The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

Ron Paul wont have to destroy our country. Its limiting ideas like yours that will continue to let corrupt politicians rule until there is nothing left but a shell of a country. Ron Paul is the farthest thing from a racsist. He believes everyone should be looked at the same. People should be responsible for themselves. We have created a society that is dependant upon government to do everything for them and that idea of entitlement is only getting stronger. Especially with our MTV youth and us first type of attitude. Our economy is on the virge of collapse and he is the only one talking about it. The media is limiting his time because his ideas are polarizing to their tied agendas with corporate identities. Your blogs wont make a difference because he wont get elected anyway. We have been brainwashed for the last 100 years by media to never step away from their strait and narrow set of ideas. Otherwise your not a true American. I just started supporting Ron Paul recently. Not because I am a crazy computer geek that lives in my mothers basement (although I have spent more time on the computer lately following his candidacy), but because I have never heard anyone be more open and honest with the American public. Your limiting views on who he is only perpetuate your shrinking understanding of what is going on. America is not ready for its true freedom.

You guys don't get it if you think Ron Paul is a threat to anyone's liberties. He is most definitely not for a ban on anyone's marriage. He in fact said it's not a matter for government, it's a matter for a church. He is most definitely not a racist. The honest to God truth is, you are either wrong or a lier.

I urge you to look at his interview on Bill Moyer's last night here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejoIItxUXTI&feature=user
and part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcO9tRDg4NI&feature=user

Guilt by association is an old political smear tactic.

I think you are missing the point about libertarian Constitutionalists. Pau is not trying to cram his opinion on abortion, religion, education, marriage, race, and gays. He supports the Constitution. These are all NOT properly federal functions but functions of the state governments. So Ron Paul would not be involved with any of these issues at the federal level. Finally, he thinks about people as individuals and not as members of groups. I believe he respects ALL people with individual rights better than any other candidate. He voted against the Patriot act for gosh sakes!

Just because someone likes Ron Paul's views on freedom DOES not mean Ron Paul likes their views on race! Remember that not everyone in San Francisco thinks the same way but they are associated with each other! Some idiots in the rest of the country think that everyone living in California is completely weird, not exactly the case, but it is guilt by association.

When a 'writer' makes false statements the readers are justified in believing that he has an agenda other than the truth. So easy to make statements - but where is the proof. Steven, are you a writer or a propagandist? So far, propagandist wins big time.

You said:
"In addition to pretending he's against all government" - FALSE. Ron Paul is for the proper role of government - he is not against all government. You're actually FALSE twice here, Steven - Ron Paul is not 'pretending' either.

"...he's for outlawing abortion..." - FALSE. Ron Paul supports removing any control of the issue from the Federal government and supports the rights of individual states to rule on it.

"...and supports the continued ban on same-sex marriage." - FALSE. Ron Paul views same-sex marriage as a religious issue. He believes no laws should be passed for or against it.

Please state the facts. Making false statements is irresponsible.

The root of the Ron Paul revolution is the constitution and the recognition of the natural rights of the individual to be free from government coercion.

His number one priority is reducing our military presence and interventionist policies abroad as the first step to restore a sound American economy. The value of the dollar is plummeting and we are quickly approaching financial collapse due to reckless spending and empire building.

Ron Paul is for removing the federal government from involvement in the abortion debate. Abortion is a complex and divisive issue and therefore should be handled at the local/state level.

Ron Paul has never advocated that creationism should be taught in school. Ron Paul believes the federal government has no business deciding school curriculum, this should be decided by parents and teachers.

White supremacists hardly make credible sources. Maybe you should do a little research of your own before you write.

I'm glad Bill White got that dark secret off his chest. I bet it was burning a hole in his soul. How long has he carried this burden?

Apparently, Ron Paul hurt Bill White's feelings somehow. The only thing dumber than a nazi conspirator uncovering another nazi conspirator is that, apparently, someone actually believed this libel.

A few falsehoods: Ron Paul did not write the bit about blacks in DC; one of his employees, who was promptly fired, did. He also never met with white supremacists. The piece about secret meetings was a contrivance that got published on DailyKos and, through the magic of the internets, was reproduced in countless places by folks who didn't verify its authenticity.

Regarding Ron Paul's federalism, you are equivocating on his anti-government stance. He is against giving power to the federal government that he believes should be given to the states. His formula is straightforward; the more complicated the problem, the more locally it needs to be resolved. Hence, is is against Roe v Wade because it says that states can't decide on their own to criminalize abortion. Overturning Roe does *not* mean abortions would be illegal everywhere. Rather, the decision would be made locally.

Regarding marriage, Ron Paul thinks that the state should be out of the marriage business; the event should be left to churches where it originated. He voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He initiated legislation to protect a state that is against gay marriage from a state that is pro gay marriage; that's because federal law prohibits one state from failing to recognize a marriage that another state creates. I suspect Paul would be in favor of reversing that federal regulation, such that gay marriage would be fine if the voters of one state decide it's legal. For his views, the HRC gives Ron Paul neither a good nor bad rating on gay issues; he is given a "mixed" rating.

Regarding being against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ron Paul, being a good libertarian republican, doesn't like the stipulations regarding the federal government's interference with private property and business. Paul thinks the government should keep its nose out of that sort of thing. For this reason, the NAACP gives him a "mixed" rating on his voting record regarding race.

Regarding voting, Ron Paul indicated that the voting rights act was needed when it was passed; I suspect he would have voted for it, but he thinks it is unnecessary now. For his civil liberties voting, the ACLU gives him a "mixed" record.

Regarding his anti-nanny-state policies, like dismantling the vastly wasteful and inefficient dept of education, it is false that such a stance is "far right". Reagan was far from far right, and it was part of his original platform.

Bill White is a notorious liar and Kook, even amongst far-right circles. I believe that Ron Paul is a racist. He's anti-immigrant: he wants to close the borders completely. He's against birthright citizenship-a concept coming from his beloved Constitution-that says anyone born in this country is a citizen of this country. He's against granting student visas to students from "terrorist countries". How he decides which countries are "terrorist" countries is beyond me. And then to over-generalize that all students from these countries (some of whom might be applying for college here to getaway from repressive regimes [little do they know] seems to be against his ideas of freedom. And then there are the quotes abour blacks in DC.

On the other hand, i don't believe that Dr. Paul met with any of these groups because they don't meet with each other. Some of the groups in the list he mentions don't like each other, and others feel that it would not appropriate to call a meeting between suit-and-tie nazis and the streets thugs. Also they would not me at a Thai restaurant, but at a American or European restaurant.

Bill White is an attention seeking liar who's despised by most of his own ilk. That whole story has been proven to be a fabrication. The New York Times retracted a story about it and came within a hair of apologizing.

He didn't write the campaign literature you cited. He took moral responsibility for it and denouced it. That is really old regurgitated non-news by the way.

The Department of Ed is not a social program it's a government beuraucracy that was created in 1980 in order allow the heavy hand of the Feds into your local public school. Maybe your for absitinance sex ed and no child left behind. Publics school were here before the DoE and they'll be here when it's gone.

Good luck collecting your social security.

Advances like single payer health care? Advances? Advances?

He's for letting the individual states deal with abortion, same as SS marriage.

"He's also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools. "

That's patently false. You should at least attempt to support some of your statements with an occasional fact. Paul's religious but you never (and I mean never) see him pander.

It looks like you're repeating echo chamber blogsphere non-sense. Please go to Ron Paul's site and read the reasons behind some of his views. You athiests are suppose to be intellectually superior to use lowly believers. Your letting your own crowd down. Shape up!

He isn't anti-immegration because he hates mexicans. You need to see his own words again: Article and the video of the interview here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3985423&page=1 John Stossel Rejecting the Birthright Law Paul also objects to the so-called birthright law, which grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in this country. "I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose, and get on the welfare rolls," he said. But, I asked, isn't that a right spelled out in the U.S. Constitution? The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Paul thinks we're getting the Constitution wrong.

Nice slanderous hit piece Mr. Argue.
Next time try doing a little more research than what appears at the end of your nose.

Both Bill White and the "racist Ron Paul" stories have been refuted many times over in the last 3 months. I guess people will see what they want to see, and the truth be damned? Ron Paul is a danger to all white/black/asian/latino/whatever racist groups, because he truly believes all people should be accepted or rejected on their merits alone. True racists are the people who perpetuate groupthink and group policy based on race. A Ron Paul presidency would marginalize voices that speak from race;looking for handouts or sanctions for or against people based on race would come to an end. I'm tired of the government taking my taxes and spending them on petty bullshit, aren't you?

On the bright side, most people have already found this out, so you just end up looking like the yellow "journalist" you truly are.

Why stop at health care? Why shouldn't cable be free as well as all communications? The government should definitely provide a car to everyone so they can get to work.

But when I say the government, we know it is your and my taxes that will be redistributed.
Exactly what is the governments role in this country.

When people such as yourself want expand the scope of government and protect big gov programs, I'm sure your heart is probably in the right place. It is your head that I am concerned with.

We have a $9 TRILLION national debt. Are you willing to pay the $30,000.00 that each citizen owes to pay that back or are you okay with transferring that to our children and grandchildren?
So if Dr. Paul is asking the country to travel down a new road and take some personal responsibility for your life, he does so because he cares about the next generations.

Let's ask a couple of questions:

1. Has medical care improved since HMO's have appeared on the scene?
2. Are hospitals closing due to rising costs?
3. Are doctors choosing other professions because of too much risk vs. less and less reward?
4. Does socialized medicine work...anywhere?

I don't have health care either. I have catastrophic insurance for my family. When we need to go to a doctor, my wife calls around and asks for cash prices on services. Guess what? Doctor's will discount services 50 to 70% for cash buyers. Why would they do that? They say that it is much easier for them to work with cash buyers. They don't have to send 5 requests for payment, to then to finally reach someone at the HMO who negotiates the bill down at least 50%.

Now if I was to participate in my company sponsered program, I would have the honor of paying $785.00 per month for my family of 5. NO THANKS.

By the way, since WE started paying for the Department of Education 30 years ago, has education improved? If you are honest, you are saying no right now.

More government does not solve problems...it makes the problems bigger.

Are poor people better off in socialist countries? That would be hell no.

Take a minute, and look at Dr. Paul's views more thoroughly and I think you will find they make a lot of sense.

Please take a little time to understand the different levels of government, and why Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands for bring the power back to the people, unlike the democrats and current republicans who just want to take power away from the people. If you don't like Ron Paul, then chances are you just don't understand him.

First and foremost, the racial charges are just crazy and unfounded. Ron Paul sees only individuals, not groups of people. People who only see people as belonging to certain groups, minority or otherwise are part of the racial problem as those people just look to seperate people more and more into these groups.

Now then, let me direct you to the 9th and 10 amendments in our bill of rights. These 2 amendments are the rights to a limited government. The constitution does not tell congress what it can't do, it tells congress what the only jobs it is to do is. It's job is to protect our rights, not to do anything it wants so long as it doesn't infringe on those rights, or more importantly anything it can get away with. The federal government of today is doing the exact opposite of it's purpose and job, that is a problem. Rather than being a force that stands up for rights, it is one that takes them away, and takes the power away from the people.

And lets examine the power to the people thought. You see, there are many different levels of government. If Ron Paul is against it on a federal level, you are lieing and manipulating things to say he is against these all together. Because what he is saying is this isn't the job of the federal government, these issues should be controlled on a state and federal level where you the voter has more power. Power to the people.

Think about it. In a federal election how much power does your 1 vote carry? 1 in a 100 million or so? Not very much, lottery odds. But, when you get down to the smaller branches of government it has alot more weight. In a state election, you only have to vote with people in your state, so you can figure 1 in 1 million or so. That means your 1 vote carries a higher % of the overall vote, which in turn means you have more power over your life. The further down you get, the more power you have. On your local elections, you have an even higher % of the overall vote, which means you have much more say in what happens in your community, in your life without giving someone like GWB a huge amount of power.

Furthermore, the more local elections are more frequent. This allows you the citizen to make changes faster. This is by design to give the power to the people. Higher % of the vote, vote more often = you have more power over your life.

But there is more believe it or not. If you have a federal program for education, then the entire country is stuck with 1 program. That means the entire country is made to suffer through someone like GWB who is elected on totally different issues. Do you really want 1 person to have so much power over your childrens education? Even if you get someone you like, it's only 1 election away before it gets changed. As you have given up the 10th amendment right, you have given this power to anyone who gets elected, no matter if you agree or not. And GWB has been a prime example of just why we don't need 1 person with so much power.

However if you move education down just 1 level, back down to the state governments. Suddenly you have 50 programs. Along with the bonuses I mentioned before with your % of vote, 50 state programs allows for new ideas to be tried more frequenty, and if 1 state does something stupid, it's only the 1 state that suffers. Meanwhile with so many programs, each state is then free to take up the good things from other states programs. Something works in California, other states can pick up. Old Arnold does something stupid, other states don't do it. And this is only if you take it down 1 level. If you take it down even further and put it on local levels, instead of 50 programs, you get literally 1000's of programs, each working to be the best. This is the same system that made the US #1 in all categories of measure.

As well, with all this on a federal level, the schools now answer to DC, rather than the parents. Put control back on a local level, and then the schools will once again answer to the parents. And each community is free to do things the way they want etc. It's great and allows for the most avenues of improvement when you think about it.

And this is what Ron Paul stands for. He is a doctor, not a lawyer like the rest. And someone who would do medical work for free rather than take medicare etc. A true man of principle who really and truly cares about other people. This election is a once in a lifetime opportunity, so I hope we can drop this petty baseless namecalling and start to look at real solutions to our problems, rather than attacking people and manipulating things as best we can to get votes.

I support Ron Paul because I care. Because I understand that the best solution is given the power back to the people, not to take them away. Because I feel I am the one who can make the best choices for my family, not some lawyer who worked the media and system to get elected.

/wave from the other side of the hill, hope this weather clears up soon.

If you care about civil liberties, if you want to really end the war, Ron Paul is no threat at all -- he's our only hope.

The "ties" to racists are simple guilt by association -- Ron Paul has consistently spoken out for liberty for all, regardless of race. Some unsavory people support him because he is opposed to the Federal Reserve and a powerful central government that does more than the Constitution permits.

Go to RonPaulLibrary.org to read Ron Paul's incredible writings for yourself. He is a true statesman.

what a foolish article. i can hardly see a bit of truth in it.

> Yet on the far right, anti-war Libertarian and Republican Ron Paul gained a stunning 10% of the vote.

Ron Paul is not "far right"; he is simply Constitutional - which is the law of the land - in other words, he is the only non-criminal/non-traitor running ...

> At the root of the Ron Paul "revolution" is the dismantling of Social Security

Social Security is empty - it doesn't exist - where have you been? furthermore, what makes you think that using force to steal peoples money to pay bureaucrats to manage your money leaves anyone with more money for retirement???

> ... and the Department of Education as well as other basic social programs

tell someone what the DoE ever did for anyone, other than making them dumber and more ignorant??? what makes centralized control of the minds of children a positive thing? where is the federal govt granted the power to create this department???

> ... and the elimination of worker and environmental protections.

and what kind of job does the govt do at these things? i can guarantee you they don't give a damn about "worker/environmental protections" - there's hardly a river/lake that isn't poisoned, i personally had asbestos rain on me in a federal office building for 10 years - and THEY DONT CARE - this is all NONSENSE! the real danger is in thinking you are protected as you act irresponsible for your own well-being.

> No way. Ron Paul's message is that you need to take care of yourself

WOW - HOW SCARY!!! YOU HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!!! AHHH!!! what are you? a child? a baby? an infant???

> and that there shouldn't be such government programs

govt programs skim 75% off the top, using only 25% of stolen funds towards aid for people. HOW IS THAT PROSPEROUS/USEFUL?

> nor such interference with private profit.

what you don't seem to understand is that regulations PROTECT BIG CORPORATIONS - and elimination of over-regulation favors the entrepeneur.

> In addition to pretending he's against all government

this is total rubbish - Ron Paul is for Constitutional govt, aka, LAWFUL GOVT. he is against people like you that think you have a right to steal from others. crook.

> he is for outlawing abortion

LIAR - he is for states rights on this issue - it isn't within federal jurisdiction.

> supports the continued ban on same-sex marriage

LIAR - marriage is NOT THE BUSINESS OF GOVT - it is the business of religion - and Ron Paul is not against the marriage of anyone. you can marry your dog if you like.

> He is also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools.

LIAR - he is AGAINST having the feds control what is taught in schools. and if you think there is science to support evolution, your very uneducated, very ignorant.

this article is total rubbish - total nonsense - written by someone with very little knowledge and understanding of govt/rights/etc. someone that is a racist, yet accuses those who want liberty for all racist. a product of the department of education (i can only assume as much).

Sorry Steven, but it seems that you're confused.
About 8 minutes in to this interview he debunks your article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReGxVBWMBYA

The rabid hate that you displayed for Ron Paul truly is extreme. It has no basis in reality, so there is no point responding to these petty attacks. I just want you to consider, for your own personal edification, why you feel such personal disgust for Ron Paul. No doubt you are projecting hatred that you secret for someone close to you who hurt you badly.

It is letting these highly personal and irrational emotions creep into our political discourse that is extreme. They not only get us nowhere, but actually set us back. Ron Paul offers nothing but openness, consistency, and carefully reasoned arguments that you can either accept or reject. Let's actually discuss the issues instead of faking character assasinations on the slimmest of hearsay evidence, shall we?

A few falsehoods: Ron Paul did not write the bit about blacks in DC; one of his employees, who was promptly fired, did. He also never met with white supremacists. The piece about secret meetings was a contrivance that got published on DailyKos and, through the magic of the internets, was reproduced in countless places by folks who didn't verify its authenticity.

Regarding Ron Paul's federalism, you are equivocating on his anti-government stance. He is against giving power to the federal government that he believes should be given to the states. His formula is straightforward; the more complicated the problem, the more locally it needs to be resolved. Hence, is is against Roe v Wade because it says that states can't decide on their own to criminalize abortion. Overturning Roe does *not* mean abortions would be illegal everywhere. Rather, the decision would be made locally.

Regarding marriage, Ron Paul thinks that the state should be out of the marriage business; the event should be left to churches where it originated. He voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He initiated legislation to protect a state that is against gay marriage from a state that is pro gay marriage; that's because federal law prohibits one state from failing to recognize a marriage that another state creates. I suspect Paul would be in favor of reversing that federal regulation, such that gay marriage would be fine if the voters of one state decide it's legal. For his views, the HRC gives Ron Paul neither a good nor bad rating on gay issues; he is given a "mixed" rating.

