Ron Paul: The USA’s ONLY Hope

July 14th, 2007

I woke up this morning, made some of my delicious award winning coffee, and sat down behind my computer to check out the latest news, when I came across this post by Robert Scoble. Scoble doesn’t seem to understand all the hype US presidential candidate Ron Paul is receiving these days on blogs. He goes on to mention a lot of stuff in that post leading me to doubt if he has any clue about what exactly is going on in the USA today, and what is causing all of it.

Let me illustrate what I mean. But before you continue reading, it’s important to read a previous post of mine about what’s going on these days in the USA.

Now assuming you’ve read it, let’s check out what Scoble has to say on his blog about Ron Paul:

I don’t get Ron Paul’s hype. His issues page is devoid of substance on issues that really effect most of us. He focuses on the divisive issues of immigration and abortion (great “wedge” issues) but doesn’t say a single word about the issues that are already driving the presidential campaign: our war strategy, our energy/global warming strategy, our health care strategy, etc. Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.

What? Then what’s this, Scoble? Yeah, that’s Ron Paul’s opinion on the US war strategy. And guess where I found it? On his issues page! It seems to me that Scoble started his whole post totally biased and trying to make his case against Ron Paul from the beginning without actually wanting to take some time to really investigate the candidate. If he would have done so, he would have found this page, where Ron Paul talks about the Health Care system, by simply entering “ron paul health care” into Google. From someone who’s at the forefront of all the blogging and Web 2.0 stuff, I would have expected that Scoble would know how to find this kind of information if he was really looking for it. But as it seems, he wasn’t actually looking for it. His post was just anti Ron Paul from the start. Instead he goes on to mention how issues such has Health Care are not mentioned on Ron Paul’s issues website, making it look like Ron Paul never discussed these issues and doesn’t think they are important. How about visiting this website, Scoble, where Ron Paul is on video discussing all the three issues you mentioned?

Do you know why Ron Paul is so popular with bloggers, Scoble? Because they are able to find this stuff on the Internet, something I would have expected from you as a so called ‘A-list blogger’. Not only that, but Ron Paul addresses the right issues and knows which ones to give high priority. Do you know how many of the issues you can easily take care of if you just follow Ron Paul’s advice to get rid of the Fed? Ron Paul knows how to solve problems: By attacking them directly at their root cause. Ofcourse, it’s going to be a bit difficult to understand this if you’re out of touch with what’s actually going on in the USA, and what’s really causing all of those issues. Perhaps a good idea for Scoble would be to also keep himself updated on those issues by reading websites like Infowars.com on a daily basis, instead of focusing on the latest gadgets every day.

Scoble also mentions the energy crisis, and the fact that he needs to pay more for gas every day. At the same time, he wonders what Ron Paul’s position is on Global Warming. If you really believe the crap that Al Gore is putting out there these days, then why are you even worrying about gas prices? Shouldn’t you be using less gas anyway? This hypocritical stance on global warming, is exactly the same as Al Gore’s hypocrisy on the subject. Al Gore talks about using less energy, when he owns a fucking house that’s using 20 times more energy than the average home in the USA. And yet, Al Gore has the nerve to tell others to watch their energy consumption and think of the environment. Perhaps it’s a good idea to watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle“, Scoble. And while you’re at it, also take the time to watch “The Money Masters” and “America: From Freedom to Fascism.”

It’s simply incredible how much I agree with almost every one of Ron Paul’s opinions. People like Ron Paul and Bob Bowman are the kind of leaders that the USA needs. These are the people who have the courage to attack the ROOT causes of all the issues in the USA, unlike other candidates, who essentially talk about trying to take care of the symptoms of the real problem (mostly because they are benefitting from it themselves).

Having said all this, I doubt Ron Paul will actually stand a chance. He simply won’t be able to get the funds to be able to come even close to the full force of the brainwashing campaigns in the media that candidates like Hillary Clinton will be able to afford. The people with money, and that includes the mainstream US media, won’t support Ron Paul when they know he’s against all the crap they’re doing that makes them rich. Even if Ron Paul does somehow manage to become the Republican candidate, he won’t make it because the voting system in the USA has been compromised for years now. The American people don’t decide who becomes president for many years now and most of them don’t even know it. Even if Ron Paul does manage to get elected, he’s going to get assassinated in a record amount of time. If he actually does what he says he will do when he’s president, he’s going to be a major problem for the so called hidden government in the USA. And I’m quite sure he knows this. Another reason to admire his courage and to support him.

Also, if you’ve done your homework, you already know that Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president of the USA. It has already been decided. Those who have something to say about this (hint: not the American people), already know this. What’s going on right now is largely a show for the American people and the world. Watch it happen.

