Saturday, January 19, 2008

Ron Paul, John Edwards and the Powers that Be.

It’s impressive, I’ll say that. Ron Paul has really hit a nerve and the powers that be don’t like him one bit. For me that’s all the information I need. Sure, there are those that are going to tell me that the powers that be set it up that way and that Ron Paul is just another side of the powers that be. They’re going to tell me the game is locked on all sides but I don’t believe it.

Funny things happen in history and bad guys go down. It happens. Sometimes it happens much later down the road than we would like, but it happens.

I’ve seen two candidates in this present spectacle that I could live with winning the White House. Those candidates are Ron Paul and John Edwards. The reason I bring this up is because the powers that be want a John McCain and Joe Lieberman ticket. John McCain is a neo-con tool and Lieberman is an Israeli Zionista. That’s a good combination for the powers that be. If they’re really lucky they’ll get Giuliani as Attorney General too.

The assault on Ron Paul is coming on many levels. He’s been smeared as an associate of white power groups. That was blown out of the water but it keeps on getting said because that’s how Swiftboating is done. You keep repeating the same things over and over as if they hadn’t been disproved. People are that stupid that if you say something over and over they figure it has to be true because why else could you say it over and over on mass media?

Next they took radical statements made by someone purporting to support Ron Paul; possibly Lew Rockwell and they made it out as if Ron Paul had made these statements, this they did on CNN. Then they make out like the statements were being made over two decades because they happened between 1989 and 1991. Ron Paul disavowed all of these statements as being any indication of his position but there goes another Swiftboat down the river of darkness.

Then they compare Ron Paul to a terrorist on MSNBC. Then they list the votes from Michigan and don’t mention the over 50,000 votes that Ron Paul got but they don’t mind mentioning far lower numbers for other candidates. Mostly they don’t mention Ron Paul except dismissively.

Then we get the FACT that Ron Paul votes weren’t even counted in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul’s position on issues is readily available, I won’t debate them here. He’s a sound man with a sound plan and as radical as some of the ideas are they are all good ideas. They won’t get implemented because nothing ever gets done as it should. They will be debated and they will lead to positive compromises and that’s always to the good.

On the other hand, with people like John McCain and Joe Lieberman in office you might as well just start accepting the fact that you are all Palestinians now. You will be sure to see more phony terror attacks and more phony terror alerts because you are headed into the metaphorical darkness of Egypt only it won’t be a metaphor.

On the one hand you have bombastic ignorance and on the other you have certain evil. These are interchangeable as cause and result. You will be up shits creek and into an American Gaza to the smarmy, sonorous tones of the unctuous Lieberman and his talking parrot McCain.

They’ve got Bloomberg in the on deck circle. They’re quite serious about this people.

Let’s put aside John Edwards membership in an elite organization. You’re not likely to get a presidential candidate who hasn’t got some connection to something. We’re looking for the best possibilities. John Edwards is a populist out of the Jimmy Carter mold. He’s a human being as much as anyone running. It’s obvious he is passionate about his platform and it’s a good one. It’s a good one as far as the majority is concerned.

Isn’t it time for a collation of good? We’ve got various coalitions of evil. We’ve got all kinds of talking snake heads attached to the same body. We need a collation of good. It would be a fine thing to see John Edwards and Ron Paul running together in a power sharing combine. You say that’s impossible? You say they have nothing in common? They’ve got plenty in common and one thing they have in common is enough to make it worth our time. They love America and they’d like to get it on track.

I think it’s time that these men- and any others that want to see real change- come together and recognize their common interests as well as the dangers; great and terrible dangers that face America and the world if the Zionist stooges gain yet more power. They’re already running the show. Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, Chertoff, your new attorney general and a host of others are all dual nationals whose interest is Israel’s gain and who view America and its people as canon fodder and financial cows. They’re operating behind the scenes and they want to come out into the open. They’re far enough along that they’ll dare anything now.

These men along with Michael Ledeen, William Kristol and a number of others, lied America into an unnecessary war, are culpably involved in the 9/11 attack and connected at various levels to most of the terrorist activity of the last seven years.

Ron Paul in power is going to throw a spanner into the works. I don’t know about Ron Paul’s chances on his own but aligned with someone like John Edwards it might make for a strong case. Fiscal responsibility is critically needed. Ron Paul’s platform addresses this. Our foreign policy is a shambles; John Edwards could do much to change that. Why would this coalition be a crazy idea when McCain Lieberman isn’t? You hear ridiculous talk that McCain and Lieberman are moderates. They’re neo-cons and they’ve got murder on their minds.

As with most of what I write the idea is to generate thought and hope that along with so many others who want a better world that it will help to form the government we need.

Right now voter fraud is epidemic. While we slept, vicious flesh-eating swine have insinuated themselves into every area of our lives. They’re assaulted the constitution. They’ve assaulted their own country. They’ve made laws designed to criminalize the ordinary citizen. Tazer-trolls are patrolling the malls and streets of your towns and cities. The press is an organ of the neo-cons. We have to bring them down. We need an outcry so pervasive and vast that these neo-cons must flee to the country where their loyalty abides. They intend to make it worse. How much can you take? We’ll see won’t we?

“Occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants.” Your country is in the hands of a hostile, foreign, occupying force. You need Ron Paul to change this condition. Ron Paul needs the help of others with followings of their own to accomplish it. It’s time for everyone of good faith to put aside their small differences and unite behind the much larger common goals that they all share.

People from the different campaigns need to talk to each other. There is room in a new administration for all of these people in their areas of expertise. Make it happen.

Visible sings: Almost A Capella by Les Visible♫ Love is Bound ♫
'Love is Bound' is track no. 12 of 12 on Visible's 2007 album 'Almost A Capella'
Lyrics (pops up)

Almost A Capella by Les Visible


Anonymous said...

I agree with you. I wish this could get out to the public on a mass level. Now is the time to be united like we were on 9-11.
I am afraid this is our last chance to wake up and stand up. If I had the money I would be buying time on local stations to get the word out. Local stations seem to be the best way to go.
I have thought that if we could just get some local tv time all over the US about some of the things you have written then we could have a chance. It would need to be soon, and there is no money.
I might sound crazy, but I think it would work.

Anonymous said...

Excellent background history, "The Controversy of Zion," by Douglas Reed. Available on the internet at:

Anonymous said...

I am not a big fan of Edwards, but I will take a Ron Paul/John Edwards ticket over the establishment candidates any day.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards is a member of the CFR. His so-called populist message is nothing but empty rhetoric to get votes by exploiting the fact that middle class is slowly waking up to the fact that they are the victims of an increasingly vicious class war.

I'm becoming suspicious of the hullabaloo surrounding Ron Paul. I think he's being used as a tool to force right-wing fundies who might be wavering back into the fold.

In short, the deck has been stacked. No matter who is selected in the next "election" it will not be the people's best interests that are served.

