Breitbart’s Videos of Shirley Sherrod were NOT EDITED…They were True EXCERPTS

LEFTISTS STILL SMEARING ANDREW BREITBART In July 2010, Andrew Breitbart published some video clips showing former USDA official Shirley Sherrod making controversial remarks regarding race and class in a speech before the NAACP. Liberals claimed that Breitbart had selectively edited (or doctored) her comments. The liberal media are still pushing this lie about Andrew Breitbart. They want people to think that Breitbart cut and rearranged Sherrod’s remarks to present her as a racist. However, the NAACP full video proved that Breitbart videos clips were CONTINUOUS UNEDITED EXCERPTS of Shirley Sherrod’s speech. Breitbart did not edit (cut or rearrange) Sherrod’s remarks. He did not falsely represent Shirley Sherrod. Breitbart’s first video even included Sherrod’s so-called redemption or revelation (that it is not about blacks vs. whites). He did not take her out of context. Here are the facts: Videos and transcripts prove Breitbart did NOT edit Sherrod’s remarks:

EDIT VS. EXCERPT – THERE IS A DIFFERENCE ex-cerpt 1: to select (a passage) for quoting: EXTRACT ed-it 1 b: to assemble (as moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging 1 c: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose 3: DELETE

Remembering Andrew Breitbart (1969 – 2012)

A NATIONAL TREASURE HAS BEEN LOST Conservative/Libertarian Icon Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43

● Mark Levin on Andrew’s passing ● Heritage Staff Remembers Andrew Breitbart ● Rush Limbaugh: Andrew Breitbart Was “A Bulldog For The Cause” (Video) ● Sarah Palin Remembers Breitbart ● Michelle Malkin ● Greg Gutfeld, Sean Hannity, Jonah Goldberg remember Andrew Breitbart ● Canada Free Press: Andrew Breitbart, a quest for truth ● Canada Free Press: Breitbart Memorial: “Man Against The Mob” ● GatewayPundit: Conservative Hero Andrew Breitbart ● Drudge Report Remembers Andrew Breitbart With Special Tribute, more ● Newsbusters: Flashback: Andrew Breitbart, at MRC’s ‘DisHonors Awards,’ Accepts in Jest for Chris Matthews ● Redstate: A Supernova Now Dark ● Redstate: On hearing that Andrew Breitbart has passed

RELATED - Breitbart’s Videos of Shirley Sherrod were UNEDITED EXCERPTS

Conservative/Libertarian Icon Andrew Breitbart Dead at Age 43

Outspoken conservative (with libertarian sympathies) publisher, activist, and author Andrew Breitbart died this morning in Los Angeles at the age of 43. Andrew Breitbart was the publisher of several news websites: Breitbart.com, Breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace. He broke the ACORN child sex trafficking scandal, the “Weinergate” scandal that lead to the resignation of New York Representative Anthony Weiner. Breitbart was a frequent speaker at Tea Party movement events. BigJournalism confirmed the sad news: With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of Andrew Breitbart. Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles. We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior. Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love. Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation: I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

This spring the movie “Hating Breitbart” will be released. Here is the trailer:

Video note: “Hating Breitbart” tells the story of how one man with a website upended the traditional press and repeatedly found himself the target of a media feeding frenzy. The filmmakers have been following Andrew Breitbart since the birth of the Tea Party movement in 2009, and they’ve got behind-the-scenes access to many of the media controversies in which Breitbart was a key player–from the ACORN takedown to Congressman Anthony Weiner’s crotch-shot Twitter scandal. Andrew and his courage will be missed. Please keep his family in your thoughts and prayers.
RELATED - Breitbart’s Videos of Shirley Sherrod were UNEDITED EXCERPTS

Ron Paul in 1987 Attacked Ronald Reagan (Read Resignation Letter)

