The Heroics Of Dennis J. Kucinich

Thursday, 22 November 2007
by Maryann Mann

He’s short, right? Kinda weird looking? A close friend of mind described Dennis J. Kucinich with rare jocularity following a recent Democratic presidential debate: “He reminded me of a nebbish, privileged student council member”. I actually had to smile at that one.

As witty as my friend’s remark was (and it did make me smile), my grin was born from two very different places: One, a place of remarkable admiration, the other a place of very deep regret.

My admiration for Dennis Kucinich begins with the authenticity of a man who seems possessed of a deft, preternatural ability to resist coercive political pressure and acquiescence to the special-interest briberies which have co-opted Washington D.C. Even David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, went so far as to stamp the Ohio Congressman as an “aging prodigy”.

Here are five major points to consider:

1.) Dennis Kucinich was right on Iraq. The Congressman stood up to ideological war hawks, refusing to submit to the constitutional calamity of a preemptive invasion.

2.) He was right on the Patriot Act. Kucinich lambasted the serpentine piece of legislation acting as a gateway to eroding our cherished civil liberties.

3.) The Congressman is right on health care. Unlike slipshod “universal coverage” plans proposed by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama (all of which attempt to incurably fix a broken, private system by virtually mandating that every American buy into it) Kucinich knows first hand that the only morally and economically satisfying version of health care is the one beginning with the words: not-for-profit.

4.) Strength through Peace: The hallmark of the Congressman’s presidential campaign would end using war as an instrument of policy. Haters call him a peacenik devoid of reality. I submit that the intellectually curious might see a president who would embody unparalleled leadership in nuclear non-proliferation and in tackling global warming (mother nature’s WMD) to bridge frayed international alliances, combat climate change and, in effect, revive the plummeting dollar.

5.) Kucinich is right on impeachment. Dennis, as it currently stands – along with 22 courageous signatories – has been the only Congressman brave enough to officially propose articles of impeachment against the dangerously dark Vice President Richard B. Cheney. And on this, he hits the bull’s eye too.

Born in Cleveland, Dennis Kucinich is the eldest of seven children and the son of working class parents. As a child Kucinich was charged with the impossible task of scouring the newspaper in order to find his family affordable housing. Before Dennis was 17 the Kucinich’s moved over 20 times; at several points resorting to the only shelter they could find: their car. Kucinich worked his way through college, going on to receive a master’s degree, and at 31 was elected Mayor of his hometown – the youngest Mayor in the America at the time. In 1996 Kucinich was elected to the United States Congress and, eight years later, the boy who lived most of his early life in and out of a tattered sedan would set out on a quest to become president. Today, that quest continues.

As reported in the Boston Globe:

“If people want to know what kind of president I’ll be,” said Kucinich, “they only have to know my background to know who I’m in government to represent: those who aspire to decent jobs, a decent wage, health care, a roof over their heads, education for their children… I come to the political system as an advocate for people, not an advocate for any special interest group. That really is what distinguishes me from anyone else in this race.”

Barack Obama talks about what it takes to unite all walks of life. Dennis Kucinich knows first hand. John Edwards wears his “father worked in a mill” story on his arm like a badge of honor. Dennis Kucinich lived 17 years of his life on and off the streets to now be standing here running for president.

Impressed? Had no idea? What a story, right? Yeah, I know. This is where the regret behind my grin comes into play.

My regret is in witnessing a media and voting system both configured with such democratic intolerance that it handcuffs the populist magnitude behind a potential Kucinich presidency. “The media do not necessarily tell you what to think, but they do tell you what to think about and how to think about it,” notes communications expert Robert McChesney in his book The Problem of the Media. You’re not allowed to think about candidates like Dennis. And to be sure you don’t debate moderators like the esteemed Tim Russert will ask the Congressman ludicrous, nonsensical questions having to do with: unidentified flying objects.

The trade off is that you’re given “The Horse Race”… a media-hyped framework with a bunch of Hardball “power-rankings” and superficial hoopla drawing lots of ratings and advertising dollars for major corporations like General Electric (which owns Hardball network home NBC Universal), but lacks any sense of fair play or democratic standards when it comes to substantive coverage of candidates or real political diversity.

And yet, despite it all, Kucinich remains.

Given the uphill battle Kucinich faces in the final stretch of the presidential primary, it may behoove him to consider speaking out in remaining televised debates with blunt force on three critical issues:

1.) Direct Democracy. The greatest challenge to voter participation in this country is the people’s feeling of political marginalization. The cure to this plague begins first and foremost with the dismantling of the Electoral College. As the current system now stands, the people of the United States vote indirectly for president and vice president. Most voters assume that every four years they’re permitted to pull a lever and vote directly for their chosen candidate. This is not so. Voters are actually choosing unknown “electors” from their state to cast official votes for the two aforementioned offices. Electors are not required to cast their electoral votes in accordance with popular sentiment and, in effect, work against the health of a vibrant democracy. Dismantling the Electoral College (at the very least dividing the nation’s electoral votes proportionally as is done in Maine and Nebraska) would magnificently increase voter participation by assuring that every popular vote cast in the presidential race would equally count.

Not to mention the vital necessity for a Gradual Random Presidential Primary.

2.) Presidential Dynasty. Should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination and go on to win the White House the Bush-Clinton two family dynasty would proceed, conceivably, for another eight years. Beginning from George H.W. Bush’s ascension to the vice presidency in 1980 to a possible two-term Hillary Clinton presidency ending in 2016 this country would be staring down 36 years of two-family aristocratic rule. If this was happening in any other country, would we call it democracy?

3.) Media Consolidation. As it stands, the Federal Communications Commission may further ease the decades-old media ownership rules, which includes, according to the New York Times, “repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.” This is but another in a cascade of slippery slopes into further media consolidation. The final vote on this measure is set to go forth this December. Further media consolidation leads to less diversity and a suffocation to the media propagated “marketplace of ideas”. Ideas like: “Kucinich 2008”.

Dennis Kucinich represents the very best of what America has to offer. Men like him don’t go away. They just need people like us to pay attention.

