Today on Blogcritics
Home » Ron Paul and His KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo-Nazi Supporters

Ron Paul and His KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo-Nazi Supporters

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook5Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

During the past month or so the conservative blogsphere and media has finally discovered the fact that GOP Presidential hopeful and Texas GOP Congressman Ron Paul has some very strange supporters. During the past months on Blogcritics, I have been exposing various and sundry rather tawdry aspects of the whole anti-immigration movement with profiles on John Tanton  and Tom Tancredo

The Blogcritics piece I recently did about the white supremacist assault on Senator Lindsey Graham is garnering some interesting comments from the far right. But no series exposing the extreme and far right forces distorting the once-honorable conservative agenda could possibly be anywhere near complete without a commentary about some of the supporters of Ron Paul.

This isn’t the first time Ron Paul has run for President. In 1988 he did so as a libertarian candidate, attracting little attention. This time, though it is different as Paul and his supporters have mastered the art of the internet candidacy and almost defined a new and improved way to raise funds. Instead of going for a few high dollar supporters, they are going for large numbers of small dollar donors, and are rewriting the way fundraising is done.

Conservative bloggers are patting themselves on their ramrod straight backs for finally facing the fact that their movement is being hijacked by white supremacist forces from the far right. Unfortunately they are miles behind the curve, and just a little too little too late as far as I am concerned. Congressman Ron Paul has some very nasty white supremacist friends. If the problem dated only to this election cycle it would be one thing, but Paul has a past history of making some rather racially insensitive remarks, on a rather consistent basis.

In 2004 Paul made a short statement from the floor of the US House of Representatives about his refusal to vote for the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”

In 1996 in an article, in the Houston Chronicle, “…Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." … Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks. "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote. Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said. Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

The Stormfront (white supremacist, neo-Nazi leaning) website has a promotional page for Ron Paul.  Paul’s campaign accepted $500 in campaign donations from Stormfront founder and known neo-Nazi Don Black, and until recently Paul refused to return the donation. While Paul’s campaign has a fascinating number of ties to Stormfront, they refused to return the calls of Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Siederaski wrote:

Any other candidate would unequivocally reject that money as soon as its donor’s identity was known. That Paul’s campaign needs time to think about it is shocking. Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview….

In Tennessee one of Ron Paul’s biggest internet organizers is neo-Nazi leader Will Williams, who is a southern point person for the National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi organization in the US.  According to Andrew Walden, author of the American Thinker piece, Williams is in part responsible for the extreme numbers of “meet-up” individuals who have registered for Paul. Some 61,000 Ron Paul supporters are registered, compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, and 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich. Williams may also be responsible for the enormous amount of spam and comments received by anyone who dares criticize Ron Paul.

Williams is not the only white supremacist, KKK, or neo-Nazi supporter Ron Paul has. He is supported by David Duke and Pat Buchanan. Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine is also a Ron Paul supporter. Strangely enough Barry Manilow is also a Paul supporter as is Cindy Sheehan. There are ties to the American Nationalist Union and several serious anti-Semitic sites and organizations. Also supporting Paul are long time “Christian” conservatives like Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin who is closely associated with the Constitution Party.

Dave Neiwert, quoting Chip Berlet,  wrote “Those neo-Nazis have a First Amendment right to endorse Ron Paul, but Ron Paul has a moral obligation to disavow that donation." He added: "There's two issues: Why would anyone have to ask Ron Paul to disassociate himself from the endorsement of neo-Nazis? And the second is that when they did ask him, his silence spoke volumes about his values. You know, 'I don't enjoy the endorsement of neo-Nazis' — how hard is that to say? And why hasn't he refunded it? It's not like this is a gray area."

Currently Paul is polling about 7% in New Hampshire and 8% in South Carolina. 

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • Paul Klavins

    Good smear peice, but I think you forget to mention how Ron Paul kills puppies with his bare hands and grinds there bones to make bread.

  • Dean

    Thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately your article points to at best 1% of his support. How about looking into other campaigns and reporting on some of there shining supporters and give us the facts on them! It would be nice if people would actually focus on the man’s ideas (without one’s personal twisted interpretation) If you want people to take you seriously, think about posting a seriously lagitament article. Facts speak louder than one sided searches to discredit a genuine candidate inwhich his track record speaks for itself in it intirity. Not just just excerpts that go towards supporting your personal opinion. Either state all the facts or consider yourself discredited.

    This is not an attack it is just a reference to the basis of true Journalism as it was defined.

  • Hotchney

    Very shoddy hitpiece. I’m sure since you went out of your way to find the racist comments in Paul’s newsletter that you know he didn’t write them and he apologized for their publication. As for the donations, please. Corporate insiders and adventageous movers-and-shakers donate to all the big candidates and this is far more maligning to our country’s fabric than a couple neo-nazis who happen to want to be left alone by the federal government.

    Very disappointing piece.

  • Landon

    This article was writen with great distaste for Ron Paul and his suporters. His actions merely represent his interpretation of the Constitution. If one will take a minute and examine why he has chosen a side to a particular issue, you will discover his beleife in that issue and then understand why he took that stance on the perticular issue. Ron Paul does not favor to any Supremesy or racial groups. He only accepts campaign contributions from individuals. Not beleiving in every thing I see on television, I reserched every candidate runing for President and found that I will be represented the best by Ron Paul. I found out where he stands on the issues and why at http://www.ronpaul2008.com You can take a look for yourself and see what you think.

  • Nathaniel C

    Stop promoting this filth. Ron Paul is not a racist. He supports the constitution and liberty–for all. If you attack him you are attacking the constitution. You need to wake up to the fact that Ron Paul is going to be President–no matter what the media thinks. We the people want Ron Paul. He has already raised over 9.2 million. Just wait until Dec. 16th–Vegas oddsmakers estimate over 6 million in one day. The media will be panicking. Stop slandering Ron Paul.

  • AK

    It seems to me Dr Paul wants to limit the ever-encroaching Fed Govt. I like the idea, and *many* others do, too. The fact that some fringe groups like it as well doesn’t seem like a big deal, unless, of course, you hate the message of restored personal liberties he espouses. In that case, anything will do to smear him. Be it brothel owner, white supremacists, etc.

    If you’re conservative, such smears look like shooting oneself in the foot. Do you want to help, or do you just care for increased readership?

    In any case, please read Ron Paul’s positions on ‘Issues’ (like on his homepage), and then provide constructive criticism of them. (Unless that would attract serial killers to this blog and the attendant publicity).

    Cheers,
    A

  • AJ

    I’m not sure if attacking a candidate based on his supporters is a right idea. The man is principled and there is a reason behind his stands. Please research them completely first before writing about them. Your article feels like you researched and found what you wanted to find. You judged beforehand.
    The kinds of complaints about Paul
    1) he won’t distance himself from 911 truthers
    2) he won’t distance himself from anti-jew people
    3) he won’t distance himself from supremacist people

    The reason he won’t is fairly obvious. The more he goes on defensive, the more there’ll be smear attacks and ill-researched prejudiced articles. Better yet for all people, go to his web-site and see HIS OWN statements on his stands.

  • Brian Middleton

    Why stop at the smear add you keep running over and over again?? Why not add;

    that Paul is also involved with slave trade of young kids;
    that he dances naked at night with chicken blood covering his body;
    that he supports child molesters and prostitution;
    that he smokes crack in the gutter with his crack addict friends; that wants to blow up with Whitehouse;
    that he runs a sweatshop for Asian kids under 6 years old;
    that he has his own pornographic websites.
    that he burns crosses on his lawn daily and has a Swastika tattooed behind his neck and wears a white sheet and hood when he gets cozy at night.

    Hmm, let’s see, anything else we can come up with to smear him? I am out of colorful smear tactics. Anyone else?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Guys. Paul has attracted a lot of unfavory supporters. That’s not his fault. No blame attaches to him for it.

    However, he has repeatedly passed on opportunities to distance himself from the extremists who have flocked to his banner. Just a few simple, public statements as simple as a clear statement that he doesn’t think the government was involved in the 9/11 attack, and he’d be in the clear. But he won’t do it, because he thinks that the money coming in from the extremists might somehow propel him into the White House.

    It’s great to have money coming in to your campaign, but if the money is tainted and you’re a person of integrity as Paul claims to be, then you don’t take it. Paul takes it, so doesn’t that make his claims of integrity a lie?

    dave

  • gao xia en

    Let’s hear about Hillary’s Chinese friends.

  • Ben Ray

    So I guess its guilt by association. Even Ron Paul is not associated or has not invited endorsements from any KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo-Nazi Supporters. Now if there are some who wish to provide cash donations to Ron Paul’s campaign then that’s there lost. I wonder since I’m an African American does that make me an Uncle Tom or a radical Black Panther operative? Paul hasn’t openly protray folks like Obama and who has hosted an event with Donnie McClurken who has said some very homophobic statement. Even worse Rudy Guiliani who has accepted an endorsement from Pat Robertson the same guy who was on the fore front with Jerry Falwell accusing the attack on 9/11 and Katrina Hurricane as the result of America’s tolerance of homosexuality and secularism. Now why is Ron Paul recieving such sentiments when he doesn’t endorse the views of those who claim he does. I wonder if I was to create a forum/site expressing deep hate for Jews and whites or maybe even religious fundimental hatred towards a certain religious group and add a link to Rudy, Mitt or Hillary Clinton’s campaign site would the same backlash happen? Of course not because anyone with sense would ride it off as some wacko’s view and not the view of the majority. It seems these same articles like the one on American Thinker are only being expressed online and not on cable or national TV because they can tell the difference. I haven’t seen any hatred in my local ron paul group of 257 folks here in Miami, while online i know there are some who take a discussion way over the line (and some who just commenting look for a reaction from bloggers) so I wonder are you equating the views of a minority to represent the majority? Now I may not agree with paul on everything but that doesn’t mean my opposing views are Paul’s.

  • Janet

    Is this the best you can do? The media must be getting desperate–you are now trying to defame ron paul because of his supporters. Nice try. The MSM should go back to the “Ron Paul can’t win” slogan. It worked for a while until we raised 4.3 million on 1 day.

  • Commenter

    Dave,

    Are you familiar with the classic trap question…

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Demanding that Ron Paul address this crap is the political equivalent.

  • gao xia en

    I’m more interested in all the candidates’ contributions from big business. Any info on that?

  • A. Drew

    When you write “…Paul and his supporters have mastered the art of the internet candidacy” and “…Paul has some very nasty white supremacist friends”, are you deliberately trying to make an effort to paint him as a racist or you are simply don’t give a rat’s arse about proper English structure.
    So on-line he has some supporters but in his spare time he hangs out in his backyard with “nasty white supremacist friends”. We can see your bias from afar. You’re not fooling anyone.

  • U Essay

    Dave~

    I dont’ think he needs to or should. For one it’s a distraction to the campain, but also doing so sits in judgement of supporter’s beliefs which is inconsitant with his libertarian stance. Morover, anyone can find people to dislike in someone’s doner rolls. I think his knowing they’re just human people acting on thier sovrein minds, and letting it be without “playing politics” reflects actual integrity, and I dare say Grace.

    A more interesting and usful medea artice would mention who are the unsavory doners on the other canditate’s lists? Bet’ya there’s lots… & that they’re all the same ones on each list to boot!

  • gao xia en

    Har, har, har. Go pound salt.

  • Ralph

    Ron Paul is not a racist. This is the classic smear article. I will never visit this website again.
    RonPaul2008.com

  • BC

    Re comment by ‘dave’
    I think you need to read Ron Paul’s stance on issues before expecting he’d use ‘every opportunity’ to distance himself from his supporters. And how is this money ‘tainted’? If I (for example) believe in polygyny, would my money be tainted? Would it satisfy you, if he gave 1% of his contributions to charity to cover any possible miscreant who gave to him? How much time/effort is required in this?

    If you’re really a Giuliani, Clinton, Romney, Obama, etc. supporter, OK, but please keep your (perceived) dirt to yourself.

    We CARE about the MAN, not his supporters!

    And back to the original article:
    Lots of little money from lots of people versus a lot of money from a few? You are NOT serious on this one, are you? RP doesn’t accept any corporate/lobbyist money, period. Think about it. It’s a Good Thing®

  • Ben Ray

    Hey Brian Middleton just thought I let you know ROn Paul has denounced the 9/11 Truthers like Alex Jones and others who claims that the government planned the attack on the towers. He mentioned it months back on Fox News when they questioned him for going on the show and he stated great points about addressing all media heads even though he doesn’t agree with them on everything even with fox news. But yet your right even when he defends himself people like SJ Reidhead they don’t look at all sides they just report what another says without doing fact checks. It’s just basically a hit piece. But no i do not believe paul is avoiding questions about those types of supporters he has addressed the issue and i know he will continue to. All we can do is keep the comments comming correcting these folks and keep our info accurate

  • Ron Aldof

    Who are these people that wnat to ruin this great country. They put this article on and dismiss any real facts. They smear and lie. They are the haters of the free people. Must be spoon fed all thier lives then set out to diminish the middle class in the United States.

    Ron Paul – ” A great American Statesman. The next president of the United States!!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.newuniversity.org/checkDB.php?id=6337 Bob

    Check out this piece on Paul. The only true choice.

  • Billy Budd

    From Ron Paul’s website..

    This is a nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  • Leonardo

    Umm…
    You have to do some “Quality Piece” that will stick!
    This is “OLD” and it ain’t gonna cut it. Sorry…

  • Paul

    Why not write about Giuliani’s unsavory endorsers? Or are you worried (rightfully so) that you’ll end up “sleeping with the fishes”?

  • DragonTattooz

    “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”

    I stopped reading at this point. If you seriously believe that this statement is racist, that tells me that you not only have a reading-comprehension problem, but you were also just grasping at straws to try to find something, anything, to try to smear Dr. Paul. Give it up, the man lives by his principles and he can’t be bought. He scares you republicrats to death, doesn’t he?

    If this is your best shot, y’all are gonna lose BIG in ’08!!!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I think you need to read Ron Paul’s stance on issues

    I imagine I’m more familiar with Paul’s issue positions than anyhone else commenting here. I campaigned for him in 88, worked for the LP in that same era and have run for office as a Libertarian candidate. I’ve also donated money to Paul’s congressional campaigns.

    before expecting he’d use ‘every opportunity’ to distance himself from his supporters. And how is this money ‘tainted’? If I (for example) believe in polygyny, would my money be tainted? Would it satisfy you, if he gave 1% of his contributions to charity to cover any possible miscreant who gave to him? How much time/effort is required in this?

    So you’re saying that multiple marriage is equivalent to racism? Sorry, don’t buy it.

    The Paul campaign has a real problem and this article brings it out, even if it’s a bit inflammatory.

    Paul’s viability as a national candidate is genuinely damaged by the public perception that his followers are a bunch of kooks and fanatics.

    If it was just a few crazies out there, Paul could brush it aside, but because it is so many extremists and so many different brands of extremists, it distracts from his campaign and his message and needs to be addressed.

    If you’re really a Giuliani, Clinton, Romney, Obama, etc. supporter, OK, but please keep your (perceived) dirt to yourself.

    Not particularly, actually. I’d be a Paul supporter were it not for his unconstitutional stand on separation of church and state and the unsavory coalition of lunatics who have flocked to his banner.

    And back to the original article:
    Lots of little money from lots of people versus a lot of money from a few? You are NOT serious on this one, are you? RP doesn’t accept any corporate/lobbyist money, period. Think about it. It’s a Good Thing®

    Got to agree with this. Paul’s done a great job with grassroots fundraising.

    Dave

  • bt

    @gao xia en

    The chron article is talking about big PAC donations from Texan firms, and at the end mentions how Ron Paul hasnt received any.
    Then the opensecrets link is the actual details on his donations.

    Cheers.

  • Blaine

    This was good for a laugh, shows the socialists that have worked so hard for so long to undermine our freedom are getting scared. Can’t wait to see the slime piece “on an expose of the anti-immigration movement”, I’ll be howling!

  • Nathan – Student @ UC Berkeley

    “…Williams is in part responsible for the extreme numbers of “meet-up” individuals who have registered for Paul.”

    Yes… Williams and his goofy friends. That is his ‘part’ The other ‘part’ of the people “responsible for the extreme members of “meet-up” individuals who have registered for Paul” are the 60,990 (or so) other people. This pathetic attempt at trying to smear Ron Paul by second-hand association with his supporters is logically fallacious in the first place. Even more outrageous is the personally offensive, but rather poorly made, insinuation that people such as this “Williams” in anyway accounts for anymore than such a small fraction of Paul’s support as to be inconsequential. I am sure that a sex-offender or two (or more, who knows) supports Hilary Clinton for president. Does this mean anything? I don’t have to answer that.

    This article has made me furious. It has also inspired me to re-double my efforts to get Paul elected. Ron Paul 2008!

  • http://waronrhetoric.com Amir

    It is so transparently obvious why people with hateful, virulent messages donate to a rising star–for the press. These neo-nazi, white supremacist types are not getting a voice through Ron Paul. It’s reporters like you that are giving racism a voice. Think. Stop the Smears.

  • http://www.RonPaul2008.com Michael Atkinson US ARMY RET

    Yea these Ron Paul smear freaks call themselves out for crying out loud. In reality, they don’t know what the hell else to say lmao.

    The Strasbourg Tea Party – Europe for Ron Paul

    Ron Paul 300

    Glenn Beck Gives to Ron Paul Campaign

  • Commenter

    Dave,

    Ron Paul is running as a Republican. Not a libertarian. If your concern is for the purity of Libertarianism why not focus on its virtues, and whatever libertarian candidate the LP party fields? Why reinforce, like a mantra, that the electorate is incapable of making an informed decision? Have you such a low opinion of the electorate?

  • BC

    Thanks for responding, Dave.

    I respect your knowledge of the candidate.

    I do feel though that in my 20+ years in this country no-one of the politicians had said anything that would possibly be helpful. And now I hear it from RP. I’m actually excited by it, and I talk to whomever I can about it.

    You may be right that the public perception may get formed by articles like this rather than by a group of unpaid supporters waving signs by the freeway in the freezing weather, but I think he’s still the best that was offered.

    Do you perhaps have a personal issue with RP? (Like unpaid wages, or something of the sort?) Why did you stop campaigning for him? Are you of a racial minority and he’d hurt you?

    I think many US citizens have an issue with the FedGovt in one way or another, so all could be classified as ‘fringe’. What are we to expect next: Khmer Rouge supports RP? (and BTW, I think it’s only in the US where govt forms ask your racial affiliation – this would be considered racist anywhere else)

    Regaards,
    BC

  • TaxSlave

    Gee, that’s funny. All the nice people I meet at meet-ups to distribute campaign lit door-to-door, and I never suspected for an instant that they’re all Nazis. Gee, they come from all walks of life and seemed like genuine Americans to me. And I never knew that somehow some Nazi was the reason I signed up on the Meetup site in the first place.

    We’ve all been deluding ourselves! We thought it was our concern for the constitution and the bill of rights, and crashing currency bringing another depression, and one single man speaking honestly, whose words have the ring of truth.

    And all this time it has been mind control from Nazis! How can I stop this? Should I get a tin foil hat? Is that how you avoided the mind control? Oh, no, the mind control is making me respond to a hit piece online! Help me! Help me!

    There. I just put on a tin foil hat that says NEO on it. Took a Valium and washed it down with moonshine. I no longer need to suffer paranoid delusions about people dying in preemptive wars, people sneaking into my house and searching without warrants, monitoring all my communications, arresting me and making me disappear, or that stupid, mindless inflation that keeps stealing my sustenance out from under me faster than I can keep up, always going on, and on, and on, and I can’t raise my income faster than prices, and it never stops.

    I’m cured. No more mind-waves from Nazis turning me into a Paulbot spamming automaton. I’m ready for my National ID Card with an RFID chip now. I promise to rat on my neighbors for anything they do. I will stand in line and shut up. Bring on the Amero, lets make people pass a patriotism test to make sure they are loyal to the North American Union. Maybe if I get a lobotomy, I won’t have to wear this tin foil hat around, having people snicker at me (I’ll turn them in for that, you know).

    Thanks for curing me.

    –TaxSlave–

  • Jim, Hangtown,Calif

    Ron Paul is a ALL around good guy, Freedom is Love, Understanding and Tolarance. Life is short why make it a lie. Peace Sells

  • Andrew

    The 99% of the Ron Paul supporters who are not ‘nazis’ are rightly insulted. There is a double standard in the media that is becoming more and more obvious.

    We are not allowed to take the minority of Muslims who want to kill Americans and use it to generalize all Muslims. We’re not allowed to take the few dozen Jewish neo-cons in our government that are viciously pro-war against countries like Iran (countries that did no direct harm to us) and say that Jews want wars. And so too we should not be allowed to tarnish a group who, perhaps more than any other political movement, desire peace and friendship with all nations (not supremacy as this article implies).

    I feel like we should make a point by encouraging Don Black to donate $1000 to Rudy Giuliani and then we’ll watch you in the mainstream media say… ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

    I always believed the media was bad. But now I think this country would be better off without the MSM at all (just keep the Internet and perhaps C-Span and PBS). Cause then the people who are easily manipulated would just stay at home on election night and the smart people would prevail.

    Whether or not Ron Paul gets the nomination, you in the MSM have made at least one enemy for life.

  • JDP

    Its funny that theres a banner saying “Personal attacks are NOT allowed.” This article is a personal attack on Dr. Paul’s supporters. No one can attack Dr. Paul personally.

    He appeals to all walks of life, regardless of their personal choices, because Dr. Paul supports your freedoms! If your neighbor wants to hate someone (without harming them, I might add) then that is their right! I hate the writer of this article but I wouldn’t hurt him over it. Make sense? You can hate anyone as long as you don’t infringe on their Constitutional liberties of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Joe

    After reading this article the one thing I come away with is that Ron Paul is not a racist. As noted, he advocates the goals of “racial harmony and a color-blind society.” Even if the author disagrees with him about how this is best achieved, certainly this is a commendable goal. I don’t consider any of Ron’s comments quoted here to be “racially insensitive,” but even if they were, that is hardly an accusation that would keep me from voting for someone. Also it is odd that supporters of Ron Paul are offered as evidence of his racial insensitivity, without any evidence being offered that those supporters are racially insensitive. It can hardly worry me that he is endorsed by Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, and Chuck Baldwin when I have voted for all three of those men in the past. I agree with the Ron Paul for President campaign and David Fredesso writing in National Review that Ron does NOT have a moral obligation to disavow donations from people whose views he may not disagree with. I find it refreshing to have a candidate who does not pander to political correctness. I will be disappointed in him if he does return the money, but even that won’t keep me from voting for him.

  • Artus Register

    Yawn. This non-issue is ancient. Still, how often would it have been written abut had the donation gone to Romney, Rudy or one of the other business-as-usual clones?
    It is hysterically funny that Dr. Paul is so marginalized and cast off as a footnote, yet someone poured through all his supporters looking for a story. That in itself is the real story.
    Fortunately for the “mainstream” war mongers representing the 22% of Americans who want to remain in Iraq, every one of their contributors has been of tremendous moral character, and without a bigoted thought–the media has double checked that for us and found not one wanting of ethical purity.

  • GregM

    I’m starting to wonder if these “smear” pieces weren’t actually created to have the opposite effect. Perhaps SJ Reidhead is actually a RP supporter who is attempting to catch readers with a provocative headline, only to be made to look foolish by the commenter’s. Who knows?

    In the event that you (SJ Reidhead) ARE actually trying to smear Dr. Paul. You can forget it. You are wasting your time. This is not about Dr. Paul or his supporters, it’s about the message. It’s about freedom and it’s about liberty, and it’s about time. Even IF Dr. Paul were to lose his bid for the presidency, it doesn’t matter! As you will see, we’ve already won.

  • Phil

    Everyone has strange supporters. Why does the media focus on Ron Paul at this time? They or others do not want him for President so this is their means of discrediting Ron Paul. Mind you, Fox40 TV aired the Republican debate and ran a cell phone poll to see who the viewers wanted for President. Fox40 also selected a panel of supposed generic Republicans. That panel did not show much support for Ron, so when they saw the cell phone poll favoring Ron Paul 2 to 1, their conclusion was that the cell phone poll was to be regarded as flawed. Fox40 didn’t even allow for the possibility that Ron Paul could have so much support. Fox40 clearly showed their bias, and so it is here. We see what you’re up to!

  • Become a GOP PC NOW!!!

    Ladies and Gentlemen: If you are interested in supporting Ron Paul, become a Precinct Committee person for the GOP in your town. This is the surest way to win for Ron Paul. PC’s are given addresses and lists of registered Republicans and are given authority by the GOP to recruit as many new Republicans as possible. They decide who gets on the ballot! This is the way we can truly take back our Republic from the Neocons! We can take over the GOP at the starting at the local level.

    Google your county’s official GOP website and sign up to be a Precinct Committee person

  • Gene

    International readers who are interested in Ron Paul for President can help the effort by chipping into the grassroots effort and donate to RonPaulBlimp.com

  • immigrant

    Wow this ia heck of an irrational hit piece. It says to me that Ron Paul is steam rolling forward and will probably win the GOP nomination. Looks like someone really has it out for the constitution though. Since we’re on the subject of radicals why didn’t you mention the Clintons recieving support from known terrorists? What about the non traditional Republicans like Giuliani and Romney why did you mention La Rasa’s or Arab supremacy groups’ involvement with them and with Hillary? La Rasa is a latino supremacy and extremist group that routinely make trips to the white house to fight for amnesty for illegals and the abolishment of the concept of the rule of law in America. So Please lets not play pretend as if radicals supporting certain candidates is a new thing. Hillary has actually depended on it in the past.In a country where there is freedom of thought you’re bound to come across things you don’t like but then you first need to understand the concept of liberty to understand that.

  • BC

    Hear-hear!

    It is polarizing, isn’t it?

    ;-)

  • Andrew Panken

    Just to set the record straight. SJ Reidhead totally manufactured the statement that Will Williams is responsible for the large number of Meetups. Mr Williams has voluntarily setup one Meetup of his own accord and without needing permission from the campaign. Each Meetup is setup and paid for by the organizer themselves and is not in anyway associated with any other Meetup or the official campaign committee. All that is needed to setup a Meetup is $20 on a credit card. Meetup is a private company not in any way associated with the campaign. The campaign does not oversee the meetup organization in anyway. The campaign just doesn’t have any authority over Mr Williams. They can’t even “fire” him as a meetup leader since the campaign never “hired him”. The author of the article doesn’t provide any evidence to support the contention that Will Williams is a leader in the Meetups except that he is the leader of his group not any others. Obviously, the author is just attempting to smear Ron Paul by building Will Williams into a “Great Leader” of the Meetups. Why doesn’t he just state that the idea of restoring our constitution is racism. Instead of smearing a whole campaign with the charge of racism based on a few bad apples.

  • kes123

    Let me summarize by collecting words from your post:

    KKK, White Supremist, black men, racial, racist, tawdry, assault, extreme, nasty, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic.

    I don’t think I got all the emotionally charged adjectives, but the list seems to be representative.

    Please read http://www.RonPaulLibrary.org to get the real positions of Dr. Paul (along with the proper context of some of the “quotes” provided in this article). Don’t let incorrect, misleading, and emotionally charged rhetoric decide for you.

    BTW, if you really want to know why it’s no big deal that certain “extreme” people have donated to Ron Paul’s campaign then you need to understand the basic tenants of liberty:

    “The Philosophy of Liberty” Watch the YouTube and then tell me how it is that you disagree with the campaigns decision…

  • Smithy

    Reagan didn’t return the KKK donations either, was he racist?

  • Dean

    LOL – You guys just LOVE to fire up us RON PAUL supporters.

    All you’re doing is spreading the flames though…..you can’t put out a grease fire with water.

    RP2008!

  • Flo

    Here people is a beginning website of the use of propaganda and it’s history.

  • JH

    Oh, you can attack Ron Paul and smear him, but no one is allowed to attack you. Great. This piece is obviously written from a bias point of view and someone who is afraid of losing his government checks.

  • Scott

    FAIL

  • Rational Ed

    You can’t have it both ways. You have ignored the fact the US military is the largest campaign donor to Ron Paul. The US Army, US Navy, and US Air Force combine to be his biggest support base by far in financial terms.
    Now you want to focus on klansmen and other idiots as his base of supporters. This can only be true of you are saying the US Military are composed of racists and biggots. Are you ready to make that connection, becasue it makes little sense to go after minority contributors and ignore the majority contributors.
    On the same subject, you should write an article about the frontrunners majority contributors. Clinton with Goldman Sachs and Guiliani with Elliot and Associates. These people have been part of every scandel from the current mortgage crisis to Enron to everything else. They have ruined our economy.
    I challenge you to write the story of the major campaign contributors to the politicians running in 08. If the minor contributors warrant a story, then the major contributors warrant ten stories. Good Luck with the research. Open secrets.org is a good start.

  • http://www.AimeeAllen.com Aimee Allen

    Why not write an article about how soldiers and priests and peace loving individuals love him? He’s the favored candidate among soldiers…..

    Weird how you chose to cover the KKK instead of what a country at war really cares about.

  • Jeff

    It is encouraging to me to see that most people see this article for what it is.
    A political hit peice. Yellow journalism. propaganda. Smear campaign. corporate media spin.
    Ron Paul 2008!

  • Duane

    What an insightful piece you have written. I’ve never heard this “news” from any other “source”. I applaud your investigative prowess although, you should have mentioned that he is in fact THE Grand Poobah of The He-Man Black, Woman, Jew, Kitten, Baseball, Apple-Pie, Gay Haters Club. Just a little more digging and you would have uncovered this fact. He wants all old people to lose their Social Security as well. He also tried to get the endorsement of a brothel owner, I’m not sure if he got it though. Did you hear that he’s spamming emails? And all of his support comes from 3 white supremacist teenagers in their parents’ basement. I’m glad I could help.

    Ron Paul 08!

  • John

    Was your blog designed by a retarded 8 year old on acid? Good Lord, what a mess of a site.

  • aKKorn

    “Williams is not the only white supremacist, KKK, or neo-Nazi supporter Ron Paul has. He is supported by David Duke and Pat Buchanan.”

    So which exactly is Pat Buchanan? Could you please point to you source that he is a member of the KKK, a White supremesist or a neo-natzi?

  • troll

    has any RP supporter here addressed the question of Paul’s interpretation of the separation clause – ?

    if so I missed it in this flood of defensive praise

    is it a non issue – or would we see him work for changes in law – ?

  • Lorenz

    Smearing i see – if this is all you got, thats fine. Take a look at the other candidates, and you’ll get lost in their closet . The title is misleading, and frankly wrong. It would be like if i put “Hillary Clinton and her Zionist, Oil greedy, and special interest friends.” Have some humility, and change that title – there are no friends involved, and you’re only hurting his name and dumbing down your credibility as a journalist.

  • Abram Cookson

    “Ron Paul has some very nasty white supremacist friends” – How is this a valid statement?

    This is entirely untrue. Ron Paul has supporters from all walks and races. Even the ones we dislike. Next time just photoshop RP standing in front of a nazi flag and your smear job will be complete. I pray for more informative and less biased articles.

  • Tyrone

    As a African American I take great offense that you wrote such a smear article about this decent and patriotic man. He is no raciest, I have met him face to face and he has a big heart and is welcoming of all races. He has a message of FREEDOM, so that means anyone can donate to him, including a few kooks. Whatever there message, they still have a right to say it.
    I am voting for Ron Paul!

  • THISBLOGSUXX

    Ron paul is far from a racist.

    you’re just scared of the man and his message!

  • kg

    Did you know that Hof donated $2300.00 to the Clinton campaign this past summer? Of course you didn’t because the media wouldn’t try to tarnish her by reporting it.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    For all those PaulBots who sit all day and night in front of a computer screen with 2 minute interval refreshes on google searches to go out and be first in line to comment any where their hero is mentioned, please please get a life.

    Read the FEC quarterly reports, the numbers and the names are there they are simple to cross reference.

    I follow the money close because of what I do and get weekly auto updates to spreadsheets for all the candidates and then auto search the names across the net just to see what turns up.

    Facts are facts and you are not allowed your own.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Damn you PaulBot fools can even do such a simple thing as sort out the registered donations by zipcode and see where all the real money is coming from.

    Hell half of your donations don’t even hit because anything under 200 doesn’t register at all.

    Look at the zip code distributions and map them out.

    Most are coming from pure blue areas, you are being shilled and fooled to believe you have something when someone is only pulling your chain and working you like a puppet.

    What a sorry bunch that cant even figure out they are being tooled for the entertainment of the far most wacko left.

  • B. Young

    Wana talk about supporters?
    Ghouliani has mobsters, and pedophiles on his payroll.
    Clinton has former black panther in her “Friends” list

    Ron Paul had a few Neo-Nazi’s donate to his campaign without solicitation. They donated online where there is no question on the form that says “Because of my past my donation may be controversial”

    Excuse me if I am not impressed by the “Connection” that you imply

    ohh yeah I forgot
    Ron Paul’s tears cure cancer, sadly he will never cry. Ever

  • Your Conscience Talking

    Sick Sick hit piece! You scum at BC Politics have really outdone yourselves this time. Julius Streicher would be proud.

    Obviouly this Nazi/Paul thing is a yet another shrill attempt by the real Nazi-lovers out there to scare the more ignorant of conservatives into being frieghtenned of the one candidate least likely to act like Hitler. It’s a sweet ploy if you’re into treachory.

    See you in Hell, BC Propaganda.nut.

  • frank parker

    Ron Paul brings Americans of every persuasion, race, gender, age, economic group, ideology, interest and profession together because his message is one of liberty.

    People like the writer don’t understand what that means. They talk the talk, but they haven’t actually lived it. They think freedom is whatever they approve of or endorse and it’s not, it’s called tryanny. Americans have had enough of being told what to think, what words we can or cannot use, what to enbrace, what to celebrate, who to bomb, who to be intolerant towards and waht’s acceptable and I don’t think that a hundred thousand articles like this shabby smear piece will do anything but fire up that base.

    KEEP WRITING, HACK, I CAN SEE THE FLOP SWEAT FROM HERE!!!

  • Nick

    Troll, I think Ron Paul has written articles about religion that have been misinterpreted. He wrote that the “secular left” as he calls it has attacked religion to eliminate it from public life. He wrote that he thinks the founding fathers were religious men who wanted a small government so religion would lead people instead. But he has not written anything to my knowledge that would lead me to believe he wants to change the First Amendment establishment clause. He would presumably uphold the Constututional separation of church and state but not advance policies that shun religion from the public.

    For me personally, I think people trying to remove Moses artwork from court houses doesn’t understand law history and that he was an historical figure who brought law to the people, as did Confucius and others who are represented in the Supreme Court building. I don’t think tax dollars should finance faith based initiatives (like they do under Bush) but removing a statue to make a point is sending the wrong message, that people need to eliminate religion. And I’m an agnostic. I don’t think we need to ban Christmas Carols or say Seasons Greetings instead of Merry Christmas. All blown out of proportion for the sake of political correctness. When was the last time politics were correct anyway, other than Ron Paul, of course.

  • Brino

    I live in Europe.
    We all look in dismay to what USA has become, we all can see the path of self-destruction your country has taken, WITH the blessing of your media (and people like you).
    Unjust wars based o lies, making every day new enemeis, loosing allies, torturing suspects, suppression of freedom and guarantees, fnancial and economic disaster (well on it’s way).

    The only Candidate that makes any sense in USA is Ron Paul; I wish we had a man like that over here.

  • Aaron

    Terrible smear article. Not even elequently written. How did you manage to land this job? And besides that matter, how do you manage to breath?

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    You Bots think 4.2 mill in a day is some kind of validation that you got it right and the country is in a wave behind you.

    Oh please I know Walmart stores that do volume like that.