DECEITFUL PAUL = MASTER OF HALF-TRUTHS In 1987, Ron Paul submitted his infamous letter of resignation from the Republican Party where he blasted Ronald Reagan. (Scroll down to read Paul’s letter.) Now, Ron Paul wants voters to believe that he is the true Reagan-conservative. Ron Paul 2012: “I’m the one who stood with Reagan.” Ron Paul 1987: “America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.” Ron Paul 1987: “There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.” Ron Paul 1987: “Thanks to the President [Reagan] and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished.” Ron Paul 1987: “I want to totally disassociate myself from the [Reagan] policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.” RON PAUL’S 1987 RESIGNATION LETTER (Blasting Ronald Reagan’s Policies): Here is Ron Paul’s 1987 resignation letter addressed to Frank Fahrenkopf, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee. At that time, Ron Paul was no longer in Congress, had run unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate, and had joined the Libertarian Party. In September 1987, Ron Paul as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate referred to Ronald Reagan as the “disaster” of the conservative agenda. Paul’s strategy to attract voters (besides offering hard drugs & prostitution legalization) is to tell half-truths to benefit his political career and legacy regardless of the cost to this nation. Read the letter in its entirety since it reveals Ron Paul’s mastery of omitting important data and context. Paul easily disregards the successes of Reagan’s policies and the mess left by the Carter administration. Sounding like a typical liberal who detests defense spending, Ron Paul criticizes Reagan’s spending on national defense (a core constitutional function) without acknowledging that Reagan inherited a neglected American military from the Carter administration during the Soviet expansionism and Islamic attacks. Reagan’s defense buildup was necessary and it accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Paul also fails to take into account that during the Reagan administration (1981 – 1989), the Dems dominated the House of Representatives (60% Dem vs. 40% Reps) and the Senate was almost equally divided (52% vs. 48%). And who knows how many of those Republicans were RINOs working against Reagan. Note how Paul finds subtle ways to praise Democrats while he blames Reagan for almost everything as if Reagan was a dictator who didn’t have to deal with the Democrats and the liberal media — there was no alternative media then. (Double-click image to enlarge it)
Transcript:
	As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate. Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets. Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government. In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts. Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill [a liberal Democrat], although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed. Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981. All Republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats. Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that “deficits don’t matter,” the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and the Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate. Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan’s foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Carter’s put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems. Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it. Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism. Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion. Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests. Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste. Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind. I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy. After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend. If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years. I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction. I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card. - – -

Ron Paul: We Endlessly Bomb These Other Countries and Then We Wonder Why They Get Upset With Us?

RON PAUL – DEFENDER OF OUR ENEMIES Paul would sound less irrational if he had half the contempt for our enemies as he has for America and conservatives. No one wants war, but we have to protect ourselves from those who want to kill us. Without defense and national security no other political issue (small government, constitution) will matter. If we are all dead, nothing else matters.
Via Weasel Zippers:
	Can you imagine the World Apology Tour a president Ron Paul would embark on?
		Ron Paul found a South Carolina audience highly skeptical of his foreign policy position during Monday’s debate, with scattered boos and jeers drowning out his call for a “golden rule” in American foreign policy. “My point is, that if another country does to us what we do to others, we aren’t going to like it very much. So I would say maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy,” Paul said as the crowd laughed and jeered. “We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?” Paul was heavily criticized by his Republican opponents, who argued his foreign policy would put the country at harm.
That we endlessly bomb these other countries? And our enemies get upset? Just upset!? Ron Paul makes is sound as if we are the Big Bad Wolf and the terrorists are innocent Little Red Riding Hood. The problem with RINO Ron Paul and the Left is that they disregard the fact that terrorists attacked America first and want to annihilate those who don’t submit to their radical ideology. Paul is also wrong in equating America with murderous regimes. We are not beheading reporters, cutting the nose of abused girls and committing other barbarian acts. We are not killing citizens for demanding freedom and democracy, i.e., Iran.

