Stone revealed his secret admiration for the Republican presidential hopeful in an interview for this month’s edition of RockCellar Magazine, in which Stone confessed:

There’s no way that we can continue this spending spree. In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate – I’d even vote for him if he was running against Obama – is Ron Paul. Because he’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the simple fact that both Paul and Stone are isolationists who think the United States is wrong every time it uses military force to stop tyranny, torture or oppression in foreign countries.

In fact, later in the interview Stone said:

Why is it necessary for every candidate — except for Ron Paul — to pay obeisance to this hypocrisy that the U.S. is a good force in the world, and that it is the dominant force, and can be the policeman of the world? Since when? What gave us that right?

But many in the mainstream media missed the isolationist connection that Stone and Paul share and instead expressed shock over the fact that Stone is supposed to be a liberal. The Hill reported the story with these little reminders:

Filmmaker Oliver Stone, known for his liberal political views, said he would vote for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul over President Obama should Paul win the Republican nomination.

Stone was a vocal supporter of the president in 2008, and wrote an editorial in the Guardian saying that Obama could be the “heir to John F. Kennedy.”

Stone is also known for embracing some of far-left’s most notorious figures, such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Okay, Chavez and Castro may be the only far-left notorious figures Stone embraced. Let’s not forget his almost apologist portrayal of Adolph Hitler in the 2010 Showtime docudrama that he directed, “America’s Secret History.”

Upon the release of the film, Stone told the Sunday Times in England: “We can’t judge people as only bad or good . . . Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

In a scathing response I penned for FOX News, I wrote:

Under the false pretense of putting Hitler “in context,” what Stone is really saying is that even the good guys like America and Great Britain helped him, which means he couldn’t have been all that bad.

That’s pretty hard to believe since it was the United States and Great Britain that heroically charged the shores of Normandy in 1944 and crushed the Third Reich into pieces, striking so much fear into Hitler’s heart that he abandoned his country, and in one of history’s greatest acts of cowardice, killed himself.

So, Oliver Stone didn’t really see just how evil Adolph Hitler really was. Now check this out:

In December of last year I broke a story on Big Government about a personal conversation I had with Ron Paul in September 2009 when I asked him whether or not he would have sent troops to save the Jews from the Holocaust if he had been president during World War II–even if Nazi Germany presented no threat to the United States.

Paul’s Response was simply, “No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

This doesn’t mean that Paul or Stone are anti-Semitic or sympathetic to the politics of the Third Reich. What it does show however, is that the two share a total disconnect from reality about how dangerous and how incredibly evil the Nazis were.

Obviously, neither one of them see what the overwhelming majority of Americans see, which is that if the United States had not stopped the Nazis when we did it only would have been a matter of time before they threatened the survival of the free world–not to mention the moral imperative of stopping the genocide and torture of what was happening in the death camps.

Ron Paul and Oliver Stone–an isolationist match made in heaven.

After all, how can you go wrong with vampires, super-powered wolves and a drop-dead knockout like Kristen Stewart? Trust me guys, it’s really not that bad. What fascinates me most about “Twilight,” however, is that the very ingredient that makes it so irresistible to young women is what also makes it so dangerous for them.

“Twilight” reinforces an age-old myth perpetuated by Hollywood and the media that young women should identify themselves through their relationships with men instead of figuring out what kind of person they are on their own. Consider the fan culture that “Twilight” has created – the whole concept is really a long-running feud or whether you’re on ‘Team-Edward’ or ‘Team-Jacob.”

Edward is the dark, mysterious guy that Bella becomes obsessed with, and Jacob is the supportive friend who is constantly competing for her attention. Despite how intelligent Bella is, her criteria for romance is flawed because it’s not based on whom she loves, it is based upon which guy she thinks she should be identifying herself through.

What Bella is really trying to decide is whether she should hunt with Edward as a vampire or run alongside Jacob and his wolf pack. It’s never about her own identity; it’s about the guy and the flattery she gets from both men constantly competing for her. That’s not what real life relationships are based on however, and so those kinds of expectations can only lead one place – disappointment.

