Fresh off of his endorsement from former KKK Grand Wizard and former Congressman from Louisiana David Duke, we find this photo of Congressman Ron Paul with former Klansman, former Nazi and current radio show host and moderator of Stormfront.org Don Black.  Pictured next to Black in the cool hat appears to be his radio sidekick and son Derek.  (Here's an interesting note....Derek's mother is David Duke's ex-wife.  Que the banjos.)

A couple of days ago on his radio broadcast, Don Black was quoted as saying,  
"Everybody, all of us back in the 80s and 90s, felt Ron Paul was, you know, unusual in that he had actually been a Congressman, that he was one of us and now, of course, that he has this broad demographic — broad base of support.”

Kind of brings tears to your eyes don't it? 

Mr. Duke said in his endorsement of Dr. Paul,

“Again, I go back to that, you know, traditional topic that I always talk about, you know, the powers of international Zionism–a power in banking, a power in media, a power in government influence, in campaign finance–a power that’s, you know, hurting the values of this country on behalf of Israel,” Mr. Duke said. “So, I would vote for Ron Paul at this moment because he’s one of the few candidates who have policies in this regard and this realm that I wholeheartedly support, and that’s why I’d vote for him.”

What would a good candidate do at this point?  Maybe something like put out a statement saying that he does not accept the endorsement?  Instead Congressman Paul told The New York Times,

"If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.”  

For those of you who doubt that Ron Paul offered a blanket endorsement in 2008 of the four 3rd Party Candidates, here he is speaking at the National Press Club with them in the background.  (Bob Barr is not in the photo.)   He offered the endorsement in return for them signing a pledge that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve," according to a Ron Paul aide in 2008.  

In my opinion, he should have been trying to influence and help John McCain beat Obama instead of cozying up to the fringe, lunatic in the case of Cynthia McKinney,  if he was to stay in the Republican Party as a so called member.  Now before all of your 'defenders of the faith' cry "Principle Over Party!", if that were truly the case, why doesn't Dr. Paul do what Bernie Sanders did in Vermont or Joe Lieberman did in Connecticut and run as an independent?  Because he couldn't win in Conservative Texas. 

Editor's Note:  Jason Downey is a Partner at Carr Downey, Attorneys-At-Law in Macon, GA.  Jason graduated from Marshall University and was Vice President of the College Republicans while at Marshall.  He graduated, from Mercer University Law and is an alumni of the Youth Leadership School at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA. 

Yes, I’m THAT guy. In the land of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, deep in the South, where the red of the state stains like fresh blood on the national map, I am a Mitt Romney supporter. While my fellow Republicans and conservatives around me here in Georgia throw their support behind Newt Gingrich (now that Herman Cain has suspended his campaign), I remain the voice (of reason) for Romney.

I feel very strongly about Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Therefore, you’ll rarely hear me speak critically of any other Republican candidate for President in 2012. Further, I’ve pledged that I will support whomever wins the Republican Nomination, whether it be Newt, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Paul (God help us), or Romney. Unfortunately, there are supporters of other candidates who have point blank told me, “If Romney is our nominee, I will NOT support him.” I quickly fire back, “So then, you’ll vote for Obama?” They usually mumble, “Nah, I just won’t vote, I guess.” And ladies and gentlemen, this seems to be wherein the problem lies. After all, the common goal is to oust President Obama from the White House, correct? I simply believe that Romney is the best choice for that to occur. Here’s why:

First, Romney is the only viable candidate with executive experience from his days as Governor of Massachusetts. Why is this important, you may ask? Well, let’s take a look at Romney’s time while serving as Governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union. (After all, there’s a reason it’s earned its name as “Taxachussetts”.) For starters, Romney received 50% of the popular vote in his 2003 bid for Governor of Massachusetts, at a time when the state had 13% of its registered voters claim they were Republican. This is critical because it means that Romney can appeal to moderates and Democrats in a general election. After all, if the voters of Massachusetts voted strictly down party lines, no Republican would ever be able to be elected Governor there. Nonetheless, Massachusetts had a history in the mid to late 1990s of electing Republican Governors. As we look to 2012, it is important that we as a party look beyond our own party’s voting base for success in the General Election against Barack Obama. For a Republican to defeat President Obama in his re-election bid, we must appeal to independents, moderates and even some Democrats (who I will identify as fiscal conservatives, social moderate/liberals). Romney showed in 2003 that he can do that, being a Red Governor in one of the Bluest of Blue States.