    Country wide you pull in 4 mill in a day after talking about it for how long?

    Drug dealers in San Jose are laughing at you because they kicked in just to watch the fun.

    Check the one day totals for Jerry Lewis from a real country wide deal.

    You should have pulled 10 to 12 mill each hour if you were for real and not just spam postings to throw any internet poll to cheat and get the result you wanted.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.patriotscorner.com Dave

    Well, this old JEW will be voting for Ron Paul. With this hit piece, the author reminds me far more of one real Nazi I remember as a child in Germany, who wrote articles on behalf of “the party” named Joeseph Goebbels.

    When Paul says: “Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”

    HE IS RIGHT!!!! This is not a racist statement; it is an observation that this particular social experiment, designed to impove race relations and better the lot of people of color, did not work.

    When a man is attacked in this manner, I feel there must be good reason to support him. These attack pieces only draw more Ron Paul supporters.

  • Chester Gould III

    I agree with Ron Paul, especially what he wrote about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I understand the act was designed to force people into hiring mixed races. Doesn’t anyone realize that this means, they legally defined there is a difference amongst races?

    I understand the intention, but the repercussions were and are much worse. Forcing someone to adapt to another’s culture, in no case makes them more willing to accept it. In fact, it tends to create animosity. Which is how some of these extremists can recruit people so easily.

    If these people were left alone and not forced into adapting, there would be a lot less animosity, and a lot less racism.

    Now not only are we being continuously separated without even knowing it, we are sub-classified into small groups. Once we stop allowing our government officials to legally separate us, and focus on what legally joins us… we are all Americans, in support of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we will be much better off.

    -C

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    I love it, you [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] are here playing patty cake and spilling your love beads.

    Flies to the sticky tape… damn I gotta go out and create 30 or 40 blogger accounts today and do a random work Paul bash just to attract all of you like crash dummies at a Detroit convention or high school reunion.

    You are so very easy it is not even a challenge. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Jenny B

    Ron Paul has such a clean record with no skeletons in his closet. The only thing the smear machine can come up with is he is an “anti-semite”.
    Frankly, I think Americans are sick and tired of people labeling people as an “anti-semite”. Jews are not better than any other person. Thats why the business of labeling people as “anti-semite” will backfire on them. Americans are fed-up!

  • Sk00L

    JS Reidhead often reports about pro KKK groups that openly tout a white supremest philosophy. Her obsession with this movement have prompted her to openly advertise and promote sites such as Stormfront (white supremacist, neo-Nazi leaning)which she provides links to in her blogs. Reidhead’s campaign to traffic possible recruits to sites such as these have earned her the respect of many of her white supremest brethren.

    Spin is such a bitch isn’t it? In times like these we need reporters with integrity who take some time to do their homework. Reidhead is obviously more concerned with traffic then truth. It is so easy to spin anything to make it fringe or controversial it is ashame that Ron Paul has become a target of such a smear when as so many in these comments have cleared up over and over with something called the truth. Too bad we can’t hear about the other candidates failings and contributions but instead hear a rehashing of the same old bs that has been disproven time and time again.

  • http://www.washedupneverbeens.com ralphie

    To hell with this crappy blog.

    You TV loving bull-crappers are going down.

    We’re going to wipe the floor with you, and the election is just the beginning.

    ronpaul2008!
    adios Reidhead..(is that even a name?…sounds like more BS to me)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Commentor:

    Ron Paul is running as a Republican. Not a libertarian. If your concern is for the purity of Libertarianism why not focus on its virtues, and whatever libertarian candidate the LP party fields?

    I wrote off the LP a couple of years ago and moved into the GOP for many of the same reasons that Paul did after 88. The LP is just not a viable national party. One problem is that Paul carries with him too much of that LP dogmatism to really be a viable candidate.

    Why reinforce, like a mantra, that the electorate is incapable of making an informed decision? Have you such a low opinion of the electorate?

    Look at the people they’ve elected. I rest my case.

    BC:

    You may be right that the public perception may get formed by articles like this rather than by a group of unpaid supporters waving signs by the freeway in the freezing weather, but I think he’s still the best that was offered.

    This article isn’t FORMING the public perception, it’s reporting it. The perception is formed by the RP fanatics who go all over the internet comment-bombing any post about Ron Paul and spouting a variety of scary nonsense in the process.

    Do you perhaps have a personal issue with RP? (Like unpaid wages, or something of the sort?)

    No, I’m not Eric Dondero.

    Why did you stop campaigning for him? Are you of a racial minority and he’d hurt you?

    I did mention earlier that I don’t think Paul’s a racist. As for campaigning for him, I was discouraged by the kinds of people his current campaign has attracted. I don’t want to be associated with truthers and racists.

    I think many US citizens have an issue with the FedGovt in one way or another, so all could be classified as ‘fringe’.

    To me, being opposed to big government only makes you sensible. If that were what Paul supporters were mainly motivated by then I’d be cheering them on.

    Dave

  • http://www.deshman.com MC

    All this shows is that EVERYONE supports Ron Paul!

    GO RON GO!

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Damn you fools.

    Put up with control F the word search function in your browser and type in smear to match it out.

    Facts are not smears, they are facts even my puppy knows that and the cat even has a clue.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Almost Speechless

    The thought of personal responsibility frightens people, these hit pieces are a testament to that. When we as a nation and a people have delegated so much of our own responsibility to Govt its the fault of the people not the power brokers in Washington.
    Once a candidate emerges who is honest, and principled in his actions its not surprise people will vote for him.

    You see the media and Politicians sell the American myth, when in actuality we have lost almost every edge we held in the world. Hollywood sells produces the American Spirit which is in everyone. The one thing is very apparent is that younger people haven’t been hammered with false truths and a sense of hopelessness in politics yet. Its the talking head class of this country that insists they are crazy, racist, and “out of control.” I would agree with that, it means you (the media, pundits, talking heads) haven’t been doing you job that well if the American people are not buying your bullshit on this subject.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul smear smear smear smear.

    Hell I have crab traps in the river I am going to pick up tonight that are harder to bait than that the search engine kiddies will be here in droves.

  • New Ron Paul supporter

    I never knew much about Ron Paul, and truthfully never even investigated who he was or what he was saying. I’ve been in the Obama camp all along (anything to avoid Guliani or Clinton). But after reading this piece…and then going to http://www.ronpaul2008.com….I‘ll be voting for him. Guess that makes me, and my 24 years of Navy service, racist? *sigh* Time to get rid of meaningless talking heads (or in Bush’s case, stuttering ungrammatical simpleton), and get someone into the Oval Office who will work for the American People, and not for their corporate oil buddies.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    82 words on the average pro Paul comment to certify I am brain dead.

    Damn guys cant you at least put up 14 page thesis papers to explain why everybody else is the AntiChrist?

    Come on get it together.

  • GetReal

    That’s ok,
    I’m sure Obama has NO GANG BANGER supporters,
    Hillary has NO CORRUPT MONEY FROM CHINA,
    Giuliani has NO MOB supporters.

    No Problem.

  • Duane

    ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing seems to be a little on edge. Jerry Lewis’ MDA Telethon is your comparison? Prove you wrong? the 95% Approval for Ron Paul against your insults is proof enough that the “anti-paulite” has nothing against Dr. Paul and his ideas, so they choose infantile rantings and retarded posts. You need a time-out.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    To the blog owner, seriously I have to apologize for playing the games with all the fools you have managed to attract , but some how I have to believe that your are there sitting back and chuckling and saying it’s worth the bandwidth.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Sorry but it is a Sunday and it is fun to play with the warts on our society. Hey I am retired and every day is Sunday, that screws with them also.

  • Artus Register

    As to the bigoted comments about black males in DC, it is impossible to believe that anyone with a modicum of integrity found these quotes without also realizing that Dr. Paul didn’t write those words. They were written by a staff member who was subsequently fired.
    The refusal to even hint at the truth of this matter exposes the most cowardly type of yellow journalism.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Duane

    95% approval from bots isn’t anything to shout for.

    Don’t shoot Mongo he will just get mad.

  • http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip Winn

    Hey, Paultergeists, you need to learn a bit more about how campaign finance works in this country. It’s convoluted and crazy, but it is also very common for candidates to return donations if it’s pointed out that it came from an unsavory source. All the candidates do it all the time, because every dollar in direct donations is tracked.

    So comparisons with Clinton or Obama or Giuliani or whomever just highlight the fact that Clinton and Obama and Giuliani have returned donations quickly when issues were raised, while Paul held onto his for a long time.

    No blame attaches to a candidate for verbal support from idiots, but all candidates do and should distance themselves from that support.

    If we were talking about an isolated incident, I’d agree this was a smear piece. But it’s not. We’re talking about a pattern of at least ten years of staffer feeling comfortable writing racist tripe under Paul’s name, racist nincompoops bragging of Paul’s favor, repeated snubs of Israeli leaders, and so on. Once is chance, twice is coincidence, but by this point Paul will need to be more clear than he has been about his repudiation of these nutjobs. Or he could pick David Duke as his running mate, whichever.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Kos kids don’t throw money at Gravel just to laugh and point they have Ron Paul for that. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://slackhack.blogspot.com Weird

    I call; Propaganda, Yellow Journalism.

    Guilt by association is a fallacy. It’s use only proves that the person using the fallacy has no legitimate arguments. In her 2000 senatorial campaign Hillary Clinton recieved a donation from Aburahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hizbullah. According to the logic of this smear article, that donation would make her a terrorist.

    As far as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 goes; is questioning the effectiveness and Constitutional validity of a piece of legislation improper just because it is controversial? The question asked is, “Did CRA 1964 end skin color discrimination and/or did it violate the Constitution?” The reality is that it didn’t stop judgements based on skin color and it is undetermined if it violated the Constitution. Hatred of humans by other humans, whatever the reason, is still a major cultural problem in our society. Picking a single statement on a conveniently controversial Act of Congress and trying to correlate it to unsolicited donations from unrelated individuals highlights the shallowness of this article.

    I call; Propaganda, Yellow Journalism.

  • http://www.morethings.com/photo_gallery_index.htm Al Barger

    This really is a shabby little hit piece, de facto trying to paint Ron Paul as a racist and closet Nazi. Who knows what motivates some people, but absolutely everything about Ron Paul’s stance and long political career is unmistakably exactly the opposite of being a Nazi or fascist. Paul is perhaps something of a crank, which probably accounts for some portion of his support. There are lots of all different kinds of cranks.

    You can question him for not returning donations from distasteful people, but he’s not giving them anything. A National Review writer recently described his refusal to return such donations as “artless.” That’s about the right word – but it’s in fact principled, though maybe not to YOUR personal principles. I believe it was his main campaign manager who said that racist and Nazi contributors are simply “wasting their money.”

    But the more interesting thing about this article are the assumptions and examples the author cites from Paul himself as supposedly damning. He makes a big point of a blockquote from Paul’s dissent against renewing the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Other than an apparent and unfounded presumption that simply voting against this is proof of supposed racism, what is offensive about this extended quote?

    Folks have gone on and on about this one commentary on black criminality in DC, and the author makes a hash of it here. I grant that it is incredibly inpolitic, but that doesn’t make it bigoted. The main money quote there is “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.” The proper question there: Is what he said actually TRUE.

    Even such a total black demagogue as Jesse Jackson has admitted to feeling relief at realizing that it’s a white guy following him down the street rather than a young black man. Is that because Jesse hates black folk, or because he knows something?

    Also, I note that the author equates support from Pat Buchanan and even his magazine editor with neo-Nazis. That says more about the author than about Buchanan or Paul.

    Finally, I note the extensive quote from some and such obscure guy from a Jewish Telegraph Agency. Who the hell is he? Why does Ron Paul owe this guy the time of day? That he decides to be “shocked” does not in fact constitute evidence that Paul is doing anything bad whatsoever.

    I’ve got issues with Paul myself, but nonsense like this politically correct hit piece definitely makes me appreciate him more.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Phil

    Every piece of campaign software I have ever run has come pre configured with grey blue green red and black lists.

    Even software puppet names like Mary Poppins were bounced to the side for another look.

    Black militants, KKK rebel rousers and political land mines were caught even before they had a chance to breath air.

    But hey with Paul Bots the bar is lowered somewhere near a China searching dig if you know what I mean.

  • Rebekah Wilcken

    What kind of person are you? Pathetic!

  • Bruford

    The person who wrote this piece seems to me to be part of a more scary “hate” movement. She’s attacking Ron Paul on what he might be thinking – the one reason to vote for him as the thought police or what these types want would be eliminated.
    I see the University of Phoenix is a sponsor here. Should they need to explain to every student why they are anti-gun and funding that lobby?

  • Duderino

    Council on Foreign Relations candidates such as HILLARY, GIULIANI, OBAMA, ROMNEY, and so on have been accepting massive $300,000 contributions from PACs represented by GOLDMAN SACHS, the same firm that has been helping to orchestrate the manipulation of the US dollar, helping the dollar decline to fall steadily. This means these candidates support the destruction of your retirement and standard of living. I suggest writing a hit piece aimed at these people, instead. Ron Paul is NOT a racist.

  • R. Merz

    ExcuseMe, regardless of your political views, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]. Here you are, calling all the Paul supporters little kids who do nothing but sit around and google blogs, while you’ve been sitting here for God knows how long slinging crap while these guys have just showed up, said their piece and left.

    Maybe you should go outside and take a jog, but I’d worry for the safety of the public.

  • TxSundance

    The pursuit of freedom attracts people of many banners and I’ve seen Dr. Paul distance himself from both 9/11 theorists and racists on several occasions. I’m a 47 year old father of 3 married to the same women for 26 years and self-employed as a realtor for the last 22 years. From what I’ve seen I am a more typical Ron Paul supporter than the racists and conspiracy theorists that you purport to be Dr. Paul’s “friends”. Ron Paul supporters are citizens concerned that their government has morphed into a bureaucratic imperialistic global empire with blatant disregard for the U.S. constitution.

  • Mark

    I read your piece. I guess your saying RP is a goose stepping white supremecist based upon the information you present?

    Be more betterer.

  • Bridget Panzer

    Freedom is popular to everyone!
    Restoring the constitution protects every citizen
    no matter what your skin color, sexual preference, or religion. We don’t want to be part of a NEW WORLD ORDER (google it)

  • Maggie

    And why, exactly, should anyone care what Daniel Siederaski has to say? He sounds about as reasonable, soft-spoken and undemanding as Al Shapton. The fact that this ‘information’ came from an interview with Tom Tancredo, a running opponent, might be a clue that it’s a tad slanted. (Slanted being a nice word for twisted.)
    1.) Ron Paul has no control over every nutball group that supports him. (Clue #2- they are not his friends.)
    2.) The Nazis probably support him because they believe that he wrote those words concerning the black voter. He has already retracted that statement and said he didn’t write it himself.
    3.) “movement is being hijacked by white supremacist forces”? Uh, no. Sorry not true.
    4.) He opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it is not does not support civil liberties. It promotes civil entitlements. An example of a civil entitlement is Affiirmative Action, which is downright racist.
    5.) Oh, my God! Supporters from the Constitution Party? The Constitution imagine that! Unheard of. (Well, yes, come to think of it.)
    6.) Chip Berlet, wrote “Those neo-Nazis have a First Amendment right to endorse Ron Paul, but Ron Paul has a moral obligation to disavow that donation.”
    a.) Yikes, Chip Berlet says that Paul has a moral obligation.
    a.) Why, exactly, do we care what Chip Berlet has to say?
    b) Chip Berlet is a communist.

  • http://slackhack.blogspot.com Weird

    Please try to ignore Excusemeforpointingandlaughing, I know it’s hard and I know this post proves my failure to do that.

    I hate to lower myself to his level, but, no I don’t.

    “Excusemeforpointingandlaughing” is a troll who is bent on causing trouble and is personally attacking commentors on this blog even though it clearly says “Personal attacks are not allowed”. He admits in one of his comments that he creates fake blogger accounts just to create havoc and insult Dr. Paul’s supporters.

    He is off topic on every one of his 13+ comments and obviously has nothing better to do. He is a name caller who curses continually in nearly every comment. On top of that, his comments are disjointed, unintelligent, and unresearched and add nothing to this discourse.

    In my OPINION, he is probably one of the trolls putting up fake comments with fake accounts all over the blogosphere to make RP supporters look bad.

    Also, in my OPINION, the fact that he states that he is retired makes me suspect he is motivated by the fear of losing his Social Security.

    Don’t worry EMFPAL, if elected, Dr. Paul has promised not to take away your government dole and old age welfare.

    I am done with you now.

    P.S. Go ahead punk, call me a Paulite.

  • Rob

    You made no attempt to understand “why” Ron Paul gets fringe support. He stands for freedom, the same freedom that legs fringe people live as citizens in the USA. Most countries don’t tolerate those people. Those people see their freedom under attack. That is why they support Ron Paul.

    This absolutely does not mean that Ron Paul supports them, or their ideas. The distinction is key. And thus, I see no reason why this issue should affect anyone’s decision regarding Ron Paul.

  • Jason

    So what>? Civil liberties mean freedom for all. So no matter what you believe, your individual rights are protected. White supremacist, Black supremacist, Gay supremacist, Christian supremacist, what ever group you can think of. It is irrelavent, respecting individual personal liberties is what Ron Paul is about. Dear writer, try thinking outside the box, and actully listening to Paul. It’s not a Republican VS. Democrate or libertarian. It’s freedom baby, a tune we can all dance to :) Time to think outside the cage.

    So whatever you believe, if your American and believe in the Declaration of independance, Bill of Rights, and Constitution, the foundation of freedom anyone can support paul. Freedom freedom freedom!

  • BLIND_SIGHT

    As I post my comments, I read above the box, “Personal attacks are NOT allowed.” Maybe you should have your writers read this first. You want to make twisted comments about a man who is every middle class and poor Americans choice for President? Are you nuts? Why do you not investigate Hillary’s criminal record? Or Rudy’s? Why not write about how Mitt has to PAY people to vote for him? If you do not understand how to investigate a story, why are you allowed to work for a publication? Unless their idea is to not print an true story, and to try to slander Dr. Ron Paul. WoW, it is truly interestiong to see how deep the establishment has dug its roots. Thank you for writing this story, now I no longer have to read your articles, and I will know your view pionts here at blogcritics. You will now be dismissd as FOOLS.

  • charles ranalli

    even if the “facts” as stated in this article were true – which they are not – the question is
    “so what?”
    i believe the American people are waking up to the fact that buzzwords like “racist” “bigot” and “anti-semite” are just meaningless attempts at brainwashing the public which should rightfully be ignored.
    God bless the author SJ Reidhead.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    SJ, your piece yesterday on Lindsey Graham was good. But judging by the comments thread on this one so far, maybe you should have quit while you were ahead!

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Glenn Beck Gives to Ron Paul Campaign

    That’s a bigger smear on Ron Paul’s candidacy than anything the author of this piece has written.

  • http://www.ronpaul2008.com Bill Moore

    My next door neighbor is a registered pedophile.

    He supports Rudy Giuliani.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Blind

    Hey bro you left out the word smear.. whats up with that didn’t you get the memo?

    Dub Dub chicken wings or turkey breasts whats for supper tonight.

    Oh got it spaghetti and meatballs somehow it seems more correct.

  • http://www.rudygiulianiforum.com William D Berg

    What this piece misses is that all of these people who have donated must be US citizens.

    So pretty much Americans are a bunch of KKK white supremacist neo-nazis.

    Fucking Americans!

  • Lumpy

    What you paulbots don’t seem to get is that someone could be concerned about this problem specifically because they support paul and want him to win. This is a real problem which will hurt him in the election and based on these comments you folks are part of the problem.

  • Julian

    As soon as Hillary comes out publicly to apologize for throwing KKK grand cyclops Senator Robert Byrd a birthday party in the former home of Fredrick Douglass, I might start to give a crap about Ron Paul getting $500 from racists.

    You also forgot to include Ron Paul’s response to those “article excerpts” you so artfully dug up- he acknowledged that they were written, though not by himself, took appropriate action within his staff, assumed moral responsibility for those words having appeared in his publication, and publicly apologized. The decision to leave all this information out seems a bit strange.

    The fact that the media seems more interested in donations like the one from Black…rather than the Robert Byrd (a well-known public racist and KKK member) incident I mentioned, Giuliani’s relationship to Bernard Kirek, and Hillary Clinton’s debacles with Norman Hsu and Peter Paul truly speaks VOLUMES.

    I havent seen anything at all to make me think that Paul is a racist in the least. The fact that the media seems to want to seize on the 1% of his support that comes from unevolved morons and completely ignore the majority coming from young voters, disenchanted voters, all walks of the political and social spectrum, and his ability to stage huge rallies and self-motivated multi-million dollar fundraisers with no mainstream media support is disappointing and transparently indicative of bias.

  • David

    I just heard that the Nazi White Supremacist who lives in my neighborhood donated to the Humane Society. I was shocked to find out that the Humane Society is a racist organization, but you can bet they’ll never see another dime of my money, plus I’m going to spread my stupid opinion to all the other knuckleheads I know, until that cursed Humane Society is burning in Hell with Hitler.

  • http://www.rudygiulianiforum.com Rudy4Ever

    As a member of the KKK I do not understand why these guys support Ron Paul. I’d much rather have Rudy in office passing abortion laws paying money for abortions for minorities.

    I did however click on a few advertisements on your page.

    So now you have been given money by me…a KKK member. Welcome to the brotherhood.

  • wulfgyr

    You can’t attack the man so you attack the fringe supporters…

    Ron Paul has stated that he DOES NOT share the opinions of these racist groups. He considers racism an ugly form of “Collectivism” and since he promotes individual liberties over collectivism he’s DEFINITELY opposed to racism. It says as much on his website.

    And for those trying to link him to the 9/11 conspiracy crowd he has also PUBLICLY stated that he does not think that 9/11 was an insider job, he believes it was definitely an attack orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden in part due to our poor foreign policy over the years.

    He’s stated these positions multiple times! But somehow these smear-mongers never seem to notice that… probably because it would interfere with the only paltry vile ammunition they can bring to any discussion.

  • http://whitereference.blogspot.com Anchorage Activist

    Congratulations, S.J. Reidhead, on yet another hatchet job on Ron Paul. You know darn well that the Ron Paul campaign has expressed public disagreement with the white nationalist racial agenda, and has stated that they’re just wasting their time giving him money.

    However, Paul’s earlier remark about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is exactly on point. Had it been left there, it would have been fine. But the Act was used as an excuse by neo-Marxist Gramscian social engineers to impose affirmative action and forced busing. They’ve used diversity and multiculturalism to deliberately stir up non-whites against whites by selectively exaggerating detrimental aspects of white history. Heroes like Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee have been re-invented as bloodthirsty slaveowners. The Confederate battle flag is misrepresented as a modern-day swastika.

    And S.J. Reidhead, thanks to the outrage of black misbehavior in Jena, LA, my side is winning, and your side is losing. Mainstream American whites are awakening to their predicament. Do you think the sudden upsurge in noose sightings is coincidental? The noose is becoming an implicit symbol of white resistance to the tyranny of multiculturalism. Fortunately, for now, those nooses are ceremonial.

    Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who can prevent those nooses from becoming operational.

  • Baronius

    This article is a bit weak on proof that there’s something wrong at the top of the Ron Paul campaign. The blizzard of indignant comments tells me a lot about Paul’s support. You’ve got to learn that every candidate is going to be criticized. It doesn’t mean that the author hates and fears the almighty Paul’s inevitable victory. It means that he disagrees with you. That’s allowed.

  • Harold Giuliani Sing Sing, NY

    If Ron Paul gets rid of the IRS, he should be made President for Life.

  • infragreen

    “Williams may also be responsible for the enormous amount of spam and comments received by anyone who dares criticize Ron Paul.”

    No, it’s not one guy spamming comments.
    It’s the work of MANY MANY RON PAUL SUPPORTERS.
    Just because Stormfront and their ilk agree with RP on smaller government doesn’t make RP or the rest of the 99.9% of RP supporters racist, even though he’d have you believe otherwise by the idiotic thread title.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • BW

    I’m tired of the term “neo-Nazi”. Unless the subject has defined himself as a neo-Nazi or invokes the memory of a Nazi – DON’T CALL HIM A NEO-NAZI! This practice makes a fallacy of one’s argument.

    By the way, I think Pat Buchanan is a bigot, but the last time I checked, he wasn’t a “neo-Nazi”, a member of the KKK or a professed white supremacist. Clearly, the author of this article has an axe to grind for Ron Paul.

    BW

  • HB of VNN

    The government of Israel does not legally recognize marriages between jews and Palestinians and treats Palestinians as second class citizens. AIPAC, by far the most power lobby in Washington, acts as an agent for the jewish supremacist government in Israel. Should not all the other politicians in Washington be asked to give back their AIPAC money?

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Lumpy, ???. I and many others did address the questions. You might read the responses before attacking the people that wrote them. The problem is the liars and propagandizers that wrote this article, and all who it quoted. The problem is the not well educated, easily fooled masses that allowed themselves to hypnotized and duped by a government that cares not a whit for them. Ron Paul and his followers are the solution. Read Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Read Patrick Henry’s speech that motivated and spurred America into fighting for it’s freedom rather than lying down and dying. He talked about freedom vs slavery, and no one laughed at him or called him a nut. And thank God for that. We the people want Ron Paul for president. Is that of importance to anyone anymore?

  • GOP-Dope

    RP a racist? NO WAY. He has Mexican gardeners, Black house keepers, and Asian concubines. Not the characteristics of a racist!

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    The media are giving Ron Paul a pass on all this, cause he’s now bashing Bush and the War in Iraq. If Ron Paul was a real Republican, they’d be slaughtering him on all these conncections to fringe groups. But so long as he spouts the Left’s line, they’ll just continue to give him the attaboys.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Wait, GOP dope, you forgot the child slaves who service him at night, while his wife is in the kitchen eating aborted fetuses.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    That’s not funny. I worked for Ron for 12 years. He honestly does have a Black Housekeeper, and he does have Mexican landscapers at his home.

    This is not a humorous response. I’m dead serious. Ask anyone who knows Paul here in Lake Jackson.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Eric Dondero, what planet are you living on? The media, at first, completely ignored him. Now they are smearing him all over the place, left and right. An example is the above misinformed and propaganda ridden article, which was, btw, written by communists. Ron Paul is the only true Republican among the lot of them. Giuliani is the most liberal, and coincidentally, corrupt, one of all. What ship did you fly in on?

  • Baronius

    Maggie – “The problem is the liars and propagandizers that wrote this article, and all who it quoted.”

    Why do so many Paul supporters see groups of people after their candidate? Not every criticism is anti-Paul propaganda. This sure isn’t the first article to accuse a Republican of racism.

  • andy

    Dave, what do you mean by Paul’s anti-constitutional position on religion? I have seen his proposed constitutional amendment and it basically said – the prayer (in public schools etc.) should be neither obligatory nor prohibited. Now I don’t see anywhere in constitution that prayer must be prohibited in public schools. Actually, this would seem to me a natural idea based on the current constitution.

    Now…you seem to imply that 30% of iowa university students are neo-nazi, truthers?? I would say it the other way round: I find socialists the same problem as truthers…maybe even bigger. Lot of them support Paul because of his war position…. which means I would be associated with socialists if I advocated Paul???

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Eric Dondero, What’s your point? So what if he has a black housekeeper and Mexican gardeners? If he had a white housekeeper someone would jump and cry ‘racism’ because he didn’t use Affirmative Action while hiring. And I suppose he has Asian concubines, too? Give me a break, Dondero.

  • andy

    I just don’t get the article. They quote Paul – and it just doesn’t seem racist to me. Actually it seems very reasonable. He said he didn’t write the article in 1996, but even the quoted text does not seem to be racist.

    So we end up with guilt by association. Ron Paul doesn’t play this game. Period. Why should he? It’s your problem if you play it – not his…

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Baronius – “Why do so many Paul supporters see groups of people after their candidate?” Probably because groups of people, politicians, and particularly the media have collectively ripped him apart. The main thrust of this, since he received $4.38 million in one day. Did you see Glenn Beck’s horrendous tv show on CNN, suggesting that Ron Paul and his supporters are terrorists, and the US military should attack us? It was outrageous. You can view it here. http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=164

  • Otis B. Driftwood

    I don’t see the point of either of these articles. Is the author not aware that in a democracy even people whose ideas you find evil and repugnant are allowed to take part in the political process? Or does she want to install some body to decide who is eligible? What will her opinion be when that body decides her beliefs are wrong and she can’t take part in the process?

    Exactly who did these “undesirables” vote for in ’04, Bush or Kerry? Surely some, if not many supported Bush, but where were the cries then for him or the RNC to return any of that money? Don’t you think these people understood Reagan’s code about “states’ rights”? Do you have links to your articles condemning those politicians for being supported by people you don’t like?

    What really baffles me is how are you just now seeing the light regarding who is in your party. Your concern falls flat.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I was wondering if we’d see Eric Dondero here. Hi Eric.

    Dave, what do you mean by Paul’s anti-constitutional position on religion? I have seen his proposed constitutional amendment and it basically said – the prayer (in public schools etc.) should be neither obligatory nor prohibited. Now I don’t see anywhere in constitution that prayer must be prohibited in public schools. Actually, this would seem to me a natural idea based on the current constitution.

    You seem to have missed that whole section about ‘establishment of religion’. But as far as the prayer issue goes, I have no problem with kids praying silently and non-demonstrably at school so long as no school time or taxpayer funded resources are expended in any way. But the school prayer issue alone isn’t the basis of concern over Paul’s religious agenda. He’s also stated that he believes that it’s okay to post the ten commandments on public property, and that is a far worse violation of the establishment principle.

    Now…you seem to imply that 30% of iowa university students are neo-nazi, truthers??

    Actually, I didn’t say one word about Iowa U. students. Did you confuse me with someone else, or are you assuming that because I’m concerned about the extremists supporting Paul I think that ALL Paul supporters are extremists? If I thought that I’d have said it, but it’s a silly idea so I didn’t say it.

    I would say it the other way round: I find socialists the same problem as truthers…maybe even bigger. Lot of them support Paul because of his war position…. which means I would be associated with socialists if I advocated Paul???

    Well, you’d be associated with them in at least some way. But as someone pointed out earlier, it’s another valid criticism of the Paul campaign – that he’s being funded from outside the GOP as a spoiler candidate propped up by money from the left. Doesn’t bother me that much, but it’s a legitimate concern.

    Dave

  • http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/211107_beat_hillary.htm chris lawton

    Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt

    After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.

    But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political “left,” “right,” or “middle.” Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.

    Ron Paul’s campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.

  • lejos del usa

    I M NOT A NAZI I AM NOT A RACIST–I AM A MACHO–THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DISCUSSING THE POWER OF USA POLITICAL JEWISH INTERESTS & PACS IN THE USA–IF THEY TALK ABOUT CATHOLICS–THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT JEWISH–ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBA LOS MACHOS BAJO FEMINISTAS POR SIEMPRE

  • Drew

    Hey, great job not doing your research. I’m glad to know that BC has “journalists” that fail to research before writing. The comments attributed to Ron Paul that were of a racist tone were not written by him. This has been cleared up on numerous occasions. It was written and published in his newsletter and he HAS taken the blame for it. Now, if you actually researched what the man stands for, you would know that he is a firm opponent of racism.

    As for some nut job supporters, guess what, everyone has them. Hillary surely has some communists, Rudy has authoritarians and I am sure that all candidates have racists donating to them to some degree. Don’t single out one man on an issue he can’t control. And as for “giving the money back,” why? The government takes their money and spends it, so why can’t he spend it on something that will benefit this nation far more than the current system ever could, getting elected.

  • daryl d

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Calling someone a racist is so cliche today. It means nothing. When someone has to resort to calling someone a racist it means they can’t win an argument otherwise.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Daryl:
    Ridiculous thing to say. Racism is plenty real. If people throw the word around too casually, shame on them. But your own poorly written, offensive, and yes, borderline racist articles on this site tell us the real reason you post such useless comments: a defensive attack on anyone who might call your bluff.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    You know, this is just so dumb it’s not even worth responding to. Here we have communists, neocons, Zionists, and various lovers of oppression calling Ron Paul a racist and a Nazi. First of all, it’s kind of hard to miss the resemblance of George Dubya Bush to Adolph Hitler. Secondly, can you be serious here, when we have a Stalinist and a gangster running for president..duh..Hitlery Clinton and Rudolf Giuliani? If any of these political criticizers were serious they would be all over the real criminals, rather than attacking the one man who is fighting so hard for our freedom.

  • langston

    Did you mention that Obama’s ancestors owned slaves?

    Why do our men and women join the military?

    A. To protect the United States, their families and our Constitution
    OR
    B. To protect Arabs from dictators, Shias from Sunnis and Iraqis from Saudi Arabian terrorists

    Hillary Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney believe the answer is B – WRONG! It’s A!

    Support our troops – Bring them home

    Find out why more soldiers support Ron Paul
    than any other Presidential Candidate

    The Three Most Important Facts

    1. Only 40% of federal revenue comes from income tax
    2. Federal spending levels increased 75% since year 2000
    3. Therefore, if we reduce federal spending to year 2000 levels,
    we can ELIMINATE income tax

    • Why pay a “Flat Tax” or “Fair Tax” when you can pay ZERO TAX?

    • The Federal Energy Department does not heat your home

    • The Federal Education Department does not educate your kids

    • Maintaining military bases in over 150 countries while not preparing to help those who are still dependent on Social Security is obscene. Kids who are just starting out should be allowed to opt out of Social Security for private investment – give them something that works.

    • The Fed gives so many subsidies to corn and wheat farmers to the point where US farmers no longer grow the fruits and vegetables that we need – now YOU pay more for imported food

    • Medicare and Medicaid pay such outrageously high prices for health care that it causes price inflation for everyone else. Then the government doesn’t allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Federal meddling has hinders health care access rather than allowing the free market to create affordable solutions.

    • 11 of the top 25 richest counties in the US are around Washington, DC – that’s YOUR MONEY!

    • While Democrats plan to tax more/spend more, the neocon Republicans have borrowed and spent more. The effect on the dollar? 42% loss in value against the Euro since 2000. Countries around the world dumping their dollar reserves. And higher prices for imported oil.

    • Democratic candidates are planning a 6% tax hike – MORE MONEY FOR WASHINGTON? ARE THEY INSANE?

    More Government = Less Liberty
    Reclaim the freedom our founders intended – YOU EARNED IT!

    Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008
    LEARN MORE @ http://www.RonPaul2008.com

  • Mind control

    You’re not a racist if you hate Arabs.

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Hooooooooo Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    Now were getting to it communist and concubines and racists and nazi’s and biggggggggggggggggggggggggggots.

    Damn brilliant arguments all around!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    This article definitely wins the contest for drawing the largest number of loony-scary comments since…well, the last Ron Paul or gun-control or 9/11 conspiracy article.

  • Mind control

    This writer is a Jew. Jewish Supremacists twist everything around. They don’t care about racism, they care about anti-semitism. Majority of Jews in the western world are white, Ashkenazi Jews – majority white genes with a little semitic admixture. Anti-semitism is religionism, the same as anti-Buddhism, anti-Hinduism, anti-Christianity, anti-Islamism.

    But they’ve got to put race into the equation otherwise their attempt to inspire guilt doesn’t swing. So they pick on ‘semitism’ as a race for themselves. Now Arabs are the only full-blooded semites remaining. But who do the Jews hate? Semites. But the Jews steal their identity (as they do their land) and call anti-Judaism ‘anti-semitism’. So what do we call anti-Arabism? We can’t call it ‘anti-semitism’ because that’s what we call people who are against the People of the Talmud.