Unfortunately, young women have a lot of fantasy-based propaganda from Hollywood and the magazine racks to overcome. Our media and entertainment industry involving women revolve mostly around one thing: how to get men to chase after you. Most young people are looking for answers as it is, and for young women, the lure of identifying oneself through a relationship is very tempting.

The sad reality, however, is that it leads to a dangerous place. Hollywood and the media create a false perception that romance and relationships are based upon an exciting, competitive chase with a happy ending, and as a result women are constantly waiting for a fairy tale romance that most men can’t live up to. It also deludes them into thinking a relationship can offer them total happiness.

The result is a culture of young women who have been misled into believing that whenever they feel a void in themselves a relationship is the answer. That’s not true because real fulfillment can only come from within and discovering who you are outside of another human being.

“Twilight” is a great story and a fun literary series that has been transformed into an entertaining set of movies. I’m not saying they’re bad to watch, but they can be dangerous for a young woman to take seriously. In all likelihood, a lot of young women are going to walk out of movie theaters this weekend actually believing there is a real life Edward or Jacob out there for them, and instead of focusing on themselves they will focus their energies on finding “the one.”

But a young, capable, intelligent woman like Bella shouldn’t be spending so much of her time obsessing over another person. She should be focusing on herself and becoming the best she can be on her own. That’s a much healthier message for young women, isn’t it? This isn’t about feminism. It is about individualism, and that’s why I’m on Team Bella even if Hollywood is not – because Bella doesn’t need a guy as badly as she thinks. All she really needs is her own sense of confidence and her own dreams so she can figure out who she is without relying on another person to help identify her.

After all, confidence, determination and desire is what real dreams are made of, and believing in oneself is where real dreams begin – not from a guy or a relationship, and certainly not from Hollywood fantasies.

Instead, he’s simply trying to stop the “Jewish domination of the media,” so that the film industry can put Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “in context,” as an “easy scapegoat,” and “a product of a series of actions,” in his upcoming 10-hour Showtime docudrama, “The Secret History of America.”

This past weekend Stone told the Sunday Times in England: “We can’t judge people as only bad or good . . . Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

Under the false pretense of putting Hitler “in context,” what Stone is really saying is that even the good guys like America and Great Britain helped him, which means he couldn’t have been all that bad.

That’s pretty hard to believe since it was the United States and Great Britain that heroically charged the shores of Germany in 1945 and crushed the Third Reich into pieces, striking so much fear into Hitler’s heart that he abandoned his country, and in one of history’s greatest acts of cowardice, killed himself.

Stone is correct that Hitler did have a lot of support, but it was mainly from the German people during the reign of the Third Reich from 1933-1945.

Despite the pathetic excuses made by historical revisionists, millions of Germans supported their Nazi leaders and the sadistic crimes they committed upon innocent Jews and other poor souls who found themselves and their children working as slaves in concentration camps before they were tortured and killed.

Stone seems to think he can produce his docudrama under the auspices of shedding new light, but he can’t because it’s no secret that the Nazis used Jewish slave labor to work in factories owned by German companies that had American counterparts like Ford Motor Company.

Stone’s misperception of politics and history should come as no surprise, however. On June 28, Stone told ABC “Good Morning America” anchor George Stephanopoulos that he “absolutely” believes Hugo Chavez is a good person, and after he met with Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he said, “Iran isn’t necessarily the bad guy.” Instead, he condemned U.S. policy toward Iran as “horrible.”

In essence, the effect of Stone’s work will be an attempt at vindicating Adolf Hitler, the single worst person in the history of the world. This is because despite the tragedies caused by Mao, Stalin and other dictators, there was never a historical account of any leader or their pathetically weak followers taking sadistic pleasure in the pain, humiliation and torture they inflicted upon their victims. The Nazis didn’t just kill people. They enjoyed it and thrived off the sadness and powerlessness they caused their victims.

By even attempting to rationalize Hitler’s acts as merely economical or strategic, Stone runs the risk of legitimizing genocide, slave labor and torture. One can’t help but wonder what the emotional driving force is for Stone to do such a thing. Is it really a noble attempt to explain history or just a streak of anti-Semitic vindictiveness designed to disempower Jews in America?

Perhaps this quote from his Times interview sheds some light:

“The Jewish domination of the media,” Stone professed, “there’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***ed up United States foreign policy for years.”