Regarding being against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ron Paul, being a good libertarian republican, doesn't like the stipulations regarding the federal government's interference with private property and business. Paul thinks the government should keep its nose out of that sort of thing. For this reason, the NAACP gives him a "mixed" rating on his voting record regarding race.

Regarding voting, Ron Paul indicated that the voting rights act was needed when it was passed; I suspect he would have voted for it, but he thinks it is unnecessary now. For his civil liberties voting, the ACLU gives him a "mixed" record.

Regarding his anti-nanny-state policies, like dismantling the vastly wasteful and inefficient dept of education, it is false that such a stance is "far right". Reagan was far from far right, and it was part of his original platform.

Steven,
This is terrible journalism.

I will remind you of the similiarities in your fabrication and twisting of facts to that of certain news networks. News networks that you, presumably, despise. The means justify the ends. The extreme left and the extreme right aren't all that different you know. Steven, I hope you look very critically at what you've done and what your doing.

Pathetic.

I know it's difficult to grasp Ron Paul's views, if you're a socialist, but you need to do better research. What you've published is old "news" and has since been retracted and debunked.

Sorry.

The author of this unfounded, truth-distorting article clearly has a pro-democrat agenda that is threatened by the purity and clarity of Ron Paul's Revolution. Mr. Argue, why don't you list your sources, they will be shown to be fabrications or have been demonstrated to contain falsities weeks or months ago. You can resort to distorting the truth to smear Dr. Paul, but your big government alternatives will never be free of special interest group influence. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT.

This article is complete bias and no real facts.

Anyone who actually does research or understands the concepts of libertarian ethics understands (and Ron Paul has stated) repeatedly that his personal views have no basis in the political arena and that it is not for his or the federal governments role to interfere in state governments right to decide for their own community.

On the same note, he is not against social programs and welfare, instead is against FEDERAL social programs and welfare. States would be free to keep or institute whatever programs as they saw fit, as it should be.

Claiming that he is a racist because someone else says so is ignorant and wrong. Please grow up and learn how research articles using independent/unbiased resources.

This article was poorly done and reflects negatively on the entirety of Indybay. I'm surprised they allow such trash.

If you want to be taken seriously then check your facts. Bill White's claims have been debunked. He is a pariah in his own circle of Nazis who is chronically looking for attention.

Why you would choose to believe without confirmation anything a self-described white supremacist says I can't understand. That you posted this says more about you than Ron Paul.

This article is exactly what I would expect from someone who would say, and I quote, "Ron Paul's message is that you need to take care of yourself" in the context that it's a bad thing. As if believing in individual responsibility and self reliance is some sort of absurd extreme concept.
Someone with their hand as far out as yours is, STEVEN ARGUE, could only be expected to be frightened by real liberty and resort to such deplorable and slanderous means. I only hope some sane democrat gets a hold of you and explains what America is really about, REAL FREEDOM.
Then you would quickly understand the reason to cross party lines to vote for Paul. Fortunately your lies and distortion of the truth will not affect anyone who has heard and understood the message that Ron Paul is spreading.
Mr. Steven Argue,
Please read some of the "Freedom Documents" from our founding fathers. Let me first recommend the declaration of independence, then try some Adams and some Franklin... Oh yeah don't forget to check out our constitution. America was never intended to be the lazy welfare state that you dream of. While you’re at it grab a bible and study the teachings of Jesus Christ. Maybe when you understand the basic concept of being a truly humble Godly person, maybe when you realize that forcefully taking from one person, to give to another that has not earned, is just wrong! I don't care how evil, greedy and Godless a person is, it does not give you or anyone the right to steal from them. When you see that two wrongs DON'T make a right, you will get what our very rare and special constitutional government is supposed to be all about.
Real Freedom and individual responsibility breed prosperity for ALL. When people can keep the fruit of their labor then we ALL have more, and there are less "unfortunate people" and more general prosperity in the hands of the virtuous and generous folks in society to help those that need it. You will see, for nearly 100 years America has been slowly drifting away from real freedom and is getting closer and closer to paying the ultimate price. We are headed into uncharted territory in American economics and will be lucky to avoid a period of mass poverty in this country if everyone doesn't start hearing the message of the r3VOlution.
Lastly, as far as Paul being racist... Your blatant lies are just wrong. Try viewing Paul’s interview with Bill Moyer that aired yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-epeXDBLXsA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReGxVBWMBYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBuvhbZh0ns
at about 8 minutes into clip#2 Paul explains how a libertarian minded individual is an anti-racist. Ron Paul is the least racist person running.
Steven you should also read some MLK. The greatest civil rights leaders of American history understood that it is all about God given "individual" rights and not about group rights.

The New York Times originally ran the Bill White accusation story but had to offer a retraction upon investigating further. Apparently Bill White and his "organization" is actually a straw-man front group for a pro-Israel defense lobby that's upset with Paul's promise to yank foriegn aid payments accross the board. Sometimes, I guess, it helps to have friends in low places :-)

Despite outward appearances in some of Paul's House votes on race-based legislation, the congressman is unique in voting against anything and everything not expressly allowed by the US Constitution. He voted against the awarding of Congressional Medals for Mother Theresa and Rosa Parks even though he has said that both are heroes to him. It was an unconstitutional expenditure.

A further oft-repeated charge of ugly racial tone relates to a ghostwriter's insensitive remarks in Ron Paul's newsletter some years back. Paul fired him, saying the remarks were particularly hurtful because they were disrespectful to members of the Congressional Black Caucus that Paul had grown to admire and had worked with on bills of mutual interest. Yet the remarks exist for any writer to use, no matter how many times the truth of the matter is told.

Both neoconservative and progressive writers have had their go at painting Paul as a bigot, sometimes in ignorance but often with full knowledge of the facts. Fortunately not all minorities buy into it. Among this year's Republican crop, at least one survey has shown Ron Paul to be most favored by African-American voters.

There is plenty about which progressives can be legitimately alarmed in Paul's philosophy of minimalist government without trying to besmirch his character. Paul himself is very civil in denouncing opposing views. It would be nice if his opponents could rise to the same level of character.

Cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the over 700 military bases in over 130 countries is the only way to save social security and medicare. Otherwise both programs are broke and will end shortly. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to actually save these programs. Additionally, Ron Paul is the only candidate that see's people as individuals and no as part of groups. Groups do not exist only individuals exist.

This has already been debunked.
Nazi's don't eat at the Tara Thai. Bill White has a history of lying in order to get new recruits or publicity for his cause. (ie. the famous thing he said about Columbine) You're helping him by posting this.
Here are two other supposed "journalist bloggers" who have retracted this (and look moronic for publishing it in the first place):
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html - read the updates
Do some research first. If you don't issue a retraction, I hope you're sued for libel.

Also, he wants the States to decide things like socialized medicine, marriage rights (and he'd actually rather have individual churches decide that), abortion, what should be taught in schools etc. He doesn't believe the federal government should be forcing all states to think the same way. If each state is different, then people can choose which suits them best, etc.
He never said that racist statement you quoted. Someone else wrote it. In fact, he's the only Presidential Candidate who will end the federal war on drugs, which is the reason an absurd amount of blacks are in prison.

Of the 249,400 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses at yearend 2004, 112,500 (45.1%) were black, 51,800 (20.8%) were Hispanic, and 65,900 (26.4%) were white.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9.

Regarding State prison population growth from 1990 through 2000, the US Dept. of Justice reports, "Overall, the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates (table 19)."
Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2001 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, July 2002), p. 13.

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Are you happy? I did your research for you.

A couple things to keep in mid:

1. Ron Paul stands no chance of winning so he isn't a danger but it also makes little sense for people to be so obsessed with his campaign

2. Libertarianism is a self contradictory ideology that irrationally treats governments as something outside of any other organization of individuals. A traditional argument against Libertarianism is that fundamentalist cults, organized crime, warlords and the like would take over with "less government" but the truth is that government can no be distinguished from such groups in many parts of the world (and not because government is bad but because any group that has power over a people or region is essentially by definition a government... and many humans want to have power over other humans and any attempt to stop such people again looks like government) More locally if you have to deal with the judicial like processes of the HR department of a large corporation in which one is am employee one realized that the difference between a company and a government is also a vague one (if you quit you have to leave the building rather than a country and company security usually cant shoot you legally but thats only because of a government to restrict the power of smaller organizations that exist within its borders just as corporate HR may have rules it places on a regional officies HR policies)

3. Support for Libertarians like Ron Paul tend to be white and often wealthy not because he is a white supremist but because an ideology that sees government programs is going to appeal most to people who are sheltered enough not to see the needs for shared actions between humans to deal with common problems. The magical workings of market forces without considerations of the court systems and law enforcement that make them possible can only really appeal to naive academics and the children of the wealthy. The usual psychology of Libertarians consists of those with few real problems bumping up against drug laws, copywrite laws etc.. and not seeing the problems as the specific laws. There are plenty of places one can go in the world where governments have no real power and those are probably places where one would not find anyone supporting Libertarianism (think Afghanistan, Somalia, Russia in the mid1990s, etc...)

4. The idea that most problems could be solved if people took individual responsiblity does have an appeal in most poor communities since without an ability to change the government changing one's self is all that is left. That said it is nonsensical when one looks human interactions on a larger scale since human society is so interdependent one always has to depend on many other people since it is impossible to be completely self-sufficient. Using a computer to type this comment I am dependent on this site existing, a group maintaining the site, computer chips produced by massive almost monopolistic government subsidized companies, electricity from PG&E (which is a monopoly in terms of local distribution around here), etc...

This smacks of more establishment disinformation. This guy wrote a BOOK? C'mon, what publisher would let a guy that doesn't know how to do even rudimentary research write about nationalized heathcare? I'm not interested in doing even the 5 minutes of research that would likely expose this HACK's motivations, but I do think something smells about this article.
Given a fair shake, Paul will win. Go Ron Paul!!!!!

"he co-sponsored the so-called "Marriage Protection Act" in 2004"
Yes, he did. The reason Dr. Paul supported it however is due to his belief in individual states and their citizens rights to regulate their own laws. The Marriage Protection Act prevents federal judges from forcing one state to recognize a same-sex marriage that occurred in another. Here is what Dr. Paul had to say about it, "Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended." - Ron Paul, Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004

do more research before painting Paul bad.

These have all been dealt with many times. Ron Paul didn't write that, he isn't a racist closeted or otherwise. The real racists are the ones jailing black men at a rate that rivals chattel slavery for things like selling crack or reefer. Or the ones that suck more tax dollars out of (for example off the top of my head) Anacostia (poor section of S.E. D.C.) than goes in there in services. Anacostia, of all places, sucked dry by tax-slavers! Why not give freedom a chance? Ain't much freedom in Anacostia now, anyway. How about your town? Same?

This article is a hit piece and nothing in it is true. Even the statement that there are leftist Democrats you could vote for that would end the war as Paul would is false, as the only one who would isn't viable. There is only one Democrat who would pull our troops as fast as Paul and that's Kucinich. He stands little chance of getting elected. The rest of the candidates ae loyal CFR members who will continue Bush's insane policies.

"loony right"? Your attempt at co-opting "loony" for your own purposes fails.. there is only the "loony left". Perhaps "fascist right" or "warmongering right" would be more suitable (except of course they don't apply to Ron Paul). Research the original meaning of the word "liberal".. it is _exactly_ what libertarians are (they had to come up with a new term because the socialists co-opted "liberal", making "libertarian" seem like some new-fangled fringe thing, when it was actually the philosophy that made the western world prosperous, and the founding philosophy of America). Now amusingly Noam Chomsky and friends are trying to co-opt "libertarian" (Noam Chomsky calls himself a "libertarian" when he is clearly not).

What is your problem with Paul?

No-one is as passionately opposed to the murder and empire building that we the US cause overseas as Ron Paul. And he has the record to back it up. Not Obama or Hitlery or slicktalker Ewards. What has the democratic congress acheived? Lockstep with the repub.s on energy policy (no renewable energy policy), voted for the war while paying lip service to opposing it.

What does "rightwing" mean anyway or "leftwing" for that matter? aren't we all intelligent enough to have views that straddle both and even come from outside this artificial dichotomy?

Ron Paul will not PAY for abortions. He is against a FEDERAL law allowing or disallowing them for the whle nation. That's all. He wants the states to decide. He has also voted to allow women to cross state borders to have an abortion! So there. Look it up, and if you are only relying on the main stream media then I cannot help.

He completely supports anyones right to be gay and be in union. He thinks it is not a governmental issue. It should be religious or spiritual. He is against marriage as a state issue to begin with. and YES he voted against defining marriage as beteeen anam and a woman. So please consider refining your stance. I certainly understand your fears, but with a little reasearch I am sure you can see the truth.

One thing that you have to understand is that Ron Paul is against FUNDING virtually everything! allright. This does not mean he would disallow it, just that he doesn't think the gov't should spend much money on anything, because then their opinions enter into how - what was originally your - money is spent. The samller the better as far a sthe Federal Gov't is concerned. Wouldn't it be better if California had more rights as opposed to the crazy federal policies we must deal with. That is what Paul stands for. Very small federal gov't.

all those racist quotes have been discredited, look it up. He calls that NAZI you quote crazy. Would a racist do that?

what issue threatens blacks in America most today?? Possibly the war on drugs?

No candidate is as unequivocatingly opposed to it as Paul is! He states specifically that it is a racist policy and that it puts minorities in prison for seriously long terms!

I am an environmentalist and socially liberal and I will get everyone I know to vote for Ron Paul! Please read up on him a little more. After all, who else can you really, honestly stand by?

szilard szabo

You have got to be kidding me. You are seriously all worked up about some attention hungry, small-time white supremacist "leader?" This story is a non-story. Libertarians are the most anti-racist group out there because, unlike your socialist ilk, we don't view people as a herd, we see them as individuals with natural rights. These rights don't come from being part of a group, they are naturally given to each and every individual. To violate these rights in any way is immoral and criminal.

This idea that Ron Paul is in bed with any group-think morons is preposterous and his life-long record shows it quite clearly. Your real fears are that he'll turn back the socialist tide that has grown precipitously over the last hundred years.

News Flash! The system of runaway inflation spurred by the welfare/warfare state is ending. Watch as the dollar crashes under the burden of over-printing and you'll see where the real crisis is.

Steven, I think it is your duty to
1.retract
2. clarify
3. or apologize at this point don't you?

A blog at the New York Times recently published such smear attempts, too. Then they found out they were not true, and published a retraction, and an apology for not fact-checking first. Will Steven Argue have the guts to retract and apologise, too?

By the way, Steven Argue is a socialist railing against the National Socialists. Apparently HIS flavor of socialism tastes better. To Dr Paul, myself, and a rapidly growing number of liberty-loving citizens, ALL forms of socialism, be they of the repugnant, National Socialist variety, or that of Steven Argue, are rejected.

Liberty knows no color. The mere suggestion of such is anathema to Dr Paul.

Dr Paul, for Liberty!

The NYTIMES retraction:
"Editors’ Note: The post below, which appeared on The Medium on Monday, contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul."
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

This article simply contains the same lies as those published in an article in the New York Times. They were forced to print a retraction due to the unreliability of their source. I need say no more.

Seems like Steven Argue is an establishment Republican in disguise as a leftist (ha, ha, just kidding, so tell me, how does slander feel??)..

Really though, the hatred for Ron Paul can be measured strongest coming from establishment Republicans, especially GW Bush's coached candidate Rudy "9/11 Firehat Hero" Giuliani (who got whupped 10/3 %by Ron Paul in Iowa, BTW). This 9/11 coattailer Giuliani had the audacity to call Ron Paul a "friend to terrorists" when Paul correctly identified the existence of Al-Queda/Taliban extremists to the decades of failed U.S. foreign policy that encourged U.S. military intervention and occupation of Saudi Arabia to continue propping up the tyranny of Bush family friends in the Saudi monarchy AND unfair and biased U.S. foreign policy support of the apartheid regime in Israel in favor against the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation..

To claim the Ron Paul wants to close the borders with Mexico is also misleading. Ron Paul is AGAINST the border wall between US and Mexico, and correctly diagnoses NAFTA/WTO economic inequalities as the source of the undocumented immigration to the U.S. from Mexico. In other words, RP supports people in Mexico (or elsewhere) having the HUMAN RIGHT to earn a decent living wage in ther home country, and not being pushed off their farmland by NAFTA/WTO subsidized U.S. agribusiness corporations (Cargill, ConAgra, ADM, etc..). RP's method of solving this problem of economic inequality is in repealing the WTO/NAFTA free trade agreements that do not allow for national sovereignty in Mexico with regards to fair and balanced competition with subsidized imports of maize (corn) from U.S. agribusiness corporations..

Repealing WTO/NAFTA as a solution to undocumented immigration is a view RP shares with Dennis Kucinich, as most other Rep/Dems have expressed support for the truly fascist wet dream of the GW Bush regime's "border wall" between U.S./Mex..

In addition, RP does NOT support the truly racist and imperialist idea that it is acceptable to have U.S. military bases located throughout the Earth (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Cuba, Germany, etc..) for an undefined time and no apparent reason other than for "spreading democracy" as claimed by the GW Bush regime (HA HA, now there's a real JOKE!!)..

100% pure unabashed shameless propaganda

First of all, as Professor Chomsky (a professor of Linguistics), and probably Dr. Paul, will tell you, words have many meanings. There is not just one meaning for every word. Even the great constitution Dr. Paul says he is trying to uphold, is subject to interpretation. Dr. Paul's interpretation is 1 of many. His interpretation includes not believing in the income tax even tho it was put into the constitution legally. (I agree with Dr. Paul on the income tax but that's a policy interpretation not a constitutional question.) Dr.Paul and i disagree on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I believe it requires ANYONE born in the the United States to be a citizen of the United States. Dr. Paul does not. I believe that reasoning on his part comes out of a racist reading of the the 14th Amendment. The same way our different interpretions about the right of women to control their bodies, the rights of everyone to marriage if the government marries anyone, and the civil rights laws come out of of a different interpretation of the 14th amendment. Dr. Paul believes the 10th Amendment trumps the 14th. And he believes like most Libertarians and old school Republicans (Taft, Goldwater, Eisenhower to some extent) that property "rights" trumps all other rights. I believe like most anarchists do that property is theft.

As for interpretations of other words, the word "libertarian" has been bandied about here as if there was one clear definition of it. and generally means a "supporter of liberty" and people as diverse as Ronald Reagan and left-wing and post left anarchists have be historically called libertarians. Professor Chomsky fits into the leftist libertarian constellation. You don't have to support property rights to be called a "libertarian". I know many anarchists who would say that those that do are propertarians not libertarians. Some would say that Dr. Paul fits into this category.

