- In 1952, the country was on fire (as usual). The Democrats
had ruled for twenty years. Swindler, mass murderer and traitor Franklin
Roosevelt was safely dead. Harry Truman, who to everyone's amazement had
beaten Republican globalist Thomas Dewey in 1948, was now completing his
term. And the truth about Communist infiltration and influence under the
Democrats was oozing out.
-
- If the magnitude of that infiltration became generally
known, the conspiracy for world government could have suffered a devastating
defeat. The Communists had literally been directing federal policy. Because
of that policy, Patton's advance had been stopped, so Stalin could seize
all of Central Europe. Soviet agent Alger Hiss, a top official of the Department
of State, ran the San Francisco meeting that founded the Communist United
Nations. And on and on!
-
- And waiting in the wings to succeed Truman was staunch
Republican patriot Robert Taft, of Ohio. In 1952, it would not have mattered
whom the Democrats decided to nominate. Immensely popular Bob Taft would
have won. And Taft would have conducted the exposé the world government
traitors so feared. They had to find a way to deny Taft the nomination.
But how?
-
- First, they recruited Dwight Eisenhower, an unimportant
colonel in the 1930s with no military talent, who didn't need any because
he was a favorite of Eleanor Roosevelt's. Promoted to general over the
heads of more experienced, more talented men, Eisenhower had been Supreme
Allied Commander during World War II, but he had never seen a battle, except
in the movies and maybe when Mamie found out about Kay Sommersby.
-
- There was nothing more to Eisenhower than the fact that
he was a factotum of the conspiracy for world government. He fired Patton.
He conducted Operation Keelhaul, in which he forcibly returned to the Soviets
a couple of million people who had used the war to escape. Some of those
people had served in our military in our uniform. Many committed suicide
rather than return to Stalin. Mothers threw their babies off bridges and
then jumped off themselves. Eisenhower was merciless.
-
- In another incredible war crime, Eisenhower killed a
million or so demobilized German soldiers, ordinary men who had nothing
to do with any Holocaust and maybe didn't even know about it. He kept them
caged in the open, utterly without shelter and starved them to death. So,
Eisenhower should have been on trial beside Hitler. Like Roosevelt, he
was a Soviet front man and a mass murderer.
-
- But the conspiracy for world government not only destroys
the reputations of its enemies; it also creates spurious reputations for
its own. So it created a reputation for Eisenhower. They made him NATO
commander. He still had never been in combat, but was the hero who had
"defeated Germany." They brought him back to become president
of Columbia University.
-
- They couldn't run at Taft directly. He was too popular.
So, they devised a brilliant slogan: "I like Taft, but he can't win."
As soon as they had maneuvered Taft out of the nomination - thereby preventing
the exposé and preserving the conspiracy - they transmogrified the
slogan. Now it was, "I like Ike." Thereby, they piggybacked Taft's
popularity onto Eisenhower. The implication was that Ike could win and
of course he buried the Democrat, Adlai Stevenson.
-
- What do we have now? Wherever I go, I find very few people
who dislike Ron Paul. Because you will never meet a man more humane, what
could a normal person dislike? I go out of my way to ask black people about
him. Those who have heard of him smile. So far, I have not found one who
dislikes him. There is no reason to believe your experience is any different.
Everyone but the totalitarians likes Dr. Ron, but many won't vote for him
because "he can't win."
-
- As the Texas primary approaches, these are the people
to whom these comments are directed. What does it mean to like Ron Paul
but not to vote for him because "he can't win?" First, there
is the obvious fact that enough such people could add up to the old "self-fulfilling
prophecy." If enough people who believe he "can't win" don't
vote for him, then obviously he can't.
-
- Second, we are not talking about the Marx brothers in
"A Day at the Races." The point of all this effort is not to
outwit the law of probability and pick the winner; not to be able to boast
we did that. This is Election Day. We are choosing the candidate who more
likely will work to restore and preserve our constitutional system. If
you believe Ron "can't win," one possible choice is not to vote
for President at all, in which case you are in effect telling other people
to choose the winner. You are saying, "Ron can't win because I made
him lose."
-
- Or you could vote for someone else. Who? The only other
candidates for the Republican nomination who remain are McCain and Huckabee.