    … Typical – when a person starts lying, they have to tell more lies to cover up the first lies … and then eventually everything becomes one big lie that you can’t make head and tail of … this is what has become of the Jewish Supremacists’ attempts to paint themselves as victims of racial prejudice so that they can control the discourse of this nation, and other nations under their influence, and create the religion of political correctness – i.e. a Jew-favorable religion.

    Remember in the Jewish Supremacists’ world, being anti-Arab or even anti-Moslem is not racist, it’s not even ANTISEMITIC. Yep, everything is back to front, doublespeak, black is white, sky is green with purple patches, Jewish Supremacist ex-slave traders are the victims of racists – in this twilight insane world of Jewspeak.

    Better not be a heretic in this day and age where political correctness is the new religion of the Puritans. Ron Paul must denounce his hereticism or be burned at the stake for his rebelliousness.

  • Mind control

    It would really upset me if I found out that a Jewish Supremacist, a well-known one, had supported Ron Paul or any other candidate. I would expect the candidate to do the right thing and hand back the donation given to them.

  • http://www.morethings.com/photo_gallery_index.htm Al Barger

    Handyguy, I think I’ve got a sure-fire hit new article. It’s going to be about how Ron Paul planned 9/11 to fight gun control and get a date with Britney Spears. The concept’s still a little rough. I’m working on it.

  • Mind control

    Don Black wants the troops out of Iraq. He doesn’t want to see more innocent Iraqi blood being shed. He sees the killing of these brown women, children and elderly people as wrong and immoral. Neither does he want to see innocent Iranians (brown people) being killed in a war started by a white nation. Don Black doesn’t support the brutality and slaughter of the Jews against the brown people, the Palestinians, violence which is funded by money from a white nation. Nor does he condone violence against the Lebanese, the Syrians or against any other innocent brown people in the Middle East. His website is a testament to these views and is only one of a few websites that express those views UNRESERVEDLY and UNAPOLOGETICALLY. On the other hand he is expressly against the racism/supremacism of a certain group of mostly WHITE people who follow a religion called Judaism and who according to their faith believe they are the Chosen People, direct descendants of God, Holy People – mini-Gods in their own right, and their attempt to conquer the world as the Talmud exhorts them to, using any dirty trick and deception in the book such as twisting around the concepts of racism to benefit them, the biggest Supremacists on the planet.

    It would be really good if more people were “RACIST” and “White Supremacists” like Don Black. And I’m talking about the “anti-racist” (mostly white) Christian Zionists in particular and about the white liberals like Clinton who make a career of being High Priests and Priestesses of Political Correctness and feeding off the trough of Jewish Supremacism.

  • Carl Darby

    Rant on… no one is buying it.

    People are concerned about the future of this country. That is why the teaparty for Ron Paul on December 16th is so important. Send him money!

  • ExcuseMeForPointingandLaughing

    Durn guys

    I ran a hedge fund for a little over a year and walked away with 40 mill or so in my pocket from supposed brilliant fine thinkers who had to ask me where to invest, like that was so hard when just about anything in the market was going up.

    But damn you’ll it will pay for the beer at the next Nascar race!

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Mind Control, I don’t understand how you can first post one comment that makes sense (the one prior to the last), and then post this “I would expect the candidate to do the right thing and hand back the donation given to them.” Who are you to judge and say what the right thing is? If he doesn’t give it back, guarenteed it’s a statement in defense of the first amendment, and not because they approve of Nazis. Ron Paul is as un-Nazi like as you can get. I still haven’t heard why these nutjob authors of this blanket propagandizing article are attacking the one man who stands for reason, freedom and a sound foreign and economic policy, rather than attacking the Stalinist Hillary Clinton or the gangster Giuliani.

    Giuliani’s Business Ties Linked to International Organized Crime by U.S. Government

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You know, there’s no longer even any point in commenting on this article. The Paul supporters are so blatantly crazy that there’s not even any point in trying to refute them because all they do is prove the article right with every word they type.

    Dave

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    And how is that, exactly, Dave?

  • Mind control

    If you’re not a Christian, you are an Anti-Christian! Bad! XXXX! Wrong! Immoral!! Hater!!

    If you think the Hindus are crazy to believe what they do, you are Anti-Hindu! Wicked! Bad! XXX!! Hater!!

    If you think the Mormons are stupid to believe in their religion, you are Anti-Mormon!! Tsk, tsk!! XX! HATER!!

    If you don’t like the Masons and think they have too much power and are too secretive, you are a HATER and an Anti-Mormon!!!! Hate Speech!!! Hate Laws!!! No defacing Masonic symbols!!!!! Crime!!!

    If you don’t like dirt clogging up the drains, you are Anti-dirt!! A HATER!! Guilty of intolerance!! Prejudiced!!! XXXXX!!! Bad!!!

    If you don’t like the color purple, you are Anti-PURPLE!!! You are a discriminator!! A HATER!! You are guilty of intolerance, of hate!!!! You are a bad person!!!!

    BOYCOTT these people, denounce them, punish them, make their hate a crime, ostracize them, shame them, put them in stocks and throw stones at them – these people need to have all their HATE crushed out of them! You must not hate. It is the law.

  • Mind control

    To Maggie,

    I was being sarcastic. I don’t expect Ron Paul to hand back anything to anyone and he shouldn’t. We can’t judge people’s motivations for donating, we can’t read minds.

    If this goes on, we will then have laws where certain people are banned from voting in elections because their views are politically incorrect.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Maggie, did you not read any of this thread?

    #159 is my current favorite, but you’ve made some good contributions of your own, like #154.

    Paul’s supporters could do him and themselves a big favor by counting to 10 before they started commenting and then maybe thinking better of it.

    Dave

  • john

    garbage,RP a racist-BWaaaaaaaa!
    RON PAUL 2008!!!!!!!

  • Mind control

    I’m not a White Supremacist (and I don’t think Don Black is either, just a Nationalist) but if White Supremacism is all about leaving people of color alone in their own lands to live the way they want, not starting wars on behalf of bankers and killing and bombing innocent children and women, reducing the power of these warmongering bankers, electing people like Paul who would stop these wars and abolish the Fed Res, and restore the 1st Amendment which gives people the right to speak out and protest against these military actions against defenseless people of color, without being fined, tazed, imprisoned, held without habeas corpus or tortured – then “White Supremacism” is looking reeeeaally attractive to me.

  • plubius_reborn

    you should look at the websites policy on comments down here, personal attacks not allowed does this not partain to articles of “news”? please link SOMETHING so we can see proof that dr. paul is personal freinds with racists or that pat bucchanan is a racist if you arent willing to do any research of your own then dont post

  • Truth Be Told

    Great Smear ! But, even a kid can see that it is a smear attempt not based in Fact.

    Ron Paul is the only one to Address Racism. Go to RonPaul2008.com and look under issues / Racism..

    Ron Paul is the only one to mention racism in a debate…

    I’m sure all the candidates except Obama have a neo-nazi or racist supporting them…

  • http://www.RonPaul2008.com REP

    From Dr. Pauls Web Site..

    Racism
    A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Dave, you still haven’t said exactly how or in what way the Ron Paul supporters are like what the authors described. All you do is keep repeating the same thing. “Ron Paul supporters are crazy”. “Ron Paul supporters are racists” In what way. I read most of the posts in this thread and just don’t see how you can say what you are saying. Could it be, Dave, that you, like Hillary, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, et al, don’t have anything to say? You haven’t yet said one meaningful thing.

    Mind control, sorry, I thought you were being serious..duh.

  • Brian

    I think this has to do with his foreign policy, and the money this writers people may not see again if Paul is elected. I’m undecided, but this article really looks like slander…

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Mind Control — “If this goes on, we will then have laws where certain people are banned from voting in elections because their views are politically incorrect.”

    That was an astute observation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t try to enact that soon. They have the legislation in place H.R. 1955, S. 1959, they have the internment camps ready, all they need is a few finishing touches and it’s heil, Hitler! Or is it my God and Savior Mao Zedong? Or is it my master Joseph Stalin..Big Brother? I give up, it’s all the same thing in the end, anyway.

    “How fortunate for governments that the people they govern don’t think” ~ Adolph Hitler

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Margie Laupheimer

    Virtually every far-right entity — neo-Nazis, “white supremacists, militias, constitutionalists, Minutemen, nativists, you name it — that I’ve been monitoring for the past decade or more is lining up behind Paul. I’ve checked with other human-rights observers, and they’re seeing the same thing. Ron Paul, rather quietly and under the radar, has managed to unite nearly the entire radical right behind him.”

    Constitutionalists are extreme right wing? This is really sick. Soon it will be against the law to be a patriot.

    Almost everything said on this page are slanderous lies.

  • Mind control

    I think this blogger is anti-goy.

  • Edward Keithly

    Just like the Nazis that you (allegedly) deplore, as all authoritarians must, you have become just like the enemy you claim to despise.

    Just a point of fact (not that you appear to be too concerned with those pesky facts)… Ron Paul didn’t recently decide to return Don Black’s donation… he’s keeping it. If you had done even the barest minimum of fact-checking, you would have discovered that. And good for him. Are you arguing that the Ron Paul campaign should voluntarily put money in the hands of Nazis? What are you, some sort of Nazi fellow-traveler?

    The willingness to indulge in guilt by association is a disease that has infected the left for far too long… just as it infected the Nazis in Germany. May you meet the same fate, you authoritarian nightmare.

  • Manish

    Ron Paul is the only honest candidate right now, all the others are corporate whores.

  • Mind control

    When will it become a hate crime to be anti-goy? I’m looking forward to the day when that becomes a hate crime. [/Sarcasm] The concept of hate crime is stupid beyond belief.

  • http://disinter.wordpress.com/ disinter

    A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endurea> until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  • Bob Coffey

    The only contributions I would return if I were Ron Paul are those from anyone with the family name of
    Reidhead. That would be tainted money indeed, coming from someone who doesn’t know any better than avoid pretending that she is above a man who is her obvious superior, both intellectually and morally. Not to mention having far sharper political instincts!!!! I’m afraid she’s gonna find out the laugh’s on her.

  • Mind control

    Oh here we go again, this article is a fine example of blaxploitation. When are the Jewish Supremacists and the State of Israel going to give reparations to the blacks for atonement for trafficking in black slaves? Shouldn’t you be talking about that before you ask for more reparations from the Germans? Now the third generation of Holohoax “survivors” are asking for a handout – for “psychological suffering and emotional trauma” apparently. And shouldn’t the Jewish Supremacists be addressing this issue before they open their mouths to complain about antisemitism?

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Mind Control, not only is the concept of hate crime dumbass beyond belief, it’s downright Orwellian.

    Calling all liberals..hate crime is literally thought crime.

    Liberals and communists don’t understand this because they are already brainwashed beyond repair. As are the neocons. Amazing how hard it is now to tell them apart. LEFT< -------->RIGHT all the same..opposite sides of the same corrupt coin. It’s called the United States of AmeriKKKa.

    A prime example of the sameness of Nazism and communism is the cozy relationship of (progressive) Margaret Sanger and (nazi financier) Prescott Bush. Both wanted to eliminate black folks through eugenics programs in the early 20th century. They were friends.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I’m troubled by all the comments here going after the author of this article for being Jewish. I wasn’t aware she was Jewish and I don’t see how it could possibly be relevant. Religion and race do NOT disqualify one from having an opinion, and those who think that being Jewish should be an issue here are proving the point she was making in the article.

    Maggie, take note of the above. It’s the answer to your question.

    Dave

  • STM

    Hate crime is not thought crime, and neither does the US government believe that is the case.

    US law doesn’t offer absolute protection under the constitution either in relation to what might be termed “hate speech”. The constitution simply doesn’t offer absolute protections, and was never meant to (the constitution even contains an amendment, largely unknown to the vast bulk of Americans, expressing just that point).

    It’s a delusion under which too many Americans labour, and they’d fare better debating a lot of this stuff if they actually understood their own laws.

    Hate crime IS crime, period.

  • Mind control

    150,000 Jews were in Hitler’s Nazi army – the Jews should be asking for reparations from the Jews.

    I’m not even going to go into the Jewish backgrounds of the NKVD who killed many Russians and other Eastern Europeans during the war – it’s another whole topic in itself.

    Maggie, it wasn’t only white goyim who did business with Nazi Germany during WWII – Anne Frank’s father traded with the Nazis, selling them raw materials for manufacturing bombs … and he did this right up until the time he was discovered in the Annex. He was also wanted in Germany for committing financial fraud – he was co-owner of a bank that cheated its customers. Instead of going to England like his mother did, he decided to hide in the Annex with his family and continue his business dealings with the Germans through Dutch people acting as proxies for him.

  • Mind control

    Don’t you see what the Jewish Supremacists are trying to do? They’re trying to make it a crime to utter speech that is anything other than pro-Jewish Supremacism when it comes to talking about politics, race or any other similar issue in this country. They are slowly working towards making denial of the Holohoax a crime, a hate crime, and questioning the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 a crime, a hate crime. They have been hugely successful in pushing these anti-free speech laws through in Europe, Canada and Australia (“hate” speech (= antisemitism as thought or speech) and Holocaust denial are hate crimes; now they concentrate on the US which is a little harder to crack because some patriots stubbornly refuse to give up their First Amendment rights. The Jews must work on smearing these people, and categorizing them, and that is what their antiracism/anti-antisemitism/anti-hate campaign is all about. You will notice the Jews will focus on the word ‘hate’ – you won’t see an article where a Jew attacks his goy opponent without seeing the Jew cramming the word ‘hate’ as many times as he can into that article. It’s a psychological manipulation: who is not against ‘hate’? “Hate” is a negative word so if the Jews can associate the word ‘hate’ with people who oppose them or are simply inconvenient roadblocks in the way in their quest for Jewish hegemonic control, they will succeed in brainwashing people to think it’s immoral to oppose Jews or stand in their way.

    You will notice that in Israel, hate crimes or racism are not a consideration. Arabs are considered subhuman and can be and are killed for sport.

  • http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog SJ Reidhead

    I’ve been watching all the comments today. Over on The Pink Flamingo, one of the Ron Paul Bots has suggested I go kill myself. Sorry, but I’m not taking that advice.

    I do want to say what a great honor, the greatest complement this good Episcopalian has ever received is to be called a “Jew” by this bunch of quaint reactionaries.

    SJ Reidhead
    Episcopalian

  • Mind control

    If the Jews were genuine about their desire to see ‘hate’ eliminated and ‘hate speech’ suppressed, why don’t they prosecute the parents of the little Jewish girls who wrote the message “To the Arab children with love from a Jewish child” on rockets that were fired on the Lebanese and Palestinians?

    If the Jews were genuine about the issue of reparations why don’t they give reparations to the blacks and to the millions, tens of millions of WHITE people who were killed in Europe under them?

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    STM — “Hate crime IS crime, period.”

    Yes. That’s the point. We already have laws that say you can’t kill, maim, etc. That’s exactly why you don’t need extra laws for hate crime. So-called hate crime is ugly, I’m not arguing that. But if you make extra laws, for what may be happening in a person’s head you are violating his/her freedom of thought. Should it be a crime to hate another race, etc? Isn’t it enough to just prosecute the crime itself?

    Think about it. We are in some really dangerous water here, folks.

    Same goes for freedom of speech. That’s why the first amendment is there. Think how scary it would be if it weren’t.

  • Mind control

    Let’s be real here. The only reason why Jews are in favor of hate crimes, criminalizing thought and speech is because they’ve got a lot to cover up. If only a fraction of the lies the Jews have told came out, they would be in big, big trouble. All the lies about the so-called Holocaust is one that they’re scared of the goyim finding the truth about. Truth doesn’t need protection, only lies do.

    The Jews are the Inquisitors of the Modern Age, if you don’t profess to believe their lies, you will be punished and “rehabilitated” until you break.

    The Jews complain about the Catholics a lot and how they were during the Middle Ages, well the Jews are no different to them – they’re the ones in the torturers’ seat now.

    Back then in the Middle Ages, it was a thoughtcrime to deny the earth was the center of the universe, nowadays it is a thoughtcrime to deny the Jews are the center of the universe.

  • Jay

    Ron Paul probably has more Jewish supporters than he has neo-nazi, and he has had more vocal african-american support than any other Republican in the running.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Dave, actually it does not answer my question. There is only poster here that has expressed racist sentiment, and that out of many pro Paul comments. I’m sorry, Mind Control, but you did post some racist stuff. The holohaux? That is an earmark of racism. If you can deny that millions of people were killed, mostly slowly starved to death in Nazi Germany, then you are either insane or you are a racist.

    On the other hand, I defend Mind Control’s right to say anything that s/he wants. It’s called freedom of speech.

  • Mind control

    S.J. Reidhead,

    If you’re not a Jew, why do you drink their KoolAid?

    “I do want to say what a great honor, the greatest complement this good Episcopalian has ever received is to be called a “Jew” by this bunch of quaint reactionaries.”

    Yeah, it would be a compliment wouldn’t it, Jews being the center of the universe right now.

    I’m glad to see you enjoying yourself basking in the reflected “glory” of the Jews.

    You sure you don’t have a Jewish great great grandparent or even a Jewish grandparent like Murdoch does? Whatever, whether you have Jewish ancestry or not, you are a Jewbot the same as those racist Christian Zionists Arab-killers or real live Jewish Supremacists.

  • Mind control

    Maggie, not denying that Jews didn’t perish in internment camps in WWII but that was largely because of typhoid fever, a disease that was carried by lice, a vector which is destroyed by disinfecting things with …. ZYKLON B.

    If you are educated at all in chemistry or medicine, you would know instantly after reading about how the Jews were supposedly gassed that the story is a hoax, if you wanted to kill large numbers of people who came in trains, you wouldn’t use cyanide gas to kill them – the risk would be too great that you would end up killing YOURSELF.

    However, very small quantities, not enough to kill humans, can safely be used to fumigate bedding and other materials to control the lice problem.

    Watch

    a collection of thirty short movies that last about 10 minutes each – I’d start with episode six – gassing buildings – first.

    This movie is really a seminal movie in smashing the Holocaust myth, that’s why Googlevideos and YouTube bans it.

  • STM

    Yeah, nice try mind control. Why are you wasting time dishing out cyber kickings on the blog … shouldn’t you be giving the jackboots a polish instead?

  • BC

    OK, this is descending into name callings, ad hominem attacks, etc.

    Let’s step back and try to determine who has the most to lose if RP is elected president. I would think he’s the thinking everyman’s choice, BTW.

    -some FedGovt employees
    -income tax lawyers
    -military-industrial complex
    -parties that depend on US military presence for existence
    -Fed Reserve bankers
    -illegal alien smugglers
    -entitlementists [a new word:]
    -Constitution bashers

    Anyone else?

  • Mind control

    Actually I should have guessed S.J. Reidhead wasn’t Jewish. Most Jews would have censored the discussion long before now. Jews are into censorship and doing away with civil liberties such as free speech.

  • Mind control

    “shouldn’t you be giving the jackboots a polish instead?”

    How do you know I wasn’t?

    Go and watch and THEN come back and bash me for denying the Holocaust happened (like the Jews said it did).

    AT LEAST watch ONE episode – Episode Six – before you make up your mind one way or the other.

    This movie is fast becoming an underground cult classic on Holocaust Denial.

  • STM

    “Same goes for freedom of speech. That’s why the first amendment is there.”

    Sorry Maggie – and mind control, stop picking at those lice and pay attention – but the 1st amendment doesn’t give you an absolute right to free speech. It never has.

    There are and have always been limits on what actually constitutes free speech. Granted, 1st amendment rights are much better and more expansive than similar laws in most other countries, but they still have their limits.

    There’s another amendment to the constitution that quite clearly explains why … and it’s existed for over 200 years. Basically, it says the previous amendments, including the first, should not be taken to be the whole law of the United States. It’s there in black and white.

    Except people like mind control, who think they can do anything under the protection of the constitution, aren’t aware of such things.

    And really, do you think the founding fathers intended it to be used for the kind of crap mind control is spewing here? It’s possibly the kind of reason they included that other, little-known amendment.

    Folks like mind control should be mindful of these facts.

  • STM

    And no, mate, I won’t be watching any holocaust denial films. I’ve already made up my mind about what happened in WWII.

    I’ll stick with the version of history that hasn’t been rewritten. It’s the one my father told me about, and it seems to be backed up by just about every piece of literature I’ve read since.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Some “person” who goes under the moniker “mind control” is really dishing out the Jew-hatred on this thread. I’m not going to bother answering – the lies are evident. One wastes time answering fools. King Shlomo wrote that somewhere in Proverbs. So all “mind control” is doing is ruining support for the one person he would like to be seen backing, Ron Paul.

    As to Dr. Paul, he may have some great ideas. I honestly do not know and do not care. In the unlikely event that he is actually elected in your country and allowed to take office, he will not be allowed to carry his great ideas out by the folks who actually run your nation, the banking and oil conglomerates.

    So have fun, you all in Yankee-land; enjoy your “elections” for all the good they will do you. Bottom line, guys: your money is tanking and is going to take you all with it. Even against our joke of a currency, the “new” shekel, the dollar has lost 10% of its value, sinking from NIS 4.30 to NIS 3.87. I do not wish to embarrass you all – I won’t mention the euro or the Canadian dollar. I will tell you that folks with some spare cash here (not me) are making a fortune at cross-rate currency trading.

    FLUSH!

    Cheers!

    PS If your economy tanks and flushes the oil and banking conglomerates away, you may have more than an ice cube’s chance in hell to survive….

  • andy

    Dave…why is a piece of stone with ten commandments a problem? Am I missing something???
    Sure, buing new one with taxpayers money is not a good idea, but if it is already there..?
    Can you direct me to particular law that he proposed that you disprove? And can you point me to the article of constitution this law breaks?

    Did you confuse me with someone else, or are you assuming that because I’m concerned about the extremists supporting Paul I think that ALL Paul supporters are extremists? If I thought that I’d have said it, but it’s a silly idea so I didn’t say it.

    Well.. but there are extremists for all candidates. If you searched thouroughly, you would find them. Do you have problems with Paul’s because somebody did the search?

    Well, you’d be associated with them in at least some way. But as someone pointed out earlier, it’s another valid criticism of the Paul campaign – that he’s being funded from outside the GOP as a spoiler candidate propped up by money from the left. Doesn’t bother me that much, but it’s a legitimate concern.

    Ugh… since when is “guilt by association” valid criticism? It’s sure listed on all pages with ‘Fallacious arguments’… Since when is having a candidate that attracts people to GOP a ‘problem’? Especially when he is actually REAL conservative? Why is it a problem when he attracts new people on the platform of obeying constitution?

    BTW: If the socialists don’t bother you that much – why does it bother you that he is “associated” with neo-nazis? Sure you know that socialism killed more people than nazism?

  • andy

    Umm…regarding the last post, remove the last sentence, I have misunderstood what doesn’t bother you that much :)

    What I don’t understand is – why should Paul reject the people that are not approved by the majority. He seems to have a clear idea on morality of government – he should reject contributions from people who do not adhere to his strict interpretation – because it is not important what the majority thinks, it is important what YOU think and how YOU behave. This would mean rejecting about 90% of the contributions. Should I assume that you want him to do it?

  • Mind control

    Wow. A country is in BIG TROUBLE when people learn history by watching HOLLYWOOD movies (Schindler’s List).

    No wonder this country’s economy is about to collapse.

    The amount of ignorance that abounds in this country is just A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.

    We have the Jewish-controlled Education Department, Jewish-controled MSM and Jewish-controled Hollywood to thank for that.

    Even something straightforward like .. were 4 million gassed at Auschwitz is shrouded in lies and disinformation, and people believe in pseudoscience such as you can kill 100s of people in a draughty building with a wooden door with cyanide gas without poisoning the whole compound …

    … or a 110-storey building that has fire in six floors can collapse onto itself even though more than 90% of the tower is fire-free

    …. or 13 cubic meters of jet fuel (and this info is from FEMA btw) can burn down a 450,000 ton building of concrete and steel in 1.5 hours –

    Historians are jailed for telling the truth. Academic freedom is suppressed. Chemistry professors are arrested in the US and deported to Germany to face thoughtcrimes trials (Holocaust denial inquisitions) – AND THE TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE IN SUCH TRIALS.

    If people can’t see the link between the amount of ignorance that prevails in this nation and the rapid deterioration of the country or the connection between suppression of speech and ignorance levels, then they’re not trying hard enough.

    America is in the Dark Ages.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave…why is a piece of stone with ten commandments a problem? Am I missing something???

    Read the first few commandments sometime. Now change the word God to ‘Satan’ or ‘Legba’ and think about how you’d like seeing them posted in public buildings.

    Sure, buing new one with taxpayers money is not a good idea, but if it is already there..?

    Sell it at auction and give the money back to the taxpayers.

    Can you direct me to particular law that he proposed that you disprove?

    He supported HR 31 last year which endorsed the posting of the 10 Commandments on public property.

    And can you point me to the article of constitution this law breaks?

    Read the 1st Amendment sometime.

    Well.. but there are extremists for all candidates. If you searched thouroughly, you would find them. Do you have problems with Paul’s because somebody did the search?

    The key thing is that you don’t have to do a search for Paul’s extremists. All you have to do is post an article with his name in it on a blog and they show up in droves. That doesn’t happen with other candidates.

    Ugh… since when is “guilt by association” valid criticism?

    Since politics became more about form than substance.

    It’s sure listed on all pages with ‘Fallacious arguments’… Since when is having a candidate that attracts people to GOP a ‘problem’? Especially when he is actually REAL conservative? Why is it a problem when he attracts new people on the platform of obeying constitution?

    Many have argued that the people he is attracting are not real conservativea nd will not stick with the GOP. They are leftists who are pissed at the pro-war Democrats or independents or libertarians who hate the GOP but like Paul. And this isn’t just supposition. An awful lot of them have said that if Paul doesn’t get the nomination they won’t support any other GOP candidate.

    BTW: If the socialists don’t bother you that much – why does it bother you that he is “associated” with neo-nazis? Sure you know that socialism killed more people than nazism?

    Socialism bothers the hell out of me. Read my articles sometime. But Paul getting some socialist money or some naxi money for that matter isn’t my main concern. I really don’t care where he gets his money from. What bothers me is that he panders to extremists and is runnign a campaign based on encouraging them.

    Dave

  • Mind control

    “Some “person” who goes under the moniker “mind control” is really dishing out the Jew-hatred on this thread.”

    “Jew-HATRED”. Told ya.

  • Mind control

    Dave Nalle, do you have the same objection to the display of religious symbols in public places or the open worship of Judaism in schools in Israel as you do for Christianity in America?

  • Mind control

    STM said: “And no, mate, I won’t be watching any holocaust denial films. I’ve already made up my mind about what happened in WWII.”

    I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to maggie.

    I know your mind is already ‘made up’. Fanatics’ minds are always closed.

    I wouldn’t dream of asking you to look at a film made by a heretic.

  • Freedomexplo

    “Personal attacks are not allowed”

    Oh really?

    If anyone had the brain to read Stormfront, they would realize it’s not the Nazi’s there that are showing their support for Ron Paul, rather its the Nationalists. The neo-nazis are complaining about Ron Paul.

    The same people who misrepresent White Nationalists are the same people such as the auther of this blog who are smearing the good name of Ron Paul. Why would “supremacists” support Ron Paul? they wouldn’t.

    From an average White Taxpayer. Figured it out yet?

    ‘SJ Reidhead’

    Oh vey

  • Mind control

    “I’m troubled by all the comments here going after the author of this article for being Jewish. I wasn’t aware she was Jewish and I don’t see how it could possibly be relevant. Religion and race do NOT disqualify one from having an opinion, and those who think that being Jewish should be an issue here are proving the point she was making in the article.

    Maggie, take note of the above. It’s the answer to your question.

    Dave”

    Yes, Dave, but we can see you’re not troubled in the same way by all the assumptions of people being “Nazis” or “Neo-Nazis”.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Maggie, I find it perfectly effective to judge people by their actions and their statements. Read the comment before yours and the ones before that. I don’t have to leap to any wild conclusions, now do I?

    Dave

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Dave — “Maggie, I find it perfectly effective to judge people by their actions and their statements. Read the comment before yours and the ones before that. I don’t have to leap to any wild conclusions, now do I?”

    1.) There is only one person who is talking like a racist here out of many.
    2.) Ron Paul cannot control who supports him. Out of the hundreds of thousands of supporters he has there will be, and should be a diversity of opinion, and bound to be some who have objectionable outlooks on other races.
    3.) I imagine the other candidates have their share of cranks and racists.
    4.) Did you read the article? It is written with a convoluted, heavily slanted view, it is bloated with lies, and it is, by nature, full-blown propaganda.
    5.) It doesn’t make sense for anyone not to support Ron Paul because he would support everyone’s right to free speech.
    6.) The only ones who would oppose him are the ones who would lose the most by his being president. Those are the big corporations, the bankers, the very wealthy, and all of those who would usurp our liberty for their own devious agenda..socialisits, communists, neo-nazis like many of the legislators we have in Congress and the Executive Branch now. Read H.R. 1955 and S-1959.

  • Les Slater

    Ron Paul’s view of government is not only naïve, but is reactionary in general and racist specifically. His opposition to the renewal of the 1964 Voting Rights Act should be a clue to any thinking person.

    The laws that have been codified in response to the Civil Rights Movement do represent progress away from blatant racial discrimination that was legal, de jure, in much of the country, and de facto, in much of the rest.

    This racism did NOT come from the government even though the government was complicit and protected the perpetrators. It was the terror instituted after Radical Reconstruction that brought the governments we got.

    The struggle, the resistance, to the racist situation is what brought us the Voting Rights Act and much else, not the government. The signer of that act was the deeply, and obviously, racist, Lyndon B. Johnson. It wasn’t his good will, but the power of the Civil Rights Movement.

    Opposition to the Voting Rights Act at this point in history is objectively RACIST. This IS precisely why Ron Paul is getting this support. The right wing fully understands this. I am sure Ron Paul does also.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    1.) There is only one person who is talking like a racist here out of many.

    Actually, multiple people have made somewhat antisemitic remarks on the thread, and the main point is the fanaticism and irrationality of the responses. The proper response to this article from Ron Paul supporters SHOULD be concern over the very real issues it raises. But instead you get defensive attacks. That suggests a serious problem.

    2.) Ron Paul cannot control who supports him. Out of the hundreds of thousands of supporters he has there will be, and should be a diversity of opinion, and bound to be some who have objectionable outlooks on other races.

    Yes, but Paul attracts more of them and his other followers seem strangely unconcerned about it.

    3.) I imagine the other candidates have their share of cranks and racists.

    A few of them certainly do, but none of them have built up the mass following among those groups that Paul has.

    4.) Did you read the article? It is written with a convoluted, heavily slanted view, it is bloated with lies, and it is, by nature, full-blown propaganda.

    It’s largely factual, even if it does come from a particular perspective.

    5.) It doesn’t make sense for anyone not to support Ron Paul because he would support everyone’s right to free speech.

    Paul is certainly not the only candidate to support free speech. With every candidate you have to be concerned about where their power base is. If you don’t like corporate influence then candidates with lots of corporate donations should be a concern. In the same way, if you don’t like racists and extremists, then you should keep an eye on who they are supporting.

    6.) The only ones who would oppose him are the ones who would lose the most by his being president. Those are the big corporations,

    Huh? A Paul presidency would be heaven for big corporations.

    the bankers, the very wealthy,

    Both of these groups would benefit enormously from the kinds of reforms Paul would push.

    and all of those who would usurp our liberty for their own devious agenda..socialisits, communists, neo-nazis like many of the legislators we have in Congress and the Executive Branch now.

    I’m actually working on an article right now about the socialists who are campaigning for Paul. I would think based on this last statement that you’d be concerned that socialists, communists and neo-nazis are supporting Paul rather than opposing him.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    “I’m actually working on an article right now about the socialists who are campaigning for Paul.”

    I am looking forward to this article from you. I’ve been noticing all sorts of rightist tendencies in all sorts of individuals and groups that consider themselves liberal, progressive, left, socialist or even communist. It doesn’t really matter what they call themselves; objectively there is a real chance that some will end up as fascists.

    Remember the German National Socialist Workers Party?

    Les

  • Jean

    S.J. Reidhead is an establishment plant and apparently a person with no morals. Much like the trash we have been getting as candidates for president,example (Hillary). Ron Paul truly is Americas best hope and any who do not vote for Ron Paul have got to be enemies of the American people or total Idiots.

  • Jean

    Dave, your comments about Ron Paul are designed to convince those of weak mind that a Ron Paul presidency would be bad for America. That is like saying George Washington presidency would be bad for America. Your comment’s make absolutely no sense at all. Is your last name by chance, Rockefellar. David Rockefellar is the only Dave I can think of who would wish to bad Mouth a great American statesman like Ron Paul. Vote for individual freedom, vote for RON PAUL.

  • Mind control

    How are Jews a race, hmmmmm??? Ashkenazis are WHITE.Ashkenazi Jews are the only WHITES that get preferential treatment in affirmative action quotas the same as blacks!! Even when they make up 40% of the student body! Even when these whites were the biggest slave traders of all time!! How is it being racist to attack JUDAISM??? Huh???? I’m a religionist.

    And people wonder why this country is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket? People don’t even know what RACE IS!!!

    And Maggie, you’re the racist here ignoring the racism of the Ashkenazis to the blacks, their racist refusal to consider paying reparations to the blacks, their refusal to admit they profited from the slave trade.

  • Clavos

    “any who do not vote for Ron Paul have got to be enemies of the American people or total Idiots.”

    I REALLY don’t want to be thought of as a total idiot, but have no problem with being an enemy of the American people, so I’ll take the former, thanks.

  • Les Slater

    Does this Mind Control character generally post on BC or is here just to weigh in on support for Ron Paul? Seems to be an example of the reactionary crackpots attracted to the Paul campign.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Holy cow. I leave for about 8 hours or so, come back and everything has gone even more haywire than it was.

    Dave,
    1.) There is only one person who is talking like a racist here out of many.

    Actually, multiple people have made somewhat antisemitic remarks on the thread, and the main point is the fanaticism and irrationality of the responses. The proper response to this article from Ron Paul supporters SHOULD be concern over the very real issues it raises. But instead you get defensive attacks. That suggests a serious problem.

    —Did you ever go on Common Dreams and read the comments? I got into a verbal brawl with many of the self-proclaimed progressives there because they were saying the most hateful things about the Jews that I’ve ever heard. When I posted links to factual sources I got the comment moderated (removed). Then I got banned over and over again.

    2.) Ron Paul cannot control who supports him. Out of the hundreds of thousands of supporters he has there will be, and should be a diversity of opinion, and bound to be some who have objectionable outlooks on other races.

    Yes, but Paul attracts more of them and his other followers seem strangely unconcerned about it.

    — If you’re going to make an assertion like this back it up. Source, please.

    3.) I imagine the other candidates have their share of cranks and racists.

    A few of them certainly do, but none of them have built up the mass following among those groups that Paul has.

    —Source, please. I want facts not someone else’s unsourced opinion.

    4.) Did you read the article? It is written with a convoluted, heavily slanted view, it is bloated with lies, and it is, by nature, full-blown propaganda.

    It’s largely factual, even if it does come from a particular perspective.

    —Source, please.

    5.) It doesn’t make sense for anyone not to support Ron Paul because he would support everyone’s right to free speech.

    Paul is certainly not the only candidate to support free speech. With every candidate you have to be concerned about where their power base is. If you don’t like corporate influence then candidates with lots of corporate donations should be a concern. In the same way, if you don’t like racists and extremists, then you should keep an eye on who they are supporting.

    —Ron Paul has blessed few corporate contributions. He has never taken a special interest contribution. This should tell YOU something. In what way is Ron Paul supporting racists. There are groups of racists that support Paul but that is exactly because he supports free speech. No one else will. Hint: just supporting the free speech of some, but not others, is not supporting free speech.

