of integrity and honesty, that the powers that be should hate him–and hate Ron Paul they do.

Conservative Republican Ron Paul is loathed as much by members of his own party as he is by liberal Democrats . Even though he is the epitome of a Christian gentleman, Ron Paul is despised by Christians and pastors as much as he is by pagans–maybe more. The media despises him–especially Fox News. The so-called conservative Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity practically goes ballistic at the mere mention of Dr. Paul’s name.

Ron Paul has been categorized with the Ku Klux Klan, brothel owners, and Skin Heads. He has been called practically every name in the book. Conservatives and liberals alike rail against Dr. Paul in a manner never seen before in modern politics. Again, why does the Establishment hate him so much? I’ll tell you why.

The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Gig would be up! It would be Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday at Tombstone all over again. They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep their corrupt stranglehold on American politics.


Another reason the Establishment hates Ron Paul is because he is a true American–and there are not very many true Americans left in Washington, D.C., these days. You see, Ron Paul has read and studied American history. He understands constitutional government. He knows what real money is–and is not. As historian and author Thomas DiLorenzo said, Ron Paul is a modern-day Thomas Jefferson. (See his column here )

Unfortunately, most of what we have in Washington, D.C., these days (in both parties) is a bunch of internationalists who cannot see past their own selfish interests. They are consumed with greed and power. They are slaves to Big Business and special interest groups. They are petty, shallow hirelings who care nothing for constitutional government, the principles of liberty, or the American people. To them, Ron Paul represents everything they hate: limited government, freedom, selflessness, humility, and integrity.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is not interested in creating a world empire. Neither is he a warmonger. He would squash the burgeoning New World Order in its tracks–and the globalists ensconced in Washington and New York City know it.

There is only one Presidential candidate who would bring a modern-day revolution to Washington, D.C., and it is not Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. It is Ron Paul. Obama and Huckabee–along with the rest of the Democrat and Republican contenders–are only more of the same. The same Nanny State, the same unconstitutional laws and regulations, the same advances toward global government, the same attacks against individual liberties, the same arrogance, the same hypocrisy, the same social programs, the same back-breaking taxes, the same jack-booted federal police tactics, the same IRS, the same lobbyists, and the same corrupt Washington politics.

That the Establishment would hate Ron Paul should not surprise us. It does not even surprise me that many pastors and Christians despise Ron Paul. (After all, many of them still worship at the altar of George W. Bush.) What is yet to be seen is, How will the American people receive him? His strong showing in Iowa surprised most of the “experts.” I believe he will do even better in New Hampshire today. How Dr. Paul’s campaign fares in future primaries is still to be seen.

Should Ron Paul fail in his bid to become the Republican Party’s Presidential nominee, I believe it is critically important that he continue his bid as a Third Party candidate. His campaign is more than a campaign–it is a movement. People by the thousands and money by the millions is pouring in, and it will continue to pour in all the way to the general election. It is essential that Ron Paul stays in the race all the way to November.

Remember, when Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, there were four strong Presidential candidates, and Lincoln won with just 39% of the popular vote. With New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg seriously considering an independent bid for the White House, and if Ron Paul, likewise, runs as a Third Party candidate, 2008 could see another race with four strong Presidential contenders. In such a case, anything is possible–including a Ron Paul victory.

The fact is, Ron Paul does not need the support of the Establishment to win. With God’s help–and with the help of millions of fed-up and tireless average Joes–anything is possible. Anything.

Here is another thing: the fact that the Establishment hates Ron Paul so much must mean that there is ample reason for ordinary people like you and me to love him!

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, please send your check or Money Order to:

Chuck Baldwin Live
P.O. Box 37070
Pensacola, Florida 32526

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: When responding, please include your name, city and state.





EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and….

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

New York Post


January 8, 2008 — EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future. As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they’d soon explode.

The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.

The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters – about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn’t shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.

We should’ve sunk every one of them.

Not because we’re warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?

