Hear David Duke Discuss What Ron Paul Must Do to Win! or Download
David Duke: What Ron Paul Must Do to Win
The first two Republican delegate contests are over and in spite of an unfair playing field created by the political and media establishment, Ron Paul’s vote has been very disappointing. After all, as he himself has pointed out, no one, no Republican or even Democrat candidate has raised more money in the last quarter. Even more tellingly, Ron Paul’s fund raising has been similar to my own major political races in that he had many more contributors than the other candidates, but like me, not as many big ones. Yet, his campaign has not nearly generated the much higher percentage of votes I received in my major races. More contributors generally mean more grass roots support and an army of committed volunteers. Yet, all of Ron Paul’s support has resulted in far fewer votes for Congressman Paul than what one would expect.
Remember, that in Louisiana, outspent 50 to 1 in political advertising, and with a media establishment pulling out all stops to paint me as irredeemably evil, somewhere between public perceptions of Attila the Hun and Adolf Hitler, and after I endured the most vicious media attack campaign in American history, I still received over 60 percent of the White vote in elections for Louisiana’s two highest elected offices, Governor and Senator. Although it might surprise many reading this, even before I began my political rise in Louisiana, I actually won the New Hampshire primary for Vice-President of the United States with over 65 percent of the vote. Here is a direct quote the January 8, 2008 Toronto Globe and Mail on my successful electoral foray into the far northern state of New Hampshire:
Voters not registered with any party can choose to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary, but not both.
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
New Hampshire is the only state that includes a choice for vice-president, though it has no bearing on anything… Usually, the winners are presidential hopefuls who get write-in votes as vice-president. Past winners include Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Colin Powell and David Duke.
Pat Buchanan with far less money than Ron Paul won the New Hampshire primary in 1996.
Before I begin my suggestions for the Ron Paul Campaign, let me first say I like Ron Paul’s campaign, and I think it is good for America and the political process. Why do I think so? It is because people such as Ron Paul shake up the system, and Paul takes a lot of correct positions such as opposition to the Iraq War, opposition to foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world, as well as having unrelenting support for the civil liberties of the American people. Second, what I will say here cannot hurt the campaign in the liberal media because I will now offer some criticisms showing that I think that Ron Paul does not do enough to defend the heritage and interests of European Americans.
So, what happened to Paul in New Hampshire, a state that has a very conservative, even libertarian record, the only state that has refused to enact even a seat-belt law, and where Pat Buchanan and I did very well?
In my opinion, Ron Paul has the right position on the Iraq War, foreign interventionism and foreign aid, monetary policy and American rights and freedoms, but Paul has not been vocal enough on the issues that matter most to the American people, such as immigration, affirmative action, the effects of welfare and medical care for working Americans. And Ron Paul has had a dead wrong opinion on foreign trade in supporting a libertarian policy that basically favors open trade rather than one that would protect American industry and labor. These are issues important to the overwhelming European American majority of the electorate in Iowa, New Hampshire and in the United States as a whole.
Patrick Buchanan and I both have opposed American Empire and supported an American Republic just as Ron Paul does, but we were also identified closely with our commitment to European American heritage, traditions, and freedom. Ron Paul has mostly focused his message on the Iraq War and on his “hard-money” monetary policy.
Even in dealing with Iraq, Ron Paul has not tapped the real anger of the American electorate. The great sin of the Iraq War to most people is not that it is clearly “unconstitutional.” Perhaps, even a President ordering nuclear attack on a nation that has launched nuclear missiles against us might be technically unconstitutional because only Congress can declare war, but Americans, by probably 90 percent, would want the President and the world to know that if we fell under nuclear attack that our President would respond immediately and decisively.
The Iraq War of course posed no imminent danger, and the Constitutional violation is clearer than the hypothetical scenario I just mentioned. However the greatest evil of the Iraq War is far more the fact that it is a war that is against every real interest of the United States. It is a war based entirely on lies. It is a war for Israel led by Jewish extremist Neocons and their allies in media, a war that has killed over 3,500 of our young military personnel, wounded or maimed at least 50,000 more, will cost us trillions of dollars, and will spur increasing hatred and terrorism against Americans and unrelenting damage to American economic interests.