If Ron paul is a racist, why does he want to end the wars killing minorities?

What's your source as to Dr. Paul being against the border wall?

Hey hologos, I really like the way you responded to this article. You were clear and apparently informed. I would like the chance to talk with you about political issues if that would suit you. You can email me @ insanetrap [at] yahoo.com. Hope to hear form you

"
I do have one question to Ron Paul minions: How do you guys do it? Appear out of nowhere, at the first typing of the words "Ron Paul" on a blog? I've seen it happen at so many conservative blogs. I've seen it happen repeatedly here..."

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/06/welcome-ron-paul-cultists/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SugjSZgILM

I am a Ron Paul Supporter, and I have to admit, that was pretty funny. But the bill white story is total rubbish.
Ron Paul 2008!

Whoa! Waht a hateful piece of writing that is wrong at just about everything. #1, Gays and marriage: Ron Paul believes in his heart that it is immoral, correct there. But he also says without taking a breath, that it is none of the Federal Government's business to legislate anything about that as it is not included in the constitution. Here he says that gov't should get out of our lives! Bravo, he's personally against it, but believes that the gov't should just butt out! Good for him. #2 Abortion: He's an obg/gyn, who delivered 4000 + babies. He is personally against abortion, can you blame him? But here he also believes that Federal Gov't should stay out of it...leave it up to the states, where we have more control of our politicians. Bravo again! Let's now talk about issue #3, Money! The Canadian is now worth more than our own greenback for the first time in history. The Euro was traded at about 80 cents when GWB took office for the first time, now it is worth double at over $1.60, what is the worth of our dollar? Do you wonder why it costs so much for 1 gallon of gas...do you wonder why it costs so much for 1 gallon of milk? Do you wonder why it costs so much at Walmart. where everything is made in som e other country? It is because the dollar is worth doodly-squat compared to the other currencies of the world. Will you finally wake up when the Mexican Peso is worth more than the dollar. Well, if we continue down the same road we are going, then in short time, the Peso will be worth more than the dollar!

My point is: Why don't you start writing like an American Patriot, rather than an insurgent?

http://www.anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=74.html

* Update: I E-mailed Prof. Chomsky for confirmation. Z magazine is an official source, but some Ron Paul supporters are calling the forum comments a hoax or a fake. View Prof. Chomsky's response here.

From the znet sustainers forum:

Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

Noam Chomsky: There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

So I have these questions:

1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

Noam Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Noam Chomsky: No.

As a regular reader of indy media sites, I'm really disappointed by this article. I'm a left-leaning libertarian who supports Ron Paul. The pro-war media's attempt to smear Ron Paul with racism is utterly baseless. The man worked as a doctor in an inner-city hospital serving minorities. How many KKK do you know doing that. As a Hispanic who opposes all forms of racism I am committed to Ron Paul as the only candidate who seriously end our imperial adventures overseas and bring all of our American soldiers home from war. This article's author is severely misinformed. He should google the NY Times piece in which they retracted their horrible (non) investigation of Bill White's accusation. Mr. White is a KKK loser who is willing to get attention from anyone. Ron Paul stands for freedom, prosperity, peace and individual rights. That is exactly what our melting pot of a free country desperately needs.

Wow, what a bunch of Ron Paul Liars!

I'll keep my Social Security and vote against this Ron Paul fuck!

These kinda bogus articles are a dime a dozen, in a market where they used to come for 1 cent. *wink wink*.. the writers of these snarky attacks take they position there there Premises are facts, and that is where the deceit begins. Dismantle Social Security? Whos the only guy in congress that EVER voted to protect people's social security? Dr. Paul. Letting young people opt out fo SS for a better system is transitional and people will go with it or they wont. Its their choice, regardless SS in the current market will be dead in 10-15 years. Everyone knows that, at least RP is protecting it. Your accusations are laughable. RP a racist now because some racist happen to think his ideas for not getting into Entangling alliances, defending our borders, and actually promoting a consistent economic shift towards improving the dollar might happen to appeal to even a racist. Gee whiz! Everything you've said is so dubious, Id love to see you bring it up in any random room of people and surely someone would walk up and slap you silly for your bogus propaganda. Your so brave here on your anonymous little blog though and Ill be suprises if my comment even remains to question your direct lies. We'll see. Anyone with half a brain and go spend 10 minutes to look up and shoot down every "fact" you stated about Dr.Paul in you terrible description.

All you anti-war bottom-liners miss the point: war is the system. The war never ends. There's always another war-- they must have it, to justify the military-industrial machine dominating US Govt spending.

Maybe you should go do some reading on the old <a>America First movement, and get back to us on how "progressive" old-school isolationism is. Or, do you condemn those who went to fight fascism in Spain?

DO NOT TRADE LIBERTIES FOR "SECURITY"-- and that includes "stop the war." Really, we should transform that into "stop all war" or "end armed aggression" or something.

That's why the left-Dems actually make some sense this time around. They're talking about (in effect) starving the war machine in favor of other social priorities, like socialized healthcare, green energy development, and education.

The rights of women and queers aside (since you insist those don't really matter, somehow), what do you think Ron Paul is going to do for the environment or healthcare? Or do you not care about any of that either?

Good thing the (R)s didn't realize you'd give up on over 100 years of progressive struggle so easily. They might never have ended WWI. (Ahh, but they had to, because of the Bolsheviks. Not to digress.... bwahahaha...)

That America First link.

Ohhhh, but wasn't that Charles Lindbergh a hero? Well, some obviously thought so....

While im sure you saw this on lgf, or american thinker.. maybe you forgot to read the updates on american thinker where it was debunked..
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html

check the updates at the bottom.. oh, and you must have missed thet 'take this with a grain of salt' at the top of the article..

try again, knucklehead.

What a pathetic piece of writing! Way to not cite any sources!
Your charges are absurd. Dr. Paul has made quite clear that he believes abortion and marriage to be states' rights issues under the 10th amendment. His personal feelings on these matters is irrelevant; only his willingness to uphold our constitution matters.
As for that white power guy's donation - so what? What do you think he himself would have spent it on?

Huh? Dear Friends,

You are very mistaken and unpleasant about this.
As an ordained Buddhist from New Zealand who has not a right wing bone in my body let alone a far right wing bone, I have been supporting this man avidly since I came across him. I have been in the grassroots and have met an educated, intelligent, young...yes (but i won't hold that against them), group of people who have restored my faith in a bellicose, unpleasant, aggressive, bullying nation that i loathed.

You, dear Sirs and Madams, are one of the aspects of the USA that i find frightening. Simplistic, collectivist, herd thinking based on preconceived misconceptions. Even if the racist in question does think RP is good value, Ron Paul cannot help that!
He has publically come out and condemned racism and the unpleasantness you smear him with.

You need to retract your statement and issue an apology.
If you do not print this, i will take it as a sign that you are organized specifically to discredit the good doctor.

Yours faithfully,
Dharmacharani Navachitta
Auckland,
New Zealand

Ron Paul will:
END THE IRAQ WAR AND BRING ALL TROOPS HOME IMMEDIATELY
END THE 700 MILITARY BASES IN OVER 190 COUNTRIES

SAVINGS FROM THIS?

A TRILLION DOLLARS

DO YOU FEEL OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES SHOULD BE SACRIFICED FOR A FALSE FLAG OF SECURITY?
DO YOU WANT A RFID CHIP IN OUR NATIONAL ID CARD IN MAY?
DO YOU LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT?
DO YOU THINK OBAMA WILL SAVE US?

THE DOLLAR IS FALLING AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS A CENTRAL BANKING SCHEME CREATED TO TAX OUR CURRENCY. WHERE DOES THIS PRIVATE BANK GET IT'S MONEY?
OUT OF THIN AIR.......

CHECK OUT AARON RUSSO'S FREEDOM TO FASCISM AND STOP BELIEVING IN THE NEOCON AGENDA.

RON PAUL 2008


HE WILL WIN
JOIN THE REVOLUTION!

Paul is not advocating an end to all welfare. He is simply pointing out that welfare should be provided at the State level of juridictional authority. MA, for instance, has implemented a Sate healthcare plan that ensures that every MA citizen has access to healthcare. If this is so important, why don't other states implement this plan as well. The Federal government is not authorized to provide this benefit. Ron Paul wants to follow the Constitution and allow state and local authorities to provide these much needed services.

I'd like to believe that you are just misinformed when you write such a false description of Ron Paul. Unfortunately it looks more like you are trying to discredit a principled decent man with statements that you know are not true.

The connection with Nazi Bill White has been thoroughly explored and discredited.

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home now. He wants American foreign policy to genuinely respect other countries.

Don't believe Steven Argue about Ron Paul. Research him on Google and You Tube and decide for yourself.

I cannot believe this smear is still around. It was a discontented worker for Paul who wrote what you attribute to Ron Paul incorrectly. If you're going to try and smear someone, at least get your facts straight.

so many mistakes in this article!

but I will touch on the dumbest one of them all:

he is not for outlawing abortion he is for protecting states rights to decide.
-why is abortion even an issue when it affects at most 9% of our population however a fiat currency affects 100% of our population.

Lol, just say he kicks puppy's or something. Oh I heard that he is a "puppy kicker".

Why do you lie about Ron Paul?

This Bill White BS has been proven false and retracted by every real news organization.

Then you misrepresent Ron Paul on all the issues - which is to be expected from a socalist. You guys always have to distort.

Your journalism lacks

I don't know how many times I've had to correct this basic error. Folks, when Ron Paul says he wants to abolish federal government departments like Education, that doesn't mean he want to abolish public schools.

Now let's take this real slow. In America, there is this thing called "States". Every state has their own education system. So when someone like Dr Paul says he will get rid of the federal government department and return the money spent to maintain this department to YOU, that doesn't mean the states can't continue running public schools and take over other previous responsibilities of the federal government.

I know this is too complicated for the average American voter. But heck, it's worth a shot. And I'm glad Ron Paul is making the effort to educate the American people. Even if he doesn't win, he has laid the groundworks of a movement for a President who follows the constitution.

A lot of false things have been posted here by the supporters of Ron Paul in their attempts to answer my article.

Absurdities have been posted that deserve no reply, such as claims that “Argue” is not my real name and that I am really a Zionist in disguise.

Blatantly racist crap has been posted such as, “Anti-racist means anti-white gentile”.

Claims have also been that Ron Paul is not a racist. Yet his voting record proves otherwise. Anyone who votes against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is a racist. And you can spare me the Civil War era “states rights” rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army, including 200,000 Black soldiers, smashed the southern slavocracy, and this was a tremendous step forward. More recently the Voting Rights Act was passed, but if it were up to Ron Paul, it would be abolished.

As for Ron Paul’s fellow racist travelers, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black. Whether or not Nazi Commander Bill White is lying, I can’t say for sure, but his statements do fit the character of both individuals, and I have not seen anything that proves his statements false.

Claims have been made that Ron Paul isn’t for the banning same-sex marriage, yet Ron Paul supporters fail to explain why Ron Paul was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act".

On abortion, Ron Paul supporters come up with the same “state rights” crap, claiming that Ron Paul wouldn’t ban abortions. Yet it took the national Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion. Getting rid of national protections for a woman’s right to choose is one way to move towards the banning of abortions. Once again “state rights” are being used to defend Ron Paul’s racist and sexist positions.

In advocating the dismantling of the Department Education etc, Ron Paul supporters say that people need to take care of themselves. I disagree. I think that in a civilized society we need to take care of each other and the environment. Socialized medicine would be a major step forward in this direction, but Ron Paul not only opposes that, he wants to dismantle other important gains of the working class such as Social Security and environmental protections.

The Ron Paul “revolution” is a dangerous proposal for unfettered capitalist profit, in the name of “individual liberty”, that would cause misery on a massive scale that will ignite civil war. On top of all of that, Ron Paul is a racist, sexist, homophobic, religious nut. No to Ron Paul!

http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/


The reason why I support a Ron Paul presidency can be simplified into this, he makes the other candidates appear like children in the democratic crowd and the other republicans appear as teenagers and college students, plus momentum, momentum, momentum. His change reflects my interest in home schooling which by the way doesn't just belong as a evangelical movement, the closing of the IRS doors and the border. All of which he has spoken about for years as being important to fix our problems. Plus he sees the Federal Reserve for what it maybe really might be. Everyone else merely ignores the issue of currency, such as the value of the dollar and they don't seem to care about outsourcing of not just manufacturing but now service sector, what else can people do besides work in fast food the way things are going. The housing crisis maybe tied to irrational exuberance which connects to the FED, his timing of a messege of shrinking government to a size that we can manage rather than increasing the size over which government manages us appeals apparently to many people. Mitt's crowd should now see a distinction between someone that has quietly served the conservative cause and these other johnny come latelys. Ron Paul will restore not just fiscal responsibility but fiscal rationality, that makes all the difference to me. Without a sound monetary policy it matters not whom you elect if they can be easily tricked into thinking policies that ignore the broader economic problems associated with big government as well as wild globalization at the expense of traditional economic sectors that have been at the core of our historical prosperity. There also appears to be something calm, relaxed and measured as well as confident in his articulation of conservative principles, which to me implies he knows himself, knowing yourself maybe the only true expression in the field of competitors that can't be faked. You either exude confidence in a cause that reflects liberty or you are hiding something, I don't have the luxury to spend my time digging around to find out about what these other candidates hide behind their behavioral cues that they give off. Ron Paul will continue to get my support and will also get my vote. The MSM wants to block or shut out his messege because they know he would wipe out the democrats, so they resort to immature name branding or calling, next they will start attacking his supporters or at least creating supporters that fit the image they want to present, every trick in the book, it would be divine justice if he still were to win. We are human beings our lives have value.

I support RP

the author doesn't understand federalism and doesn't understand that centralized government is arguably the least effective and most disempowering provider of charity. Paying taxes is not an adequate substitute for paying attention to the needs of our families and communities. The government is incapable of loving you, your families or your neighbors; yet it provides us with excuses for our failures to do so, and often punishes us when we have the audacity to try. I always get the biggest laugh out of people who are aghast at the notion of abolishing he federal department of education, when the demise of public education clearly parallels the increase of federal involvement with it. Does ANYONE outside of the white house still believe that No Child Left Behind is an asset?
I don't want the federal gov't deciding which cirriculum, food or drugs are best (or manditory) for my children to consume because, more often than not in the past, their choices have been the worst imaginable ones.
Universal Health Care or Corporate Welfare? The Democrats would all force us to BUY the most inflated, least effective and often most HARMFUL "care" in the industrialized world --primarily for the benefit of most profitable and politically influential industries in America: insurance, pharmaceuticals and health care practitioners. And I dare say that New Orleans would be better off today if the federal government had played no role whatsoever in the "recovery" from Katrina. Worse yet, they've used the catastrophy to justify the obliteration of Posse Comitatas and every other barrier that would enable any president to declare martial law on a personal whim and under virtually ANY pretense.
In almost any circumstance, states and local private communities are more capable of caring for themselves that the federal government is, and whenever we ask the federal government to provide for us, the price in lost personal liberties and dignity is never worth the hollow promises that we receive in return. The healthcare is a sick joke, national security through empire building efforts do more harm (in blowback) than good, and the corporate subsides that are inherent in the federal model of domestic prospereity building always seem to cost more than they yield.

stevo

I can't believe those anti-jewish people just above are for real. They sound like they must be local people who actually are familiar with Steven, who are bashing him, by pretending to be caricatures of antisemitic antiwar people. David Horowitz actually registered him on his stupid 'Discover the Network' site for expressing positions against Israeli settlement expansion.

There are some democrats who are far less interventionist than Hillary Clinton. Obama and Richardson both are so careful to take a position on anything, and instead act like the 'unity' or compromised candidate, that they can't quite be assessed, but Edwards, Gravel, and Kucinich all have some good qualities.

Dave says, “This article is a hit piece and nothing in it is true. Even the statement that there are leftist Democrats you could vote for that would end the war as Paul would is false, as the only one who would isn't viable. There is only one Democrat who would pull our troops as fast as Paul and that's Kucinich. He stands little chance of getting elected. The rest of the candidates ae loyal CFR members who will continue Bush's insane policies.”

But Argue said, “There are plenty of candidates to the left of the Democrats worth considering supporting who oppose the war, would preserve public education and Social Security, who would provide single payer or socialized medicine, and who aren’t raving racist, homophobic, and sexist “Libertarian” fanatics. Why not look at them rather than someone from the loony right?”

Not Democrats, to the left of the Democrats. Get it?

Ron Paul didn't get 10% of the Iowa caucus, his message did, and the clever candidates who will say anything to get elected have taken note and will co-opt his message, until the election is over.

A quirky argumentative down-home 72 year-old who will never get the big-bucks backing of the party has no chance of getting elected, and he and all of his backers know this, but the message is important enough that people are willing to carry signs in the freezing cold because they know that the messiah isn't as important as the messiah's message. If you need to nit-pick the messenger because you don't have the intellect to discuss the message there's always Brittany and Paris for you.

I think Ron Paul understands that the Muslim Facist thing is nothing more than the death throes and spasms of a dying culture. The Mullah's see their way of life going the way of the Samurai and they don't know what else to do other than mindlessly strike out at symbols of their affliction.

As the information age comes of age more and more young people born into Muslim families will be wearing jeans and watching MTV, more and more. Eventually the Mullah's will go the way of Kruschev and Castro and our industrial military complex will have to find other boogey men to frighten us. Khadafy wimped out. The Chinese are too busy selling us the rope to hang ourselves. The North Koreans are too inept to be a threat. The Persians, like the Russians just want to annoy the Pax Americana, without upsetting the apple-cart, so what could be better than some rag-heads hiding out in the Baghdad Hilton?

Paul's real concern is that he knows what happened after the trillions spent on the Viet Nam war came home to roost. Bread went from $0.19 a loaf to $1.90. The US Dollar is spiraling down in purchasing power. Everthing in Europe and Asia is becoming more expensive because when you doulbe the money supply you cut the value of the currency in half.

Get a grip boys and girls. Would we better or worse off if the billions being spent overseas was spent on our bridges, education and health-care?

You are misinformed about Dr Ron Paul being a racist. Your assumption that repealing the Voting Rights Act equates to racism at best shows a lack of understanding of the entire law. At worst it shows your biased need to find anything at all to smear Ron Paul and his supporters in a public forum. Your lack of journalistic integrity is troubling.

I wonder what would happen if you were to scrutinize your favorite candidate's voting record as much as the mainstream media has scrutinized Dr. Paul's record. Oh wait, I've done my research and actually know what would happen. How about you?