Anonymous said...

Hello my friend: I would like to believe that Ron Paul, John Edwards, Kucinich, and possibly others like Mike Gravel really have a working class and people's democratic program. But this is not the case. Most of those candidates are what sociologists call "Reformist bourgiosie", they are like Zapatero (Spain's president), Kirshner (Argentina's president) or Tavare Vasquez (Uruguay's president) who are not fascists, far-right wingers, but most of these reformist presidents, don't benefit the difranchised, poor and oppressed of the capitalist system (The majority), they do have a sort of populist speech, etc. etc. but in reality, they adopt a capitalist economic program, and we all know that capitalism benefits exclusively those of the upper-classes, (The yuppie class and upper class), while the working and lower classes get poorer even with Ron Paul, Zapatero, Kirshner, JFK. etc.

What USA needs is a people's party, with a people and working class program:

Read this article from Socialist Worker magazine:

The Ron Paul delusion
January 18, 2008 | Page 5

SHARON SMITH explains that some writers on the left are sliding down the slippery slope of single-issue voting in their support for Ron Paul.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BACK IN 2000, Bill Clinton still occupied the White House, and his neoliberal agenda remained alive in the left's collective consciousness. In that context, Ralph Nader's presidential campaign easily filled stadiums across the country, as activists and left-wing celebrities embraced Nader's third-party candidacy as a blow against both corporate parties.
Those were also the heady days of the global justice movement, when optimism prevailed and solidarity grew, christened by the “Teamster-Turtle” alliance during the Seattle anti-WTO protests in 1999.

Then along came George W. Bush. The attacks of 9/11 catapulted the idiot president to the role of revered statesman virtually overnight, while his reckless band of neocon advisers moved from the margins to the center of imperial policy.

That dismal period demoralized the broad left and many sheepishly returned to the folds of the Democratic Party. “Anybody But Bush” was the clarion call for this surrender to the logic of lesser evilism, which has kept the corporate duopoly in power historically.

Nader's 2004 election bid thus witnessed the mass defection of liberals and antiwar activists, who flocked to Democrat John Kerry's campaign while heaping invective on Nader as a “spoiler” who would aid Bush's victory.

Alas, Kerry needed no help in spoiling his own chances for soundly defeating Bush: his pro-war, neoliberal campaign failed to sufficiently inspire the Democrats' traditional voting base on Election Day. Once again, the chosen candidate of the well-organized Christian Right carried the day.

The 2004 election, therefore, marked the disintegration of the broad left that had risen so spectacularly in the final years of the 20th century. Now, as the 2008 election approaches, the left is fracturing yet further amid a spurious debate over the merits of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, which has surfaced on numerous left Web sites, including CounterPunch.

With breathtaking speed, self-avowed anti-imperialists and even former Nader supporters have embraced the logic of single-issue voting to justify support for this right-wing libertarian--based solely on his opposition to the Iraq war.

To be sure, Paul's vigorous opposition to the war has provided a breath of fresh air during the otherwise stultifying presidential debates of both parties.

Paul famously ruffled fellow Republicans' feathers when he remarked last May at a Fox News-sponsored debate, “[W]e're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.”

But Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson have likewise offered a refreshing departure from the antiwar posturing of this election's crop of pro-war Democrats. During a September debate sponsored by MSNBC, Kucinich declared that he would remove troops from Iraq within “three months after I take office."

But welcoming such departures from what currently passes for debate among the chosen candidates from the two corporate parties does not require endorsing the candidates who advance them. Rhetorical flourishes notwithstanding, an alternative worldview is in order, and no candidate from either party is offering one in this election year.

Since 2004, Kucinich has unapologetically advocated gay marriage and abortion rights in addition to opposing the Iraq war. But he backed Kerry, while abandoning any fight for an antiwar platform, at the Democratic Party's 2004 convention. In so doing, he betrayed himself as unwilling to build a coherent alternative to the party establishment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ron Paul's right-wing worldview
RON PAUL is a longstanding Republican who brandishes his right-wing credentials. His lone appeal to the left is his vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Otherwise, his campaign consists of standard reactionary fare--much of it in line with that of traditional states' rights segregationists and the Christian right.

One need look no further than Paul's own policy statements to determine the overarching character of his campaign.

His opposition to immigration is linked to his opposition to basic welfare provisions for U.S.-born workers. In an article entitled “Immigration and the Welfare State,” Paul argued, “Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs.” It is no coincidence that Paul was one of the first presidential candidates to cross a picket line of striking Hollywood writers.

Opponents of U.S. imperialism should also take note that Paul's focus on restricting immigration targets the U.S.'s southern border with Mexico and migrants from so-called “terrorist” [Arab and Muslim] countries. U.S. imperialism has historically regarded Latin America as its low-wage backyard, while rising racism against Arabs and Muslims has accompanied more recent imperialist forays in the Middle East.

Paul's television ad prior to primary voting in Iowa and New Hampshire summarized his views: “ No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations. Standing up for the rule of law.”

Paul was also the only member of Congress to vote against the 40th anniversary commemoration of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, justified in an article entitled “The Trouble With Forced Integration,” in which he argued, “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...[B]ureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.”

Paul's opposition to abortion rights is not a mere “side issue” as some of his left supporters have suggested. Twice in the last year, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, proclaiming, “[H]uman life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” But Paul also opposes federally funded contraception programs. Last February, he sponsored the Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act, banning the use of federal funds for “family planning activity.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Who's holding back the left?
YET PAUL'S anti-imperialist supporters have responded with vitriol to those unwilling to surrender once cherished left principles merely to advance Paul's presidential campaign. In a CounterPunch article dated January 4, for example, Stan Goff lashed out at the “program-intoxicated, 'I won't endorse this-n-that position' liberal-left. Ron Paul is backward on abortion, passively racist, anti-immigrant, and on and on.”

This begs the following question: Is Goff suggesting that immigrants who are rightfully angered by Paul's focus on the Mexican border and migrants from so-called “terrorist states” are guilty of enabling imperialist conquest? Are African Americans who refuse to surrender the merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act standing in the way of ending the war in Iraq? Are women who shudder at the thought of supporting Ron Paul, an anti-abortion zealot, holding back progress? I think not.

On the contrary, by advocating single-issue voting, Paul's left-wing supporters are endangering the survival of the U.S. left. Single-issue voting requires choosing one superceding issue above all others in a given election year--pitting constituencies against each other as if their interests are counterposed--and effectively accepting the notion prevalent in bourgeois politics that “interest groups” are in competition with each other.

In reality, the rights of women, African Americans, immigrants and gays are not counterposed to, but aligned with, those oppressed by imperialist war.

This was demonstrated vividly with the rise of the Gay Liberation Front in the late 1960s--which, inspired by the armed struggle of the North Vietnamese against the forces of U.S. imperialism, chose its name as a formal identification with the National Liberation Front (NLF), the Vietnamese resistance.