RON PAUL IS NO CONSERVATIVE

(We are re-posting this article summary to inform voters who the real Ron Paul is.)
Ron Paul and anti-Semitism, racism, isolationism, far left-wingism and intimidation Summary of the American Spectator’s article exposing Ron Paul’s neo-liberalism: (Emphasis added)
NEOLIBERAL. NOT CONSERVATIVE.
	When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives. This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.” [...] There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.) The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left. From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party. But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day. [...] …Ron Paul, as noted, has deservedly developed a reputation for fiscal conservatism. Just as all of those Liberal Republicans from days long gone by were able to run and get elected as Republicans by developing enough of a conservative reputation for something seen as the conservative position in the time — support for a tariff here or a government reform over there. All the while carrying the liberal flag for Bryan’s left-wing Populism or Wilson’s Progressive New Freedom or FDR’s New Deal. So if Ron Paul is conservative on domestic issues, but of a like mind with liberal non-interventionists of both parties, what precisely is Ron Paul? The right term is certainly not conservative. …Liberal Republican LaFollette Sr. and liberal Democrat Senator Wheeler even teamed up to run on the Progressive Party presidential ticket in 1924, supported by no less than the Socialist Party. The proper term for Paul and his followers, then, would take into account this political half horse/half man philosophical creativity. Conservative on domestic policy, a staunch advocate of historically liberal views on foreign policy. Ron Paul is what might be called a “Neo-Liberal.” Or even a “Quasi-Conservative.” [...] …[H]istory shows non-interventionists have been historically incapable of resisting what they clearly see as the next step after making the non-interventionist case. That next step? Finding someone to blame for the calls to intervene in this or that war or international situation. And right here is where Paul and his neolibs, in the style of his neolib predecessors, begin going off the rails.
BLAMING THE JEWS
	Disturbingly, the history of Neoliberalism is replete with charges of anti-Semitism. While this is a charge in today’s political dialogue that has been thrown repeatedly at Paul and his neolib followers…It is a charge that appears to be inevitable when the core premise of non-interventionism is that some dark force somewhere is pushing America into an unconstitutional interventionist war. All too often that dark force for the Neoliberals turns out to be the scapegoat of hard-leftists everywhere in the world: the Jews. A story from history. Before Pearl Harbor, as the war in America over going to war in Europe raged, the once fierce opposition by the American people to taking on Hitler and the Nazis began to change as Hitler’s relentless march through Europe picked up speed. This opposition also began to change in Hollywood, and soon a small raft of anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi films began to appear. These included Confessions of a Nazi Spy starring Edward G. Robinson (1939), Alfred Hitchcock’s 1940 Foreign Correspondent and, hilariously, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator (1940). Neolibs were furious. Senator Gerald Nye, the liberal Republican non-interventionist, took to the radio airwaves in August 1941 to accuse Hollywood studios of serving as “gigantic engines of propaganda… to influence public sentiment in the direction of participation by the United States in the present European war.” The speech, take note, was mostly written for Nye by one John T. Flynn, a former editor of the progressive New Republic magazine. [...] Nye also did something else in that radio address written by John Flynn. One by one he read out the names of the heads of these Hollywood studios — names which, as he used particularly scathing or sarcastic tones to pronounce them — were unmistakably taken by his audience to be Jewish names. [...] Meaning, of course, the men responsible for these films were Jews. Literally before the day was out Nye had a resolution on the Senate floor demanding an investigation of Hollywood studios. In little over a month — September 9, 1941 — the liberal Democrat non-interventionist Senator Wheeler had ginned up that Senate investigation and it was opened for business…The witnesses against the three? That would include Senator Nye himself — and John T. Flynn.