Oh, from Washington’s perspective we did the right thing by “exercising restraint.” But Washington’s perspective doesn’t amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.

They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.

It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.

They didn’t. They’re pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That’s what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest – until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won’t take long at all.

Forget Washington’s trust-fund-twit view of all this: Here’s how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:

“The Americans have told the world we don’t want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.

“We can push these cowardly Americans now. They’ve had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.

“Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America’s might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them.”

Sunday’s incident wasn’t a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.

At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards’ naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?

Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn’t have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?

And it wasn’t just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would’ve had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would’ve been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.

The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.

On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They’ll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.

Remember the USS Cole? You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.

For almost 70 years, we’ve deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we’ve gone from “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” to “Will this interfere with my next promotion?”

Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Wars of Blood and Faith.”


NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2008 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pat Buchanan: Are we seeing the last hurrah for the Reagan coalition?

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment


THE HUGE Democratic turnout in the Iowa Caucuses, over twice that of the GOP, and the stampede by independents to vote in the Democratic precincts, suggests that Iowa, a swing state carried by President Bush in 2004, may be lost irretrievably to the GOP in 2008.

Why is Iowa walking away from the GOP? Why did Barack Obama win almost as many votes as all the Republicans put together?

First, Iraq. Parties that march nations into what the people come to see as unnecessary or unwinnable wars face the inevitable consequences.

Truman found that out when he was trounced by Estes Kefauver in New Hampshire in 1952. Lyndon Johnson found that out when Sen. Gene McCarthy captured 42 percent of the vote in New Hampshire in 1968 and was about to humiliate LBJ in Wisconsin. LBJ stood down, before the country threw him down. Richard Nixon took the helm.

The GOP lost Iowa because of its persistent failure to recognize and its refusal to address the anxiety and insecurity of the middle class.

George H.W. Bush’s failing in 1992 is the failing of son George W. Bush. With the sole exception of Mike Huckabee, the GOP seems unable to comprehend how throwing U.S. workers into Darwinian competition with foreigners earning one-fifth or one-tenth their wages impacts the Reagan Democrats now deserting the GOP. A party that used to admonish one and all, “There is no free lunch,” cannot see that free trade is no free lunch.

Moreover, the party is mired in the past, looking back to the time of Reagan. Reagan was a good man and a great President, but our time is no more his time than the Eisenhower 1950s were like the 1920s.

While the GOP is in grave trouble, defeat in 2008 is not foreordained. The Democrats are winning not because of the superiority of their candidates or ideas but because the Republicans are perceived as failing. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has the answer to what ails America. Both, and Barack especially, have moved far outside the mainstream of the nation.

“I am the change agent,” each of the Democrats proclaims. But when this country is facing an entitlements crisis with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — unfunded liabilities adding up to scores of trillions of dollars — is it not madness to promise 50 million people, half of them immigrants, legal and illegal, national health insurance?

Who is going to pay for this when the states are heading back toward bankruptcy, the economy is slowly sinking, U.S. companies are being taxed up to 40 percent and the most successful Americans are already paying half their income to local, state and federal governments?

Does anyone think Democrats have an answer to the immigration crisis that now grips every great American city? The amnesty, the “path to citizenship” they favor, will mean the next invasion will be the last and decisive invasion that makes America unrecognizable.

Does anyone think the Party of Government that depends on government workers and unions at election time can make government more efficient? Does anyone think that a party that depends on teachers unions and the NEA can reform the social Katrina that is inner-city education in America? Was it not Democrats who ran the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana in the time of Katrina? But the American people want change, and Democrats represent change.

On issue after issue, the Republican Party, if it stood true to its beliefs and purged the twin heresies of neoconservatism in foreign policy and Wall Street Journal ideology in trade and immigration policy, would still stand well with Middle America.

Most Americans are traditionalist on right to life, homosexual marriage, a polluted culture and Hollywood values. Most Americans believe in a defense second to none, while staying out of wars that are not our quarrels.