About Ms. “Charming” Hillary Clinton

“I don’t beleive she said it, and if she said it 26 years ago, so what?” –Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City, reacting to reports that Hillary Clinton had once called a campain aid a “FUCKING JEW BASTARD”. [New York Post, 15 July 2000.]
HILLARY’S TEMPER: “When you show up in the Senate, you can’t hire, fire, and insult your colleagues if you don’t get along with them.”—Hillary Clinton complaining about Rudy Giuliani during her 1999 listening tour.” It was more than a little odd that Hillary Clinton’s earliest Senate campain attacks on New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani centered on his temperament. He was too abrasive, she said. He didn’t work well with others. His bull-in-the-china-shop style wouldn’t fit into the refined and respectful atmosphere of the Senate, where protocol, deference, and senatorial courteous supposedly reined. “He gets angry quite often,” Mrs Clinton said in December 1999, referring to her then senate opponent’s sharp reaction to the decision by the Clinton housing department to co-opt $60 million in city funding for the homeless. “I can’t be responding everytime the Mayor gets angry about something because that’s all I would do.”[associated press. 22 Dec 1999] While candidate
Hillary pounded away at the notion that Giuliani was too hot tempered to effectively represent New York in the
Senate, the establishment press dutifully reported her every word —without of course, noting her own track record in the temper department.
“She is angry. Not all of the time. But most of the time,” wrote a usually sympathetic Gail Sheehy in her Clinton biography, Hillary’s Choice, which was released just a few months before the first lady began zeroing in on Guiliani’s temper.[Gail Sheehy, Hillary’s Choice{New York Random House,1999}p.11.] The referance was to Sheehy’s first impression of Mrs Clinton, after spending time with her right after the first couple’s triumphant 1992 appearance on 60 Minutes. Long time Hillary aid Carolyn Huber, who saved Mrs Clinton’s buns in 1996 with a convenient cover story about how her mysterious Rose Law Firm billing records magically appeared in the White House book room, described the first lady’s fits of rage to Sheehy as nearly lethal. “The person on the receiving end never gets over it,” Huber remembered, reportedly shivering as she spoke those words.[Sheehy, p.139″] Another former Clinton adviser revealed anonymously that Mrs Clinton “is in a perpetual state of suspended
anger because of all that she has absorbed.”
Others have also noted Mrs Clinton’s rages, though the New York press declined to visit their accounts during her Senate race. During her husband’s 1992 campain, Mrs Clinton once got so mad she threw a breifing book at her husband while the first couple was being chauffeured to church, according to retired Secret Service agent William Bell, who revealed the incident to investigative reporter Ron Kessler in his 1995 best-seller Inside The White House. According to Bell she missed, hitting their Secret Service driver instead.[Ronald Kessler,Inside The White House{New York:William Morrow, 1999}p.231]
HILLARY’S ANGRY PROFANITY: The rages continued even after Mrs. Clinton took up residence in the White House, where she blew up at a Secret Service agent for declining to carry her bags. When the agent explained that he needed to keep his hands free in order to protect her, she replied, “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags.”[Joyce Milton, The First Partner{New York:William Morrow,1999}p.259] According to Richard Gooding, who broke the story of Dick Morris’s fling with a hooker in 19996 for the supermarket tabloid STAR, Mrs. Clinton became so abusive during her husbands impeachment that Secrest Service agents strongly considered filing a formal complaint.
“STAR has learned on nearly a dozen occasions in the last three months, Hillary has viciously lashed out at nemerous Secret Service agents for getting in her way—or for simply doing their jobs…..A young Secret Service officer stationed at the South Portico says he did nothing more than smile and say, ‘Good morning Mrs Clinton.’ Mrs. Clinton brushed by him, actually shoving him out of her way, an imformed source tells STAR. As she did, she snapped at him and cursed, ‘Get Fucked’!” “The officer made a report of Mrs. Clinton’s behavior to his superiors and STAR has learned that about 10 other similarly ugly incidents have also been reported in recent months. In other cases she is reported to have said such things as: ‘Get the fuck out of my way!’ Or, ‘Get out of my face!'” [Star,21 Feb. 2000]. The late Barbara Olson offered perhaps the most intriguing report of Hillary’s volatile temper, one that showed no deference to rank or age. “It was she whose obsession with
secrecy was so intense,” revealed Olson in her 1999 book HELL TO PAY, “that when White House council and former judge Abner Mikva finally bowed to the law and delivered subpoenaed documents, she and her White House scandal team lashed at him with such a vicous streak of profanity that he resigned.”[Barbara Olson, Hell To Pay{Washington,D.C.:Regnery,1999}p.5.]