Single-issue voting was once the bastion of Democratic Party liberals, including pro-choice organizations that supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s because he favored abortion rights, and then sat silently as he dismantled the New Deal welfare state, impoverishing poor women and children across the country.

This faulty logic proved the death knell of liberalism in the U.S. by the end of the 1990s. The same logic now threatens the survival of the U.S. left, which is teetering atop a slippery slope--and is perhaps headed into oblivion.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see everyone that reads the post on Ron Paul and John Edwards to communicate ONE idea from that post to everyone they know and to any other websites, blogs, hair salons, etc. Who would we get for cabinet officials and prominent positions in a Mitt/McCain/Gulliani or even a Hillary president. Pick any one of them and you'll not only be looking at the rest of them for 8 years, but all your favorites that you see every day now; Chertov and ALL THE REST of the neo-con gangsters. Go spread the word...PLEASE!

Anonymous said...

When Ron Paul denied 9/11 coverup... and then reverted to " if the people care about me..." his denial of this only shows his clout "has none" he makes it clear it is the people who are to take care of his needs versus he serve the public as a public servant...

If you do not want to be in a seat of danger, (rest assured the presidential seat is very hot and getting hotter) do not run for the presidency!

The clowns running for Pres are manchurians "all of them" America is running neck and neck with England "under common purpose control" see:

Take common purpose blue print...and signaling a manchurian 'as in the old version of the movie the manchurian candidate'= the state we are in and why.

Anonymous said...

And what about Dennis, he doesn't exist?
Ron Paul is an invention to enlarge the GOP membership. You have to turncoat to vote on the GOP ballot, a moral alarm for plenty of principled, informed citizens.
Edwards is an extremely viable candidate. I detect a heart there and a real will to find and act on real solutions. It can be said that his CFR membership can take us inside an unknown where we would never otherwise have gone.
But the way Diebold aka Premier Systems has the leash on the process, I fear we're going to end up with Obama, especially when the press vaunts his comedy in Vegas, which sounded lame in the description. Hillary's day is over. The common people are linking the subprime losses to the wars and the outsourcing ... finally. No one wants to support dynasties. Its simply beyond our means regardless of political loyalties.
Initially, I wasn't going to vote, being disgusted with the program, but on the small chance enough of us can create something close to a landslide, there's always the possibilty. The tampering appears to have success only when there are close talleys, so we'd better show up en masse.
By contacting my county elections bureau, I confirmed that DTS voters (Declined to State, unaffiliated with any party) can receive Democratic or American Independent Party ballots upon request at your precinct when you show up on your local elections day. Explain this to the election assistants, in 2004 the one at my precinct refused my request out of innocent ignorance.

sockmonkey said...

vote for me and i'll set you free

Alan the Red said...

Never mind, eh? In God we trust, like a bunch of morons who can't even admit that god is a totally incompetent buffoon.

Anonymous said...

What nonsense RP is there to draw the sting.. he has no chance of winning even if he had the votes... New Hampshire is proof of that...

Ron Paul and Alex Jones? don't make me laugh!

Anonymous said...

Its gone so far that even this whole campaign for President is nothing but a distraction from the real issue- The financial cabal who began the wars and own us from another country, control the outcome. That is who we need to take on- head-on- along with their publicists in the media.

Anonymous said...

Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, Chertoff, your new attorney general and a host of others are all dual nationals ...>
I see assertion this a lot, but I've get to see any corroborating documentation. I'm not saying it's untrue; I'd just like to see some verification. Thanks to anyone who can post it.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards has already pledged his allegiance to our Israeli overlords, so looking to him as a solution is a sign of insanity.

The only candidates who aren't Israeli tools are Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, and possibly Dennis Kucinich. If either of them gets anywhere close to being elected they will die in a freak "accident", just like Paul Wellstone, who was killed because an anti-war, anti-Israel Jew is unacceptable.

The best person for US President is Ralph Nader. As an American of Lebanese/Arab descent, he is despised by the racist Zionists and thus the best hope for America. Whatever is bad for Israel is good for America.

Visible said...

I'll answer the last two, as to the first, look you troll those facts are well known. Use Google and go away.

As to the second. I like Kucinich and Gravel but neither of them has a prayer of electability. I also believe that Edwards is not so compromised as you think and even if he finds out later he won't like it a bit. The rest will go along. For some reason, call it intuition, I think he would resist.

Stop looking at these short essays as something that is supposed to be so letter perfect that words aren't even necessary. I'm one man trying to do the best I can. Are there flaws, most certainly. If you can do better... be my guest and I will follow you.

Anonymous said...

How to guarantee a fair vote count

Someone posted this idea recently:

People should take cell phones with cameras into voting booths and take a photo of the screen, capturing voter registration/ID number and their vote. Photos can then be sent to a central location somewhere on the web so that the official vote counters will have to concede at least as many votes for that candidate as the number of photos sent in.

Alternatively, voters could send in information about themselves to a central website in order to guarantee that the fact of their voting is recorded independently.

Whatever the case may be, since ample footage of Ron Paul asking the right questions on Youtube cannot be deleted, even if they kill him it will be too late to erase the ideas he has expressed, which will change the political landscape radically for the better.

kikz said...

golfclap les!

ok, to the anon who wants info on the duals and otherwise... read em and weep.
hostile occupation indeed.

Anonymous said...

This is also for the 9:25 anon (didn't realise it's a troll; just goes to show, doesn't it?):

There's also this, although it's preaching to the choir:

Another good article, les. Something surely needs to be done soon.


Anonymous said...

RP2 might just end up running as an independent, kinda like RP1 did back in 92. That would assure a democratic White House, and keep the cattle contented. It's taken 9-11 and eight years to secure the Iraqi oil fields, and at $100 oil, they cut it awful close. The psychos howling the loudest about not taking Baghdad the first time, are at the helm now.

So yeah, Edwards would be a welcome respite from these terse, all business types, just don't expect a withdrawal anytime soon. The troops will come home gradually with oil depletion.

kikz said...

well, my links didn't end well..
so once again.

duals and otherwise

Visible said...

I have got the best and most intelligent readers in the world. You do me proud friends. Things you do I cannot do. Together we are going to change this sorry state of affairs and I assure you we will. We are bloody but not bowed.

I swaer allegiance to the Queen of Heaven and last I saw she was shining in the sky. What we are is older than the oldest recorded memory of the last time we were in this dreadful space. Take heart friends. We may not kick their asses but I know someone that will.

Much gratitude for you input and support. A special thanks to Nobody who is well worth reading if he will just post the link here.

Anonymous said...

I'm the anon at 9:25 who asked for verification of the claims of dual citizenship. I am not a troll. I asked a very simple and reasonable question. Calling me a troll, telling me "those facts are well known" and "use google and go away" only reinforces my suspicions that the claims cannot be verified. I know how to use google, I've looked, and I cannot find anything other than more unsubstantiated claims along the lines of the original statement.