Conservatives never believed in the United States going into nation-building abroad because they never believed in government nation-building at home. Nations grow organically. They rise from the soil of their own history, culture, faith, traditions.

Republicans believe in conservative judges and strict-constructionists justices like Antonin Scalia, who do not write the laws, but interpret the laws we have written through our elected representatives.

Democrats know this. Thus, they are not promising us any new Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.

What has alienated America is the Bush bellicosity, the my-way-or-the-highway free-trade ideology, the refusal to defend the border with the implication that anyone who wants to preserve the country he grew up in is some kind of bigot. The Party of Reagan is losing the country because it is no longer the party of the principles, policies and persona of Reagan, as applied to the problems of our time.

Patrick Buchanan ran for the Republican nomination for President in 1992 and 1996 and was the Reform Party nominee in 2000.

The rise of the populists by Pat Buchanan

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The rise of the populists

Posted: January 8, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Patrick J. Buchanan

© 2008 

MANCHESTER, N.H. – It is the historic mission of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary to give us the establishment candidate in each party, and then the insurgent candidate. The two pairs then battle it out in South Carolina to give us the probable nominees for November.

Year 2008 looks no different, with this exception: The insurgents, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, swept the first contests and now have the momentum. And both establishments are reeling. Twenty-four hours before New Hampshire, the GOP establishment has not even settled upon a champion.

If Mitt Romney wins the Granite State, he will be the alternative to Huckabee. But if he does not – and he has fallen behind – he must beat John McCain in Michigan on Jan. 15, stay in the race whatever it costs, hope to keep the anti-Huckabee vote split and hope that McCain runs out of fuel first.

Yet even as the candidates rally the party faithful, the issues they are raising and the early returns are telling us that the center of gravity in American politics has shifted seismically in four years.

On immigration, the center is now behind tough enforcement of the law and stronger border security.

The Republicans have all moved to the Tom Tancredo position. Hillary Clinton saw her campaign almost derailed by her temporary support of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. McCain’s pro-amnesty stand almost ended his candidacy.

On Iraq, the center of gravity seems to be: Let us end the U.S. involvement and bring the boys home.

Not only did all of the Democratic candidates promise an early, or immediate, withdrawal of U.S. troops, Ron Paul won more than twice as many votes in Iowa as Rudy Giuliani. Paul has used his campaign to surface the antiwar sentiment inside the Republican coalition. Add his votes to the antiwar Democratic votes in Iowa, and Americans are saying: time to come home. The Bomb Iran Caucus has fallen silent.

On trade, the Democratic Party has turned anti-NAFTA, one of Bill Clinton’s signal achievements, while Mike Huckabee, runaway GOP winner in Iowa, seizes every opportunity to identify with the middle-class victims of the radical change wrought by globalization. Economic populism is on the rise, and globalism is under fire in both parties.

(Column continues below)

Columnists left and right, from Paul Krugman to Tony Blankley, are calling for a reappraisal of the economic consequences of throwing open America’s markets to the world, while Chinese and Japanese manipulate their currencies for mercantilist advantage and Europeans impose value-added taxes on U.S. imports and rebate those same taxes on their exports to the United States.

Press and political warnings of the danger of “protectionism” testify to the establishment fear that economic nationalism is back. As the economy slowly sinks, Americans are going to demand more than a mythical “level playing field.” They are going to want to stop losing and start winning.

The Democratic fight seems to be more about personality than philosophy. Barack and Hillary are both for national health insurance, both for bringing the troops home, both for battling global warming, and both for abortion and gay rights. In the GOP, however, the consensus seems to be breaking down and the conservative coalition breaking up.

Rudy is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Fred Thompson and Ron Paul seem to be states’ rights men on both. Huckabee is solidly pro-traditional family and pro-life, positions to which Mitt has lately been converted. But the old Reaganite consensus is gone.

On taxes, a signature issue for the GOP, Huckabee raised them in Arkansas and McCain opposed cutting them at the federal level.

