How Dirty Is Ron Paul & His Bots


When is the GOP going to pull the plug on Ron Paul?  Do they not have the courage to put a stop to his continued take-over of the party?  I suspect a number of us were hoping we were imagining things, but we are not.  They are going state by state, district by district, and precinct by precinct taking over, and no one is stopping them.  How long do we put up with his white supremacist, KKK, David Duke lovin’ friends?

At least Dr. Demento has come out to disclaim and criticize the vile ad some of his associates allegedly are running against Jon Huntsman’s innocent family.

“…I’ll let you write your own punchline about mysterious authors publishing offensive material on Paul’s behalf. There is a chance, of course, that this really is a false-flag production: Even for a racist appeal, it’s almost comically crude and stupid, especially the photoshop of Huntsman as Mao at the end. You’d have to be a true imbecile, and truly paranoid about Chinese infiltration, not to realize that you’re doing more damage to Paul in posting it than to your alleged target. Plus, if the goal is to raise doubts about Huntsman, why even bother tacking Paul’s name on to the end? Just go about your business of smearing JH and leave no fingerprints. As it is, not only is Paul’s name mentioned in the video, it’s mentioned in the name of the YouTube account too — an account which has uploaded this one clip and nothing else, ever. I’m not saying one of his fans didn’t do it — anyone who enjoyed the “edgier” parts of those newsletters could be capable — but I don’t know how to say definitively that one of them did. Anything can happen on YouTube….”

We have a Ron Paul problem.  The Pink Flamingo may be one of the few people to think it is the tip of the iceberg, canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of something very very nasty.  I’ve been trying to work a Koch, Soros, Cato, Ron Paul, Libertarian link for months.  In a Cliff Kincaid piece, I found something rather interesting.  It appears they all may have an interest in legalizing drugs.   On Wed, Sally Vee told me to follow the drug links with Ron Paul’s bots.  She’s right.  Kincaid was discussing several of Ron Paul’s most ardent Bots.

It looks like Mark Levin is one of the few talking heads standing up to Ron Paul and his Bots.  They are vicious.

“…Eyre’s bio says that he interned with the Cato Institute and was a Koch Fellow at the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance. This is significant because the Koch Brothers are considered enemies of the “progressives.” It seems that, on the matter of ending the war on drugs, the Koch Brothers and “progressive” philanthropist George Soros agree. Eyre also worked at the Institute for Humane Studies.

This is a terribly important video.  It shows just how terrifying Ron Paul is.  He basically endorses socialism on demand.  Doesn’t think the Amish (who have one of the highest instances of child abuse) should be allowed to live beyond the law.  He exposes his racism, and links to the anarchists.  Kincaid exposes the libertarian, pro-drugs, anarchists who are backing Paul in New Hampshire.  This is a remarkable man.  He not only has the anarchist, Koch Brothers and pot-heads supporting him but most white supremacists and neo-Nazis. What a peach of a guy!

“…One of the other interests listed on Eyre’s Facebook page is the “International Peace Movement,” which features speeches by Moammar Gadhafi, information about the 9/11 Truth movement, and tributes to Ron Paul. This video shows Ron Paul discussing civil disobedience with Pete Eyre….”


 He is also well financed,  having raised $13 million since September.  Evidently he plans to disrupt the RNC in September.

The Pink Flamingo thought I’d seen everything when it came to the abjectly evil insidiousness of Ron Paul and his vile supporters.  Well, I was wrong.  I just found something that goes beyond even what I knew about them.  I was well aware that they were manipulating the GOP for their own nasty little lying and cheating way, but I did not realize they were also impersonating Democrats.

The Daily Paul

From Lew Rockwell:

“...Antiwar conservative Democrat Bob Conley hopes to challenge bizarro Republican warmonger Lindsey Graham for US Senate in South Carolina. And one of Conley’s boasts is that he voted for Ron in the SC Republican primary. Since the Republican party is more statist than the Democratic party, and has been since Nixon, this is very neat. (Thanks to Eric Garris.)…”