Apparently, Oliver Stone has forgotten that it was Israel that remained America’s only loyal ally in the Middle East throughout the harsh decades of the cold war with the Soviet Union. He also forgets that many of the Jews that are in Washington today are elected officials to Congress that the American people democratically elected. Unlike Adolf Hitler, our Jewish congressional representatives never coerced anyone to vote for them.

Nazism is alive even today in both America and Germany. In fact, the Simon Wiesenthal Center still makes efforts to hunt down Nazi war criminals, but has a difficult time getting cooperation from the countries in which they are hiding. The operation’s chief Nazi hunter, Efraim Zuroff, wrote in his recent book, “Operation Last Chance,” that there has been a growing ambivalence about Holocaust crimes, a morally flawed position that those cowardly, sick acts happened a long time ago and should be forgotten, and that prosecution at this time serves no purpose.

Those countries are wrong. Prosecution of war criminals or of any criminal always serves a purpose – justice.

Oliver Stone’s new series will only further encourage the growing ambivalence many people already have about Holocaust crimes and empower Fourth Reich Nazis who are trying to reignite the anti-Semitism that once flourished throughout Europe.

Anytime anyone makes excuses for the Nazis, they are empowering evil. Oliver Stone’s self-declared attempt at putting Hitler “in context” is a veiled anti-Semitic strike against Holocaust survivors and Jews just as his praise for America’s enemies like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are veiled strikes against the United States.

Oliver Stone is dead wrong. We can judge people as either all bad or good, and Adolf Hitler was bad – as is Oliver Stone and anyone else who distorts the truth to vindicate evil.

One week ago today, on Monday, July 12 we learned that Switzerland would not extradite director Roman Polanski back to the United States to face sentencing for a crime he has already pleaded guilty to – having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year old girl after he drugged her in 1977.

Most Americans know the story.

The Oscar winning director of “Chinatown,” “The Pianist,” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” was accused of luring the girl to Jack Nicholson’s house while the actor was out of town under the guide of having a modeling shoot with the child. Once the girl arrived, Polanski allegedly gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude, and then had sexual intercourse with her.

Some Americans have argued that the crime happened so long ago that prosecutors should simply move on.

Actress Whoopi Goldberg once insinuated what Polanski did may not fit the legal definition of rape in some countries – which actually turned out to be inaccurate.

Others have suggested that because Polanski’s mother was killed in a Nazi concentration camp and his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson’s cult he should be shown compassion.

All of those people are wrong though.

What Roman Polanski did was a cruel, disturbing, selfish act that tormented the life of a young girl and has haunted her throughout her womanhood.

A possible victim of Stockholm Syndrome or perhaps just emotionally exhausted, the victim herself has recently withdrawn her long standing adamant requests to see Polanski sentenced, and now says she just wants the case to go away so she can put it behind her.

Certainly, she deserves compassion and respect. But if we put this case behind us without seeing justice done then it’s only a sending a message to other sexual predators, celebrities and wealthy people who commit crimes that justice delayed is justice denied.

For decades the Swiss have helped people evade justice under the pretense they are neutral. They are not neutral.

They illegally shielded money the Nazis stole from the Jews during the Holocaust. It is widely known they help people who hide money they’ve stolen from fraudulent transactions, and in this case, they are an accessory after the fact in helping Polanski evade justice for raping a child.

Switzerland is evil.

Their policies of so-called neutrality are evil and they are cowardly. I can’t think of anything more cowardly than hiding behind the guise of neutrality when a crime has been committed against an innocent person or people. There is no gray. There is good and there is evil. It is in fact black and white.

As a former prosecutor who now selectively practices criminal defense, I often hear other criminal defense lawyers justify their actions when they represent defendants who are guilty of violent crimes – something I won’t do. They say that they do it for the system, that everyone deserves a good defense and that they’re not the ones who committed the crime.

But anyone with a moral conscience knows those are all pathetic excuses. Anytime anyone uses their own power to shield evil – or refuses to use the power they have to stop it, they are committing an act of evil themselves.