I'm so sick of slanderous tripe like this being written about Dr. Paul. You really must be a paid political hit-man to write something like this. Lets think for just one minute about his stance on the War on Drugs- possibly the most racist policy currently active in our government. He wants to END IT. Yes, he wants to end our racist drug policy. You know how many minorities would avoid prison time because of this? An absolutely ENORMOUS number.

Second in line here would be the War in Iraq, which he wants to also end. Minorities and the poor are also victims of this policy- both when recruiters target them here in America, and when we kill innocent Iraqis.

So do us all a favor, before writing another blatantly false piece like this again, grow a brain and a heart.

Shame on this author! It is a huge disservice to all Americans to post a trash article like this.

If you do any kind of research whatsoever into Ron Paul, his history, his campaign, his supporters you will know that he is not racist or associated in any way with any racist groups. Ron Paul appeals to a large group of people. There are white extremists that support him; he has made it PUBLICLY KNOWN that he does not support them, does not want their support, and is spreading an entirely different message - which is one of Freedom and Liberty for every individual. This article is completely false. Thank You.

This article is so full of inaccuracies that its incredible... but the most important is that he will NOT DISMANTLE SOCIAL SECURITY... he will simply allow people the OPTION to not get involved... why should people want to pump money into a system that is falling apart.
ALSO he wants to help SOCIAL SECURITY by pulling our troops home and using the monies to bump up the Social Security system... What would a TRILLION DOLLARS have done to social security if the money spent on the war was pushed into IT??

This article is trash and people should not be swayed by it... Cramer had a whole segment on Ron Paul and how correct he is that the REAL ENEMY IS THE FEDS who Ron Paul wants to *out* the secrety society of selling our country abroad...

If the author chose to do just a little bit of research he would see that this month old story has been completely discredited. Instead, the author chose to create a hit piece, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn the author already knew the story was bogus.

If you want socialism, go to another country. It isn't the basis country was founded on. You've got plenty of choices without runing the U.S.A. too.

Ron Paul is against any legislation on the government level one way or the other... true he opposes Roe VS Wade because it forces an issue on the States which is a divisive issue - there will always be liberal vs conservative states... if a liberal state wants to allow abortion so be it...
If you get knocked up in Texas go to New Mexico or some other state and have it done..
This hit piece is totally wrong... Abolish Social Security... no way... opt out yet, abolish no - IN FACT HE WANTS TO BUMP IT UP BY TAKING THE TRILLION DOLLARS WE SPEND OVERSEAS IN WAR AND PUMP IT INTO SOCIAL SECURITY - WHAT WOULD A TRILLION DOLLARS DO IF PUMPED INTO SOCIAL SECURITY ONCE EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS OR SO.... SAVE IT... THATS WHAT!!

These Ron Ron Paul people swarm like the wicked witch's flying monkeys.

Another small piece of evidence:

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

Little Green Footballs, the hawkish and rigidly empiricist blog that first furnished evidence of memo-forging in the Rathergate case, has started due diligence, discovering that Paul has indeed dropped some cash at the theme-restaurant Tara Thai (“the first time I went here I didn’t like my dish that much, but the second time I ate here the food was better,” according to Yelp).
Paul has also officially spoken to the Robert A. Taft Club, a convocation known for its racist ties.

Devils Advocate claims, "This hit piece is totally wrong... Abolish Social Security... no way... opt out yet, abolish no"

I just saw an interview with him on Bill Moyers where he said he would get rid of Social Security.

Criticizing Ron Paul and his views is, of course, perfectly fair and an important part of civilized discourse, however, comparing Ron Paul to a Nazi is slanderous. I can't believe that you would take a self admitted Nazi at his word. When you do this, you give him the power to destroy the reputation of any good person by merely stating affiliation with him/her. I can think of another Nazi leader whose lies and deception are renowned, Adolf Hitler, you may have heard of him. Ron Paul has been in congress for 20 years and never supported anything fascist. In fact, the position of libertarianism is admirable in the fact that it advocates very little control over one's private life by government; the exact opposite of fascism. This, I believe, is the sign of a good leader, reminiscent of George Washington's relinquishment of power after two terms when he easily could have stayed on for more.

As for your statements of Paul's policy positions, you are mistaken in your conclusions of the meaning of his votes. It is easy to see how his statements could be construed to mean the things you say they do, but it is more complicated than that. Paul is not in favor of outlawing abortion, he merely states that the federal government has no right to legislate on this issue and that it should be left to the states. (This does raise the legitimate concern that some states may outlaw abortion, though.) On gay marriage, I have heard Paul state directly that the government should have no role in marriage and that for the purposes of legal recognition there is no reason that two men or women couldn't enter into such a partnership. Marriage would be left as a religious rite up to each individual church to decide an appropriate definition that would have no effect on public citizenship.

The fact that Paul voted against the extension to the voting rights act, on the surface, seems scary, but the fact is, it is common practice for congressmen to insert pork spending into such legislation, including this piece, because they know that representatives and senators will be afraid to vote against such politically charged legislation since people will criticize them for doing so. A great example of this is the Patriot Act (which Paul voted against) which capitalized on the panic after 9/11 in order to pass clearly unconstitutional legislation. Ron Paul should be commended for standing up to political pressure in both cases, not criticized.

While I disagree with some of the ideas that Paul has, I have no doubt of his integrity as a person, and as a leader. I give his word much more credence than that of some Nazi who is probably just looking for media attention to his disgusting beliefs. If you are interested in what Paul has to say, I would recommend watching his recent interview on PBS, which you should be able to find easily on youtube. Twenty full minutes of him talking with very little bias or interruption by the interviewer, coverage I wish I could see on more candidates.

Tron says:

"On gay marriage, I have heard Paul state directly that the government should have no role in marriage and that for the purposes of legal recognition there is no reason that two men or women couldn't enter into such a partnership. Marriage would be left as a religious rite up to each individual church to decide an appropriate definition that would have no effect on public citizenship."

Steven Argue said:

"Claims have been made that Ron Paul isn’t for the banning same-sex marriage, yet Ron Paul supporters fail to explain why Ron Paul was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act"."

Signing on to a bill says a lot more than what a Ron Paul supporter claims Ron Paul has promised.

...should know that they RETRACTED IT because it wasn't true.

"Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul."

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/?ex=1199163600&en=7b25470d94ea3b8b&ei=5070&emc=eta1/

When I, an Atheist, and a good friend of mine who is gay, back a Christian Republican, you know that there is something special about that candidate. It is because he understands and supports freedom and the Constitution- he won't legislate his religion because he understands the need for separation of church and state.

Before you post anything on the Internet again, I STRONGLY urge you to do more homework than you did in this case, which is evidently none.

Dennis Kucinich supporting a warmonger who wants to continue Empire. Has he no shame? Did he even read all the imperial ambitions Obama has in his speeches? Mike Gravel is the only one on the left that deserves to be elected, ironically he is the one that is not allowed to be heard. He is not heard because he bluntly tells the truth. He isn't a puppet and wants to end the Empire not run it. He wants to give Americans democracy. What a radical idea!

The Antiwar Left can change the Republican Party. It is ripe for takeover. If this happened all the bad people that switched sides and joined the Reagan coalition will go back home. We will have a prudent party against war. There will be disagreements on federal power which needs to be cut. Corporate welfare will end. Then decentralize power as much as humanly possible to the point we don't have to fear crazy people enforcing morality on the whole country through a tyrannical Federal Government like we do now.

Ron Paul believes the Federal Government has too much power. It has completely infringed against our natural rights. He wants to let communities decide on education. He is against abortion but guess what he thinks the American people know what is best for their communities so he's against a national ban on abortion.

You bring up some post on a racist website. Guilt by association. What a clever smear. Your quote attributed to him about African Americans was written by a ghost writer and not him but he takes full responsibility for it. The reason we have racism according to Ron Paul is because of the concept of race. As long as we use race to separate people into groups we will have racism.

He supported the Marriage Protection Act because the Federal Courts have no business in deciding what constitutes as marriage between states be it for our against gay marriage. He wants to give power back to the people. Let's take the culture war back to the States so we don't have to worry about a theo-con like Huckabee or a warmongering warrior princess like Hillary. Elections are mostly about crazy Emperors splitting people on cultural issues that will never be reconciled. It prevents them from answering why do they support the Empire that is bleeding this country to death with near 10 trillion dollars of debt.

You've managed to figure out Christianity but you are a long way from understanding where this country is. Social Security is gone. It is filled with IOUs (the government spent all the money) and young people aren't going to see Social Security when they get old. He wants to phase it out and let young people keep some of their money. We have state governments aren't they capable of environmental laws? He wants to take corporations off welfare.

But go ahead. Choose the Candidate that will destroy the Democrat Party. The Nixon to Bush's Johnson. I commend Bush on his fabulous performance in destroying the Republican Party without him the Ron Paul Revolution would never have started. There is no way the front runners of either party are going to abandon the Vatican size embassy nor the multiple military bases across Iraq. It is the Korea model. The NIE has prevented war in Iran for now but the books maybe cooked again like they were in the 2002 report on Iraq. We will be in Iraq until this Empire comes crashing down on us from the weight of it's debt. I'd rather end the Empire now by voting for Mike Gravel or Ron Paul but it is our funeral. If they don't win the US will become more abusive towards us, it's own citizens and we will not have any social programs because there will be no money to support them. If Ron Paul is elected he will end the Empire thus we will have more money to take care of ourselves.

Dr. Ron Paul is the most anti-racist candidate we've ever seen. He sees people as people, not as races or categories.
Let's hear him speak for himself:

"Oh, I think that that's completely wrong. And, you know, libertarianism is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea is that you put people in categories. You say, "Well, Blacks belong here, Whites here, and women here." Well, we don't see people in form-- or gays. You don't have rights because you're gays, or women, or minorities. You have rights because you're an individual. So, we see people strictly as individuals. And we get these individuals in a natural way. So, it's exactly opposite of all collectivism. And it's absolutely anti-racism, because we don't see in those terms." Ron Paul on Bill Moyers PBS Interview.

Oh and about his stance on gay marriage:

"Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[162][163] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[162] - Wikipedia.org

Why do any of you think the author of this smear cares what you think?
Doubtless he knows he's lying but doesn't care.
The whole point of these false diatribes is to up the negatives against RP in the blogosphere. The people who write these hatchet jobs know good and well that the readers who know it's a load of crap will post comments, and the incurious or already committed will ignore the comments and feel justified in fanning their hatred for a candidate whose positions are truly in their own best interest.
Isn't that what it's all about? Marginalizing RPs message in any way possible?
They must be getting concerned or we wouldn't be seeing such an increase in these sort of smear jobs.

Paul doesn't advocate state interference in marriage, in fact a license for marriage clearly ignores the seperation of church and state. I don't need permission to be with someone or if someone maybe gay and get's married in their gay church, It would not be the governments role to restrict that behavior, even if I were to disagree with their religion's sexual preference. Gay people are not even using the constitution to argue their case, they merely ask for federal permission to do something, a legal mistake I wouldn't advise. This may not be taken as legal advice though, it's my opinion.

From a site focused on issues regarding gay people. An excellent analysis of the issue.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=51418&page=3

Let's say this white supremecist "commander" wrote an article describing what he felt are objective reasons, in no uncertain terms, in his case for white supremecy; he'd cite facts, and would you use these facts in an article? Would you use what he believed in your case for anything? If the answer is no (I'm willing to bet that it is), how could you use him now to try to substantiate your feelings Ron Paul is a white supremecist? And that he and his staff meet with all of these other "stormfront" types at some place in Arlington? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is something you and I know this guy probably isn't a reliable source of. Since your argument isn't based on anything other than poorly sourced hearsay (and you know it) I'm going to say you're scared of Ron Paul, and then I wonder why--why are you scared of Ron Paul?

sigining on to a bill is also different from reading a bill and then understanding a bill. Does it have something to do with following the constitution? Maybe letting states have the rights. Maybe it has something to do with the Fed govt dictating to any particular state that they have to accept another states regulations.

posted link to wrong page a minute ago

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid51418.asp

This story is old... and the NYT printed a retraction. Shame on you Indybay for passing on incorrect news.

It's now your turn to be truthful and print a retraction.

VOTE RON PAUL!

QUOTE:

"Speaking of Blacks in Washington DC he states in campaign literature, '95 percent of African Americans in are semi-criminal or entirely criminal'."

Comment: That's an eleven year old hat his opponents tried to pass around in 1996. It was written by someone he carelessly entrusted with writing his newsletter at the time. The accusation was tried then to derail his candidacy for congressional office - and failed then as well. Why do you think it will work now?

By your wording, you make it look like this statement is part of his current campaign literature. Pretty disingenuous, I would say.

As to Bill White, he can say whatever he wants. It was all debunked here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whitesupremicistisisraelishill.php

I understand your concern that all those socialist federal programs you so admire will go away if he gets elected. They will. However, you can then still try to get them enacted in your state, however. That way, if somebody doesn't like them, at least they can move to another state with a more freedom oriented system.

It's all about choice, my friend. Thank God freedom is popular these days...

You're ultimately going to believe whatever you want to...but for anyone else reading I want to make it clear that any charges of Ron Paul being a racist or an anti-semite are INSANE and/or LIES.

If he were a racist why would he devote most of his adult life to spreading the writings and ideas of Ludwig von Mises, a JEWISH economist who fled the Nazis. Additionally, he helped found the Mises Institute, which has an extremely high population of Jews among it's contributors and writers. Just this year, the Mises Institute put out a 800 page biography on Mises which spends the bulk of the time talking about how INCREDIBLE the Jewish movement in Austria was in the late 19th century.

Ron Paul has listed as his heroes Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Ghandi...

Again, you will believe whatever you want to (based on filthy lies PUT OUT BY KARL ROVE when Rove, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and the Texas Republican establishment were trying to take Ron Paul down in 1996...), but for anyone else reading, please know that this is just lousy libel.

Who is the racist? Ron Paul who wants to stop BOMBING and INVADING other countries? Or Hillary/Giuliani/McCain/Obama who all want to maintain the murderous foreign policy this country has been pursuing in the middle east and around the world for decades.

-Chad

Be happy there is somebody willing to stand up for your constitutional rights and limited government (as our forefathers intended!). YOUR neo-con (democrats and republicans alike) candidates would prefer your tongue cut out and you tending their fields like good concentration camp servants. Kiss Ron Paul's feet and work your way up.

Uh, are lies the coin of your realm these days. Trying to scare Liberals will not work. I'm a Liberal and see through this pack of lies as will others. It's too late. You've woken the sleeping giant and the sleeping giant is America.

If Ron Paul is racist, then so too is the American Constitution, which you clearly don't understand. This is yellow journalism at its worst sirs. Dr. Paul's record of open honest government stands for itself. But in today's socialist America, any belief that doesn't support the notion of pitting one special interest group over another is considered racist. But that's been the Democrat m.o. for years and it is the m.o. of the neo-con GOP.
Democrats have already given up on reversing the Bush approach to a thug foreign policy. This is with 70% of the population wanting this evil policy changed. Now comes a real population with conviction and pro-war liberals go head hunting using lies and distortions. Ron Paul will in all likelihood be unable to overcome these lies, but more and more citizens are coming to understand him for what he is really is, the last honest man standing.

If you cared to actually look at what he said concerning gay marriage he believes the state should not be involved in granting marriage licenses at all, and the government should not be in the business of stopping free association. In a Ron Paul America anyone could make a contract dividing their properties and waiving rights and call it marriage. People could choose on their own religious beliefs which one's to recognize socially, but everyone could make their own contracts. It's the freedom answer.

Vis a vis "Ron Paul is a Nazi" - this is a ridiculous smear that has already been discredited time and again.

Folks, regardless of whether you like or dislike Ron Paul's positions don't allow such cheesy tactics to work. Ron Paul is a small-government, non-interventionist from the libertarian wing of the Republican party. He has been elected 10 times as a representative from Texas. There are a lot of things I disagree with him about (for example, I am pro-choice) but his anti-empire stance and his pro-liberty, pro-freedom message is a strong one and crosses the aisle.

A closet Nazi? I don't think so. The notion that an anti-war, small-government libertarian is a secret war-mongering socialist borders on the absurd.

Steve, do you actually believe that? I'm presuming that you so dislike Paul's positions on big government that you'll willing to believe even silly (if nasty) things about him. Too bad, I suspect you might have some common ground with the man.

Thank you for your courageous article. I see in some of the comments that there are those whole believe that their lives belong to them and that freedom and liberty are values that this country has prospered on. What pigs! We must all understand that without government and our bureaucracy all of our lives would be in MORTAL DANGER! Why, just the other day I was sitting at home feeling really hungry. My wife said she was hungry and so was my boy. So we sat there really confused as to what to do, but then my old parents said we should go to the store and buy some food. We did, but what about all the other people who do not have old parents that had to work for a living and figure things out. How will they eat? Millions of people will die in their homes from hunger. There will be civil war and unrest. We must immediately get a program where government agents will prepare and deliver food to us. Those that get their own food (capitalist PIGS!!!) should be pressed into service of people like me. I HATE Dr. Ron Paul with a passion. His belief that just because I am lazy I should not have the same conveniences as those that work hard is criminal. It is my RIGHT to do nothing, and live off of home refinancing and government help. DUH!!!!

The Ron Paul people's patent anti-socialism should be all anyone at Indybay really needs to know. The "greed is good" meme, mixed with a return to the 19th century-- what kind of progressive thinks that's progress?

The good news is, maybe Paul will go 3rd party, and do for McCain (or whomever) as Nader did for Gore.

In Amerika, it's "All hail the corporation!"

And here's a primer on where that idea got its legs.

G'head, click through.

"If Ron Paul is racist, then so too is the American Constitution..."

Maybe you didn't notice that the Constitution provided for the holding of slaves as property? or that that system was based on race?

News flash: the U.S. Constitution is indeed a racist document. Good thing it's amendable, eh?

Or should we get rid of the Amendments, too, while we go back to the gold standard and, um, what is the euphemism....ah yes, "state's rights."

Steven Argue is either woefully ignorant or wilfully telling lies. There is little excuse for the former unless Steve lives on a MSM diet, so it must mean he is deliberately misleading his readers with this false hit piece. I note that the readers’ comments have already effectively dealt with what are the true facts on Ron Paul's position so I won't repeat them.
Just to say Steven Argue has exposed himself as a shrill for the fascist global eite and therefore has no relevance to finding a solution for the grim times ahead that Ron Paul has been so accurate in his predictions. Ron Paul is the only one with a comprehensive plan that addresses the major issues that confront not only America but also the world as a whole.
I would urge everyone to do their own research to expose Steven Argue's lies and learn more about Ron Paul and his imminently sensible approach to solving the immense problems that are simply ignored by the other presidential candidates and the MSM.