The links provided prove nothing. The page at says "Consider the following list that I obtained on the web ..." Where on the web? That is not corroboration. The pages at contain no information about dual citizenship. The page at makes more uncorroborated claims.

If you want to be believed, then you should have no problem with a simple question of verification. If you want to chase away independent thinkers who want to form their opinions on solid, factual information, then you're doing a great job.

Anonymous said...

I have been on the Ron Paul bandwagon since before most people here even heard of the guy. I have appreciated his consistency, if nothing else. I truly would like to see him win. But elections--and more specifically, primaries--are about what you can't see. The backroom deals that provide a candidate millions and political clout. In that regard, hoping for a Paul win is like hoping to hit the Powerball. It's a nice thought, but anyone with common sense knows it is not going to happen. 100 years ago, maybe. Not now.
The election process in America is quite humorous. Our leaders get angry when third world countries have questionable elections. We send people like Jimmy Carter to these types of countries to monitor the process. Perhaps we need a group of foreigners here, to monitor our process.
If the corporations and lobbying groups run the country, they also run the media. They have heard Dr.Paul's message and I would doubt that "fear" is the ample word. Instead, they have moved to muffle his message through mainstream media. If it doesn't exist, it'll go away. And that's what we've seen so far. We can all be true believers and think we an effect change in the USA. Truth is, we are screwed. I refuse to become enraged or frustrated because in the end, it's far beyond my control.
As such, I have to vote the lesser of all evils. I cannot vote for a republican. I cannot vote for any party that hs supported a liar in office and has sought to sacrifice its own people through mysterious "terror attacks" and wars built upon lies. That's not to say that the democrats have not been duplicitous. They certainly have and as Les reported in a previous article, it's almost if they are being blackmailed into being complicit. I don't think it's anything that devious; we are simply talking about a group of super millionaires that do not represent the interests of the common man but rather, represent the interests of their own.
So I will have to look at Hillary, Barrack or John as the alternative. In a perfect world, I'd say that Paul has a chance and if not, then it's Hillary's race to lose. Two stolen elections have proven to me that some force behind the scenes makes the entire election process a sham.
The only way to change things in the US is revolution. People have to be extremely pissed off and storm government buildings. All of the millionaires must be thrown out and commoners need to have their shot.
But this is a dream.
The masses have been placated with novocaine via FOX and CNN. They are mentally numb, uncaring of scandals and ignorant to what is transpiring. No revolution is forthcoming. Apathy rules the day. As long as Joe Public has his entertainment and six pack, all is well. They'll just go with what the talking heads tell them.
How can one explain 59 million people voting for a monster in 2004? How can one explain the swiftboating of an American war hero in favor of cowards who never served a minute in battle?
Strange as it seems, why do I feel things are going to get worse?

nobody said...


I'm astounded. And there I was thinking I was nobody. Hopefully I can ditch this bullshit 'nobody' moniker and call myself 'somebody', ha ha. Then I could sell out for fame and money and finally get me some of them zircon encrusted tweezers.

Actually I wrote the following comment unaware I'd gotten a mention. I'll leave the apology in, in spite of the fact it now seems moot.

And apart from clicking on my name. Anyone up for it might like to visit -
And the shiny new franchise -

Otherwise Les, I'm not much given to flattery, so I won't write anything here at all, ha ha. But you can dig it, I'm sure. Regards.

nobody said...

Hey Les,

Two things. As a dedicated windmill-tilter I'm with that fellow who said he'd rather vote for the right guy who wouldn't win than for the wrong guy who would. Or something like that.

Otherwise, has everyone seen the latest TV News reports? Paul gets coverage at last! A looong five minute wander through a Nevada brothel chockful of glad-to-be-on-camera prostitutes, all of whom gush about how Paul is their kind of guy. Obviously we've come a long way because previously every prostitute that ever had a camera pointed at them, dived for cover. Not these gals. 'Hi I'm Mom, I'm a prostitute'. And good on them too. Whilst lolling about on a bed, one trills through their fulsome cleavage about how much money she gave Paul. Ha ha ha, hearts of gold! We even got some of his policy. By way of a prostitute of course. She didn't mention if it was a paid political announcement. And you say the media is biased. Ha!

Oh, three things. Sorry for being so disagreeable over on your last piece. Not to the genocide shouting trolls, of course. Just for ruining the ambience. The reason I like this blog so much, apart from your fine writing, is the absence of trolls in the comments. Elsewhere in the past I've tried being nice, reasonable, even-handed and every other goddamn thing and found it made no difference. Now I attack. Instantly. Since it's your blog Les, if you'd rather I held my tongue, say so and I can be cool. No really.

PS Did everybody here get that Bill White over at the American Nazis, whilst badmouthing Paul, made a screen-grab and in so doing gave away the fact that he uses megaphone? Start googling folks. 'bill white nazi megaphone' or somesuch. Just tested it - works dandy. For me, this alone might be all that needs to be said.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul has been a re-elected Texas Congressman for almost twenty years. There is a record on how he has voted for twenty years. He is not a politician who says that he will do this or that and then decide to do what he prefers to do. He is a true stateman.

Ron Paul cannot be bought! But of those who are running for President can we say the same? For the answer to that go to this website:

The basics about Ron Paul is that he swore to uphold the United States Constitution and since then he has simply voted accordingly. This is not something that can be said for the other Presidential Candidates.

For a comparison of Presidential Candidates go to this link:

If you really want the lowdown on Ron Paul just go to You Tube and do a search on his name.

He's got my vote!

Anonymous said...

Zionist infiltration and influence can be likened to a slow-motion second 9-11 unfurling before our eyes. Like the withering touch of a souleater- it is draining the USA of it's lifeforce. Time to unite and fight back- peaceful revolution thru superior ideas and persistent universal appeals. Let's not shut up until all wake from this collective nightmare.

Anonymous said...

Zionist infiltration and influence can be likened to a slow-motion second 9-11 unfurling before our eyes. Like the withering touch of a souleater- it is draining the USA of it's lifeforce. Time to unite and fight back- peaceful revolution thru superior ideas and persistent universal appeals. Let's not shut up until all wake from this collective nightmare.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul can't win.

And, I don't trust him.

John Edwards, he's my man.

At least he's not a fucking Republican

kikz said...

ok, anon, you didn't like my links before...have you never heard of israel's "right of return"?

read up

What Is A Dual National?

Many people are under the impression that most governments do not allow their citizens to be nationals of more than one country. Some countries, such as Germany and Japan, have strict requirements, especially regarding naturalization. But for the most part, while no country actually encourages dual citizenship, many tolerate it. Israel provides Jews around the world with the "right of return," which means that they can come to Israel and assume Israeli citizenship without going through a naturalization process.

defacto dual citizens by virtue of religion.

some of whom have used this to their advantage, they get in trouble here in the US and bugger off to Israel to escape prosecution. as, israel has concocted it's rendition laws to in effect, hand over for extradition whom it wishes, and when if ever.

now, if you have any other questions on international law; extradition, dual citizenship, i suggest you do your own research. :P

Anonymous said...