When someone makes an innocent person suffer they deserve to suffer themselves through the civil system of justice we have created. Without consequences, a message is sent to the perpetrator and other would-be perpetrators that it’s okay to hurt someone again.

Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand once wrote that, “Whenever good and evil compromise, evil always wins.” She was right. In this case, Switzerland has compromised their morality and responsibility to the global community to extradite a convicted child rapist.

Evil has won.

On the eve of Michael Jackson’s death, I penned a column for FOX News in Michael Jackson’s defense arguing that he should be remembered for all his charitable accomplishments as opposed to the unproved accusations against him.

“Sure, Jackson was prosecuted twice, and although this reporter can’t acquit him of any charges, he was never convicted of a single crime,” I wrote. “He certainly didn’t deserve the tabloid innuendos that only fueled a toxic fire that was burning his reputation to a cinder in the court of public opinion.”

I stand by that statement, but there’s a difference between tabloid innuendos and facts, and to my surprise it turns out that although the most damning evidence against Jackson is indisputable, Hollywood and the media have paid little attention to it.

Even last week when the FBI released their own files on Jackson, including one report about a pair of Mexican boys that he may have molested in the 1980’s and a British boy who Jackson allegedly had phone sex with in 1979, it made little impact.

I was never a Michael Jackson fan, but I cheered in 2005 when he was acquitted on child molestation charges because his defense lawyer made a convincing argument that he was framed. I assumed that because the alleged victim’s mother seemed extortive, that her story and her son’s story were both lies.

I also convinced myself of what many others had, which is that Michael Jackson was just a strange guy who loved kids and didn’t want to hurt them.

There’s a darker side however, that cannot and should not be ignored even if Hollywood refuses to believe it. I learned about that dark side when I finally investigated the sexual abuse allegations in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death for a national news network earlier this year.

The first thing I discovered was a story reported by journalists Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner in their New York Times bestseller, Hollywood Interrupted, an investigative exposé of the entertainment community in Los Angeles.

Apparently, Jackson had a mysterious relationship with Frederick Mark Schaffel, a controversial gay pornographer who had a history of making films with young adult males over in Europe. When Schaffel wasn’t producing gay porn movies however, he had another job here in America – he was Michael Jackson’s personal videographer at Neverland.

When Jackson allegedly first ‘learned’ about Schaffel’s background, he immediately fired the pornographer and issued a public apology that pledged Schaffel would no longer be associating with him. However, a couple of years later Schaffel was allowed to return, and in 2005 he was named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in Jackson’s sexual molestation case.

Despite this stunning, contradictory display of hypocrisy, the media never probed into why Michael Jackson hired a gay pornographer – fired him – and then rehired him to film children who were visiting his ranch or why the celebrity superstar was paying such absurd amounts of money to him.

During the 2005 trial it was revealed that Schaffel had apparently signed two checks in the amounts of $500,000 and $1 million to an account that he and Jackson were the only signatories. Schaffel also alleged that Jackson owed him another $3 million for “producing fees.”

No one knows what that money was actually for, but Breitbart and Ebner obtained a source in the Los Angeles pornography world who said that Schaffel, as the authors put it “had a predilection for young-looking performers, preferably straight, who he would recruit in Eastern European countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic for both his personal and professional pleasure.”

Later, I located a source of my own in Hollywood’s gay community who knew Schaffel, and he confirmed that Schaffel had a very suspicious reputation in connection with the films he produced.

The next revelation came while researching the original 1993 sexual abuse accusations made by Jordan Chandler. To my surprise, Chandler wasn’t the only boy whose silence Jackson bought. After Jackson settled with the Chandler’s in 1995 for an estimated $15 million he paid $2 million to another boy named Jason Francia in 1996. Francia’s mother worked at Neverland as a maid from 1987-1991.

All of this time, I had thought Jackson had only settled with one alleged victim, but apparently he had actually settled with two. That also meant that there weren’t only two boys who had accused Jackson of sexual abuse, there were three – Jordan Chandler, Jason Francis and Gavin Arvizo. The recently released FBI files indicate there could be more.

The next day, I found hundreds of blogs reporting that Jordan Chandler admitted he lied and wanted to issue a public apology to Michael Jackson. The story was even reported by an online European news site and for a short time on Wikipedia as well. Apparently, Jackson’s fans weren’t above fabricating lies to clear their hero’s name.