What a piece of pure propaganda! Research your facts please. No journalism here, just muck racking!

The truth hurts, when the facts smell like muck, eh?

Even Hitler got elected once.... and I do believe he was offering change in the form of restoring "traditional values."

What is Paul's bromide, of gold standards and states' rights, if not "traditional values" by another name?

Wow. I thought the left had given up bashing Ron. I am glad to see there are still those left who anger at his drawing support from the left who have been abandoned by the Dems on the war, foreign intervention, civil rights violations and government coverups. Ron Paul clearly opposes all with his actions over the past three decades backing up his words. Most of his supporters are well aware they disagree with him on a lot of issues. But the above are more important than what you consider important. At least Paul continues to press the issues when the media would just as gladly ignore them. Apparently so would you. Since you cannot possibly believe Ron Paul will get the GOP nomination, one must question why you s passionately care? Is it because you too do not wish these issues discussed? Or is it because your useful fools are working for the wrong guy and are not under your thumb? As for the economy, it is collapsing under the weight of Dem/GOP promises, borrowing, money printing and spending. So be it. Nothing can be done to save the nation now. But the pissed off can be awakened and organized. Clearly you are part of the problem, not the solution. Sleep poorly.

I am pro-immigrant, and anti-Paul.

Ron Paul likes old-fashioned movement slogans, here's one for him:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Am1logo.jpg

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/08/lyrics-to-lindbergh-by-woody-guthrie.html

If you click on it, you can also see a picture of Lindy getting his Iron Cross from ol' Goering hisself. Inspiring stuff, Paulites!! Run dont walk!

Ron Paul endorsed by Stormfront Radio
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-paul-endorsed-by-stormfront-radio.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafeVz8eP0U

ROANOKE NAZI CLAIMS RON PAUL MEETS WITH THE “STORMFRONT SET”
http://nicolen.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/roanoke-nazi-claims-ron-paul-meets-with-the-stormfront-set/

In December 2007 it was revealed that Stormfront founder Don Black donated $500 to Republican election candidate Ron Paul's campaign fund. Ron Paul explained that he was comfortable keeping the money as it would be used to further his own his own campaign goals rather than the far right ideals of Don Black [19] [20].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

Ron Paul is not against immigration; he is against ILLEGAL immigration. People who are here illegally have no rights to social services provided by the tax payer. He himself says that the illegal immigration issue is a scapegoat for the real economic problems happening in this country.

this is the worst, most ill informed moronic verbage I've ever read. do you have any idea how our monetary sys. works? yes, both dem and GOP since days of globalist hack Wilson(D) a hundred yrs ago, we've been on fast track to military industrial complex/am. empire. but we've never had free market. we've always had corporatism. the one which Ron speaks of is based on Austrian economics.

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul, you're not gonna have a pot to piss in, unless he becomes the Pres. We have about 10,000 baby boomers retiring every week. in 10yrs, their entitlement, which, as a social contract were promised, so whether I agree with it or not, we must uphold. But we have NO MONEY left. We are already bankrupt. Our empire depends on borrowing 5BILLLION dollars a day from China in deficit financing. You have not lived in an economy where there's an inflation of 15-25%. We have a bankrupt economy, precisely because of warfare-welfare state.

Whether you want to or not, unless we have a man who understands economics to transition us out of this mess, you can kiss all domestic programs goodbye. YOu can bitch and moan all you want when you're locked up in a FEMA under police state. Do you realize hire dire our Constitutional crisis is? Every single candidate except for Kucinich and Paul voted FOR the WAR, the Patriot Act. Get a clue.

It's only a matter of do we suffer in the short term in a transition period, or do we crumble, FAST and furious, like the Roman empire. We're already in the beginning stages. Honestly, some of you have no sense of priority.

I did not choose to be born into an economics system based on private central banks and fiat currency. But money drives the world. I wish it weren't so, but it does. And the douchebag oligarchs who own these private banks saw fit, years ago to attack the "serfs," us, with two fixed factions of socialism and fascism/corporatism. They saw fit to make the recession happen in decade cycles. They made sure to fund both opposing sides of a military conflict. This game is as old as the sun.

Tyranny is ancient, freedom is new. America, with all our problems still offers the ultimate minority, the individual, with the best set of freedoms ever instilled to its populace. So let us fuckin prioritize and save the basic underlying infrastructure so, at least we can ensure our rights and reserve the right to bitch in the comfort of our livingrooms and town squares, and NOT in Patriot Act surveillance state, or in FEMA camps.

Unless we save our economic and civil liberties and the legal infrastructure that preserves it, you cannot decide to live on a commune, a co-op, decide to join whatever political party, religion, spirituality, or atheism. Priorities, my friend.

The only one offering to rid the Federal Reserve that both funds wars and welfare based on deficit financing-that means your kids are owed, on top of the $46,000 per person that simian in the WH racked up, additional trillions in the years to come, before they are even out of the womb.

So you can practice your illinformed bullshit irreverence all you want. By the time this is all through you'd be lucky if you can get your latte at FiveBucks for $50 a cup.

You think Hilllary, Obama or Edwards would change any of that? You ever heard of them wanting to repeal the patriot act? Corporate subsidies? Big Pharma and Big Oil PAC? You see Obama returning money from military contractors? Are you insane? Liberals and fake progressives point out already debunked ridiculous Nazi bullshit. And let's look at the facts. So Don Black may represent a legacy of racism. But his $500 contributing dumbass hasn't killed anybody. May offend your delicate fuckin sensibilities. But the shit loads that likes of fake liberals like Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, the military industrial money they receive kill MILLIONS around the world. Where the hell is your perspective. They may get to fund their pet welfare projects, though if you ask anyone living in the projects, or on foodstamps, they're NOT gonna thank the govt. As you don't get anything for free. The Drug War was declared on blacks and hispanics and other minorities as a passive genocide. With that excuse, as if they don't already treat them like second class citizens, with the narc excuse, they barge in without warrants, and seize assets even before the Patriot Act. Are you seeing the picture?

Dpt of Ed? Like NO Child Left Behind improved education? Like forcing public school parents with threat of arrest unless they force them to immunize their children with unproven vaccines like the District Atty of MD did? The only reason they threatened arrest is because of the deal they made with the pharma mfr, if they didn't inoculate, they stood to lose $100,000 A DAY. It had nothing to do with children's health.

The same govt that didn't listen to 2 million antiwar protesters before march 2003 in NYC, is the same gvt that abuses your Constitutional rights under the guise of compliance for any projects paid for by taxes. Whether they force you to go to war, or take medicines that you do not approve of, the same forceful control applies. Your welfare IS funding warfare, vice versa. In fact that is the trade off. For the govt to kill abroad, it must also subjugate you domestically. Or do you not see that??

I am not even going to rebut your stupid argument taken off of a person who is even known within the white supremecist groups as a known liar and a retarded hyperboloe. If you bothered to research a bit longer, perhaps you'd know and not embarrass yourself by selling bullshit. But hey, what's integrity as long as the shoe fits; it bolsters your argument, the hell with facts, right?

Google. Really it's so simple, and yet all you had to do was go to the next page in the search results. This is so pathetic.

Again, regardless, unless we fix our monetary policy, by retrieving all military forces in 130 countries and 700 bases while using the $trillion saved to shore up those who are already dependent, then allow the next generation to opt out, like RP proposes, you're gonna be waiting in souplines in a gulag. Wake the hell up. You think $3/gal is bad now? Europeans already paid $5/gal when ours was hovering around $1.25. If you get any neoCON or neoCRAT as the next POTUS, you're gonna be lucky if you get $10/gal.

Plus every single dem kept the nuclear first strike against Iran on the table. And don't think they won't do it. Bill Clinton ran the most brutal war in the Balkans. Just because no known Americans died, and because he was a much slicker operator than the Monkey could ever dream of, it didn't happen right?? You people sicken me.

Wake up. Our social programs are broke. There is NO money for soc security anyhow. And the current generation, who are by and large exponentially poorer than the Boomers, cannot afford to pay into the system, even if we wanted to. It's simple math.

So go ahead. Pick the oligarch's henchmen, like every other friggin s-"election" cycle.

A man comes along who understands all our issues and have proper solutions and you shun it.

Sounds like learned helplessness to me.

-Cheers, mate. It's not too late. Do some intellectually honest research. I don't have all the answers. But when I realize I don't understand something, first thing I do is do some due diligence in terms of research. But before that, first I admit I don't know. Sounds like you haven't taken that first step yet. If you were honest, perhaps you'd realize that instead of spouting off and giving tried false rebuttals that sounds like someones else's thoughts, why don't you try abandoning an ideology not set up by you, and free yourself and arm yourself with info?

"None are so enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free." - Goethe

Ron Paul is the best candidate in this election! You really should do some research! He believes everyone is an individual not to be classified in racial groups.

Houston Chronicle alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them…I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”

He further stated:

“I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady… we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website, Paul criticizes racism, saying:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”


"In addition to pretending he's against all government, he's for outlawing abortion" WRONG!
He wants to reverse Roe vs Wade and let the states decide individually like the constitution states! Have you read the constitution? Doesn't sound like it, doesn't sound like you read much of anything!
He has conversion policies for all the social programs being phased out. You have to make it on your own, were not a welfare state! Socialized medicine? Sounds like your a facist! You should really read a little first! LOL! America is broke, both financially and politically!

Ron Paul 2008!

"People who are here illegally have no rights to social services provided by the tax payer."

Do you really think you can wall off a contagion? What if bird flu gets loose, or something? Do you really think you will remain safe from it, while denying some part of the population access to healthcare?

If so, you are an idiot. If you're not an idiot, please rethink. Public health is a very smart investment!!

"You think Hilllary, Obama or Edwards would change any of that? You ever heard of them wanting to repeal the patriot act? Corporate subsidies? Big Pharma and Big Oil PAC?"

Edwards is the (viable) anti-corporate-control candidate. Yes, he will "change any of that."

Ron Paul, OTOH, is so beholden to his libertarian ideology, he can't see the corporate control for the "fiat currency." Instead of fighting robber barons, he's going to take us back to the pre-Fed world? Yeah, on what UFO?

"He believes everyone is an individual not to be classified in racial groups."

Racism is a deeply entrenched feature of this society. If you don't think so, how do you explain the Jena 6 case?

It's not a matter of what a presidential candidate wants us to think he feels about the issue. The issue exists, and any would-be national leader must address the situation AS IT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF HIS WILL.

To deny what is so obviously a determinate fact in other people's lives-- especially one as vicious as institutionalized racism-- is to slyly participate in it, the way Pilate did when he washed his hands.

this is a pathetic hit piece no better than fox news could do. the bill white thing with the thai restaurant was debunked weeks ago. the author of this piece should find a new job, maybe washing dishes would be more his speed and intellectual level.

You think anyone's getting "paid" around here, that posting at Indymedia is a "job"? You are driving without a clue.

Furthermore, your wisecrack denigrating dishwashers shows the rottenness of the classism in which your worldview is steeped.

Gitalong now, back to the klavern with you! Git!

Even the New York Times had to yank this story, and yet this fool repeats it as if it's true. He's the only one on earth who trusts Bill White. Hilarious. As for Don Black, he himself says Paul isn't a "white supramacist," but that he shares his antiwar views. Paul's response was fantastic: I'm keeping the money so I can put it to a good purpose, and there will be $500 less for white supremacy. I hope Black sends Paul so much money he can't pay his electric bill.

Nice try, imperial shill.

...but they mean "America Next."

deanosor thinks the 14th amendment authorizes ANYONE born here to be an automatic citizen.
Well, deanosor what would change your mind,,, hmmmm?
How about the authors of the Amendment? What were thier thoughts?
The man who drafted the citizenship clause of the Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, noted that it '... will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.' If the Amendment was not intended to bestow citizenship status on the children of foreigners and aliens who were here legally, it certainly was not meant to confer citizenship status on those born here out of an illegal presence.
So, if the guy who wrote the Amendment isn't credible, well I just can't help the "severely logically challenged" such as yourself.
Maybe we'd have a LOT less people who thoght this way if we just ended the DOE which pumps misinformation into our young people.

It would seem that the new-left strategy of ignoring class analysis in favor of issues-driven... reaction to crises as they emerge, is yet again coming back to bite us all in the ass-- this time in the form of these "Ron Paul people," caterwauling against those eeeeeeeeeee-vil-socialist Dems!!

Once upon a time, true lefties knew that socialism was the solution (and we can argue forever about the formulary mix in which it's delivered), and anyone knee-jerk against it was of very suspicious loyalties, indeed. Now, here they stand-- economic reactionaries-- in this very citadel of the Amerikan left, the SF node of the IMC-- and demand that we keep our steeenking-big-Govt hands off their money pile.

A-hem.

If you're looking for an argument over socialism, you've come to the right place. No one here's backing down, and it shows all of your reactionary ways for exactly what they are.

Please, bring it up. *grin*

I know it sounds like Ron Paul is a racist, but he's anything but. Look, we have class/race divided this country for a long time. Ron Paul is against this type of branding. Liberty for all people, know matter your station. He thinks it's unfair to single out one type of people for special treatment. It creates resentment among those that aren't "special". Check out this interview for the man's own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2r29HcH5nA

Peace People.

After all, we musn't "create resentment" among white voters, eh?

White voters' needs are ALWAYS special! Woe betide those who forget it.

The first thing about this site?

They think "journalists" are doing their "jobs" here, and that they can come in and mock leftie politics while retaining any credibility here.

Do they not know where they're posting? The purpose of the site? The normal politics around here?

Also, one must wonder if they (and their politics) are this disoriented and out of touch in the rest of their lives as well.....

Yes there is racism. Yes this exists in our society. But, why must we accuse and fight with each other? there is a better way, unify and support Ron Paul!!!
They (the powers that be) WANT us to fight amongst ourselves.
But the Jena six are trumped be the Duke Lacrosse team. THEY DO NOT WANT US WORKING TOGETHER! A fractured society is MUCH esier to CONTROL!
We are not enemies! We are allied in the fight for freedom.

Sorry abou the multiple post....
AKA (overactive index finger in RWC)

THEY is corporations!!!

Now, if we can sing THAT song all together, maybe there's some ground to stand on here. But I'm not holding hands with a bunch of bigots, just to destroy what little is left of democratic governance in this country, just so the corporations can finish up taking everything for themselves and leaving the weak and defenseless with doodly-squat.

There: a bottom line. What say you? You don't even have to particularly like Che! ;-)

i'm not sure, but we may have ,anded on a site where the posters typically get away with advocating and celebrating the institutionalization of special treatment for selected racial groups. how pitiful.

Please please listen to Ron Paul yourself, don't take this author's words as fact. The author is wrong! Ron Paul will free the people from the overreaching arm of government but he will not leave everyone high and dry to fend for themselves.

The Ron Paul Revolution is freedom for you and your family.

What's even worse maybe that the jerks over on freerepublic don't want anyone to post links to sites that refute all these slanders. Gee I wonder why a site that puts in their charter that they want to create a republic that has big government so it can do Interventionist fight the terrorists where they live propaganda would not want the "facts" to be published in their forums, then I see this guy actually pour more gas on their fires. Big corporations need Big Government, they will lie all day and say they hate Big Government, but as soon as the cameras go away they sit back and make all kinds of deals, that's the way it's been since I can remember.

If you really want to put a kink in the system then grow your own vegetables and fruits. Stop depending on other people like family or the government to give you welfare. Paul should institute a program to teach young people how to farm, cause then maybe they would care about their landbase instead of handing it over to China. Also people maybe would do some good to learn how to save and budget instead of borrowing til they go off a deep end.

Ron Paul supports a society that give you responsibility because we assume you are smarter and not as dumb as the elites peg you to be. With that comes freedom, but from the sound of it some of you would prefer a pacifier and bottle from the government tit.

We owe how many trillions to the fed? And who exactly runs the Federal Reserve corporation, whom are their stockholders and shareholders? When was the last time Chomsky ratted on that corporation? Do some research please.

I really hope this piece is only on the center column because of the extraordinary number of comments outraged at the author's clear bias. Even then, it gives the impression IMC is endorsing these ideas and this rock-bottom standard of 'journalism.' This article is nothing more than a cheap shot and a series of flimsy bits of 'evidence' based on half-truths.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Paul cannot control who sends his campaign donations, and he responded by rightly saying that the money would be better used in his campaign than by returning it to a nazi wingnut. The interests he is challenging- the Pentagon, the Israel lobby, the banking system, the neoliberal 'free trade' mafia a la WTO/NAFTA- these people are only too happy to spread misinformation and watch as we fight over it.

Read for yourself, and refuse to trust sources like the NYTimes which are clearly biased against Paul's agenda. Just look at how infrequently the man's name is mentioned, if at all, in the MSM, even compared to Kucinich, who has far smaller numbers.

He should do pretty well in New Hampshire- let's see how they spin that one!

OK, first off, let's all admit a couple of things:

First, there is no such thing as a perfect representative of anyone else's beliefs- in other words, no one candidate is going to give everyone what they want in a 'representative democracy,' which is what we live in.

Second, none of the Democrats can give the (real) Left what we want. Kucinich and Gravel barely register on the radar, and better candidates are not running.

Third, we cannot afford to write off elections altogether- look at what havoc the last 8 years have wrought, both on the country/world and on our ability to organize outside the syatem.

Yes Ron Paul has some positions hostile to our principles, regarding immigration and reproductive rights.

But how can we refuse to even consider someone who advocates dismantling so many other enemies of good people everywhere? Who else is even thinking about challenging the WTO/NAFTA, which was what coalesced our forces into a new movement not so long ago? Or the 'War on Drugs' which has imprisoned hundreds of thousands, disproportionately poor and people of color?

How can we look to AIPAC-sancioned candidates like Clinton or Obama when Ron Paul would do what nobody else is even talking about in the Middle East conflict, which is to cut funding for Israel, along with police states in Egypt and elsewhere?

What about dismantling the hundreds of US military bases around the world? Is this not truly an astounding proposition?

In short, how can the Left afford not to jump at the opportunity presented by Ron Paul's candidacy? It's not as if electing someone else will restore immigration to any better position without removing the NAFTA which forces people to leave their devastated economies and take up shit work in the US. And it would be extremely difficult for the president alone to get rid of legal abortion without a compliant Congress, which is not likely to try it anytime soon (not with Code Pink around... ;).