CLINTON’S PRESS SECRETARY CONFIRMS TEMPER TANTRUMS: Even obstensible allies, like former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers, confirm Hillary Clinton’s penchant for scorching tirades, in an equally revealing account that showed that even Mr Clinton’s top aides weren’t spared from her explosive attacks. Gathering her recollections for a PBS documentary marking the end of the Clinton Administration, Myers recalled the internal administration debate in 1994 over how to handle the then burgeoning Whitewater inquiry. Myers, George Stephanopoulos, and several others in the meeting favored turning all documents from the Clinton’s controversial land deal over the Washington Post. But when Hillary entered the room and demanded to know what was going on, everybody “clammed up.” “Mrs Clinton wanted to know what was going on and she looked at George,” Myers said. “And George began to make the argument that we’d all been making and nobody backed him up. Nobody backed him up.
Everyone just sat there and let George take the beating, you know.” “And Mrs. Clinton got realy angry,” remembered Myers. “She attacked George which everyone knew was coming, which is why I guess nobody was willing to ride in there to the rescue….Here were 12 people in the room who all basically agreed and only one of them was willing to stand up and tell her what she had asked. And that took a lot of courage.”[Dee Dee Myers interveiwed for PBS’s Frontline THE CLINTON YEARS, Jan. 16, 2001,
Myers told pbs that Hillary’s penchant for personal attacks could be devastating for anyone on the receiving end. “Anybody that stood up and tried to say this was a bad idea was, you know, smashed down and belittled, very personally,” the Clinton loyalist revealed. “And I mean where I said the president didn’t realy attack people personally, Mrs. Clinton sometimes did…not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around,” Myers said, “Hillary tended to kind of campain against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience.”
HILLARY SCREAMS AT SENATE COLLEAGUE: Throughout her 2000 Senate campain the press kept Hillary’s secret for her, never delving into past accounts of her abusive treatment of both peers and underlings. And even when she exploded at a fellow Senator no one in the media saw it as part of a pattern. In July 2002 incident, Clinton blew a gasket during a closed door Senate meeting, shouting at campain finance reform crusader Senator Russ Fiengold, D-Wis., in an embarassing scene that broke all rules of Senate collegiality and decorum. The former first lady unleashed her notorious temper after Democratic Party campain lawyer Bob Bauer warned Senators that the kind of fund raising tactics Democrats had relied on in past elections could send them to jail under the recently passed McCain-Feingold campain finance law. When Fiengold rose to address the issue, he made the mistake of dismissing the warning, prompting Clinton to “scream,” according to the New York Daily News, “Russ,
live in the real world!…They will be all over you like a June Bug.” Fiengold shot back, “I also live in the real world, Senator, and I function quite well in it.”[New York Daily News, 19 July 2002.] Because it involved another Senator in a debate about an important policy issue, this time the press decided to lift the veil on Clinton’s outburst. A day later she privately apologised to the wisconsin Democrat.
“FUCKING JEW BASTARD”: Only once during her Senate campain did Hillary’s notorously nasty temper ever draw significant media attention. But when it did, the Clinton campain immediately to DEFCON3 damage-control status. The controversy over whether Hillary Clinton had ever called a campain aid a “fucking Jew bastard” is revealing on a number of levels, not the least which was the desperate efforts by news editors to see that the story never reached a mass audience. In fact, months before the news exploded at the height of her Senate campain, the accusers, Paul Frey and his wife Marry Lee, had revealed the toxic tidbit to at least two mainstream reporters. But they promptly deep-sixed the news. A third source who made similar claims about the first lady to NewsMax nearly a year earlier was completely ignored by the mainstream press. The claim that a sitting first lady had used the vile ethnic slur was buried deep inside the pages of State of a Union: Inside The Complex
Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton, by veteran author and one time National Enquire reporter Jerry Oppenheimer. In contrast to other much-ballyhooed Clinton books, this one got almost no advance publicity. But Union turned out to have perhaps the biggest political impact of any book of its genre.
“BOOK CHARGES: HILLARY CALLED AID “JEW BASTARD”, “Blared the “Drudge Report” headline on July 14, 2000. “In one particular shocking passage in the book, Oppenheimer quotes a campain official who describes an angry attack by Hillary in which she screams at him, “You fucking Jew bastard!’ Two sourced eyewitnesses confirmed to Oppenheimer that they heard the verbal assault.” In the ensuing days, three more witnesses to the ethic slur—or other incidents like it—came forward with damming accounts. It was, far and away, the most intense moment of the campainand the only one that offered Republican Senate hopeful Rick Lazio a chance to defeat Hillary. A week after the charged surfaced, Lazio was leading was leading Clinton by 7 points, according to a New York Post poll–the only time he held a lead greater than a polls margin of error during the entire campain. The now legendary confrontation with Clinton campain manager Paul Frey took place in 1974 on election night.
With the election results showing that the future president was going to lose his first bid for office against Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt, the mood at Clinton campain headquarters had deteriorated into recriminations. Hillary had not yet married Bill, but but she had ended her stint on the Senate Watergate committee just three months earlier to work with him in Arkansas. Defeating Hammerschmidt would mean she would get an early reprieve from having to take up residence in Arkansas, a place she despised. But as the final returns trickled in, it became clear that Hillary wouldn’t be living the glamourous life of a congressman’s wife in Washington anytime soon. “By three a.m. it was all over,” Oppenheimer reported. “Clinton had lost by a mere six thousand votes. He, Hillary and Fray went back to Fayetteville in their cars…..The minute Paul walked into the back room at the Fayetteville headquarters that night, Hillary hit him between the eyes. She was angrier
than Paul had ever seen her. ‘You fucking Jew bastard!’ she screamed.”[Jerry Oppenheimer, State of a Union{New York:Harper Collins,2000}p.153]
The accusation would have been easy enough to deflect if it had been merely Hillary’s word against Fray’s. But this time there were at least two other witnessess who heard the outburst and two more from the Clintons past who remembered similar outburts. It mattered not that Mr Fray was Jewish. His father was Jewish and the younger Fray was very proud of his roots.
WITNESSES ATTACKED: Still, within days, the Democratic Party and its media hand-maidens began circling the wagons around Mrs. Clinton. At a dramatic press conference on the front lawn of her Chappaqua mansion, Hillary vehemently denied the charge. Taking their clue from Clinton spinmeisters, the press joined in the effort to discredit three of the five witnesses against her. Fray, the Clinton’s crack dirt-diggers immediately learned, had been disbared for altering court records and suffered from memory loss due to a brain hemorrhage. And Neil McDonald, who told Oppenheimer that he’d heard the slur while listening outside the door, was smeared by President Clinton personaly as business failure who had to move to Dallas to work for his brother because “no one else would help him.” “I was there and Hillary never said it,” Clinton insisted in a call to the New York Daily News. It was a risky strategy. Up till now, only the New York tabloids had covered the story, while the
so called respectable press, not wanting to give credence to to yet another set of whistleblowers from the Clinton’s backwoods past, stuck their heads in the sand and hoped the storm would pass. But Clintons personal testimonial on his wifes behalf forced even the New York Times to report the incident, though Times editors declined to point the slur verbatim. “in 29 years my wife has never uttered an ethnic or racial slur against anybody, ever,” the president protested. “She’s so straight on this she squeaks.”[New York Daily News,19 July 2002.] However, Mr. Clinton did concede that Fray might have got part of the epithet right. “She might have called him a bastard,” he explained to the News. “I wouldn’t rule that out. She’s never claimed that she was pure on profanity. But Ive never heard her tell a joke with an ethnic connotation. She’s so fanatic about it. She can’t tell an ethnic joke. Its not in her.”
While the first family succeeded in raising questions about Mr. Frays credibility, his wife, Mary Lee, who also claimed to have wittnessed Hillary’s outburst, remained a problem. “[She] went after him for losing,” Mrs. Fray told the News. “Paul was not an Ivy League person. She could’ve called him a redneck or any putdown. She chose that, amd it was unfortunate.” And there was more.
NOT THE ONLY ETHNIC SLUR: Even before the Fray’s account appeared in print, Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson, a 32 year law enforcement veteran who helped guard the Clintons from 1986 until they left for the White House, had told a similar story. “It was fairly common for both Clinton’s to tell ethnic jokes and use ethnic slurs about Jews,” Patterson told in 1999. When asked for the exact words, the trooper responded, “Jew Motherf—r, Jew Bastard.” Paterson later told WABC Radio in New York, “If she disagreed with Bill Clinton or she disagreed with some of the Jewish community in Little Rock–or some of the ethnic community–she would often make these statements.”[Carl Limbacher, “Hillary Slured Jews 10 to 20 Times, Used ‘N’ word Too:Bodyguard,”, 17 July 2000.] And Dick Morris, the Clinton insider whom Hillary had summoned time and again to rescue her husband’s career, offered another revealing anecdote. “Im Jewish,” he told Fox News
Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes” in November 1999. “And I would often go to the Governor’s mansion and I would often have dinner with them. And it was kind of a joke. Everytime before dinner, Hillary would take me aside and say, ‘Dick, I’m soryy. We’re having pork. I just wasn’t thinking about it’. And I would say, ‘It’s OK, Hillary, I don’t mind pork.’ And the third and the fourth time, I finally said, ‘You’ve asked me this four times. I eat pork. I like pork.’ So we joked about it, we kidded about it.”[Dick Morris, interveiwed on Hannity & Colmes, the Fox News Channel, 4 Nov. 1999] Morris continued: “Then about a year later, I was having a meeting in the breakfest room in the Govenors mansion with Betsey[Wright, Clinton’s then cheif of staff], Hillary, Bill and me. Bill and I were fighting about my fee. I was pushing for more money….And Hillary was upset with the limited income they had to live with and that I was making so much money from their campain. And she was