This leads me to my second point: I firmly believe that Romney is the ONLY Republican candidate who will be able to beat President Obama in November’s General Election. Romney has proven that he can appeal to the moderate and independent voter (and perhaps occasional Democrat). Without specifically calling out certain Republican candidates currently vying for the Party’s nomination, I will say simply that other candidates will not perform as strongly as Romney would against the President. National Polls even support this assertion: The ABC News/Washington Post Poll of December 15-December 18, 2011 shows Romney and the President in a hypothetical tie; Public Policy Polling’s Poll of December 16-December 18, 2011 shows Romney with a 2 point lead over Obama; the rest of the polls show Obama with virtually a negligible lead. No other Republican candidate comes as close as Romney in hypothetical national polls against the President. For the Republican Party to win in November 2012, there must be an outreach beyond the Republican Party. Romney has the track record of attracting those voters, and will be the best candidate to make that happen in the General Election.

Romney also has the credentials as a successful businessman in the private sector to attack the President’s failed economic ideas and regulations. When Romney took over as Governor of Massachusetts, he inherited a significant deficit that was paid down under his watch. Romney’s tax plan is right for the Middle Class in America- keep the Bush Presidency Income Tax Rates, eliminate the Death Tax, and reduce corporate tax rates to allow for more job growth. He also wants to pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Federal Government, and decrease the size of said government by 10% through attrition. His plans are traditionally conservative- he does not come from the tax-and-spend way of thinking. A vote for Romney is a solidly conservative vote for President.

Supporters of other candidates see fit to criticize Romney for a variety of reasons. They do not take the Eleventh Amendment to heart, despite saying they are true Reaganites. Romney is labeled as a RINO- Republican in Name Only. I reject this notion and challenge others to explain to me why this is the case. For starters, labeling someone as a RINO when they don’t conform to individual beliefs and one supports another candidates is an easy, cheap way out of a solid debate. Criticisms of Romney have called out that he supported abortion rights and enacted a statewide healthcare system that is similar to ObamaCare. However, Romney has never outright stated that he was ever pro-choice on the issue of abortion. (for the sake of saving time, please check out how many people get the facts on Romney’s abortion views, and many other social issues, dead wrong at www.WhyRomney.com). God forbid any individual have a change of heart on a topic such as this. Does that make him a RINO? Also, just because Romney was the Governor of a liberal state doesn’t make him liberal.

I’ve listed just a handful of reasons why Romney is the right candidate. If I wrote all of the arguments for him, I’d be writing for weeks (and would missing the early caucuses and primaries!) Critics of Romney claim that his Mormonism will be a hindrance in November; that evangelicals will not vote for him. Seriously? Yes, evangelicals will vote for Romney when the alternative is Obama, a President that evangelicals believe is an “Ungodly” President. And if there are really people in our Republican Party who say they will not vote in the election if Romney is the nominee, then they should either 1) convert to the Democratic Party, 2) break off and form a new Party, or 3) move to another country.

However, our Party is better than that, aren’t we? We will rally behind our Party’s candidate to ensure President Obama’s defeat, won’t we? We will go door to door, and knock; we will put out yard signs; we will phone bank; we will financially support our Party’s candidate. Won’t we?

Then we will welcome President Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney's a square.

He's not hip or cool or hot

He's not tuned in and most certainly not turned on.

He's preppy, uses words like "zany," "gosh" and dreadfully dull.

He's Polo country clubish and soo yesterday.

He's starched, pressed, has perfect hair and doesn’t break a sweat.

He's button down and always buttoned up.

He's cheerily old family, old money and old school tie.

And he's earnestly authentic not exotic, bland, not bombastic.

His critics say he's the candidate of the "Establishment." So?

The "Establishment" authored the Constitution and throughout American history, has given us some of our greatest presidents and statesmen.

 His critics say he's not conservative enough, not a true conservative. So?

By their purist, rigid, litmus test standards, Ronald Reagan wouldn’t make the cut today.

 Right about now, our country could sure use more squares.

With a name like Mitt, he has to be good. I think he is.