Let's take a step back for a moment from all the rumors and lies being spread by Paul's enemies among the very powerful special interest who stand to lose out, and consider the larger picture. From a principled position, only Ron Paul makes any sense for anyone from the Left.

here's two summaries of this position from good people who have done a lot of thinking about it:

http://www.counterpunch.org/goff01042008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor01022008.html

Ron Paul is a Texas-type libertarian. Milieu: preoccupied with "money supply"-type "govt conspiracies"; district fulla white-army "volunteer" "militias"; little concern to check the untrammeled growth of corporate power, because of a preoccupation with "small govt" and "individual rights" commitments (remembering that, legally, a corporation is an individual).

Most of the regulars round these-here parts, are committed to resisting that kind of a world-- BY COLLECTIVE MEANS-- to whatever degree. Many 'round here are Anarchist enough to hate govt, too-- but are by no means looking to replace it with yet more corporate rule. Others of us.... without getting into too much Marxist-Leninist theory, Reds don't care much for the state either, and also work for its eventual abolition. They just think there has to be more of a transition, in which govt is used in the interests of the "little people" against the "big boys" that used to dominate it.

Either way, you're sellin' Ron Paul Brand snake oil to an awfully constitutionally-skeptical crowd. It should be no surprise at all that no one around here is buying your newly-repackaged, far-right memes (like immigrant-bashing)-- we've been fighting the disastrous social symptoms of your socially-irresponsible ideologies for decades now. You would know that if you knew something about this site, but you don't-- it just got posted in some high-traffic thread at LGF or Freeperville or something, and you all come unload here just like you do there, and it has done terrible things to your candidate's already piss-poor image around here. You have confirmed many of our worst fears, just tellin your truth as you see it. Think about that.

We're glad Reagan's dead, get it? We'll be glad when your movement, in his shadow if not image, is likewise relegated to the margins of history. You tell us, if we don't like it, we can go back to France. Whatever-- we havent heard that since 1919 or so! We say, if you love corporate domination so much, why don't you go back to Russia, or something? We hear it's real big over there right about now.

I know you'll utterly ignore reasoned rejections of your BS, in favor of the same three tattered talking points-- it's the Right-Wing Whine Machine Way. However, throughtful readers will know just what I'm saying, and perhaps, recosider any flirtation with Ron Paul they might have been contemplating. Just like Woody Guthrie said of prior generations of the likes of him, "they say America First, but they mean America Next."

Heart, --A Long-Time IMCster, in San Francisco California

John Edwards is a better match for the politics of many around here-- and he's a mainstream Dem!! Which is to say, not a very good fit at all. But better than Ron Paul.

When his candidacy is eliminated by the corporate machine that controls both major parties, daresay most of those around here who are inclined to vote at all, would much rather do so for Cynthia McKinney with the Greens, than with your reactionary cracker, Ron Paul.

You don't like AIPAC, huh? All well and good. But, coming from y'all, that makes me wonder if you're going to start telling us there's a conspiracy of Jewish bankers to control the world? Hmm?

After a few minutes of research I found that Ron Paul would end:

The Patriot Act
The Dept. of Homeland Security
The War in Iraq
The War on Drugs
The WTO
NAFTA
The Federal Reserve Bank
The National ID Card program
Aid to Israel
Aid to Egypt
Aid to Colombia
Aid to corporations

GODDAMN! Why did I not know all this already? And why is Indymedia not including this info in their coverage of Ron Paul?

No one here is voting (R). Give it up.

If you really wante dto convince anyone, you'd interact with our points, But you dont-- you just barf right wing talking points.

It's literally all dittoheads know how to do.

First off, I'm anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist. And a person of color. So Ron Paul's not my cracker.

Second, Edwards, being a white male christian millionaire lawyer, isn't really my cup of tea. His new-found anti-corporate religion stinks of opportunism- why wasn't he saying all this back in '04?

Third, if opposing AIPAC makes me a Klan member, bring on the sheets!

Sorry, your champion Edwards is too comfortable with all the wrong interests to even compare with Ron Paul's positions, even with his acknowledged flaws.

You are at best two-dimensionalizing what I said. I said bad-but-better fit.

The real issue is the question of corporate control of society. For all the bill of goods being pushed on Ron Paul, no one ever says what he thinks of corporate control of society.

As for the race stuff, so great. Ron Paul has united at least some Neonazi elements with at least some PoC. Is this progress?

BTW, the question about whether you think there's a "Jewish conspiracy" to control the world, still stands. It would, after all, be a common thread.

You just put up those statements about Dr. Paul so they are now on Indybay. You are the media here, within certain open guidelines. There are no paid writers. Steve Argue is just an average person who had something to say, like the other posts. There is moderate moderation to get rid of duplicate posts, spam, hate speech, and the like, and they also move things up from breaking (where everybody's posting begins) to a simple category of local or international. And when these facilitators something really important (like the debate around the Ron Paul phenomenon that Steve Argue introduced) they will give that story center column status.

Its fairly simple, and you should look around at some of the other posts here and maybe read to about the different varieties of the left, and community organizing and all the other things here, so that when Dr. Paul loses to one of his authoritarian opponents like John "troops should stay in Iraq for 100 years, McCain, the theocratic Mike Huckabee, multi-billionaire Mitt Romney who can lies as well as the current Republican in office, or Rudy Ghoul-iani, you'll leave your silly-ass Party, and join the real movemtn for change in this society. And i don't mean the silly-ass Democrats either.

It is perfectly fair to question whether the kinds of people we see "reaching out" to us on behalf of Ron Paul, really belong in a progressive people's movement.

Why is questioning that beyond the pale? What form would it have to take for the question to become acceptable?

People can change. There are many long-term leftists, anarchists and others who began as supporters of Barry Goldwater (during his acceptance speech, he said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'' His opponent was Lyndon Johnson who ran as a peace candidate and ..then started the Vietnam War.

So the answer to your implied question, is: Yes, i think a certain percentage of those supporting Ron Paul will be open to our movements as they realize the limitations of electoral politics. i think if you dismiss a mass anti-war/pro-civil liberties phenomenon as just neo-nazi dupes you do so at your peril and move them into the hands of real Nazis. Better these people than supporters of war mongers from either party.

And by the way the names "deanosor" not "deanosaur".

BTW, HRC started as a "Goldwater girl" too. Does she get to join?

Also, Margaret Sanger went eugenicist in her later years. Was she "free" to remain a "progressive" whilst doing so?

No Hillary can't join. She's decided which side she's on a long time ago. And as Margaret Sanger's dead and buried, her life can be evaluated, as you wisely did that she was good at an earlier portion of her life and then CHANGED into a eugenicist.

I'm not especially inviting Dr. Paul or Barry Goldwater either. I'm talking about the people who are generally new to politics and support Paul because of his position against the war and U.S. imperialism, for civil liberties, against the drug war, for smaller government etc. Even tho anybody can look around this open sight, and anyone can CHANGE, i am not especially welcoming racists, sexists, homophobes, pro-capitalists and other like-minded scum.

Anyway, I think the effort would be better spent on all these "new voters" that Obama is attracting to the Dems. Aren't they going to be disillusioned when "change" is not what he delivers. Will they de-politicize, or radicalize? That is the question.

These Ron Paul people, however, are not "new" to politics, but rather, right-wingers from Freeperville, LGF or some such site. They are desperately trying to repackage their extremism now that Bush II is imploding..... just like they did when Bush II got in, and suddenly "militias" were embarrassing.

If these people are so anti-war, where were they when we were trying to prevent the war from starting in 2001-2002-2003? (Or for that matter, during the last Gulf War, in 1991-2?)

And after all, doesn't anarchy mean they're free to blow up abortion clinics, on their personal conviction that it's for the greater good? That is the fire with which you would play. At least have a plan to mind the flames, if you proceed in that direction, is all. Particularly if your house is anywhere near mine ;-)

I hope we can be smart enough to get people from all walks of life. Yes, welcome the disillusioned amongst the Obamans. But don't just write off the Paul supporters as Freepers. In fact, the Little Green Footballs blog and the Freepers hate Paul because he is against the war and really for smaller government. They probably like Huck, McCain, or Ghoul-iani.

As for your last questions about whether anarchy includes the supposed freedom to blow up abortion clinics, i would hope that if you have a clinic in your neighborhood that you would organize to defend it, like i've done in mine. Anything else is just red herrings.

As for "anarchy," obviously the question wasn't "for real" i.e. direct. Rather, it points to the question of INTERPRETATION. What's a midwestern, anti-govt, white-supremacist (or at least dad was) gun nut, also with some rather.... funny "Christian" ideas, home-schooled, supposed to make of "anarchy"?

Particularly when one is used to conforming political ideology to one's own self-interests, and then calling it "natural law"?

That, please answer-- not some red herring about blowing up clinics. Both you and I find that type of thing naturally repugnant. These guys, maybe not so much.... THAT'S the rub.

Sheesh, it's probably because of kneejerk numbskulls like you why I don't call myself an anarchist.

Far as I can tell, there isn't any monolithic Ron Paul enthusiast. So stop with all the "these people" and "these Ron Paul supporters" because it just makes any legitimate points you have look petty.

For the record (again) I'm a leftist, I was at Seattle, and in DC vs. the IMF/WB, and in Philly and NYC and marched against the war in '03 and against the Jenin assault, etc etc. Not that it makes me any more credible, because I should be judged by the validity of my argument, not by my activist resume.

Look, there are serious people who have taken an honest look at the race, and decided that despite his obvious and well-enumerated flaws, Ron Paul holds a certain attraction because he would be likely to deliver real wins for our team. Is that so difficult to accept at face value?

We've spent years fighting the racist War on Drugs, the WTO, corporate control, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war and US support for Israeli apartheid, all of which would be eliminated or seriously challenged by a Paul presidency. I don't believe that with anything similar to the status quo we can get anything different, and at the very least we;d have a powerful ally on some urgent issues. And there is no strong people's movement on the horizon to force wins, like in Bolivia. Obama, Edwards, Clinton et al, are certified by the gatekeepers of the system- CFR, AIPAC, etc. And Kucinich has zero chance of even the nomination, let alone the presidency (He did suggest Ron Paul as a running mate by the way, if he got the D nomination).

On the issues where Paul is against the Left, he can make things difficult, but not on the scale that many fear. A president facing a hostile Congress is not powerful enough to ram through an end to legal abortion- look at Bush's 8 years of trying. And the best way I can see to 'fix' immigration is to get rid of the WTO and NAFTA which are destroying the economies in the home countries of the economic refugees coming here, not to mention strengthening corporate rule around the world and at home.

Can ANY of the likely democratic candidates offer anything similar? NO.

That's why some good people are considering Ron Paul. Just maybe it's rash to label and dismiss these people so quickly. And doing a bit of research goes a long way- it might dispel some of the many rumors being used to discredit Ron Paul's legitimate stances. Like the ludicrous supremacist crap which seems to have found a new life here on IMC after even the NY Times was forced to retract it.

So with Ron Paul we have: unprecedented gains, serious but limited negatives, and Kucinich's imprimatur, versus nothing from the other Democrats.

I know it's unthinkable to call oneself a Republican, but WHY NOT this once?

Look no further than ron paul 2008 dot com.

All I need to know, to stay far away from that, right there under issues. Let's have a look at one, shall we?

PROPERTY RIGHTS. (and I quote):

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

(End Quote)

Hey, who needs oppressive environmental legislation? Corporations, as legal individuals, have sacrosanct property rights that are being violated by an evil federal government!

Face it, Sonia, Ron Paul is a way to save capitalism from an accounting for itself, not much more than that. All these positions you cite, mere window dressing. The negatives of removing federal power form the social landscape, in the absence of powerful people's movements (as you've noted), can only be disastrous in the immediate aftermath of 27 years of Reaganism and post-Reaganism.

They will finish dismantling the New Deal, and give us sweet fuck all in return. That will add up to a lot of needless suffering, for what? Ideological pipe-dreaming, that's what.

With all due respect, I don't think you've thought this through.

In addition to what I mentioned, Ron Paul opposes any protections for women being sexually harassed on the job, saying they should just quit.

Thank you for this insightful post Steven.

Here in Canada, in the province of Ontario we had our own quite disastrous right-wing 'revolution' which was billed as the 'Common sense revolution' under Mike Harris, a substitute gym teacher. The Mike Harris regime replaced the socialist government of the New Democratic Party, which had been in power until that time The 'Common sense revolution' of the Conservative government was a complete disaster, comparable on a smaller scale to what is happening with the George Bush administration in the United States now. An attempt to replace socialized medicine with a privatized 'two tier' system brought the province on the edge of an armed revolt. The Mike Harris government did not cease with their privatization schemes and steamroller legislation until the Premier Mike Harris himself was charged with the murder of native protester Dudley George .

In any case, I also enjoyed your excellent article on socialized medicare in the United States. The article was well-written and well researched. You also provided a wealth of information in citing your sources of reference, not to mention providing the article with academic credibility. I left a comment in the blog at the end of your essay, in response to one of your critics.

Good job, Well done!

I found the following on the police murder of Dudley George:

"The shooting at Ipperwash, which lies on the shores of Lake Huron, took place in September 1995. Just weeks before, the now reviled Tory government of Mike Harris had come to power in Ontario, with the backing of Bay Street and other powerful sections of the ruling class, pledged to implement a program of tax and public spending cuts, changes to welfare, and anti-union measures modeled after the US Republicans’ “Contract with America.”

"The police assault on a small band of unarmed natives in a deserted park following the Labor Day weekend came to symbolize the Harris government’s brutal methods.

[......]

"A central fact accepted by the commission, and about which Harris was found to be lying, was that as the premier of Ontario he shouted at a meeting that included OPP officials, “I want the fucking Indians out of the park!” In other meetings and encounters with top police officials—as the report details—the government gave emphatic instructions to the police to deal with the occupation decisively, precipitously, and without regard to the legitimacy of aboriginal rights. Linden further found that Harris and others in his administration demonstrated bigoted and openly racist views and that such attitudes were also common among the police who dealt with the occupation.

[......]

"The charge of native “violence” is an authoritarian slur. At Ipperwash a handful of unarmed Indians “occupied” a vacant provincial park that is situated on traditional native land. Even if one accepts the most restrictive legal definitions, a compelling case can be made that the protesters were acting lawfully. Moreover, quite aside from the assault that resulted in the death of Dudley George, virtually all threats and acts of violence during the Ipperwash occupation were in fact perpetrated by the police."

Canada: Report on police killing at Ipperwash masks state crimes
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/ippe-j16.shtml

Steve-

Thank you for calling attention to the core problems of a candidate like Ron Paul for president. I can't believe how many left leaning people who have given serious consideration to this guy. It is truly bizarre to say the least. Yes, we can do much better. Have you noticed who amongst the Dem candidates the mainstream press refuses to give any time to? Its John Edwards, the only candidate to eschew big money for his campaign and who has vowed (and proven it with a good anticorporate legal track record) to take on corporations in this country. They -- meaning corporations and thus their stooge propaganda units -- have completely ignored the biggest story of the Iowa primaries, which is how John Edwards came in second place despite the fact that he received nearly no press coverage and spent a fraction of what Clinton and Obama spent. If it weren't choking the life out of all of, the outrageous influence of corporations on all levels in this country would be preposterously hilarious.

... allow a place for right wing ideas. My answer would be yes, as long they were truly non-coercive, non-explotiotative, and non-evasive. I would hope that the Bible-believin' home-schoolin, anti- woman nuts would stay as far away from me and my friends as possible. Preferably on another another planet. But no, i would not kill, maim them, or lock them up.

Thanks and you're welcome Hiraeth.

We do disagree on Edwards, however.

Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama was not yet in the Senate. Yet Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all voted for war appropriations. This puts them all in the position of having supported the war.

The war has not gained the desired oil loot for U.S. corporations and has caused a number of growing problems for U.S. imperialism abroad and internal dissent in the United States. And while Clinton, Edwards, and Obama finally voted against some of the war appropriations 2007 as they tried to change their image for the presidential elections, their pro-war Democrat Party garnered plenty of other votes to keep the imperialist war going.

Edwards not only voted for the war against Iraq and for war appropriations, he also campaigned as a vice presidential candidate on the pro-war John Kerry ticket. At that time both candidates defended their votes for the war.

When Edwards was running for the position of vice president in 2004, here what he had to say on his pro-war vote:

“We need to stick to this [defending their Iraq war votes]. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That's what the Republicans want us to do.” (John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote, Scot Lehigh, The Globe, April 17, 2007)

Like Obama and Clinton, Edwards also oppose single payer health care, and instead advocates a continuation of insurance company healthcare. He claims his plan is universal because it includes penalties against those who do not buy health insurance.

I consider Edwards to be just another corporate candidate.

It is from this failure of the Democrats to produce a worthwhile candidate that some on the left are desperate enough to support Ron Paul. I, however, think this is a horrible mistake and advocate people build a movement to the left of the Democrats, not to the right of them, and consider supporting the candidates to the left of the Democrat Party as well as part of building a long-term opposition to the corporate Democrat and Republican Parties.

The work to oppose the Ron Paul zombies is much appreciated.

Caught in the Crossfire: The False Left-Right Paradigm and the Deception of the American People
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_newsom_122302_leftright.html
By Kevin Newsom

I see the Ron Paul machine is at work on here, frantic postings to try to refute statements that cannot be refuted.

I saw the same thing when Howard Dean, the conservative from VT who was forced by his own legislature to vote for gay rights, ran as the "peace candidate," and most were fooled by him. His internet machine would go around onto any forum and attack. You see the same thing from the right wingers whenever anyone brings up 9/11 issues -- they slam the forum with an avalanche of attack posts that amount to nothing real.

Ron Paul is the internet spam candidate.

I heard Alex Jones, of prisonplanet, was promised a position on Paul's staff if he won. Look it up someone else who has the time . . .

"alex jones" "ron paul" contributions, position, staff, campaign . ..

You put out an irrefutable point, like, off RPs website, and they throw the same five smely turds: patriot! I may not agree with him on abortion but! he's not a racist, despite the money he raises from nazis! stop the war, defend the border!

Creepy, creepy, creepy. You think govt doesn't listen to people's needs now? Imagine it under Ron Paul.

The majority of you have been institutionalized like zoo animals. So used to having your zoo keeper bring you your meals, shots, put a roof over your head that your scared at the possibility of some freedom. Please broaden your minds and think for yourselves. The Washington political machine is wraped so tightly with red tape that it cant move. In the past I have always voted democrate, but this time, if I get the chance I will vote for Paul. Both parties are spinning their wheels and getting no where. Ron Paul, far from perfect, offers some much needed freshness to Washington. Please check the facts for yourselves; I have found that most of the Paul bashing emails on this site are inaccurate by design, wreckless and unfair. Paul is the one candidate who is for protecting our individual rights, which we are loosing at an alarming rate.