[...] What does this old history have to do with what might be called the dark side of the Paul campaign? In his book The Revolution: A Manifesto, Congressman Paul includes at the end a section called “A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America.” And on that recommended reading list? Here’s the entry, in full: Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1944. Flynn, an accomplished journalist, analyzes fascism in Italy and Germany and concludes by considering the state of America in his day. That’s right. Congressman Paul is recommending the writings of a man who, in his day, was seen as a driving force behind the anti-Semitic liberal Republican Senator Nye and the Senate investigation into Jewish influence in Hollywood. Take a look at this CNN video, featuring Congressman Paul, Texas Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Ben Stein…The discussion, about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the so-called “Underwear bomber” accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit) quickly draws a charge of anti-Semitism from Stein, which causes Paul to erupt and demand an apology, which was not forthcoming. [...] Stein is not alone. This issue of a connection between Paul or those around him and anti-Semitism has been hotly discussed by all manner of well-respected conservatives. From David Horowitz (here) to Commentary‘s John Podhoretz to Andrew Walden at The American Thinker… The too-cute-by-half cleverness in this current argument over the newest appearance of anti-Semitism as an anchor of Neoliberal philosophy is the use of the term “neoconservative” as a euphemism for “Jew.” [...] …[A] Paul supporter like Newark Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine repeatedly zeroes in on conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, always dismissing the Jewish Mr. Levin as a neocon… In historical fact, self-identified “neoconservatives” hold beliefs that are both straightforward and have nothing whatsoever to do with being Jewish. The core of the neoconservative belief is the use of American economic and military strength to topple a foreign enemy in favor of a liberal democracy. One can agree or disagree — but the concept is both an old one in American history and utterly un-related to either Jews or neocons. Washington had Canada invaded. He wasn’t Jewish.
HATING CONSERVATIVES
	But anti-Semitism aside, perhaps the real key to understanding the decided left-leaning tendencies of neoliberals is their considerable dislike of… Conservatives You read that right. Here are the views of various prominent Paul supporters about some conservatives you may be familiar with. • Ronald Reagan: Here the late Paulist Murray Rothbard labels the conservative presidential icon as a “cretin,” Reagan’s two-terms in office described as “eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years.” [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html] • William F. Buckley, Jr.: The man who became the very gold standard of the American conservative movement is viewed as a “defacto totalitarian” here, again in another Rothbard selection from ex-Paul chief of staff Lew Rockwell’s site, a site for which Paul himself has written. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard6.html" target="_blank] • Antonin Scalia: Justice Scalia is not only no conservative in Paulville, he is — sitting down? — “a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire.” This gem was penned by ex-Paul chief of staff Rockwell himself. • Sarah Palin: That’s right. This business of Sarah Palin being a conservative, according to Rockwell, is just a ruse. In fact, Governor Palin is really a “double agent” for the “regime.” From the same article as above. Oh yes… don’t forget Governor Palin is quite possibly a “puppet” (as seen here by Jack Hunter, now the Paul campaign’s “official blogger”). Oh, and Mr. Mulshine, the Paulist columnist? To him Palin is “just another whiny liberal claiming victimization.” [http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/03/the_most_comprehensive_analysi.html" target="_blank] • Edwin Meese: The former Reagan Attorney General beloved of conservative activists is described in Paulville as the “mouthpiece” for fascists [http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76465.html" target="_blank] • The Koch Brothers: The fascists for whom Ed Meese is the fascist mouthpiece? That would be the libertarian Koch brothers who, apparently, aren’t libertarian at all in the eyes of Paulville. In Paulville, libertarian conservatives David and Charles Koch are said to be supporters of a “fascist regime.” Same post as above. It is surely no coincidence that the Koch brothers were targeted earlier this year by the far-left hacking group Anonymous. As seen in this Politico story. Once again, the right/left neoliberal profile surfaces. [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Anonymous_takes_down_Americans_for_Prosperity_website.html?showall" target="_blank] • Clarence Thomas: Dubbed part of a fascist “tag team” by Paul supporters. Why? Because Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justice Scalia, spoke at that gathering sponsored by those fascist Koch brothers. Where Ed Meese was covering as the mouthpiece for the fascists. • Rush Limbaugh: Rush? Rush Limbaugh? That Rush Limbaugh isn’t a conservative? Nope. Not in Paulville. In the eyes of Paulvillians the Rush Limbaugh so many millions of conservatives thought they knew and loved turns out to be a man with “Stalinist tendencies” — aka a commie. Read all about it here. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/93045.html" target="_blank] • Sean Hannity: So OK, understanding that Sarah Palin is a double agent and a puppet and Rush is pulsing with Stalinist tendencies, surely Sean Hannity — conservative talk show and TV host extraordinaire, author of the bestselling Conservative Victory — surely Sean is a real conservative? Naaaaaaaaah. Not in Paulville. There our friend Sean is — no kidding — “evil” That’s right. You read that right. Hannity is, quite seriously in the minds (?) of Paulville’s neolibs, part of the “pantheon of warmongers that make up the true axis of evil.” Once that is understood, this video of Ron Paul supporters literally chasing Hannity through the streets of New Hampshire in 2008 can be seen for the leftist intimidation it was intended to be. The fact that the video of Paul supporters chasing Hannity so closely matches this video of Wisconsin leftists chasing and trapping a Wisconsin Republican legislator is a chilling reminder of the commonality of the protestors involved. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cx77K8e3WE] • Mark Levin: Come on. So he wrote the bestselling conservative manifesto Liberty and Tyranny. So Michele Bachmann has called Levin an inspiration to the Tea Party. So Tea Party members were waving the book in the air at their rallies. So what? Levin’s no conservative in Paulville. Levin’s… you know… wink wink… one of them. • The Cato Institute: The Cato Institute? The premiere libertarian think tank in America under attack in Paulville? No way! Yup. Here. [http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo129.html" target="_blank] There’s more — much more than we have room for here. The Ron Paul campaign’s “official blogger” Jack Hunter hates Lincoln but can’t find his tongue with Confederate president Jefferson Davis suspending habeas corpus or 100% of the civil liberties of blacks — aka slavery. Then there’s Thomas J. DiLorenzo, whose arguments are recommended reading by Ron Paul. Here’s Mr. DiLorenzo on Amazon. The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present. [...] They simply aren’t conservatives.
RELATED - The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters - Rush Limbaugh: ‘Ron Paul Kills the Conservative Vote’ - Ron Paul Receiving More Votes from Democrats and Liberals