Related Articles

“GOP Field of Dreamers: Frontrunner Mitt Romney and Rick...Who?,” (Red County, August 9)

NOTE: Content may not be used without permission of the author. This commentary is also posted on   Redcounty.com.

According to the New York Times:

"Donald J. Trump has withdrawn from the Republican Party to retain the ability to run as an independent candidate in the 2012 presidential election, his political adviser confirmed on Friday. “Mr. Trump did this in order to preserve his legal right to run as an independent if in fact he’s not satisfied with who the Republican candidate is going to be,” said the adviser, Michael Cohen, a Trump Organization executive.

“His core Republican principles haven’t changed at all,” he said. “This was simply to preserve his right to run.”

Mr. Cohen would not say which of the seven Republican candidates would prompt Mr. Trump to enter the race, but Mr. Trump has been openly critical of Representative Ron Paul of Texas and Jon M. Huntsman Jr.

This year, Mr. Trump considered running as a Republican, but abandoned his bid in early May, saying, “Business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”

Mr. Trump may jump back into the game when his NBC television show“The Apprentice”wraps up in June, his adviser said. “Even at that late date,” Mr. Cohen said, “He still will be capable of ensuring that his name is on the ballot in all 50 states.”"

I would suggest that if Mr. Trump does decide to run he's flipped his wig.  This will certainly insure another four years of Obama.

Here's an interesting question:  How do you feel Director of the Georgia EEOC Commission, former Georgia House member and candidate for Labor Commissioner Melvin Everson would do if he ran for Congress against Hank 'I Think Guam Is Tipping Over' Johnson in Georgia's 4th District?

The newly drawn lines put Everson's home in Snellville in the 4th now....And Everson did just go to Washington D.C., where according to his Facebook page, "he made the rounds".  He also stated he flew in the same plane with several members of the Georgia Congressional delegation.  Is "making the rounds" cryptic for testing the Congressional waters? 

Here's an actual copy of the famous newsletters about Martin Luther King that Ron Paul put out with his name on it.  For someone who didn't write it, the word 'I' sure pops up a lot. 

"We know that King was a Marxist and a world-class adulterer....Am I glad I voted in Congress against and expensive federal holiday for this man."

Draw your own conclusions...

WGST in Atlanta is reporting that 'Party Vice Chair Nikema Williams says the Democratic Party has to defend against five lawsuits filed by Republicans.

They're violating Democrats' first amendment rights to name whoever they want to the ballot," Williams tells WGST.

The efforts to remove Obama's name are based on the challengers' view that the president is not a natural born citizen of the U.S.'

In turn, the Democrat Party of Georgia is asking their members to help raise money to keep Obama's name on the Georgia ballot.   Wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish?  If you don't remember, Obama was first elected to the Illinois State Senate by getting all of his opponents disqualified from being on the ballot....Maybe this would work in Virginia, Florida and Ohio too...

So here's an interesting question....Let's say Obama never gets on the Georgia ballot and he wins reelection anyway.  Can we declare ourselves a soveriegn nation and declare Nathan Deal President?
http://www.640wgst.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=122602&article=9539966#ixzz1hJFzsUs4

Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called  a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I'm sick and a 'demeanor' of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won't say:  Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican.  (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman,  Ron Paul couldn't hold Thomas Jefferson's quill pen.)

Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned.  Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs.   He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988. 

Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican.   (More about this race in a little bit....)

In 2008 Paul ran again for President as a member of the Republican party.  He refused to endorse the eventual nominee John McCain, instead stating that he would'offer (his) open endorsement to the four candidates (of the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties and an independent) because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve.'  Those candidates were Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, the last two being somewhere to the left of Karl Marx.  Paul held a conference at a National Press Club Conference on September 10, 2008 with all four of the candidates.  He then told members of the conference that "we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates."  He would later state that he would not endorse a specific candidate because  "due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members . . . and I'm a ten-term Republican congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party."  Eventually Congressman Paul gave a full endorsement to Chuck Baldwin the candidate of the  Constitution Party.  In his endorsement from 2008, Paul stated:

"The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for remaining neutral in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.  It's true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better.� I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."  (Source:  Campaign For Liberty Website.)

Now I know that all of the Ron Paul folks will stand and applaud your hero for his stand against the tyrranical  Republicans, but if he hates us so much, why does he continue to claim to be one?  Don't you think he's hypocritical?