With Barack pulling Hillary to the left and the clamor for change pulling Republicans away from Bush’s brand of conservatism – i.e., Big Government, foreign policy bellicosity, globalism and open borders – the fall could bring a dramatic clash of philosophies and policies on the largest questions facing the nation.

Is it time to bring the U.S. troops home from Iraq, no matter the consequences? Under what conditions should the United States go to war again? Is Afghanistan winnable, and if so at what cost? Do we confront Iran or talk to Iran – and Russia?

Can a nation facing a Social Security-Medicare crisis and falling revenues from a failing economy afford not only a Democratic national health insurance program but the Republicans’ enlarged Army?

If the free-trade era is over, what replaces it? Reciprocal trade agreements? How do we stop a foreign run on the dollar and rising prices for oil, food and commodities if the Fed has to keep lowering interest rates and pumping out money to prevent us from sinking into recession?

Will we allow the sovereign wealth funds of Asia and Arabia, the new investment monsters, to buy up what they want of our country?

That the American people have had enough of Bush-Cheney is undeniable. They have also had more than enough of Pelosi-Reid.

One wonders if this wailing for change and praise for anyone who will promise it is much more than the cry of spoiled children who want what the family can no longer afford, and who cannot face the truth that, as Merle Haggard sang, the good times may be over for good.

NEW special offer:

Pat Buchanan’s latest book “Day of Reckoning,” is available autographed exclusively at WorldNetDaily’s online store!

Like this columnist? Would you like to see him in your local newspaper? Call your local editor.

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books.

Ron Paul on the Verge of Going 3rd Party

January 8, 2008 Leave a comment

Ron Paul on the Verge of Going 3rd Party
The Fifth Column Eric Dondero
January 8, 2008
Print version sponsored by
Precision Payroll of America, LLC

Rep. Ron Paul’s 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign started with great promise: A former four-term Republican US Congressman running on the ticket of America’s third largest party. But it ended in failure and even scandal. Many were predicting over 1 million votes—a Libertarian record. Paul ended up with 435,000.


On the money front it was even more of a downer. By some estimates over $3.5 million was raised. Most of it was squandered on full-page NY Times ads, escapades to the Republican National Convention, and lavish luncheons for visiting Libertarian luminaries. On Election Day scores of lawyers and accountants raided the Ron Paul for President Campaign Headquarters and closed down the campaign operation. Campaign Manager Nadia Hayes was arrested by the Nassau Bay, TX Police Department and later convicted for embezzlement of roughly $140,000.


American Libertarian magazine November 1988 described the situation:


“…a bizarre twist tough-talking campaign manager Nadia Hayes was sacked the day before the election. And the much awaited last minute campaign media blitz largely failed to materialize…Paul campaign chair Burt Blumert and Paul campaign ghostwriter and direct mail fundraiser Lew Rockwell showed up…unannounced and unexpected (at HQ). Staff were told that they should leave… locksmiths turned up late in the day to change the locks on the office doors.”


Three years later, an undeterred Ron Paul prepared to launch yet another Presidential Campaign. Many inside the Paul camp were anxious to back a more successful effort and redeem their reputations. Several had been booted from the Libertarian Party in 1989. They were on the receiving end of a mini-purge largely resulting from the scandal-ridden ’88 effort.


Their new project was Ron Paul, Republican for President. The Trio of Paleo-Libertarians: Lew Rockwell, Burt Blumert and Murray Rothbard, conspired with ex-Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee members Justin Raimondo and Eric Garris to draft Paul to run again, this time in early GOP primaries.


Problem was Paul himself had stayed within the LP and wasn’t anxious to re-join the Republicans.


In the Fall of ’91 Burt Blumert, Paul’s longtime partner with his Camino Coins Gold business in Bulingame, CA and the Ron Paul Investment Letter, finally secured permission from Paul to launch an Exploratory Committee, and to raise money for the effort. Paul himself wanted to keep all his options open, including the option of another 3rd party bid.