getting realy annoyed at me for the battle. And she just exploded in anger and I’ll just quote her. “She said, ‘Thats all you people care about is money!’ And I looked up. And I said, ‘Hillary, I assume by “you people” you mean political consultants.’ And she said, ‘Yeah, yeah, thats what I meant, political consultants.'” Perhaps as important as Morris’s story was his revellation that he’d shared the anecdote with Hillary biographer Gail Sheehy for her then upcoming biography, Hillary’s Choice. But when the Sheehy book came out, the Morris “you people ” story about Mrs. Clinton’s money complaint was no where to be found.
PREVIOUS FJB REPORTS QUASHED: Three days after Frays allegation exploded, NBC White House correspondent Andrea Mitchell admitted that the old Arkansas political hand had recounted the incident, including the dynamite charge about Hillary’s anti-simitic slur, during a 1999 interview for the network’s Dateline NBC program. But NBC News editors decided to kill the bombshell report because they doubted Frays credibility, Mitchel claimed.[NBC Nightly News, NBC News Transcripts, 17 July 2000.] Still since Fray’s wife Mary Lee was also a witness to Mrs. Clinton’s outburst, it doesn’t appear that Mitchell or her colleagues tried very hard to confirm the story. Mary Lee Fray shared the blockbuster allegation sheehy for Hillary book. But the author, who has enjoyed special access to Mrs. Clinton over the years, decided not to report the toxic charge. She told Newsday that since Mr. Fray had’nt volunteered his account of the incident during her own conversation with him, the charge
was suspect. Evidently the author decided it wasn’t worth a second call to Fray to see if his wife’s story checked out–even though Morris’s “you people” anecdote would have had any good reporter’s antenna up for such a corroborated tidbit. The media’s obliging indulgence in covering up even the most well corroborated allegations has been the key ingredient in the Clinton’s rise to power and will be indipensible when Hillary makes her bid to reclaim the White House.
HILLAY AND THE JEWS, THE ARABS AND OSAMA: “I don’t beleive she said it, and if she said it 26 years ago, so what?”—Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City, reacting to reports that Hillary Clinton had once called a campain aide a “Fucking Jew Bastard”.[New York Daily News, 13th Nov. 2000] As a general rule of thumb in New York politics, no Democratic candidate can win statewide office without at least 65% of the Jewish vote. So its a measure of Clinton’s damage control instincts, honed through 20 years of scandal management in Arkansaw and Washington, that she managed to win her Senate seat by a landslide that included a mere 53% of the Jewish vote.
Multiple allegations that Mrs Clinton had used ugly anti-semitic epithet shook her senate campain to its core and might have forced a lesser candidate to withdraw from the race. But within days of the allegations exploding onto the media’s radar screen, a number of prominent Jewish Democrats announced that, in essence, it didn’t matter. Even if they didn’t beleive her denials, it didn’t mean she was an anti-semite. “I don’t believe she said it, and if she said it 26 years ago, so what?” Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch told the new York Post.[New York Post, 15th July 200.] While Koch counts his own Jewishness as one of the things about which he’s most proud, he saw no incongruity in defending Mrs Clinton, even assuming she was guilty as charged. “Did she say it yesterday? he complained. “There must be a statute of limitations.”
Anti-Defamation League head Abe Foxman, who can usualy be counted on to react with outrage at the slightest hint of anti-semitism, also decided to cut Mrs Clinton a country mile worth of slack. “If in fact she said it, that does not make her an anti-semite, because there is a public record of Hillary Rodham Clinton of the past 26 years which has no iota of anti-semitism,” he told reporters.[New York Post, July 15 2000]
Even Clintons opponent Rick Lazio, who suddenly found himself with a 7 point lead over Clinton after two weeks of the controversy, declined to overtly capitalize on what turned out to be his last chance to beat the then first lady. After initially telling reporters he didn’t know whether to beleive the story or not, Lazio even declined to attribute his breakout in the polls to the brewing brouhaha. “I can’t realy say. I don’t know.” he explained to News Max, when asked why Mrs Clintons Jewish support had suddenly taken a disastrous 12-point decline to less than 50%. “All I know is that we had two good appearances this weekend in front of synagogues, one Reform, one sort of ecletic, out on the east end of Long Island. And our reception at both was very very good.” Rather than attribute Clinton’s alleged epithet, Lazio attributed his abrupt success to his reputation for moderation saying, “I think people respond to a mainstream record.”
The rising GOP star, who had built something of a reputation as a giant slayer with his surprise 1994 win over Long Island Democrat Tom Downey, had adopted the tried and true political strategy: Never interfere with an opponent in the process of self-destructing. But like to many Republicans Lazio’s advisers failed to appreciate that the tactic works only for Democrats, who can count on the press to keep ginning up new angles on even the most tipid and stale revellation. Whats more, despite Clinton’s reputation as a ruthless political street fighter, Lazio hadn’t anticipated the lengths to which the Hillary 2000 campain was willing to go to tarnish his image. “WE certainly tried to run a high road campain,” Lazio told News Max two years after he went up against the Clinton’s. “And they had a campain that was reflective of the guy who was realy developing their field operation, Harold Ickles. That was not the kind of person who reflected out kind of values in the campain.
So, they were capable of doing a whole litany of things that we wouldn’t even imagine—and then deny, by the way”.
HILLARY’S HARDBALL PLAYERS: In fact the mere presence of Ickles should have been a major public relations liability for the Clinton campian. Denied an appointment as President Clintons Cheif Of Staff because of his past associations with suspect illegal union activities rendered him unlikely to survive Senate confirmation, Ickles performed all manner of political dirty work for the White House.[Byron York, The american Specter,”Our Guy In The white House,” April 1997]
Fresh from a Senate Whitewater Committee criminal referral that reccomended that he be probed by the Justice Department for possible purgery in his own testimony, Ickles almost immediately cropped up as a central figure in Clintons campain finance scandal.
But Perhaps the episode that tells the most about the son of a top aid to President Franklin Rosevelt had nothing to do with the Clintons. There is, for instance the often alluded to—but seldomed detailed—incident where a young Ickles is said to have actualy bitten another political operative during a particular nasty disagreement. James Vlastro, now a New York City public Relations executive, remembered the attack of more than a quater century ago vividly, in an account to the Associated Press offered during the height of Senator Clintons campain. “I was working with him on a 1973 New York mayoral campain when he got into a knock down fight with the campain manager,” Vlastro said in June of 1999.[Associated Press, 17 June 1999] “I tried to break it up and thats when he bit me. It wasn’t a soft bite either.” Vlastro said he disinfected the wound by pouring vodka on it. Tellingly, though the Associated Press found Ickles’ Mike Tyson like behavior newsworth enough to
report, not a single New York City Daily decided to pick up the story. The kind of hardball tactics practiced by Mrs Clinton’s campain became apparent when the Securities and Exchange Commission in her husbands administration announced that it was launching ans investigation into Lazio’s investments.
More than two years later, the former New York congressman beleives the probe was entirely political. “Absolutely” he told “[New York State Comptroller and Hillary ally] Carl McCall wrote, among all the other letters he wrote[to the SEC] that they were clearly behind…..There was absolutely no basis for [the SEC probe]. None.”
Lazio explained that the Clinton SEC “did a thorough review and they found that there was no legal basis to believe that there was anything but a proper investment.” He added, “Were talking $10,000, I think. Thats, again, reflective of the [Hillary-Ickles team’s]personal hardball tactics.”[Lazio, 15th Nov 2002] Obviously still stung by the Mrs Clinton’s scorched earth campain style, Lazio complained, “The thing thats disturbing about it is that theres just no limit. Theres no sense of conscience about what kind of impact it has on decent people and their families and the people that are close to them. And so their capable of doing just about anything to win.”
That same commitment to win at all costs had allowed President Clinton to survive a year long sex scandal that exposed him as a perjurer and a sexual predator—and it would see his wife through the revelation of her anti-Semitic slur.
“FUCKING JEW BASTARD” DAMAGE CONTROL: A few weeks after Paul Fray’s allegations hit the press, Adam Dickter, a reporter for the ‘Jewish Forward’, exposed one of Clinton’s campains’s more heavy -handed attempts at damage control. Dickter got his hands on a copy of a memo sent to Clinton’s “Jewish Advisory Committee” by campain aid Keren Adler, which including talking points on how to trash Fray; his wife, Mary Lee; and Neil McDonald–the three witnesses to Hillary’s 1974 anti-Semitic epithet.
While there was nothing particularly unusual about the talking points, distributed to Jewish friends and aquaintances of Mrs. Clinton with instructions to contact the media on her behalf, this particular memo came with a troubling disclaimer. “It is important that you do not say you are calling because the campain asked you to, but because you are outraged with what was said about her….The most important thing is to let them know that you know Hillary and you know that she would never make these kind of anti-Semitic or racist comments.” Mrs. Clinton in other words, was asking her Jewish friends to cover up on her behalf in order to help tamp down the burgeoning scandal.
“I received seven or eight phone calls from people saying that they wanted to go on the record on this subject,” Dickter told WABC Radio. He said he found the rapid succession of the messages left on his answering machine……”suspicious”[Adam Dictker, interviewed by WABC-NY Radio’s Steve Malzberg, 20 July 2000.]

