Ron Paul in 2008!

[Guest]

Mccain would be a disaster as president.

 

[screamingeagle]

I am not sold on Dr. Paul yet...however he gets my vote if he is running against hillary or B. Hussein. B. Hussain is the most dangerous and unstable candidate.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Get this....on the way (back) into work this evening, I stopped by Firehouse Subs to grab a sandwich. While I was awaiting my chow, I watched a bit of the pundits on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson's show (he endorses Dr.Paul btw). On the show some commentator (I didn't catch his name) actually had the gall to say that "McManiac" wasn't a liberal, but a NATIONALIST!!! Can you believe that??!! McKennedy has been a pro-open borders, left-leaning Globalist shill from the word go! This is just another example of the Globalist Elite controlled "mainstream" media skewing what true, patriotic, anti-Globalist, pro-Constitution Nationalism is all about.

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Further proving their Globalist shill, Neocon status, our two Georgia U.S. Senators endorsed McManiac. Isakscum & Shameless also initially supported McKennedy's amnesty legislation...until us Georgians arose in righteous indignation. These two puppets of the Globalist Elite are pro-NAU, pro-NAFTA sellouts are a total disgrace to my great state!

[url]http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicali nsider/entries/2008/02/02/isakson_chambliss_endorse_mcca.htm l[/url]Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Check out these youtube vids from the MTV Closing Arguments!


First


http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?vid=207161


Second


http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?vid=207162

 

[Don Wassall]

Why Has Ron Paul All But Suspended His Presidential Campaign?


[url]http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2008/020908_ron _paul.htm[/url]

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Here is the email I received from Ron Paul's campaign last night.


February 8, 2008

Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans -- and friends in many other countries -- have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron

 

[Menelik]

Nice speech.

 

[Kaptain]

I'm sure this has already been posted on this site, but just in case it hasn't .... I was amazed in reading Wikipedia that Ron Paul was an elite athlete - as a sprinter! Perfect for our site and happy hour:

"Excelling in track and field, he graduated from Dormont High School in 1953 with honors. He had a best mark in the 100-yard dash of 9.7 seconds[10] at a time when the national high school record for that event was 9.4 seconds;[11] as a junior, he was the 220-yard dash state champion[12] and placed second in the 440-yard run.[8] He also was on the wrestling team, played football and baseball, and was student council president.[8][9] After surgery on a knee injury, he took up swimming as a form of therapy.

A major university offered Paul a full track scholarship, chancing he could regain his prior speed; he declined it, unwilling to involve the university in the risk himself.[13] Rather, he paid for his first year at Gettysburg College with saved newspaper-delivery, lemonade-sale, and lawn-mowing money; he later received a small academic scholarship.[8] He delivered mail and laundry in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; managed the college coffee shop ("The Bullet Hole") for one year; and joined the swim team. Inducted into the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity,[14] he served as pledge class president, house manager, and kitchen steward, planning and supervising cooks for all meals.[8][15] By his senior year, he was running track again; he set the then-third-best marks in college history in the 100-yard dash (9.9 seconds) and 220-yard dash (21.8 seconds).[16] He received his bachelor's in 1957, majoring in biology.[12]"

It was also nice to see that he actually worked for a living from a modest background since the age of 5 -unlike virtually any other candidate.

 

[jaxvid]

I feel a little cheated by the Paul campaign. I didn't send him money so he could do what's right by his Texas constituents. I wanted him to raise some hell all the way to the convention with all that cash he raked in. Great now he's going to use it to win another term as a marginalized fringe House of Representative member in Congress.

What's more irritating is his campaign effectively tied up all of the true conservative and anti-big government emotion and deflected it from working for more mainstream semi-conservatives like Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter (not that those guys are so great but would you trade them for McCain right now?).

It's not that I want to really knock the guy, I'm not a paranoid that thinks his whole campaign was a feint to draw away the hard core element, and I'll always support him because I think he is the genuine deal, however when you look at who's there now it's easy to say "WTF happened?"

 

[Bart]

It's not that I want to really knock the guy, I'm not a paranoid that thinks his whole campaign was a feint to draw away the hard core element, and I'll always support him because I think he is the genuine deal, however when you look at who's there now it's easy to say "WTF happened?"

Good post jaxvid. You're not the only one left in the lurch scratching his head. Funny, how things have shaped up.I wasn't enamored with Romney, but he looks good in comparison to McCain, who will probably get his backside handed to him by Hillary or Obama. We cannot discount the - presidential image - factor in politics, which is more important than most people realize. Romney is taller, has a more pleasant voice, and much better hair than McCain. Obama would tower over John. These things may not be important to rational thinking people, but many Americans and most women are swayed by superficials.