Soon thereafter, Blumert, who is now the publisher of contacted this reporter and asked me to run the effort on the ground. I had served as Ron Paul’s travel aide in 1988 and had all the necessary contacts, particularly in critical states like New Hampshire. By December we had a few State Coordinators and volunteers in place in New Hampshire ready to go. Everything was under the radar, hoping to catch the Bush people off-guard.


But two weeks before our scheduled first trip to NH Pat Buchanan muscled his way into the campaign. On PBS’ McLaughlin Group, Buchanan announced that a “good source” told him “a former Congressman” was about to jump in and challenge Bush in the New Hampshire primary.


Ron Paul and I had tickets in hand and a schedule mapped out for a New England swing. Then Buchanan called Paul up the night before our trip and asked him to drop out. Buchanan wanted to run himself. Paul agreed.


Murray Rothbard, writing in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report (RRR), wrote at the time:


As if our prayers were swiftly answered by Heaven, we now have that candidate and that leader: Pat Buchanan.

One might well ask: what about Ron Paul? In November, we called for Ron Paul to enter the Republican primaries, and we joined an exploratory committee to test the waters for that race. We generated an enormous amount of interest from libertarians and conservatives, and from the media, starved for some kind of contest in what had looked like a torpid and boring Bush coronation in 1992. Ron was determined that Bush would not go unchallenged, but he was not anxious for personal reasons to make the race. When Pat phoned him, without hesitation, Ron welcomed Pat’s entry into the race, and pledged his support to the Buchanan effort. Unlike most libertarians, Ron Paul understands the real world of politics, and he realizes that in Pat Buchanan we have an unprecedented opportunity to forge a powerful coalition, to create a new libertarian-conservative, Old Right movement.


The Paul effort quickly morphed into Pat Buchanan for President. Our New Hampshire Coordinator Chris Tremblay became Buchanan’s top Personal Aide throughout the Presidential Campaign. Blumert, Rockwell and Rothbard solicited funds for Buchanan’s campaign. Raimondo and Garris became leaders in the “Buchanan Brigades” on the grass roots level. Raimondo famously became the champion for “Gays for Buchanan” and even made a couple national TV appearances for his role. Young Paleo-Libertarians got into the Republican National Convention that August under the auspices of the “Buchanan Brigades.”


Over $80,000 was raised for the 1992 Paul for President Exploratory Committee. After Blumert closed up shop, a few vague promises were made to donors promising to spend the money on Ron Paul projects or a PAC supporting Ron Paul style candidates, but nothing ever materialized. Paul, out of Congress since 1985, went on to win a Texas Congressional seat in 1996, again with major fundraising assistance by Blumert and Rockwell.


2008 A Replay Of What Was To Be For 1992?

The general plan for Paul ’92 was to make a big splash in New Hampshire and possibly other early primary states. This was a modified strategy that we used from the 1988 Libertarian Presidential efforts when we campaigned extensively in both Iowa during the Caucuses and New Hampshire during the Primary.


The loosely conceived 1992 plan was to utilize the ballot access of the minor Constitutional parties as a fall back after losing the Republican primaries. Howard Phillips and his US Taxpayer’s Party were organizing. Other various smaller 3rd parties like the American Party and the rump of George Wallace’s American Independent Party had ballot status as well, most notably in California. Phillips had balked on supporting Paul on the Libertarian ticket in ’88 but was behind the scenes encouraging Paul to run Taxpayer’s Party for ’92.


Today, these parties are generally under the umbrella of the Constitution Party. The CP has one elected official—Montana State Senator Rick Jore. They have ballot access in 15 states under various names. Most recently they attained ballot status in Arkansas, and are currently conducting ballot drives in a number of other states.


In a last minute move the “Texas Independence Association” is seeking ballot access as a political party. Ballot Access News reports:


“Texas law, since 1993, has required parties that plan to petition to give advance notice no later than January 2 of the election year. The Texas Independence Party recently notified the Secretary of State that it will attempt to qualify next year.”


The quasi-secessionist group praises Ron Paul throughout their press release advising: “…if Ron Paul is anywhere on the ballot, vote for him.”