“…Robert M. “Bob” Conley (born September 6, 1965) is an American pilot, engineer, and politician. He was the 2008 Democratic nominee for U.S. Senator from South Carolina; he ran against and lost to Republican incumbent Lindsey Graham. Conley defeated lawyer Michael Cone in the primary election on June 16, following a recount, by a margin of 1,058 votes. He is considered to be a conservative Democrat and even supported libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul in his presidential campaign.Conley is a resident of North Myrtle Beach, where he served as a member of the Horry County Republican Committee prior to seeking the Democratic nomination. His candidacy was endorsed by many conservative South Carolinians, as well as by Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin….Michael Cone, Conley’s primary opponent, criticized Conley as too conservative, saying that “We’ve nominated a Republican in a Democratic primary.” Conley was a Republican but left the party due to frustration over immigration, trade, and the Iraq War. Numerous commentators, including Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Jack Hunter and Daniel McCarthy in The American Conservative, have compared him to Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Indeed, Conley voted for Paul in South Carolina’s presidential primary”…”


There is basically a single reason for me holding my nose and forcing myself to vote for Mitt Romney if he were the nominee.  It would be to defeat Ron Paul and his vile Bots.  There are those who think that Barack Obama is the “enemy”.  I think we have greatly underestimated the problems of this vile person and his associates.

Don Surber

Three newspapers in New Hampshire have endorsed this creature.

“…The three papers — located in in New Hampshire’s sparsely populated north country — are owned by the same parent company, Salmon Press. The editors commended Paul for his consistency throughout his career as a public servant, and his record. Paul has “has never voted to raise a tax and voted against all of the bailouts that have riled up tea partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters alike,” said the editors.

Recent polling data and Romney’s strong ground game in New Hampshire suggest that the former governor could beat Paul in next week’s New Hampshire primary by a wide margin. Romney lost to Sen. John McCain in 2008 by five points.

“Powerful leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan change the political landscape,” the editors concluded. “This is what Ron Paul would do for our country and why we support him.”…”

Pat Dollard

His son is a chip off the old bigoted and racist block.




7 thoughts on “How Dirty Is Ron Paul & His Bots

  1. Are you working this backwards? I don’t get “Druggie” ==> “Libertarian” at all. What I get is “Disaffection” ==> “Libertarianism” as a seemingly coherent system to rationalize the disaffection. And it seems to me the root of all this disaffection is Antiauthoritarianism, or a denial of the existence of any moral Authority beyond a prohibition of force or fraud, or (in some cases) even a denial of any interpersonal duty at all (as in “feed your child”). So Antiauthoritarianism ==> Disaffection with Society ==> Libertarianism. In a Christian framework the root of the Antiauthoritarianism is Deadly Pride.


    Most Libertarians aren’t nearly this well informed or analytical about Libertarianism. Ron Paul probably is which moves me more to disgust and pity than to fear (we still outnumber them).

  2. To the extent the Stanford Philosophy article describes True Libertarianism, I don’t see anything admirable in it at all. It is attractive to moderns, but is based on a false conception of the human person.

  3. What gets me is the way libertarians try to turn it into a philosophy. It isn’t. The idea of less government is a good one. When I think of “true” libertarianism that’s what I consider it to be. There in is my error, and the error most people make. I think we tend to think of “libertarian” as less government. We don’t delve into the darker aspects of it, as a philosophy. I don’t think a person can be a true libertarian and be a Christian. I also think a real libertarian state is absolutely impossible to achieve, pie in the sky. You are right, I am wrong.


  4. I think the philosophy actually caught on through Ayn Rand’s novels (and other rot) — a number of people really bought into Ethical Egoism, the concept of Self Ownership and exaggerated visions of property rights, and that (coupled with the Philosophical Liberalism of the 18th century with the zeitgeist especially of the second half of the 20th century superadded: Austrian Economics vs. various flavors of Socialism, Corporatism, and the rest) gave rise to what might be called Political Libertarianism. But it started with a (bad) philosophy: True Libertarianism in your terminology. This philosophy was actively sold “retail” all through the 1960s & 1970s: see the story of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. And I seem to recall you already know about the Rand/Greenspan connection.

    You are right, it is not possible to be any sort of Libertarian (True or Political, Left or Right) and a Christian. But when you said “Christians are finally speaking out against Ayn Rand” you’re really about 120 years late: the Popes were speaking out against Ayn Rand before she was born; while the seeds of her philosophy were first sprouting. I recommend to you the encyclical Rerum Novarum which you can easily find on line. The Wikipedia article is OK if you want a Reader’s Digest version.

Comments are closed.