Update July 15, 2007: Here’s a nice video of Ron Paul being interviewed at Google. Also check out this one.

Pingbacks

University Update - Ron Paul - Ron Paul: The USA?s ONLY Hope (14/07/2007)
Karel Donk » Archive » It’s all about Ron Paul (01/12/2007)
Karel Donk » Archive » Ron Paul’s Assassination (16/12/2007)
Karel Donk » Archive » Al Gore, The Global Warming Hypocrite (21/06/2008)

Comments

There are 21 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

John Reading July 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am

3 cheers for Karel Donk – excellent article.

How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Stupid Followers.

Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult or sect.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

– Moderno Machiavelli

Reply
Robert Scoble July 14th, 2007 at 10:46 am

I read that page about his war stance. OK, wonderful, he\’s anti war. Where was he eight years ago? Anyway, my point is that that page does not say a single word about how he\’s going to get us out. How his plan for getting us out won\’t cause more shit than some other plan for getting us out. So, where does he talk about that?

Reply
Allan Neal July 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

“Watch it happen”?
That’s for the Robert Scobles. I”m on the streets with Paul. They may try to kill him, but they will succeed only in body.

Reply
Alexia July 14th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Did you see some of the comments? It amazes me that they think that there are any issues that Paul doesn’t have a written position on – the man has written extensively for the past 20 years.

I fear you’re right about HRC though.

Reply
NH July 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Thanks for debunking this Karel. Sometimes I am so weak from chasing the press here to make corrections I have no time for these blogging idiots.

Reply
Karel Donk July 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Robert,
Here’s from Ron Paul’s site:

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

As for how he’s going to take care of the war, he talked about that in public many times. Just do a search on Google or YouTube.

But really, all you have to look at is him openly discussing issues like the Fed. Nobody else has the courage or even wants to do it. Take care of the Fed, and other issues like the wars will vanish.

Reply
bret July 14th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

HAHA… Scoble, please man. Where was Ron Paul 8 years ago? PREACHING AGAINST WAR.

I saw him speak in 2002, my first introduction to the Congressman who actually talks sense (imagine my shock and awe). And guess what he was talking about? How the drums of war against Iraq were inexorable, because of Congressional abdication to the Cheney Regime.

You cannot fault the guy on this whatsoever. He is above reproach.

Now, if you’d like to go back to investigating the issues, I applaud you.

Reply
Jay Rhizor July 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Karel,
Thank you for these two articles. I was overwhelmed by the quality of detail about how bad things really are.

I kept picturing the “black baggers” and the bald guy who ran the detention camps in the movie V for Vendetta… and Haliburton is building the camps.

I stumbled across Ron Paul a week ago and have watched more video and learned more about the root causes of problems than I have in my previous 48 years combined. Your article just added more.

I am firmly onboard with Dr. Paul and actually have found a sliver of hope from an End-of-the-world attitude that usually grips my every day life.

With all the death and destruction around the globe instigated by our own country, I had pretty much given up. I actually split from my wife over Iraq. I have rejected many of the Jesus-want-you-to-be-rich people, and have no confidence in any of our government agencies to do the right thing.

Thanks again.

Ron Paul 2008

Reply
John Reading July 14th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Ron Paul has said several times that he would first withdraw the battle ships from the Persion gulf. He would immediately withdraw American troops from the streets – no more policing duties. He has a plan. People just need to study the vast amount of material online about him. He has made himself very public for 20 years. He’s even better than he looks to most of his supporters. He is a great American thinker. He’s not a leader. He’s a spokesperson, for liberty, property, and peace.

Reply
Podesta July 14th, 2007 at 9:03 pm

If Ron Paul had his way Karel would not be allowed to vote or use public accommodations. Indeed, Karel (or his parents) would not have been allowed to immigrate to this country if Paul, a segregationist who opposes immigration of non-Europeans, had control of the matter. Paul has explicitly stated his opposition of to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which guaranteed people of color the right to vote and use public accommodations.

“The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

These are Paul’s own words. He has expressed is racist views about people of color, gays and non-white immigrants as a leader of the John Birch Society for decades. Anyone who did a smidgen of research would see Paul for the demagogue he is.

Reply
Karel Donk July 15th, 2007 at 5:54 am

podesta, did you read and understand what ron paul was saying?? because if you call him racist based on that, you have problems understanding plain english.

Reply
Podesta July 15th, 2007 at 6:21 am

Karel, as someone who has practiced civil rights law I expect I understand what effects not having passed the Civil Rights Act or repealing it would have quite well. Certainly, better than you do. If you have immigrant or visa status in the U.S. you have benefitted from the very law you support segregationist Ron Paul in wanting to repeal.