Play this song-- play it LOUD
Everytime you think of voting for Ron Paul:


America the Beautiful, by DOA
-----------------------------------

lock your doors, lock 'em tight
it's the new immoral right
they wanna cleanse the home of the brave
for the master race of the usa

it's so beautiful

on the street you won't know them
like a pack of wolves in sheeps' clothing
spreading wide, spreading far
not just another false alarm

it's so beautiful

america -- i got my bible
america -- i got my handgun
america -- now i'm ready

america -- home of the brave
america - and the home of the slaves
america -- now i'm ready

...but are you?

The Ron Paul Time Machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7884Z6-FiMY

Where do I send all my gold bullion?

This article is a badly written smear piece, using all the hallmarks of yellow journalism, which I suspect many of its supporters here would be railing against if it were aimed against someone they liked.

At least admit that.

These are very low standards for Indymedia to be centering a story by. Perhaps it's only due to high volume of comments, but centering a story makes it look like the bay area IMC collective endorses this standard, and I certainly hope not.

Interesting newly posted article on Ron Paul at http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs01072008.html "Is Being Against the War Enough? Ron Paul's Run" By RON JACOBS which goes to the heart of the debate. I'd like to hear Sonia's response and those of other lefties supporting Paul (or thinking about doing so).

For those who are interested, Steve Argue discussed Ron Paul on my radio show recently at
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb080601.mp3 I read pro-Paul articles from Counterpunch and got Steve's comments.

If anyone knows, what are Ron Paul's positions on criminalization of the homeless? Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! did an interesting show last week on the advisers surrounding the various Democratic and Republican party zomboids. Does anyone have an analysis of those Ron Paul listens to?

Interesting in the answers...Feel free to call in Thursday 1-10 6-8 PM at 101.1 FM or http://www.freakradio.org 831-427-3772

OK, a thoughtful response finally (Robert Norse).

So this counterpunch piece articulates many of the fears that leftists have about a Paul presidency, focusing on his opposition to immigration and reproductive rights, and his inability to provide a truly fair playing field through a libertarian capitalist economy given the world in which we live.

All solid criticisms.

For the record (again), I am opposed to any form of capitalism, at least as a long-term strategy (meaning I support small-scale mom-and-pop operations as a survival mechanism in places where alternatives are not practical), and I certainly don't believe there can be anything such as "fair capitalism"- I am not a Libertarian.

In response to these crits, I'd say what has already been said on this thread and elsewhere.

Regarding Paul's hostility to immigrants, yes he is likely to make things more difficult on that front in the US, and exacerbate an already inflamed situation in a fundamentally unfair immigration system, which takes little to no account of the root causes of economic migration, which is the destruction and greedy manipulation of the migrants' home economies by wealthy interests. In that light though, how can we ever expect this problem to be solved without dismantling the US government's imposition of so-called free trade agreements and institutions down the throats of people worldwide? Ron Paul opposes the WTO and NAFTA as distortions of a libertarian free market, and would go all out to oppose the ''free-trade' profiteers and their agreements. It might be for the wrong reason, but is this not an opportunity likely to come along anytime soon. I know millions in the developing world would be thrilled at a Ron Paul presidency, which would remove this blight on their lives. So much for the racism argument.

Regarding abortion rights, I refuse to believe that Paul is any more fanatical about Christian dogma than George Bush and his people, and if Bush was not able in 8 years to overturn Roe v. Wade, then Paul would not stand a chance, especially with the newly Democratic Congress, which is likely only to get stronger in the 2008 election. There are still many tricks he could play through cabinet agencies, like HHS and so on, but these are things the pro-choice community is well-positioned to fight. In any case, as Stan Goff says, the cumulative impact of a Paul presidency would favor women worldwide overwhelmingly, by removing US military domination and financial and military support for many vicious regimes, from Israel to Colombia.

As far as Paul's economics, can anyone seriously advocate that Paul could make the US economy any less friendly to workers and the environment? Even if one is inclined to believe that he would have the power to impose a Libertarian model on the country, this would mean cutting corporate subsidies and Pentagon contracts which keep many of the worst companies in the black, on top of the aforementioned WTO/NAFTA turnarounds which would be a major blow to capital.

So yes, there are some legitimate and deep flaws in this candidate from our perspective. But with the upsides so striking, and the downsides potentially manageable, well, let's just say I remain convinced about the wisdom of supporting him (to the extent that we don't rely on this one man to fix everything, and continue our urgent work on all fronts, and hold him accountable for his anti-people and anti-planet policies).

Jacobs finishes up with a telling comment, which says something important for people here to consider:
"[N]othing-especially nothing as important as ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan-can be solved simply by voting another face into the White House. Getting rid of the current one and replacing him with someone who has at least expressed a desire to end those adventures is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a widespread and mobilized movement willing to use a multitude of tactics is going to accomplish that. On the other hand, do I think it's the end of the world if Ron Paul gets your vote (or gets elected)? Of course not. In fact, a vote for Ron Paul is certainly a better use of the franchise than a vote for almost any of the other candidates currently running.

resgister Peace & Freedom or Greeen and figure out which of those candidates you like best,rather than figuring out which Democrat or Rethuglican ypu don't like least. This is especially true you if you live in California.

Six writes, without contradicting a single fact or idea, "This article is a badly written smear piece, using all the hallmarks of yellow journalism, which I suspect many of its supporters here would be railing against if it were aimed against someone they liked."

I Stand By My Article

A lot of false things have been said by the supporters of Ron Paul in their attempts to answer my article.

Absurdities have been posted that deserve no reply, such as claims that “Argue” is not my real name and that I am really a Zionist in disguise.

Blatantly racist crap has been posted such as, “Anti-racist means anti-white gentile”.

Claims have also been made that Ron Paul is not a racist. Yet his voting record proves otherwise. Anyone who votes against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is a racist. And you can spare me the Civil War era “states rights” rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army, including 200,000 Black soldiers, smashed the southern slavocracy, and this was a tremendous step forward. More recently the Voting Rights Act was passed, but if it were up to Ron Paul, it would be abolished.

As for Ron Paul’s fellow racist travelers, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, has the endorsement of the Nazi group Stormfront, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black. Whether or not Nazi Commander Bill White is lying, I can’t say for sure, but his statements do fit the character of both individuals, and I have not seen anything that proves his statements false. In addition, the New York Times has confirmed that he has eaten at the restaurant mentioned.

Claims have been made that Ron Paul isn’t for the banning same-sex marriage, yet Ron Paul supporters fail to explain why Ron Paul was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act".

On abortion, Ron Paul supporters come up with the same “state rights” crap, claiming that Ron Paul wouldn’t ban abortions. Yet it took the national Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion. Getting rid of national protections for a woman’s right to choose is one way to move towards the banning of abortions. Once again “state rights” are being used to defend Ron Paul’s racist and sexist positions.

In addition, Ron Paul opposes any protections for women being sexually harassed on the job, saying they should just quit.

In advocating the dismantling of the Department Education etc, Ron Paul supporters say that people need to take care of themselves. I disagree. I think that in a civilized society we need to take care of each other and the environment. Socialized medicine would be a major step forward in this direction, but Ron Paul not only opposes that, he wants to dismantle other important gains of the working class such as Social Security and environmental protections.

The Ron Paul “revolution” is a dangerous proposal for unfettered capitalist profit, in the name of “individual liberty”, that would cause misery on a massive scale that will ignite civil war. On top of all of that, Ron Paul is a racist, sexist, homophobic, religious nut.

No to Ron Paul!

Steven, I rarely, if ever, will say this to you, but my heart goes out to you. Ron Paul supporters are some of the most rabid, cultish followers I have ever seen, and this just proves it. They scan the internet for any mention of his name, and then post the exact same response over and over again, Paul-Bombing the site to death. The responses that aren't 99% similar are racist or anti-semitic. Shows something about them, if you ask me.

Check out this The New Republic article

Angry White Man by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008


If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

The story continues at http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca .
And 600+ comments can be found at the end of the article.

Anyone know Paul's position on homeless civil rights? Or who is key advisers are?

The End of Ron Paul?
The New Republic Strikes
by Joshua Frank / January 8th, 2008
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/the-end-of-ron-paul/

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Ron Paul’s movement was gaining steam. Supporters chased the disgusting Sean Hannity back to his hotel. Fox News was feeling the heat from their exclusion of Paul from their New Hampshire debates. He was polling in double digits in key primary states. Leno had him on as a guest. Twice. He had the money to make an impact. It looked as if Paul, if he were to break with the Republicans and run as an independent after the primaries, could actually force the big party candidates to address the death zone of Iraq and our loss of civil liberties back home.

Enter James Kirchick of The New Republic.

On the day of the nation’s first primary, Kirchick ran a piece detailing some of the more outlandish material that appeared in publications Paul endorsed during the 1970s to the 1990s. Much of the rhetoric was vitriol, homophobic and overtly racist, demonizing Martin Luther King and other civil rights heroes. And while Kirchick admits he can’t prove Paul actually wrote any of the words he quoted, as there were no by-lines, the Texas congressman’s name most certainly appeared on the cover.

As one passage read:

In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine ‘who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.’ In an item titled ‘The Pink House?’ the author of a newsletter—again, presumably Paul—complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite ‘the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,’ adding, ‘I miss the closet.’

This doesn’t read like any of Paul’s writings I’ve perused, and I don’t actually think he wrote this crap, but the fallout, nonetheless, could be devastating. Not only to his presidential campaign, but to his political career more generally.

Sadly, Paul’s campaign did not give what I believed to be a very convincing response, “The quotations in The New Republic,” Paul says, “are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.”

While I don’t believe Paul endorses such hate, I think in order to potentially save his campaign he must come forward with the names of the actual authors and editors of the material, proving they are no longer associated with him in any way, and hope the mainstream press buys it.

Kirchick most certainly has an agenda, admitting to a pro-Paul gay rights blogger named Berin that he “doesn’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up.” Even with Kirchick’s attempt to smear Paul as an anti-Semite for his criticisms of Israel, much of Kirchick’s flailing dung may actually stick to Paul’s reputation, deeming him even more fringe than the media already think he is.

Indeed this may be just the excuse the neo-cons and their pro-war liberal cohorts need in order to further isolate the anti-imperialist ideas Paul espouses. Many on the Left too will happily etch Paul in their memory as a whacko-racist, who didn’t even have the tact to oversee what was being printed in his name. While I may agree with the latter, I still feel sympathy for all of his supporters as well as his efforts to end the war in Iraq.

Does this really mean an end to his campaign? If he doesn’t come forward with a detailed rebuttal, naming names, showing exactly how he wasn’t involved and how he never profited from any of the newsletters quoted, it may just be.



Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. Read other articles by Joshua, or visit Joshua's website.

This article was posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm and is filed under Democracy, Elections.


Note from Norse: Joshua Frank earlier wrote an article sympathetic to Paul at http://brothersinlaw.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/joshua-frank-ron-paul-from-the-left/

OK, so Ron Paul is a hater. But what about MY issue? Is he good on my topic?

This is disgusting. I can't believe y'all are committed to "reaching out" to these people, to the point of censoring leftist skeptics to protect the reach-outers from the criticism their behavior so richly deserves. The reds are right-- you anarchos are utterly lost and rudderless, if you think you can make common cause with Paulites. Oh how the purists have fallen.

Well, you can have your deanosaurs. Me, yet again, I'm. Out. Of. Here. And there is no door to hit me on the ass, I notice.

I just ran into this Tucker MSNBC interview.

Jan. 7: The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick gives an inside look into his controversial piece on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, due to hit newsstands on Friday.

http://antironpaul.com/

Hey Steve, are you done trying to make your point? It seems to me your point should have been made in your original article otherwise you wouldn't be trolling around your own post for days trying to defend yourself. At any rate, if your view is that dems need to find a better candidate so that all the registers democrats don't go rushing out to switch parties in order to vote for Paul, then why havn't the dems found a better candidate that people are getting behind? If Ron Paul is as bad as you say he is then please explain why he is gaining such popularity among voters in all registered parties. The proof is in the pudding my friend. By the way, great job finding the picture of Ron Paul supporters that looks like a bunch of frat boys at a beer fest. How many pictures did you go through in order to find the most unflattering one?

“Pdog” attacks me for posting information that wasn't even out at the time I wrote the article saying I should have included it in the original article. Yet, unlike Ron Paul, I do not have a time machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7884Z6-FiMY

He goes on to say, "At any rate, if your view is that dems need to find a better candidate so that all the registers democrats don't go rushing out to switch parties in order to vote for Paul, then why havn't the dems found a better candidate that people are getting behind?"

No, that was not my point. One of the points I'm making is that there is nobody in the corporate Democrat and Republican Parties are worth supporting. I discuss some of the candidates that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

'By the way, great job finding the picture of Ron Paul supporters that looks like a bunch of frat boys at a beer fest.'

HaHaHa, they were actually posing during an anti-war demonstration in San Francisco.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/27/18456524.php

Y'all have nobody to blame but yourselves for acting stupid in public, whether it is at an anti-war demonstration or here on Santa Cruz Indymedia.

Is it a coincidence that the next article posted on indybay is "Green Party Presidential Candidates to Debate in SF on January 13th" including the statement "Voters who wish to change parties or re-register with new addresses must send in their registration forms by January 21st in order to be able to vote in the February 5th primary" with the obvious implication that you should switch to Green. Is there a concerted effort here at Indybay to derail Ron Paul? I smell a rat. I'm sorry but you should have already found a viable candidate to support instead of creating a hit piece out of fear that your favorite party (Green or Dem) will lose votes to Paul. The desperation is too obvious. Whether or not there is a concerted effort to derail Paul, well, decide for yourself. To the above poster (no name?) I never said the Ron Paul supporters were acting stupid, just that is the least flattering one. A few guys do not represent an entire campaign (duh!). By the way, how did you find that picture so fast?

Hello. My name is Mahtin and I put together that center column story as well as the one about the Peace and Freedom Party. I am not trying to get people to vote Green or any other party. I was just trying to help people to know that if they did want to register Green for the primary, they will have to register by that date.

I personally do want to distract people from the Ron Paul frenzy, because I don't think he's a good candidate and I don't like what he stands for. I also don't like either of the two corporate parties. There's no desperation. You might notice that I didn't write a story about a particular candidate. It's just about other options.

you said:
"Voters who wish to change parties or re-register with new addresses must send in their registration forms by January 21st in order to be able to vote in the February 5th primary" with the obvious implication that you should switch to Green. Is there a concerted effort here at Indybay to derail Ron Paul? I smell a rat. I'm sorry but you should have already found a viable candidate to support instead of creating a hit piece out of fear that your favorite party (Green or Dem) will lose votes to Paul. The desperation is too obvious. Whether or not there is a concerted effort to derail Paul, well, decide for yourself. To the above poster (no name?) I never said the Ron Paul supporters were acting stupid, just that is the least flattering one. A few guys do not represent an entire campaign (duh!). By the way, how did you find that picture so fast?

Ive been against the Iraq AND Afghanistan invasions since day one.

I support Medical Marijuana. I supported WAMM, and worked to help them after the illegal DEA raid.

Im not racist, not white-supremist, nor am I anti-white (nor any other race or color).

I despise our prison-industrial complex, and the military-industrial complex.

I absolutely condone any form of romantic civil union, be it straight, gay, poly, whatever. I support government getting the hell out of marriage entirely.

In fact, I believe in Washington DC respecting states' rights like the US Constitution demands, and getting off our backs.

I believe adamantly in the Bill of Rights.

And Im voting for Ron Paul.

Liberty means being Pro-Choice on *everything*.

Since I wrote this article, new information has surfaced regarding Ron Paul’s pro-fascist agenda.

That information is discussed in the following January 7, 2008 MSNBC interview conducted by Tucker Carlson with the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick. In it he gives an inside look into his controversial piece on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, due to hit newsstands on Friday.

http://antironpaul.com/

The following are newly released copies of Ron Paul’s extreme right newsletter to which Jamie Kirchick refers:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf

In addition to these revelations, in New Hampshire Ron Paul also failed to repeat anything close to the 10% vote he achieved in Iowa.

Somewhat surprisingly, there are a large number of liberal minded anti-war people who have urged a vote for Ron Paul.

They are liberal "support the lesser viable evil" types that see Ron Paul as more viable than any anti-war Democrat (arguably Kucinich and Gravel).

Additional questions have always existed if Ron Paul really was viable, or if he really was a lesser evil. New Hampshire and the latest revelations ought to put both questions to rest.

But for me there are always more important questions than if a candidate is viable or a "lesser evil". I think that building a long-term movement for real change is much more important than backing a candidate of any degree of evil. For me that includes deflating illusions in the corporate politicians of the Democrat and Republican Parties, getting out information on candidates to the left of the Democrats (the real anti-war and anti-corporate candidates), and urging further actions such as protests, strikes etc.