All About Rudy Giuliani

Thanks to “Pieman” for sharing this info.

AMERICA’S MARTINET: The DANGEROUS Candidacy of Rudy Giuliani

The mass media sometimes calls him “America’s mayor.” Critics label him a dangerous fascist. Whether he’s the alleged hero who “took charge” on September 11, 2001, or the frightening face of a new American Reich, it appears Rudolph Giuliani will carry George W. Bush’s torch into the 2008 presidential election.

When Giuliani emerged from the toxic dust of the World Trade Center the national media caught a quick case of amnesia, preferring the iconic image of a “hero” over reality. They quickly forgot Giuliani’s dismal tenure in mayoral office, his life-costing failures to address the threat of terrorism, and his sorry performance on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Before picking up the “hero” moniker, Giuliani was commonly referred to in the city he governed as a despotic fascist and a mean-spirited thug. These accusations didn’t just come from civil libertarians either. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch likened Giuliani to former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. According to Koch, Giuliani “uses the levers of power to punish any critic.” Koch went on to explain, “He doesn’t have that right – that’s why the First Amendment is so important.” Yes, and by the end of 2002 the courts had found Giuliani in violation of that constitutional pillar of American freedom twenty-seven times!

More than 35 successful lawsuits were brought against Giuliani and his administration for blocking free speech. In his book Speaking Freely, First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said Giuliani had an “insistence on doing the one thing that the First Amendment most clearly forbids:
using the power of government to restrict or punish speech critical of government itself.”

Giuliani’s disdain for freedom of speech is best exemplified by the case of Robert Lederman, an artist that drew caricatures of Giuliani as a dictator and depicted his policies as transforming New York into a police state. Lederman was ARRESTED FORTY-ONE TIMES during Giuliani’s reign, not by street cops but police brass under Giuliani’s orders, for displaying his art at political demonstrations and on the streets of New York. All were false arrests, as Lederman was never convicted of a crime.

In a similar fashion and again in brazen violation of the First Amendment, Giuliani ordered paid advertisements for New York Magazine removed from public buses because the ads touted the magazine as “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.” Giuliani’s response to criticism thus often proves it was highly justified.

According to the New York Times, the Daily News, and the New York Post, now New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer went on record in October 1998, saying, “the current Mayor thinks he’s a dictator, and does not have sufficient respect not only for other branches of government, but also for the citizenry and its opportunities to speak out and be heard.”

Spitzer’s statements, like Lederman’s false arrests, stemmed from Giuliani’s totalitarian “zero tolerance” policies, which he claimed would improve the “quality of life” in New York by punishing trivial violations such as jaywalking, drinking in public, marijuana possession, and panhandling, and even non-violations such as Lederman’s persistent expressions of free speech. Under this policy, New Yorkers were handcuffed and dragged off to jail for peacefully drinking beer on their front stoops – the New York City equivalent of hanging out on the porch. Marijuana possession arrests increased by well over 4,000 percent. Arrests were even made for such things as riding a bike without a bell on it and sitting on milk crates on the sidewalk.

Giuliani’s courtship of rogue police officers and seduction of the NYPD to become his personal Gestapo began in September 1992, when he addressed an angry rally of cops protesting then-mayor Dinkins’s proposal for a civilian board to review police misconduct.

It was a rowdy, often threatening, crowd. Hundreds of white off-duty cops drank heavily (a violation for which, under Giuliani, many citizens would later be arrested), and a few waved signs like “Dump the Washroom Attendant,” a racist reference to mayor Dinkins. Twice, Giuliani called the Dinkins proposal “bullshit.” The crowd cheered, and Giuliani was jubilant. “Rudy was out there inciting white cops to riot,” Mr. Dinkins stated.

As mayor, Giuliani’s racial and ethnic biases and favoritisms were blatant. For over a century the public use of firecrackers by the Asian-American community for their New Years celebration, a religious and cultural tradition, had been allowed. In 1997 though Giuliani lined Chinatown streets with hundreds of police to suppress this, and even refused to allow a permit for a professionally supervised display. The Christian equivalent of this would be banning Christmas trees and decorations because they occasionally start fires. Giuliani never relented on this. On the Jewish festival of Purim however, when fireworks are used in the streets of Jewish neighborhoods, the police continued to look the other way! They also ignored bonfires set in Jewish neighborhood streets to destroy leavened bread before Passover. Can you imagine the police response to this in any poor, Black, Hispanic, or Asian-American community? Giuliani’s lasting legacy is that in New York fireworks are!
OK on Purim, but celebrate the 4th of July with them and you can get busted. So much for “Independence” Day.

Eventually almost 70,000 citizens sued the city for such police abuses as strip-searching suspected jaywalkers. In 1999 James Savage, president of the New York City police union, referred to Giuliani’s zero tolerance policy as “a blueprint for a police state and tyranny.” Under the guise of fighting crime, Giuliani had thus transformed the NYPD into his own private Gestapo, going as far as assigning two NYPD detectives, at taxpayer expense, as round-the-clock bodyguards for his MISTRESS. This after his closing down all the strip clubs on “moral grounds!”

Giuliani shored up control of the police department by appointing crony Howard Safir as commissioner. Safir then made the department’s Street Crimes Unit into what New York journalist Nat Hentoff described as a “rogue operation” that made “Dirty Harry look like Mahatma Gandhi.” Fashion-wise, the unit had a resemblance to Guatemala’s notorious military death squads, wearing “We Own the Night” t-shirts, and shirts citing Ernest Hemingway’s “There is no hunting like the hunting of man” quote – quite a variation from standard issue uniforms!

This is the police unit that became notorious for shooting innocent African immigrant Amadou Diallo FORTY TIMES as he reached for his wallet after being ordered to show identification. When New Yorkers took to the streets to protest the unjustified killing, Giuliani told the press that people were protesting due to “their own personal inadequacies.”

Hatian immigrant Abner Louima, arrested in 1997 on a minor charge, was brutally beaten on the trip to Brooklyn’s 70th precinct. There officers took him into a bathroom where convicted rogue cop Justin Volpe sadistically shoved a plunger handle up Louima’s rectum, then forced the same object into his mouth, breaking his teeth. Louima was hospitalized with serious injuries, and stated that during his torture one of these sadists said to him “This is Giuliani time!”

When Safir left, Giuliani appointed Bernard Kerik to take his place. This is the man Giuliani also recommended to head up Homeland Security. Kerik later pleaded guilty to accepting gifts and loans from businesses with alleged organized crime ties while he served as police commissioner.