Here’s a challenge. You said: “It?s simply incredible how much I agree with almost every one of Ron Paul?s opinions.” Read these words that Ron Paul wrote in his newsletter in 1992 and see if you can avoid seeing his obvious racism again:

http://tinyurl.com/28549w

Reply
Karel Donk July 15th, 2007 at 6:32 am

Podesta, I’m not in the USA. You seem to want to make Ron Paul look like a racist, but even the last link doesn’t show that.

Reply
Podesta July 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Karel, it is not a question of “making Ron Paul look like a racist.” Ron Paul is a racist. Apparently, you don’t know the definition of racism:

“racism |ˈr�?ˌsizəm| noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. ? prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.”

A person cannot claim that 95 percent of African-American men are criminals without being a racist. The claim, which is false, declares black men an inferior race prone to violence. Paul’s behavior fits squarely within the definition of racism. Paul’s opposition to non-Europeans like you immigrating to the United States is also rooted in racism.

If you knew anything about American history you would know that massive racism and discrimination are older than the country itself. Ron Paul grew up in a Southern state among the worst for racial violence. From the 1800s through the 1960s the Ku Klux Klan and the Texas Rangers killed at least 7,000 people, most of them Mexican-American, Indian and black. Segregation was legal and racial violence common until Paul was well into his ’30s. He is incapable of seeing anything wrong with that and would like to return to a time when millions of Americans were treated as if they had no rights.

You claim Robert Scoble doesn’t know much about Ron Paul. Neither do you.

Reply
Karel Donk July 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm

podesta, this is what Ron Paul said:

Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal
justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

He was mentioning data from the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. I don’t think you can call him a racist when he was just talking about data to support his argument. Data is data. You can’t blame Ron Paul for saying what he said when it’s based on reality.

Reply
Podesta July 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Actually, the data Ron Paul is using comes from “The Color of Crime,” a biased document that demonizes blacks and Hispanics. It was published by American Renaissance, a leading website for white supremacists. Jared Taylor, who heads American Renaissance, is an acquaintance, if not a friend, of Paul’s. They have spoken before and are published by the same white supremacists groups, including the League of the South and the Councl of Conservative Citizens.

Do you have any proof that 95 percent of black men in D.C. are criminals? No, because is no such proof. It is not true. The fact that you believe such nonsense is useful though. It reveals how easily you can be manipulated. Paul made that statement because he believes blacks are subhumans, naturally given to violence, and as he says later, fleet of foot. Paul says these things because he is an un-Reconstructed Southern racist.

Reply
Karel Donk July 17th, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Podesta,

Paul made that statement because he believes blacks are subhumans, naturally given to violence, and as he says later, fleet of foot. Paul says these things because he is an un-Reconstructed Southern racist.

How do you know Ron Paul believes blacks are subhumans? Your reasoning is seriously flawed. I noticed you’ve been told this on other websites as well. Stop trying to make Ron Paul look like a racist, you’re only making yourself look stupid.

Reply
Podesta July 19th, 2007 at 1:09 am

No, what I am trying to do is prevent you, an ignoramus stuck in a country famous only for perpetually begging, from continuing to make a fool of yourself. Your inability to appreciate that just confirms your lack of intelligence. You are confusing arrogance with knowledge. Continue to be the fool you are.

Reply
Karel Donk July 19th, 2007 at 5:05 am

Hilarious. 😆

Reply
xiando November 1st, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Robert Scoble – and people like you – you really do need to do your own research and thinking in every case, including RP. Thinking means trying to answer your own questions, not asking other people to think for you and then blindly trust their answer.

An example of not thinking is: “I read that page about his war stance. OK, wonderful, he\?s anti war. Where was he eight years ago? Anyway,”. It is not wise to say “oh I can’t figure this out so I’ll Move On and Anyway..”. No. You could have figured out that yes, he really did take a stand against war eight years ago by doing a simple google-search.

I’m not sure Ron Paul has much hope, though. Not because of anything that has anything to do with him but cause I’ll believe there will be a 2008 election when I see one.

Reply
Jayman December 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

There have been several attempts to call Ron Paul a racist in the last few months. All of them have been debunked. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist and has the forsight that is needed for a American President.

Here is an official statement…by Ron Paul… its not some \”here say\” smear campaign. \”Racism and Government\” http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm

If you really want some reasons not to vote for him…heres a link that will give you all you need to know…

http://www.7arp.info/

Reply

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Ron Paul: The USA’s ONLY Hope

Meta

Pingbacks

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

Subscribe to blog via Email

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related

Recent Posts

Subscribe to blog via Email