Now back to the Congressional campaign of 1996 as this was the possible nucleas of the dislike that Congressman Paul has against former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  Dr. Paul ran incumbent Greg Laughlin, a former Conservative Democrat who had switched parties in 1995.   Laughlin was endorsed in the primary over Dr. Paul by Speaker Gingrich and then Texas Governor George W. Bush. 

Fast forward now to December 15, 2011 in Sioux City, Iowa.  Fox News Megyn Kelly asks Congressman Paul at the last debate held in Iowa before the Caucuses,

"....You have some bold ideas. Some very fervent supporters and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa. But there are many Republicans inside and outside of this state who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise? And if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?"

Congressman Paul respoonds:

"Well, you know, fortunately for the Republican party this year, probably every — anybody up here could probably beat Obama, so..... So the challenge isn’t all that great on how we’re going to beat Obama. I think he’s beating himself. I think really the question is, is what do we have to offer? And I have something different to offer. I emphasize civil liberties. I emphasize a pro-American foreign policy, which is a lot different than policemen of the world. I emphasize, you know, monetary policy and these things that the other candidates don’t — don’t talk about. But I think the important thing is the philosophy I’m talking about is the Constitution and freedom.

And that brings people together. It brings independents into the fold and it brings Democrats over on some of these issues. So, therefore, I see this philosophy as being very electable, because it’s an America philosophy. It’s the rule of law. And it — it means that, you know, we ought to balance the budget. It opens up the door for saying — supporting my willingness to cut $1 trillion out of the budget the first year."  (Read the complete transcript here.)

Great answer, I do admit....But also only half of the answer to the question asked by Ms. Kelly.  Where's the pledge to support the GOP candidate if the Congressman doesn't win the nomination?  It is not there....It is not there because that pledge will never be there as the Congressman has a slash and burn agenda of continuing to hammer the base of the Republican party then leave it again when his support will be needed to help defeat President Obama.  Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson at least had the decency to bow out of the GOP now and run as a Libertarian.  Congressman Paul should follow suit or endorse Johnson instead of pulling a bait and switch job on voters who don't know any better. 

On a different matter that is now in the national headlines, yesterday CNN's Gloria Borger politely asked Congressman Paul about those now-famous newsletters that I wrote a little about yesterday.  Paul, before abruptly ending the interview,  denied writing them again then even denied that he read them saying, "I didn't write them, I disavow them, that's it."  Really?  He then went on to say "I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written."  So let's take the Congressman at his word.  He put out a newsletter that has his name on it and didn't read the content until a decade later.  Content that is racist that he has now disavowed.  I wonder if he would disavow any of the newsletters stances on ending the Federal Reserve as well?  Well Congressman, how does it feel to be vetted? 

I knew that when I wrote the article "Just What The Doctor Ordered?" I would get fallout from Ron Paul supporters.  Most have been respectful, though sometimes heated.  I gave the Ron Paul camp an equal opportunity and posted a very good article by my friend Valerie Sargent Martin. 

Now comes a young man named David Lee Williams from Savannah, Georgia who writes:

 
"I read your article about Ron Paul. You really, truly are a dumbass. I cannot think of any reason to be respectful to you jerks who extend to dr Paul such a lack of respect. He is obviously more conservative than any of the other candidates, yet morons like you go on about how he is not a "true republican."

Well, sir, you have rewritten what it is to be a "Republican," and you are ANYTHING but Conservative. What you are is a first rate LIAR or just someone who is so fucking STUPID, that you are not worthy of a decent, respectful response.

I SPIT ON YOU, SIR. And I SPIT on your version of the Republican party. And I blame YOU for the problems in this country. May you and the other neo-cons rot in hell one day. After all, it was your road to hell with "good intentions" that has led us here."

Now to say that Mr. Williams is the 'typical' Ron Paul supporter might be easy for me to say, but as I mentioned earlier Valerie Sargent Martin is a very good friend of mine, and I have met others online who are equally as respectful even though we may disagree.  Mr. Williams however, is far from the quality of person that Mrs. Martin is but apparently he has the wit of frustrated neanderthal trying to make love to a coconut for the first time.   Thank you so much for your brilliant commentary Mr. Williams.  I'm sure Dr. Paul would be proud that he has followers like you.