Simply put, there is nobody worth supporting in the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-poor, and capitalist Republican Party. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. In fact, there is nobody in the corporate Democrat and Republican Parties that are worth supporting. I discuss some of the candidates that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

| Posted by blakmira
19 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
Thanks for the attempted smear. NY Times cleared this up MONTHS ago. Eric Dondero, the author of that newsletter who worked for Ron Paul at the time, was subsequently fired. Perhaps you received this "information" from him? Let's just say he's a very disgruntled former employee with sour grapes. Ron Paul's record is impeccable. This is all you can "find" on him? For shame, for shame. Who are you shilling for? D- for effort.

| Posted by Rocky
20 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
Paid MSM shills like you should be shipped to some banana republic.

| Posted by fred jones
21 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
It sounds like Gary North wrote these newsletters. The "race war" and AIDS stuff sounds like him. A lot of unsubstantiated smears here. Kirchik's "presumably Paul" crap is a flat-out lie -- to be expected from the publication that brought up Stephen Glass et alia. Another lie is the "anti-Semitism" crap -- that is even backed up by Kirchik with quotes from the newsletter. Sorry, but it's not "anti-Semetic" (whatever that even means) to criticize Israel. Another lie. Why doesn't Kirchik try to engage in substantive reporting about Waco or WTC '93 or for that matter OKBOMB? All of those passages are fraught with assumptions on Kirchik's part. He can't confront the issues head on because he has no facts. Perhaps that's better than just printing false facts; something TNR is well-known for and Kirchik is carrying on in the tradition of.

| Posted by James Henderson
22 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
You, sir have an agenda. You are among the delusional people who think Paul's wanting to defund Israel is antisemitism, even though Paul wants to stop giving money to Arabs, who get 3 times the aid going to Israel. Paul fired a ghostwriter of the most inflammatory items you mention. There are other sources that have axes to grind with Paul. He has explicitly stated he does not want money from hate groups and has denounced racism as immoral. Barbara Jordan was a socialist and, unfortunately, the democratic socialist establishment has brainwashed a large portion of the black community to vote for their own continued oppression and destruction through the welfare state. I caucused for Paul in Iowa. If he does not get the nomination, I will support Obama based on his foreign policy and his energy policy. I disagree with Obama on taxes and some of his social policies, but he trumps any of the pseudo-republicans in the race with his foreign policy. Am I racist too? You are a biased dork who has bought into the Israeli lobby. Paul is not antisemitic, but realizes our alignment with Israel is destructive. You and your ilk disgust me.

| Posted by thejauntyboulevardier
23 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
whoa, good work James. Because of his gadfly status, I have never paid too much attention to Paul. On an almost instinctual level, I have sensed that he is a loon but your article really brings out the more unsavory and sinister elements of his persona. Again, good work...

| Posted by joshie
24 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
Well I am a liberal supporting Ron Paul. I disagree with his stance on many issues. However ending the war, genocide, tyranny, and police state outweigh my liberal perspectives. Ron Paul is payback to the pandering warmongers. We gave the Democrats a chance to stand up to the dictator but they crumbled. If it takes a righwinger to end the slaughter of innocents then I am comfortable with that. What good are gay rights or race relations if we are starting world war III. What good is affirmative action if you are in prison?

| Posted by Lucia Schmitz
25 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
First Ron Paul gets excluded by the neocons of Fox News and now oh!, what a coincidence just the night before New Hampshire primaries this trashy article written by the neocons of The New Republic. Well I tell you what, it is not going to work because even if Ron Paul is not going to get elected president he has started a movement of freedom and respect of the constitution that you guys can't stop. Have a great day!!

| Posted by fud
26 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
This is all rubbish that has been debunked. Much of it been mentioned on his wikipedia page for months. This is journalism?

| Posted by jonnyfrag
27 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
Must be getting scared. This kind of blatant lie-filled diatribe is just what to expect when someone challenges your comfort zone and neo-con reality. All these charges have been brought up before and thouroughly dismissed.

| Posted by ATS
28 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
"First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, THEN THEY ATTACK YOU, then you win." Gandhi.

| Posted by mjhlaw
29 of 1285 | warn tnr | respond
Concerning allegations. I carry no water for the Ron Paul campaign, but unfortunately must "consider the source" in light of the recent Beauchamp affair. Are any images of these purported excerpts available, perhaps a scanned .pdf document or digital camera shot? Even absent the Beauchamp affair, I'm suspicious of undocumented allegations during an election year by ANY publication.

Someone claims they’re, "Not a Republicrat Like Stevie"

I've made clear that I oppose both parties.

They go on, "Oh right, "bourgeoisie freedom" an all be sacrificed if it gives you "socialized medicine" and Hillary is a first step."

Wake up. Hillary Clinton opposes both socialized medicine and single payer healthcare. She supports insurance company healthcare, the kind that is killing untold millions in the United States. That is one of many reasons I oppose her.

And no, I don't see Clinton as a first step towards socialized medicine. Her promise to force people to buy insurance has nothing in common with fully socialized medicine nor single payer. Read my article, you might learn something.

As for Ron Paul, he wants to privatize everything, including public education and Social Security, eliminate the Voting Rights Act and Roe V Wade in the name of "states rights", signed on to the "Marriage Protection Act", would eliminate every environmental and labor protection, etc. etc. etc.

I oppose both Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. But I’ve already made that clear as being my position. This accusation is slanderous.

I meant this to be the introduction:

I'm getting a barrage of attacks at New York Indymedia for this same article. The attacks are saying that I oppose Ron Paul and support Hillary Clinton, which I don't, because I think Clinton will bring us socialized healthcare, which I don't.

Repeatedly I've responded, but all responses have been deleted. Now a Ron Paul supporter posted a link over to here, so I'll post the response that gets censored at New york Indymedia:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

###

...how do you expect he'll act as President? First of all, I'd like to withdraw anything good i said about Dr. Paul. These 20 years of newsletters all sanctioned by Ron Paul (the 70's and 80's equivalents of blogs) contained the most outrageous examples of racism. Dr. Paul should have known what was in them. Did not someone ever question him about them?

Did he write any feel good disclaimers quoting Dr. King at the time? Has he said he has changed his views since then? No. He does a Nixonesque plausible deniability game of saying he didn't know. But this was 20 years of stuff in his name. Did he not read hsi own newsletters? No excuses suffice, Maybe a mea culpa and some penance would work, as the Catholics say.

I still think the Ron Paulite phenomon is interesting. A mass movement basically against the war, and for civil liberties has been created by people who are all over the map on everything else. I hope that those that are truly against the government will look at anarchist ideas. A good place to do this will be the Anarchist Book Fair in San Francisco the weekend of March 22nd and 23rd at the Hall of Flowers in Golden Gate Park.

The following is another comment from me that has been censored at New York Indymedia in the discussion under my same article:


Under the caption, "Stevie Moves the Goalposts Yet Again" a set of lies are posted that I've already refuted. But here we go again.

I don’t know what this person’s goalposts are, but my goalposts have always been a just and better world. I have not moved that goalpost.

“Then it's pointed out that yes Ron Paul is a racist but Stevies candidate Hillary is even worse.”

I don’t support Hillary Clinton. Never have, but you don’t listen. This is pure slander.

“It's pointed out that Stevie is willing to sacrifice liberty for a bogus health care plan”

Hillary Clinton opposes both socialized medicine and single payer healthcare. She supports insurance company healthcare, the kind that is killing untold millions in the United States. That is one of many reasons I oppose her.

And no, I don't see Clinton as a first step towards socialized medicine. Her promise to force people to buy insurance has nothing in common with socialized medicine nor partially socialized medicine (i.e. single payer). I’m clear about this in my article:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

As for Ron Paul, he wants to privatize everything, including public education, Social Security, and Medicare, eliminate the Voting Rights Act and Roe V Wade in the name of "states rights", signed on to the "Marriage Protection Act", would eliminate every environmental and labor protection, etc. etc. etc. This is a prescription for the slavery of the majority to protect the “liberty” of a tiny handful of capitalists to exploit.

I oppose both Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. But I’ve already made that clear as being my position. These accusations are slanderous.

Regarding Bill White, I didn’t get the Bill White story from the New York Times, but the things the New York Times have said back it, as they have confirmed that Ron Paul has eaten at the restaurant in question. In addition, Ron Paul’s own newsletter and actions in Congress confirm that he is a rabid racist-sexist-homophobe.

“Then Stevie moves the goal posts again. Waaa. He's being censored.”

I repeatedly posted a response to the slander that I support Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan, and the response is censored every time. I have no motive to make that up. I mentioned it because I wanted people to see my response. Frankly, I’m quite surprised it is happening. Let’s see if this one goes up.

What You Might Not Know About Ron Paul, and Why You Should Know It
by Bov
January 8, 2008
http://911review.com/articles/bov/RonPaul_08.html

Zionist and Nazi collusion of interest
dispossesion of a people

"On the morals of Jabotinsky's plans and his desire to extinguish all hopes of the Palestinian people he is as clear in the "Iron Wall" as Hitler is of his intentions in "Mein Kampf" with Jabotinsky stating: . .
In 1940 Jabotinsky states in "The Jewish War Front": 'Since we have the moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of the Arabs, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. Herr Hitler has recently been enhancing the popularity of population transfer.'"

Were 600 prominent Jews in WWII Hungary complicit by silence in the transfer to crematoria
of 800,000 poor Jews in order to escape the Nazis themselves?

"Jews, in fact, are victims of Zionism along side Arabs. From the beginning of Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 the Zionist movement lent their support to the Nazis, support which lasted until at least 1944 when they aided Hitler's "final solution" in Hungary killing 800,000 Jews. On the surface the idea of Zionist relations with the Nazis may sound illogical and seem made up. Those relations, however, are well documented. .
Collaboration included an agreement in Hungary between Zionist agent Dr. Rudolph Kastner and Nazi leader Adolph Eichman. Under the 1944 agreement the Nazis would murder 800,000 Hungarian Jews without Zionist interference and with complete silence from the Zionist movement. In exchange 600 prominent Jews would be freed from Hungary. The Nazis then opened up a Rescue Department in Hungary headed by Kastner.
These facts were exposed by a survivor named Malchiel Greenwald who was subsequently sued by the Israeli government, sued by the same leaders that had fashioned the deal made by Kastner in the first place. .
Kastner's collaboration with the Nazis was confirmed with the Israeli court. . (Judgment
given on June 22, 1955, Protocol of Criminal Case 124/53 in District Court, Jerusalem)
After independence from the Britain in 1948 the Zionist state began a massive expropriation of Palestinian land that has not ended. Becky Johnson's claim that, "the Arabs and Muslims who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population" is so utterly untrue as to defy common sense. .
The U.S. and the Saudi Arabian monarchy work together closely to systematically loot Saudi Arabia's oil resources for the profits of U.S. oil monopolies while the vast majority of the Saudi people live in poverty. In addition the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Hamas worked together closely in the U.S. war drive to destroy the left progressive PDPA government that held power in Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992. This was a war where the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia gave billions of dollars of military aid to Osama Bin Laden and the Islamic fundamentalists of the Mujahedin who were waging a holy war against the advances in women's rights, including women's literacy, that were occurring under the PDPA government.
Just as the United States used Hamas against the Afghani people and the leftist PDPA government, Israel has used the religious fundamentalists of Hamas as a club against the socialist and secular nationalist movements in Palestine that Hamas has violently opposed. It is those secular and socialist movements that Israel has seen as more of a threat in terms of
winning the masses of people, including Hebrew speakers, over to positions of sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians." (Argue, Part 1)

Hence the Israelis originally funded the anti-leftist Hamas, while the US funded 100,000 mujahadin against the Russians in Afghanistan.

Sharon ended the gentleman's agreement between Israel and Hamas

"In 1994 Hamas began its indiscriminate attacks on Hebrew speaking people through suicide bombings. Those suicide bombings had been stepped up by Hamas in the beginnings of the Intifada 2 uprising in September 2000, but then ended due to an agreement between
Arafat's Palestinian Authority and Hamas. .
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon needed a new provocation he could use as propaganda to escalate the war against the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). To create this provocation he took action to end the truce between the P.A. and Hamas on ending the suicide bombings of civilians. On November 23rd Israeli security forces assassinated Hamas leader Mahmud Abu Hunud. On November 25th, 2001 right-wing Israeli journalist Alex Fishman accurately observed in the "Yediot Achronot": "Whoever gave the green light
to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman's
agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line. .(Argue, Part 2)
-----

Argue, Steve, steveorchid [at] yahoo.com, 'How Israel Promotes Anti-Semitism (Part 1 & 2)',
May 8, 02

I do not blame Jews for the holocaust; I more specifically blame the Zionist movement for working with the Nazis.

The above butchered quotations are bits and pieces of my essay. It is an anti-Zionist essay and is not an anti-Semitic essay. In addition, it is based on well documented facts. I have reposted the actual essay so that people can read it in full:

How Israel Promotes Anti-Semitism
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/13/18472076.php

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

Full Article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

Besides voting against the voting rights act and taking the racist position that race is no longer an issue, Ron Paul is on Record as hating Martin Luther King in his newsletter.

Yet the Ron Paul supporter says, "Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years."

Besides voting against the Voting Rights Act, opposing the Civil Rights Act, and accepting donations from the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, this is what Ron Paul had to say about Dr. King in his Ron Paul Newsletter:

“Martin Luther King: Socialist. St. Martin was a world class philanderer who beat up his paramours (“non-violence” didn’t apply in all spheres I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.”

Dr. Ron Paul votes against anything that would empower the corruption of Washington DC to overstep its authority. America is supposed to be a union of INDIVIDUAL STATES, not one big monocultural empire. The US Constitution doesnt try to end hunger, cure cancer, or anything else. All it does is guarantee SOME civil rights - the ones they had in mind at the time 200 years ago - and otherwise it leaves the states to Act Locally.

Because the founding fathers knew there would always be political disagreements in so vast a country, they set up these firewalls so that no injustice could ever cross STATE BORDERS. This is why Dr. Ron Paul votes against any legislature that would give the evil empire of Washington DC more power.

America's federal government cannot be trusted. Everyone knows that. But it continually gains more power for itself every year, by playing alternatively to conservative or liberal sympathies, with these bribes of "Ill give you X if you'll give me permanent power to control X".

Conservatives and liberals both have been selling ALL OUR RIGHTS away to the federal government for decades now, in exchange for small favors. And thanks to both groups, we now have an out of control federal government so huge that no one on the planet is able to reign it in anymore.

Thanks guys.

Ron Paul and the Paulistas: Populism and the Paranoid Style in American Politics
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-populism-and-the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

"The Paulistas are out there and they’re angry. They’re mad about “corporatist” governance, the Federal Reserve and the war in Iraq. More than a few are truthers and they are quick to spring into action when Paul is mentioned in a a negative light. A few bloggers have experimented by posting entries with titles like “Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul” to see what would happen and, sure enough, the Paulistas come out of the woodwork.

Paul’s policy proposals and certainly his style, are paranoid populist rather than libertarian. After all, what’s libertarian about restricting women’s reproductive rights and not allowing GLBT folks to serve openly? What’s libertarian about militarizing the border? Paul’s voting record on trade is not incredibly libertarian either.

In fact, when you strip away the libertarian polish, Paul emerges as an economic and political isolationist. Likewise, most of Paul’s supporters—the people who will actually vote for him—are right-wing populists."

Ron Paul and the Paulistas, Part II: Virtual Reality Versus Political Reality
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/ron-paul-and-the-paulistas-part-ii-virtual-reality-versus-political-reality/

As the constitution states the rights of the individual not the collective. All men are created equal.

I think you should take a closer look at Dr Paul. Anyone who want to disable the privately owned Fed gets my vote!

More on Paul’s crazy supporters here:

Right Wingers for Paul

Ron Paul and Lyndon Larouche

Earlier in this comment thread it was requested by deanosor to provide proof that Ron Paul is against the border wall between U.S. and Mexico. Here is an intro into how Ron Paul feels about the creeping fascism we find daily under the GW Bush regime post 9/11..

"BILL MOYERS: You remind me of something you told Tim Russet on MEET THE PRESS-- you talked about fascism. Look at this piece of tape.

RON PAUL (on MEET THE PRESS): Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.

BILL MOYERS: Do you really think that we're heading in that direction?

RON PAUL: Yeah. Now we're living in an age today in this post-9/11 atmosphere where our civil liberties are being undermined constantly. All in the name of safety and security we're supposed to give up our rights for our privacy? We're allowed now to accept the idea of secret prisons and secret renditions, and the lost of habeas corpus. This is very, very dangerous. And I don't want to get to the point where it's hard to reverse. Matter of fact, right now it's getting more difficult everyday to reverse this trend, because the American people seem to so often say, "You know I want to be-- I can't be free, if I'm not safe. So, I want my government to make me safe." And they're willing to give up their liberties. And I'm convinced that you never have to give up liberties to be safe. I think you're less safe when you give up your liberties."

quote found @;
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html

Given that the U.S./Mexico border wall would be constructed, maintained and policed by various federal government entities (Homeland Security "umbrella service", ICE, INS, etc..), that this fencing project would cost taxpayers mucho $$ dinero, and be based on the concept of other military industrial police state walls (Soviet occupied East Germany, Israeli occupied Palestine), and deprive people on either side of the fence of their freedom of movement (civil liberties), it is not something Ron Paul would want if offered as a seperate immigration issue. Unfortunately, it was included along with other immigration reform provisions, and Ron Paul found himself voting for the wall against his wishes..

Here's the quote;


"Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn't mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he's not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally.

"I think we could be much more generous with our immigration," he told me. But, he added, "we don't need illegal immigration. We don't need to reward people who get in front of the line."

Paul also told me he opposes building a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. He said he only voted for a bill that included a fence, because it also took on the amnesty issue.

"I voted for that bill to stop the amnesty, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."
"

quote found @;
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3985423&page=2

(Source note; don't usually like quoting from corporate media, though that seems only available direct quote.)

So Paul voted for the border fence even though he found it offensive, expensive and ineffective simply because the immigration reform bill included other topics. Sounds a bit wishy-washy to say the least, and once again adds to the already cynical approach i have towards U.S. bipolar politics. Seems like whoever wins in '08, there will be plenty of protest activity waiting in the wings..

BTW, since i'm voting in Democrat primary for my fave canidate Kucinich, and second choice Obama, i cannot be labeled as a "Paulista", as there are ZERO other Republican candidates i would ever consider voting for..

As a personal note, my anarcho-libertarian perspective to the U.S./Mex border wall is to physically remove and demolish any random section of fence material along the route with whatever explosive material, cutting devices and haul-away methods available. Just keep a lookout for los federales and their fascist stooges (Minutemen, SOS, etc..), don't get caught and blend into the desert..

Here's what Ron Paul says about immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4&feature=related

While capitalist politicians and rightwing extremists scapegoat immigrants, it is important for the working class on all sides of the borders to understand the cause of our problems is not immigrants, but exploitative capitalists, imperialism, and war. The capitalists get away with paying immigrants less because they give them fewer rights. Unions need to organize all who live in the United States and treat all as equals against the bosses. Full citizen rights to all living in the United States! Repeal NAFTA! Cancel the third world "debt"! End U.S. military aid to repressive capitalist third world governments! End CIA and U.S. military interventions! Reparations for imperialism!

Excellent article, I've linked to it from AnarchismToday.org. Attacking Ron Paul, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse...there is quite literally nothing good about him...and if you think you've found something good...research it for 5 more minutes, and it will become evident you are mistaken. But this dead horse refuses to die. So I suppose it's more like beating an undead hurse...

Anyway, my thoughts on the topic are available here:

personman's blog

and you can see what Noam Chomsky has to say about Ron Paul here:

Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul

-personman
<a href="http://anarchismtoday.org" />AnarchismToday.org

Ron Paul has denounced racism on more than one occasion but guilt by association is your way of grasping for straws. By the way, socialism is responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century. Your ideology is the real genocide.

Ooh they get nasty when you threaten their little FED empire hey.
We all know the Nazi's run the FED, so not surprizingly they down Ron.
If you not American, take that occupied congress and go back to where you came from.