And this late breaking news…


The Constitution Party of Alabama has formally endorsed Ron Paul for President. MaryAnn Crum said in a press release Dec. 27, “We feel that Dr. Paul may be America’s last hope to return this country to its Constitution.” It went on to say “The ACP is an independent state political party and not affiliated with any national political party.”


The Constitution Party nominating convention will be held April 22-27 in Kansas City, MO.


At the same time there’s an active effort to recruit Paul on the Libertarian Party side, as well. The LP has become more paleo-friendly in recent years with a stridently non-interventionist stance, while largely casting out its former pro-defense wing. The battles of the late 1980s involving the paleos have long been forgotten.


Libertarian Party Founder David Nolan even offered himself as a possible VP on a Paul ticket. He also let loose some insider LP information on the Yahoo! Libertarian Radicals Board saying on December 19:


“Eric Garris at was in the process of putting together an ad for the February ’08 issue of LP NEWS, wherein a ‘blue ribbon’ list of Libertarians would have done just what the LNC did in December: asked Ron Paul to seek our nomination. The ad was to appear right AFTER the February 5th Mega-Primary, when it will almost certainly be clear that the GOP will not be nominating Dr. Paul.”


What Nolan is referring to is the actions by the Libertarian National Committee December 1 and 2 in South Carolina, where LNC member, former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) introduced a resolution inviting Paul to run on the LP ticket. It was passed unanimously. The Paul campaign politely declined. For now.


Thomas Knapp of Rational Review wrote recently:


“…the whole LNC resolution thing was a coordinated activity. The Paul campaign knew about it in advance and approved/encouraged it (maybe even asked for it in the first place!); its movers on the LNC knew precisely what the reaction would be and why.”


Eric Garris soliciting top LP members to sign a letter urging Ron Paul to run on the Libertarian ticket is also no accident. Garris works directly for Lew Rockwell as his web designer and as one of his top political operatives. It’s hard to imagine Garris making such a step without Rockwell’s encouragement.


The Libertarian Party has won ballot access in 27 states so far. The Libertarian Party National Convention will be held in Denver, May 22-26.


On Meet the Press with Tim Russert Sunday, Dec. 22, Ron Paul responded that he “needed a little wiggle room” on the question of running as a 3rd party candidate. This could possibly signal that much like 1992, he plans to utilize the New Hampshire primary as a launching pad for a 3rd party effort either on the Constitution or Libertarian tickets, or possibly as a fusion candidate or Independent candidate with support from both parties.


Libertarian Party or Constitution Party route still seems to be up in the air. Ron Paul, famously a ditherer right up until the end, may not even know the answer to that question himself right now. Ballot access wise, the Libertarian Party makes more sense for Paul. But ideologically the CP and other Constitutionalist Parties are a better fit. But with $18.8 million raised for his effort, one thing is sure; the likelihood of Paul just quietly pulling out of the race after a few losses in early GOP primaries is very slim.


One wonders though, given Paul’s track record with past Presidential runs, will the race end up with expectations met for the Ron Paul supporters and donors? Not too mention a full accounting of the funds raised? Or, will it end with disappointing vote totals and money spent unwisely as in his past efforts?


UPDATE: Ron Paul told the Washington Post yesterday that a third party bid would depend on “if the money is there…”

Eric Dondero served on Paul’s Congressional staff 1997 – 2003 as Senior District Aide & Scheduler. Mr. Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and former Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, its editorial staff or its publisher. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Photographs featured in The New Media Journal are for educational purposes only. While some of them are factual in nature others are creations meant to incite thought. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media or ideological organizations . The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a group of non-compensated, independent writers bringing researched, fact-based commentary to the public in the midst of the mainstream media’s blatant, agenda-driven bias.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The New Media © 2008
var site=”sm5topsecret” Site Meter <a href=”; target=”_top”> <img src=”; alt=”Site Meter” border=”0″ /></a>


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,086 other followers