 

[reclaimsocal]

I think he ran a very poor campaign, however I do think he has the right message (or at least 90% of it). I hope that someone with a bit more political savvy can pick up the torch and try again in 4 years. The major problem with this campaign imho is that McCain was the only candidate whose base voting bloc wasn't split, and so he rode the momentum of a bunch of plurality victories and started to pick up the idiots who only care about being able to say they voted for the winner and then it was all but over for the conservative majority of the Republican party. Now they will all fall in line behind this old fool and further water down the right. Clearly this nation has outgrown the 2-party paradigm, but the sheeple are so brainwashed that they will continue to pigeon hole themselves into one of two camps. How the elite must laugh at the rest of the poor saps in this country...


I don't believe that my beliefs are represented by either party, nor will they ever and therefore I can only hope that the terminal illness that infests this nation moves quickly so that from its death a new and improved country can rise.

 

[Menelik]

I feel a little cheated by the Paul campaign. I didn't send him money so he could do what's right by his Texas constituents. I wanted him to raise some hell all the way to the convention with all that cash he raked in. Great now he's going to use it to win another term as a marginalized fringe House of Representative member in Congress.

What's more irritating is his campaign effectively tied up all of the true conservative and anti-big government emotion and deflected it from working for more mainstream semi-conservatives like Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter (not that those guys are so great but would you trade them for McCain right now?).

It's not that I want to really knock the guy, I'm not a paranoid that thinks his whole campaign was a feint to draw away the hard core element, and I'll always support him because I think he is the genuine deal, however when you look at who's there now it's easy to say "WTF happened?"

Why Ron Lost

IMHO the best and shortest explanation on why the Ron Paul campaign shot its wadd.

 

[White Shogun]

I feel a little cheated by the Paul campaign. I didn't send him money so he could do what's right by his Texas constituents. I wanted him to raise some hell all the way to the convention with all that cash he raked in. Great now he's going to use it to win another term as a marginalized fringe House of Representative member in Congress.

What's more irritating is his campaign effectively tied up all of the true conservative and anti-big government emotion and deflected it from working for more mainstream semi-conservatives like Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter (not that those guys are so great but would you trade them for McCain right now?).

It's not that I want to really knock the guy, I'm not a paranoid that thinks his whole campaign was a feint to draw away the hard core element, and I'll always support him because I think he is the genuine deal, however when you look at who's there now it's easy to say "WTF happened?"

Why Ron Lost

IMHO the best and shortest explanation on why the Ron Paul campaign shot its wadd.

I disagree with the author of that commentary. There are a host of factors that prevented Paul from winning the nomination, including marginalization by the mainstream media; his age and lack of commanding demeanor; branding of Paul himself as a 'kook,' and labeling his ideas as 'fringe' and far-right or far-left wing by the media; the inability of the people at this point in the nation's history to grasp the idea of a true Constitutional form of government, including abolishment of the IRS, restoration of the gold standard, and state's rights, etc. Blaming supporters who set fund raising records is also a bit off the mark.

 

[Menelik]

I feel a little cheated by the Paul campaign. I didn't send him money so he could do what's right by his Texas constituents. I wanted him to raise some hell all the way to the convention with all that cash he raked in. Great now he's going to use it to win another term as a marginalized fringe House of Representative member in Congress.

What's more irritating is his campaign effectively tied up all of the true conservative and anti-big government emotion and deflected it from working for more mainstream semi-conservatives like Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter (not that those guys are so great but would you trade them for McCain right now?).

It's not that I want to really knock the guy, I'm not a paranoid that thinks his whole campaign was a feint to draw away the hard core element, and I'll always support him because I think he is the genuine deal, however when you look at who's there now it's easy to say "WTF happened?"

Why Ron Lost

IMHO the best and shortest explanation on why the Ron Paul campaign shot its wadd.

I disagree with the author of that commentary. There are a host of factors that prevented Paul from winning the nomination, including marginalization by the mainstream media; his age and lack of commanding demeanor; branding of Paul himself as a 'kook,' and labeling his ideas as 'fringe' and far-right or far-left wing by the media; the inability of the people at this point in the nation's history to grasp the idea of a true Constitutional form of government, including abolishment of the IRS, restoration of the gold standard, and state's rights, etc. Blaming supporters who set fund raising records is also a bit off the mark.

So "We the people" or sheeple in your opinion can't grasp the idea of constitutional government?