MORE FACTS ABOUT RON PAUL - RON PAUL 1987: Ronald Reagan’s Disastrous Conservative Agenda (Video) - Ron Paul Wants us to Befriend our Enemies - Ron Paul’s Hypocrisy on Big Money Special Interests - Ron Paul’s Hypocrisy on Earmarks - Ron Paul: Iran to Disrupt World Oil Supply Because of What We Say (2011 Video) - Ron Paul Blames America for the Islamic Terrorism (2009 Video) - Ron Paul Wants Marijuana Legalization (2009 Video) - Ron Paul Blames America for 9/11…He Needs a History Lesson (Video) - Ron Paul Worked with leftist Barney Frank to Weaken America (Video) - Ron Paul Wants GOP to Support Marijuana Legalization to get the Youth Vote (Video)

Ron Paul Wants us to Befriend our Enemies

PAUL’S SELECTIVE MYOPIA On November 06, 2011, Ron Paul was asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday about Iran’s nuclear threat: WALLACE: So, how are we going to persuade them [the Iranian govt.] not to pursue a nuclear weapon? PAUL: Well, maybe offering friendship to them. Befriend those who want to kill us? Has Ron Paul forgotten how reporter Daniel Pearl was decapitated by Islamic terrorists while trying to do his job?
Reporter Daniel Pearl, 38, was beheaded and mulilated by Islamic terrorists in 2002. In 2007, KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammed), the self-described mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, confessed killing Pearl.
Via The American Spectator:
	If President Obama deals with world leaders by bowing to them, President Paul might very well fall to his knees. If President Obama’s foreign policy legacy is one of apology, then President Paul’s foreign policy legacy would be one of submission. Whether Ron Paul likes it or not, the United States is the most powerful nation in the world and he would be foolish to accelerate President Obama’s policy of frittering it away. Ron Paul and President Obama actually possess a great deal in common in foreign policy especially where it concerns Iran. [In November 2011], during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Paul how he would persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapon. He replied, “Well, maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn’t we talk to the Soviets, didn’t we talk to the Chinese?” [...] What both Obama failed to recognize then and what Paul fails to recognize now is that President Reagan talked with Mikhail Gorbachev, not with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, or Konstantin Chernenko. Gorbachev was a genuine reformer who brought about glasnost and perestroika. It gave Reagan an opening and he seized it. There is no such opening in Islamic Republic of Iran. The last thing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs want for Iran are openness and restructuring. As for extending a hand of friendship to Iran, I’m not sure what makes Paul think that Iran would welcome his overtures any more than it did Obama’s. Remember hot dog diplomacy? Back in June 2009, the Obama Administration made an ill-advised attempt for U.S. embassies to invite Iranian diplomats for Fourth of July celebrations. Of course, these invitations were extended prior to the Iranian “elections,” which resulted in massive bloodshed and violence when Iran’s populace disputed the results.
Of course, it also helped that Reagan ordered a massive military buildup and did everything he could to bring down the Soviet Union. RELATED - Iran 2009: Ahmadinejad murdering protesters

MORE FACTS ABOUT RON PAUL - RON PAUL 1987: Ronald Reagan’s Disastrous Conservative Agenda (Video) - RON PAUL IS NO CONSERVATIVE - Ron Paul Receiving More Votes from Democrats and Liberals - Ron Paul’s Hypocrisy on Big Money Special Interests - Ron Paul’s Hypocrisy on Earmarks - Ron Paul: Iran to Disrupt World Oil Supply Because of What We Say (2011 Video) - Ron Paul Blames America for the Islamic Terrorism (2009 Video) - Ron Paul Wants Marijuana Legalization (2009 Video) - Ron Paul Blames America for 9/11…He Needs a History Lesson (Video) - Ron Paul Worked with leftist Barney Frank to Weaken America (Video) - Ron Paul Wants GOP to Support Marijuana Legalization to get the Youth Vote (Video)

RON PAUL 1987: Ronald Reagan’s Disastrous Conservative Agenda (Video)

RON PAUL’S CONTEMPT FOR REAGAN & CONSERVATISM

Ron Paul in 1987: The “disaster” of Ronald Reagan’s conservative agenda Ron Paul as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate at the 1987 Libertarian National Convention in Seattle, Washington (September, 1987) had this to say about Ronald Reagan: “I think we can further thank Ronald Reagan, of course, for doing a good job [on furthering the Libertarian Party]. He certainly did a good job pointing out in 1980 the fallacies of the Democratic liberal agenda and he certainly did a good job on following up to show the disaster of the conservative agenda as well.”

MORE FACTS ABOUT RON PAUL - RON PAUL IS NO CONSERVATIVE - Ron Paul Receiving More Votes from Democrats and Liberals - Ron Paul’s Hypocrisy on Big Money Special Interests - Ron Paul’s Hypocrisy on Earmarks - Ron Paul: Iran to Disrupt World Oil Supply Because of What We Say (2011 Video) - Ron Paul Blames America for the Islamic Terrorism (2009 Video) - Ron Paul Wants Marijuana Legalization (2009 Video) - Ron Paul Blames America for 9/11…He Needs a History Lesson (Video) - Ron Paul Worked with leftist Barney Frank to Weaken America (Video) - Ron Paul Wants GOP to Support Marijuana Legalization to get the Youth Vote (Video)