Some credit Giuliani’s Draconian excesses with the drop in crime during his tenure, but he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to take credit for this. During this period crime dropped similarly nationwide, mostly the result of changing demographics and better policing methods.

Eventually the Giuliani-sanctioned anything-goes extremism infected other units in the police department. When plainclothes cops asked a black man on the street to sell them marijuana, the man, Patrick Dorismond, took offense to being called a drug dealer and got into a scuffle with the unidentified officers, who then SHOT HIM DEAD. Giuliani issued a knee-jerk defense of the killer cops, telling the press that Dorismond was “no altar boy.” pointed out that in fact he WAS an altar boy! Desperate to justify the killing, Giuliani ordered the ILLEGAL release of Dorismond’s sealed juvenile record – for disorderly conduct! It seems that under Giuliani, this justifies the death penalty. Giuliani’s contribution to Dorismond’s funeral was a squadron of police in full riot gear, inciting violence that would not have occurred without their unnecessary and disrespectful presence.

Former schools Chancellor Rudy Crew, a one-time pal of Giuliani, stated: “There’s something very deeply pathological about Rudy’s humanity – He was barren, completely emotionally barren, on the issue of race.” Giuliani’s vile racism has even been acknowledged by his successor, Mayor Bloomberg: “You forget that every single decision [in the Giuliani administration], everybody, every story, everything was always couched in terms of race” – quoted in the November 4, 2003 Daily News from Vanity Fair magazine.

By the time his ship came in on September 11, 2001, Giuliani’s approval rating, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, had hit a Bush-like 37 percent. Hizzoner got downright weird, proposing a Taliban-style “decency panel,” operated out of his office, that would have the power to determine what would be considered “art” in New York City. This came after the debacle of Giuliani’s failed attempt to cut public funding for the Brooklyn Museum because he considered art on exhibit there to be offensive. He also began having nightclubs lacking a cabaret license raided by the police for allowing patrons to dance. And early in 2001 he ordered a city-wide ban on pet ferrets, claiming there was something “deranged” about opponents of the ban, and that “excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.”

In desperation to recover his plummeting popularity, Giuliani seized upon any and every opportunity to appear the “hero.” Despite demanding a crackdown on speeding, his car and entourage were seen and reported in the press as greatly exceeding the speed limit in racing to locations of newsworthy events so he could appear there in front of the media cameras.

Giuliani’s perhaps most criminally negligent if not malevolent pretense to heroism came with his West Nile Virus hoax. This usually mild, mosquito-borne disease is not contagious person to person and is far less dangerous than common influenza, but Giuliani had the media play it up as an impending disaster, and came on like a knight in shining armor with a solution. His solution was far worse than the disease, and no doubt has caused and will cause many illnesses and deaths, as did his post-9/11 assurances that the Ground Zero air was safe to breathe. He had the entire city repeatedly sprayed from the air with Malathion, a highly toxic insecticide, and completely disregarded the manufacturer’s advised safety precautions in doing so. Note that malicious intent is far harder to prove in such environmental poisoning cases than when the police are ordered to falsely arrest someone, or tacitly encouraged to brutally beat suspects or shoot them to death.

Giuliani himself was actually responsible for the alleged West Nile Virus threat. He had disbanded New York’s Pest Control Unit, whose job was to find and eradicate pools of stagnant water where mosquitoes breed. Thus he set the stage for his “heroic” response to this “crisis.”

Regarding the Ground Zero air and the many now dead or dying therefrom, former EPA Secretary Christine Whitman has stated that she urged Ground Zero workers to wear respirators, but that Giuliani blocked her efforts, and also that the Giuliani administration appeared to be more concerned with its image than the safety and speedy response of EPA employees in the wake of the subsequent anthrax scare.

Jerome Hauer was the city’s emergency management director from 1996 to 2000, and is recognized as a leading expert on biological and chemical terrorism. “Rudy would make a terrible president and that is why I am speaking now,” Mr Hauer told London’s The Sunday Telegraph. “He’s a control freak who micro-manages decisions, he has a confrontational character trait and picks fights just to score points. He’s the last thing this country needs as president.” Mr Hauer also accused Mr Giuliani of failing to sort out turf battles between the city’s police and fire departments, and of appointing inexperienced cronies to key positions.

Pet ferrets weren’t the only ones to get the boot in Giuliani’s New York. Hizzoner boasted of moving people from welfare to workfare, where thousands of people earned less than two dollars per hour replacing an equivalent number of parks department employees whose positions were downsized. During this period, 13,000 welfare-dependent City University students were FORCED TO LEAVE COLLEGE and enter the menial workfare force, where less than six percent of participants transition to real employment paying minimum wage or more. In this we see Giuliani’s cruel rewarding of riches and punishing poverty, as if wealth and poverty were not inherently rewarding and punishing conditions.

Mega-real estate developer Donald Trump described Giuliani as “maybe the best [mayor] ever,” obviously meaning the most profitable for him. However, Ralph Nader called him “the oligarch’s mayor.” Giuliani took credit for a high-end real estate boom while presiding over double-digit rises in homelessness, cutting public spending on affordable housing by nearly half and housing for the homeless by nearly three quarters.

Today, “America’s mayor” lives and breathes a 9/11 mantra. Forget the pathetic, cruel, even sadistic details of his tenure in Gracie Mansion; he is now portrayed as an iconic American hero
– the “leader” we needed when George W. Bush was otherwise occupied on September 11, 2001.

But was Giuliani really a hero on that infamous day of horror?

Just like Bush, Giuliani’s failing political career was rescued by the terrorists that attacked New York and Washington on 9/11. Some believe these terrorists had help from within the US government, and even that some within the government itself were the terrorists. To find criminals, one must consider who most benefited from the crime.

It is strange if not truly sinister that Giuliani stated to Peter Jennings in an interview that on 9/11 he had prior knowledge of the World Trade Center collapses, but subsequently he denied and continues to deny that he said this. Here Giuliani is caught in a direct lie – you can hear it at More documentation can be found at:

On 9/11 New York was left without an emergency command center because Giuliani, against the advice of both the police and fire departments, decided to locate the center conveniently near City Hall in World Trade Center building 7, along with tanks containing tens of thousands of gallons of fuel, in direct violation of New York City fire laws. This was despite a 1993 bombing of the WTC, proving it to be the number one terrorism target. It was this decision that put him on the street on 9/11 instead of inside a command center coordinating operations. Ironically, this decision also put him in front of hundreds of press cameras, sparking his image transformation into a “hero.”

While our “hero” was posing for the cameras, however, there was no communication possible between the police department and the fire department, whose REAL heroes were rushing to their deaths inside the towers. And there was likewise no communication between the police officers who identified an open stairway for escape from above the fire zone and the 911 phone operators who were telling soon-to-be-dead office workers to stay put and wait for the firefighters. Giuliani had been aware of the inadequacy of the emergency services’ communications equipment for many years, but did absolutely nothing about it. This criminal negligence also doomed hundreds of firefighters and police that were unable to hear the orders to evacuate the north tower.

Whatever possibility existed for communication between the police and fire departments, whose radios operated on different frequencies, evaporated when Giuliani visited a makeshift fire/police command center that had formed in his absence. There he ORDERED THE POLICE BRASS TO LEAVE and accompany him uptown. This “heroic leadership” effectively put the fire department and police department brass in different physical locations with no communication possible between them.