I'm always amazed at the patronizing comments one gets by posting an opionion on the net.Edited by: Menelik

 

[White Shogun]

I did not use the word 'sheeple' in my post. Straw man? It is not an insult to describe people as not having an understanding of something, if they in fact do not understand it.

However, are we talking about the same group of people? The 'sheeple' as you describe them? The people who buy a book merely because Oprah recommends it? The people who follow the every move of Britney Spears, et al?

How many of your acquaintances have ever heard of the 10th Amendment? How many people do you know that understand McCain-Feingold is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

How many know that our country actually used to have an economy based on the gold standard? How many know that *gasp* once upon a time there was no such thing as an income tax?

How many people are aware that the executive and judicial branches of our government have usurped the powers delineated to the legislative?

I know from my own experience (anecdotal evidence, yes but there it is) that many of the college educated people that I spoke with during this election cycle were unaware of many of even the most basic principles that Dr. Paul outlined in his platform. Gold standard? Fiat currency? State's rights? Whaaa....

And it isn't just the 'educated' that are allowed to vote. Every U.S. citizen is allowed to vote, regardless of their ability to understand even the most, basic, fundamental issues facing the nation.

These are the people to whom I am referring.

What's patronizing about refuting a simplistic commentary on what is obviously a multi-faceted issue? If anything, such a simplistic notion as that posted by the commenter is more patronizing than one that examines some of the relevant problems the Paul campaign faced in the primaries.

I apologize if you viewed my rebuttal of the post as a personal attack. I specifically stated in my post that my disagreement was with the viewpoints of the commenter, and not even the commenter personally.

I recommend that you listen to the Glenn Beck radio program on Friday mornings. They have a show called 'Moron Trivia' that you may find enlightening. By the way, I am not calling YOU a moron. On that show you will find examples of the kind of people I'm referring to in my post, who cannot grasp the Constitutional form of government.

It is not an insult to say people do not understand something when they do not understand it. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Menelik]

I did not use the word 'sheeple' in my post. Straw man? It is not an insult to describe people as not having an understanding of something, if they in fact do not understand it.

However, are we talking about the same group of people? The 'sheeple' as you describe them? The people who buy a book merely because Oprah recommends it? The people who follow the every move of Britney Spears, et al?

How many of your acquaintances have ever heard of the 10th Amendment? How many people do you know that understand McCain-Feingold is a violation of the 1st Amendment?

How many know that our country actually used to have an economy based on the gold standard? How many know that *gasp* once upon a time there was no such thing as an income tax?

How many people are aware that the executive and judicial branches of our government have usurped the powers delineated to the legislative?

I know from my own experience (anecdotal evidence, yes but there it is) that many of the college educated people that I spoke with during this election cycle were unaware of many of even the most basic principles that Dr. Paul outlined in his platform. Gold standard? Fiat currency? State's rights? Whaaa....

And it isn't just the 'educated' that are allowed to vote. Every U.S. citizen is allowed to vote, regardless of their ability to understand even the most, basic, fundamental issues facing the nation.

These are the people to whom I am referring.

What's patronizing about refuting a simplistic commentary on what is obviously a multi-faceted issue? If anything, such a simplistic notion as that posted by the commenter is more patronizing than one that examines some of the relevant problems the Paul campaign faced in the primaries.

I apologize if you viewed my rebuttal of the post as a personal attack. I specifically stated in my post that my disagreement was with the viewpoints of the commenter, and not even the commenter personally.

I recommend that you listen to the Glenn Beck radio program on Friday mornings. They have a show called 'Moron Trivia' that you may find enlightening. By the way, I am not calling YOU a moron. On that show you will find examples of the kind of people I'm referring to in my post, who cannot grasp the Constitutional form of government.

It is not an insult to say people do not understand something when they do not understand it.

No need to apologize. We just have different opinions about the political process. If I may offer some criticism though; you stated that McCain-Feingold was against the 1st amendment. Thats not true. That was settled with McConnell v. FEC. I try to see the world as it is and not how I would like it to be.

 

[jaxvid]

So "We the people" or sheeple in your opinion can't grasp the idea of constitutional government?

I'm always amazed at the patronizing comments one gets by posting an opionion on the net.

I'll be patronizing. Yes the "sheeple" DO NOT grasp constitutional government, NOT AT ALL. Apparently neither do you if you think a court decision such as McConnell vs FCC. is any kind of a true reflection of the rights of free speech as understood by the founding fathers (and common sense), when Justices Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, join togther to pass a decision it's never good. Justice Thomas, as usual, issued a scathing and proper dissent.