    6.) The only ones who would oppose him are the ones who would lose the most by his being president. Those are the big corporations,

    Huh? A Paul presidency would be heaven for big corporations.

    the bankers, the very wealthy,

    — Uh, no. Paul wants to get the corporations off of government welfare. He want to dismantle the Federal Reserve. And you were saying about bankers?

    Both of these groups would benefit enormously from the kinds of reforms Paul would push.

    —Not quite.

    and all of those who would usurp our liberty for their own devious agenda..socialisits, communists, neo-nazis like many of the legislators we have in Congress and the Executive Branch now.

    I’m actually working on an article right now about the socialists who are campaigning for Paul. I would think based on this last statement that you’d be concerned that socialists, communists and neo-nazis are supporting Paul rather than opposing him.

    Like I said before, there is a huge diversity of support for Ron Paul because he is such a freedom fighter. Most of his supporters are Constitutionalists and libertarians, like myself. I am both.

    I followed most of the links in the article. One of them took the reader to a site that had a video of skinheads at the Philadelphia rally being really nasty to a black guy that was there.

    This is an example of a load of propagandistic shit. I was at the Philadelphia rally. There were 5,000 people there. How many skinheads were there? Is there a mention of the 4,993 decent people that were there? Is there a mention of the wonderful message of freedom that Dr. Paul carried while speaking there? No. And why not?

    It’s called propaganda. Distortion of fact to influence the view and thinking of others.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    I’ll repeat the last part of my response to Dave, because apparently no one heard (any of) it.

    Like I said before, there is a huge diversity of support for Ron Paul because he is such a freedom fighter. Most of his supporters are Constitutionalists and libertarians, like myself. I am both.

    I followed most of the links in the article. One of them took the reader to a site that had a video of skinheads at the Philadelphia rally being really nasty to a black guy that was there.

    This is an example of a load of propagandistic shit. I was at the Philadelphia rally. There were 5,000 people there. How many skinheads were there? Is there a mention of the 4,993 decent people that were there? Is there a mention of the wonderful message of freedom that Dr. Paul carried while speaking there? No. And why not?

    It’s called propaganda. Distortion of fact to influence the view and thinking of others.

  • Mind control

    Les Slater talks big about civil rights when it comes to trying to portraying Paul as a racist. Civil rights benefit Ashkenazi whites. But when it comes to talking about reparations that should be paid to blacks by Ashkenazi Jews, he’s suddenly clams up about Civil Rights. Now it’s being a “crackpot” to talk about civil rights reparations issues.

    Do you think the Ashkenazi WHITES are sincere about civil rights or do you think they are exploiting the blacks and twisting around the RACIAL arguments to keep giving themselves (WHITES) preferential treatment?

    Ashkenazi Jews (former slave traders) should not be having their hand in the affirmative action basket of goodies the same as their former victims.

  • Mind control

    On the contrary, maggie, the only racists here are the Jewish Supremacists who deny reparations payment to their victims, the black people, and who connive to have mostly WHITE people kill BROWN people.

  • Les Slater

    Ron Paul is a reactionary utopian. It is nonsense to think that a nation whose economy is ruled by the market can operate without destroying itself, let alone the majority of the population. The capitalist system has demonstrated repeatedly that it needs a strong central government to survive. The system has had a long history of economic crises. It has only been a strong centralized government with a centralized bank that has kept this system from coming apart at the seams.

    Even in its progressive ascendancy it needed a strong central government to keep progressing. The U.S. civil war is a prime example of that. If it were not for the forceful maintaining the union the U.S. would never have reached the greatness that it had.

    Ron Paul’s rejection of support for the 1964 Voter Rights Act is symbolic in that he really wants division. This is not only reactionary from a human point of view but is a brake on economic development just as slavery was.

    The problem is that capitalism does not now, nor for some time now, have sufficient impulse to break out of a self destructive rut.

    It is interesting to follow economic news these days, to see the dichotomy the fed faces. It sees inflation as a real threat but cannot free itself from the equity speculators that are always demanding more feed at the trough, even if it means the dollar has to keep falling. They need to be fed (no pun intended). Get rid of the fed? Are you crazy? That would bring us back to the ‘20s.

    There is no solution but for another class to take power that has no inherent interest, or any need, to raise some members to obscene wealth, at the expense of the majority. That is the working class.

    In this coming election, Ron Paul’s campaign will serve no purpose but to be a rightist pressure relief valve and a recruitment vehicle for the right. Don’t let the Constitutionalist and Libertarian labels fool anybody. This a campaign of the right.

  • STM

    Mind control writes: “I know your mind is already ‘made up’. Fanatics’ minds are always closed. I wouldn’t dream of asking you to look at a film made by a heretic.”

    Uh, how am I a fantic? Lol. What a classic; There’s only one fanatic here pal, and that’s you, with your anti-jewish rants.

    If you’re a white anglo-saxon (and I suspect you’re not), you make me ashamed.

    Fool.

  • Les Slater

    Mind control,

    “…when it comes to talking about reparations that should be paid to blacks by Ashkenazi Jews, he’s suddenly clams up about Civil Rights.”

    What? Your clear hatred of Jews is misdirected in this argument. Slavery was an economic system that was used and supported primarily by the wealthy economic classes. Jews were neither the only ones profiting from supporting slavery nor were all Jews supporting it. This is a class and economic issue. The capitalist class smashed the slave owning class during the civil war. That was progress.

    Besides the capitalist class, mostly northern, allowing terror to reign in the South, they also defaulted on the 40 acres and a mule. These, and the fact of slavery itself, certainly make a case for reparations. Singling out Jews only diminishes the prospect of such.

    “Now it’s being a ‘crackpot’ to talk about civil rights reparations issues.”

    No, not in itself. Jew hatred is not in the interest of any but those that rip us all off, the very wealthy. It is your irrational focus of blaming Jews that makes you a crackpot.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Reply to Les Slater

    “It has only been a strong centralized government with a centralized bank that has kept this system from coming apart at the seams.”
    — No. It has been a centralized bank that has brought this country to it’s knees. The federalist Alexander Hamilton, enemy of the people, wanted a strong central bank. Jefferson the leader of the Anit-federalists, fought against it.

    “Ron Paul’s rejection of support for the 1964 Voter Rights Act is symbolic in that he really wants division. This is not only reactionary from a human point of view but is a brake on economic development just as slavery was.”
    — Ron Paul’s rejection of support for the 1964 Voter Rights Act is an example of his stance against entitlement acts. We already have a Bill of Rights. Jefferson also said “rights are made for individuals, not groups. When the Southern blacks were being denied their rights, all that was needed was a punishment of all those who broke the Consititution. Giving groups special priveleges does not make amends for past harms. All it does it create new ones. Affrimative Action is an example of Civil Rights legislation. It is, bu definition, racist.

    Get rid of the fed? Are you crazy? That would bring us back to the ’20s.
    — Sorry. The Fed actually caused the great depression, and from what I understand, it was deliberately manufactured by the Federal Reserve Board members.

    There is no solution but for another class to take power that has no inherent interest, or any need, to raise some members to obscene wealth, at the expense of the majority. That is the working class.
    — That is correct. And of all the candidates, Ron Paul represents and has represented the working class more than any other. His past (20 years) voting record in Congress affirms this.

    In this coming election, Ron Paul’s campaign will serve no purpose but to be a rightist pressure relief valve and a recruitment vehicle for the right.
    —This is just hogwash. Did you ever watch him debate with the neocons? This is just too insane a comment to reply to.

    Don’t let the Constitutionalist and Libertarian labels fool anybody. This a campaign of the right.
    — Not quite and again, wrong. I am a Constitutionalist and Libertarian and I know the real McCoy when I see one. Do you really think that I am a person who is manipulated so easily? By the time I was in third grade I could see through the hypocricy of the Left and the Right. Nice try, Les Slater

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Reply to Les Slater

    “It has only been a strong centralized government with a centralized bank that has kept this system from coming apart at the seams.”

    — No. It has been a centralized bank that has brought this country to it’s knees. The federalist Alexander Hamilton, enemy of the people, wanted a strong central bank. Jefferson the leader of the Anit-federalists, fought against it.

    “Ron Paul’s rejection of support for the 1964 Voter Rights Act is symbolic in that he really wants division. This is not only reactionary from a human point of view but is a brake on economic development just as slavery was.”

    — Ron Paul’s rejection of support for the 1964 Voter Rights Act is an example of his stance against entitlement acts. We already have a Bill of Rights. Jefferson also said “rights are made for individuals, not groups. When the Southern blacks were being denied their rights, all that was needed was a punishment of all those who broke the Consititution. Giving groups special priveleges does not make amends for past harms. All it does it create new ones. Affrimative Action is an example of Civil Rights legislation. It is, by definition, racist.

    Get rid of the fed? Are you crazy? That would bring us back to the ’20s.

    — Sorry. The Fed actually caused the great depression, and from what I understand, it was deliberately manufactured by the Federal Reserve Board members.

    There is no solution but for another class to take power that has no inherent interest, or any need, to raise some members to obscene wealth, at the expense of the majority. That is the working class.

    — That is correct. And of all the candidates, Ron Paul represents and has represented the working class more than any other. His past (20 years) voting record in Congress affirms this.

    In this coming election, Ron Paul’s campaign will serve no purpose but to be a rightist pressure relief valve and a recruitment vehicle for the right.

    —This is just hogwash. Did you ever watch him debate with the neocons? This is just too insane a comment to reply to.

    Don’t let the Constitutionalist and Libertarian labels fool anybody. This a campaign of the right.

    — Not quite and again, wrong. I am a Constitutionalist and Libertarian and I know the real McCoy when I see one. Do you really think that I am a person who is manipulated so easily? By the time I was in third grade I could see through the hypocricy of the Left and the Right. Nice try, Les Slater

  • Clavos

    “There is no solution but for another class to take power that has no inherent interest, or any need, to raise some members to obscene wealth, at the expense of the majority. That is the working class.”

    If you really think that the working class are that pure in spirit and that lacking in greed, then you are far more naive than I thought you were, Les.

    The working Class are people. There are no differences; no more or less purity of intent on the part of the working class than there are on the part of the capitalist class or the poor class or any other class. When considered as groups (as opposed to individuals) there are no significant differences among human beings.

    In the final analysis, there are just as many greedy, venal people among the workers as there are in any other economic or sociological group.

    AND there are just as many good people as in any other group as well.

    By trying to frame one class as inherently “better” than another, you are either being naive, or are deliberately being undemocratic and subversively un-American by attempting to incite class warfare, a path that will only end in destruction of the country.

    It will only hurt the very people you purport to champion, far more than it will hurt the wealthy and capitalist classes.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    “It is nonsense to think that a nation whose economy is ruled by the market can operate without destroying itself, let alone the majority of the population. The capitalist system has demonstrated repeatedly that it needs a strong central government to survive. The system has had a long history of economic crises. It has only been a strong centralized government with a centralized bank that has kept this system from coming apart at the seams.”

    Like I said earlier, most, if not all, of the criticizers here are communists. Only a communist could come with this wanton bag of crap concerning capitalism. Why are communists, and the modern liberals so damned dense?

    GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED, CORPORATE EXPLOITATION, CORPORATIONS ON WELFARE, BANKS THAT RUN THE WORLD ARE NOT FREE TRADE.

    FREE TRADE HAPPENS ONLY IN A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS, I.E., REGULATIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH OR CATER TO THE CORPORATIONS.

    It is real clear that you can barely tell a left-wing nutbag communist from a reactionary right-wing fascist. Example: Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

    Why is this? Because they are basically the same thing. Both are collectivist. Both are authoritarian. Both are opponents of liberty and unalienable rights. Both are oppressive. Both spout love of the state and disdain for the individual.

    And guess what, folks? Fascism is a type of socialism.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Concerning the Fed by XTRABIGGG (a Ron Paul supporter)

    “The current planned economic ‘collapse’ is really a wealth transfer and consolidation from the middle class of America and Europe to the international bankers and multinational corporations. Their plan is to soon have a feudal system in place worldwide, where citizens are really high-tech serfs in bondage to their overlords, the corporate/government. The plan is to drive down wages through outsourcing of high-paying manufacturing and technical jobs, institute wage-slave service and unskilled manufacturing jobs for the majority of people, and drive down real income through devaluation of the dollar by manipulation of the money supply by the Federal Reserve (such as dumping Billions of dollars into the financial markets) and artificially increasing the costs of energy products through artificial commodity market manipulation. The current housing crisis is forcing many people out of home ownership (which, through property taxes is mere rental of property from the government), driving more people into rental tenancy. All these economic slavery programs are intended to maintain a tightening grip on managing people’s lives.”

  • STM

    Maggie,

    Stop being so paranoid. The sky ain’t falling.

  • Les Slater

    STM,

    Maggie’s #229 is a good example of the middle class panic that is driving some of them to the far right.

    Les

  • STM

    Maggie: “On the other hand, I defend Mind Control’s right to say anything that s/he wants. It’s called freedom of speech.”

    Maggie, as a citizen of the US, you either believe in the constitution or you don’t.

    The constitution itself quite clearly states that the constitution shouldn’t be regarded as the whole law of the United States. It’s in one of the amendments. It’s a warning, and a nod to the inherited and native common law upon which the US (and the states) actually operates.

    It’s why you have courts to rule on such issues. Indeed, that amendment suggests that the operation of these courts and their rulings is protected by the constitution.

    And some judgments of the (constitutionally protected) Supreme Court have ruled that certain types of speech are not protected under the 1st amendment.

    You can’t take bits of the constitution and say it’s your constitutional right whilst ignoring the other amendments that make up the whole and which may make those beliefs null and void.

    Too many Americans aren’t cognisant of this fact, and use things like the 1st amendment to back up their warped world view and the misguided belief that they can say whatever they like with absolute protection. Impunity, however, doesn’t exist despite the restrictions being far less than they are in many other (democractic) countries.

    Simply, the truth is, absolute protections can’t exist according to the law of the United States – and it says so in the constitution.

    Even in the US, there’s a line in the sand and people need to understand where that line is, and why it’s there.

  • STM

    Les: I find the shift to the far Right quite frightening to be honest, especially in an age that is supposedly enlightened.

    These people will probably vote, too.

    That’s their right of course, but it’s frightening to think people actually believe some of this stuff.

    I don’t have much time for holocaust deniers, either. Even the Nazis admitted how many people they killed.

    Because they’re Germans, they kept records of everything. Most of ‘em still exist today, right down to the records of original arrests and deportations. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    The Germans are nothing if not thorough. It’s why the trains still run on time in Germany, and probably always will.

    If mind control were to do some proper research instead of looking at bollocks-pedalling internet websites with axes to grind, he/she might find the picture a bit different.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    “And some judgments of the (constitutionally protected) Supreme Court have ruled that certain types of speech are not protected under the 1st amendment.”

    — I know this and I also know that many of the rulings of the Supreme Court have been made by corrupt judges with a biased political agenda. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution not misinterpret it. The spirit of the law in the first amendment is too protect the right to free expression, freedom of the press, the freedom of religious choice, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the right to peacefully assemble. If a judge does not defend the Constitution by defending the rights of the people that this amendment was written to protect, he has committed an act of treason. He or she should be fired and lose their citizenship.

    “Even in the US, there’s a line in the sand and people need to understand where that line is, and why it’s there.”

    — And what and where is that line, exactly? Who gets to decide who draws that line? Suppose the tides were turned and the majority decided that they didn’t like what you had to say, STM? Where would you stand then on first amendment rights?

    There is no, and can be no, qualifications on freedom of speech. Either you have it, or you don’t.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Hitler was a (modern) Leftist not a right-winger. The old time conservative right wing was not even close to Nazism, they were Constitutionalist and anti-war. The Progressives decidedly were Nazis. Many still are. Go to http://commondreams.org You won’t believe the horrendous anti-Jewish sentiment in that evil place. I got banned there several times for speaking up against the horrible comments over there. — Maggie

    ————————————————

    by Steven Pinker

    The ideological connection between Marxist socialism and National Socialism is not fanciful. Hitler read Marx carefully while living in Munich in 1913, and may have picked up from him a fateful postulate that the two ideologies would share. It is the belief that history is a preordained succession of conflicts between groups of people and that improvement in the human condition can come only from the victory of one group over the others. . . . It doesn’t matter whether the groups are thought to be defined by their biology or by their history. Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup hostility by sorting people on just about any pretext, including the flip of a coin.

    So say I:

    Hitler was “conservative.” The canard that will not die. Hitler was a statist Leftist who would have been at home in today’s Democrat Party.

    Do I exaggerate about Nazism’s affinity with the Democrat Party? The common ground between Nazism and Democrats spans eugenics (Democrats: abortion and euthanasia), class/race warfare (Dems: reverse racism, “soak the rich”), state control of business (Dems: if it moves, regulate it; if it doesn’t move, tax it), the suppression of opposing views (Dems: campus speech codes, disruption of conservative speakers, efforts to muzzle the blogosphere). Those strike me as rather fundamental similarities.

    Consider this quotation about the founder of the modern Democrat Party and today’s regulatory-welfare state:

    Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President in 1932. Faced with the Great Depression — a depression which had been caused by government itself — Roosevelt’s “solution” was to implement the socialist-fascist economic system under which Americans now suffer. Under the banner of “saving America’s free-enterprise system,” FDR was directly responsible for the abandonment of America’s 150-year history of free enterprise.

    Arguing that the American people could no longer be trusted to be charitable to others, FDR claimed that government — the organized means of coercion and compulsion — was needed to help those in need. And to effect this claim, he secured the passage of his New Deal for Americans. Roosevelt used the disastrous results of one governmental intervention — political manipulation of money — to justify another — the socialist ideal of using government to steal from those who have in order to give the loot to those who need. . . .

    [I]t was through the income tax and the power to expand money and credit that Roosevelt was able to accomplish effectively his political plundering and looting, not only from the rich but from everyone in all walks of life.

    But Roosevelt did more than just enshrine into the American political and economic system the ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin (the mass murderer FDR affectionately referred to as “Uncle Joe”). Greatly admiring Benito Mussolini’s fascist system in Italy, Roosevelt proceeded to implement the same type of economic system in the U.S. For example, his National Recovery Act gave him virtually unlimited dictatorial powers over American business and industry. And any American citizen who did not do his “patriotic” duty by supporting the NRA and its “Blue Eagle” soon found himself at the receiving end of FDR’s vengeance and retaliation.

    And it was during this period of time that such alien schemes as the Social Security Act, the FDIC, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Emergency Banking Relief Act the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Securities Act, and the National Labor Relations Act came into existence — all with the aim of taking control of people’s lives as well as absolving them from responsibility for errors and foolhardiness by giving them the political loot that had been stolen from others. . . .

    And what was the reaction of the American people to the evil, immoral, and tyrannical acts of FDR? Like people in other parts of the world who were suffering under dictatorial rule — Russians, Germans, and Italians — most of them reacted like sheep — meekly going along with their own slaughter and, in many instances, ardently supporting it. . . .

    For several years, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by four justices — Sutherland, Butter, Van Devanter, and McReynolds — declared FDR’s socialist and fascist New Deal policies in violation of the United States Constitution — in violation of every principle of individual liberty and limited government on which this nation was founded.

    But the end came in 1937. In what many judicial scholars say was a result of Roosevelt’s disgraceful and pathetic attempt to pack the court with some of his cronies, a fifth justice — Owen J. Roberts, whose vote had helped to invalidate much of the New Deal — shifted his vote in favor of Roosevelt’s policies. And with Roosevelt thereafter being able to replace dying and retiring justices with ones who would do his bidding, the era of American economic liberty came to a sad and tragic end.

    More than economic liberty came to a sad and tragic end under FDR:

    [E]conomic and personal liberty are inseparable: We engage in economic activity to serve our personal values, and our personal values are reflected in our economic activity. When the state restricts economic liberty, it necessarily restricts personal liberty, and vice versa. The state simply cannot make personal and economic decisions more effectively than individuals operating freely within an ever-evolving socio-economic network.

    FDR didn’t believe that. Neither did Hitler or Stalin. Neither do a lot of Democrats.

    I am sick and tired of hearing Leftists (i.e., a lot of Democrats) call conservatives and libertarians “fascists” and “Nazis.” It’s time to call Democrats what they (or a lot of them) are: Hitler’s (and Stalin’s) brothers and sisters under the skin. Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Leftist — they’re all pretty much the same thing as far as I’m concerned. Different in degree, perhaps, but not in kind.

    UPDATE: David N. Mayer says that

    those people on the left-side of the traditional left-right political spectrum who call themselves and their policies “progressive” are abusing the word. Progressive, according to most dictionaries, means “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are,” “making progress toward better conditions, employing or advocating more enlightened ideas,” or “going forward or onward.” Rather than being truly “progressive,” those who label themselves by that word are, in fact, reactionaries: they adhere to, and they advocate a continuation and expansion, of the failed policies of the 20th-century regulatory/welfare state.

    There’s nothing “progressive” about the socialist, paternalistic policies that American leftists advocate. The 20th-century regulatory/welfare state they want to expand was itself based on the 19th-century statist policies of Germany’s Otto von Bismarck; and Bismarck’s statism was the old European wine – the paternalism that for centuries had been the dominant public policy of the feudal monarchies of Europe – rebottled in 19th-century packaging. Like the conservatives (those on the right side of the traditional left-right political spectrum) whom they claim to oppose, left-liberal “progressives” are really advocates of paternalism and collectivism. Left-liberals and conservatives differ only in the type of 19th-century paternalism they want to continue or expand. Conservatives (paternalists/collectivists of the right) seek generally to use the coercive power of government to impose Victorian-era morals, while their brethren on the left seek generally to use the coercive power of the government to redistribute wealth. Both sides would willingly sacrifice individual freedom and self-responsibility in order to advance their collectivist agenda, their notion of the so-called “common good” of society.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Maggie,

    You seem very bothered by attacks on Jews. You talk about how you’ve been banned at commondreams.com, etc., for daring to defend Jews there. I’m not surprised.

    If you are indeed one of the Tribe, I beg you to take some advice from old uncle Ruvy. Don’t worry about Ron Paul; don’t worry about passing phenomena like the United States. Get your butt out of there (along with anyone else you can bring) and come home.

    I guarantee you that all hell will break loose here in the not too distant future – but it will be nothing compared to what happens in America.

    Your money will be worthless, your health, transportation and food distribution systems will collapse, and a terrible plague will stalk the land. Your government will be a joke, and the rule of the gun and the vigilante will be the rule of the day. And yes, Jews will be victimized there. Physical attacks on Jews have been rising in the past several years, and they will continue to.

    Your physical safety in America will be problematic. The Jews who thought that Berlin was the new Jerusalem 90 years ago learned from concentration camps how wrong they were. The Jews who think that America is the new Jerusalem will also learn and suffer.

    It can happen there – and it will.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Ruvy, thanks for the invitation but I think I’ll sit tight here in America. I love this country and I love the American people. It’s the government that I detest. Also, Ruvy, if it was Italians, or people of color, or the Irish, or Arabs, or any group that was being assaulted, I would defend them with equal passion because that’s just how I am. I am also just as passionate at defending my country from attacks, both from within and without. And that’s why I love Ron Paul. He is just as, if not much more, devoted to defending this country from those who would destroy it. Like the Bushes and Cheneys, the Hillaries, all the other Republican candidates, and most of the Democrats.

    I am a true patriot like Ron Paul. I’ll fight to the death for this country but like I said a long time ago on my site, “I will die for this country in only one way. And that will be while fighting the corruption that lies at the core of the corporate driven governmental system we call $$$ AmeriKKKa $$$ …a government by the corporation and for the corporation.” Jan.2003

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    “When the Southern blacks were being denied their rights, all that was needed was a punishment of all those who broke the Constitution.”

    Riii..iight! You and who else? Southern Blacks were being denied their rights, and with impunity. It was a class, in the legal sense, that was being denied rights. Individuals, not in that class, were also being denied rights. Who was going to enforce those constitutional rights? The sheriff? It wasn’t till 1954 that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. And then Brown was not enforced. It took a massive Civil Rights Movement and then Federal Marshalls to break Jim Crow. Calling on an abstract enforcement of constitutional rights by the likes of Paul does indeed make the KKK drool with pleasure. It is no wonder that his campaign attracts so many reactionaries.

    Voting Rights Act is a codification of an actual relationship of forces at a particular point in history. The Black population was resisting the existing laws and the whole world was watching. The ruling class was at the losing end of that battle and laws were passed and with some enforcement. They were genuine concessions designed to stop the battle before it developed further. It’s the likes of Paul that sense the forces that won these battles are now not now as organized and would like to replay this battle under circumstances more favorable to them. It is only a fool that takes the promise to defend democratic rights in the abstract as good coin.

    Les

  • Les Slater

    Another reason reactionaries flock to Paul is his hostility to the right of women to control their own bodies. For a person that claims to support individual freedom this is an example of what a hypocritical, reactionary asshole that he really is.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, your comments about Ron Paul are designed to convince those of weak mind that a Ron Paul presidency would be bad for America.

    Actually, I never said anything of the sort. I think that Paul’s ideas are a very positive influence on the GOP and the political process. I don’t expect him to win the presidency, but he has made it possible for other candidates like
    Mike Huckabee to take principled stands as he did last night, declaring that he would abolish the IRS if he was elected. That alone makes Paul’s candidacy worth something.

    That is like saying George Washington presidency would be bad for America. Your comment’s make absolutely no sense at all.

    Ron Paul is not George Washington. Paul opposes most of the principles of government Washington believed in.

    Is your last name by chance, Rockefellar.

    No. My last name is on all of my comments.

    David Rockefellar is the only Dave I can think of who would wish to bad Mouth a great American statesman like Ron Paul.

    Which, of course, brands you as a conspiracy nut who no one should take seriously.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Hitler was a (modern) Leftist not a right-winger.

    I’ve always been confused by the rationale that places Hitler and the Nazis on the right side of the political spectrum while putting people like Stalin and Pol Pot on the left. Other than the fact that Hitler and Stalin hated each other’s guts, their approach seems to me to have had pretty much everything else in common.

    To me, turds like that don’t belong on the left or the right. They belong down a deep dark hole filled with those giant scarab beetles from The Mummy that eat people alive.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The Germans are nothing if not thorough. It’s why the trains still run on time in Germany, and probably always will.

    Their legendary efficiency is even more astonishing when you consider that they repulsed the obsessively efficient Roman Empire with B.O., and then spent most of the next 1500 years as a collection of hundreds of dilapidated and squabbling city-states.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    “Riii..iight! You and who else? Southern Blacks were being denied their rights, and with impunity. It was a class, in the legal sense, that was being denied rights. Individuals, not in that class, were also being denied rights. Who was going to enforce those constitutional rights? The sheriff? It wasn’t till 1954 that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. And then Brown was not enforced. It took a massive Civil Rights Movement and then Federal Marshalls to break Jim Crow. Calling on an abstract enforcement of constitutional rights by the likes of Paul does indeed make the KKK drool with pleasure. It is no wonder that his campaign attracts so many reactionaries.”

    — You completely have no idea what I was saying. I said that punishment, from the federal government was needed to defend the rights of all blacks who were being denied their rights, and that punishment should continue as long as the rights are being denied. Please give me a break, Les Slater, this is dumb..”The sheriff?” No, dear, not the sheriff who was denying the rights to begin with.

    “It took a massive Civil Rights Movement and then Federal Marshalls to break Jim Crow.”
    — Exactly. It was grassroots movement, Martin Luther King and his followers, who were inspired, btw, by Henry David Thoreau, an individualist, pacificst, abolitionist, and the author of ‘Civil Disobedience’. That’s right, again, Les, Federal Marshalls. You’re a real bright boy, aren’t you? Now you’re catching on. It was not special laws that were needed. It was action and persistency. Ron Paul, interestingly, has gone on national television and said that he supports civil disobedience. He is a true dissenter. If you actually listen to him, follow the debates where the media smear him and try to stifle him, like you do, you might understand what he is saying and what he stands for. You might begin to understand why the American people want him to be our next president. But alas, Les Slater, people like you and CNN, and Fox News, don’t care what the American people want. You are all just interested in advancing your own agenda.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    “Another reason reactionaries flock to Paul is his hostility to the right of women to control their own bodies.”

    — Actually, Ron Paul, rightfully so as a defender of the Constitution, wants to delegate the abortion decision to states, rather than the Federal Government. “Women do not have a Constitutional right to an abortion.”, Ron Paul.

    This is correct. They (or we) just don’t, like it or not.

    He is, in principle, against abortion. However, being a defender of the Constitution, and the reality of how it is written (not re-written by leftists and right-wingers), he does not try to abolish it. He, rightfully, wants to give that decision to the states.

    The Constitution is something that commies and neocons know little about. Did you ever notice how similar the stance of the commies and neocons is, especially lately?

    And, btw, Ron Paul is in no way a reactionary. An example of a reactionary is Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, or you, Les Slater. Reactionaries flock to Romney and Giuliani and Clinton, et al, not Ron Paul.

    And thanks for your comments Wolfgyr and others who defend Ron against these sickening, lying attacks.

  • Les Slater

    Maggie, #242

    “I said that punishment, from the federal government was needed to defend the rights of all blacks who were being denied their rights,…”

    Then, #243:

    “— Actually, Ron Paul, rightfully so as a defender of the Constitution, wants to delegate the abortion decision to states, rather than the Federal Government.”

    So, you and Ron are ‘states righters’. You can’t have it both ways. In one case you say that the federal government had an obligation to defend Black rights. The other to leave it to the states to oppress women. So the ‘individual rights’ candidate concedes the right of states to use their coercive powers to deny a woman the right to control her own body? This guy is a complete fraud and you a fool for defending him.

    You say you are a constitutionalist. Which part of the constitution do you ascribe to? You agree with Brown but not Roe? You are in the company of those who would prefer Plessy.

    Les

  • Jacob

    Why vote for Ron Paul?

    The falling dollar…
    The loss of good paying jobs…
    The trade deficit…
    The doubling of the national debt…
    The trillions of unfunded liabilities…
    The bloated federal government…
    The price of oil…
    The housing debacle…
    The coming stagflation…
    The asinine foreign policy…
    Fear mongering…
    Lying to the American people…
    The preemptive Iraq war…
    Wars without end…
    Creating new enemies…
    The no-bid “buddy” contracts…
    Violating the Bill of Rights…
    Threatening WWIII…
    The loss of prestige in the world…

    And on and on and on and on…

  • Baronius

    Which part of the constitution do you ascribe to?

    Les, the Jim Crow laws violated the 14th and 15th amendments. They specifically spell out voting rights and equality under law. So the federal intervention on behalf of blacks was constitutional. There is no such constitutional protection for abortion.

    I don’t want to be in the position of defending Maggie and the other Paul people, but your critique was just plain wrong.

  • STM

    Maggie: “There is no, and can be no, qualifications on freedom of speech. Either you have it, or you don’t”.

    In that case, according to the law of the united states, you don’t – if we’re going to get into semantics.

    I’ll say it one more tinme, and maybe it will sink in.

    US law, protected by the constitution, unequivocally does not offer absolute protections on free speech.

    There are many judgments of the supreme court in relation to it. Before you argue about the veracity of these, perhaps you should look them up.

    Try googling “fighting words” and 1st amendment as a good place to start.

  • Les Slater

    “There is no such constitutional protection for abortion.”

    “Article III
    Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court…”

    “Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States…”

    Seems to me that abortion falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

    On Roe itself, Amendment IX states specifically, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The Due Process clause of Amendment XIV takes care of the rest. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

    The Supreme Court decided that citizens do indeed have reasonable expectation to the right to privacy. This seems totaly in line with Amendment IX. Do you disagree here?

  • STM

    Maggie writes: “The Constitution is something that commies and neocons know little about. Did you ever notice how similar the stance of the commies and neocons is, especially lately?”

    Is this where America is going??

    God help you all.

  • STM

    Maggie:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The 9th amendment …

  • Jacob

    Did you ever notice how similar the stance of the commies and neocons is, especially lately?”

    Yes.

    It’s called world domination,

  • Baronius

    Les, I don’t know where to start disagreeing with you.

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all cases. That doesn’t mean they have authority over everything. They are bound within the legal framework. (I think you were implying the opposite.)

    As to your invocation of the 9th and 14th amendments, again I’m not sure what you’re going for. If you interpret these as protecting all actions as unstated rights, then what could ever be illegal? The Constitution says nothing about selling spoiled meat, so it must be a right. Therefore it falls under the Supreme Court. See what I mean? Or am I missing something?

  • REMF

    ^ Boy, your busy tonight Baronius. Taking a break from all those hot women, ehe…

  • STM

    In other words, Maggie, according to the constitution, and these are the words of the framers of the constitution: the Bill of Rights and the constitution is not to be taken as the whole law of the United States.

    Why is that so?

    The constitution and the common law of the US is based on some basic tenets of English common law, inherited from Britain and still in use in US law, but refined and written down.

    Among those tenets not enumerated but covered by the 9th amendment are many other rights. In regards to free speech, they include the right not to be defamed, slandered or libelled.

    While defences in the US and interpretations of libel and defamation in the US are stricter than in many other countries and in some cases, such as the defence of truth, are absolute, their protections still exist. That is just one example in regard to how the 1st amendment does not offer absolutev protection of free speech.

    You simply can’t come on here arguing about the constitution unless you know all the facts.

    It’s not piecemeal. The constitution is the sum of its parts.

  • Baronius

    Is this where America is going??

    STM, this is where the internet is going. I’m beginning to wonder if message boards will ultimately prove unworkable.

  • Clavos

    “STM, this is where the internet is going. I’m beginning to wonder if message boards will ultimately prove unworkable.”

    Food for thought…

  • Les Slater

    Baronius, #252

    “If you interpret these as protecting all actions as unstated rights, then what could ever be illegal? The Constitution says nothing about selling spoiled meat, so it must be a right.”

    Don’t be silly. Your logic is not very convincing. The constitution did enumerate rights and amendment 9 provided for others. To trivialize the right to privacy by equating it with right to sell spoiled meat only betrays your hostility to the right to privacy.

    Do you, or do you not support the right to privacy? If so, then why would it not be applicable for amendment 9?

    Les

  • Jacob

    “The constitution is the sum of its parts.”

    Actually, the US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is… ever since John Marshall made the Supreme Court a center of power.

  • STM

    Baronius: You are misconstruing what the 9th amendment is about in this case.

    Yes, it’s about natural rights regarded as such under English common law – like your home is your castle (privacy). However, it’s also about common law, old and new, that brings other rights and might alter or change some others. The selling of spiled meat isn’t a right. Under common law in most places, it’s a crime. See the difference?

    These would include decisions of courts, where such decisions then pass into common law.

    It was a very smart inclusion.

    Otherwise, the constitution as framed might have led to civil chaos as some people could have argued that the whole of the law of the US was the constitution. It still could, if certain groups in the US had their way.

    I guess this is where most of you have an advantage over some of the people who might drift to the extreme right … in their zealotry, they aren’t aware of the finer points.

  • http://pupu La Repulica ilegal

    Reading this crap makes me like RP the even more.
    Abolish the empire and Restore the Republic! Yes, be very afraid of RP!

  • STM

    Ron Paul?

    Destined for the trash can of history. Problem is, he appeals too much to the lunatic fringe.

    If he’s ever elected, America is doomed.

  • Jacob

    After reading this article on Ron Paul and His KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo-Nazi Supporters… I must plead both ignorance and guilt.

    However, I didn’t know when I was in the military, it really was the KKK.

    I didn’t know I was supporting neo-nazis while believing in adherence to the Constitution,

    Now I am exposed as the White Supremacist I never knew I was when I supported civil rights for minorities.

    As a Ron Paul supporter, what a relief to find out who I really am.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    “The Constitution is something that commies and neocons know little about. Did you ever notice how similar the stance of the commies and neocons is, especially lately?”