After persistent attempts to contact Chandler’s family to confirm or deny that rumor, I finally reached Jordan’s uncle at his Santa Barbara law office.

“Jordan never recanted any of the allegations he made against Michael Jackson because they are all true,” Ray Chandler told me during a telephone interview. “You know,” he added, “from the very beginning this has been a nightmare for Jordan and the entire Chandler family. Hopefully, now that Jackson has passed away, this will be closure for Jordan – may Michael rest in peace.”

Later, I learned that when both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo were asked to describe Jackson’s genitalia to law enforcement officials the two boys both gave accurate descriptions. I also read that when the LAPD served their original warrant on Neverland in 1993, police found children’s games and books in Jackson’s bedroom along with pictorial books featuring photographs of naked boys. Police said that it was common to find children’s books and toys in pedophiles bedrooms because they help lure innocent children.

What really interested police however, was a special indoor alarm – the only one of its kind in the entire Neverland ranch – connected to Jackson’s bedroom hallway to alert him if someone was approaching his door.  One veteran LAPD detective who investigated nearly 4,000 sexual abuse cases said he believed the alarm was installed because Jackson was doing something in his bedroom he didn’t want anyone to know anything about.

Finally, I learned from Ray Chandler that when Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan, confronted Jackson face to face about sexually molesting his son, the singer reportedly didn’t take offense to the stinging accusation or even deny it. He simply smiled and in a soft, childlike tone and said, “I didn’t do anything wrong.”

In other words, Jackson never denied he had sex with the 10-year old – he just didn’t believe he did anything wrong. There’s a big difference between the two.

These stories are not tabloid tales based on flimsy sources, but rather true facts, most of which Jackson brought upon himself by paying off his accusers and permitting sexual deviants to have access to the children he invited to his home. Still, the media hasn’t breathed a word of any of this since the pop-star passed away.

Instead, Democratic Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee reminded the nation during Jackson’s funeral service that everyone is always innocent until proven guilty. But anyone who is honest knows that just because someone isn’t proven guilty in court does not mean they’re innocent in the real world. If that were true, then O.J. Simpson would be innocent too.

Back in July when I listened to Lee tell her audience that she was proposing a Congressional resolution that would name Jackson as a “great humanitarian,” I wondered how his alleged victims – and any other victim of child molestation felt at that moment. Perhaps in the midst of showing our reverence for Michael Jackson, I thought we should all take a moment of silence to show our consideration for them too.

Michael Jackson copped a plea in Hollywood’s court of public opinion that he was just an unusual guy who never grew up and loved kids and as the judge and jury many of us accepted that plea because we didn’t want to believe the alternative. I ended my original l column by saying that, “Michael Jackson deserves an accurate place in history.”

I stand by that statement.

Saturday night, Brian Oxman, former attorney to Michael Jackson told me that News of the World will report on Sunday that Debbie Rowe made claims just before Michael Jackson’s passing that he was not the father of her children and that she has made similar claims in the past.

Oxman explained that if Rowe has in fact made these claims that she is in violation of a confidentiality clause in an agreement that she signed which stated she would never talk about this issue.

“The contract says she would hold the birth of the children, the lineage, their parenting and how they were taken care of in confidence and not be disclosed in public to anyone,” said Oxman. “That agreement survives the death of Jackson. In other words, she’s still bound to keep all of these things confidential even though he’s passed away.”

Oxman, who handled the custody dispute between Jackson and Rowe said that Rowe has made conflicting statements about the lineage of her children.

“At one point she would say that Michael was the father, the next time she would say he was not the father. The number of contradictory statements coming from her was incomprehensible. I’d say Debbie, tell me straight is he the father and she’d say, yes he’s the father, and the next time she was upset she’d be yelling and screaming, he’s not the father!”

Oxman said Jackson’s story was always consistent, but to his knowledge DNA tests have never been done on the children.

“Michael always said he was the father,” Oxman said. “He never wavered at all on this issue.”

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a Washington, D.C. based investigative reporter and lawyer. He can be reached at jshapiro@ufl.edu.