 

[Menelik]

So "We the people" or sheeple in your opinion can't grasp the idea of constitutional government?

I'm always amazed at the patronizing comments one gets by posting an opinion on the net.

I'll be patronizing. Yes the "sheeple" DO NOT grasp constitutional government, NOT AT ALL. Apparently neither do you if you think a court decision such as McConnell vs FCC. is any kind of a true reflection of the rights of free speech as understood by the founding fathers (and common sense), when Justices Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, join togther to pass a decision it's never good. Justice Thomas, as usual, issued a scathing and proper dissent.

So we can disregard court decisions? Take the advice you once gave a poster; "grown men don't like to be lectured to."Edited by: Menelik

 

[jaxvid]

So we can disregard court decisions? Take the advice you once gave a poster; "grown men don't like to be lectured to."

....lectured to (not too) I'm sure I spelled it right

I didn't say to disregard the decision, if you do nice federal employees with guns will come and get you. What I mean is that not every decision passed down by the courts is good or "right". And those that are not should be opposed, I would imagine you agree.

 

[Don Wassall]

What I mean is that not every decision passed down by the courts is good or "right". And those that are not should be opposed, I would imagine you agree.

I think Charley Reese agrees with you:


The Rule of Law Is Not Charity



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%">
<T>
<TR>
<TD =showauthor>by Charley Reese</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV id=columntext>


President Bush is correct to refer to the proposed military trials of the six alleged terrorists as similar to the Nuremberg trials of several Nazis. In both cases, the law is made a farce.


In the case of the Nazis, if the Allies wanted vengeance, and they did, they should have rounded up the Nazi leadership and shot them. That, at least, would have been an honest act of vengeance. Instead, they set up a propaganda farce at Nuremberg and pretended they were going to provide a fair trial to the defendants.


The trouble was, the Nazis were German citizens, and they had not violated any laws of Germany, since the criminal government had twisted the laws, as all criminal governments do, to fit its acts. The Allies, to remedy that, dreamed up some laws that had hitherto not existed. They said that launching a war of aggression was a crime. If that's the case, George W. Bush had better stay out of the reach of any international tribunal, because that's exactly what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Then they said that there was such a thing as a crime against humanity. Since humanity encompasses the whole human race, and since no Nazi crime was ever committed beyond the reach of the German army, which was confined to Europe and, for a short time, North Africa, obviously the Nazis were not guilty of that. Most historians say the Germans killed about 12 million people, including the Jews in the Holocaust. Since 55 million people died in the war, who killed the other 43 million? I suppose they could be called "collateral damage."


All I'm saying is that it was a mistake to disguise vengeance in the robes of the law. Doing so made a farce of the rule of law, and we are paying for it today. We are now stuck with an international tribunal free to charge anyone with "crimes against humanity" on a purely arbitrary basis. Practically, that means any petty leader unfortunate enough to lose a war can find himself on trial. Some Israeli leaders, for example, are afraid to travel in Europe, lest they be arrested and charged with war crimes.


As for the alleged terrorists, Bush has turned a simple matter into another legal farce. If these men are prisoners of war, they are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. If they are criminals (and the attacks on New York and Washington were certainly crimes under American law), they are entitled to the protection of the Constitution. This is the option Bush should have chosen, because we try, convict and execute criminals with the protection of the Constitution on a regular basis. Providing constitutional rights does not mean giving someone a free pass.


So Bush is going to try these men as "enemy combatants" by a military tribunal, which will not even give them the protection of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It will be another legal farce. They will be convicted. They will be executed. And the rule of law, already battered in America, will suffer another wound.


There are some lines in a play in which a man is cautioned against cutting down the protection of the law to get at his enemies. "I would cut down a whole forest to get at my enemies," he says. "Oh, and when they come for you, where will you hide?" replies the other man.


That's the point. When we uphold the rule of law, we are acting in our self-interest, not in the interest of criminals or terrorists. We can nail them with the rule of law, but if we destroy the rule of law, we make ourselves vulnerable to injustice. It's not just a terrorist who can be arrested and held incommunicado for an indefinite period of time. It's anybody the government thinks is a terrorist.


The rule of law is all that stands between us and the worst kind of government by the worst kind of people.


http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12373
</TD></TR></T></TABLE>

 

[Menelik]

So we can disregard court decisions? Take the advice you once gave a poster; "grown men don't like to be lectured to."