    Maggie, you might want to read up on the Neocons. I suspect you have no idea what the word actually means or who it applies to and just slap it on any Republicans you don’t like, as so many do. However, it’s a specific term and in fact the Neocons ARE or at least were ‘commies’ – Stalinists to be specific. So the similarities are not coincidental.

    Dave

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Can we agree on that? When an executive power places itself, unchallenged, above the law, it is a dictatorship. Can we agree on that? That is the definition of the word dictatorship. George W. Bush is a dictator. I believe we can all agree on that.

    I have followed enough of the campaigns of the other candidates to know that, either they would place us in grave danger because of their incompetency, or more often, would become dictators themselves. Hillary comes to mind, easily as well as every other Republican running for office. I used to kind of like Gravel until I learned what a complete nutbag he is, with his desire to bring the US into a one world government. In any case, there is only one who is non-authoritarian and can lead us out of the predicament we’re in now.

    You guessed it. Ron Paul.

    Someone mentioned slander as not being protected as free speech. This article is the most lying crap hole of slander and lies I have ever read. The author could get his ass sued for this garbage.

    And fuck the ADL.

  • Silver Surfer

    Geez maggie, you’re getting a bit fired up there. But isn’t democracy a wonderful thing :)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    And when she gets fired up the anti-semitism starts to come out, supporting exactly the argument she’s been trying to counter.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    STM, I don’t think I’ve misconstrued the Ninth Amendment (although I’m no expert). I was trying to respond to what I thought Les was arguing, so what I wrote came out oddly.

    Les is using the Ninth Amendment to support the Roe decision. In Roe, the Court declared laws against abortion to be unconstitutional. They based that unconstitutionality on the idea that those laws would violate the right to privacy.

    Now, as you note, the right to free speech isn’t absolute. There are laws against libel and slander. But for Les’ argument to work, he’d need three things to be true: that the Ninth Amendment includes the right to privacy, that that right to privacy is more unassailable than the enumerated rights such as free speech, and that abortion is a private act. I don’t see any of those as unarguably true.

    Yes, we should look to common law to understand unenumerated rights. I can accept the idea of a right to privacy within the Ninth Amendment. To say that the right to privacy cannot be restricted, well, that doesn’t seem workable. Defining a medical procedure as one of those unrestrictable acts, that’s crazy.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Nice try, Dave Nalle. Because I detest the ADL it does not go to follow that I am anti-Jewish. You might want to take a course in logic.

    The ADL is a nightmare. I have seen it call groups like Greenpeace terrorist organizations. It collects information on American citizens and this information goes into databanks for the United States and Israeli governments. Most, if not all governments are evil, as far as I’m concerned. (Most are states as opposed to governments — see Albert Jay Nock.) And I’m sure you’ll jump on me for having this sentiment. It was also the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, and Leo Tolstoy, to name a few. Now you can write to your Democrap congressman and tell him/her that I am an anarchist.

    “But isn’t democracy a wonderful thing?” Silver Surfer

    —Only if it is democracy. :-) Anyway a republic is better. Whatever. In the end they all get corrupt and the original intent is overthrown by an oligarchy or even a single person.

    But you most of you dudes are government loving, feminist arse kissing liberals, who have shown no understanding of the U.S. Constitution and will probably vote for any Democrat rather than a Republican, even if that Republican is Ron Paul, and even if, the Democrat will rob of us every Constitutional right that we have.

    BTW, the modern feminist is a full of shit, white, upper-middle class person who doesn’t give a damn for women of color or poor women of any color.

    In the days when we were fighting for our right to vote, and in other fights for our freedom, you would have been right there, along with all the politicians who treated us like shit and denied us that right. The Democraps like to take credit for our hard fight, and all the suffering that we did in that time. They did nothing to help us any more than the Repukelicans. They only conceded because we forced them to with our blood and with our sweat.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The ADL is a nightmare.

    The ADL is an advocacy group. In what way is it worse than the NRDC or the AARP? It promotes the interests of its constituency, that’s all. If you hate it more than other similar groups one can only assume you hate its constituency more.

    I have seen it call groups like Greenpeace terrorist organizations.

    Greenpeace IS a terrorist organization, and you don’t have to be in the ADL to realize that. Just read up on some of their acts of property destruction and sabotage.

    It collects information on American citizens and this information goes into databanks for the United States and Israeli governments.

    Which are publicly accessible and well documented and quite a useful research tool.

    Most, if not all governments are evil, as far as I’m concerned. (Most are states as opposed to governments — see Albert Jay Nock.) And I’m sure you’ll jump on me for having this sentiment.

    No, I agree with you up to a point. They’re a necessary evil and need to be controlled and limited.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Greenpeace IS a terrorist organization

    Oh, good grief.

    Let me see: small inflatable dinghy vs. 4000-ton whaling ship armed with numerous sharp and unpleasant harpoons… and the occupants of which vessel exactly do you think would be experiencing a greater degree of terror?

    Lest you forget, Greenpeace was once the victim of one of history’s most infamous and despicable acts of government-sponsored terror.

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    All I can do at this point is shake my head and quietly laugh. I’ll realize later we’re all terrorists, and confess to being a member of the sinister left-handed group. We’re bent on reversing all signs, you know. Be very afraid, right-handed pawns.

  • moonraven

    The Number 1 terrorist organization on the planet is: The US government.

    Everybody else is just playing with tinkertoys.

  • Baronius

    REMF – Before this gets out of hand, let me state this clearly. I made a joke in passing about a week ago. Not a lie; a joke. I make no claims about the companionship of hot women. Believe me. So you don’t have to turn this into a recurring thing.

  • Lapdog

    For Nalle – A glimpse of a terrorist organization’s acts of property destruction.

    Nothing too green here.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Some people don’t seem to actually grasp the definition of terrorism.

    dave

  • moonraven

    Oh?

    It’s pretty simple. The American (kof) Heritage (ditto) Dictionary says:

    NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    Anything that the US does in regard to other contries is falls under the definition of terrorism.

    The Us government, therefore, is a terrorist organization.

    Just like Pinochet’s (put in office by the US).

    Just like Trujillo’s (ditto)

    Just like Somoza’s (ditto)

    Just like F. Marcos’s (ditto)

    And then there is that loooooong list of dittos since the US was founded–a nice roll of toilet paper it makes, but I prefer to wipe my ass on the sheet music to America the Beautiful.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Apparently MR can’t read her own definition or her view of the world is so distorted that the definition is meaningless to her.

    Dave

  • STM

    “Greenpeace IS a terrorist organization”

    Of course, now I realise.

    That’d be the reason two French secret agents from the DSGE sank the Rainbow Warrior, the Pacific anti-nuclear protest ship, in Auckland Harbour in 1985, killing Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira in the blast.

    Of course, now it all makes sense. They were sailing into the Pacific to set off a few bombs, not to stop the French government’s atomic testing.

    How foolish of me to believe all these years that they were actually peace-loving enviornmentalists committed to saving the planet.

  • STM

    Baronius: You are on the right track here.

    The right to privacy certainly is covered by the 9th amendment, as it was considered an Englishman’s natural right (and therefore also an American’s) and is one of those long-held inherited laws of Britain’s unwritten, common-law constitution that passed to America in the late 1700s when it becamke a Republic. In fact, they actually existed in the colonies prior to that.

    However, it is nullified in certain situations by other laws passed by the governments(s) of the United States, that for instance allow law enforcement officials to plant listening devices or go through personal papers in the investigation of a crime.

    It all becomes rather convoluted, and often will be at the mercy of how the courts see it.

    However, that process is also part of the constitutional process, which is the worry when you get the Ron Paul supporters on here who have no idea whatsoever for the most part as to what the constitution a) actually says, b) how it really works, and c) how it protects the whole of the rule of law in the United States. Which is actually what it was designed to do.

    It’s only that has stopped the US from descending into full-blown corruption and anarchy like the former Spanish colonies in south and central America, and it’s telling that the other countries of the anglosphere (UK, Canada, NZ, Australia among others) have a similar experience.

  • Jacob

    Dave Nalle #263 “the Neocons ARE or at least were ‘commies’ – Stalinists to be specific”

    Their common interest is world domination. That is enough to know about neocons.

    Dave Nalle #265 “And when she gets fired up the anti-semitism starts to come out.

    According to Dave Nalle there’s an anti-semite under every rock, behind every bush and around every corner.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Stan, thanks for backing me up re Greenpeace.

    Some of their methods are dodgy and unethical, sure, but then so are some of my boss’s.

    Dave calling them terrorists is just about the stupidest thing said on Blogcritics since, oh, I don’t know, the last time JustOneMan commented.

  • STM

    Or the last time Dave commented :)

  • Jacob

    Dave Nalle #278 “Some people don’t seem to actually grasp the definition of terrorism.”

    Tell us more Dave.

    What is your grasp tell you?

  • Clavos

    You gents HAVE heard the term, “eco-terrorists,” have you not?

    I’m not saying that Greenpeace necessarily fits that bill, but there ARE people out there who do.

    Automobiles blown up in dealerships, ski lodges leveled with explosives, paint (and far more noxious substances) flung on women wearing furs, spikes driven into trees slated for chain sawing (HUGE potential hazard to the lumberjack), are just some examples of what I, at least, would describe as “eco-terrorism,” and all have been documented here in the US in the past several years

    Such actions don’t fall into the category of “peace-loving.”

  • Les Slater

    Baronius, #267

    “To say that the right to privacy cannot be restricted, well, that doesn’t seem workable. Defining a medical procedure as one of those unrestrictable acts, that’s crazy.”

    Nobody is saying the right to privacy cannot be subject to restrictions. Roe does not say that either and specifically states that this medical procedure can indeed be restricted.

    Have you read Roe?

    Les

  • STM

    Yeah, Clav, that’s true … but Dave was talking about Greenpeace.

    About the worst they do is chain themselves to trees. That’s just their right to protest.

    Plus, any mob that is intent on stopping the Japanese killing whales for (chopstick) “research” is OK in my book.

    The humpbacks are just starting to repopulate in this neck of the woods after being all but wiped out, and now the Japanese want to kill 1500 of them and turn them into sushi again.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Thank you, moonraven, Dr Dreadful and Jacob
    moonraven — “The Number 1 terrorist organization on the planet is: The US government. Everybody else is just playing with tinkertoys.” ha, ha (That was for real.)

    Lapdog, also, thanks and LOL.

    Like usual, STM, you are off your mind. “stopped the US from descending into full-blown corruption and anarchy” Now that’s an interesting statement.

    corruption AND anarchy

    You are a little confused. It is the authoritarian state itself that lends itself to corruption, not anarchism. The only way an anarchism could become corrupt is if it had a coercive force that ran and controlled it, to become corrupt, in which case it would not, by definition, be an anarchism. Really STM, do some studying and thinking before you make such dumbass statements.

    And this by Nalle “If you hate it more than other similar groups one can only assume you hate its constituency more.”

    — “One can only assume”. Assume away, you are still incapable of reason and logic. Either that or your still spewing propaganda and playing your mind games. Good job, Goebbles. Maybe, just maybe, I detest them because they are detestable. They work for the bastards in the White House and the FBI and they work for the Israeli Government, which is just as corrupt as all the other stinking governments.

    And you phonies talk about privacy rights and then Nalle says, concerning the ADL collecting data on American citizens, “Which are publicly accessible and well documented and quite a useful research tool.” I bet Donald Rumsfled, Dick Cheney and the CIA would agree with you on that.

    Neocons and Stalinists are exactly the same. Just look at the Bushes and the Queen Hitlery Clintons or STM, Dave Nalle, and Les Slater who I honestly thought were leftists and now I think are rightists. Funny how you can’t tell ‘em apart, isn’t it? And how they, like Romney or Giuliani or McCain truly understand the Constitution, while we dumb bastard Ron Paul supporters just don’t have a reeeel grasp on it.

    And all this, after supporting this God forsaken article, which does nothing but spit out lies and propaganda, and Nalle calling Greenpeace a terrorist organization!

    Right on and Heil, Hitler..or was that Dave Nalle..or er, STM…Les Slater? Aw, what the heck?

    Clavos — “Such actions don’t fall into the category of ‘peace-loving.'”

    —Neither did the Boston Tea Party.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Greenpeace actually isn’t known for chaining themselves to trees. They’re better known for ramming whaling ships in unequivocal acts of terorism. They even have a ram-style i-beam mounted on the fron of their ship. This clip is great because you see the greenpeace ship obviously deliberately ramming the whaling ship, and then their ‘news report’ trying to blame the whaler.

    Here’s another greenpeace ship deliberately ramming a whaler while flying a pirate flag.

    The IRS and the Canadian government have both brought cases against Greenpeace for money laundering and specifically for directing charitable contributions to ecoterrorist groups. Their tax free status was revoked in Canada as a result.

    I admit that Greenpeace is nothing on the ELF as ecoterrorists go, but they’re behind a lot of it, and their idea of ‘peaceful’ protest is pretty damned broad.

    Dave

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    The US and the Canadian governments are hardly in a position to criticize anyone. Especially the US government. And their idea of peace keeping is pretty damned scary. Like bombing innocent Iraqi citizens. Or threatening to bomb Iran and start WWIII.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Siederaski wrote: “I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director…”

    —Provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel?
    WTF? Who the hell does this nimrod think he is? Oh, let’s all bow down and kiss the floor and ask for God’s forgiveness. I bet Ron is shaking in his boots. Don’t you nitwits get it? He doesn’t care what this arrogant loudmouth thinks and neither do his supporters.

    And if you follow the link to Seideradki — you will read that “Ron Paul has a Jewish problem”. And he “was barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Candidate’s Forum due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel.”

    Honestly. I can’t take this bullshit anymore. I quit.

  • STM

    Maggie: “Really STM, do some studying and thinking before you make such dumbass statements”.

    Lol. This from a rabid Ron Paul supporter who’s made no sense at all on this thread.

    I suppose you’d never have thought the US could descend into corruption and anarchy, especially if one followed the other.

    That’s usually the order it happens, too, Maggie.

    And on a serious note … you can’t be serious about supporting Mr Paul for the office of President? America is surely doomed if he ever does (and he won’t, but still)

    Please, tell me you jest and are just here to stir the pot.

  • STM

    Dave … bollocks.

    Sorry mate, but Greenpeace are doing a great job.

    Japanese whaling ships deserve to be touched up.

    I hope our new PM follows through on his promise to send the Royal Australian Navy down to the Antarctic territories to board Japanese whalers.

  • STM

    And Maggie, I AM a leftist. I just believe in rule of law.

  • STM

    Maggie: “Such actions don’t fall into the category of ‘peace-loving.'”
    —Neither did the Boston Tea Party.”

    What an absolute waste of good tea that was.

  • troll

    *I just believe in rule of law.*

    following on the heels of:

    *Japanese whaling ships deserve to be touched up.*

    …the beauty of liberal thought

  • STM

    Troll, the Australian government believes it’s illegal for Japanese whalers to operate in Australian antarctic territory.

    The japanese say, “go to hell”.

    The whales can’t speak for themselves obviously and are getting the living sh.t harpooned out of them.

    I reckon the Japanese are breaking international whaling conventions by using loopholes to kill whales that are going to be turned into sushi.

    “Research”. What a joke. What, “We have to kill them to study them (then we eat ‘em)”. They are fair-dinkum kidding.

    So I hope the new government follows through on its promise to send the bloody navy down there to board their ships.

  • troll

    I figured you’d go for the wiggle room and focus on the Japanese who of course are up to no good with the whales but:

    …all that justifies greenpeace’s illegal activities – ?

  • STM

    Greenpeace can do whatever it bloody well wants in my book as long it’s also chasing Japanese whalers and letting the world know how ridiculous they look in their giant ships with “RESEARCH” painted in giant letters on the side (“CHOPSTICKS”, or “SUSHI” would have been more accurate.

    While Greenpeace are the only voice for whales actually actively doing something down there in the Southern Ocean (and it takes balls to be down there, believe me; it’s cold and really dangerous waters), I’ll continue to support them – although, no, I don’t agree with everything they do.

    And yes, I did opt for the wiggle room. Mate, when it comes to whales, as a fellow sea creature and concerned about their welfare, I’m pretty damned uppity.

    Greenpeace actually won me over when the French government thought them such a threat, it sent two secret agents (who were caught by the police) to NZ to sink the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour.

    I realise America had a deluded love affair with the French for the best part of 150 years, but I reckon anyone who stands up to the French isn’t doing a lot wrong (and Hitler didn’t stand up to them, he blitzed them so no odious comparisons, thanks troll :).

  • Les Slater

    Troll,

    “…all that justifies greenpeace’s illegal activities – ?”

    I don’t always agree with Greenpeace but calling them terrorist or even highlighting their ‘illegal’ activities is out of place. As some have said the U.S. IS the most illegal and terrorist entity in the world.

    Les

  • troll

    Les…I fear that you mistake my intension – it’s the ‘rule of law’ side of the equation that I reject

    I was just pointing out the ‘contradiction’ in liberal thinking

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It seems simple to me. One crime does not excuse another crime. There are international courts and legal processes they could go through. They could spend the millions they funnel illegally to terrorist groups like the EDF into hiring lawyers instead.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “I don’t always agree with Greenpeace but calling them terrorist or even highlighting their ‘illegal’ activities is out of place. As some have said the U.S. IS the most illegal and terrorist entity in the world.”

    A non sequitur.

    One statement has nothing to do with the other.

  • gem

    Wow, I am not even a republican and I can see what a thorough piece of trash and lies this article is.
    Now you Republicans can see what Hillary goes through on a daily basis.. Lots of trash and lies..
    Whats good for the goose..

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    There are international courts and legal processes they could go through. They could spend the millions they funnel illegally to terrorist groups like the EDF into hiring lawyers instead.

    There are people doing that already. Meanwhile, in the years/decades to takes to get any freaking thing done in the international courts, several species of whale are likely to disappear onto Japanese dinner tables.

    Greenpeace isn’t willing to let that happen.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Dr. Dreadful, thanks for your comment and my sentiments exactly. That’s why immediate action is often needed, regarding the rapid surge in species extinction, the assault on biodiversity, the genocides of millions of people, and last but not least, our freedom here in the
    United States of $$$ AmericKKKa $$$

    Before you neocons go on and tell us that Dr. Paul has a small handful of skinhead supporters and that that is the KKK, let me remind you what a giant Pig the US and British governments are. That, my dumbass liberal/neocons IS the KKK, Stalinist Russia and the Third Reich all rolled into one. (Or should I say the Fourth Reich?)

    And, btw, fuck the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, those who want a One World Government, those who propel us into 1984, the Bushes and the Clintons Inc., the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the upcoming North American Union, all those who work to or who support our oppression and the International Highway Robbery of our freedom.

    You Dave Nalle, STM and Les Slater are murderers in so far as you support the mass murder done by our totalitarian heads of state. In supporting the law, when the law is wrong, you commit atrocities on a daily basis. The law that Ron Paul and his supporters want to return to is the original content of the Constitution, which, btw, has been assaulted for generations by both the Republicans and the Democrats, the Communist Party, and the installation of Fascism into our legislation and executive branch.

    “What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment … inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.” — Thomas Jefferson

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    And from another who has inspired millions, including Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, and who continues to inspire many,

    “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth, – certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”

    Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

  • Jacob

    Dave Nalle #239 “Ron Paul is not George Washington. Paul opposes most of the principles of government Washington believed in.”

    What a crock.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jacob, I think you took my comment the wrong way. I think Paul is better than Washington in many ways, at least on the principles. Washington was a federalist who believed in a strong central government and I prefer Paul’s more states-rights attitude. Washington was a good president because of his leadership skills, but on actual policy he was a bit of an autocrat or at least listened to Hamilton too much.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    “You Dave Nalle, STM and Les Slater are murderers in so far as you support the mass murder done by our totalitarian heads of state.”

    What the fuck are you talking about?

  • http://disinter.wordpress.com disinter

    Ron Paul is absolutely not a racist, and has spoken out against racism.

    For the truth.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Now isn’t this a corker? The author, SJ Reidhead, of this disgusting article is
    a Republican
    .

    He quotes Chip Berlett who is a leftwing whacko who ‘studies’ ‘extreme’ right wing groups, such as skinheads, and he includes Constitutionalists in his classification of what an extreme right wing group is.

    And as a response to this article we have three neocons who claim to be leftists, or three leftists who pretend to be neocons. (I honestly can’t tell which is true.) In any case if you are leftists, STM, Dave and Les Slater, why are you so fiercely defending this article and it’s drooling crap? Don’t try and answer this question, you’ll never be able to without cutting your own throats.

    Hint: In the end…..

    they’re exactly the same thing.

  • troll

    Maggie – hint: in the end we’re all exactly the same thing

    today’s graffito: Be Nice

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    “Maggie – hint: in the end we’re all exactly the same thing”
    —Heh. Yeah, sorta. But I could argue that.

    “today’s graffito: Be Nice”
    —Do I have to?

  • troll

    no

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Hey, Troll. Yeah, because that would really remove my reason for returning here, at all, anymore. Know what I mean, Bean?

    D’ya check out my website?

  • troll

    nice work (if a bit crowded)…but I disagree with what seems to be a central premise of your thought: there is a place for a ‘standing’ federal government (and therefore that Paul is worth your time)

    imo all governance ‘ought’ to be local and ad hoc

  • bliffle

    Many new names and handles here on this thread. I wonder if they’ll hang around and contribute, or did they just flock here in response to the Ron Paul article?

    Time will tell.

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    “And as a response to this article we have three neocons who claim to be leftists, or three leftists who pretend to be neocons.”

    What a bunch of confusion. I am always suspicious of criticisms of the so called ‘neocons’, including Ron Paul’s criticisms. These criticisms come from both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ and usually have an anti-Semitic undertone to them.

    Generally, much of the criticism of the ‘neocons’ is that they are agents of Israeli foreign policy and even the claim that the Israeli regime has taken over U.S. foreign policy. This is pure nonsense. It is Israel, since its inception, that has done the bidding of the U.S. in the middle east, not the other way around. The U.S. has been an imperialist power since 1898 and oil had become a major concern for quite some time. Israel has played the role of a stabilizer (yes, I said stabilizer, not destablizer) of the reactionary regimes in the area.

    The Jew haters flock to Paul partly because of his perceived hostility the Israeli regime.

    There are lots of reasons to be hostile to the Israeli regime. I for one advocate it should be destroyed but I do not blame Jews for the establishment or maintenance of that regime. Jews are just being used as pawns of imperialist powers in that area of the world.

    Paul’s anti-neocon position actuality takes the heat off U.S. imperialist policy in the region. ‘It’s all Israel’s (the Jews) fault.’

    Fundamentally, Paul is a racist, sexist, and anti working class defender of imperialism. He is not a defender of individual rights.

    Paul would like to create an illusion that a Knight in white armor getting elected to president can actually solve the problems that we are indeed facing at an accelerating rate. This he cannot do. The ruling class will not permit it. I do not for a second believe he is a naïve innocent. He is bidding for ruling class support to carry out his version of the ‘final solution’.

    Les

  • troll

    500,000,000 or bust

  • http:.//ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Paul would like to create an illusion that a Knight in white armor getting elected to president can actually solve the problems that we are indeed facing at an accelerating rate. This he cannot do. The ruling class will not permit it. I do not for a second believe he is a naïve innocent. He is bidding for ruling class support to carry out his version of the ‘final solution’.

    Funny how two people with such different perspectives can agree on this “last best hope of America” – just another flunky of the Protestant oil and banking establishment of America who looks great because he appears to be outside of that establishment instead of a good ol’ boy.

    Hear hear!!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment … inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.” — Thomas Jefferson

    Maggie, you’ve taken this quote somewhat out of context. I believe Jefferson was referring to the African slave trade, to which he was strongly opposed. (Ironically, he did own slaves himself – treated them pretty well, though, by all accounts… ;-) ) He had suggested putting a clause in the Declaration of Independence condemning the institution of slavery, but was overruled for obvious reasons.

    So the hypocrisy of the Declaration’s grand words in the context of an economy which thrived on human suffering was what exasperated him enough to write this.

  • Moonraven

    Doc,

    By “treating them pretty” well are you referring to the children Jefferson produced with the female slaves?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Many new names and handles here on this thread. I wonder if they’ll hang around and contribute, or did they just flock here in response to the Ron Paul article?

    Rather like my concern over ‘fair weather’ Paul supporters in my recent article about the Paul campaign.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    MR,

    Yes. Hence the ‘wink’ smiley.

  • Jacob

    Les Slater #318

    What planet do you live on?

  • Les Slater

    Earth. And you?

  • http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=268031311 Rainbow

    Yikes…. the doublethink from Ron Paul supporters is astounding! “If Ron Paul disassociates himself from racists, that will support the idea that he is racist”? Huh?

  • Jacob

    What has Ron Paul ever said that is not true?

  • STM

    Maggie, I don’t even live in America. I’m just an interested observer of American culture and politics, and a keen student of the constitution and its origins, because whatever happens there given the current place of the US in the world impacts the rest of us.

    However, the responses tend to confirm what I believe: that Ron Paul’s ideas are out of whack with the mainstream and have attracted a lunatoc fringe.

    I don’t necessarily agree with all the tenets of SJ’s argument, and I do agree with you about Greenpeace having a role to play especially in its attempts to protect whales in the southern ocean, but you only have to look at the thread to see what kind of lunacy it’s brought out of the woodwork.

    Why would someone capable of reasoned thought want to align themselves with that kind of madness.

  • B of R Guy

    Lots of small contributions is called,
    A GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN. It only works if you have LOTS of individual supporters. That is the “ART” of the Paul candidacy.

    Most legitimate conservative libertrian disagree with the Civil Rights act. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS KEEP US SAFE NOT CONFLICT BASED GROUP RIGHTS.

    At the Baltimore debate Ron Paul called for drug law reform beacuse they disproportitionately incarcerate African American males.

    Ron Paul’s “extreme numbers” of meet-up individuals is a national phenomenon. You offer no evidence supporting the neo-nazi internet link.

    It seems irrational for the Paul campaign to respond to such completley baseless accusations.

    Lets argue policies and not promote slander.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    troll — “nice work (if a bit crowded)…but I disagree with what seems to be a central premise of your thought: there is a place for a ‘standing’ federal government (and therefore that Paul is worth your time)”
    — Basically, I actually agree with you. I’m an anarchist at heart, at least. It’s just that I know we’re not gonna have anarchism, as did T. Jefferson, who was also an anarchist at heart. He was also the leader of the Anti-federalists, called strongly for a minimalist government, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. the right to bear arms and the main promoter of separation of church and state. He fought against standing armies and a strong centralized bank. He was and remains the prototypical libertarian in the United States. He fought for our freedom like no other of his class, (although he died in poverty.) He defended Shays rebellion, and similar rebellions, and because of it, was inspired to persist in the inclusion of the 2nd amendment in our Bill of Rights. (It was J. Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights and Jefferson was not happy with it because they were not written in a manner clear and strong enough to defend our rights adequately.

    He also said “Rights are for individuals, not groups.”

    And to all of you who dismiss and denigrate Ron Paul, he is more like Jefferson than any politician, both in words and action, than any I have seen since.

    imo all governance ‘ought’ to be local and ad hoc
    — No one agrees with you more than Ron Paul. We have a Constitution, however, which has been raped and mutilated for a long time and is now being burned at the stake. Let’s return to it before we’re all complete slaves for the machine.

    Dr Dreadful –“Maggie, you’ve taken this quote somewhat out of context. I believe Jefferson was referring to the African slave trade, to which he was strongly opposed.”
    — I do believe he was talking about that and the way the wealthy were treating the middle class and poor farmers and business owners at the time.

    B of R Guy — “Most legitimate conservative libertarians disagree with the Civil Rights Act. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS KEEP US SAFE NOT CONFLICT BASED GROUP RIGHTS.”
    —Exactly. I said the same thing earlier. It is Ron Paul’s stance.

  • http://resist.com Tom Metzger

    What are you arguing about. The self government experiment is over anyhow. Now its back to basics.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Tom Metzger — “The self government experiment is over anyhow. Now its back to basics.”

    — Say what?

    No. The fight has just begun. Self government has just begun..again.

  • STM

    Self-government?

    Wrong track, again

    You could all just get George to call Liz at Buck House, apologise for the 200 years of extreme naughtiness (although nowhere near as bad as those dreadful Australians) and that terrible waste of good tea that time in Boston and ask if you can come back home.

    I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. They even gave Ronnie Reagan a knighthood, and the day after 9/11 they flew the US flag and played the Star-Spangled Banner for the first time at Buck House during the changing of the guard.

    That’s where we’re all going, including the US. Not isolation, but anglo-domination.

    The anglosphere is real, and it’coming soon to a country near you.

    Ta-dah

  • http:.//ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Maggie,

    I, like troll, went to your website. It is a bit crowded. It isn’t bad work but I could find absolutely nothing that I could relate to. Mind you, I believe very strongly in developing a sustainable economy that heals the environment rather than ruining it.

    Without commenting on the stuff in your website, the big changes I’d try to make are to make it a bit less crowded, and to tone down the message a bit. It seemed a bit shrill.

    If you go to my blogsite (what is good for the goose is good for the gander), you’ll find that it is singularly undeveloped, and that it needs updating. I made the big mistake of getting a google account and then forgetting the password. It’s been a bitch trying to get into the site ever since….

  • troll

    Maggie – *I’m an anarchist at heart, at least. It’s just that I know we’re not gonna have anarchism…*

    caught up in the tyranny of the Real – ?

    anarchy and cooperation are what make up the bulk of our everyday experiences…behind the veil of competition

    what we’ll never have is just government

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Good lord, I hope that’s really not Tom Metzger of WAR commenting up there.

    And as Les pointed out, Maggies is indeed very confused. That she things Les, Stan and I are all of the same political persuasion is just surrealistic, but not quite as frightening as her assumption that Republicans should just shut up and accept racism as part of the party platform.

    Dave

  • Jacob

    Nalle likes to use the word ‘racism’ without saying what he is talking about.

    Come clean, Nalle.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    That she things Les, Stan and I are all of the same political persuasion is just surrealistic

    Just for the record, Maggie:

    – Les is a Communist
    – STM is a moderate social democrat
    – Dave is a conservative libertarian

    But I guess every racetrack looks the same through blinkers.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    We do pretty much cover the bases between the three of us, and yet we get along relatively decently.

    And Jacob, when i say ‘racist’ i mean people who hate other people based on their race and think that people are subhuman if they don’t share the same genetic based appearance. If I meant anything else I’d use a different word, like ‘nativist’ if I just meant people who are irrationally against immigration.

    Dave

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Dr. Dreadful, no offense meant, but please give me a break. There is no way “Dave is a conservative libertarian”

    I am a libertarian. I know another libertarian when I see one and this is just not happening here. Glenn Beck calls himself a libertarian but he fits the bill of a Nazi better than anything. Google Ron Paul supporters terrorists Glenn Beck youtube

    Claiming to be something and actually being something are two very different things. And, Nalle, I’m not the one who’s confused here. The only ones who agree with you here, Paul supporters or not, are Les and STM.

    These days Democrats are Stalinists and Nazis and most Republican politicians are liberals or Stalinists or Nazis.

    In the end they’re just tyrannical pricks that want to steal a little more of our freedom until there isn’t any left.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Maggie, maybe you should try stepping out of the Ron Paul taxi for a moment and look through some of these gentlemen’s comments on other threads…

  • STM

    Maggie: “In the end they’re just tyrannical pricks that want to steal a little more of our freedom until there isn’t any left.”

    That’d be relatively difficult for me since I live about 10,000kms from the US, on the other side of the South Pacific. It takes me about 16 hours to fly to the US, and I visit infrequently.

    Bear in mind too before you reply or give me another misguided bollocking that this is an international website, not an American one, but because it’s based in the US, according to the 1st amendment and the right of free speech in Australia, I have as much right to comment on these issues as anyone.

    What happens in the US also has a direct effect on what happens here. If the US were to descened into the kind of madness some Ron Paul supporters would like to see, it would doom America and much of the world. There is no doubt there is a racist element to some of what’s being said.

    And I still don’t agree with your point of view. And as a non-American, I find the lack of understanding by some Ron Paul supporters in relation to the law of the US that’s served it well for 200 years, and its own constitution, absolutely astounding – especially in relation to what constitutes free speech.

    The kind of change some RP supporters are looking for is actually revolutionary, and probably unconstitutional.

    BTW, when it comes to regular posters, Dave, Doc, Clavos, Les, Chris, troll and gonzo, Ruvy and I, among others, have wildly differing points of view on plenty of stuff, especially politics, but we’ve so far managed to do it without calling each other tyrants and murderers. Moonraven gives us plenty of stick, but opposite viewpoints are valid.

    Maybe that’s something you could look at.

  • Jacob

    Dave Nalle #337 “…Republicans should just shut up and accept racism as part of the party platform.”

    Dave Nalle #340 “when i say ‘racist’ i mean people who hate other people based on their race and think that people are subhuman if they don’t share the same genetic based appearance.”

    Good smear by innuendo.

  • Jacob

    STM #343 “The kind of change some RP supporters are looking for is actually revolutionary, and probably unconstitutional”

    What unconstitutional change are you referring to?

  • STM

    At its extreme, Jacob: a desire to turn the constitution (in its original form, according to some) into the only law of the land, and its refusal to accept that decisions made by an independent judiciary are just as valid at law, especially when the constitution quite clearly warns in the 9th amendment that that should never be the case.

    Even Jefferson was smart enough to realise that.

  • Jacob

    STM: The Ninth Amendment was intended to guard the states against an oppressive federal government. Note that I didn’t say ‘federal judiciary‘ because when the Constitution was ratified by the states the signers had no idea the federal judiciary would take upon itself the power that John Marshall later conferred on it. The Ninth Amendment says that what is not enumerated in the Constitution is left to the people (the states.) That is what Rob Paul is saying.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dr. Dreadful, no offense meant, but please give me a break. There is no way “Dave is a conservative libertarian”

    That’s not exactly how I’d describe myself, but not far off. I’m a libertarian Republican like Ron Paul. I ran for office as a libertarian party candidate a few years ago and worked for the libertarian party as a paid employee at one point.

    I am a libertarian. I know another libertarian when I see one and this is just not happening here.

    I’d guess that you probably share the extremely narrow definition of libertarianism as some of the LP purists. There are different degrees of libertarianism. By my definition Paul isn’t really a libertarian, but more of a Constitutionalist, because he doesn’t place fundamental libertarian values higher than the Constitution, which is NOT a perfect expression of libertarian ideals.

    Glenn Beck calls himself a libertarian but he fits the bill of a Nazi better than anything. Google Ron Paul supporters terrorists Glenn Beck youtube

    I think you’re throwing the word ‘nazi’ around a bit freely. I’d never have guessed Beck thought he was a libertarian, but he’s certainly nothing like a nazi.

    Claiming to be something and actually being something are two very different things. And, Nalle, I’m not the one who’s confused here. The only ones who agree with you here, Paul supporters or not, are Les and STM.

    In my experience most Paul supporters are more obsessed with Paul than they understand libertarianism. They agree with Paul on one or two issues and then extrapolate to think that all of his beliefs are the same as theirs, and they’re usually wrong.

    I’d bet that I hold more beliefs in common with Paul than most of his supporters do.

    These days Democrats are Stalinists and Nazis and most Republican politicians are liberals or Stalinists or Nazis.

    Ok, now I’m REALLY sure you don’t know what most of those words mean.

    Dave

  • STM

    That is absolute bollocks Jacob! That is a grade-school interpretation of what that amendment means.

    You need to go and research the writings of the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution themselves to see the intention of this amendment and why it was included in the Bill of Rights after plenty of navel gazing.

    I repeat, it is a warning that the constitution with its enumerated rights should not be regarded as the whole of the law of the US (which, when twisted around to suit certain purposes, might apply to what Paul is saying I’ll grant).

