Sorry guys, but Ron and Rand Paul completely fit the mold of CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
We'll see how good they make on their promises, but still our government is corrupt from top to bottom, and our media has been controlled from the very beginning.
You know of course about the USS Liberty? And Rand Paul supports those terrorists, who continue slaughtering babies and peace activists to this day?
He doesn't sound like an honest Christian to me. But we'll see.
Check out this article, and the comments below it. I'm not the only who sees problems with Rand Paul. And I have those exact same concerns about his father.
Rand Paul and Israel | Conservative Heritage Times
Those who are not part of the game are RARELY shown on TV, and even then they are not portrayed in a positive light. The Pauls get plenty of air time these days.
And the media is even more controlled today than it was in 1967, when Israeli warplanes, paid for with our tax dollars, were slaughtering US soldiers. And the media, as we all know, "buried the story".
I remain very suspicious of the real purpose of the two Pauls. But we'll see.
We've Been Total Outsiders For So Long
That It's Easy To Miss The Fact That Ron Paul
and Rand Paul Are The Real Deal
It's always good to be skeptical of any elected politician. But in the case of Drs. Ron and Rand Paul, I can tell you for a certainty that these two men are exactly what Judge Andrew Napolitano has called Ron Paul: "the Thomas Jefferson of our time."
I read the article at Conservative Heritage about one statement that Rand Paul made about Israel, and you'll notice that even that very skeptical writer makes it clear that ALL of Rand's positions are consistent with non-interventionist foreign policy advocated by White patriots.
All that that very skeptical writer says is that he wishes Rand Paul would openly condemn the Israel Lobby. Well, that's a nice wish, and some day, hopefully soon, there will be a brave handful of U.S. Senators condemning the Israel Lobby. But even that writer knows that Rand Paul cannot be blamed by patriots for not openly condemning the Israel Lobby. Remember, too, that the small statement on Israel in which Rand Paul says a lot of things that are very contrary to the Israel Lobby line, was while Rand Paul was still running for the U.S. Senate with the entire Israel Lobby working overtime to defeat him.
His first job was to get elected. Not to make us opponents of the Israel Lobby happy by making completely self-damaging statements that could keep him out of the Senate.
The ADL in recent years put out a list of the 18 U.S. Congressmen that it was targetting for defeat in every election because of their opposition to the Israel Lobby in their votes. It's the votes that count folks, much more than any watered-down statements.
Well, after the ADL had a special target for defeat that they singled out as even more important to get out of Congress than the 18 on their blacklist. They listed one Congressman as the ONE man they wanted defeated above all.
That was Dr. Ron Paul.
Think about that. You can be QUITE CERTAIN that the research staff at the ADL knows everything there is to know about every vote Ron Paul has made since he was first elected in 1976, ever article he's ever written, every private conversation that the ADL could get its hands on, every speech or talk or pep rally he's ever made. You can be quite certain that the ADL (and all the rest of the Israel Lobby alphabet soup of lobby groups) have an awesomely extensive file of everyone with whom Ron Paul has been associating during all these years.
You can be quite certain that NOBODY knows better than the ADL who in American government threatens their program the most. So it's a real important fact that Ron Paul was not only ON their short blacklist, he was the ONLY man on their even shorter blacklist.
There is such a thing as controlled opposition. Our media must be full of such people who are fake in their pretensions of patriotism. But it is too cynical to categorize EVERY patriot that actually makes it successfully into the INSIDE of government or the media, and actually SUCCEEDS in gaining a little bit of real power for our cause, as being ipso facto part of a controlled opposition.
To folks like myself who have seen the Paul family in person at many events, you can be quite certain that Ron Paul's children, including Dr. Rand Paul did not fall far from the tree. They differ with their father on nothing of significance to us. I actually don't know of anything they differ on at all.
Ron Paul has changed the political world and outlook of MANY MILLIONS of our very best White folks for the better from our point of view. I think it would be an easily defendable argument to hold that Ron Paul has done more for the White race in the last four years than any other man on Earth.
I think that's the case myself.
And I say that by this standard: measure a man's effectiveness for good for our people by multiplying a) the issues on which he is moving folks in the right direction time b) the number of White folks he is reaching.
Take the End the Fed issue for example. Ron Paul wrote the book on this issue. He is, far and away with no other man even within shouting distance of him, the biggest threat to Ben Shalom Bernanke's Fed. And, as of this week, Ron Paul is now the CHAIRMAN (!) of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy that oversees the unaccountable actions of the Fed. The power of a House Subcommittee Chairman are astounding. He can compel witnesses to appear (under penalty of contempt), to testify (under penalty of contempt and of perjury), and he can compel production of documents under oath!
Chairman Ron Paul grilling Chairman Ben Bernanke is a dream come true. It is something almost impossible to imagine having ever come true. It is a perfect political storm.
And this End the Fed movement...which Ron Paul is 100% responsible for firing up into what it is now...is just one patriot issue on which Ron Paul is not only right, but he has fired up many millions of our White kinsmen.
We don't have any other man who has done as much.