....lectured to (not too) I'm sure I spelled it right

I didn't say to disregard the decision, if you do nice federal employees with guns will come and get you. What I mean is that not every decision passed down by the courts is good or "right". And those that are not should be opposed, I would imagine you agree.

Agree with you 100% And thats why I vote and stay politically active in my community.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

A Constitutional Primer

Ron Paul has made the defense of the Constitution, understood strictly and as the Founders intended, the hallmark of his campaign. Several supporters have written to me to ask for suggestions on books they might read to deepen their own knowledge of our founding charter. I relayed their inquiries to Matt Hawes, our policy analyst, to see what titles he would recommend. He suggested the classics: the Federalist, by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, and also the Anti-Federalist Papers, an anthology of those Revolutionary patriots who insisted that the Constitution should have even stronger protections for liberty and who helped to inspire the Bill of Rights. Both books are available in several editions: I particularly recommend the Signet Classics edition of the Anti-Federalist Papers, which includes material from the state ratifying debates as well as an outstanding introduction to the collection by Madison biographer Ralph Ketcham.

Matt also recommends as a primer Thomas E. Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, to which I might add Kevin R.C. Gutzman's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. These books are aimed at the college-student market, but they're excellent introductions for anyone.

i have no problem with calling the majority of the US population "sheeple," because they are. the truth hurts, sometimes.

i am well educated, and somewhat of a history buff, though certainly no expert. but i can tell you that "i" certainly don't know nearly enough about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and i make TREMENDOUS effort to stay abreast of political info.

i spend a good portion of each day discussing politics with a wide array of the US demographic that i come in contact with, and 9 out of 10 people can't mention all 5 remaining candidates in the two main parties of the Presidential race, much less who stands for which issues. so how can they possibly know about the issues and who stands for their beliefs when they don't even know who is running. and the Constitution?!? give me a break! ask as many people as you want and see how many can list the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

the American citizen has become lazy, ignorant, and apathetic. and if that doesn't change, America as we know it will.

the sheeple are being led to the slaughter of their civil liberties, along with this nation.

Edited to add: my quote above is a list of several good books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as provided by Ron Paul, the nation's only Constitutionally-grounded Presidential candidate. please, check them out.

Edited by: Jimmy Chitwood

 

[Menelik]

A Constitutional Primer

Ron Paul has made the defense of the Constitution, understood strictly and as the Founders intended, the hallmark of his campaign. Several supporters have written to me to ask for suggestions on books they might read to deepen their own knowledge of our founding charter. I relayed their inquiries to Matt Hawes, our policy analyst, to see what titles he would recommend. He suggested the classics: the Federalist, by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, and also the Anti-Federalist Papers, an anthology of those Revolutionary patriots who insisted that the Constitution should have even stronger protections for liberty and who helped to inspire the Bill of Rights. Both books are available in several editions: I particularly recommend the Signet Classics edition of the Anti-Federalist Papers, which includes material from the state ratifying debates as well as an outstanding introduction to the collection by Madison biographer Ralph Ketcham.

Matt also recommends as a primer Thomas E. Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, to which I might add Kevin R.C. Gutzman's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. These books are aimed at the college-student market, but they're excellent introductions for anyone.

i have no problem with calling the majority of the US population "sheeple," because they are. the truth hurts, sometimes.

i am well educated, and somewhat of a history buff, though certainly no expert. but i can tell you that "i" certainly don't know nearly enough about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and i make TREMENDOUS effort to stay abreast of political info.

i spend a good portion of each day discussing politics with a wide array of the US demographic that i come in contact with, and 9 out of 10 people can't mention all 5 remaining candidates in the two main parties of the Presidential race, much less who stands for which issues. so how can they possibly know about the issues and who stands for their beliefs when they don't even know who is running. and the Constitution?!? give me a break! ask as many people as you want and see how many can list the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

the American citizen has become lazy, ignorant, and apathetic. and if that doesn't change, America as we know it will.

the sheeple are being led to the slaughter of their civil liberties, along with this nation.

Edited to add: my quote above is a list of several good books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as provided by Ron Paul, the nation's only Constitutionally-grounded Presidential candidate. please, check them out.

Good post but a couple of questions. I think that you are being modest about not understanding the constitution. Its not rocket science and if a person takes the time its easy to grasp the concept and meaning especially with all the resources on the net. As far as civil liberties disapeering...so far I haven't felt that personally. The only beef I got with the government is with taxes. I think too much money is being wasted. Of course that could all change with a midnight knock on the door.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Dr. Paul on the Alex Jones radio show:


Part 1-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfOGFhYYDE





Part 2-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqU6j5n4yVU