    It is really about ensuring that all those common laws of england and the colonies of America that applied betfore the declaration of independence still applied, and that others decided upon later by the courts would also apply. Otherwise, people would take the constiution as written to be the whole law of the land, and it’s not.

    These include such things as “natural rights” – for instance, the right to privacy, “an englishman’s home is his castle”. Earlier and subsequent laws enacted by the courts, however, mean that that right does not apply for instance in case of a search where there is suspicion of criminal involvement. The 9th amendment actually confers no rights, but simply says that all rights held by men can’t possibly be enumerated and we should be mindful of this.

    In the case of the 1st amendment, it could be argued that it stops the right to free speech being absolute – in other words, such things as libel, slander and defamation (and according to later court rulings such things as “fighting words”) render it inoperative in terms of absolute protection. That is because an American also has the right not to be defamed, slandered or libelled.

    While the US has much broader scope for defence of such accusations under 1st amendments rights, especially in regard to the defence of truth, it nevertheless still applies.

    It may well also do what you say it does, and obviously it does, but it’s not the whole of it. You must do your homework in relation to this if you want to argue with me about it.

  • Jacob

    Dave Nalle #348 “I’d bet that I hold more beliefs in common with Paul than most of his supporters do.”

    For example, Nalle wants to:

    Bring all the troops home
    Abolish the IRS
    Abolish the Department of Education
    Abolish Homeland Security
    Move abortion issues to the states
    Put the currency on a firm foundation

    What other beliefs held in common did I miss?

  • STM

    The classic school of thought (and you will find majority school of thought) in relation to this amendment has included such rights not enumerated in the constitution, and most of which which originate in English common law, as:

    The right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers;

    Innocent until proven guilty;

    The legitimacy of judicial review;

    The right to vote;

    the right to privacy;

    the right to marriage;

    etc.

    Many laws enacted first in the colonies and then carried over into US law or subsequently enacted used Blackstone’s treatises (on english common law) as their basis. Much of the constitution too is based on the earlier common law, and upon the unwritten laws that still make up much of the unwritten constitution of Britain, which is taken to give natural rights. The difference being in Britain that most of the rights that were enumerated in the US constitution are simply implied, or regarded as implicit, or set down in common law. Others, however, were not but were still regarded as implicit.

    It is all these too that the 9th protects in the US, rather than gives.

    Note that experts on constitutional law list the right of judicial review among them.

  • Jacob

    STM, It is you who need to go and research what the founding fathers feared most. It was fear of a federal government that would simply replace the English king they had thrown off.

    The Bill of Rights was enacted in combination with the ability to amend the Constitution where a universal right was not covered. However, over time the federal government has usurped the power of the states without bothering to amend the Constitution. We have slid so far down the slippery slope that we now have the American King George IV.

  • STM

    Jacob: Your Miranda rights in the US are a classic example of how all this stuff came into being, and certainly still ties to the original meaning of the 9th amendment. History is very important in understanding this..

    None of these things is listed in the constitution: the right to silence (only enumerated in relation to not incriminating oneself at trial), the right to have an attorney present during questioning, or provision of legal counsel for those can’t afford one. Nor is the right to be told these rights at time of arrest listed in the constitution of the US.

    And yet, in the other countries inheriting the common law of england (places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand), the rights read to a suspect at time of arrest are near-identical.

    All those places also provide a lawyer if a suspect can’t afford one. In those countries too, those rights are held to be sacred.

    Why is that so? Because these rights had become part of the unwritten law that makes up the law of Britain, and therefore passed on not just to the US, but to those other countries as well.

    Yet none had them (except in Australia the right to trial by a jury of one’s peers) has been written down as part of a constitution.

  • STM

    Jacob, your interpretation of the constitution (and what it should be) is coloured by your political beliefs. We’re talking about the The Virgina Proposal, I presume? Would that hestitancy in the belief that a Bill of Rights would hand the bulk of power to the federal govt have been done out of concern in regard to laws specific to the Commonwealth Of Virginia (and which might have been applied through the courts) at the time? A: Yes. It’s worth noting that Madison’s amendment sprung from those concerns but didn’t mimic them.

    This amendment speaks specifically of rights, and Madison spoke specifically about rights; but the framers didn’t intened those enumerated in the previous 8 amendments to be taken as the whole law of the US.

    It’s quite clear, and you are seeing it through a fog generated by Ron Paul-speak.

  • STM

    Jacob writes: “We now have the American King George IV.”

    Actually, King George was far more easy-going than the current George, and in truth the American people were far from oppressed at the time, given the conditions prevailing anywhere else in the world in the late 1770s. More the most part, they actually enjoyed a much better life before the revolution than their peers in Britain.

    I have a strong belief that one of the real reasons behind the declaration was Britian’s growing anti-slavery voice, but that’s another issue completely. There is no doubt though that there were those behind the scenes in the colonies whose machinations in relation to independence were more about keeping power and wealth than they were about true freedom.

    Nevertheless, by giving me simplistic answers about the 9th amendment and its role in the reading of the constitution, you are never going to get honours in a course on constitutional law.

  • Jacob

    STM: Miranda rights are based on Article V of the Bill of Rights, not Article IX. “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    Article V is also the basis for the right to remain silent when charged. To be told of these rights at time of arrest is an interpretation of Article V. It doesn’t need Article IX.

    The founders were not satisfied to rely on unwritten laws. They wanted written laws. If they had been satisfied with unwritten laws there would have been no need for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or Constitutional Amendments.

    And don’t tell me that my interpretation of the Constitution is colored by my political beliefs or support of Ron Paul. You have no idea what my political beliefs are.

    You don’t know if I am a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Socialist or an Anarchist, so stop pretending to be all-knowing.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Dave, before you go and tell me that I don’t understand what a Nazi is, please read these articles and watch these videos.

    “I’d bet that I hold more beliefs in common with Paul than most of his supporters do.”
    — I seriously doubt this, but if this is so, why don’t you support him?

    Concerning the Ninth Amendment
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    “It is clear from its text and from Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.”

    So, STM, with all your condescention to Jacob, he is right and you are wrong. What you are saying is that the Consitution may be disregarded and dismissed at will, as it so often is by those who continually assault our freedom. No, wrong. The Constitution is the law. There is no higher law, beyond God himself, and we will take it back.

    And I wish everyone would stop generalizing with words like our forefathers and the framers. There were two distinct camps in those days, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. They were starkly different and even diametrically opposite in almost every way. Now we have, on the one hand… Federalists, and on the other hand…
    Federalists.

  • STM

    Jacob writes: “Miranda rights are based on Article V of the Bill of Rights, not Article IX.”

    No, they are not.

    There is no actual mention in the constitution of any of the rights contained in the Miranda warning as given in the miranda warning. Keep trying me out, and I’ll keep showing that you are wrong. Taking the fifth relates to the giving of evidence that might incriminate yourself in a criminal trial. It’s been in existence for many, many centuries. There’s an important difference to the Miranda ruling.

    They have been construed by the courts, however, as being a way of protecting 5th amendment rights to avoid self-incimination through coercion, but they existed prior to that in common law.

    They are all implied rights that were held to have been part of law prior to the Miranda decision.

    Most police forces used a near indentical warning prior to 1966.

    As you write: “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    The above is based in part on a statute of an English King issued in the 14th century. The wording is near identical. While other parts of english law enshrine the right not to give evidence against oneself, the key words contained in the English statute are due process of law.

    King Edward III of England, 1354. “…no man of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of law.”

    I don’t even know why you invoked that due process amendment in relation to this as it backs up my argument. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about except in relation to the fact that it existed prior to the Bill of Rights. You are confusing the right to take the fifth for the Miranda warning.

    So those rights existed well prior to the writing of the constituition. The due process addition was a key factor in a ruling of the High Court in freeing a Jamaican slave bound for Virginia prior to the declaration of independence and which reulted in slavery being declared illegal in England.

    It is the reason other countries inheriting the english law have near identical warnings.

    Miranda as written in fact has has no real relation to anything written in the constitution, but may be protected by the 9th amendment as written.

  • Jacob

    STM: You need to study Article V — “No person shall be… compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

    Forget applying Article IX when talking about Miranda rights.

    Also, your forays into what the English, the Canadians, the Jamaicans, or the Australians do or have done, is irrelevant to Article IX. Your diversions are just that and are nothing more than a smoke screen.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    So, Jacob, are you saying that the Founding Fathers just plucked the Constitution fully formed out of the air?

    Everything lawmakers do has a precedent. Even Edward III’s due process statute, which STM quotes, largely echoes Article 39 of the Magna Carta:

    “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

  • STM

    Maggie writes: “So, STM, with all your condescention to Jacob”.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Jacob should probably learn a bit about the law of his country and the origins of it (and the real origins of the constitution, which wasn’t just whisked out of thin air by a bunch of revolutionaries) before he tries to hit me over the head with facts that aren’t.

    His writing about the Miranda ruling and its basis in Article V is about as far off the right track as it’s possible to get. Coercion as a suspect is a lot different to the right not to give evidence that might inciriminate yourself AT TRIAL as contained in article V.

    I notice, too, you don’t have any problems telling people how wrong they are, Maggie.

    In fact you’ve spent this whole tthread telling us where we should get off and how wrong we all area.

    So what, your opinion’s the only one that counts is, is it?

  • STM

    Jacob, why do you think that US law in its execution and practise, especially in the criminal jursdiction, is virtually identical to the laws of say, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, Canada, etc.

    Because they all come from the same place and for the most part, existed prior to the writing of the bill or rights.

    One of the founding fathers said words to the effect of: “What we are doing in regards to the law is nothing new,; we are just writing it down”.

    One of the reaons why the Virginia Proposal was so important in relation to this was that the Commonwealth of Virginia had certain laws and rights pertaining to its own jurisdiction as a colony that were based on english/colonial virginian common law and these had not been enumerated in the constitution.

    The 9th was an echo of that concern, and addressed by Madison clearly to include those laws and others of the colonies within the bounds of the new constitution.

    As Dave has pointed out, the Bill of Rights didn’t just happen.

    It’s (loosely) based on the English Bill of Rights written 100 years before.

    However, it was groundbreaking in its sweeping reforms. That’s what Americans should be proud of. There is nothing else quite like it.

  • STM

    Thanks for your support Doc.

    The big problem in arguing some of this stuff is that a lot of people in the US are ignorant of the origins of their own laws, and so they don’t understand where the unenumerated and so-called natural rights and laws (privacy, Roe) protected by the 9th amendment a) come from, or b) why they form such an important part of US common law in existence prior to the Bill of Rights.

    I’m amazed at the number of Americans I meet who think that the constitution of the US, and the Bill of Rights, were just whisked out of thin air.

    One well-educated guy from the US I met here recently thought it was, quote, “great that we had been able to draw from the US” and implement such things as jury trial, the right to silence, etc.

    Which in a way, when you see some of the comments here about Ron Paul and how he’ll protect the constitution, is really quite frightening.

    Jacob’s telling me that I’m putting up a smokescreen in relation to other countries inheriting many of these laws is a classic example of that lack of understanding and knowledge. It’s critical to any argument about this.

    I’m not being condescendin

  • STM

    Also, having written at length in relation to article V, and then having Jacob quote it back to me to tell me Miranda rights are based on it (they’re not, because they don’t relate to TRIAL and have existed before the Bill of Rights) is an indication that he doesn’t actually read beyond the first few lines of the post.

    But worse, not understanding how your own country works and what it’s origins really are is a real worry.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’m not being condescendin

    Are we by any chance working on a laptop with a trackpad?

    You have to be careful with those things. I mean, all you do is pause for a moment to drum your fingers in thought, and when you look back at the screen you discover that you’ve accidentally donated $35,000 of Rupert Murdoch’s money to the Ron Paul campaign.

    ;-)

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, before you go and tell me that I don’t understand what a Nazi is, please read these articles and watch these videos.

    Yes, I understand that Glen Beck is an idiot, but it doesn’t make him a Nazi. Even if he’s some sort of authoritarian goon, he’s still not a Nazi. It’s a specific term for a political movement which doesn’t match Beck’s ideology.

    “I’d bet that I hold more beliefs in common with Paul than most of his supporters do.”
    — I seriously doubt this, but if this is so, why don’t you support him?

    Jacob, being concerned that his campaign is being derailed by saboteurs and racists and other divisive groups IS supporting him. It’s a hell of a lot more supportive than holding hands with members of the Aryan Nation and singing Kumbaya, which seems to be your solution.

    Dave

  • troll

    good grief…and here I thought miranda was all about the right to be informed of one’s rights – kind of a meta (unenumerated) right

    surfer dude – aren’t Maggie and Jacob merely stressing the primacy of constitutional law and the requirement that in the US common law judgments remain consistent with it – ?

    segregation for example developed as common law through state courts and was suppressed only by appeal to the constitution at the federal level

    (…and hasn’t the idea of the universal supremacy of federal law and executive edict itself developed as kinda ‘common law’ through federal court judgments and is it unreasonable to question its constitutionality – ?)

  • Silver Surfer

    Jacob, there are a million books on this stuff but for starters try googling this, instead of arguing in circles:

    Justice Joseph Story on Common Law and Constitutional Origins of the United States Constitution.

    It contains and explains much, if you’re interested.

    Also, Blackstone’s commentaries on English law and their use in the origins of American common law (an easy to get volume at the time explaining how the law worked and widely used in America), although Jefferson hated them because of their supposed Tory bent and went back centuries to the Saxons for inspiration on laws about the natural rights of englishmen.

    There is also plenty on the internet on Miranda rights, and the fact that they’re not constitutional rights but rights now seemingly set in stone by the court but some of which were taken to have existed previously under common law jurisdictions – even though they go some way to protecting fifth amendment rights in a trial. (expect more challenges to their veracity, however)

    Study of law IMO is fascinating and reveals plenty of little tidbits of history that might be – are – relevant to where we are today.

    Yes, i know people think it’s as boring as batshit, but it ain’t.

  • Silver Surfer

    We’ve been down this path before haven’t we troll??

    It still remains that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the US.

    It also remains that one of the amendments contained in that supreme law warns that it should not be regarded as the whole of the US.

    On segregation under common law. I’m not sure that those laws existed at the time the bill or rights was written, and therefore could not be regarded as one of the rights not enumerated in the constitution :) What, a plantation owner’s right not to sit and eat lunch with his slaves??

    It kinda takes the argument of Jacob’s full circle here in relation to the 9th amendment though, doesn’t it?

    The federal jurisdiction offering protections against “bad government” and removing a law on segregation passed by state legislatures and courts.

    Your argument does sound rather learned, though, troll. Studied a bit of law, ‘ave we??

    Mate, if so, you should troll back through the laws of england to find out what they say about gentlemen of your trade. Such things are doubtless fascinating beyond all imagining, as are those relating to mine.

  • troll

    surfer dude – I got the feeling that Jacob was suckered into a side issue about common law and the origin of the constitution…you guys agree about the its supremacy

    *What, a plantation owner’s right not to sit and eat lunch with his slaves??*

    you scoff but I would argue that this ‘right’ was critical to the Southern Gentleman

    …and you should know by now that my comments only sound learned

  • Les Slater

    I was identified as being a Communist. It should actually be communist. Note the lower case ‘c’.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    STM — “However, it was groundbreaking in its sweeping reforms. That’s what Americans should be proud of. There is nothing else quite like it.”
    — Thank you.

    STM — “natural rights and laws (privacy, Roe)”
    — The trouble with this is that there is more at stake than just privacy here. What happened to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Lives are involved and at stake here whether you like it or not. To throw more complication into it there is a wide disagreement as to what defines human life, although I find this question astounding. And I am not even a right-to-lifer. (I have mixed feelings about abortion, except late term abortion which I consider to be outright murder.) I also consider humans killing other primates to be murder.

    STM, I know that the laws in the US, were for the most part, drawn from English law, I just don’t get why you harp on it so much. How is relevant to Ron Paul? How is relevant to the way the media so often, either ignore, or bash Ron Paul?

    You say “I notice, too, you don’t have any problems telling people how wrong they are, Maggie.”
    — I especially don’t when I feel that I am responding to issues that attack our freedom, no. I also have no problem when responding to false, lying, propagandistic attacks on Ron Paul, like this article, or those who have defended this article.

    Dave — “Jacob, being concerned that his campaign is being derailed by saboteurs and racists and other divisive groups IS supporting him. It’s a hell of a lot more supportive than holding hands with members of the Aryan Nation and singing Kumbaya, which seems to be your solution.”
    — Say what? I honestly don’t know understand what you just said here. Whose solution? I know many Ron Paul supporters and not one is holding hands with members of the Aryan Nation and singing Kumbaya. Too, I told Mind Control off, if you remember.

    Beck is enough like a Nazi (or a Stalinist), in the authoritarian sense, to call him one. Here is the video: Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists.

    Troll– “surfer dude – aren’t Maggie and Jacob merely stressing the primacy of constitutional law and the requirement that in the US common law judgments remain consistent with it – ?”
    — Thank you, Troll.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    #371: Good point, Les. I did notice that, but only after I’d already posted the comment.

    Never did seem fair to me that communists got to have a kapital (geddit?) letter when other political persuasions had to make do with lower case…

  • Jacob

    STM: Miranda relies on the Fifth Amendment, not the Ninth.

    U.S. Supreme Court
    MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
    384 U.S. 436
    MIRANDA v. ARIZONA.
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
    No. 759.
    Argued February 28 – March 1, 1966.
    Decided June 13, 1966. *

    Together with No. 760, Vignera v. New York, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York and No. 761, Westover v. United States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, both argued February 28 – March 1, 1966; and No. 584, California v. Stewart, on certiorari to the Supreme Court of California, argued February 28 – March 2, 1966.

    In each of these cases the defendant while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. Held:

    1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.

    .

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    “STM — “natural rights and laws (privacy, Roe)”
    — The trouble with this is that there is more at stake than just privacy here. What happened to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Lives are involved and at stake here whether you like it or not. To throw more complication into it there is a wide disagreement as to what defines human life, although I find this question astounding. And I am not even a right-to-lifer. (I have mixed feelings about abortion, except late term abortion which I consider to be outright murder.) I also consider humans killing other primates to be murder.”

    You seem to be somewhat at odds with Ron Paul on the question of abortion and more in line with Roe here.

    There is no disagreement on what human life is. No one would argue that the human zygote is not a form of human life from a scientific point of view. What some are trying to do is claim that this zygote is a person and that enjoys rights as a citizen under the constitution. Legal guarantees to a person are such that depriving of life can be prosecuted as the crime of murder. It is clear from your above that you consider abortion in late term murder. Roe does not specifically disagree with you there. They do leave it up to the states.

    “What happened to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? There is nothing in the constitution that applies this to a zygote nor do I think the 9th amendment could be argued to apply by any legal or historical argument.

    It looks to me that Mr. Paul turns out to be just another who wants to distort the real constitution to serve his view of morality.

    Les

  • Jacob

    STM: For your further edification, the Fifth Amendment is mentioned 64 times in the Miranda decision. The Ninth Amendment is not mentioned once.

  • Silver Surfer

    It doesn’t have to be mentioned. This just proves to me that you don’t read posts in their entirety Jacob. I have already said the courts decided that Miranda would construe to protect a person’s 5th amendment rights at TRIAL. But Go back and read the actual annotation in article 5. Miranda stops a person incriminating themselves by coercion, which may subsequently affect their rights in a criminal trial.

    However, it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution – it is a decision of the courts – that you are to be protected during police interrogation from incriminating yourself. That is a fact, and most American lawyers will tell you this.

    If you can find where it says that, let me know.

    But the right, because it was taken to have existed previously, is covered under the 9th amendment as an unenumerated right. It doesn’t have to be mentioned anywhere in any court decisions, as we are arguing about what is and isn’t protected by the 9th amendment, not the 5th. The fact it isn’t mentioned in any court decision doesn’t mean that it ain’t a fact. The courts rarely draw on the 9th to nake any decisions, but there is a large, majority body of legal thought out there that believes it does protect an American’s unenumerated common law and natural rights. That is the gist of this whole argument.

    The 9th doesn’t give any rights BTW. It protects those you already had that aren’t written down in the constitution.

  • Silver Surfer

    Maggie: “STM, I know that the laws in the US, were for the most part, drawn from English law but don’t know why you harp on it”.

    I’m not British, btw, but have an interest in how freedom of speech and the laws relating to personal liberty evolved down the same route but on different roads if you like in all the countries of what could loosely be termed the anglosphere.

    The reason I am harping on about it here is because I have recently done some work on how the unenumerated rights not listed in the constitution (those existing before under English law, and those existing since under American common law) are still also covered by the constitution under article 9.

    If you read the whole of the posts, you’d see where my argument is coming from.

    I am arguing that constitutionalists and originalists sometimes go down the wrong track in interpreting the document.

  • Jacob

    SS: “I am arguing that constitutionalists and originalists sometimes go down the wrong track in interpreting the document.”

    The country is fortunate to have you around to keep it from constitutional error.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jacob, perhaps if you can demonstrate that you know as much about Australian law as STM knows about US law, we might take you more seriously.

  • Jacob

    LOL

  • Baronius

    Well, to be fair, STM understands American law as a Baptist understands booze. He knows its appearance, origin, effects, etc., but until he tries it out for a while his understanding is always going to be a little off. American law is just like British law, in the same way that wine is just like grape jam.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Baronius, LOL. You hit it right on the head. Hah.

  • Dino

    Where do these white people get off calling Dr. Ron Paul a racist? I mean, I am a Black American of 47 years, who has been in America all my life. If anyone knows anything about racism in America – I do. Most of the people calling Ron Paul a racist probably never even experience racism. They wouldn`t know racism if it came up and slapped them in the face. I mean, don`t you think if there was any creditability to what these people who call Ron Paul a racist were saying, that the likes of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would have long spoken on? Like, when was the last “nappy headed hose” comment you heard coming from Ron Paul.

  • Jacob

    Of course Ron Paul is not a racist. But smearing honest people is what modern day nazis do.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Dino, Ha Ha.

    Put that in your neocon pipes and smoke it. Talking to these guys, Dino, is like farting into the wind. There’s no communication. They just don’t get it. They never will. So as far as I’m concerned they can take their collective, liberal, stuffed-shirt phony selves and take a flying f**K at the moon.

    Dino, check this out, too. The author of this article is a Repukelican and these guys, the ones attacking Ron Paul are all white liberal socialist types, except one, I think is a Republican.

  • Silver Surfer

    Baronius, stop being a dick. Jacob’s already done that for you. One’s enough.

    When did it say in any of those threads that American law is the same as British. I don’t even live in Britain, anyway, as you know. Some of your common law comes from english law, and in its form and function in the criminal jurisdiction, is almost identical even today. So you just chose to chime in, old boy, for a laugh??

    I shouldn’t be surprised though … I’m surprised you even found the time to get here at all, what with chasing all those hot women and all.

    And do you think that not living in a country precludes a person from studying that law, especially if one has worked for a foreign government allied most closely with it and needs to have a better understanding of how it works than 95 per cent of Americans (the majority of whom can’t even point to Canada on a map)??

  • Silver Surfer

    And really Baronius, you of all people should know better: it’s that kind of attitude – if it ain’t from the US it’s no good, it’s our way or no way and no one can understand us but us because they ain’t American – that has led a) to some foreign policy faux pas committed by the US of late and b) an overriding belief around the world that Americans are arrogant, loud and ugly bullies.

    I don’t believe that to be the case, but there’s no smoke without fire and there is a grain of truth in it – and you’ve admitted in the past here that you’ve experienced those things yourself in dealings with foreigners.

    And mate, I did live in the US for a time, in case you’d forgotten.

  • Silver Surfer

    Maggie: “Baronius, LOL. You hit it right on the head. Hah.”

    Don’t forget to take your medication.

  • Jacob

    “And mate, I did live in the US for a time

    So, that qualifies SS to speak for STM.

    How could I have missed that?

  • Jacob

    And Baronius did hit it right on the head.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Well, Jacob, you clearly missed that they are one and the same person.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Jacob, I don’t know why we’re even here trying to talk to these people. They will never get it.

    Silver Surfer — “And do you think that not living in a country precludes a person from studying that law, especially if one has worked for a foreign government allied most closely with it and needs to have a better understanding of how it works than 95 per cent of Americans (the majority of whom can’t even point to Canada on a map)??”

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    “And really Baronius, you of all people should know better: it’s that kind of attitude – if it ain’t from the US it’s no good, it’s our way or no way and no one can understand us but us because they ain’t American – that has led a) to some foreign policy faux pas committed by the US of late and b) an overriding belief around the world that Americans are arrogant, loud and ugly bullies.”

    — Really, Silver Surfer, you are one screwy and mixed up nut. The arrogant loud bullies are the Bushes and the Clintons. If any you [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] would just listen to Ron Paul you would know that he wants us out of Iraq now. He never wants us in Iran. He wants to pull all our troops out from all over the world. He only wants peaceful and friendly trade with other nations.

    You are actually helping to spread the horror that the US is committing by smearing the one man who will stop all the insanity.

    And btw, America is hardly the only oppressive regime in the world. Try taking your blinders off for once and take a look around. Many countries all over the world are becoming surveillance states and dictatorships. Britain is way ahead of us, more on par with capitalist communist China. The liberal European’s homeboy Hugo Chavez is destroying the Constitution that the Venezuelan people voted on and throwing dissenters into prison. The European Union is a giant pile of controlling crap that only removes the sovereignty of it’s various members.

    And who’s the biggest bastard of all? The United Nations. Who controls the UN? The G-8. What are suborganizations of the UN? The World Trade Organization, The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, etc.

    Wake up! the whole world’s going under and if we don’t fight it, it’s going down soon.

    Does 1984 sound familiar? Is this what you want?

    Stop it already. Stop smearing Ron Paul and look at the real villians..Hitlery Clinton, Ghouliani, Dubya and Daddy Bush, McCain, Romney, Rumsfeld, Rice, almost every single Democrat and Republican politician out there.

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    Why do you support Ron Paul’s position on abortion when you don’t even agree with it?

    Les

  • Silver Surfer

    Maggie and Jacob, as RP supporters …

    Turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

    And Maggie, before you accuse other people of being mixed up, maybe you could do something about your website.

  • Silver Surfer

    Jacob: “And Baronius did hit it right on the head”.

    The only head that needs hitting is yours .. it needs some sense knocked in to it.

  • Silver Surfer

    Maggie: “Many countries all over the world are becoming surveillance states and dictatorships. Britain is way ahead of us”.

    Spent a bit of time there have we Maggie?

    Next time I’m cruising around the meadows of rural England, remind me to check for snoops.

    Seriously, is this where America is headed?

    Doomed.

  • Jacob

    The best comment of the day…

    STM understands American law as a Baptist understands booze. He knows its appearance, origin, effects, etc., but until he tries it out for a while his understanding is always going to be a little off. American law is just like British law, in the same way that wine is just like grape jam.

  • Jacob

    Perhaps STM is imbibing wine believing it is grape jam.

    That could explain his coments.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Bloody hell, Maggie – you sound like an ancient Greek. Only Greeks were human and decent, was their attitude; everyone and everything else belongs to the barbarians.

    By all means believe that Ron Paul is your savior. He strikes me as a decent man with a lot more integrity than some of the other White House wannabes. But he’s no Themistocles, and I’m just afraid you, Jacob, Paul and the rest are going to be terribly, desperately disappointed by the reality.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Next time I’m cruising around the meadows of rural England, remind me to check for snoops.

    I’m actually going there next week for a visit home, mate. I’ll check the snoopage sitch and file a report once I’m safely back in the Land of the Hamburger.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Les,
    I don’t have to agree with it. There are no two people on earth that agree 100% on every issue. Actually, I do more agree, than disagree with it. He wants to make it state level rather than federal which is exactly in line with the Constitution.

    I support Ron Paul because he represents the people more than any I have seen since Thomas Jefferson. I didn’t agree with Jefferson on every single issue, either. Though I can’t think of a lot. (I can’t imagine owning slaves, though.)

    Even with that, Jefferson fought for our liberty as a nation of individuals like no other I have seen with the single exception of Ron Paul. We, Ron Paul supporters, fear for his life because the power elite hate and fear him so. And for good reason do they fear him and us.

    Listen to the man before you make rash judgements on him. He is awesome. He is honest, consistent, and exemplary, both in his words and in his actions.

    Please just watch at least some of these videos, Land of the Free. I would really appreciate it if you would do that. Thanks.

  • Jacob

    Whatever happens in the primaries, it is worthwhile working for Ron Paul. I will vote for him even if it is as a write-in candidate.

    The others are not worth voting for.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Yes. I do work for him every day. Working for Ron Paul is fighting for our freedom. And the fight has just begun. We will win, Jacob, because there’s just no other choice. No matter what, we will win.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Silver Surfer — “And Maggie, before you accuse other people of being mixed up, maybe you could do something about your website.”
    — And how is my pown-ass website mixed up?

  • Jacob

    What is working against Ron Paul is the media manipulation by those in power. The American sheep hear the voice of Fox News and the other broadcasters and print media that attempt to deny his existence. They will not relinquish power easily.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Dr. Dreadful — “Bloody hell, Maggie – you sound like an ancient Greek. Only Greeks were human and decent, was their attitude; everyone and everything else belongs to the barbarians.”
    — What? I didn’t say any such thing, not even close. I suggest you read the comment again.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum Maggie

    Jacob – “They will not relinquish power easily.”
    — Yup. That’s what I’m saying. This is war. And under H.R.1955 or S 1959, I could be arrested for saying what I just said. I refuse to let these goons scare me, though. They already have my name and number, anyway, my website’s been online for eight years, and I’ve been essentially tellin ‘em to go eff themselves for just as long.

    This war has just begun. And we will win. Remember, there are a lot more of us than there are of them. And 90% of the military is on our side. They’re almost all Ron Paul supporters! Hah.

  • Silver Surfer

    Jacob: “The best comment of the day…”

    From Baronius, that was, not you …

    Pity you weren’t capable of coming up with anything even remotely clever.

    And thanks Doc.

    Please keep me posted on the dreadful state of the Old Dart will you, and especially how her citizens wake up every day in fear because it’s like communist/capitalist China.

    Love to hear about that.

    You might not want to back to Seppo-land. Perhaps you could just wait til the election is over and all the looneys drop off.

  • Jacob

    STM “Pity you weren’t capable of coming up with anything even remotely clever.”

    I didn’t have to. Baronius did an excellent job.

    Which did you think was funnier, the Baptist analogy or the one about wine and grape jam?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Maggie, re #408: I didn’t say any such thing, not even close.

    Comments like these:

    Many countries all over the world are becoming surveillance states and dictatorships…

    Britain is way ahead of us, more on par with capitalist communist China…

    Hugo Chavez is destroying the Constitution that the Venezuelan people voted on…

    The European Union is a giant pile of controlling crap…

    Who’s the biggest bastard of all? The United Nations…

    the whole world’s going under and if we don’t fight it, it’s going down soon…

    …are what I meant. A very Greek sort of attitude.

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Baronius: “American law is just like British law, in the same way that wine is just like grape jam.”

    So you’re saying that the US legal system is full of drunks?

    Maybe that explains why your country has one of the highest percentages in the world of its population incarcerated and still condones execution…

  • Silver Surfer

    Definitely the baptist/booze analogy … but Baronius can’t talk – he’s just an old soak who spends all his time chasing hot women.

    Now it’s time for me to fess up. Shit, I don’t even fu.king know who Ron Paul is:) I’d never heard of him before I saw this thread. I still don’t know anything about him except what SJ’s written on here.

    Which in truth, is probably a pretty good indication of how much chance he’s got of being elected president if no one outside of America knows anything about him.

    President Paul? Nah, can’t see it.

    I just saw a lot of lunatics blithering on and thought I’d join in.

    Doc, is it just me, or are a lot of seppos really, really weird? You live there, so you’d see it more than me.

    How do you cope in that God-forsaken corner of the world (fresno:)

    And what will you be doing in the old dart … seing family, or what?

    I will be there northern spring next year. Looking forward to it, but I’m worried about the weather – and how many conversations I’ll have to have about it.

    Please let me know if you get the living sh.t surveilled out of you.

  • Silver Surfer

    But look, I am worried that Australia is becoming a dictatorship …

    Oh, hang on. Why bother. It’s better than it was 200 years ago. What time’s the cricket on and who’s getting the next beer?

    Hello Rosey … come to join in with our well-balanced American Ron Paul supporters?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Hi Stan,

    I wouldn’t dream of debating the minutiae of US domestic political policy with anybody, let alone the Ron Paul fan club.

    From my perspective the presidential contenders all seem broadly the same and, as usual, US politics fails to engage with the major issues of the day, just as it fails to engage with the world’s real rogue nations in favour of picking on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

    Did you see Bush’s remarks in reaction to the news that Iran actually stopped working on nuclear weapons four years ago? It was embarrassing!

    Going back to Ron Paul and his supporters, my main advice to them would be to master that most basic of skills for the 21st Century, how to format a link correctly.

    That way they would actually be helping the one they serve and also, far more importantly ;-), save me a lot of work…

    Maggie, yes, that means you!

  • Silver Surfer

    And is it just me, or does Maggie have a very similar turn of phrase to MR?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    It’s just you!

  • Silver Surfer

    “US politics fails to engage with the major issues of the day”

    That’s ’cause no bastard knows what they are. And if they can’t work it out, how are the rest of supposed to understand what goes on?

    My tips for the rogue nations club:

    1) Canada (obviously planning to invade)

    2) Burkina-Faso. Has to be a rogue with a name like that.

    3) Burma (yes, actually a real rogue nation and I refuse to call it Myanmar, which is a made-up name).

    4) Britain. Continues to drag the US into all its wars. Hang on …

    5) Australia. Is a long way from Britain, is a Pacific paradise, but still has a union jack in the corner of its flag and therefore needs some comeuppance.

    6) Hawaii. Is a long way from Britain, is a Pacific paradise, but still has a union jack in the corner of its flag and therefore needs some comeuppance. Oh, hold on …

    7) Ireland. A nation full of darty rogues.

    8) France. A nation of duplicitous bouffant-headed nancy boys and profligates who smell of cheap aftershave, perfume, sweat and gitanes. Also turned George Washington, Jefferson and co, and thus the whole of America, into traitors.

    9) Iceland. Eating THAT much fish can’t be good for you.

    10) Last, but not least, Japan. (But for making and selling good cars, rather than turning whales into sushi in the name of (chopstick) research.

    These are the nations the US should be wary of and which present the greatest threat to the American way of life.

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Hawaii is now a nation? When did that happen? lol

  • troll

    …and you can drain my tank with a straw

    ‘I pray thou shalt be kicked by an incontinent camel, thou denizen of the underworld!’

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    I went to one of the links as they are now formatted and watched a lengthy foreign policy interview by a Google person. Thanks for the encouragement for me to do so. This is better than the sound bites that we are all inundated through the broadcast media. I can see why he is attracting so much attention and support. I believe this attention and support will increase.

    But it is a dead end. Ron Paul leaves out of the equation the real relationship of forces and how that they maintain a political stranglehold in this and most other countries. He either does not understand, or chooses to cloak, what the real motives of history are. In any case he is on the side of reaction.

    I’ll take the case of a woman’s right to control her own body. The Supreme Court did not rule on Roe because they suddenly discovered that due process and right to privacy applied to this question. They ruled because this was being debated in society at large. It was exposed that women were resorting to what was referred to as ‘back alley abortions’. That the laws were not preventing abortions but only putting woman’s health and lives in jeopardy. Women were vocally demanding that these laws be overturned. Broad layers of the population were agreeing with them. Large minorities and even majorities expressed support for women to control their own bodies. Not everyone agreed with the idea that abortion was a proper solution to an unwanted pregnancy but there was great sentiment that the woman who was pregnant should be the one that decides. A popular slogan was ‘not the church, not the state’.