I am very impressed. For the past few weeks I've advocated a Ron Paul/John Edwards ticket for exactly the same reasons you mentioned. Great minds really do think alike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Oh what a nest you disturb when you introduce the raptor named politics!

I've thought that a Paul[Kucinich co-presidency
would be an interesting exercise.

They would only pursue the goals they agreed upon, and those they did not agree upon would go unfulfilled. You feel Edwards is more ejectable, but Paul was unelectable to some just a few months ago.

None the less, an interesting convergence of energies and discussion around this concept of the 'elicitation of the good'.

As a long time lurker, I am so grateful for your postings.
There have been days when your writings were my primary sustenance.

Robert Scheidler said...

I admit that I have not followed Ron Paul's political career very closely, and what I know of him is mostly based on the few media soundbites we get.

Seems like there is a strain of Zionist/International Bankers conspiracy theory running through his support base though.

Interested in your comments on This

Visible said...

Tom, that stuff is all over the place and has been widely debunked. You can find out all you want to by googling the keywords. Whether Ron Paul is or is not such things is one thing, that the charges are bullshit is another and they are.

It's interesting to note where he stood on Martin Luther King well before he was running for president. He may have some radical ideas but he's no racist, of that I'm sure.

Boris Epstein said...

Lots of good points here.

I'd add Cynthia McKinney, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich to the list of candidates that fit the "coalition of the good" mold.

Anonymous said...

People in the USA seem desperate for someone to vote for, not surprisingly really. But to expect change through your electoral process is, given what is known, probably irrational.

Paul allowed racist material to be distributed under his name, that's a simple fact. If he didn't know that it was going on, then he is incompetent. Racist or incompetent sounds like a no win situation.

I hope he wins because I think he will bring home the US military and that will be a plus for the globe. But I think he will, otherwise, be an economic and social nightmare for your country. And I hate to be inconsiderate but the rest of the globe and its long term survival is my concern at the moment.

Robert Scheidler said...

Dual Citizenship

To start with, claiming that all Jews have dual citizenship because they have the right to claim Israeli citizenship under the "right of return" is misleading at best and borders of outright anti-Semitism if used to impugn the patriotism of all American Jews.

That is not to say that there are not some key Jewish members of the neoconservative elite whose loyalties are suspect.

Even actually holding a second passport does not necessarily call one's allegiances into question.

Full disclosure - my wife has dual citizenship and two passports, although neither is Israeli. Some nations consider anyone born a citizen is always a citizen, irrespective of what other citizenship they may claim. Her family turned in their passports when they became nationalized (when she was a child), but all she had to do was to apply for another one.

Comes in handy when traveling in certain countries where Americans are not so well loved. And to those whose stamps on US passports are likely to provoke undue scrutiny upon returning to the US.

Visible said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Visible said...

Thomas, with respect.

Avail yourself of some research so that you may be informed what is intended here and not make sweeping statements that to the majority of readers here will cause you to appear other than you would like.

I'm not going to debate with you. It is up to you whether you choose to consider things objectively or not.

Zionist neo-cons in key positions in the administration were directly responsible for lying this country into war. This is indisputable. They are also heavily into pressing for an attack on Iran. They are also directly connected to the 9/11 attacks. Whether you believe the last is for you to determine but I suggest you look at how the same names constantly appear in relation to the event.

Some of us here have put enough research into what happened that we might be said to have a degree in the subject. Others here will be glad to give you boatloads of indisputable evidence.

The idea that I might be anti-semitic would come as quite a surprise to a good number of Jews who know me very well and in some cases have known me for years.

It is no easy thing for me to say the things I do but I have an obligation to myself to tell the truth.

Study the situation because then your opinion will be based on conclusions you came to in a time honored fashion.

I have nothing to gain by speaking out as I do. The potential harm to my career is great indeed. I could have no other motive than a love for the truth and the truth in this instance is glaring.

I would love the luxury that many have of turning my head and pretending that I do not see but I do see and I'm not everybody else.
I don't get paid for this

Consider the danger I put myself in, the risk I take of being maligned and slandered et al.

In any case I apologize if I may offend you in my speaking here. I do not wish to.

Anonymous said...

Les, I trust in the idea of conspiracy but as such, it would appear to me that so much of what the general public bandies about on the misinformation superhighway is meaningless conjecture. That is, if there was a conspiracy behind 9/11...and I certainly believe there was...then it is rational to believe we will never know the truth. To orchestrate the sacrifice of over 3000 indivuals to such an incredible, detail-oriented magnitude tells me that keeping a lid on its sources was already taken care of, too. To believe otherwise would be folly.I'm left to ponder how 19 individuals who could not fly a Twin Engine Cessna suddenly became adept at banking airliners at 350 miles per hour. I'm left to ponder why 35 air force bases in proximity to all of this did nothing. And to me, that's where it ends. Asking me to do "research" via the internet is fallacious, of course. Here, there is a "fact" to back up any claim.
There are those on this thread and the last thread associated with your "dangerous thoughts" who apparently have allowed conjecture to interfere with common sense. They've allowed their theories to become so obsessive that their postings become exercises in hatred. In their minds, religions have driven mankind to all the political problems we've had when in reality, man's desire for power and riches, as always, have been the reasons for just about all wars.Playing on people's paranoias in en vogue, of course. Look at how Bush has played on the national sense of fear for a number of years.
I'm no fan of Israel or their policies. I've often wondered why this nation has acted as if Israel is an American state.But my ponderings stop there. If we're going to question the actuality of the Holocaust, if we're going to rejoice in hatred aimed at relgion, well, then evil truly wins.
I like Ron Paul, John Edwards and in truth, anyone not associated with the monsters in charge. The reality is, these gentlemen will probably not be our next leader. I like the idea of a free election. The reality is, our system currently has more kinks than that of third world countries. Bush has proven how easy it is to steal an election.
I'll pray that if Paul or Edwards is not fortunate enough to win, than Hillary or Obama get the call. It becomes a lesser of all evils scenario. It becomes the idea that perhaps someone outside of the neocon circle--a circle whose bible was written by Wolfowitz and implemented nicely in the past 7 years--can at least provide some modicum of hope.

Visible said...


The more I read from you the more I enjoy your thoughts and the humanity that is so evident in the things you say. Thanks for that.

There was a fellow named "The Village Idiot" who came around here fairly often. I loved hearing his thoughts. Haven't seen him around in awhile though.

Anonymous said...

