Pro-state, anti-Constitution, and Israel-first website Little Green Footballs has a crafty way of smearing Ron Paul and others in order to ensure the highest concentration of brownshirts and bashers in the comments section. They did it after the Fox Noise Channel GOP debate in May, and they're doing it again.
Five months ago, LGF's removal of Ron Paul from the site's post-debate polls was based on the threadbare charge that Ron Paul's supporters were spamming polling websites and cheating on the Fox Noise Channel GOP debate poll. The editors at LGF went on a fascistic user-banning and comment-deleting spree, to boot. What a hoot. This time around, it's a guilt-by-association smear on the man for an unsolicited endorsement by a fringe pocket of support with which Ron Paul isn't even remotely associated. It's not even close.
Here's how they do it: They put up a ridiculously fraudulent smear while "LGF registration is temporarily closed" (not allowing new member-commenter registrations); they then allow members to comment on the subject for a few days (allowing only a trace amount of neutral and dissenting comments to appear — screening users and deleting comments the site editors deem a threat to LGF's fraud-perpetuation); and finally, they reopen the member-commenter registration page while closing the Ron Paul-smearing forum to new comments.
Well, there's a way around such dissent-crushing, two minutes hate-type filtration exacted upon the Internet by sites like LGF. While it's not as resourceful (conniving) and technical (calculating) as LGF's methods, it's effective edgewise and is feasible within any subject matter (unlike the case with LGF and others who are self-assigned to a corner of the political spectrum because they're so impotent in the real, free world where opposing opinions are allowed to flow, thereby canceling them out with the truth). Just scan through the comments posted by the 99% or so majority brownshirts, looking for those wherein a hyperlink to the current (or similar other) subject is provided. (You'll find that some links lead to sites allowing comments without requiring site owner's approval; so naturally, on such occasions I'm obliged to participate. And as should be expected of any blog owner "associated" with a Constitution-burning site like Little Green Footballs, my comments are rarely refuted and usually deleted.)
The following is a comment I posted yesterday (10/11) to this blog entry at a blog called JammieWearingFool (which is also the LGF screen name of the commenter who posted the link). The subject is the one LGF posted on: the unsolicited endorsement of the Ron Paul campaign, on YouTube, by a white pride or white supremacist group.
It's sophomoric and fallacious to measure a candidate by what type of people are endorsing the candidate — especialy when the candidate is known for garnering the support of a wider variety of people than any of the others.
State department-designated terrorist groups such as the MeK and the JDL support candidates like Clinton and Giuliani because they're likely to pursue regime-change in Iran and increase favoritism and US taxpayer dollars toward Israel; yet that doesn't mean that Clinton and Giuliani are sympathetic to terrorists or terrorist supporters.
It's silly to liken "fringe pockets" of Ron Paul supporters to a character flaw of the man or what he stands for. Only pro-state, pro-war, anti-sovereignty, pro-Fed, anti-Constitution, and pro-isolationism types would so desperately and shamelessly use that shriveled up fig leaf of a smear because in all other areas of contention, they're impotent.
What's key is that Ron Paul has the support of a vast majority of middle and lower class voters, while most of the others rely on corporate and international boosters for the life support of their campaigns. Pro-state, anti-Constitution, pro-isolation and intervention folks hate that.
Vital to Dr. Paul's success with the American People are his highly principled and ethical voting record and his message; so if you want a president who'll uphold and defend the Constitution and US sovereignty — someone whose voting record has mirrored his message throughout his public service career — then vote for Ron Paul.
He can win the primaries and dominate whatever Democrat he goes up against. "President Ron Paul!"
Needless to say, the comment was deleted — or at least is missing as of this morning. More to come...
A comment I posted on this entry at a blog called Israellycool, in response to a Paul-friendly commenter:
DetainThis says [October 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pm]:
At October 8th, 2007 at 11:55 pm, FatDrunkAndStupid wrote:
“Stormfront is a National Socialist website. Ron Paul is a libertarian- about as far away from National Socialism as you can get. They support Paul because he believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, and indirectly, that position has the effect of ending US subsidies to Israel (a key sticking point to the stormfront folks). But Ron also supports ending the handouts to Egypt, The House of Saud, and Jordan too. His position comes from principle, not hate. When Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the early 80’s, Paul was one of the few US Congressmen who refused to denounce them. I suggest you look a little deeper in to Ron Paul’s positions before writing him off.”
Indeed. The man’s principled voting, writing, and speaking records easily undercut the haters’ fraudulent smears. His positions regarding other Middle Eastern states and the Israel-Osirik vote are especially deflating for those who’d paint him anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or even un-American.
“Ending the War in Iraq, Ending the War on Drugs, Abolishing the income Tax, Repealing he Patriot Act, Restoring Civil Liberties… are these idiotic positions?”
Not at all; that is to say: unless you’re firmly opposed to following the Constitution and other supreme laws.
We'll see how long that comment remains...