The below article is absolutely horrid. The article seems to have no other purpose but to convince the reader that one should not support Ron Paul because white supremists support him. Why do you suppose this article was written?
From my years of political involvement, I can tell you this: campaign resources are always in short supply, and if a political machine begins to focus on working against you, it’s only because you are a realistic opponent. The answer to Dan’s question is this: the top-tier GOP contenders can’t beat Hillary, but the smart folks at Huffington Post know that Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands between Hillary and the White House next winter.
In democracy there are pluralities of opinions. We are not all the same, we are individuals who strive to act in support of the public good.
Ron Paul speaks beliefs that even the most polar opposite characters can stand in support of. While some point to him and say that he is one who cannot lead, the next two articles clearly show that he is a man that divided segments of America can stand behind.
Let the smear campaign begin, I doubt that we will see Dr. Paul joining the folks at Huffington Post down in the mud.
Thank you, “- D.” for the note and the article.
The article from "-D" can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/to-his-dismay-ron-paul-b_n_68575.html
Even Socialists Stand Behind Ron Paul
The next article is from the wise founder of Americans in Europe for Ron Paul, Ben.
This is why we should be recruiting even our socialist friends to support Ron Paul.
The Socialist Case for Ron Paul
Posted by Lew Rockwell at October 14, 2007 05:54
Now I knew that Ron had a huge and diverse coalition, but I didn't realize quite how diverse until Jeiel Schalkwijk of the Christian Socialist Party in the Netherlands sent me his article.
The Socialist Case for Ron Paul
Although I am a Ron Paul supporter, I am also a member of a Christian Socialist party in the Netherlands. In many cases I do not agree with Paul's political philosophy.
But I would still urge all socialists, communists and people of all political persuasions to support Ron Paul when he runs for President.
Unless your political philosophy requires the invading of other nations and is generally totalitarian, you will win, and not only regarding the war with Iraq. Let me explain.
Ron Paul is running for a federal position and is committed to a small federal government. A small federal government will consume fewer taxes and impose fewer burdens on the individual states.
This will leave the people of the states more free to implement the type of government that they want.
I will give three examples, socialized healthcare, moral laws and gun control. Ron Paul is not an advocate of these things, but his presidency will help the groups that advocate these things. Since the federal government will take in less tax, states can afford to raise taxes as high as they see fit and use it to implement socialized healthcare. Now you do not need to convince the entire United States that socialized healthcare is better, but you only need to convince the people of your state, a much simpler task.
Your state can have its own healthcare plan and you could withdraw from Medicare and Medicaid.
Moral laws, such as abortion and gay marriage, are very simple. They are not mentioned in the constitution, so states will be free to do whatever they want.
Gun control is harder, since our ancestors amended the constitution to guarantee it. And the US Constitution is binding for all States. However, secession is possible and Ron Paul will not invade your state if you choose to secede. As a matter of fact, states are at all times free to leave the union and negotiate a new (different) treaty with the union.
Your state could secede and negotiate a new treaty with the union that only includes the free movement of people and goods, for instance.
You only lose if you are totalitarian, which means you want to impose your laws on all states even if their citizens do not want your laws. You also lose if you want to use federal resources, such as the army, without explicit permission from a majority of the states in the federation (which they can grant through congress).
Article from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html