No, thank you Les. I've only just recently found your site and yet, have come to appreciate your insights. As you know, taking time to analyze what is going on around us is no longer something mainstream media feels a part of. In fact, individual thought is largely frowned upon, it would seem. It's far easier to report info bytes in an odd manner that allows the viewer or reader to "disconnect" or link information to what it means on a personal sense. If it is true that one's perception is reality--and if the news is simply "someone else's reality"--then it follows that one can turn the page quickly and not dwell on even the most grotesque events which have hit our nation flush in the face over the past seven years.

That's a long way of noting that your site enables and encourages introspection and reflection. How refreshing. We live in an era that discourages short term memory.
Again, thank you, and I am truly glad I have found your site.

As for "village idiot", I am not he (although some around me would state I am cut from the same type of cloth) but I do looking forward to your comments and adding my two cents.

Best regards.

Robert Scheidler said...

With all respect to you as well.

I do not suggest any anti-Semitism on your part, but the posts by one of the readers (whose user name is suspiciously close to a common ethnic slur for Jews) seems to get pretty close to that.

Listing all Jews in Congress and the Administration and claiming that their loyalty is compromised because of Israel's "right of return" seems to imply that disloyalty is genetic amongst Jews.

I probably share much of your views regarding the role of neo-cons in the Iraq war, etc -- an unholy alliance of militant Zionists, members of the Military/Industrial Complex and wing-nut Christian fundies hoping to help fulfil apocalyptic Biblical prophecies of Armageddon.

I admit to being agnostic with respect to complex conspiracy theories -- not because I don't believe conspiracies exist, but because the more complex, the less likely their possible success. Doesn't mean they can't happen though.

So, while skeptical, I also do try keep an open mind.

kikz said...

sorry to take up more of your bandwidth les.........but i have a few other words.......

to tom paine,
who if actually understood his nom de plume, or the definition of the term "anti-semite" wouldn't bother to argue this point.........

"To start with, claiming that all Jews have dual citizenship because they have the right to claim Israeli citizenship under the "right of return" is misleading at best and borders of outright anti-Semitism if used to impugn the patriotism of all American Jews."

you can call me, the equal opportunity offender as far as organized religion goes..
i impugn all.

so, am i to be put in prison because i dare to make a comment that you consider "might border on anti- semitic??"
is that how things should work? maybe someday they will...... but until then...

take the facts as you wish, but the shreech of :"anti-semitism" does not dissuade me in the least.
let's keep our terms straight...shall we?
the definition of semite encompasses a large group of religiously and culturally diverse peoples who happen to share a subfamily of Afro-Asiatic language, and which happen to include jews.
no other semitic people enjoy a "law of return" to israel, especially palestinians. bigoted to say the least. so, israel is allowed bigotry in their immigration policies, but my commentary on it, "borders on anti-semitism"? do i have your argument correct?

as is the nature of organized religion, it demands the pinnacle of reverence as to it's importance, power and control in the scheme of things..
god, country, family, self.

israel was founded for adherents of judaism solely; it is a theocracy, it has no constitution and does not separate it's government from it's religion.

america, founded on the diametrically opposed view as a constitutional republic, at least in letter, separates government and religion confining (in best circumstance) religion - legally to a minor, chattering annoyance.

so as to patriotism of government employees, if i hold high office in the government... to which am i more loyal, if loyalties are at odds; the US a constitutional republic founded on freedom of religion by whom i am employed, and owe primary fealty, or a foreign theocracy based on my religion?

if my loyalties serve my religion and its theocratic "foreign" homeland OVER the us's well being, i should not occupy high office in its government. if i do and choose for theocracy and/or its ideology, am i not a traitor?

of late, the wisdom of our deist forefather's admonishments to be eternally vigilant against religion's tyranny of the mind have sadly been ignored, and yes we do see the fall out from this neglect across the board, especially in the political realm.

organized religion has corrupted our policies at home and abroad, as a host of believers; (born again, evangelical, dispensational, charismatic, ad infinitum) christians (at least in name) who in conjunction with (an inordinately high number/per capita of total US population) jews in the us government, ALL run rout over our founding principles while giving overwhelming legislative, monetary and military support to the theocracy of israel and other theocracies around the globe, in deference to its own economy, national security and moral standing in the world. although, other theocracies w/established foreign homelands do not hold as directly influential a sway w/in the very offices of US government, and can in no way be compared in any significant number.

our infrastructure fails - we do without, while foreign aid in the billions yearly flows to israel.
our strategic oil reserves fall low, israel by law, still gets its share.

gee, i guess i'm just jealous.. i wish i had some fail-safe homeland founded on my religion, guarded by a nuclear arsenal, where i was sure me or mine would never have the likes of the inquisition visited on us again, out of the reach of most international law, while maintaining abroad, control of; the government, military, financial, and media institutions of the reigning secular superpower on earth. life would be good.

tom, you do injustice to your nom de plume
i suggest you reread your namesake's tomes

to ironman,
"in their minds, religions have driven mankind to all the political problems we've had when in reality, man's desire for power and riches, as always, have been the reasons for just about all wars"

prove that religions haven't. a slight peruse of the history of organized religion by someone who is not enamored of it or by it, reveals the fact that the institution has been used as a tool, a modus operandi in all manner of control, power-seeking, and financial gain by those who would wield it, even unto mass murder for over 2000 years. the list of the murdered in the name of organized religion's god(s) is endless. the "tiara has always ruled just behind and to the left of the crown, if not openly on the throne itself.

Visible said...

thank you Thomas and please forgive me for mistaking the direction of your comments. It has been my policy to not post comments that I felt were not worded for the purpose of conveying an idea but rather for hostile intent.

The last couple of posts I have let comments through specifically so that readers could sort it out here.

Usually I don't get objectionable comments. This blog is unusual in that most of the readers are intelligent and informed and we have some good discussions here.

Another reason I tend to watch the comments is because sometimes there are individuals that will post inflammatory comments in order to have a basis for complaint.

I didn't sleep last night. That often happens to me around the full moon. When it does I am much less precise than usual in my understanding. This doesn't mean to imply that I'm precise to begin with (grin).

I got to tell you, I get a real kick out of all of the bright minds that hang around here. This blog wouldn't be nearly as useful as it is without the great contributors. I keep think we should have a small club with an open blog where we can have a handful of these minds working through all of the great ideas.

Robert Scheidler said...

To Kikz05:

Yes, I have read the works of the original Thomas Paine.

The main point I am making is that it is not a matter of putting one's religion ahead of loyalty to the US. I fully agree that anyone in public office or high level public service should certainly do so, and if unable to do so, should decline the opportunity to fill such a role.

I fully support the idea that every candidate should be asked to address that question in respect to his/her religion (if any).

But, and this is one of the points I probably did not articulate very well before, being Jewish is not usually a matter of holding a religious belief. A large portion of the Jews I know are functionally agnostics or atheists. But they are still Jewish. Even if they convert to Buddhism or Christianity, they are Jewish.

The implication that someone who is Jewish WILL NECESSARILY put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US simply because of having a Jewish mother is where I have an issue.