Present Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stated that he doesn’t have any idea who was in charge on 9/11 because Bernie Kerik and all the top chiefs in the police department basically acted as bodyguards to Giuliani and no one was running the shop.

A month after the September 11 attacks, firefighters took to the streets to protest Giuliani’s decision to limit the number of uniformed firefighters and police officers sifting through the rubble for remains, and the “scoop and dump” haste of the cleanup. They accused the administration of rushing the cleanup at the cost of trashing the remains of victims. [And, it is pointed out by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, to dispose of any incriminating evidence as quickly as possible. The steel, some claim bearing evidence of demolition explosives, was shipped to China and quickly melted down.] At the firefighters’ demonstration Giuliani, in signature style, ordered Peter Gorman, head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, and Kevin Gallagher, head of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, to be ARRESTED at the protest site! A spokesperson for Gallagher told the media “The mayor fails to realize that New York City is not a dictatorship.” Gorman went a step further, joining h!
ordes of New Yorkers calling the mayor a “fascist” – which brings us back to the fascistic conduct issue that dogged Giuliani throughout his mayoral tenure.

Giuliani often answers the charge by accusing his detractors of ethnic bias – as if “fascist” were somehow an ethnic slur against Italian-Americans. His charge itself, however, reeks of anti-Italian-American ethnic bias, ignoring the role New York’s Italian-American community has played in local politics – giving the city, for example, its most revered mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia. The fascist charges do not stem from Giuliani’s ethnicity, they stem from his own actions and statements, such as:

– Mayor Giuliani, quoted in the New York Times, March 17, 1994.

Though sworn to uphold our Constitution, by the end of 2002 the courts had found Giuliani in violation of the First Amendment TWENTY-SEVEN TIMES. Mayor David Dinkins, his predecessor in office, bravely stated that Giuliani is ” – a bully, mean-spirited, and he rules through fear and intimidation.”

At, one finds a statement by David Weigel regarding Giuliani:

“This is the cornerstone of his philosophy: For liberty to thrive, you need to dramatically empower the state and the legal system. Criminals and would-be criminals should have less freedom in order for the rest of us to enjoy our freedoms. This is the framework he’s applied to basically every issue – ”

Who, we must ask, are the “would-be criminals?” Obviously ALL OF US, as at one time or another everyone knowingly or unknowingly commits a violation such as jaywalking, speeding, or drinking in public. So under Giuliani’s rule we ALL have less freedom, and the priveleged “rest of us” are those that rule over us, the “dramatically empowered” state. Does this sound like something out of Mein Kampf?

And you thought that George W. Bush was a dangerous tyrant?

When the lessons of history are ignored, history repeats.

Compare the following to the above Giuliani “Freedom” quote:
“State authority must provide for peace and order, and peace and order in turn must conversely make possible the existence of state authority. Within these two poles all life must now revolve…Ideas of ‘freedom,’ mostly of a misunderstood nature, inject themselves into the state conceptions of these circles.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

And an old but relevant news story:
Berlin, Monday, Aug. 20, 1934 — Eighty-nine and nine-tenths percent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday’s plebiscite Chancellor Hitler’s assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval. The result was expected.

Voting Information for West Virginians

I talk alot about politics in many different circles around the area and I find that many West Virginians do not vote. The general opinion is that there is nobody worth voting for. The secondary opinion is that the elections are rigged and the votes don’t count.

While I would agree with these opinions to an extent, I think part of the trouble with the “nobody to vote for” crowd is that they don’t have enough information to make a decision, mostly due to their only source of info being a TV set and the “mainstream” media.

Now, the “elections are rigged” crowd are a bit different. They have gone from being “informationally challenged” to having too much information, but they are STILL being manipulated by a media which is discouraging people from even TRYING to make a difference.

But these things create INACTION and right now we as citizens of the good old U.S.of A. need to take action. We need to make ourselves heard. We are SICK AND TIRED. We are standing on the proverbial cliff, one foot hanging over, trying to maintain balance.

We must make a STATEMENT that can’t be ignored. And in that respect, exercising the right to vote is even more important than ever. We need to tell these INSANE power mongers what we REALLY feel, regardless of the outcome.

And so, with this in mind, I’ll be running articles about various presidential candidates every so often, and I am posting VOTER REGISTRATION INFO HERE for West Virginia.

It really doesn’t take much to register, and being registered does not REQUIRE you to vote, but if you AREN’T registered to vote, there will be a deadline for registration and if the deadline passes, you WON’T BE ABLE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND if you want to!


In West Virginia

You must:

* Be a citizen of the United States
* Live in West Virginia
* Be 18 years old, or to vote in the primary, be 17 years old and turning 18 before the general election
* Not be under conviction, probation or parole for a felony, treason or election bribery
* Not have been judged “mentally incompetent” in a court of competent jurisdiction

Registration Deadline: 20 days before the election

Date of Primary: Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Primary Registration Deadline: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (21 days prior)

State Election

You can obtain voter registration applications for a voter registration drive by contacting our office and submitting a Mail-In Voter Registration Request Form.  This Request Form is available at our office.  A printable version of the Mail-In Voter Registration Application is also available at    Voter Registration Application and can be duplicated and used as many times as needed.

* Up to 100 mail-in voter registration forms will be available per organization/individual per election.
* The following information is required for requests of 10 or more forms
–Name of Organization/Individual Requesting Forms
–Name of Contact Person
–Address (if to be mailed)
–Amount Picked Up (or mailed)
–Date of Drive
–Location of Drive

Why Ron Paul?

Congressman Ron Paul’s Secret Revealed

Jennifer Haman
Sunday Aug 5, 2007

While speaking to a woman the other day that had never heard of Ron Paul, she stated “My goodness, he is amazing. He is the best kept secret of this presidential campaign.” She could not believe there was a contender who represented everything she wanted in a presidential candidate and more. (For those of you who have not yet heard, Ron Paul is running for President.) She talked about wanting to end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul has promised to do that immediately and not leave a soldier behind. She talked about wanting a more secure border. Ron Paul has stated that he wants very strong borders and he was appalled that our government had taken border guards off of our borders to send them to Iraq. She mentioned she is treading water financially and never seems to get ahead. Ron Paul has a solution for that too: end the fiat money system so Congress cannot create monetary inflation. Well, what about privacy she asked? She felt we have moved into an age of Big Brother. Ron Paul wants to protect our privacy by sticking to a strict Constitutionalist policy. He wants to end the Patriot Act that allows the government to enter your home without a warrant and without notifying you so you know they were there. Dr. Paul wants to end the destruction of habeas corpus, the only doctrine we have that lets you see a lawyer if you land in jail. Without it, all other rights are meaningless. Dr. Paul has voted against every attempt to regulate and control the Internet. He believes that the Constitution does not give Congress a right to decide who may or may not marry, or what drugs a physician may or may not prescribe. Ron Paul believes in limited Federal government and limited taxes: he even wants to end the Income tax. (Can you imagine taking home your whole paycheck?)