And now we have the 75-year-old Ron Paul's 47-year-old son Rand Paul in an inherently more powerful seat in the Senate believing courageously in exactly the same things as his dad.
It doesn't get any better than this. I count myself lucky to have even witnessed the appearance of two such men in my lifetime. Ron Paul could very easily have decided NOT to run for president in 2007 when he had no idea of the nationwide mass uprising that he would spark.
Ron Paul could very easily have chosen in 1996 to just keep delivering babies as an MD after he retired from his first spell in the House in 1984. With just a few minor changes in his life, it's possible that we would never have seen in our lifetimes a Ron Paul. Or a Rand Paul.
Visit WNN's fellow site: TheWhiteRace.com / Jamie Kelso's uploads of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration magazine
Don't forget listen live on Saturdays from 7:00-9:00 PM EST on RBN radio for the The American Freedom Party Report with James Kelso http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/ Click the 'Listen Live' link on the right-hand side of the page. You can phone me any time at: 701/317-5317.
Some really good points, Jamie. I agree, there would be no "End the Fed" movement without Ron Paul.
A lot of my opinion comes from the feedback I received when I was advocating for him in his Presidential bid. I couldn't help but notice the comments from the ladies fit the mold pretty closely, like "I could never vote for him - he looks so angry all the time", or "He's just too argumentative". Might as well use the classic line "I could never vote for him - look at the way he dresses".
But of course, I shouldn't blame our people's lack on Dr. Paul!
If I use my usual policy of paying no attention to their words, but rather simply judging them on their actions, Ron Paul really is as good as it gets. I'll keep that in mind before making any more accusations of 'controlled opposition'.
* National ID card is part of fear-based government. (Feb 2008)
* Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007)
* Against ID for immigrants; it leads to national ID card. (Dec 2007)
* Protect all voluntary associations; donít define marriage. (Oct 2007)
* No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
* No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
* No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
* First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)
* Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007)
* Donít ask, donít tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
* Tamper-proof I.D. for immigrants is a bad idea. (Jan 2006)
* Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987)
* In times of war, our freedoms are threatened at home. (Dec 1987)
* Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)
* Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
* Require "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules. (Apr 2002)
* Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
* Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)
On The Issues
Terrorism is just like any other murder: you look for motive. (Apr 2008)
War in Iraq was senseless invasion of sovereign state. (Apr 2008)
Mandate declaration of war before military aggression. (Apr 2008)
The Iraq war was not worth the price in blood and treasure. (Jan 2008)
If Iran invaded Israel, itís up to Congress to declare war. (Dec 2007)
Israeli government & the neocons want US to bomb Iran. (Dec 2007)
Every country ended slavery without civil war; US could have. (Dec 2007)
No presidential authority to bomb Iran without Congress. (Dec 2007)
Non-intervention means Congress declares war when threatened. (Dec 2007)
Congressional authorization needed to attack Iranís nukes. (Oct 2007)
Radicals come to kill us because we occupy their lands. (Sep 2007)
US has fought 70 engagements since 1945. (Jun 2007)
Limit wars debunking glorification of war. (Jun 2007)
Terrorists attack us for our actions abroad, not our freedom. (Jun 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars donít end. (May 2007)
Iran not in violation of NPT--so talk without preconditions. (Jun 2006)
Same false arguments for invading Iraq now applied to Iran. (Apr 2006)
1991 Gulf War was a UN war, not a US war. (Feb 2003)
We believe Osamaís threats, so why not believe his reasons? (Jan 2003)
Congress is abdicating its responsibility to declare war. (Oct 2002)
2002: No evidence of Iraqi nukes nor al Qaeda ties. (Sep 2002)
Internationalists favor perpetual war by fear-mongering. (Dec 1987)
1980s Libya bombing was an unauthorized act of war. (Dec 1987)
On The Issues
Actually Aspen I was mulling that over last night! I know his record, and it is very good.
But I am aware that's the way "controlled opposition" works. Yes you do have someone who is consistently voting in the interests of the people, but that "one good person" is so outnumbered that he has no chance of getting any of his bills to pass. So he is never much of a threat to the establishment.
And that is exactly how controlled opposition works. So in all honesty, pointing out that "one person's" good record, in a situation where he is hopelessly outnumbered, is no proof of the honesty of their intentions.
Yes, it is a reason to support him, but one should never place too much hope on any one person. What is important here is to support the effort to 'End the Fed', and to support all those who work toward that.
So yes I will continue to support Ron Paul. Though I am not supporting any one in the political process financially right now, I have given money to him and C4L in the past. I continue to talk him up to people who don't know much about him, as he is one of the few who vote and create legislation in our best interests.
I have, and continue to, advocate for his work in Ending the Fed. And by talking about Ron Paul, I make people aware of how the Federal Reserve works, how damaging it has been for our country, and why we need to end it. And to the politically illiterate, I do not relate my doubts.
If this country is to be saved through the political process, it will be the Pauls leading the charge. As long as they go after the Fed they deserve all of our support.
But at the same time, we need to keep both eyes open.