I am certain that there are Jews in government who do so, (although I suspect they are able to rationalize that their agenda is also in the American interest). My problem is with the suggestion that such is always the case.

In fact, most of the Jews I know well are at most ambivalent towards the state of Israel, and some are outright hostile towards many of their actions and policies.

For the record, I most certainly do not suggest that you should not have complete freedom to express your views, whether or not they might be anti-Semitic.

And yes, I am also aware that technically, the word Semitic refers to a range of ethnic groups having a common linguistic origin, however I use "antisemitic" in in the way it is, in fact, ALWAYS used. This definition from is pretty standard:


Antisemitism might strictly be used to refer to hatred of or hostility towards any member of the racial group "Semites," but in practice it is only used to refer to hatred of or hostility towards Jews and Judaism. The term was first seen in 1879 in Germany as part of a description of anti-Jewish political campaigns in central Europe. Many attribute the origin of the word to Wilhlem Marr, but it is not clear that he used the word in print before 1880."

nobody said...

You tell us you choose to limit where your thoughts might lead. Certain conclusions may not be arrived at, apparently. And you seem to wish that we do the same. And I wonder at you for thinking we should do this. I will not. If I arrive at an unpalatable conclusion that hurts somebody's sense of who they are, I don't care. I know you'd be happier if we all chose not to talk about a good number of things but so would lots of people. The tactic is called limited hangout. And that's what I got you pegged as. Am I hurting your sense of who you are?

sockmonkey said...

please put your tray in the upright position and extinguish all smoking materials

Robert Scheidler said...

To Nobody:

If those comments were directed to me, I would like to clarify that I am not telling you to limit where your inquiries take you, and I am not telling you to not talk about those conclusions.

What I was trying to get at was a clear understanding of Kikz05's position -- ie, specifically to determine if he/she actually believes that all or most American Jews should be assumed to be loyal to Israel at the expense of the USA.

If that is his/her opinion (or if it is yours), you certainly are welcome to those beliefs, and are free to express them. And I consider myself free to disagree.

Whether either of us is free to discuss them HERE is up to Les, however, as it is his blog.

BTW, for the record, I am a WASP-turned atheist who has little use for organized religion, and am totally opposed to any theocracy, whether Zionist, Islamic or Christian Dominionist.


nobody said...

Oh. That was weird. I hit send and the whole thing hung. I had no idea if it had postd or not. Magically it sent the last para only. And no I wasn't talking to you Mr Paine. Here's the whole thing -

Kikz - good sensible stuff.

Ironman - you seem perpetually at odds with yourself.

'If we're going to question the actuality of the Holocaust, if we're going to rejoice in hatred aimed at relgion, well, then evil truly wins.'

It seems that 'questioning of the holocaust' equals 'rejoice in hatred aimed at religion'. Huh? In no way possible is one the same as the other. That people exist who do both in no way reflects on the things themselves. Mao caused mass starvation and liked swimming. But we don't condemn swimming. And questioning the Holocaust means evil truly wins? What unconnected nonsense. This is a perfect example of bullshit non-logic.

You compliment Les -

'That's a long way of noting that your site enables and encourages introspection and reflection.'

But also say -

'I've often wondered why this nation has acted as if Israel is an American state.But my ponderings stop there.'

Again - huh? You groove on introspection and reflection and yet ponder at a thing but decide not to follow it anywhere. Why ponder it at all? What's the point? Why not just shrug your shoulders and go, 'Gee I dunno. Too much for me.'

It seems you choose to limit where your thoughts might lead. Certain conclusions may not be arrived at. And you seem to wish that we do the same. And I wonder at you for thinking we should do this. I will not. If I arrive at an unpalatable conclusion that hurts somebody's sense of who they are, I don't care. I know you'd be happier if we all chose not to talk about a good number of things but so would lots of people. The tactic is called limited hangout. And that's what I got you pegged as. Am I hurting your sense of who you are?

Anonymous said...

There is no question that Israel owns the next president and his cabinet just like the last ones. JFK was an exception and they took care that. They would not let Paul survive for a week and would put the blame on someone else like they did with 9-11. The Mossad motto is, "By Deception, Thou Shalt Make War"
For my vote though it's Ron Paul or none at all!!!!

kikz said...

I came to Casablanca for the waters..............

Here's lookin' at you, Paine:

I ASSume these anon posts are yours?
"and a host of others are all dual nationals ...>
I see assertion this a lot, but I've get to see any corroborating documentation. I'm not saying it's untrue; I'd just like to see some verification."

"If you want to be believed, then you should have no problem with a simple question of verification. If you want to chase away independent thinkers who want to form their opinions on solid, factual information, then you're doing a great job."

directly attributable to Paine:

"To start with, claiming that all Jews have dual citizenship because they have the right to claim Israeli citizenship under the "right of return" is misleading at best and borders of outright anti-Semitism if used to impugn the patriotism of all American Jews."

" not suggest any anti-Semitism on your part, but the posts by one of the readers (whose user name is suspiciously close to a common ethnic slur for Jews) seems to get pretty close to that.

"Listing all Jews in Congress and the Administration and claiming that their loyalty is compromised because of Israel's "right of return" seems to imply that disloyalty is genetic amongst Jews."

"What I was trying to get at was a clear understanding of Kikz05's position -- ie, specifically to determine if he/she actually believes that all or most American Jews should be assumed to be loyal to Israel at the expense of the USA."

"The implication that someone who is Jewish WILL NECESSARILY put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US simply because of having a Jewish mother is where I have an issue."
checked my postings...........
anon. verification requested, verification given.
definition of terms, clarified. qualitative comparison btwn ethical/theological/constitutional founding principles of pertinent countries given. potentiality of ethical/ideological quandary expounded on by hypothetical situation. question asked on treason. commentary on organized religion. jealous reprise of .. "If I were a Rich Man". request for proof of suppositions - flung at ironman. more factual commentary on organized religion.
YOU Paine, made the great mental leap over the "Cliff of Conclusion,"
and then... falsely state that i "claim" an absolute.

Wrong. i stated a potentiality exists (law of return) for an ethical/ideological quandary.

you then, have the audacity to whine, because
"Poor widdle you has been mislead by dat baaaaad 'ol crypto-anti-semite kikz!"