McCain is deranged, he is corrupt, he betrayed his fellow Prisoners of
War, which is just one of many good reasons to believe that his Soviet
interrogators sent him home as one of their own and his record in the Senate
is as far left as Mao Tse-tung, which is another. He says he would happily
keep us in Iraq for a century.
-
- It now becomes apparent that Huckabee lost that hundred
pounds and wrote the book about it in preparation for his presidential
campaign, which in turn is the key to his new career in show business.
Recently, I saw this presidential candidate playing straight buffoon on
a comedy show. He is in the race for whatever he can get, an Elmer Gantry
equivalent to a courtroom shyster. Before he started stealing Dr. Paul's
platform, Pukeabee was a rabid socialist, doing whatever he could to encourage
the illegal alien invasion.
-
- The experts tell us Traitor McCain almost has it nailed
down. If that is true, there is nothing to lose by voting for Dr. Ron.
If he "can't win," your vote won't change anything, except that
the more votes he gets, the more obvious it will be that the natives are
restless; the more influence Dr. Ron will have at the national convention.
So the question is, if you share Dr. Paul's beliefs, why not go ahead and
vote for him in an election in which there is no "lesser of two evils?"
-
- There is something even crazier. Believe it or not, some
Texas Republicans say they will vote for B. Hussein Obama to stop the Clinton
womanoid. Of course that would ensure the nomination of Republican Traitor
McCain and it could win the state for Democrat Hussein, who would be much
harder for McCain to beat in November, despite his connections to racism,
Islam and Communism.
-
- Remember that the womanoid comes to us with dozens of
corpses of the heroes who opposed the Clinton crime family or were just
in the way, like Billy Dale and Vince Foster. The names of some Presidents
are connected to a single major scandal. If I say "Nixon," you
think "Watergate." The womanoid comes to us with a decades-long
record of major felonies, any one of which would put her away for many
years. I would not be surprised to learn that she has been a member of
the Communist Party. Her election would trigger an eruption of rampaging
bull dykes.
-
- Hussein does not have anywhere near as much smelly baggage.
He is movie star charming. He is a novelty. Many brainwashed white victims
would vote for him to expiate the guilt they imbibed in government school
for something other white people they can't name allegedly did more than
150 years ago, and the fact that Hussein would impose just as much Communism
- and maybe more Islam - as the womanoid is more than overcome by the brilliance
of his dictum that the future is before us.
-
- Yes, considerable bad feeling overcame the good between
the races for many years after Lincoln's Communist War to Destroy the Union.
It was engendered by "Reconstruction," calculated by Communist
Yankees (some of them foreigners) to humiliate whites, who were thereby
inspired to humiliate blacks. Thank God we are done with all that.
-
- Every day I get emails from people who complain in effect
that Dr. Ron isn't perfect. Didn't I write as much myself a while ago?
Again, the only perfect candidate would be Jesus Christ, but so far He
hasn't declared His candidacy, maybe because He already owns the whole
place. If you haven't kicked your wife out yet, stop complaining about
Dr. Paul.
-
- Did you forget about what Dr. Ron would do despite his
faults? On Inauguration Day he would start to abolish IRS and the Fed.
He would secure our borders. He would stop the handouts that inspire the
illegal aliens to come. He would restore the Constitution and our national
independence.
-
- He would pull us out of the North American Union the
world government traitors are trying to trick us into. He would start extricating
us from Iraq. He would not make more war in the area. He would restore
our military and take good care of our veterans. How is all that for a
start? All the other candidates in both parties would do exactly the opposite.
-
- So who is the "lesser of two evils?" Why not
vote what you want for a change? Traitor McCain still does not have it.
Because he is deranged, he could unravel at any moment. If he still doesn't
have it at the national Convention, there could be a deadlock and a "brokered
convention." Is that a long shot? Yes, about as long as it can get.
Why not go for it?
-
- "Published originally at www.EtherZone.com : republication
allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
-
- Alan Stang has been a network radio talk show host and
was one of Mike Wallace's first writers. He was a Contributing Editor for
American Opinion magazine and has lectured around the world for more than
40 years. He is the author of some fifteen books and hundreds of magazine
pieces. His new book is Not Holier Than Thou: How Queer Is Bush? He is
a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
-
- <mailto:stangfeedback@gmail.com>stangfeedback@gmail.com
- www.alanstang.com
-
|