How can anyone run for President of the United States and not mention the overwhelming power of the Israeli-First, Jewish extremists in American politics and media. Everyone in Washington, D.C. and in practically the entire world knows that the political fundraising process, Presidential policy and Congressional process is firmly under the control of the Zionists who are using the United States as its worldwide hitman, a role that is doing us irreparable harm. Jewish extremists are the political fundraisers and power brokers and they also dominate the mass media, the single greatest influence in politics.
If I were Paul, I would also cite the Constitution in answer to attacks by other republicans that opposition to the war is unpatriotic. But, my response would be first to forcefully say, “You who support sending our boys to death or worse for a lie created by a fifth column in the United States and against the interests of the United States. By supporting the Iraq War you are doing more than being unpatriotic, you are committing treason.”
I like Ron Paul’s laid back country doctor persona, but the man has to get a little less cerebral and a lot more powerful in his interviews. You can’t weasel, you have show strength as a President, you are polite and gentlemanly, but when people take cheap shots at you, you have to come back at them like I did at Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
Here is what Ron Paul said on Jay Leno in response to Fox News excluding him from the debate:
RON PAUL: You know, I don’t know. I can speculate. If I qualified, as you point out, that I had the qualification, it must be they didn’t want to hear the message. Maybe they’re intimidated. Maybe they’re frightened. Maybe they don’t want to hear the truth.
Who knows? We’ll have to figure that out.
JAY LENO: Okay. I mean, what do you do? Do you call FOX News at this point and go, “I want to know why I was excluded”?
RON PAUL: Yeah.
JAY LENO: You seem like a gentleman. You don’t seem like that type. But it seems like you should be kicking somebody’s ass right now.
I agree with Leno’s response and I would have said something similar to the following, “Fox news, and the whole country knows I am qualified to be on the debate after getting more votes than debate participant Giuliani in Iowa and outpolling Thompson in New Hampshire. They don’t want me on because they don’t want anyone exposing their non-stop lies about Iraq and American foreign policy. But, there is one thing good about the debate exclusion in that they have exposed the bias and truly anti-American bias of this powerful media.”
The American people want a fighter, and they don’t want a bully or someone always sniping, but they do want someone who really fights back when attacked, and once you are attacked, again using the example of Wolf Blitzer’s attack against me last year, the audience gives you the right to respond in kind, in fact people expect a man who is unfairly knocked down to get up and beat the attacker to a pulp. Audiences see a soft response as weakness on your part. Once Blitzer came at me like an attack dog, I told Blitzer that the reason he was so unfairly attacking me is because I oppose Israel’s control of American foreign policy, and pointed out that he was an officer of AIPAC, that he is not a honest journalist — but is an agent for Israel. Nobody has ever told that truth about Blitzer to his face before, and 25,000 people emailed me with applause, and millions watched Youtube copies because of the interest and enjoyment of seeing an underdog come out on top over a biased media bully.
Another issue that gives Paul no great political leverage is the hard money issue that he spends most of his time talking about. He wants paper money to be backed by gold or some other hard commodity. The average voter just doesn’t give a damn about economic theory. What they do care about is the quality of life they have for themselves and their family.
The truth is that I agree with Paul that hard money leads to a more stable monetary system and is more preferable. But, many nations such as Switzerland do not have such a policy and yet have done extremely well for generations. Germany in the nineteen-thirties based their currency on labor rather than gold, and with sound economic policy still escaped the depression in only 3 years while the rest of the world languished. America without hard money had the fastest economic growth in world history in the years following World War II, and that occurred despite massive stealing and fraud by both the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Government.
Even with our flawed monetary system and the corruption of the Federal Reserve, we would have saved trillions by avoiding foreign interventionism after the fall of the Soviet Union and if would have not launched the Iraq War. We would have saved enough money to easily abolish the federal income tax! And that’s not even counting the equally huge savings we would have reaped by stopping illegal immigration and by taking measures to lower the growth of the welfare underclass.