    Some states at that time had laws accommodating a woman’s right to choose abortion. There is no doubt that other states would follow suit. Woman with financial means could travel, and did, to other states, or even other countries where this medical procedure was legal. It was much more difficult for poor women to do so.

    The Supreme Court ruled in Roe that no state could prevent a woman from having an abortion during the first trimester. Roe was an enormous victory for the rights of women.

    Similarly, the Voting Rights Act was not ‘given’ to Blacks by the government. It was a recognition, a codification, of the result of one aspect of the Civil Rights Struggle.

    In one case he says it’s a ‘states rights’ issue and the other an abstract defense of rights of individuals. The Southern States did not discriminate on an individual basis, they did not make exceptions, it was Blacks that they discriminated against.

    On foreign policy he is totally utopian. Many will agree, including me, with much of what he says, but supporting him or voting for him will not bring about the policies he claims he is advocating. He rails against all three branches of the government but does not give a clear picture of what forces are got us into this situation. He harkens to a stricter interpretation of the constitution. What many of us already know, the powers that be don’t give a shit about the constitution, certainly not the Bill of Rights. Tell any cop about your constitutional rights and he’ll show you his gun.

    Ron Paul is all hot air. He has no solutions.

    Les

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doc, is it just me, or are a lot of seppos really, really weird? You live there, so you’d see it more than me.

    Actually, most of the ones you meet in the flesh are surprisingly sane. (There is of course my gun-freak retired police lieutenant friend, but that’s another story!) It’s the ones who spend too much time online who have the disconnect. They should probably turn their conspiracy theories into books or movies, and entertain everyone instead of bothering them.

    How do you cope in that God-forsaken corner of the world (fresno:)

    By being wise in my reading and by having access to the world’s original and best MSM source, the BBC.

    And what will you be doing in the old dart … seing family, or what?

    That too, but my main excuse to visit is to perform in the 20th anniversary show being put on by the little theatre company me and a few mates set up in 1987. It runs on a shoestring and always has, but it’s still going.

    Please let me know if you get the living sh.t surveilled out of you.

    Will do, Stan. I suspect the cops (including my brother, who’s a criminal intelligence analyst at Scotland Yard) will be far too busy chasing actual villains and terrorists to worry all that much about me, but I’ll be keeping the eyes in the back of my head peeled.

  • Clavos

    “Doc, is it just me, or are a lot of seppos really, really weird?”

    Ahem…

  • Clavos

    “The American sheep”

    I love the way both the right AND the left refer to us ‘murricans as “sheep.”

    So who’s left to fill the role?

    In the unforgettable words (with license) of Pogo:

    “We have met the sheep, and they is US.”

  • Jacob

    Sixty-nine percent of Americans say things in the United States are seriously off track. Just 26 percent say things are going in the right direction.

    Should we call those who like things the way they are — sheep or should we call them goats?

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Jacob — “Which did you think was funnier, the Baptist analogy or the one about wine and grape jam?”
    — Impossible to choose, Jacob, they’re both hilarious.

    Dr. Dreadful, You quoted me “Hugo Chavez is destroying the Constitution that the Venezuelan people voted on”

    you can’t be serious if you have a problem with this. This is called reality. If you don’t know about Hugo Chavez and what he is doing to the Venezualan people, you might read up on it. Start here, if you would.

    Chávez faces Opposition to Proposed Constitutional Changes

    Venezuela’s Path to Self-destruction

    You also conveniently left out other comments I made in that post like, ‘You are actually helping to spread the horror that the US is committing by smearing the one man who will stop all the insanity.’
    I know the US govt. is the single biggest bastard of a nation. The UN is behind what the US and Europe do.

    When I said ‘the whole world’s going under and if we don’t fight it, it’s going down soon…’ I meant if we don’t fight the goons in power in the US..the Bushes, Cheneys, Clintons, Rumsfelds, etc.

    I really think you have a reading comprehension problem, Dr. Dreadful.

    And Les, Ron Paul is the only one with a solution.

    Bring our troops home from the 130 countries that they are in now! Do friendly trade with all countries, have entangling alliances with none.

    Get rid of the Fed that has brought us the Great Depression and is now killing us Americans with inflation.

    You made good points on the abortion issue, and actually I agree with you. Only one very important thing..Ron Paul is not attempting to rid the country of abortion. He is only trying to get it on a state level, rather than a federal one. How many times do I have to say this. We will still have abortion in most of the states, if what you say is true, that most Americans want it.

    Sorry, Christopher, I didn’t know I could use html here. I’m not used to blogs, (only used to using html in my website or mybb in my ((new)) forum.)

  • Jacob

    Les: “Ron Paul is all hot air. He has no solutions.”

    Show that you are not all hot air. Who has better solutions than Ron Paul?

  • Baronius

    STM – Sorry if we butted heads too hard. You haven’t said one thing that scares me like some of the other commenters. It’s said that politics is the art of counting to 51. I can’t imagine that these people are generating support for Paul.

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    “Only one very important thing..Ron Paul is not attempting to rid the country of abortion.”

    I agree. He is only trying to get it back in the hands of states. I do hear you. But this is a reactionary endeavor. No state will get rid of it either. They will just drive it underground to the detriment of the health and lives of women.

    “And Les, Ron Paul is the only one with a solution.

    “Bring our troops home from the 130 countries that they are in now! Do friendly trade with all countries, have entangling alliances with none.”

    That’s not a solution, it’s a proposal, a promise. The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that he does not explain what would be necessary to carry out such a proposal. The problem is that war is necessary to the existence of the economic system that we live under. It is in extreme crisis. The United States does not produce the wealth that is necessary to maintain its population. It’s not just foreign investment keeping this country afloat but an enormous transfer of wealth at the point of a gun. This is being resisted in various ways around the world and the United States has no alternative to the use of its military.

    Do you think that Ron Paul would lead the civil war necessary to carry out the policies he is advocating? There is no way. He is just full of hot air.

    Les

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dr. Dreadful, You quoted me “Hugo Chavez is destroying the Constitution that the Venezuelan people voted on”

    you can’t be serious if you have a problem with this. This is called reality. If you don’t know about Hugo Chavez and what he is doing to the Venezualan people, you might read up on it. Start here, if you would.

    I’m familiar with the man and his work, Maggie. And while I’m not a fan of some of what he does, I don’t buy into the ‘tinpot dictator’ portrayal of him that’s so popular here in the States.

    Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock the last few days, you’ll be aware that Chavez just put his proposed constitutional changes to a referendum, lost, and has pledged to abide by the wishes of the electorate.

  • Les Slater

    Jacob,

    “Show that you are not all hot air. Who has better solutions than Ron Paul?”

    Who has better solutions? Certainly nobody running in the Republican or Democratic parties.

    The question should be what, not who. What is the solution?

    There seems to be a common thread running through the supporters of Ron Paul: That there is a crisis and it is getting worse. It’s good that you see the crisis but the enormity of it is such that it’s going to take more than a candidate whistling the tune of turning back to the constitution. As I said earlier the ones in charge do not give a fuck about the constitution. It is also clear that they do not respect anybody’s rights or even the concept of democracy. They will not allow the changes that Paul is advocating. He’s just a wimp. He will not lead the fight necessary to clear the path so that we may enjoy our rights.

    The questing is not who, and it’s also not JUST what the program is. It’s about power. How do you propose to organize a defense of what we choose democratically. We see what the U.S. thinks of democratically elected governments around the world. If they agree with U.S. policy then it’s ok. You don’t even have to democratically elected, If you cooperate with U.S. policy, you’re still ok. But… elected or not, if you don’t play the game according to U.S. rules, then …. Do you believe that these same people would respect an election in this country that really threatened their power? They really don’t give a shit about us.

    We have to understand that the majority in this country aren’t really any different than those from any other country. We are just as hated by the ruling rich as they do peoples from the rest of the world.

    Whatever party we build must not only run candidates but must build power to thwart any attempt at denying the will of the majority.

    Les

  • Silver Surfer

    Clavos: “Ahem…”

    Except for you mate. Thankfully.

    The looneys ARE out of the woodwork here though.

    What fun.

    Who is Ron Paul, btw?

  • Jacob

    Les you say, “The question should be what, not who.”

    OK, but you didn’t say what you propose.

    The question requires a specific answer, not some vague rambling without coming to a conclusion.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Who is Ron Paul, btw?

    It’s actually two people – members of a well-known sixties pop group. The other two people in the band were George and Jingo.

  • Jacob

    Who is Miranda, btw?

    It could be the lady in the tutti-frutti hat who was often shown wearing platform sandals and towering headdresses made of fruit,

    or

    The defendant in a Supreme Court case ruling that prosecutions may not use statements, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.

    Does that help the slippery slurper?

  • troll

    Les – *The problem is that war is necessary to the existence of the economic system that we live under…It’s not just foreign investment keeping this country afloat but an enormous transfer of wealth at the point of a gun.*

    well said

  • Jacob

    “war is necessary to the existence of the economic system that we live under”

    That’s why it’s necessary to change the system.

  • Les Slater

    “That’s why it’s necessary to change the system.”

    By harking to the original constitution? By getting rid of fed and the IRS? It don’t cut it.

    Ron Paul is NOT a revolutionary!

  • Jacob

    Ron Paul is NOT a revolutionary

    Who is?

  • Les Slater

    Who is?

    I am, for one. I know many more. The economic and social crisis that is deepening at an accelerating rate will bring more. It will also move more to the right. That’s where Paul comes in.

  • Baronius

    Troll (#436) – We don’t make any great wealth transfer by war. No one does, not since the colonial system fell. (And don’t bother comparing the Iraq War to colonialism. It’s different in a lot of ways, most especially in the matter of wealth transfer.)

    We make money by trade. We increase our wealth and the other’s wealth. This is where Les and his 19th century analysis fall apart. There is no one compelled to trade. Neither I nor the other guy would trade if it didn’t keep us at least even; we wouldn’t trade unless there was a gain for one of us. That’s the worst case in trade. In actuality, both sides gain in nearly every exchange. (I hate to smear conversations between threads, but this gain is known as “maximizing profit”.)

  • Les Slater

    Baronius,

    “We make money by trade. We increase our wealth and the other’s wealth. This is where Les and his 19th century analysis fall apart. There is no one compelled to trade.”

    The reality of trade, in the 21st century, is that much of what is exported from other countries is based on the value of labor. ‘Export platforms’ depend on cheap labor. U.S. imperialism helps keep the value of labor low in many countries that export, including to the U.S., by coercive means. The U.S. does not take kindly to regimes that give workers rights. It will topple a regime that does not suppress the value of labor. That’s what various training of military officers on U.S. bases is all about. If that does not work there is always the coup, and if not that then the invasion. What do you think the Bush military policy is all about? It claims the right to intervene anywhere. There is no need for an attack. It is explicitly preemptive. This is not the 19th century!

    Iraq policy is indeed imperialist. It is designed to reorder the entire Middle East into more compliant and reliable suppliers of commodities, especially oil. It is also an explicit example of what happens if you cross the U.S.

    Les

  • Jacob

    Who is a revolutionary? Les is.

    And being a revolutionary, Les has a solution to the economic and social crisis that is deepening at an accelerating rate.

    That is comforting. Now all Les has to do is reveal what his overall platform is and run for office so that Ron Paul supporters can decide who would do a better job.

  • Les Slater

    “Now all Les has to do is reveal what his overall platform is and run for office …”

    I do a lot of traveling around the country pushing the idea that the time is ripe for a workers party. There is a lot of resistannce but some success. People have been more receptive lately. We’ll see.

    “… so that Ron Paul supporters can decide who would do a better job.”

    I don’t look at it that way. Many, maybe most, that already have gone over to Paul will not be swayed by an alternative. Many belong there.

    The Paul campaign is attracting a lot from the middle class. A workers party platform and tactics would be designed to attract workers. It will not be until the working class can show some political power that the middle class will be swayed.

  • Les Slater

    That should read ‘that PART OF the middle class will be swayed.’

  • Clavos

    Les,

    Would you define (a profile, perhaps?) of the people you call “workers” in this context? In other words, the people you consider to be likely candidates to join a “workers party?”

    It seems to me that all of us who are wage slaves are workers. Some, obviously, are better paid and have better jobs than others, but most of the middle class lives barely above a paycheck-to-paycheck level; usually with significant debt.

  • STM

    Jacob, you behaving like an arrogant dick. And mate, you seem as thick as two short planks.

    Here’s the go, once and for all. Some years ago, I worked for a foreign government and one that forms part of a close alliance with the United States.

    Needing understanding, studying for that work involved looking at US law and the constitution and its correlation to our law because those things have an impact on foreign policy in terms of how countries judge other countries, and I did it with an American lawyer – which you are obviously not. Considering that we spent rather a long time examining all this stuff, and you haven’t judging by your responses, I’d suggest to you that my knowledge of US law might be a bit better than yours even though I don’t live there.

    Especially considering that the research came from a US citizen with a practising knowledge of constitutional law, while yours looks like it comes from checking out a couple of judgments on the internet. If you’d ever taken the time to read the posts properly (which you don’t, and it’s all too evident) you’d see where my argument is coming from. Maybe go back and read them properly.

    Now, your mommy will be getting worried about you. Shouldn’t you get off the keyboard and get to bed?

    If you have any special knowledge I should know about, out yourself instead of hiding behind the anonymity of your keyboard.

    Also, I’ll bet London to a brick that Ron Paul won’t get anywhere near the White House.

    Ron Paul? You are deluding yourselves. Who is he again?

  • Jacob

    Les: “A workers party platform and tactics would be designed to attract workers.”

    What do you believe the workers want?

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “…most of the middle class lives barely above a paycheck-to-paycheck level; usually with significant debt.”

    Many workers consider themselves middle class and to the extent they see themselves as such will not likely to be the initial supporters of a workers party. There is a vanguard of the working class that is on the front lines of fighting the boss and his agents in the government. Workers in meat packing, garment, mining, as well as others have been fighting battles and are forming leaderships. Many of these people are immigrants and many of those do not have papers. Fighting to defend the most exploited of these will forge class solidarity and unity. It is among them that there will be those that see the NEED for such a party. They will be the backbone of the party, whether or not they can vote.

    The middle class or those that consider themselves as such do not see the need for such battles, at least not yet.

    Les

  • troll

    Clavos – here’s my unsolicited definition: there are people who ‘make a living’ by owning things and there are people ‘make a living’ by selling their labor to the owners…and then there are people who ‘make a living’ through a combination of the two

    to the extent that a person depends on selling his labor for his survival to that extent he is a member of the working class

  • Clavos

    Thanks, les.

    I’m still not sure who you see as potential workers party members, other than workers in the few industries you mention.

    “The middle class or those that consider themselves as such do not see the need for such battles, at least not yet.”

    I think we may have different ideas of who are middle class. I consider everyone who works, is paid above subsistence (and poverty) level, and is not in need of direct government assistance (i.e., welfare, unemployment, etc.) as middle class, and I think most people who fit that profile consider themselves as middle class.

    You say that those who consider themselves middle class do not see the need…does that mean that they should, that they also are eventual candidates for a workers party? If so, why are they, in your view?

    Just asking, not trying to be antagonistic (I just realized I might have sounded that way).

  • STM

    This is from FindLaw, an American law resource, on US case law, and applied before Miranda;

    The Common Law Rule:

    “Not until the latter part of the eighteenth century did there develop a rule excluding coerced confessions from admission at trial; prior to that time, even confessions obtained by torture were admissible. As the rule developed in England and in early United States jurisprudence, the rationale was the unreliability of the confession’s contents when induced by a promise of benefit or a threat of harm. In its first decision on the admissibility of confessions, the Court adopted the common-law rule, stressing that while a “voluntary confession of guilt is among the most effectual proofs in the law, from the very nature of such evidence it must be subjected to careful scrutiny and received with great caution.” “[T]he presumption upon which weight is given to such evidence, namely, that one who is innocent will not imperil his safety or prejudice his interests by an untrue statement, ceases when the confession appears to have been made either in consequence of inducements of a temporal nature, held out by one in authority, touching the charge preferred, or because of a threat or promise by or in the presence of such person, which, operating upon the fears or hopes of the accused, in reference to the charge, deprives him of that freedom of will or self-control essential to make his confession voluntary within the meaning of the law.” Subsequent cases followed essentially the same line of thought. Then, in Bram v. United States, the Court assimilated the common-law rule thus mentioned as a command of the Fifth Amendment and indicated that henceforth a broader standard for judging admissibility was to be applied. Though this rule and the case itself were subsequently approved in several cases, the Court could hold within a few years that a confession should not be excluded merely because the authorities had not warned a suspect of his right to remain silent, and more than once later Courts could doubt “whether involuntary confessions are excluded from federal criminal trials on the ground of a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, or from a rule that forced confessions are untrustworthy”.

    Nowhere in the constitution does it specifically mention the right to silence during interrogation by police or law enforcement officers, except in regard to the compulsion to give evidence against yourself in a trial and which might incriminate you. As a previously held right, however, there is a case to mount a legitimate argument that it has always been protected.

    Miranda only backs up the original common law rule, and goes some way to protecting a person’s fifth amendment rights in relation to what might happen at TRIAL – as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring. That is its connection with the 5th amendment. However, under common law Miranda-style rights arguably already existed (as the above indicates) and were arguably protected by the 9th amendment if the amendment is to be taken at face value in relation to rights already held by the people.

    Police were expected to warn suspects prior to Miranda, because under common law in the US, not to do so a) was against what was accepted at law and b) would jeopardise their chances of obtaining a conviction. The problem was, many didn’t and the courts backed the prosecutors on occasions. Miranda just nailed it all down.

    I don’t expect you’ll have bothered reading it properly though.

    Once again, you’ll just decide what’s right according to Jacob.

    Which is usually just plain pig-headed for the sake of it wrong.

  • Les Slater

    troll is correct in his definition in #450.

    Jacob,

    “What do you believe the workers want?”

    That’s pretty clear:

    Jobs, affordable and decent housing, enough food, access to medical care, good education for their children and adequate retirement benefits. Many need to have discrimination against them ended. Transportation is also an issue. And they need unity to be in a position to fight for what they want and need.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Les – *The problem is that war is necessary to the existence of the economic system that we live under…It’s not just foreign investment keeping this country afloat but an enormous transfer of wealth at the point of a gun.*

    Sorry, Les. That’s just a crock. Historically the US has never profited from a war. We give our all and usually get nothing at all in return. To suggest that we plunder other countries at the point of a gun is ridiculous.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “You say that those who consider themselves middle class do not see the need…does that mean that they should, that they also are eventual candidates for a workers party?”

    Many that consider themselves middle class are indeed workers. They fit troll’s definition. As the crisis deepens, and the workers have a voice, their own party, they will see themselves more and more as workers. Part of the actual middle class will be attracted to the workers party too.

    “If so, why are they, in your view?”

    The vast majority of the middle class would be better off under a workers government than a capitalist one. This is also true of small farmers.

    “Just asking, not trying to be antagonistic (I just realized I might have sounded that way).”

    You have not sounded antagonistic. I also think that Maggie and Jacob have been serious in this discussion. It’s nice to see that with such an emotional and sensitive subject.

    Les

  • Jacob

    #447 STM
    “Jacob, you behaving like an arrogant dick. And mate, you seem as thick as two short planks.”

    “arrogant dick” “thick as two short planks”

    STM, you won’t let defeat go, will you. You are the arrogant dickhead.

    You are like a little boy who lost all his marbles and keeps whimpering. You made categorical statements about Miranda rights that were debunked by the actual Supreme Court record, and now you continue to whimper.

    #353 STM
    Jacob: Your Miranda rights in the US are a classic example of how all this stuff came into being, and certainly still ties to the original meaning of the 9th amendment. History is very important in understanding this..

    #356 Jacob
    STM: Miranda rights are based on Article V of the Bill of Rights, not Article IX. “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Article V is also the basis for the right to remain silent when charged. To be told of these rights at time of arrest is an interpretation of Article V. It doesn’t need Article IX.

    #358 STM
    Jacob writes: “Miranda rights are based on Article V of the Bill of Rights, not Article IX.”

    No, they are not.

    There is no actual mention in the constitution of any of the rights contained in the Miranda warning as given in the miranda warning. Keep trying me out, and I’ll keep showing that you are wrong.

    #359 Jacob
    STM: You need to study Article V — “No person shall be… compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Forget applying Article IX when talking about Miranda rights.

    #361 STM
    [Jacob’s] writing about the Miranda ruling and its basis in Article V is about as far off the right track as it’s possible to get.

    #374 Jacob
    STM: Miranda relies on the Fifth Amendment, not the Ninth.
    U.S. Supreme Court
    MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
    384 U.S. 436
    MIRANDA v. ARIZONA.
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
    No. 759.
    Argued February 28 – March 1, 1966.
    Decided June 13, 1966. *

    In each of these cases the defendant while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. Held:

    The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.

    NOTE: PLEASE READ THE PRECEDING SENTENCE CAREFULLY.

    #376 Jacob
    STM: For your further edification, the Fifth Amendment is mentioned 64 times in the Miranda decision. The Ninth Amendment is not mentioned once.

    #382 Baronius
    Well, to be fair, STM understands American law as a Baptist understands booze. He knows its appearance, origin, effects, etc., but until he tries it out for a while his understanding is always going to be a little off. American law is just like British law, in the same way that wine is just like grape jam.

    #413 Silver Surfer
    Now it’s time for me to fess up. Shit, I don’t even fu.king know who Ron Paul is:) I’d never heard of him before I saw this thread

    SO, STM, a.k.a Slippery Slurper — why do you have so much to say on a thread about which you admittedly, “don’t even fu.king know” anything.

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    “Historically the US has never profited from a war.”

    Talk about crocks! The U.S. had immensely profited from both world wars.

    In WW-I the U.S. stayed out while selling war supplies. After WW-II the U.S. economy was driven by rebuilding the countries whose industries were destroyed and selling them manufactured goods. This lasted for decades.

    During and in between the U.S. and other imperialist powers used their armed might or threats thereof to keep the world safe for making profits. Do you believe the coups and invasions were just to put the nice guys in power? Overall it was quite profitable. It would not have been if it weren’t for the military with its threats and actual use.

    Les

  • troll

    Jacob – fellow seppo – you could have saved yourself some effort by simply referring the surfer dude back to #420

  • STM

    Ah, Jacob … you still don’t read. Yes, the fifth amendment is mentuioned in Mirand — because it goes to protecting a person’s right at truial.

    However, it is a decision of the court, not a right enumerated in the constitution (any decent US criminal lawyer will tell you that). The right enumerated in the constitution refers specifically to the giving of evidence in a court, and not being compelled to do so if it will incriminate you.

    And, ah, the whole thing wasn’t about that … it was an argument that many rights not enumerated in the constitition could arguably be protected by the 9th amendment.

    Which is all I was trying to say. So why the fu.k did you waste so much of your time and mine.

    PS. The only white house Ron Paul will ever see will be one with a toilet in it.

  • STM

    Is Jacob a hillbilly?

  • Jacob

    STM: Your reference to common law shows that Miranda was based on Article V. Common law allowed torture and coerced confessions. Just because Article V was not fully applied until it went before the Miranda Court doesn’t mean that the right is not inherent in Article V.

    The Supreme Court has looked at the Bill of Rights many times and has come up with interpretations that were not there previously. They don’t find new rights, just ones that are imbedded in the concise language of the Constitution.

    Otherwise, according to you, every right that is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights needs Article IX.

    Would that also apply to prayer in public schools?

    Prayer in public schools went on for almost 200 years before it was found to be prohibited by Article I. The Court didn’t need Article IX. It just needed strict interpretation. The same is true for Miranda.

  • STM

    Jacob, this might be where we have crossed lines. If so, I’m sorry. You mentioned article V earlier, whilst quoting from the 5th amendment.

    Taking the 5th (at trial). Which is what Miranda rights have been construed by the court to protect, although there is nothing in the constitution to actually specify that the right to silence applies to interrogation prior to trial by an officer of the law.

    Mate, all I was doing was positing the argument that common law rights already existing could be argued to have protection under the 9th amendment, even though the courts rarely refer to it.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Just an argument, that might have some vailidity at law.

  • STM

    No, Jacob, you are wrong again. PLEASE read the post. It’s an interpretation of US law by US lawyers. Coerced confessions and those reached by torture were NOT allowed under common law prior to Miranda, not in the modern era anyway … only in say, the 16th century.

    That FindLaw article – a US law resource – very clearly points out that this is not the case from about the 18th century onwards. It has applied as a common law right for a very long time.

    Mate, I’ve just realised that you don’t read the stuff I post beyond the first couple of lines, so I don’t know why I’m even bothering to be conciliatory with you.

    Game over, because what’s the point?

  • STM

    Also, you are confusing articles and amendments to the constitution. They are two completely different things.

  • STM

    Jacob: “Just because Article V was not fully applied until it went before the Miranda Court doesn’t mean that the right is not inherent in Article V …. (blah blah blah) otherwise, according to you, every right that is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights needs Article IX.”

    You have launched into a complex and vociferous argument with me about the Constitution of the US.

    But I have just looked through your posts and in nearly every one of them, you have confused the articles with the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights (you even had me doing it at one stage without thinking).

    I realise it might be a slip of the brain, but then you have been rather vehement in your attacks on my position – whilst very apparently not knowing the difference between the two things in your own constitution.

    How can any of what you’ve said thus be taken seriously? ‘Nuff said, I reckon …

  • Jacob

    STM: You can’t read your own posts. You wrote:

    “The Common Law Rule:

    “Not until the latter part of the eighteenth century did there develop a rule excluding coerced confessions from admission at trial; prior to that time, even confessions obtained by torture were admissible.”

    The latter part of the eighteenth century came long after the Bill of Rights.

    Do you get it now?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jacob, you have got to be fucking kidding.

    Copying and pasting the entire US Constitution into a comment???

    I don’t care how right you think you are. Learn some sodding HTML code and link to the relevant page on the House website or wherever the hell you got this from.

    Jeez.

  • Jacob

    STM: “But I have just looked through your posts and in nearly every one of them, you have confused the articles with the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights (you even had me doing it at one stage without thinking).”

    Read the Constitution I posted for your benefit. The references to Amendments within the Bill of Rights are to ARTICLES which you seem not to comprehend. That’s your problem, not mine.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    And the amendments which comprise the Bill of Rights came into effect in December 1791.

    Sure sounds like the latter part of the 18th century to me.

  • Jacob

    “Copying and pasting the entire US Constitution into a comment???”

    STM needed the detail and I didn’t think he would bother to link to it.

  • Jacob

    I agree that I should not have posted the entire Constitution, but I reacted after STM came up with this crap:

    #464 STM
    Also, you are confusing articles and amendments to the constitution. They are two completely different things.

    #465 STM
    Also, you are confusing articles and amendments to the constitution. They are two completely different things

    STM is the one who is confused and he says I am confused, so I gave him the whole enchilada.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jacob, it happens occasionally that one tries to post something to BC and it appears that it didn’t work, so one chooses a few of one’s favorite rude words, utters them in the general direction of the screen and tries again. Sometimes it turns out that the original attempt did post after all, so you end up with duplicate comments. That’s the wonder of modern computing for you. It doesn’t necessarily imply confusion.

    And if you were referring to what STM actually said, he’s quite right. Articles and Amendments are two different things.

  • STM

    I suspected it before, now I’m convinced: The bloke is a dead-set goose, and it’s a waste of time arguing with him.

    He doesn’t know sh.t from clay – or articles from amendments, but instead of arguing civily like the rest of us he resorts to personal attacks and borrows funny bits from Baronious’ post without being able to come up with any of his own.

    Great idea, too, Jacob, posting the whole constitution on the thread.

    Was that so can you work out which bits are amendments and which are articles?

    What a joke. That’ll teach me.

  • Jacob

    The Amendments in the Bill of Rights are listed as ARTICLES.

    That is why I posted the Constitution. Read the Bill of Rights and you will see that each amendment is referred to as an ARTICLE.

  • STM

    Jacob: “The latter part of the eighteenth century came long after the Bill of Rights”.

    Did it mate? The latter part of the 18th century started in about, oh, 1765. Let’s say 1770 just to be on the money.

    Now you don’t even know your centuries.

  • STM

    Sorry Jacob, but articles are called articles and amendments are called amendments to differentiate one from the other.

    When you were referring to article 9, you meant the 9th amendment. When you said article V, you meant the 5th amendment. Come on, fess up …

    You just didn’t know, did you? … and now you’re trying to wriggle out of it like a terrified squirrel.

  • Jacob

    STM — I didn’t think you would read it, so here is a critical part:

    CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

    Article [VI.]
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

  • Jacob

    Perhaps you should let the Congress know that you object to their nomenclature.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    From the Constitution section of the National Archives website:

    “The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. [my emphasis] These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the ‘Bill of Rights.’

    “Amendment I…”

    Granted, the preamble to the BoR does refer to them as ‘articles’, but they are specifically named ‘amendments’ to avoid confusion. The Articles of the original Constitution are by and large much longer and broader in scope than the Amendments, which address specific issues left untouched by the Articles.

    Why your post refers to the amendments as articles remains to be explained…

  • Jacob

    Here’s more:

    Article [V.]
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Stan, what’s a dead-set goose? There’s an Aussie expression I don’t think I’ve heard before.

  • Jacob

    The issue STM raises is a red herring. He should have known what I was referring to here:

    #359 Jacob
    STM: You need to study Article V — “No person shall be… compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

    “Forget applying Article IX when talking about Miranda rights.”

    It should have been obvious to any half-awake person what I was referring to.

  • STM

    Doc:

    It’s a fool …

    Mate, you don’t have to have a long neck to be a goose.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    In the words of HAL-9000:

    “This conversation can serve no further useful purpose. Goodbye, Dave.”

    (No, not you, Dave. Go back to your number crunching.)

  • STM

    The only problem is, Jacob, I was simply arguing that many of Americans’ common law rights might be protected under the 9th Amendment (which really, isn’t that bad an argument), and you chose to launch into this vociferous argument shouting down any of the knowledge I might have of US law (granted, it’s limited compared to that of others), and turning it into a jousting contest.

    Fact is, though, I did know this: amendments are always called amendments, and the articles are always called articles – just to differentiate them.

    No one with any knowledge would mix that up. That’s why I think you’ve been furiosly trolling the internet for your spurious arguments and you actually don’t have a clue as what you’re talking about.

    You just didn’t know the difference, and that’s pretty sad after you chose to shout down my perfectly legitimate argument (even if you thought it flawed, you needn’t have resorted to personal insult).

    Sorry old boy, but you are just wrong – plain and simple.

    Stick to your conspiracy theories and how Ron Paul will save America (does it really need saving though?), and next time you want to tear shreds off someone, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.

  • Jacob

    This issue was whether Miranda was decided on Article V or Article IX. The Supreme Court cites Article V over 60 times. Article IX is not cited once.

    It’s that simple and it should have ended there.

    To anyone who can read, it should have been clear from the outset what part of the Constitution I was referring to.

    All the diversions STM created have been red herrings.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doc:

    It’s a fool …

    Mate, you don’t have to have a long neck to be a goose.

    And re my #491:

    Stan, isn’t the definition of a fool someone who keeps repeating his mistakes expecting a different result?

    Maybe you and me are dead-set geese to have kept on trying to argue with this idiot.

  • STM

    And my argument was simply that they might already be protected under article – oops, sorry, make that AMENDMENT 9 – if the amendment is to be taken at face value.

    A good theory, too, I thought, especially since I mentioned numerous times that despite the decision of the court that a Miranda warning construes to protect a person’s 5th AMENDMENT rights to silence at TRIAL, it is still simply a decision of the court and is not actually mentioned anywhere in the constitution as applying to interrogation by officers of the law after arrest but prior to trial.

    But you wouldn’t read that would you, and you just had to go on, and on, and on, didn’t you?

    And you made yourself look like a tit because you didn’t know what you were talking about at any stage.

    It’s tragic, really.

    Ron Paul’s campaign is doomed if you are in any way representative of the intellectual quality of his supporters.

  • STM

    Doc, probably, so I won’t bother any more.

    But it is FUN. Especially now. (But still, Jacob was the one who thought it good sport to engage in an endless, ongoing argument about something he knows nothing about. Lol. He doesn’t even understand the difference between a right to silence under interrogation and the right not to incriminate yourself at trial as enumerated in the 5th article – sorry, amendment :)

    Sorry, I’ll, umm, amend that: it was fun. I’m outta here.

    Dead-set means absolute, BTW.

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    “It’s good that you see the crisis but the enormity of it is such that it’s going to take more than a candidate whistling the tune of turning back to the constitution.”
    — First don’t condescend to us, Les. Ron Paul supporters, of all Americans, see keenly what a disastrous state we’re in.

    “As I said earlier the ones in charge do not give a fuck about the constitution. It is also clear that they do not respect anybody’s rights or even the concept of democracy. They will not allow the changes that Paul is advocating. He’s just a wimp. He will not lead the fight necessary to clear the path so that we may enjoy our rights.”
    — Everything you just said, at least as it relates to Paul, is self-contradictory. Ron Paul is very aware of the forces that oppose him. He is threatening their power like no other I have ever seen. I know they won’t allow these changes, and Paul is aware of it, believe me. He recently said, when asked if he weren’t scared for his life. “Every time I start up the car I tremble.” How can you call this man a wimp? It takes enormous courage to do what he is doing.

    He is motivating us to fight for our freedom. With his brave words and actions, he is giving us the courage we need to fight this fight. Essentially, I agree with you, in that it will take a lot more than a change in presidency to bring about real change, because these SOBs are not just going to hand over their power that easily. Don’t worry, Les, the fight has just begun. I don’t think you realize the power that is behind the Ron Paul Revolution. It’s just begun and the momentum is awesome.

    “Whatever party we build must not only run candidates but must build power to thwart any attempt at denying the will of the majority.”
    — Now that’s a scary statement. Would you apply that logic to the Southern states when the local governments were denying blacks the right to vote?

    That’s why a Constitutional republic is so much better than a social democracy.

  • STM

    And Jacob, I hope I haven’t hurt your feelings too much by dumping (on) you.

    It was all fun while it lasted, but now it’s time for us to go our separate ways.

    Goodbye …

  • Les Slater

    Maggie,

    “– Now that’s a scary statement. Would you apply that logic to the Southern states when the local governments were denying blacks the right to vote?”

    I certainly would. In fact this IS the logic that played out in the Civil Rights Movement.

    When I wrote, “Whatever party we build must not only run candidates but must build power to thwart any attempt at denying the will of the majority.” I realized that this party might not have a majority when it comes under attack. It still would have not only have the right, but an obligation, to resist an attack. I anticipate the attacks will by extra-legal means.

    The Southern states not only had Jim Crow laws but had the Klan and other such paramilitary organizations. The resistance to these laws did indeed require the building of a force to thwart these forces. This included armed self defense. It was this resistance, this battle, in full view of the eyes of the world, that defeated Jim Crow, not the government or the Constitution.

    It was the cracker Johnson that signed the legislation. It was prettied up with legal rationalization but in reality it was the organized FORCE of the Civil Rights Movement that won the battle. Even Brown was decided in the midst of this struggle. In all this it is the struggle that counts.

    The 13th Amendment itself did not come about through a peaceful deliberation of the Constitution. It came about by revolutionary force. That scared a lot of people and many still resent and until this day fly the Confederate flag.

    Les

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    I’ve had to delete the comment with the entire US Constitution in, it was simply too big.

    Please feel free to post a properly formatted link to it if you wish.

  • Silver Surfer

    Aw c’mon, Rosey … fair go. What’s the problem. It was only the entire Constitution of the United States.

    Jacob needed that post to make me see the error of my ways.

  • troll

    Les – (the civil rights revolution was put down by federal intervention far short of achieving anything close to civil and righteous treatment)

    folks in the movement had Jim Crow and color to organize against…what do you think workers will organize around that will spur similar forceful action – ?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I imagine they’ll revolt because the $250K severance packages from GM are too large.

    Dave

  • http://nbjr.speakupwny.com Mike In WNY

    Your article, while a masterful attempt at smearing an honorable man, contains absolutely no facts to back up the assertions you make.

  • Jacob

    Mike In WNY — Facts don’t matter to those who denigrate Ron Paul. They speak from ignorance.

    For example:

    #413 Silver Surfer

    “Now it’s time for me to fess up. Shit, I don’t even fu.king know who Ron Paul is:) I’d never heard of him before I saw this thread. I still don’t know anything about him except what SJ’s written on here… President Paul? Nah, can’t see it… I just saw a lot of lunatics blithering on and thought I’d join in.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Re # 493:

    Jacob: told you so.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Chris, my research for a recent paper led me to the discovery that the entirety of St Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica is available online. If I copy and paste it into a comment, will you still send me a Christmas card?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Doc, yes, if you do, I will send you a Christmas card – with a small but lethal tactical nuke attached!

  • http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Maggie

    Jacob and Mike In WNY.. L O L

    This crappy, lying and propagandistic article was written by a Republican, while it uses arguments like those of Chip Berlet, who is a leftist ‘researcher’ who studies ‘right-wing’ groups. We are asked to follow Berlet’s moral example and demands. I find this both deeply disturbing and illuminating at the same time.

    Why would a Republican quote a radical leftist? I mean it, folks, think about this one.

    Here is another amazing thing in the article. “In 2004 Paul made a short statement from the floor of the US House of Representatives about his refusal to vote for the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act” The link that was provided here, rather than taking us to Paul’s speech, points to an (entitlement) blog that disagreed with Dr. Paul’s decision. This is not only bad journalism, it’s downright propagandistic.

    Daniel Sieradski is another one with an opinion that Ron Paul and we, the reader, must adhere to. If you follow that link it brings you to a page that tells you right off the bat that “Ron Paul has a Jewish problem. Last month, the dark horse Republican candidate was barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Candidate’s Forum due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel.”

    Say, what? It’s this illogic and catering to special interest agenda that has brought this country to it’s knees. (Along with the influx of communism and fascism in the last century.)

    Rather than report on the fact that Ron Paul wants to withdraw all funding of foreign nations AND withdraw our troops from the 130 countries it is in…we are told that we MUST SUPPORT ISRAEL. This makes Daniel Sieradski a racist by definition And back to the Civil Rights legislation, yes this legislation IS RACIST also by definition.

    rac·ism
    –noun
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

    This is hands-down the worst article I have ever read.

    Check out the article — there’s more of this crap. Indeed, it makes up the entire thing. My ‘favorite’ is the one that takes you to some skinheads bullying a black guy at the Philadelphia Rally.

    I was at that rally, folks. It was huge, and reported to be 5,000 people there. So only 4,995 were decent patriots — people who wanted deep change in our corrupt and socialistic government. Now look at the title of this article!

  • STM

    Doc: “Chris, my research for a recent paper led me to the discovery that the entirety of St Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica is available online. If I copy and paste it into a comment, will you still send me a Christmas card?”

    Chris, I’ve just finished War and Peace, how about letting me post that?

    Failing that, how about the Gettysburg address?

  • Jacob

    This is pasted as a comment on my Christmas card to Slippery Slurper.

    MIRANDA v. ARIZONA.

    “The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.”

    I hope he doesn’t bust his balls crying over it.

  • Clavos

    I wanna post the entire OED, so we can end the spelling and definition disputes once and for all.

  • STM

    Jacob.

    Miranda rights protect a person’s right not to incriminate themselves before they get to trial, because at trial it may result in their 5th AMENDMENT rights being threatened.

    How thick are you mate, really??

    It’s the right not incriminate yourself at trial that is protected by the 5th AMENDMENT, not the right to protection whilst under interrogation outside the court and in police custody.

    Miranda is a decision of the courts, and is not protected by the constitituion.

    Could some lawyer weigh in here. Please …

    You completely missed the gist of my argument, which was: Miranda style rights that are construed to help protect a person’s rights under the 5th AMENDMENT probably already existed prior to the Miranda decision and were protected by the 9th AMENDMENT if its woerding is to be taken at face value.

    All you’ve done is regurgitate court rulings off the internet, withouit actually getting the whole idea of the argument. Which is a pretty damn simple thing to understand, really.

    At least I was coming up with something original, and quite possibly valid.

    You didn’t even know the difference between amendments to the constitution and articles, because the first time you’d ever seen them was on the internet. How can anyone take anything you say seriously?

    I bet you can’t even name the capitals of Mexico and Canada, without looking them up on the web.

  • Jacob

    “I bet you can’t even name the capitals of Mexico and Canada, without looking them up on the web.”

    LOL

  • Clavos

    The capital of Mexico is Cancun.

    The capital of Canada is Canberra (or someplace).

  • Jacob

    Clavos gets an A.

  • Jacob

    STM — Your argument is not with me, it’s with the Justices on the Warren Court. It is they who ruled Miranda was based on Article V of the Bill of Rights.

    Why don’t you write the Court and advise them of the mistake. They should be aware that Miranda is based on Article IX of the Bill of Rights.

    I’m sure that once they are informed, they would make the change.

    Then write the Congress and let them know of your frustration with their nomenclature which refers to Articles in the Bill of Rights.

  • STM

    Fu.k, you really are thick mate aren’t you??

    One more time: Miranda is NOT protected by the constitution. It has only been construed to help protect the 5th amendment rights of a defendent at TRIAL (like it says in the constitution).

    I don’t doubt the courts didn’t even consider that the 9th AMENDMENT might have protected those rights.

    But it’s aperfectly valid argument that Miranda-style rights existed prior to the 1966 ruling as they existed under common law and therefore might have been protected if you were to take that 9th article (sorry, AMENDMENT) at face value.

    Someone, please, whack this man over the head with a piece of 4×2 and knock some sense into him.

    BTW Clav, where does America find these folks???

    PS I am heading to Canada next year, please tell me more about Canberra. Will it be an exciting place? If you can find a copy of the Canadian constitution, please post it here in its entirety so we can all have a look.

    Also, isn’t Cancun really big and dangerous and polluted, and full of crime?

  • Clavos

    “Someone, please, whack this man over the head with a piece of 4×2 and knock some sense into him.”

    Ah, mate, not only do you guys drive on the wrong side of the road, you call a 2X4 a 4X2???

    “BTW Clav, where does America find these folks???”

    Sad to say, they’re homegrown, Stan. We don’t have ‘em in Mexico.

    Must be something in the gringo water…

    “Also, isn’t Cancun really big and dangerous and polluted, and full of crime?”

    Of course, mate. That’s why it’s the capital!!!

    BTW, since you’re upside down because of being on the bottom side of the world, is everyone’s blood pooled in their heads down there?

  • Jacob

    “BTW, since you’re upside down because of being on the bottom side of the world, is everyone’s blood pooled in their heads down there?”

    That explains it.

  • STM

    Lol. I’ve got a corrected map of the world by Mercator that has Australia, NZ, Sth Africa, Argentina and Chile at the top.

    This is because no one really knows whether north is really up and south really down. It was invented by people in the northern hemisphere and just reflects their imperialist views (we want to be on top).

    According to this map, Mexico becomes America’s hat, and Canada becomes America’s undies.

    I can’t believe you call a piece of 4×2 a piece of 2×4. Sh.t, one crazy mixed up place.

  • Jacob

    “I can’t believe you call a piece of 4×2 a piece of 2×4. Sh.t, one crazy mixed up place.”

    Yeah. It even applies to the Supreme Court.

  • Jacob

    “This is because no one really knows whether north is really up and south really down.”

    Is that your reason for not knowing up from down?

  • Clavos

    You know, mate, that most of the gringo nutjobs are illegal immigrants, don’t you?

    That’s what we do with all our nutjobs down south, send ‘em up to gringolandia and let the Seppos deal with ‘em.

  • STM

    Jacob: “Is that your reason for not knowing up from down?”

    What’s you reason for thinking that the 18th century came after the bill of rights?

    Or that articles and amendments to the constitution are two completely different things.

    Or that Spain has been incessantly invading the middle-east for then past 100 years. Of the european colonial powers, they are the ones that haven’t.

    Geez Jacob, you’re a goose.

  • STM

    Clav: “That’s what we do with all our nutjobs down south, send ‘em up to gringolandia and let the Seppos deal with ‘em.”

    Mate, those Seppos don’t even have decent titfers.

    Not like Mexico.

    I mean, seriously, what can you expect?

  • STM

    Mate, please, go on the internet and tell me about Spain’s constant invasions of the middle east over the past 100 years.

    Love to hear about ‘em.

    Still, because you say it, it’s obviously right, right??

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Stan, just thought I’d let you know that I have a degree in the little known art of rectal kangaroo insertion! You stuff War and Peace in a comment and I’ll stuff…

    ;-)

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    And Clavos, I’ll do the same for you with a yacht! Anything over 30 feet will do, you can choose.

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Actually, the capital of Mexico is M and that of Canada is C. :-p

  • Silver Surfer

    Rosey: “You stuff War and Peace in a comment and I’ll stuff…”

    Ok then, how about John Howard’s recent campaign speech, it its entirety. Pretty please, Chris …

    Actually, you could market the bloody thing as a cure for insomnia. Droning away and assaulting the earholes.

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    “I imagine they’ll revolt because the $250K severance packages from GM are too large.”

    No, those won’t revolt, …not yet. Very few are offered packages in that range. And even those that do will have to accept a much lower standard of living. Jobs for ex auto workers generally don’t pay beyond $10 an hour in Michigan. How long do you think $250K will last, never mind the much smaller amount, if any, that most canned workers will get?

    The much bigger problem is that they voted for this contract in the first place. I walked the picket lines with GM workers when they were on their short strike. I found most of them quite demoralized.

    Les

  • qasdfjlhkjalfh

    Murdoch has come out in support of Hillary, google it out. NWO in action. Your piece points to how political correctness can be used to smear a man, and get a wide variety of milk toast liberals immediately on board. The fact at hand is that both sides of the aisle are equally jam packed full of CFR members who want to sell the sovereignty of the US out. If it takes a conservative to fight these goons on both sides of teh aisle then so be it. Ron Paul will be the first, and hopefully last, republican i ever vote for.

  • Kook#137

    I love Ron Paul’s ideas more than the man himself. If he doesn’t win there will be more like him who will step up after this is all over. We need to support the ideas and stop the attacks. If we truly love freedom, we will give this guy a chance. It’s only 4 years – he just might make our country great again, much less clean it up a litte. What’s the harm in that.

    Just waitin’,
    Kook#137

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    No, those won’t revolt, …not yet. Very few are offered packages in that range. And even those that do will have to accept a much lower standard of living. Jobs for ex auto workers generally don’t pay beyond $10 an hour in Michigan. How long do you think $250K will last, never mind the much smaller amount, if any, that most canned workers will get?

    Then why the HELL don’t they move, Les? With their skills and experience they could get jobs here in Texas in a second earning $25 or more an hour with a lower overall cost of living. Our metal shops and machine shops here are full of former auto workers.

    With a nice severance package – I believe the minimum was $140K, they can afford to relocate, buy a house and even get some additional training or go to college.

    Where do they get this sense that they’re entitled to stay where they are and do nothing to help themselves and that someone is supposed to bring the work to them rather than making the minimal effort to go where the work is?

    Dave

  • WebBot678

    This looks really bad. For Pat Buchanan!

  • http://www.youtube.com/KR1963 KR

    Racist? Wow u r reaching 4 straws.

    Here’s a REAL story. All the other candidates are members of the CFR except RP.

    How about this? All presidents since Johnson have been CFR members except Reagan but his whole cabinet was loaded with them.

    How about this story? Every president assassinated was against the bankers attempt to create a central bank or limiting the power or eliminating the power of the Fed. Coincidence?

    You are just another woman in the media with an agenda. We all know it.

    On December 16th, 2007, $6.3 million dollars donated in one day to Ron Paul’s campaign. The next day another $500,000 as people could not get onto the website as the thing was jammed. I think that we can safely put this idea to bed that it is just a FEW. Federal law allows up $2300 donated per individual & most people are donating $50 so do the math.

  • gullable magician

    Thanks for the great info. I am totally changing my vote. I am influenced by this new news. I am really surprised that none of this was ever mentioned in the media during Dr. Paul’s first 10 terms as a Texas Congressman. I am so glad that there are blogs of great info for me and others like me who will believe almost everything I am told. In fact I think I will call Fox News and let them know what is really going on here. I know that with the integrity of your site and Fox News we will be able to get Dr. Paul out of this race. It is disgraceful that more people are not like you and me but would rather be individuals and ask questions and investigate. I hope someday that this will stop. It really gets in the way of the global agenda that we are pushing. right?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Here’s a REAL story. All the other candidates are members of the CFR except RP.

    Well, since the CFR selects its membership based on qualifications and knowledge in US and international policy that would suggest Ron Paul isn’t qualified to be president.

    How about this? All presidents since Johnson have been CFR members except Reagan but his whole cabinet was loaded with them.

    Which is a deadly problem because the CFR exists to promote international capitalism and fight communism and you think that communism is good, right?

    How about this story? Every president assassinated was against the bankers attempt to create a central bank or limiting the power or eliminating the power of the Fed. Coincidence?

    Really? Lincoln supported a national bank, so did Kennedy, so did McKinley and so did Garfield. Hell, Lincoln started the practice of using the national bank to issue paper currency unsupported by specie, issuing $50 million of it during the civil war. In fact, the ONLY president to actually shut down the national bank was Andrew Jackson. He even out the country back on a hard metal standard briefly. Oddly enough, he wasn’t assassinated.

    You might want to have at least some idea what the hell you’re talking about before coming to a site frequented by intelligent people.

    Dave

  • Jacob

    “Since the CFR selects its membership based on qualifications and knowledge in US and international policy that would suggest Ron Paul isn’t qualified to be president.”

    — Dave Nalle

    Again, you’ve got things ass-backward.

    Since the CFR has consistently applied its ‘knowledge’ and has consistently come up with failed international policies, it would suggest Ron Paul is eminently qualified to be president.

  • Phydeaux

    Original story was designed to make Ron Paul “guilty by association” with white supremest. If he can’t be president, maybe he could be a West Virginia senator. Here’s a few quotes from our favorite KKK senator–Robert Byrd.

    “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

    “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side”

    While the Democratic party tries to smear their opponents with words, they reveal their own character through individual actions.

  • captain williams

    i am a real white pride and all the little neo-nazis, and the kkk are cry babys because they cant fit in any were else

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    A poll for who you’d vote for as President is being run on BCs Forum page. To add your voice click here

  • A response

    It seems not everyone feels the same way

    A response from the Nationalist community, aimed at those who supported Ron Paul.

    Hopefully this may be the last time I have to post in this thread, and hopefully the last time we ever have to have a thread like this, but sadly I suspect it won’t be.

    I wanted to make one final post, specifically for the bewildered, Ron Paul supporters, wandering around today, scratching their heads.

    What’s the problem?

    I’ve heard some say it’s the voters that are wrong, one person said they were to Irish, another not Irish enough, some said they were to religious (in Iowa) whilst others said they weren’t religious enough (New Hampshire), some said they were to male, others to female, whilst others yet said they were just to stupid.

    I’ve heard some say it’s the campaign team, one person said they must be state plants, another that they were getting their strategy wrong, some say they didn’t advertise enough, some say they advertised to much, some say they need to change tactics, some that they need to be sacked, and some that it’s because people didn’t listen to the management enough, and that it was the supporters who were wrong.

    I’ve heard some people blame all manner of things, from the media, to voting machines, to the fact that the other candidates lied (like you expect a 100% honest election?), but I can tell you what the problem is, and the problem is YOU!

    Let me break this down as simply as possibly for you, YOU backed the wrong man (a part jewish, pro-immigration, anti-racist multiculturalist), for the wrong reasons (you completely misunderstood many of his policies), in a race he could never win, in a system that’s rigged to select the candidate that THEY want, not the one that you want.

    You’ve spent, in some cases, upwards of a year already, spending large amounts of your income, and huge amounts of your time, supporting that wrong man, for the wrong reasons, in that race he could never win, in a system that’s rigged, to select the candidate that THEY want, and you’re scratching your head?

    YOU were the problem.

    Instead of wasting that money, instead of wasting that time, you should have been working to secure a future for our people, you should have been thinking about our race, and our survival, not throwing your money away on a retarded gamble that was never going to work.

    READ THIS THREAD

    YOU WERE WARNED!

    YOU were the problem, you followed fools, instead of listening to sage advice, you listened to con men, instead of listening to the honest, you sold your soul, to support anti-Nationalists, instead of supporting the struggle for our people.

    You can not blame anyone else.

    YOU were the problem.

    Not the Irish, not the women, not the weather, not the church, not the black cat that crossed your path this morning, or the strange configuration of stars in the night sky, it wasn’t god, the devil, the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny, YOU were the problem.

    For some of you who have wandered through Nationalism for many years now, have you never listened to a word that was said?

    Let me remind you of something, posted again, and again, and again, in this thread alone.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr. Pierce
    The only sort of person who can get near the Presidency under the present system is someone who is fundamentally crooked, someone who is an unpatriotic criminal. He doesn’t have to be as flamboyant about his criminality as Clinton is, but certainly no honest man and no patriot can be President so long as the government is subject to the mass media the way this one is. What we have now, in effect, is a government by the Jewish media bosses.
    NOW do you get it?

    Now when you’re wiping off the stench of humiliation, in the cold harsh light of this morning, NOW do you get it?

    Even supporting a man who wanted a black, or jewish running mate, a part jewish, pro-immigration, anti-racist multiculturalist, even after selling out every principal, and lying to yourself, and others, every day, for a year, even after throwing away everything you believe in, and probably often falling out with friends over your actions, you still ended up as a loser.

    NOW do you get it?

    YOU were the problem, because you left White Nationalism, and you followed another path instead.

    White Nationalism is our future, turn your back on it for neo-con, or libertarian compromises, and you are going to lose every time.

    How do we know?

    Because we see it every four years.

    Until you wake up to that message there never will be a solution, because YOU will be the problem.

    The saddest part of all?

    Some of you actively conned yourself, openly, in front of the whole world, that the reason you could justify being the problem, was because you could use this to reach out to other people, and bring them into White Nationalism.

    Well what happened?

    You’ve spent the last damn year not even mentioning White Nationalism, because you’ve been cheerleading the GOP!

    And the real kicker?

    “Even if we lose we must keep this up…”

    Yeah, great plan, because Ron Paul is never going to run again, so what are you keeping it up for?

    A man who wanted a black, or jewish running mate, a part jewish, pro-immigration, anti-racist multiculturalist candidate not enough for you?

    With no Ron Paul will you perhaps support Tancredo next time?

    I know he supports the Israeli lobby, but hey, facts never stopped you last time…

    Or if Tancredo isn’t running, what about McCain, I mean he’s better than Giuliani, isn’t he?

    Or how about Giuliani himself, I mean that would be better than letting in Obama, wouldn’t it?

    Yes, keeping it up, making the same mistakes over and over again, is a really good plan…, I don’t think.

    Welcome to the GOP guys.

    Can you see what they’ve done yet?

    Remember that plan, reach out to others and bring them over to White Nationalism?

    Now look again, you’ve just helped take OUR people over to the GOP.

    They played the very tactic that you talked about, and they won.

    You’ve just damaged White Nationalism, because YOU are the problem.

    So what is Dr. Frank’s remedy?

    How can you get over this, and solve the problem?

    To solve the problem you have to look to yourself.

    You have to accept that you got it horribly wrong.

    You have to break the cycle, and swear to yourself that never again will you make the mistake of returning to a failed system, and wasting your time and money on it.

    You have to stop listening to losers, and con men, and start looking to those who give you the truth, and guide you in the right direction.

    But most of all you have to become a White Nationalist again.

    Read this thread, start to finish, supporting Ron Paul was an act of racial treachery, no White Nationalist would ever do it.

    A White Nationalist does not, can not, compromise, he can’t support jews, blacks, or asian saviors, he can not find the answer in half measures, or by squinting, or burying his head in the sand, and pretending things are different from how they really are.

    A White Nationalist lives White, acts White, and dies White, he follows only one path, the path of racial survival, and he understands the crooked nature of the system, and the need to work outside of it, and to build a new future, rather than find himself tied to an endless cycle of frustrating reverses.

    A White Nationalist understands this:

    White Nationalism & Jewish Supremacism [2008 version – Volume I]

    And he distances himself from the schemes of people that don’t.

    He cuts the ties to the failed, and instead he tries to build that which will work.

    A White Nationalist is not a defeatist, who pins his hope on nearly solutions, he’s a revolutionary that provides total solutions.

    Only a fool can not see that the race is truly over now, and only a traitor will not move on, and realize that he was part of the problem, and know that instead of that now it’s time he became part of the solution.

    Ask yourself this, has the time not come to walk away from the same old tired losers, who have sold you a rather expensive defeat, and start to work with winners, who want to build a future, one you can be proud of, and one that your children will thank you for?

    Welcome to White Nationalist Future, it’s time to make a choice, are you for the White race, or against it?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Thanks for visiting from the planet Loon!

  • Clavos

    @#537:

    I am a Scandinavian and Irish mix white American, who by accident of birth, happens also to be a Mexican citizen.

    I have been voting since the 1964 election. At presidential level, I have always voted Republican or Libertarian.

    I fought in a war (Vietnam), thinking at the time I was doing my part to defend America and its principles.

    Your despicable post above, which reeks of dogshit and pus, has taken a long step to convincing me to vote for Obama.

    I deplore the way our country is divided these days; you and your kind are the shame of everyone who believes in America and the principles on which she was founded.

    You sicken and disgust me. Your ideas are moral leprosy.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Much information about Ron Paul is contained in the monthly newsletters he has published for decades. Back issues of the newsletters are filled with racism, homophobia and convoluted conspiracy theories and rampant paranoia. The New Republic has a story flushing out all this

    here.

    The sentiments expressed in these newsletters make it clear to me who Paul is.

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Moral leprosy? Is that when bits of your ethics fall off?

  • http://www.my-virtual-income.com Christopher Rose

    Or when you get depressed? Oh no, that’s morale leprosy!

  • Clavos

    Leslie, thanks for the link to the TNR article; it’s positively explosive!

  • Clavos

    “Moral leprosy? Is that when bits of your ethics fall off?”

    Only the stinking bits.

    Pretty good, Rose.

    I’m jotting it down…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    In comment #537 (there are that many comments on this stupid thread?) we see a coherent Nazi explain Hitler’s racist theories for the lumpenproletariat in a way that any beer swilling “American” can understand. As your country flushes itself down the toilet economically, Jews (read Gegenrasse – the race that is against you – from Mein Kampf and other Völkisch works) will be blamed more and more for the suicidal policies of the oil and banking establishment in your country.

    And Jews will protest that they are loyal Americans, as more and more Americans become more and more convinced of the shit “a response” has posted here. In the meantime, they will push harder and harder to be the managers of an economy they do not own, and therefore will be the victims of a hateful Jew-hatred that will come gushing from the guts of Americans who will feel betrayed, and who will buy this Nazi shit because it is seems close enough to the truth to seem true, and disaster all around Americans will convince them that Jews are at fault.

    And anyone wonders why I live in Samaria and not Saint Paul? I could see shit like this coming a mile off.

  • Clavos

    …And now we have the other side of the coin…

    JuJu help us.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Clavos,

    What’s bothering you? I only called “a response” the Nazi he is and made clear where his beliefs come from – and why I’m not around in your country to enjoy idiots like him spill his swill around MY feet.

    Does the truth bother you, Clavos?

    When I lived in Minnesota, I heard a lot of people express views not too different from those in comment #537. Those views may be repulsive to you – I understand that, they are repulsive to me also. But they resonate with lots of folks in the Land of Sky Blue Waters. It is one of the many reasons I no longer live there.

  • Clavos

    No, Ruvy, your qualification of A Response was, in fact, right on the money.

    But what is sad, and what I was referring to, is that you are every bit as paranoid and every bit as much of a conspiracist as A Response, and it showed in your comment.

    You rant and rave over and over again about the bankers and the oil industry (in that you are an idological twin to Paul), and all shibboleths which are your favorite targets, yet all the support you present for your theories comes from ancient books and equally ancient prophets; you rarely provide any hard evidence, and even when you do, it’s usually from equally off-kilter kooks.

    Hence my remark about the other side of the coin; your reply to A Response, though you don’t see it, sounded much like him, mirrored.

    And no, Ruvy, I’m not uncomfortable with truth. Whether what you write about on these threads is truth or not is, IMO, still out with the jury.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Clavos,

    Do yourself a favor and pick up the book A Century of War by William Engdahl. Sheikh Zaki Yamani, the former oil minister of the Thugdom of Saudia, had this to say about this book.

    “This is the only accurate account I have seen of what really happened with the price of oil in 1973.”

    HE recommended the book. On the strength of the recommendation of an Arab discovered to have Jewish parentage in the oh so pure Thugdom of the Wahhabi, I commend the book to you.

  • Clavos

    I just might, Ruvy.

    As it happens, I once met Sheikh Yamani personally, during the ‘crisis” days of the 70s, when my younger brother was in his employ for a couple of years while he was the Saudi Oil Minister.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Your younger brother was the Saudi oil minister?!?

  • Clavos

    I knew it!!!

    I saw the awkward phrasing and debated with myself about editing it, but got lazy.

    I even predicted to myself who would call me out on it.

    At the half, it’s:

    Doc 1, Clav 0

  • matt

    who cares if hes a racist, id rather have someone like him in office to stop the boarder jumpers from taking hard earned AMERICAN jobs

  • STM

    Mostly, they’re taking American jobs no one else is interested in doing. If the illegal immigrants go, and there’s no one to do those jobs, it’ll cost a squillion.

  • Timur Rozenfeld

    NAACP director says Ron Paul not racist

  • Jared W

    I dont understand how several of these people leaving comments dont think him being sponsored by nazis is a big deal. This is the leader of the free world here guys. Yes there are some dirty “corporations” giving donations but COME ON guys – nazis compared to “evil corporations”??? Ron Paul shouldnt have taken the money and when he found out he did it shouldnt take a second thought to give it back. His newsletter articles may not be his aricle but it was HIS newsletter with HIS name on it. I wouldnt let anyone put my name on $h1t without me knowing what was in it. If hes not smart enough to know to check that knowing that it had potential to hurt his politics career then racist or not he shouldnt be President. I mean what else will he put his name on without reading it first? So, its REALLY no big deal he put out a racist newsletter and is supported by Nazis? Im a whiteboy myself but guessing most of the “racism/nazi sponsorship is no big deal” folks are white.

  • Mrs. Love

    I’m quite sure Mr. Paul won’t distance himself because he needs and accepts their money; the gun-toting “truthers” standing behind him are indeed a frightening bunch. I’m watching for any one of their predictions to come true. So far, nothing. Nothing but crazy, all day every day.

  • Dave

    Don’t knock Ron Paul. You can question donations to Obama and McCain. Paul is the only man that represents what is going on in society.

    He understands we live in a world ruled by money. If he took donations from racists I hope he didn’t realize who it came from. I live in a part of the country that is very racist and I do not condone them and I am sure Paul doesn’t either.

    Paul is against military spending. Against the Federal Reserve. Against everything that is wrong with this country and the world.

    I am glad Obama got elected over McCain. I pray that he has some of the same view as Paul. If Ron Paul was elected the country and the world would CHANGE.

  • George Henley

    This one goes to M.R Ron Paul,God bless you. I was unable to vote in the elections and I knew that you would not win .Honest people can not enter a presidecy in this country. Your veiws , though correct, were far to radicle for the worms in charge of that election . Obama , in my opinion , is a good for nothing , lying bastard , but I have no say in politics ,so I can do nothing about it. You can! So please , run again in 2012,. Run for humanity,run for my race, run forAmerica!

  • Robby sXe™

    i am a ron paul supporter.not because of his stand on israel,but because of his stand on various other issues and hes from my home state of pennsylvania.

  • Ken

    The author is a domocrat at heart. Ron Paul will be the next president of the United States!!

  • Carl

    Compliments this sounded just like a New York Times article, with your “un biased non opinionated” style of writing I am Sure they would hire you. just an opinion of mine why dont you do an article on the other 99% of his supporters and the fact that Bush, Reagan, W Bush, accepted money from some sort or another of white supremacist or anti semites, even Obama accepted money from a group that has known ties to Hamas. Which is worse 500 here and there from neo nazis or thousands from terrorists.

  • Some Guy

    I swear to ‘jesus’ I like Ron Paul, but I am not pleased about his comments in the movie ‘BRUNO.’ IF Ron believes that homosexuality is not natural and like incest or pedaphilia then more power to him for calling S.B. Cohen a homo, or whatever he called him. If though Paul believes that homosexuality is ‘natural’ then I have much fear regarding Rep. Paul.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Ron Paul, also wants to dismantle all of the agencies that protect our liberties, The Department of Education, The Department of Agriculture, hell, he wants us all to travel back in time with him.

    Where’s my hitching post? Now, that would be smart, wouldn’t it?

  • Billc

    Lets not forget about the actual Marxist/Socialist friends of Obama that ghost wrote his biography made it into the government. These are actual facts that are conveniently ignored. The Bill Ayers connection and Acorn etc. have been swept under the carpet while tenous associations are used in articles like this to smear anyone in the right wing.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Billc,

    Who do you, write for?

    I always, try to, look at the source that my information comes from.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Billc,

    Please, don’t take this as prying into your personal affairs, I am just curious, and I don’t really expect an answer.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Acorn was, a good organization, smeared by children. Has that fact been, conveniently swept under the nearest rug?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    The largest socialist move this country has ever seen, was TARP, and, TARP, was not the brain-child of the Obama Administration.

    Check your facts, man.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Bill Ayers? What about him? I never hear this one expounded upon. I am wondering what you might see, that I might have have missed.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    I’ll look here later, maybe, there will be some answers.

  • Denton

    i know this is very small print but it certainly is worth reading.

    Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

    Posted by Ann Barnhardt – March 25, AD 2010 11:42 AM MST

    Dhimmitude is the muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.

    The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking” and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.

    Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don’t believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. “Sure, I’ll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?”

    If you are a Christian and you acquiesce to this, you will be bending your knee to islam, and denying Christ. How many of the early Christians went to horrific deaths rather than offer a mere pinch of incense to a statue of Caesar? Every single one of us has a BIG decision to make right now, in this moment. The choice is to either offer a pinch of incense to islam and Marxism, or take up our cross and follow Christ. I’ve made my decision. I choose Christ. I choose the Cross.

    I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it – quickly.

  • billy2bs

    Ron Paul does not deserve the time of day to be considered to be the President of anything,

  • DEEFIRST

    RON PAUL SAY ALL THE RIGHT THINGS THEN…POW! HE THROWS ON HIS KKK HOOD AND TORCHES THE BLACK COMMUNITIES! I’VE SEEN RON PAUL SHAKE HANDS WITH KKK AND SKINHEADS.

  • Noble

    I’ve noticed a trend with pieces like this. The supporters lash out harshly instead of replying in an objective manner, similar to the construction of the piece. Approach your comments in an objective manner using empirical data to support your voice, it will make your argument more credible. I understand things like this take time and require more than a pulse. It removes the favored tactic of preaching the first amendment wrapped in a flag with the Constitution stitched to it, and creates a more enriched debate. As a result progress can happen when people are able to have a conversation with out resorting to sophomoric tactics.

  • Karl Gharst

    Let White Supremacy be What White Supremacy Is
    The old tactics – telling lies and calling names has really worked in the past for the “sons of Hell” in their quest for the destruction of God’s Holy Seed upon the Earth. Well, we know what works for us, too! It is the truth that sustains the righteous in our World.
    So, let us put our racial theories to practice, shall we?
    White Supremacy: Name the race of people that have accomplished more – or even as much as the white peoples of the Earth. What race of people would you be better off living with if good white people decided that you were no longer welcome in our God-given land! (Pick well, because the separation of the races is a fact that is happening right now and those who only spite us and curse us are not going to be among us much longer!) What other race of people would you feel more comfortable piloting the next airplane on you fly on? Whose medicine do you reach for when you are sick? Whose Laws and whose Justice do you seek and you find yourself innocent and in a courtroom? Whose kindness do you look for when you are in trouble and who would you rather have defend you when you are being treated poorly?
    Now for those who have been honest so far – we have many problems that maybe you white supremists can help us with?
    Perhaps you’ve noticed it is this same God-given kindness we are known for that has been exploited in the last few generations or so with the inundation of all the other peoples of the world into the homelands, ancient or otherwise, that were once exclusively for White Christendom. These are our hate-crazed, mentally ill, Baal-worshipping, Talmudic Rabbis who we first let live among us a few hundred years ago that have socially engineered this “death by genetic flood” we are facing today! Their belief comes right from the foot of the Tower of Babel, itself, “… The people seek to make themselves one, now, of all they seek to do what then shall be kept from them …?”
    We also know that the nonwhite peoples of the Earth have only come to live with us because of their great faith in “white supremacy,” despite the rabbis worst intentions. We know no one ever asked to be born, so we don’t hold anything against you because you exist – we only ask that you allow us a place on the Earth to exist – a place where white people can call home? If you can see this far thru the smoke and dust the Rabbis have kicked up – we (the ones who the Rabbis are calling “white supremists”) will see to it that you have a place called home and a right to defend yourself. If you have faith in Jesus Christ and can agree to obey His good laws – you will never have a greater friend on this planet than your White Christian friend! Because…
    For those who say the Earth is not big enough for white people to live here, too – I say let this kindness once afforded to you be withdrawn! I say let those curses you’ve called upon us now come raining down upon your head! I say let your homes be broken in and your strong men bound and your daughters ravished. Let the plagues of Egypt be upon you and your bodies boil over with the sores of Job! You who leer and at our daughters and you who misuse our sons and lay your hands grievously upon His priests, “let these death angels you have summoned for us now come among you and gather their harvest!”
    You know, the Rabbis lied to their own people, too! They knew they weren’t these people called Israel – (but then “rolling up balls of mud into godless, mindless, soulless ‘mud-people’ to do the Rabbis’ bidding is what the Talmud is all about so it shouldn’t surprise anyone when we find them doing it! See; golem)
    The Rabbis plan on taking off with all their wealth to somewhere like Barbados in the last days – leaving the better but poorer Jews behind to take the brunt of the punishment for their great crimes – just like they did in Germany and just like they did in Haiti 212 years ago.
    I will tell you “that they will be making Rabbis into ‘Rib-eyes’ in Barbados on His day!” Karl Gharst

  • Cesar Silva

    Has anyone out there have any other information on Ron Paul’s white supremacist connections? Or 411 on his $$$ backing by white supremacist groups?

  • Kris

    As it turns out, the best thing about the internet is also the very worst. While giving the user almost unlimited access to information, it also gives any hack with a dial-up connection the opportunity to play at being a journalist.

  • http://canadu.blogspot.com/ David

    I suppose what you have to do ever since Hitler killed 9 million white people in concentration camps is massive immigration from the third world until there are no Northern Europeans left.

  • Leslie

    Ron Paul’s ideas conflict with some very big plans, some very big people have for us. I am sure the more it appears he has a real chance to win the election, the worse the smear is going to get.
    I sure hope if/when he wins, he really takes his security detail, seriously!

  • LOL

    Racist Ronnie’s merry band of internet spammers have found your blog! These dopes just hope that they can get some of Uncle Ronnie’s stash when he legalizes heroin!