The conversation continued. She wanted to know why she should vote for a person who has no chance. The obvious answer was because Ron Paul offered her everything she wanted. The second not so obvious answer was that he is actually doing much better than anyone knows because the press hides all of his successes. What most people do not know, because the mainstream press is doing its best to manipulate support away from Dr. Paul, is that he won the first debate, he came in second in the second debate, and he came in first in the third debate. In the most recent straw polls Dr. Paul placed second in the Georgetown SC straw poll, he placed second in the Cob County straw poll and he won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll at their annual picnic. As of this writing Ron Paul has placed number one in the PajamasMedia straw poll with 70.8% of the votes! Yet, over and over we are subjected to articles that say he has no chance. (This is an oft-used tactic to sway voters away from a candidate because people do not like to “waste” a vote. As if voting for what you want is a waste.)

The mainstream media call his supporters “spammers,” attempting to claim that all his Internet support is really just a few folks pressing a lot of buttons. Nonetheless, his “non-existent” support is growing by leaps and bounds. Oh, the big guys may have the big money, but Ron Paul has the people. In one month alone, his Meetup supporters have grown from 16,184 to 25,101 with 4,192 more waiting to join in the fun. He has 643 separate groups. (These figures tend to rise daily; they were accurate at the time this article was written.) These are undeniable signs that the snowball is rolling. When people get through the gauntlet of media attempts to control their thoughts and votes and actually HEAR Ron Paul speak (see videos on YouTube like this one) or read what he has written they become ardent supporters. I dare you to click on that last link of articles he has written and start reading. I double dare you.

Ron Paul brings a sense of decency back into the political arena. He is not out to win the nomination so that he can run your life, he just wants to return this country to the basics of liberty and freedom we once enjoyed and used to fight for. The rest of the candidates, on both sides, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, are willing to use pre-emptive nuclear strikes against other countries. Has it been so long that people have forgotten the horrors of nuclear war? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians die. They get radiation sickness and die horrible deaths. Babies die screaming with burning flesh. Thousands are blinded and left helpless. It is a horrible inhumane thought, let alone action. Incredibly, when asked if they would take the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table, nearly all the other candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike said no. When Dr. Paul was asked during the last GOP debate on Fox, what he thought was the most pressing moral issue facing our country he stated that it was the idea that all those other candidates were willing to entertain even the thought of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
Even the most optimistic predictions about the effects of a major nuclear exchange predict the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth’s ecosystems, and the global climate.

Let’s be clear here. Pre-emptive warfare means that one country will strike another before they have been attacked. Translated that means that if one of those other candidates becomes President they would consider dropping a nuclear weapon on another country on the thought that perhaps that country could be a threat to us. Where are the headlines? Where is the outrage? Where is the humanity? Well, I can answer that last one, it is with Dr. Paul.

It is difficult to get through the morass of disingenuous reporting that insists on calling Dr. Paul names rather than address his policies. But, if you can do it, and if you can find out information about him yourself, you will understand why those of us who support him are so emphatic in our love of this man. He represents all that is good, or was good, about this country. He lives a principled life and will not accept his own Congressional pension even though he has spent ten terms in Congress because he does not want to take one dime away from any American. He sent his children to college but would not let them take out student loans because the government has limited resources and he wanted to make sure that loan money went to small businesses that needed it more than his children. He has been married for 50 years. If that doesn’t show commitment I don’t know what does.

Dr. Paul is the most moral, upstanding, best hope this country has. Those who have read his writings and seen him speak have learned this. I invite all to do the same. Please click on this link to see his writings and things people have written about him. Find out WHY his campaign is growing so fast, so exponentially, and with so many individual supporters. Find out WHY most of his money comes from donations of less than $250 dollars each and almost none from the big players who want government favors. Find out WHY people become so passionate about a silly politician. Have you ever seen such a thing before?

Dr. Paul offers us all hope. Hope that things can actually change in this country and we will not get another 4 years of the same. Disenfranchised Democrats, who voted expecting their party to end the war only to see the money handed over to continue it, are supporting Dr. Paul. Why? Because Ron Paul voted against the war the first time it was brought up, he voted against it the second time it was brought up and he wants to end it completely now. You can always trust people: you can trust them to act the way they have in the past.

Dr. Paul offers businesses hope out of the morass of paperwork and costs they have had to endure since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. An Act so heinous, it threatens to destroy the very fabric of our capital markets in this country. He offers hope to the small business owner who just wants to try to make it on his own and not get buried in the costs of complying with section 404.

Ron Paul offers hope to the elderly who need to have their Social Security checks. Ron Paul wants to have a separate fund to make sure that Congress cannot raid the money and take it from those who need it most. He also introduced an act to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. He offers all hope that their savings will still have value in 20 years by taking us off a fiat money system and eliminating the possibility that Congress and the Fed can create monetary inflation. He offers hope to the young people by devising a plan whereby they will have the option to opt out of the Social Security system completely. He offers those same young people hope by promising to vote against a draft while the rest of Congress contemplates the idea.

Ron Paul offers hope to all. Hope that things will change. He is not the “usual” politician. He is known as Dr. No in Washington because he will not take money from one group of people just to give it to another. The lobbyists don’t even bother knocking on his door. They know better. We need someone unusual. The usual has brought us, well, the usual.

Where else can you find supporters who give up their weekends to make phone calls, spend their Saturdays standing on street corners with signs just so people will hear about their candidate? Where else do find people willing to meet others and work for hours stuffing envelopes, making DVDs and doing it all on their own dime and their own time? All the other candidates keep asking how Ron Paul has garnered this much support on the Internet. He has done nothing. Dr. Paul is more surprised than anyone. The people are doing this all on their own. It is his message of freedom and liberty that is doing the selling. After all, that is the very foundation of our country: A thing the new breed of politician seems to have forgotten. Freedom has been replaced with cameras on every corner and expected groping at the airport. Liberty has been replaced by sneak-and-peek warrants, an end to habeas corpus, expectations to “show me your papers” and Executive decrees that place the President above the law. By the way, Ron Paul also voted against the National ID card.
Ron Paul stands for limited government. For many they think that means he is uncaring. To those who understand, nothing could be further from the truth. Our government does not make anything, create anything or have any means of creating wealth. It has what it has by taking from others by force. When Ron Paul seeks limited government, what he is really asking for is limited coercion over our lives. That is why so many support him. We don’t like being coerced. We like liberty and freedom. And we like Dr. Paul.

So, is Dr. Paul the best kept secret in this campaign? Perhaps he is. One can only hope that it will not be for long. The people need him and need to know he is out there. They need to know he is a choice. With any luck, and continued exponential growth, Ron Paul supporters will soon be strong enough to overtake the media manipulation machine that has done all it can to silence him. As so many have said, what this country needs is a doctor to fix it, not another politician. If his campaign continues to grow you can expect the negative, fact-voided, name-calling articles to continue and get nastier. They will attack him on his most positive stances. They will call him a nut for trying to stop the counterfeiting Federal Reserve so that Americans will have money that holds its value. They will call him insane for trying to end the war in Iraq when 70% of the people have that wish as well. So fight back. Don’t sit there and take it. Don’t let the mainstream steal the one hope of getting out of the mess we are in. Think for yourself and do the research. Don’t let Ron Paul stay secret any longer.

Please read the links in this article. Many of them are to Ron Paul’s articles and Acts he submitted to Congress. These should help give you a better understanding of Dr. Ron Paul, Presidential candidate for 2008.

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.”
~ James Madison

Published in: on August 6, 2007 at 2:23 am  Comments (1)