If one adds up the costs of the rising immigration and welfare underclass in the United States there is nothing that is more financially detrimental. It reflects in huge education costs, staggering costs from crime against property and people, the costs of police, courts and prisons, expanding public “entitlement programs,” and incredible medical costs. The medical costs of millions of illegal immigrants who have paid no taxes as well as welfare recipients are borne completely by the taxpayer and medical care providers. So working people who pay for their medical care whether by direct payment or by payment for medical insurance, end up paying exorbitant rates because hospitals and medical institutions must factor in the free care they provide for those who don’t pay.
A good example of the economic impact of the changing demographics of America is the rising cost of medical care and medical insurance to the point that millions of working American families cannot get or afford medical insurance and face economic ruin and bankruptcy if they suffer a serious medical problem.
Ron Paul has a big war chest, as big as any candidate. What would I do if I were in his shoes? There are many issues I don’t have the space to mention here, but a few of the points I would emphasize if I were his campaign manager, are the following:
1. Hit the Iraq War harder, show shocking pictures of our dead and maimed military personnel and get angry and emotional that these patriotic Americans and their families have endured these terrible consequences because of lies by both politicians and media. Point out correctly that a truly patriotic President would not let such atrocities continue another moment.
2.Hit immigration harder, and not by commercials showing some anchor babies in hospitals, people feel naturally sympathetic to babies and mothers. Show pictures of the many illegal alien criminals who have raped, kidnapped and killed American citizens who our government has not prevented from entering the country. Show how the politicians who have not done their constitutional duty to enforce our laws are directly responsible for the murder of these innocent Americans.
3.Expose and hit the massive racial discrimination against European Americans in so-called affirmative action and the bald-faced lies of “equal opportunity.” The EEOC for instance is not truly an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but an agency solely dedicated to racial discrimination against better-qualified White applicants, companies, employees and students. Demand true equal rights for all and that the best qualified get the job, contract, promotion, scholarship, or college admission by their merit.
4.Even if Paul supports free trade by principle, at least he should emphasize that any country that does not allow truly free access to our products and services (such as China), should be barred from our markets in our own self defense.
5.He should call for protection of our technical class by absolutely prohibiting large companies from outsourcing American technical jobs to the sweatshops of India or elsewhere. Additionally, he should demand that American citizens are given first and foremost preference in admission to American universities.
6.The first step in medical reform and the medical insurance is giving American citizens who are workers and life-long taxpayers first preference in medical care and services. No taxpaying American person who suffers a costly, life-threatening illness in his his family should face bankruptcy or loss of his home while even one illegal alien gets free medical care.
I want Ron Paul to do well for a number of reasons. This is because I share his position on the Iraq War and American foreign policy, that he believes in less government and more freedom, and the fact that he staunchly believes in the preserving the civil liberties and constitutional rights of the American people.
I recognize that he does not share my view of the most important issue of all, the preservation the heritage and rights of the European American people. But, I also realize that the better he does, the better it is for our people and all people that love freedom. And, I know that the better he does in the upcoming primaries the more it shakes up and opens up American politics.
So far, he has gotten votes far fewer than hopeful expectations. Perhaps the key to his getting more support is contained in Paul’s own writing as shown by his old newsletters.
Recently, James Kirchick published an article in the far-leftist New Republic called, Angry White Man, The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul (posted January 8, 2008) kirchick points out that Paul had this to say about me in 1990 shortly after my race for the U.S. Senate. It should be noted that I have never tried to increase my status, by previously publishing or remarking about the positive things that Paul wrote about me and and my campaign issues. The New Republic has published this now however, and since it is now known by all in the media I will quote it now. Here it is:
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate Primary race in Louisiana 60 percent of the white vote, and 9 percent of the black vote! This totalled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.
Duke lost the election but he scared the blazes out the Establishment. If the official Republican wouldn’t have been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing…
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, the voters were willing to overlook that. If he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
…David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: ‘No one wants to talk about race publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative action programs.”
Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such a taint?
Here is the quote directly from the New Republic:
The New Republic
Angry White Man by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
What must Paul do to have any real chance of winning or making a bigger impact? I think he should do exactly what I did in Louisiana, and for Ron Paul to follow exactly the same advice Ron Paul gave in his newsletters for others, take up my campaign issues with passion and purpose.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