............ allowed yourself to be misled by facts, no less? paine, ya crack me up! sigh.. oy,vay shviitz happens .....

next, sucking up to les, you (nudge nudge wink wink) make conspiratorial murmurings inre my nick seeming to suspiciously resemble an ethnic slur for jews. i assure you, my nick is no epithet for jews. but, i think you someday may have a bright future as a side kick for a nazi hunter...... >:) i'm getting a mental picture of Peter Lorre's Ugarte at the point just prior to desperately shooting his way out of Rick's.

so where are we now?????... ah...

so....contintuing... even if they are jews, they're not jews, but yet they are....... ooooook, gee, would the substitution of the word "jew" by the phrase .. oh, let's say......hmmmmmmm. I know... substitute with "GIANT INVISIBLE, WHITE RABBITS ALL NAMED HARVEY, who are all eligible by a LAWOFRETURN to a country named POOKA".......................................

again you falsely state, i claim an absolute - while implying genetic certainty to/for an unknowable outcome on the subject of treason....

called on that by "nobodyinparticular", you beg "a clear understanding of my position -- ie., specifically to determine if he/she actually believes......... your projected false claims and faulty conclusions...... as if the essence of your entire argument breathlessly hinged on it...... godz, you are a quarrelsomely, tiresome Paine.

i have in no way, shape or form.... offered a/any "BELIEF" on any matter concerning the facts i furnished.
YOU ran bare-ass'd nekkid & screaming - over the "Cliff of Conclusion" ALONE.

i however have offered a belief, which i'll expand on, yet again..... you should tidy up your mental landscape, as you seem prone to trip over detritus strewn about., stop allowing people to let you mislead yourself, and hop far, far away from tall cliffs.

nobody... you sharply remind me of Renault, and it makes me smile...

Les/Rick, thanks for letting us muck up your joint.

Play it again, Sam.

Robert Scheidler said...

Great movie, bu the way, although I am personally partial to "To Have and to Have Not."

None of my posts are anonymous, just for the record. I will let that person(s) speak for him/herself.

Not really interested in sucking up to Les -- had communicated with him elsewhere regarding his music and dropped by here our of curiosity. Had some interest in Ron Paul's candidacy. I am in agreement with some of his positions, but frankly had not given serious consideration, because I am a pragmatist and he as exactly zero chance of even influencing anyone's platform, not to consider actually getting elected.

I am not very much interested in debating your views on Jews in general -- just interested in better understanding where you are coming from -- and that seems apparent.

nobody said...

Not Bogey? Damn. I was hoping my five o'clock shadow would score me the role. No Ingrid Bergman for me. Otherwise I shall merely have to round up the usual suspects. Over at the cinema blog, ha!

Anonymous said...

Sorry to say this, but I disagree completely on Ron Paul. He misinterprets his vaunted "Constitution," he hasn't really clearly said what he thinks this "Constitutionalism" of his will do for us. He hasn't told us what parts of the Constitution he wants to see enforced.

He's not a Constitutional scholar, and he shouldn't pretend at being one. He doesn't even get specific. He just says, "we need to restore a Constitutional government." WHAT? Sorry, but the government we have now is Constitutionally authorized. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, Dubya Bush has that part right. I say this because the document has flaws, grievous flaws. The fact that we suffer what we now suffer is an obvious practical statement about the Constitution's utility. So we just need to "restore" it? What is that, Dr Paul?

You can do better, Les.

I've seen so many good observations and thoughts from you that I don't know what to make of this one.

How about Dr Paul relying on Michael Scheuer. You know who he is, eh? "Anonymous" who wrote "Imperial Hubris", that's Scheuer. CIA spook. Fabricator of the al Qaeda/bin Laden myth, handler of coverup data. He's Ron Paul's "Middle East" expert. BRILLIANT, I say. That's a real Constitutional approach, Dr Paul.

Edwards. Oh jesus. Mr Multi-Millionaire.

Mr corporate toady.

He's a multi-millionaire plaintiff's lawyer. I take it you've never been a litigator, Les. Plaintiff's lawyers who make multiple millions aren't the kind of people who should be running a nation. Not even close. They make politicians look like apprentices in the game of lying.


Les, there are candidates out there who seem to support much of what I've read from you. I am sure you know they exist.

Mike Gravel

Cynthia McKinney

Ron Paul may not be as bad as the "swiftboating" suggests, but he has uttered bigoted anti-Black and anti-Mexican statements repeatedly during his life as a politician. I've read many of them, and I've read his "explanations" on them. His explanations are futile, they dance around guilt, they evade and duck responsibility.

His policies are xenophobically bigoted. He would indeed fight a war -- he would fight Scheuer's war, the war against IDENTIFIED terrorists. Against bin Laden. Against al Qaeda. Dr Paul is only against THIS war. He's not straight anti-war. Not even close. He hasn't even done much to stop this war. He just votes against it. That's all. Votes. Sorry, but I think members of the Congress are supposed to vigorously represent their constituents. Not tepidly and embarrasedly voting "no" and stopping the analysis and effort with that mild vote-casting.

Please, look more closely.

Anonymous said...

Zionist neo-cons in key positions in the administration were directly responsible for lying this country into war.

Oh please.

The decision to go to war was Cheney's. And Rumsfeld's. Neither is a Zionist. Neither is a neocon. They are fascists! Please get this bit straight, Les, PLEASE.

The influence of zionists is not what you say. It exists, sure. But it exists for a reason: it is all about the Middle East, its oil, its geopolitical location. Israel is where it is because of that oil and the geopolitical value. Israel is a puppet of the US and UK. The ruse of "zionists" is a distraction.

It's not about zion.

It's about money and power. And more money. And more power.

Zion isn't on the map, Les.

nobody said...

Wendigo, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Crack me up!

Anonymous said...

On the MSNBC repug Florida "debate" Thursday night, Ron Paul got six and one half minutes out of ninety and one question. Tim CFR Tool Russert pretended he wasn't there. Ghouliani, Romney and McInsane got most of the time between them. Nice dog bone Brian Williams threw Paul to answer the final question -- since he had been ignored up till then!

Robert Scheidler said...

Well, as I say, I am partial to "To Have and to Have Not" -- in large part because I really like Lauren Bacall -- her line about "you know how to whistle, don't you..." is perhaps my favorite line in English language movies.

Of course, she is Jewish, so.......


But any movie with Bogie is worth watching, no doubt!

Anonymous said...

Alex Jones was on Coast to Coast AM
tonight for three hours and made reference to Ron Paul being interviewed and praised on Kramer's Mad Money show. I'd missed that event last month so looked it up and it's worth the watch.

annemarie said...

This is how I feel about the U.S. election. and all elections in fact.

Anonymous said...

I wish the term 'powers that be' was used better understood and more properly used across the board. The so-called 'PTB' are nothing more than the power of darkness, but the words have been switched to identify THEM as the powers that be...which is so far from the truth.

The scripture identifies both the powers that be (God) and the power of darkness (spirit of anti-christ), those defintions should be the standard so that we know who we are REALLY talking about when using the terms.



Zionism, 9/11 and The War on Terror Hoax

Visit the recommended reading page for many more.


'Materialism' from the Les Visible Album
Mr. Apocalypse is Coming

Visit the Blog Music Page
to stream all of Visible's music for free
(purchase is always appreciated but entirely optional)


A classic Visible post:

With gratitude to Patrick Willis.

Click here to watch and comment on Vimeo and here to read the original text.

Visit the Blog Videos Page for many more.