Framus: Having worked with Ron Paul years ago on the money issue, fiat money as opposed to Gold and Silver, I found him to be extremely pro constitutional in his philosophies and he has never wavered in his voting in congress. He is definately libertarian in philosophy and a strict constuctionist. I would think you will find most libertarians are against foreign entanglements such as Iraq, or Bosnia or Kosova. None of us will ever find a candidate that is 100% in belief with our philosopies and Ron fits that mold. As for the Nazi connections I think you would find those groups would agree with a lot of your beliefs, not to defend their whacko positions, and I am sure Ron's positions are closer to theirs than any other candidate that doesn't mean he agrees with their philosophy, remember NAZI's were National Socialists and Ron is a strict constitutional. The real issue is he will not get the support to become the republican candidate so the issue is moot unless he tries an independant candidacy in which case I would agree he has gone off the deep end. I would certainly enjoy his presidency over the democratic option if he actually got to that point. Swampy
:beer;
Clinton takes terror cash
I recently read a news item that really enraged me. And the fact that this hasn't received wider play in the mainstream media is one of the things that's gotten me fuming. According to a news report, democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken thousands of dollars in cash donations from Islamist individuals and organizations that are currently under federal investigation for terror-financing, money laundering, and tax fraud.
Please tell me that this gets your blood pressure spiking as much as it does mine!
This sort of incident exposes the dark, money-driven expediency of the American political system. Principles are a thing of the past. Candidates will take money anywhere and from anyone in the hopes that it can buy one more vote. It's sickening in the extreme.
What makes this incident even harder to believe is that, given all of the stink that was raised over campaign finance reform during the last election, that donations from such suspect individuals and organizations would be accepted in the first place. I'm not sure what makes me more uncomfortable: that Clinton would have people on her staff capable of such gross incompetence, or that she would have people on her staff capable of turning a blind eye toward money from modern-day fifth columnists.
But wait! There's an even more frightening subtext to this story. Knowing that campaign donations for the odds-on favorite to be the Democratic nominee are sure to be closely monitored and reported, which party has the bigger cojones in this situation? The Clinton campaign or the would-be terrorists? It's hard to believe that a terrorist organization – the kind we've been led to believe are lying low in anonymous "sleeper cells" throughout the country – could be brazen enough to actually donate money to an American presidential candidate.
I'm forever alerting you to the goings-on of Big Pharma using cash to grease the wheels of Big Government, so maybe I'm naïve to be as shocked and disappointed by this story as I am.
And it's not just the Clinton campaign. These same donors are also on record for having given money to other candidates in other races – including Republicans. But Clinton is the only active presidential candidate to receive funds from these suspect sources during this election cycle.
The 2008 election has many more months. What other disappointing, frustrating, and infuriating revelations lie ahead? Only time will tell.
