Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!

I Like Ron Paul
And He Can Win

By Alan Stang
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.

Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros