The Ron Paul moment– bad and good

US Politics
on 394 Comments

Ron Paul is at last having his moment. The Washington Post says “Rep. Ron Paul has become a serious force with the potential to upend the nomination fight and remain a factor throughout next year’s general-election campaign.” The Post cites Paul’s appeal to young voters across party lines, though it ignores his antiwar views.

In recent days The New York Times has picked up reports in the Weekly Standard about racism published in Ron Paul’s political newsletter in the 1990s, and Paul’s somewhat lame apologies for the comments:

A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” A passage in another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”; in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”…

He defended the statements to The Dallas Morning News at the time, saying they were taken out of context. He also told the newspaper he did not know that his newsletter — with 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers — was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, apparently as recommended reading, under the Internet heading “Racialists and Freedom Fighters.”

But in an interview in 2001 with Texas Monthly, Mr. Paul said he regretted that he had not admitted that he had not written the newsletters. “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them,” Mr. Paul said. He said that he had “actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly”…

Readers know that I’ve promoted Paul a lot on this site. And I will continue to do so because of his incredibly pointed and intelligent foreign policy positions; I believe he is the best means of politicizing American militarism in the Middle East so that our people can actually form the right opinion of the neocons and of the rationalization of military occupation. He’s an antiwar candidate. (And Andrew Sullivan calls this a smear campaign by neocons.) But that doesn’t mean I’d vote for Paul. I might– but he’s got to do a much better job of apologizing for that racism and putting it behind him.

Meantime, capitalizing on his triumph in that debate in Iowa last weekend, here is a genius video Paul just did opposing our occupation of foreign countries. Not just about Afghanistan, but military bases elsewhere. The video asks us to imagine a Chinese base in Texas.

“Imagine if the occupiers’ attitude was that if they killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop but instead for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed…”

Imagine if we elected someone who pledged to end the occupation.

“Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office. The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is offensive to the people who live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas “

Shutting down military bases is not isolationism, Ron Paul says at the end; it is opening our arms to trade and friendship.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

394 Responses

  1. Avi_G.
    December 22, 2011, 11:46 am

    If Ron Paul emerges as a formidable contender, The Lobby will do everything in its power to either put him on a proverbial leash or destroy his career as a politician.

  2. Annie Robbins
    December 22, 2011, 11:50 am

    fantastic video!

    • MRW
      December 22, 2011, 3:23 pm

      No shit.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 22, 2011, 3:26 pm

        i think i will watch it again. i wonder if this is coming to household tv screens across the nation anytime soon? wow!

      • patm
        December 22, 2011, 3:28 pm

        I might watch it again too, annie. It is good!

      • slowereastside
        December 22, 2011, 3:48 pm

        Holy shit that was awesome.

      • teta mother me
        December 22, 2011, 3:54 pm

        spectacular. wow. this has all the potency of Goldwater’s daisy ad.

      • David Samel
        December 22, 2011, 4:35 pm

        slower, I finally watched the video just now and those were the very words that came out of my mouth

      • seafoid
        December 22, 2011, 5:47 pm

        It describes the situation in Palestine very well.

    • Woody Tanaka
      December 22, 2011, 4:48 pm

      It think that the subject matter was right on, but the execution was awful. Animated text is not really the right way to go.

      • kalithea
        December 22, 2011, 7:10 pm

        Maybe you can call up Spielberg, or better yet, get Ridley Scott to fill in the war and gore scenery. Or maybe you can contribute to his campaign so he can afford getting professionally-created moving images to replace the animated text. In the meantime, I’d rather have a riveting, powerful message, and “moving” words rather than some mediocre fabrication that might overwhelm, cheapen or annihilate the message.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 9:35 am

        “Maybe you can call up Spielberg, or better yet, get Ridley Scott to fill in the war and gore scenery.”

        So if someone disagrees with you on an aesthetic point, you’re going to made shit up about their other beliefs?? That’s rational.

        “Or maybe you can contribute to his campaign so he can afford getting professionally-created moving images to replace the animated text.”

        No, he has too many bad ideas to go along the good ideas he has.

        “In the meantime, I’d rather have a riveting, powerful message, and ‘moving’ words rather than some mediocre fabrication that might overwhelm, cheapen or annihilate the message.”

        But you don’t have that here. Here you have some pretty interesting ideas regarding type form, such as the use of the Obama “O,” the Cyrillic and Chinese characters, etc. You also have great, powerful content. But the movement choices were a mediocre fabrication and were aesthetically incongruous with these other things.

    • alfa
      December 23, 2011, 11:35 pm

      The noecons are looking like Whiley Coyote, they have given Paul a lot of attention getting publicity, Thank You Dumm dumms, wonder when they will notice they just ran off a cliff?

  3. Dan Crowther
    December 22, 2011, 11:56 am

    Its funny, my man Phil is an anti-zionist – and I think part of that definition is being inherently skeptical about leader led movements, and the propaganda that comes with them.

    Someone is going to have to explain the difference between regular zionists and the zi-ron-ists.

    Ron Paul, lover of freedom and liberty, defender of the faith, or whatever else he is being lauded as now: ”We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
    – Ron Paul

    ”Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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. These aren’t my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from” the report.”
    – Ron Paul

    When folks here make mention of the origins of Paul’s political beliefs, we’re told to shut up, told all our problems stem from the Federal Reserve and that racism only exists because our society doesn’t foster “personal liberty” or some such. Let’s call a spade a spade – Paul is just another in a long line of white “conservatives” from down south who will do ANYTHING they can to obfuscate from their real agenda: re-constituting the Confederacy… Please, Paul disciples, bash away….

    • Charon
      December 22, 2011, 12:28 pm

      Dan, why do you say that? Paul is a constitutionalist, what does that have to do with re-constituting the Confederacy? Our Draconian laws that have limited constitutional rights are not progress.

      US financial problems stem from financial democracy and the FED is a huge part of that. Not the only part, but they are pretty big. The US didn’t always have a central bank. The Bank of North America was much hated and kept failing and coming back every time until Andrew Jackson killed it (likely the reason for his assassination attempt). It is said that ‘killing the bank’ was among his proudest accomplishments. The central banks of Europe still had the ability to influence our economy and influence ‘recession’ which led to adopting the Federal Reserve system, a private non-government (the ‘partial government’ thing is BS… the president appoints somebody that the FED tells him to appoint) bank that is as federal as Fed Ex.

      It’s not the source of all our problems obviously, but it is the primary source of debt and also responsible for much of inflation.

      Off topic but kinda related. I’ve taken a huge interest recently in reading about history. Much like I/P, a lot of what we are taught in school is a combo of propaganda and cliffnotes. The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Even after the emancipation proclamation, there were a ton of elite slave owners in the north. There were much more powerful forces and factors at play. I’ll leave it at that. It’s worth looking into if you have an interest and the time. I’ve changed my long-standing opinion on ‘honest’ Abe because of it. IMO, based on what I’ve read (and much of it is true, not circumstantial or speculative) he was a terrible president, a tool for the elite of the time.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 1:03 pm

        There are a couple of things I take umbrage with in regards to “constitutionalists” or these “original intent” guys like paul – and this is by no means all of for the confederacy part, thats the goal of places like the Von Mises institute and the John Birch society, whose members Paul calls on for support..

        1. black folks were 3/5 of a human – indigenous peoples aren’t even that – to say nothing of women, future immigrants etc.
        2. Paul says the 17th amendment was a bad idea – so, no direct election of senators? hmmm….
        3. Democracy was NOT in the intent of the founders, to quote Madison, the senate should “protect the opulent minority from the majority”

        As for Paul’s racism – Avi, that quote is taken from one of the now infamous newsletters
        Paul may not have written them, but the person who many think did, is still one of his trusted advisors, Lew Rockwell. It should be mentioned that these newsletters generated a lot of money for Paul, and it is known that Rockwell wanted to churn up racism in the name of “paleoconservatism.” A take on the “southern strategy” that I believe helped Paul into office in the first place.

        As for the stuff about the civil war and Lincoln being a shill etc. Ive read some critical histories of Lincoln and about the period, but a “terrible” president? Yea, I dont know about that. Who was good then? Reagan?

        We have had over a century of revisionism on the civil war, almost as much about WWII – none of it seems to care all that much about the 4 million people (or so) that were in bondage, or the 100 million killed in WWII.

      • Avi_G.
        December 22, 2011, 1:16 pm

        Paul may not have written them, but the person who many think did, is still one of his trusted advisors, Lew Rockwell.

        Dan, I agree. That fact alone doesn’t inspire confidence in Ron Paul’s claims that he has put it all in the past.

        If he ever wished to dissociate himself from that newsletter and its language, he should have come out strongly against it — at least in recent years — and should have physically dissociated himself from the people involved with that newsletter. He has done neither, it seems.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 22, 2011, 3:39 pm

        @ Dan re von Misses Institute. — von Misses is about economics, Austrian economics. Nothing to with politics, at least in the sense you seem to think. There is nothing sinister about von Mises. If you want to know more, I’d be happy to oblige. -N49.

      • Charon
        December 22, 2011, 3:41 pm

        Dan, you have good points. I wouldn’t call Lew Rockwell a trusted advisor though, more like an old friend. I could be wrong, I just haven’t read anything about him being an advisor recently.

        Paul’s argument on the 17th amendment is because the power of the Senate was given to the people instead of state legislators. He believes the constitution never intended for this to happen. Instead of the state (via legislation) choosing representation, the people of the state choose, which might not be a wise idea. IMO, the reality is there wouldn’t be a difference either way. The same person would wind up in that position via manipulation of popular opinion with the 17th amendment or being manipulation of legislators with not 17th amendment.

        You’re right about revisionist goals. More effort is spent on revising truths rather than bring to the surface other lesser-known truths. As for Lincoln, I guess I don’t really know if we’ve ever had a good president. The reason why some states like South Carolina seceded may have largely been emancipation, but it was also individual rights of the state and that was particularly the case fort the whole of the Confederacy. States only superficially have their own rights today. Some folks back then didn’t think that was the initial intent of the US. The Confederacy is forever smeared with racism which makes it look like the Union wasn’t as racist. That’s because history is not written by the losers of war. And again with Lincoln, even in the early 20th century, it was nearly criminal to say negative things about Lincoln. Hmmm….

        Paul isn’t perfect, but the other candidates are far worse unless you love the status quo (or believe in Obummer’s lies about change). IMO Paul is the last chance for this system. If he follow’s in Obummer’s footsteps then it’s time to bring out the guillotine and change things ourselves. Probably should already be doing that anyways…

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 3:55 pm


        I do want to know more, of course.

        I was referring to many of the speeches I have seen on the internet from there that do indeed involve political matters – but yes, your point is well taken.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 4:01 pm

        charon, my views on the guillotines have been expressed here repeatedly – chop chop!! haha.

        But, again, with the 17th amendment – like I said, democracy was not the intention of the founders, “the masses” were thought of as unready for real political representation – so where Paul says “this was not the original intent” what he is really saying is, ” I agree that democracy should be the province of wealthy landowners” – myself, I am radically opposed to this type of paternalism.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 22, 2011, 4:35 pm

        “von Misses is about economics, Austrian economics. Nothing to with politics,”

        economics in the US is nearly synonymous with politics.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 22, 2011, 5:07 pm

        “He believes the constitution never intended for this to happen.”

        Yeah, that’s why it was changed by Amendment; because the same elements which corrupt the system today did so back then and the results were horrible, to the detriment of the working people to the benefit of the moneyed classes.

        “The reason why some states like South Carolina seceded may have largely been emancipation, but it was also individual rights of the state and that was particularly the case fort the whole of the Confederacy”

        Nonsense. The only issue that caused the South to rebel was slavery. Period. They wanted to expand it, and feared it being taken away. Plan and simple; those businessmen who profited directly from human bondage and those who profited indirectly, didn’t give a damn about the human costs of their actions, because they, themselves profited. Song as old as time and every generation has to fight those motherfuckers.

        “States only superficially have their own rights today.”

        Only individuals have rights; states have powers.

        “Some folks back then didn’t think that was the initial intent of the US.”

        No, because the US started as a slavocracy and those who profited by it liked it that way. Thankfully, they failed. Good riddence to bad trash. Anyone who glories in the “original intent” of the US or the Constitution should be reminded that the US and the US Constitution, before the 13th Amendment, was next to worthless and hardly something to look back with fondness on.

        “The Confederacy is forever smeared with racism which makes it look like the Union wasn’t as racist.”

        No. Both were racist to the core. The difference is that the Confederacy was also a slave holding society. As such, it was more evil than the North. Both were evil on this count, but the South was more evil. Anyone who tries to say that the South got a “bad rap” or anything of the sort is a nut.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 7:16 pm

        I mean, it is “political economy” right?

      • pineywoodslim
        December 22, 2011, 9:55 pm

        Just an OT point regarding slaves as 3/5ths.

        You do understand that it was the slaveholders who wanted slaves counted as a full person for representational purposes, while the abolitionists wanted them counted as zero.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 9:38 am

        “You do understand that it was the slaveholders who wanted slaves counted as a full person for representational purposes, while the abolitionists wanted them counted as zero.”

        Absolutely. Which is one of the reasons why turning it into the “3/5ths of a person” meme is a great piece of political rhetoric, as it makes the correct moral point concerning the slaveholders even if there is some irony there.

      • NickJOCW
        December 23, 2011, 10:02 am

        A great deal of harm is caused by inhibiting people from saying what is true on the grounds of social sensitivity. What Ron Paul said about young black boys from deprived backgrounds should have evoked a response that it was very likely true and something should urgently be done to improve their environments. What happens instead is he is castigated years later, not because the observation was inaccurate, which would certainly have made it racist, but because people just don’t want to think about things like that. Many here are bold enough to speak the truth. Why is one ugly truth acceptable and another not?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 10:30 am

        hey pineywoodslim

        you just described a situation where two groups of humans are deciding on the value of the humanity of a third… this is the morality of the wealthy classes in America in the 18th century – it’s disgusting. So, why should we in the present day, even for one second, consider what these men “really meant” on issues of the general welfare? Paul seems to be obsessed with these questions..which is telling, to me.

        – which is: our founders and our founding documents were anything but “democratic,” instead, they devised a system to ensure that one class of people (the political class aka the wealthy landowning class) would run the country, and in doing so, would use the levers of power to subsidize themselves.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 12:39 pm

        Woody: “economics in the US is nearly synonymous with politics.”

        You’re disembling. Have you read any Austrian economics? -N49.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 22, 2011, 1:15 pm

        “The American Civil War wasn’t about slavery.”
        Yes, it was. It was by far the largest cause, both direct and indirect. Directly for the South throughout. Even their other causes were indirectly related to the slavery issue. For the North, it was initially not about slavery, except indirectly. It later became a direct cause.

        “Even after the emancipation proclamation, there were a ton of elite slave owners in the north.”

        Well, of course. The Emancipation Proclamation was a Presidential decree issued under the president’s powers as commander-in-chief. As a result, it could — by its very nature — only apply in areas of active rebellion. The president as commander-in-chief had no legal power to affect it in other places. That awaited the 13th Amendment.

        “I’ve changed my long-standing opinion on ‘honest’ Abe because of it. IMO, based on what I’ve read (and much of it is true, not circumstantial or speculative) he was a terrible president, a tool for the elite of the time.”

        If some of those who you are basing your opinions on are named Tom DiLorenzo or H.W. Crocker or Thomas Woods or similar hacks, you really should amend your reading list.

      • pineywoodslim
        December 22, 2011, 9:59 pm

        Yes and no.

        The south seceded over slavery. The north fought to prevent secession and the breakup of the union. At least initially, the north could have cared less about abolishing slavery, and the public would not have supported a war on that basis.

        Later in the war, as we all know, the US did make abolition a driving force as a matter of strategy, but it was secondary to the main goal.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 9:58 am

        “At least initially, the north could have cared less about abolishing slavery, and the public would not have supported a war on that basis.”

        The only problem that I have with this statement, which I believe reflects the majority — but by no means universal — Northern opinion, if obliquely, is that it is a somewhat pointless formulation, because absent the attempted secession, the North was not going to fight a war, period. It would have used the political process. To say that the North would not have supported a war to abolish slavery sounds more than it really is. The North would not have supported a war to modify the status quo ante on any political or moral condition that did not affect them directly, without secession.

        I think that Southern paranoia about the determination of the Abolitionists to end slavery set the seeds for the South starting and losing the war, (including the mind and all-to-forgiving reconstruction, in which the slaveholders got off relatively light).

    • Avi_G.
      December 22, 2011, 12:33 pm

      Well, in all fairness, though, Phil did write that Ron Paul would have to do something about his racism before Phil could vote for him.

      Is there date and source for Ron Paul’s statement on 13-year-old black kids?

    • Dan Crowther
      December 22, 2011, 12:37 pm
      • Avi_G.
        December 22, 2011, 1:13 pm


        Thanks. It looks like most of the racist language associated with Ron Paul dates back to the 1980s and earlier. No?

        Would I be naive if I concluded that he has been too timid (and perhaps foolish), which could explain why he has not come out strongly and publicly against that racist language, that he is so embarrassed by it that he wishes to bury it in the past?

        Robert Byrd used to be a member of the KKK.

        Anyway, when Phil writes that Ron Paul needs to do something about his racism, to which period is Phil referring?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 2:07 pm

        Alex Pareene at salon is also on the caper…..

        Thats a really good question, Avi – about which period phil is reffering to….

        But what if Byrd had KKK members on his staff? Thats really the question, to me.

      • teta mother me
        December 22, 2011, 4:03 pm

        ok Dan, so who would you prefer?

        I cried when Obama spoke in that park in Chicago. But today I see him in the role of Keanu Reeve in “The Devil’s Advocate,” and I wonder if Michele is at home trying to hold her mind together. I think the Israel lobby has Obama in so tight a corner that he would not only have to step off the edge of the world but push his wife & daughters off also, to act in ways contrary to Is Lobby demands. It’s about far more than money; Israel lobby can destroy a person, and Obama is a young man with a young family.

        Paul has carved out a position that openly challenges the Israel lobby in a very carefully and cleverly nuanced way, ie. without opening himself to the charge of antisemitism.

        What position did Cain, the other black candidate, hold toward blacks in US? He was certainly a tool of the lobby, just as is Alan West.

        What choice would you make?

      • kalithea
        December 24, 2011, 12:37 pm

        Excellent analogy: Obama is the Devil’s Advocate. In every sense of the word. Obama can twist the truth into a pretzel and one thing the “Devil” likes is great justification for crimes against humanity.

      • Scott
        December 22, 2011, 1:15 pm

        Ditto, re the friedersdorf, a thoughtful well documented piece.

      • Chu
        December 22, 2011, 2:15 pm

        Good article and he makes a good point at the end:
        “As bad as the Paul newsletters are — let me emphasize again that they are awful — I can’t persuade myself that they should carry more weight than war, or civil liberties…”

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 2:25 pm

        Oh, don’t get me wrong, if it was a straight up choice between “racist or war monger” – id probably take the racist. But this is more about the guy’s views of humanity.

        Again, he thinks the 17th amendment is unconstitutional. So, leaving aside his foreign policy stance, and his stated love of civil liberties – he believes that democracy is best left to the “opulent minority” that Madison refers to. Or as John Jay put it – “the owners of the country should govern it”

        So, yea, Paul will let you do drugs, say what you want and let you “live in liberty” because he knows that under his system, you’ll be under the economic jackboot of “Carter Prescott Lodge VI” and his ilk

      • Chu
        December 22, 2011, 3:55 pm

        I disagree with his support on the the amendment. That would be a
        field day for AIPAC if we had no 17th amendment.

      • teta mother me
        December 22, 2011, 4:08 pm

        Dan, perhaps if you take up fortynine on his offer about the von Mises institute you might find that Paul is not in favor of putting anybody under an “economic jackboot;” quite the opposite.

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 4:21 pm

        Carter Prescott Lodge VI and his ilk depend upon crony capitalism enforced for them by a bought government to maintain their wealth and power.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 4:42 pm

        by crony capitalism, do you mean “state capitalism” or “subsidized capitalism”?
        If you do, and if you are arguing for laissez fair capitalism or unsubsidized capitalism, can you name one developed society where this system has existed?

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 4:50 pm

        You mean, without the 17th Amendment, Congress would have given Netanyahu more than 29 standing ovations?

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 4:52 pm

        No country has ever had pure laissez-faire capitalism, but I think Paul would want to return us to the days preceding national security state dominance of our economy. I don’t think Carter Prescott Lodge VI and his ilk would be very happy about such a change.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 6:12 pm

        So, there has to be state involvement in the capitalist economy. Hmm, so the PUBLIC in any state capitalist economy subsidizes the means of production and by extension the controlling capitalist class. What a moral system.

        What you call the “national security state” is really a public subsidy to technology development. You got a cell phone? GPS in you car? Im not saying the “national security state” is something Im down with, but is there a “market” equivalent to the type of invention and discovery you find in the publicy subsidized sector? Of course not. America was a backward country before large scale public investment in development.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 6:39 pm

        oh really? no income tax, no tax on inheritance and iron clad property rights……..
        yea, we’re on equal footing – you, me and bill gates’ kids. sweet.

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 7:05 pm

        America was a backward country before large scale public investment in development.

        You’re presumably talking about the days before large scale public investment made the canals and railroads possible.

        America was not a backward country in 1905, or 1915, or 1925, or 1935. Despite the virtual absence of a national security state.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 8:42 pm

        Hmm, this is again interesting.

        The virtual absence of a national security state? you must be talking about a different country –
        In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, to be renewed in 1918, right after the espionage act of 1917 – woodrow wilson?
        I also think that there was sequestering of populations during the revolution, but I would have to check……

        I guess the US was also much nicer in foreign relations before the fed and the national security state – just don’t tell that to the native americans, haitians, cubans, filipinos, libyans, mexicans – im sure im sure im missing a few……

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 8:23 am

        it’s more than racist. there’s his disdain for the downtrodden. seems to be a libertarian thing, his response on one of those wearisome republican debates to wolf blitzer’s question as to what he’d do, if elected president, about a comatose young man who’d previously turned down buying health insurance. to paraphrase him, “nothing, the young man made his choice”. when blitzer pressed him, he added “there’s charity”. yeah, charity, like in the 19th century when that’s all there was, or in desperately poor nations where there’s little or no health care available. paul’s answer exposed his compassionless, which is just what america needs at a time when almost 50% of the population lives below or near the poverty level. what would a president paul do if there were mass die-offs from hunger or disease? something like, “that’s just too bad, but best we trust the market system. after all that’s nature at it’s best?” nature, as if laissez-faire wasn’t anything but man made. “oh, but blitzer’s was a ‘gotcha’ question”. gotcha, as in paul didn’t have a stock answer, so he had to ad-lib his way and risk revealing his true self? still, if the election comes down to someone like paul who’s against war & militarism (but, alas, compassionless) versus a warmonger opponent who’s otherwise progressive, i’ll probably hold my nose & vote for paul. this assumes that a paul administration would restore the bill of rights and undo the surveillance state, such that, progressives will at least have a fighting chance of reversing his libertarian based savagery of the commons in time to prevent doomsday from global warming and other environmental nightmares.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 9:41 am

        yourstruly, personally, I would never have answered that hypothetical question as he did. I don’t think charity alone is the answer to poor folks’ basic needs. I’ve been economically independent, dependent solely on myself, since I left home at age 17 right after graduating high school, and I know what that’s like when an emergency arises, including medical emergencies. Nobody has to toss out an extreme hypothetical case to show that the current status quo, given to us by the twins, our welfare (Democrats) party and our warfare party (Republicans) has been squeezing our lower middle and middle middle class base so that more and more of them have been falling, failing, and if they continue to be so pinched economically–and no candidate but Ron Paul is saying anything that indicates this situation won’t continue–the plight of the comatose young man, who (apparently) could’ve bought insurance but declined, will be effectively at the bottom of the ever-widening real poverty pool instead of a flag against Ron Paul’s vision of how to get us out of the total mess we are in… Rolling back the war machine spitting out real blood with diplomatic missionary bullets, curbing the erosion of our basic civil rights because our front lawn is now officially a “war zone,” curbing endless borrowing and printing money that keeps inflating the price of a loaf of bread, and curbing welfare fraud are items desperately needed now. Cut the welfare and warfare fraud and we will be able to afford medical help for that hypothetical young man.

    • Chu
      December 22, 2011, 12:50 pm

      Shit Dan, I’m no follower of Paul, but it doesn’t mean I would not vote for him over the other clowns, and that includes the incumbent spineless leader.

      Many gave Obama a couple of years to get his bearings, but he is isn’t what I’d say the majority of voters expected. It’s ubiquitous among people I speak to, how many are so disenchanted with the false change we hoped for.

      But Dan, I think you’re onto something brilliant. Maybe Paul is secretly working to restore the confederacy, with his ally Alex Jones. Could be… That’s why he wants the Fed abolished.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 1:13 pm

        Lets make one thing clear – He aint abolishing shit. hes just gonna take away the “dual mandate” of the Fed. Lower inflation ( ron paul disciples clap) and lowering unemployment ( ron paul disciples groan)

        The government has a defect that the right hates, Paul included – its potentially democratic. This is not to be tolerated…..

        As John Dewey said “the government is the shadow cast by big business over society.”

      • Chu
        December 22, 2011, 1:30 pm

        He may rise up in the public for his counter perspective to his party, but the establishment aims to destroy him. I think his debate performances are great and it may make the difference in bringing him to the top of the dung heap. He offers another route for their party that creates an alternative vision for the badly damaged & corrupted system.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 1:46 pm

        The establishment is against him because they have a sense of history. Capitalism was extremely unpopular in this country before reforms started to be enacted. We had active socialist parties, an extremely violent labor history and tons and tons of “panics” – its the same in Europe. Google “Panic of…” and see what comes back – its a history of what capitalism means for a society.

        Roosevelt famously said: I have saved capitalism for the capitalists. Paul wants to undo those reforms, which will make capitalism extremely unpallatable, just like it was. Part of me is rooting for the guy, because I think electing him will wake americans up from their capitalist slumber…

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 22, 2011, 3:43 pm

        Lets make one thing clear – He aint abolishing shit. hes just gonna take away the “dual mandate” of the Fed. Lower inflation ( ron paul disciples clap) and lowering unemployment ( ron paul disciples groan)

        Dan, you don’t know what you are talking about here. You are just making stuff up. Scare mongering. Pls stop it. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 4:06 pm

        I dont? Hmmm…..What about this legislation? You know, I disagree with people here all the time, but I cant remember saying “you dont know what your talking about” – that just aint nice……

        From the article:

        Single Mandate

        Democrats are likely to oppose any effort to switch the Fed to a single mandate especially when the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for almost three years, said Sarah Binder, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Unemployment fell to 8.6 percent in November from 9 percent in October. Until last month, the rate had been at 9 percent or above since April.

        Reining in the Fed “still rings true to rank and file Republicans” in both the House and Senate who sense “the Fed has taken far too active a role and crossed boundaries into fiscal policy,” Binder said. “A single mandate for price stability is a non-starter for Democrats,” she said.

        Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told the Joint Economic Committee in October that the Fed’s dual mandate “is workable, although I do agree that in the long run the only thing the Fed can control is inflation.”

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 22, 2011, 4:37 pm

        @ Dan Re abolishing “half the Fed” — RP is a committed to the Austrian school. The Austrian school holds that government control (ie Fed control) over the price of money (ie interest rates) induces gross distortions into the efficient allocation of capital. In particular, it holds that the Fed keeps artificially rates low and this causes capital to be squandered in any number of ways. (Think, think $1mm homes for Vegas strippers, etc.)

        And you know what? The Austrian school is RIGHT. This whole economic mess was foretold by the Austrian school.

        RP wants to fix the root cause of the problem and that is the Fed. So no, he does not want to keep half the Fed. He wants to get rid of the whole thing. So when you say he wants to keep half of it, sorry and respectfully — no, you do not know what you are talking about. I wish I could find a nicer way to say that. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 5:55 pm

        So now we have not only hero worship but austrian economics worship….haha you guys are too much….

        Of course his rhetoric is about the “whole thing” – its the same with all the republicans “The Government” in its totality is the problem, they dont talk about the parts they like. Its the same here. He’ll rail against the whole Fed, but your a sucker if you buy it

        austrian economics? hahahahaaa

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 12:54 am

        @Dan re Of course his rhetoric is about the “whole thing” – its the same with all the republicans …

        Look, man, you’re being a Witty on this issue. Grow up and address my points. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 11:04 am

        Ok, N49

        So, no one wants to be Witty, you’ve drawn me out! haha

        Regarding the austrian school – I mean, what can I say? It’s really just part of a political ideology, The West did the exact opposite of what the austrian school economists would have done in the 30’s and post war. Are you british? Are you a Thatcher fan? Cuz, until that murderer resurrected him, he was near meaningless. It really cant be understated, within state capitalism, you have on one end keynes and on the other someone like hayek. There can be arguments about what system is better during normal times, but in a crisis– which by the way is a feature of capitalism, they’re inherent in the system– i dont see an argument for hayek. In a vacuum, yea, maybe – but the world has these pesky little critters running around called humans, and as much as we might not like them ( which i hold to be true about many austrian cats) there has to be a mechanism to distribute their value added to the economy back to them, when it is not in the interest of capital. And even hayek makes this argument – although alot of his disciples usually overlook it – he wanted a “comprehensive system of social insurance – to protect people from “the common hazards of life” — so substitute “capitalism” for “life” and his intention is clear. Just like Smith, he knew the state had to be involved and would have to look after the general welfare of people. So, this poses a dilemma for a thinking person like myself – on the one hand, im radically opposed to the “nanny state” I hate paternalism and the idea of having to be “looked after” – but, within a capitalist context –where capitalism has to be propped up by the state and at the same time regulated by the state– the state has to be involved in “looking after people” because if it isn’t all your left with, is a state designed solely to prop up and subsidize capital. So, as long as there is state capitalism, austrian economic is not viable.

        As to the Fed, good luck with that. As long as the states have a capitalist model, there will be a Fed. The only thing Paul might be able to change is the dual mandate – the Fed aint going away. Its important to remember as well, the dual mandate only goes back to I think 1977, look at the rhetoric about the Fed pre 1977 and post 1977 and I think its clear what these anti-fed people are really complaining about. The original ones, maybe not the ones to follow, its the same with states rights, it was started by a bunch of racists, but now there are people who genuinely believe it’s not….

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 1:17 pm

        @ Dan: Regarding the austrian school – I mean, what can I say? It’s really just part of a political ideology, The West did the exact opposite of what the austrian school economists would have done in the 30′s and post war

        If Austrians had been driving the bus, the bubble in he 1920’s — the bubble that lead directly to the post-bubble crunch — never would have happened. It was the Fed that drove policy in the 20’s. It was the Fed that caused the depression. We learned nothing and are now repeating the mistakes — again.

        When will we learn? -N49.

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 1:51 pm

        Did Ron Paul and Peter Schiff (Austrian)predict the housing bubble? Yes, Paul way before it happened. Did Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman (Keynesians)? No. Bernanke was saying the US economy was strong enough to support the bubble a few months before it burst, and Krugman was saying nobody can predict. How quickly some folks forget, if they ever knew.

        It’s amazing to me that some people thought having the government sponsor, and grease putting un-creditworthy folks in debt so they could have a home would lead to utopia. I’m sure Dan C was all for it. Freddie & Fannie Mac are basically bankrupt, supported only by ever-increasing debt to China, but our best-intentioned Dan C’s live on, righteous in their cause. And Obama’s tweaking around the edges of finance bank and Wall St reform without doing anything as key and simple as reinstating Glass-Steagal, is –worse than irresponsible.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 4:37 pm

        well, i would say that dean baker is more of the keynes variety – he not only predicted the bubble, he sold his house and rented an apartment in DC!

        Im not for capitalism AT ALL. So, no, I am not for bubbles and the like…. And I dont think that Paul is for re instituting glass steagall – quite the opposite, i believe

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 5:14 pm

        Dan, C, you are ignorant, and willfully ignorant at that: Ron Paul voted against repeal of Glass Steagall:

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 6:04 pm

        no sht…i really didn’t know that. thanks…..but wow, this is some pretty harsh sentiment, as if Im ignorant generally speaking. fair enough, i suppose – i wont take it to heart….

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 10:44 pm

        @ Dan: but wow, this is some pretty harsh sentiment,

        Yeah, sorry. But RP is a good, honest guy and so it is tough to see him get slagged “unfairly”.

        No doubt certain aspects of his program are a little spacey. Many libertarians live in a fantasy world, or at least a highly idealized world. A lot of these ideas just won’t work on Planet Earth. I tell them if they want to live in libertarian paradise, move to Lagos.

        But can you imagine if Paul hadn’t been in the hunt? America is far richer that Paul has broadened the debate as he has. He should be supported for this reason alone. -N49.

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 9:20 am

        with you all the way with this one, dan. aside from the theoretical, where are the examples that demonstrate the effectivenss of libertarian doctrine when actually practiced?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 24, 2011, 9:27 am


        Oh, I totally agree – and like Ive said repeatedly, if he was on the ballot in massachusetts, and it was between him and O – Im taking paul all day…..below on the thread, i kind of lay out my reasons for being such a hard-on about Paul:

        “What I object to most emphatically is reflexive support for anything, let alone a political figure. Now, if Paul is the only choice, and if his supporters and others who would vote for him disagree with some of his policies – I think its incumbent on ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE to say, hey Ron, I agree with you HERE – but think your full of it HERE.

        And I think that this fits in well with a libertarian world view. We should constantly be CHALLENGING not only ourselves, but those who would represent us; its not good enough to say, “well, I like this, but dont like that – but hes the best outta the bunch, im going to vote for him” – No, I think people need to say, ” I like this, I don’t like that and I am going to work to change his mind, and the minds of others on the topic I find objectionable.”

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 9:43 am

        Dan C, there’s an even older adage than Dewey’s; it’s so profound it’s actually a folk saying: “God saves us from your good intentions.”

      • Dan Crowther
        December 24, 2011, 9:49 am

        sssshhh, yourstruly – your not supposed to bring that up around here! haha

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 24, 2011, 10:14 am

        @Dan C

        ” I like this, I don’t like that and I am going to work to change his mind, and the minds of others on the topic I find objectionable.”

        I think that is a reasonable and sensible position on your part and I respect that and accept it.

        Now, go register as a blue republican and get the guy nominated!

      • Dan Crowther
        December 24, 2011, 10:37 am

        HAHA!!! My dad would BEAT MY ASS if I did that…(former teamster) :)

        But yea, C&D – I think the more we find our inner skeptic, the better off we are. Whenever a political figure makes a declarative statement, I think our first reaction should be: Im probably being lied to.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 24, 2011, 11:16 am

        A bruised ass is worth it, if it saves a life in Palestine or Iran or Afghanistan or Pakistan, and perhaps Syria. Wouldn’t you agree? He is the only one who will stop the wars, so I can’t let you off the hook so easily.

        Face up to your dad and go register as a Blue Republican.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 3:16 pm

        yourstruly, would you call Ron Paul’s stance on our foreign policy in the middle east practical and centered on America’s best interest, and the world’s, or do you diss him and plan to vote for Obama or one of the other GOP candidates, both of whom will maintain the status quo, with next stop Iran? Do you think Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy is not a libertarian one? If so, why?

        You prefer Straussian neocon-neoliberal foreign policy? Vote for Obama or any other GOP candidate. They made the theoretical real–look at the results.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2011, 1:01 pm

      Dan C, you drag out a 20 year old Ron Paul newsletter he never wrote & has apologized for, one that went out under his name 2 decades ago–to obstruct Ron Paul’s most wise take on US foreign policy and monetary policy. I conclude you rather have the bombing of Iran, the subsequent WW3, which is where Obama & other GOP candidates R taking us, fast. You need to rethink your stance.

      Also, I can tell you never lived in the inner or outer city, never walked the streets, never met the reality of need to know patterns based on race just to survive. Your PC is a luxury. In no way do I say this intending to say anything is so by genetics.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 1:19 pm

        I live in fucking Roxbury Massachusetts. Right down the street from Wally’s Jazz Club and the Boston medical center, on a city block and have to take two trains and a bus to work every morning. I coach a basketball team from Dorchester and give talks to young kids from the city about why joining the military is a BAD idea….. Are my “inner cities” bona fides enough?

        I can be anti-everyone you know? I don’t like Paul, but Im not about to go vote for someone else. And again, he will cut 1 trillion from the budget year one. That will kill people, but who cares, right?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 22, 2011, 3:45 pm

        And again, he will cut 1 trillion from the budget year one. That will kill people, but who cares, right?

        Dan — RP is going to get the money from cuts in the military! And that will kill people? Man, …, get a grip. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 4:08 pm

        Hes going to cut the entire defense budget?hmm, well thats not 1 trillion…so where does the rest come from? Oh, yea, its going to come from the dept of education, the EPA, the dept of Labor, the dept of health and human services, the dept of transportation etc.

        All the stuff that wealthy doctors dont need. convenient.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2011, 4:55 pm

        Hes going to cut the entire defense budget?hmm, well thats not 1 trillion…so where does the rest come from?

        Actually, the defense budget plus the cost of all the wars, plus the department of energy – that looks after the thousands of nukes – does indeed add up to a trillion. 1.2 trillion to be precise.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 5:58 pm

        So, year one in a Paul administration the US dismantles its military in its entirety…..right.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 6:58 pm

        Dan C, Paul never said or implied he’d dismantle the military entirety, and you know it, so what’s up with you? You join both parties and call him an isolationist? He is not. But he distinguishes between maintaining a strong defense to respond to imminent danger, and our horrible current interventionist policy he characterizes as “being the policeman of the world,” under the flag of “nation building.” He would cut the military budget in half, if he could,” I imagine. He says we don’t need 950 overseas military bases, for example. And he would cut foreign aid, specifically including Israel. No other candidate’s stance is even remotely like that. Our congress is pushing us towards war on Iran, which could lead to WW3, and sure does not help the 45 million of us on food stamps. You want that? We need to kill lots more Muslims? If Ron Paul is so horrible, who will you vote for, support?

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2011, 7:55 pm


        Even Bush Snr. stated that US military spending should have been reduced to 30% in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, at that was at 1991 spending levels. That means that at least half a trillion cold be saved right away.

        And how is it that you scoff at the suggestion that military. Spending could be cut 1 year, but welfare could.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 8:03 pm

        citizen….whoa whoa whoa

        i was responding shingo, who i thought was saying that ron paul’s pledge to cut 1 trillion year one was coming only from the military….read shingo’s post

        Ive said repeatedly, unless a real worker’s party breaks out, and gets onto the ballot, if i vote for pres -which i prob won’t cuz im a mass resident- i would vote for paul..

        again, foreign policy wise, im on board. i think you know im on board. but his domestic policy views demand that not only he defend them, but the people who support him defend them…..this is not a qualitative statement either, I think everyone can agree that Paul’s economic policies are a radical departure from US economics in the 20th and 21st centuries – you guys really think you can just tell others, “he’s a good guy” umm, “austrian economics” (burp) “liberty” ??

        And again, and I really can’t emphasize this enough( not directed at anyone in particular): If your peddling austrian economics–your probably white, your probably male, you probably had a pretty good upbringing and more than likely, you listen to hall and oates….hahaha Yacht Rock Baby!!! ( For the Identity politics police out there, yes, I am a white male….fcuk!)

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 8:15 pm

        shingo, i think you gotta re-write your question, i dont know what your asking me….

        here is my thing…..yes, defense spending can be cut, by a whole lot – but half a trillion means downsizing the ranks, which means adding to the people in the labor market, which means adding to the unemployed, which means adding to poverty and so on.

        If Paul were for a massive public infrastructure development/transportation renovation and expansion, or some sort of other big jobs program, that would be one thing. But he’s not. He would let those people sort it out in the “market.” But, maybe it would be good for them, you know, toughen them up….

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2011, 10:19 pm

        I am having trouble keeping up with your seemingly irrational arguments Dan,

        So now you’re arguing against the cutting of military spending because it would lead to the loss of jobs?

        Hs it ever o cured to you that the money not spent on the military might actually benefit the economy in other ways? Personally, I would love to see infrastructure projects being funded. Half a trillion would fix a lot of bridges and electrical grids.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 11:31 pm

        you said half a trillion year 1 from the military – i think that is nonsense. no way that happens, you and I both know it.

        So where does the money come from? Poor people and Labor.

        You really dont think a questions like this are valid? potentially laying off a million people from the service, without any plan to get them a job is of little consequence?

        It really is a religious belief. Ron Paul is our lord and savior. And in the end, Dan loved Big Brother.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 2:04 am

        @Dan re here is my thing…..yes, defense spending can be cut, by a whole lot – but half a trillion means downsizing the ranks, which means adding to the people in the labor market, which means adding to the unemployed, which means adding to poverty and so on.

        Let me get this right: Dan — you support foriegn interventions on the taxpayers bill as an employment exercise? Wars & make-work?

        That is sick, mate. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 9:54 am

        thats quite a stretch north – your talking to a guy who has been overseas, my comments are uniformly anti war etc.

        its pretty plain, my questions about pauls pledge to cut 1 trillion. but JST LIKE the zio’s – if im skeptical of Paul or disagree with him, all of a sudden I love war and death… man….

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 11:01 am


        I have issues with RP as well. I think some libertarian ideas are just a pipe dream (eg. solving environmental issues though property rights — may work in principle but in reality you’d just enrich lawyers) but I object to these ideas only after first learning about them. I also think a lot of libertarians are self-absorbed wankers (I know a lot of them through work.)

        But you are going off half-cocked here. Eg. you ridicule Austrian economics without having a clue what the body of work is

        C’mon — this board deserves better than that. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 11:51 am

        n49 – here you are again telling me what I know and what I dont know….

        ive read hayek and guys like rothbard…..

        As for your criticisms of american libertarians, i agree – but why stop at their general wankery and positions on the environment? – especially because their policies(in your view) end up enriching a small class of people, which is exactly what I am saying regarding his policies in the general economy….you know, if its true in the environmental example, why is it not true elsewhere?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 23, 2011, 12:55 pm

        @ Dan: you know, if its true in the environmental example, why is it not true elsewhere?

        Huh? Logic much?

        I am drawn to the Austrian school primarily for its monetary policies. If you really have read Hayek & Rothbard you’ll understand that Austrians make sense whereas Keynsians and Chicago-types don’t. And practice bears this out. Again — Austrians nailed the housing bubble, the internet bubble and now clearly see the bubble in bonds that has emerged. The anti-Paul types on the board seem completely oblivious to the economic mess that western economies are in. It is shocking, really. Shiocking and irresponsible. You can bury your head but it won’t go away.

        You characterize this as a rich vs poor thing but again that misses the point. It is a corrupt vs integrity thing. The Fed, and Washington in general, serves Wall Street alchemists and merry fellow travellers — the proverbial 1% — who use the system to enrich themselves. RP wants to get rid of that system and so do I.

        You want to keep it? You want to keep a system that amounts to a kleptocracy? Crony capitalism? It is terrible what is going on. And now you shit on Paul for trying to put an end to it.

        I think we can all do better. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 4:38 pm

        “I think we can all do better.”

        I agree.

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 9:32 am

        why does it have to be save lives by ending war/demilitarization but killing people by savaging the safety net, versus allowing the slaughter of war to continue but salvaging the safety net? can’t america both end these wars/demilitarize and protect the commons? paul may or may not be the least bad candidate but what america needs is a government leadership that’s progressive on the entire progressive agenda.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 9:53 am

        Dan C, so how many American soldiers and Iraquis and Afghanistanians have died in the last, say merely eight years? How many Palestinians? And, wouldn’t we have more to spend on our safety net here at home if we took a more constricted view of “National Defense” and “Homeland Security?” No candidate but Ron Paul would actually make funds available in a rational way.
        As Commander In Chief he could do it; congress would never let him cut way back on the social welfare net.

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 10:26 am

        re: a president ron paul, that’s comforting

      • Dan Crowther
        December 24, 2011, 10:31 am


        How many Iraqi’s and Afghani’s? A lot. Palestinians? a couple of thousand.Of course, we’ve been killing Yemeni’s, Somalians, Pakistani’s, Iranians and others as well….

        How many US troops? Something like 4,500 – how many of my buddies? 4. Ive served with four guys who have died, another dozen or so wounded.

        And again, is there any difference between the “if your not completely for paul, your for war” meme and the Zio’s “If you criticize Israel without criticizing China for the Tibet occupation, your a bigot” meme?

        We’re cutting back on the safety net NOW, so, lets not pretend that a Paul presidency wouldn’t get to do further cutting, especially when you consider that if he won, the Republicans would almost assuredly control congress…

        But what would I know, Im just a fat liberal from some college town who has never lived in or near a city, never served in the military, has no idea about economic theory and loves to cheer lead for war from his cubby at his local starbucks….(which is what all you guys have accused me of on this thread)
        oh wait. yea, none of that is true, except the fact that I am originally from a college town.

      • MRW
        December 24, 2011, 11:23 am

        Ron Paul’s value is what he would do in foreign policy. He might be worth electing on that point alone. On the domestic economic scene, however, Paul is ignorant. He has zero comprehension of how the Fed works since 1972 operationally.

        Paul still thinks (like any gold standard thinker would…which is dead…we are not on the gold standard) that the US has to take in taxes before it can spend. This is patently false, as a matter of operation. The US Federal Government is a currency issuer. There isn’t one single person in the US Treasury who has to call the IRS to ask what the tax haul is.

        For Paul to have existed in Congress for the decades he has, and for him to still not to know this, is highly problematic. Paul does not know how our federal monetary system works. Period. [Please don’t post any replies about 1913 and the Fed. I know all the arguments. I’ve read all the books. I used to spout this shit myself. I understand all the arguments. But those concerns died with Bretton Wood in 1944 and they were skewered in 1972 when the gold standard was removed.]

        Paul’s lack of understanding of how the federal monetary system works makes his attitude towards social issues a concern.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 3:19 pm

        Do you mean reading as well as peddling? I was not born with a silver spoon. I’ve mentioned my background often enough on MW.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 24, 2011, 3:49 pm

        @ MRW: Paul still thinks (like any gold standard thinker would…which is dead…we are not on the gold standard) that the US has to take in taxes before it can spend. This is patently false, … The US Federal Government is a currency issuer. … Paul does not know how our federal monetary system works. Period. …

        Oh God, here we go again. MRW, RP knows how the monetary system works far more than you do, as is clearly evidenced by your comments above. In particular: that the ‘US can spend without taking in taxes because it is a currency issuer ‘ is the whole bloody problem!!! Creating money out of thin air articifically lowers the cost of capital which lieads to malinvestment which leads to bubbles which leads to collapses. That’s the problem. And ultimately it leads to hyperinflation and the destruction of the currency. Every. Single. Time.

        So yes, RP knows “how our federal monetary system works.” Moreover, he is one step ahead of you.

        Indeed, the lack of informed commentary on the subject takes one aback. -N49.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 24, 2011, 4:05 pm

        There were no bubbles or crises in pre-Fed or centralized banking capitalism?

      • Keith
        December 24, 2011, 6:13 pm

        MRW- “The US Federal Government is a currency issuer.”

        Aaaaaaaaargh!!!! The US government DOES NOT control the money supply!!!! The FEDERAL RESERVE, a privately controlled bank, controls the money supply. The government borrows money from the PRIVATE banks which create it, hence, DEBT MONEY. If the government took control of the Fed, it could create sovereign money, which would solve a lot of problems. This is not the same as Ron Paul’s desire to eliminate the central bank, which would be a disaster.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 24, 2011, 11:37 pm

        @ Dan: There were no bubbles or crises in pre-Fed or centralized banking capitalism?

        Yes, but they tended to be sharper and shorter and the damage was corresponding quite limited. For example, TulipMania lasted about six months. Yes, a lot of (dumb) people got hurt, but it did not disrupt the farmers in england, for example. Nowadays, in a pure fiat system, the bubbles are like a set of rollong tsunamis that take a decade to get going but turn into monsters that can take out a continent or two.


      • Citizen
        December 25, 2011, 11:11 am

        N-49, MRW sent me a link 2 a 117 p pdf book which argues 4 his position, but so far, I still come down the same way you do here–I don’t think your logic has been cancelled by the book, but maybe I’m too retarded in abstract economic theory.MRW himself has only stated abstract terms, so the jury’s out 4 me, but so far, I still agree with your comment.

        PS the link to the pdf book MRW sent is somewhere up on this thread.

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 1:11 pm

        The environment is being fracked,the labor is going south,the FCC is a monopoly agent,the FDA a bad drug enabler,the FED is bankrupting US,FEMA is a corrupt corporate money bomb and the DE is overseeing declining education while enriching privatization criminals,and you think they are doing good?And labor dept.,do you mean the search for immigrant slaves while destroying unions?
        Are you really that deep in mushroom land?
        And Likud has been in power in Israel,while the John Birch Society has never been more than a fringe group.So where are the critiques by the MSM of Likud?(couldn’t locate the previous comment,sorry)

      • MRW
        December 26, 2011, 6:33 pm

        Keith, the US Federal government absolutely is the monopoly supplier of US currency. Where do you think it comes from?

        Chicken or egg problem
        Let’s say 5,000 of us want to create a country on a new piece of land in the middle of the Pacific. We elect 100 as our government. Now we need to create money to get our economy growing and build roads, etc. We’re going to call our dough Pacificas. Let’s say Mooser is the champeen road builder among the remaining 4900. Where does the money–our new Pacificas–come from to pay Mooser to build the roads? From Mooser? Or from the fledgling nation which spends those Pacificas by crediting Mooser’s bank account for the infrastructure job? (Besides, Mooser needs those physical paper, or coin, Pacificas from the bank to buy smokes from the tobacco farmer down on the SE tip while he’s laying asphalt.)

        Keith, the Federal government doesn’t borrow money from private banks. It spends $ by crediting the recipient’s bank at the bank’s reserve account at the Fed. ‘Private’ banks bank at the Fed where a checking account is called a reserve account, and a savings account is called a securities account. So does the US govt. (BTW, the US Treasury is constitutionally in charge of minting its own coins. Technically, the US Treasury could mint 14 coins with a declared value of one-trillion dollars each manana if it wanted to, and pay off the debt. It was actually suggested last year.)

        Read these:
        Long (explains it)

        Paul Krugman is finally coming around to understand this too:

      • MRW
        December 26, 2011, 6:34 pm

        Citizen and N49, you will be interested in these too. Especially the 2nd link for Citizen.

        [Couldn’t answer before. Login page unavailable.]

        Long (explains it. you can’t read in one sitting, so bookmark it, but read the first screen, at least, now)

        Paul Krugman is finally coming around to understand this too, 11/11/11:

      • Keith
        December 26, 2011, 8:19 pm

        MRW- “Keith, the US Federal government absolutely is the monopoly supplier of US currency. Where do you think it comes from?”

        As I indicated in my comment above, “The FEDERAL RESERVE, a privately controlled bank, controls the money supply.” The Federal Reserve is owned by the member banks which are privately held. The Fed is NOT a government entity, although it masquerades as one. The government borrows from the private banks including the Fed when they buy US Treasuries. Yes, the Treasury mints coins. Yes, the Treasury could take over the Fed and issue sovereign money instead of continuing to borrow (sell Treasuries) to increase the money supply. There is a long history to the private banks taking over money creation. I am away from home and my reference material or I would supply a number of quotes. I am neither ignorant, stupid, or joking. The government does not, Not, NOT create the money supply. Private banks do and loan it into the system with ultimately catastrophic consequences. Wall Street is currently engaged in financial warfare against the planet, creating a controlled depression. Up until about two years ago, I also thought that the government controlled the money supply and created new money as required to service the real economy. It seemed to make sense. How else would a sane person do it? When I found out the truth, I almost fell over. Private financiers controlling the money supply for private profit at the expense of the real economy? It is totally insane. It is what we have now. No joke! Note: if you are only referring to “currency,” a small part of the total money supply, suggest you read the writing on some of your bills. You will note that they are all Federal Reserve Notes. Basically, our “sovereign” money consists of coins.

      • Keith
        December 26, 2011, 9:16 pm

        MRW- Two references from memory are Ellen Hodgsom Brown, “Web of Debt” at

        And the Damon Vrabel series, Renaissance 2.0 at

    • iamuglow
      December 22, 2011, 1:20 pm

      Are those direct quotes from his mouth or are they from the newsletter? If they are from the newsletter than I accept what he said about them….they were written by someone else.

      If they are from his mouth, they are bigoted views that will make me like him less, but it doesn’t change my wanting to see him succeed as the nominee and become a force in this election.

      He came out in support of Manning the other day. He has praised wikileaks. He condemns the Iran war plans, he pushes back against AIPAC. These are important positions that none of the other candidates will touch. It’s smart to always be looking for the “real agenda” but you can’t hold out waiting for the perfect candidate. For people hoping for change in US FP and I/P, strategically, IMO, Ron Paul is the person to back.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 7:04 pm

        I agree with you, imuglow. He did not write the racist slurs, nor did he seem them when they were published, but he says he takes moral responsibility for them as they came out under his name magazine–2o years ago. He has specifically disavowed them. Compare, say Gingrich, who has recently talked about “invented” Palestinians, and Obama, who referenced his own maternal grandmother as “a typical white woman,” and dissed selected white folks as “bible and gun carrying.”

    • American
      December 22, 2011, 1:41 pm

      Just one correction……..the South doesn’t consider Texas part of the actual South. So Paul isn’t from down South. Texas is looked at by most of the South as similar to something like Australia which stared off in some part with former penal colony residents.

      • pineywoodslim
        December 22, 2011, 10:09 pm

        In Louisiana we did. But in Louisiana, they also considered North Carolinians to be almost yankees.

    • lysias
      December 22, 2011, 2:56 pm

      There’s a reason Ron Paul doesn’t have a Southern accent. He’s originally from Pittsburgh. He and his family didn’t move to Texas until 1968, when he was 32 or 33 years old.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 3:45 pm

        You ever been to Pittsburgh though? Pennsyl-tucky is geographically in the north, but its a southern sensibilty. you are right though, cheers lysias

      • teta mother me
        December 22, 2011, 4:17 pm

        southern sensibility???? south of what, Ireland?

        Pittsburgh has not yet emerged from the era of immigrant/ethnic neighborhoods. Deutschtown is experiencing a revival, Polish Hill is next to the Italian section of the city, and there are almost as many places to buy pierogi as pizza.
        There are probably more houses built by German laborers in the late 1800s in Pittsburgh than in any other place in the US — those suckers are built to last.

        True, tho, not much factory work left in Pittsburgh; the economy is now Eds n Meds — n sports. Hospital franchises own several of the skyscrapers in the city and half of all the other tax exempt property that plagues the tax base, and defense-industry-supported universities undermine the rest of the tax base.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 4:24 pm

        hahaha. is pittsburgh south of ireland? sheeit – i dunno.

        i guess i was referring to the “company town” phenomenon prevalent in pennsylvania and especially in the areas surrounding pittsburgh. its alot like the southern model – dare i say, the feudal model…… ready made labor force for industry, the politics that go along with it……also the epicenter of the “reagan democrats”

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 4:26 pm

        Yes, I have been to Pittsburgh. I’m a native of the Bronx, and I didn’t notice any southern sensibility there.

        Pittsburgh’s congressional district is Pennsylvania 14th. It’s represented in Congress by Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat who was first elected in 1994 and who got 91% of the vote in 2008, only opposed by a Green candidate who got 9% of the vote. The district in 2008 gave Obama 70% of its vote.

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 4:37 pm

        Here’s how Wikipedia describes Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional District:

        Pennsylvania’s 14th congressional district is overwhelmingly Democratic. The district includes the entire city of Pittsburgh, which is solidly Democratic because of its strong ethnic labor, liberal professional, and black voting blocks. A variety of working class and majority black suburbs located to the east of the city are included, such as McKeesport and Wilkinsburg. Also a major part of the district are number of middle class suburbs which have historic Democratic roots, such as Pleasant Hills and Penn Hills.

        I suspect the district went heavily against Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 elections, but I have not been able to find the figures. In both 1980 and 1984, the district voted to the House Rep. William Coyne, a Democrat.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 22, 2011, 4:42 pm

        “Pennsyl-tucky is geographically in the north, but its a southern sensibilty.”

        Well, you have to exclude the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh metro areas. Philadelphia is like the other cities on the Eastern Seaboard (although Philly natives don’t speak anything like that carpet bagger New York douchebag, Sylvester Stallone) and Pittsburgh — the Paris of Appalachia — is “white-immigrant” and working class mid-Western.

        The residents of Carbon or Elk or Juniata counties??? Yeah, Pennsyltucky.

    • libra
      December 22, 2011, 4:10 pm

      Dan, I really don’t think many people go along with every policy and view of Paul. But is there anything wrong thinking Paul’s foreign policy views, as expressed in that powerful video, address the key issue currently facing America and therefore justify supporting him as a candidate?

      Indeed, you seem to indicate that were you to vote then you might even vote for Paul. At least that’s what I take from this statement you made yesterday (21 December):

      “You can go through my archive, Ive said REPEATEDLY that if I were to vote, I would cast my vote for Paul, if given the opportunity. AND, if it were a choice between Paul and a Democrat – Id take Paul all day and twice on sunday.”

      So how do you really differ from someone who decides to support Ron Paul based on their consideration of priorities? People you laughably tar such as “Zi-ron-ists”, conflating them with Zionists.

      You would seem to regard yourself as the only person who is capable of not supporting Paul’s policies wholesale. Indeed, you find so much at fault with him it’s hard to believe you could actually ever vote for him.

      So I find myself asking Dan, are you simply confused by the difficulty of making a balanced choice about Ron Paul or are you for some reason trying to confuse us?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 4:35 pm


        and i promise i will stop spamming this thread……

        Indeed, I view Paul as the only choice a thinking person can make. Having said that, I do find there to be a tendency among his supporters to brush aside what I consider to be deeply disturbing policy stances, and views on society. And, I admit, I have a tendency to paint with a broad brush in this regard. To be sure.

        What I object to most emphatically is reflexive support for anything, let alone a political figure. Now, if Paul is the only choice, and if his supporters and others who would vote for him disagree with some of his policies – I think its incumbent on ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE to say, hey Ron, I agree with you HERE – but think your full of it HERE.

        And I think that this fits in well with a libertarian world view. We should constantly be CHALLENGING not only ourselves, but those who would represent us; its not good enough to say, “well, I like this, but dont like that – but hes the best outta the bunch, im going to vote for him” – No, I think people need to say, ” I like this, I don’t like that and I am going to work to change his mind, and the minds of others on the topic I find objectionable.”

        I dont want to confuse anyone, certainly not. Am I confused? probably….haha

      • libra
        December 22, 2011, 5:12 pm

        DC: “Indeed, I view Paul as the only choice a thinking person can make. Having said that, I do find there to be a tendency among his supporters to brush aside what I consider to be deeply disturbing policy stances, and views on society. And, I admit, I have a tendency to paint with a broad brush in this regard. To be sure.”

        Then Dan, you would do both yourself and everyone else a service by limiting yourself to saying something along the lines “despite my (deep) reservations about Paul’s policies on X etc, I support him because of his policies on Y etc, which I believe are more important today for these reasons…”.

        Additionally, I think those who support Paul’s foreign policy but with domestic policy reservations should reflect on whether the checks and balances still functioning within the US political system would limit how much radical change Paul could effect domestically as opposed to change he could effect in foreign policy.

        Anyway, thanks for your response. It made sense to me.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 7:16 pm

        Yes, it does make sense; so does your additional point that it would be harder for Paul to make change in domestic policy than in foreign policy. I can see him doing so, and taking in plain language to the American people about why he wants such change in foreign policy.

      • G. Seauton
        December 23, 2011, 1:33 am

        Ron Paul opposes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He voted to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. He supported an amendment to the Constitution to allow school prayer, although he considers himself a constitutionalist. He has proposed ending the student loan program. On this last point, he said,

        Q: We are looking at student loan debt that is near $1 trillion. How would you make college more affordable?
        PAUL: Well, I think you proved that the policy of student loans is a total failure. I mean, a trillion dollars of debt? And what have they gotten? A poorer education and costs that have skyrocketed because of inflation, and they don’t have jobs. There’s nothing more dramatically failing than that program. There’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education. We should get rid of the loan programs. We should get rid of the Department of Education and give tax credits, if you have to, to help people.
        Q: But how do they pay for it? How do they now pay for college?
        PAUL: The way you pay for cellphones and computers. You have the marketplace there. There’s competition. Quality goes up. The price goes down.
        Source: 2011 CNBC GOP Primary debate in Rochester MI , Nov 9, 2011

        Ron Paul believes that the magic of an unregulated market will cure all that ails us. Too bad for the least fortunate among us if the cure doesn’t take effect in their lifetimes.

        He’s definitely the candidate who most vehemently opposes war and interventionism. For that, bravo. But too many of his other positions are extreme Ayn Randian market fetishism.

      • seafoid
        December 23, 2011, 4:19 am

        Q: But how do they pay for it? How do they now pay for college?
        PAUL: The way you pay for cellphones and computers. You have the marketplace there. There’s competition. Quality goes up. The price goes down.

        the State must intervene where the market fails. Privatisation doesn’t work in education. Or in environment.
        The market is too corrupt.
        The only answer is to raise taxes. Ultimately the US loses competitiveness when it underfunds education and passes on all the costs to the public. This will play out very badly over the next 30 years.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 10:07 am

        Ron Paul: “There’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education.”

        This is the kind of bullshit statement that makes me reject him. Here, he is wrong. Absolutely, 100%, flat out, undeniably, wrong. The case law is clear on this, the language of the Constitution is clear on this. He may think that we should decide that the federal government shouldn’t deal with education, but to say that there is no authority is, frankly, a crank position.

        So is he lying, stupid or ignorant?

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 11:44 am

        Woody, none of the above. He is saying there is no specific authority in the words of the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education. That’s not a crank stance. It was implied, if memory serves, thorough the “general welfare” clause. Much has been implied over the years by courts via that clause; another big one is the Commerce Clause.

        Letter of law v spirit of law, confines of Constitution v spirit of Constitution.
        Judicial history shows we go from one extreme to the other in interpreting the Constitution.

        Education, since not specified in the Constitution, has in the past been left to the individual states. Now we have both with since federal power in education has not never been held as preempting the area. Federal power is largely that of giving or withholding federal funding to help local education. Ron Paul takes that stance on lots of things. It is very much in the American tradition albeit lots of areas are now preempted by Federal governent.

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 11:53 am

        Here, Woody, is what Ron Paul knows, but you, apparently do not:

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 2:23 pm


        “He is saying there is no specific authority in the words of the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education. That’s not a crank stance.”

        No, that is a crank stance, because nowhere in the history of American law has a requirement of “specific authority in the words” been a basis for determine specific constitutionality. There is no “specific authority in the words” to establish an Air Force. It doesn’t make ours unconstitutional.

        “It was implied, if memory serves, thorough the ‘general welfare’ clause. Much has been implied over the years by courts via that clause; another big one is the Commerce Clause.”

        This is exactly the problem I’m referring to. You seem to be making a distinction between things you believe are “specific authority in the words” and those which are “implied” with the former being legitimate and the latter, which are not. But that rationale simply has never been an accepted method of constitutional interpretation.

        It’s the equivalent of having a layman’s take on osteology and starting by making up your own names for all the bones. It might be interesting, but it is not, in any manner, serious.

        “Education, since not specified in the Constitution, has in the past been left to the individual states.”

        There is a fundamental difference between saying that we have made a political decision to leave education to the states and saying that constitution does not allow the federal government to get involved in education (or, as Paul said, “no authority”). The latter is 100% false.

        This all stems from the myth of limited government. We have a federal government with specific, but not terribly limited powers — but, with nearly limitless grants of authority within those powers. Basically, within those very broad specific powers, the government is empowered to exercise any authority, save for that which violates an other part of the Constitution. That does not mean that we must or even should exercise all of that power. Indeed, we should not. But that does not mean that that power does not exist, which is Paul’s position.

        “Here, Woody, is what Ron Paul knows, but you, apparently do not: link to”

        Yeah, you can find fringe sites like that all over the internet, usually decked out in Charles Wilson Peale, Benjamin West or John Trumbull paintings, usually some calligraphy or script font, and pushing idiosyncratic interpretations that rely heavily on non-binding secondary authorities, logical errors and a manifest refusal to understand what it means to have a common law legal system. (And, more often than not, they are nothing more than religious kooks and reactionaries who are pressing an anti-progressive political ideology.) They are the equivalent of the sites that attempt to “prove” evolution false by quoting the bible or show Einstein wrong by talking about crystals.

        I mean, really, the site you referenced attempts to demonstrate that the involvement of the federal government is unconstitutional, and it cites a grand total of two cases, (one limited to a footnote and the other consisting of the argument that Benjamin Cardozo’s interpretation of the Constitution was wrong, essentially because it disagreed with the rationale of that brilliant legal mind, Kelly L. Morgan.) It is almost impossible to describe how nonsensical such an approach is under our system. It demonstrates that the author does not merely fail to reach the right answer, and does not merely fail to ask the right question, he demonstrates that he does not even know how to ask the right question.

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 3:39 pm

        Woody, are you an American lawyer, having graduated from an American law school, and with a license to practice? It does not sound like you are an American law school graduate. Let us know.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 9:14 pm

        “Woody, are you an American lawyer, having graduated from an American law school, and with a license to practice? It does not sound like you are an American law school graduate. Let us know.”

        What would it matter if I were not or were? (Besides running afoul of the appeal to authority fallacy?) Isn’t the substance of the matter the most important thing? After all, Ron Paul isn’t a lawyer.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 4:24 am

        Woody, you don’t know the substance of US Constitutional Law. Any law second year law student would find your attempt at it as reflected in your comments on this thread a joke. I don’t know what your field of expertise is, but is it one where you have to have sophisticated knowledge? Did you have to go through 3 years of graduate training to gain a certificate of proficiency? And then more study and testing to gain a license to practice it? Do you have to do regular further education to keep up with your specialty and generally? Or can anyone who can read and write English just jump in and be up to par with your own expertise? Ron Paul’s knowledge of Constitutional law, as expressed, indicates he has been tutored by lawyers on Constitutional law. You obviously have not.

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 9:41 am


      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 9:48 am

        g. seauton, you nailed it

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 10:28 am

        privatization also doesn’t work in health care insurance

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 24, 2011, 12:27 pm

        @ Citizens, LMAO. And so, when faced with a challenge to point out where you think I am wrong, you are reduced to mindless and ignorant ad hominem attacks. How typical of Paulite, libertarian dimwits. But, then again, no one ever accused him, or any of you worshipers, of being serious thinkers. He’s a racist, religious lunatic and career politician. What’s your excuse??

        “Ron Paul’s knowledge of Constitutional law, as expressed, indicates he has been tutored by lawyers on Constitutional law.”

        LMAO. No, he’s a hustler who will listen to any right-wing libertarian hack who professes things that jibe with his preformed “ideas” — dumbasses like Lew Rockwell or the aforementioned joke, Kelly Morgan (LOL) — without any regard for whether these claims are true or even reasoned.

        Finally, anyone who thinks that the idea that the Constitution has established a small government with limited powers, after Wickard v. Filburn, — 70 years old and still good law — literally has no clue whatsoever what he is talking about. You people are living in a fantasy world where you put what you want the Constitution to mean over what it has actually been held to mean.

        The man is a crank, as are his followers.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 3:27 pm

        G Seauton, you should watch Judge Judy once in a while; you will encounter a pattern of people who appear before her who really scam the federal, state, and local government education aid programs, often to the point of entitlement absurdity. That said, I think community colleges are a wonderful thing.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 7:18 pm

      Whatsa matter? Your Zionist paradise crumbling beneath you? Is that what makes you so hateful and bitter. Where’s you LINK buddy? Get back to hasbara central and tell them without CREDIBLE LINKS this smear STINKS.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 22, 2011, 8:20 pm

        wait, am i being called a zionist? HAHAHAHAHAAHAAAA…

      • Citizen
        December 23, 2011, 3:41 pm

        Dan C, why do you always let us know you are laughing at our comments?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 23, 2011, 4:41 pm

        my bad, sorry.

      • kalithea
        December 23, 2011, 6:14 pm

        I wasn’t replying to you.

    • dahoit
      December 24, 2011, 10:41 am

      Yeah,and Lincoln said,if I could preserve the Union and not end slavery,I would do so,(not the exact quote)does that make him a bad guy instead of our most heroic POTUS?Did Robert Byrd’s KKK connections make him a bad guy after his conversion?How much do you want to bet that northern whites are just as racist as southern whites,and that the KKK was a reaction to forced integration that the north to this day enacts the with same mindset with blacks and minorities living in separate communities(except for day slaves who commute out) than whitey,and to deny it is laughable.
      And that quote from that newsletter(that he denied writing)about the welfare check deal is a staple of whitey humor from FDR to the present,expressed by alleged phony liberals to conservatives,but don’t let it worry your perfect little mind of hypocrisy.
      And look at our society,with ghettos,poverty and joblessness ignored and perpetuated by neolibcon scum who are the worst racists who ever lived.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 3:31 pm

        dahoit, back in the day the neolibcon scum would lecture we had to bus kids to achieve a good society, but I noticed their neighborhood kids never got bussed. The phrase for them back then was “limousine liberals.”

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 11:38 am

        Or hypocrites.

  4. Charon
    December 22, 2011, 12:10 pm

    Ron Paul isn’t racist. This newsletter, which was not written by Paul, was also briefly brought up nearly four years ago during his previous campaign. It was brought up, ‘debunked’ and not brought up again until this campaign where it’s been tossed around from time to time. Now apparently because Paul is likely going to win Iowa, they’re trying to smear him with the only real dirt they have. I’m not a fan of Alex Jones, but according to infowars, this is being pushed by a ‘Gingrich-Linked Propagandist:’

    I do agree that he has to do a better job apologizing and putting it behind him, walking away from interviews is only going to be spun against him by opponents.

    Another Alex Jones link (sorry) from an NAACP president who has known Paul for 20 years:

    Paul’s campaign team should find some racist or sexist dirt on any of his opponents. I think I read that Michele Bachmann is involved with a camp that’s supposed to make gay people straight. Anders Breivik may have even attended it (it is said he is a Bachmann supporter and was in Lake Elmo, MN last year which is where the camp is located.. proves nothing but you never know, that’s a random place to visit for the Norwegian psycho). If Ron Paul had David Duke’s past, I wouldn’t support him. The good thing is he doesn’t and he isn’t a racist. The bad thing is this is the kind of smear that people buy into.

    • Chu
      December 22, 2011, 12:44 pm

      It’s a real shame that the Donald Trump moderated Debate was cancelled on Dec. 27th. I’m sure he could have gotten to the bottom of Dr. Paul’s secret hatred of all other races. After all, he resolved Obama’s birth certificate…

      Perhaps Bachman will have a new angle to hammer away at Paul.
      She is a real tactician when it comes to hammering out a message,
      like obamacare.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2011, 1:11 pm

      The bipartisan status quo would take anybody except Ron Paul. This tells me a lot.

      • Charon
        December 22, 2011, 3:49 pm

        Exactly, Citizen. It’s strange to see so many differing opinions. If a lot of us agree that the way US and politicians treat I/P is not based on reality, why trust them with anything else? Ron Paul’s ideas are radical and different. But that’s what needs to be done in order to change things. If the man was president, he very well could be fighting Congress to change anything for the length of his term, but I’d still rather give him a chance than any of the other business-as-usual candidates (that includes Obummer). People are afraid of change. It’s odd to see WP comments defending the same people who are robbing them. The victim defending the perpetrator and saying the crime was okay, they liked the crime. More please.

      • pineywoodslim
        December 22, 2011, 10:21 pm

        Agreed about his domestic policies and the unlikelihood of much if any of it passing congress.

        But as commander in chief, I think there is much he could do immediately and unilaterally—and for the better–as well as in foreign policy in general and at the UN.

        I changed my registration today from dem to repub in order to attend the republican caucus and vote for Paul (I live in Iowa, obviously). I am unsure if I would vote for him in the general if nominated–definitely not Obama, but I would love him to get the nomination and bring his foreign policy issues to the forefront of national debate.

      • American
        December 23, 2011, 12:05 am

        “but I would love him to get the nomination and bring his foreign policy issues to the forefront of national debate.”

        That is the main reason why we should try to make him the Repub nominee.
        And in reality even if he won the WH he would never be able to get some of his more extreme policies passed by congress…if by repubs. Likely we would have just what we need…a congress unable to do a damn thing…frozen.

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 11:08 am

        The extremists are not Dr.Paul,they are the rest of our government.
        Wouldn’t it be nice if America was run for America’s interest instead of Zio fat cats,like Sheldon Adelson,who made his fortune on gambling,a non favorable Biblical suggestion?ignored by alleged pious adherents of the most favored by Yahweh’s people?
        Houses built on sand fail to endure.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 7:24 pm

      “I’m not a fan of Alex Jones, but according to infowars, this is being pushed by a ‘Gingrich-Linked Propagandist”

      Yeah, and the Zionist Lobby is sniffing everyone’s shorts to ensure Gringrich and everyone else, including Democrats, have an endless supply of this bullshit to hurl at Paul.

    • dahoit
      December 26, 2011, 11:49 am

      Sorry folks,as human animals we are all capable of racist thought,as it is part of our DNA,and anyone who believes in their own infallible purity is full of ca ca poo poo.
      It’s acting on those thoughts that becomes the racism,and watch,soon,all such thoughts will be eliminated except among those chosen few of nobility who will eschew the Citizenchip implanted among the Hoi Pollois infants.
      I guarantee that that bit about the welfare check reception and the riot stopping was looked on with at least nodding and amusing agreement by 99% of whites and minorities(Asians) who aren’t on welfare.This attitude has been engrained in American discourse since Welfare’s inception.But aren’t the real racists the ones who actually enact policies that hurt these minorities by denying them economic opportunity,by giving them jobs instead of the prison industrial complex,the drug wars,and trade steals that impoverish?

  5. Scott
    December 22, 2011, 12:15 pm

    It’s remarkable how much less racial tension there is in the US now than a generation ago. Al Sharpton might well support Ron Paul, at least among Republicans, and I’m sure they would get along. But both were (equally I would submit) engaged in race-baiting twenty or so years ago. The edge was taken off race by the Clinton administration, a full employment economy, a peaking and leveling off of out of wedlock births, welfare reform, and perhaps most of all, a drop in crime–crime being as bad as white racism for poisoning relations between the races. It’s stunning that what seemed a major issue–(from wherever you stood, and I was a neocon then) twenty years ago, is minor today. Paul should apologize (and so should Sharpton, and others). I might vote for either one, today.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2011, 1:14 pm

      You equate Ron Paul with Sharpton? I wanna puke.

      • kalithea
        December 22, 2011, 7:33 pm

        Lol! Definitely not a serious analogy. Ron Paul is creating an earthquake by challenging all the corrupt sacred cows of the establishment; Al Sharpton hardly the balls to make this kind of impact.

  6. Chu
    December 22, 2011, 12:22 pm

    Here comes the media attack : Paul walks out of interview on CNN/Gloria Borger

    It seems like the strategy is to tar him an not only an anti-semite, but also someone who hates all others races that are not white. Whoever said the media was left wing? They are salesman for those with deep pockets. Borger has got it rammed so deep in her mouth, it’s often difficult to understand what her message is because she is chocking on it.

    • slowereastside
      December 22, 2011, 4:29 pm

      And did you catch her closing snipe, Israel/WTC ’93 bombing blah blah, that she pukes out at the end of the video? Yeah, Borger is definitely gross.

      • Chu
        December 22, 2011, 9:45 pm

        Borger is great. She proves how corrupt the media is. She seems to hate herself and her cynicism. I would, being a shill like her.

      • slowereastside
        December 24, 2011, 2:12 pm
  7. atime forpeace
    December 22, 2011, 12:24 pm

    I will take Rons prejudices over those of the rest of the establishments any day.
    Ron Paul, change you can count on.

    personally i am content that Ron will get an audience and will be able to speak to the american people, they may hear things that their mommies and daddies in the msm would never have given their consent for their kiddies to hear, and therein lies the problem for Rons candidacy.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2011, 1:16 pm

      True, atime forpeace, god forbid Dick n Jane get to hear Ron Paul. Why, we might have a chance for real positive change.

  8. dbroncos
    December 22, 2011, 12:44 pm

    Paul’s admirable foreign policy views are more than cancelled out by his domestic policy proposals: abolish the EPA, Dept. of Education, Medicare, Social Security, no taxes on the rich, etc.

    There’s no chance he’ll get the nomination but if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire he may succeed in being taken seriously as a candidate, at least for a week or two, and having some attention paid to his foreign policy views. That would be an uncomfortable moment for establishment types from both parties and it would make the Republican party look even more schizophrenic than it is already.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2011, 1:19 pm

      dbroncos, so you prefer WW3 to Ron Paul’s call to make all Americans put in something in the kitty for their freedom and benefits, however small?

      • Avi_G.
        December 22, 2011, 1:50 pm


        It seems to me that you are oversimplifying things.

    • lysias
      December 22, 2011, 4:15 pm

      If he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire and is then denied the nomination, there is an excellent chance he would run as a third-party candidate. Like in 1912 with Teddy Roosevelt.

      And, in the circumstances of this year, especially if the economy is bad enough, he would have a real chance of winning in a three-way race.

      But, even if he didn’t win, he could give his views and issues a real airing in the campaign. They could hardly keep him out of the debates.

    • dahoit
      December 24, 2011, 10:53 am

      Oh man,more horsehockey.How’s the EPA,FDA,Education Dept.,Medicare and SS doing?Last I looked every program to help US has become a corporate enrichment scheme,with more unemployment,less education,bad legal drugs,poverty stricken seniors(yeah like you could live on a thousand bucks a month)health costs rising and the destruction of our economy while brazen thieves hover over our bones like vultures.
      And those vultures fear and hate Dr.Paul(and US),as he will end their carcass picking.

  9. Krauss
    December 22, 2011, 1:45 pm

    Ron Paul did not write them, but he was aware of them and did nothing because he got 1 million dollars per annum for them.

    I think he just didn’t think that they would do harm – and they didn’t. But of course it’s a flaw. But Obama was close to Jeremiah Wright – for 20+ years! And he has given a continual stream of fodder for anti-Semitism.

    But does that make Obama an anti-Semite? No, but rather casual around those who espouse it. The difference is that the newsletters went out for 5 or so years. Obama was around Wright for over 4 times as long.

    Ron Paul is still a better candidate than Gingrich/Romney, but he has flaws. All candidates do.

    But his domestic program is a disaster in waiting. I could never vote for him, but I hope his rise will help change the debate on foreign policy. The neocons fear him, and that is reason enough to be mildly hopeful he gets as much exposure as possible while I privately hope he does not become President(I wouldn’t mind him becomming GOP nominee, even if I think it is unlikely, and then losing to Obama).

    Hopefully this will spur a change in the right direction in the GOP. There is already warweariness among the Democrats. If the neocon grip of the Republican discussion can be weakened, we can see a joint Dem/Rep alliance between the bases of the parties in revolt against the corrupted elites. Preferably with help from supportive intellectuals and journalists. People like Glenn Greenwald, Finkelstein and others.

    • lysias
      December 22, 2011, 3:03 pm

      A President Paul would have to get his domestic program through Congress.

      The wars, on the other hand, he could end all by himself.

    • dahoit
      December 26, 2011, 11:58 am

      To paraphrase Hudson in Aliens,”We just had our economic asses handed to US by neolibcon lizards,haven’t you been watching?”Are you a bankster?
      And as far as Reverend Wright,he seems like an astute patriot,who was used by Obomba and discarded when he served his purpose,in a Judas like maneuver.

  10. DICKERSON3870
    December 22, 2011, 2:11 pm

    RE: “But that doesn’t mean I’d vote for Paul. I might– but he’s got to do a much better job of apologizing for that racism and putting it behind him.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I can see myself voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, and then voting for Rocky Anderson in the general election come November of next year. This assumes that Georgia’s electoral votes will be going to the Republican nominee, no matter how I vote. If polls next fall indicate that Obama has a shot at Georgia’s electoral votes (or if Ron Paul is the Republican Nominee), then I will have a very difficult choice to make.

    The Justice Party, Rocky Anderson & OWS

    Rocky Anderson a progressive alternative to Obama

    • yourstruly
      December 24, 2011, 10:32 am

      didn’t know about rocky anderson possibily running as the justice party candidate. for a candidate that’s right on both domestic and international issues, he could be the one. thanks, d3870

  11. mhuizenga
    December 22, 2011, 2:16 pm

    Kind of a shame that this is coming out now. Paul should have addressed these sooner. The newsletters are not a dealbreaker for me because I’ve known about Paul and researched him for years. He’s not a racist, but voters who have less info on him might buy this line. Paul is the only candidate who is for real change. Romney, Gingrich, or Obama? Meh…only minor differences among these 3 centrists. If Ron Paul gets pushed out of the race from this garbage, establishment politics as usual will return. If that happens, I just hope these bought politicians will muster up some prudence about starting more wars. I don’t want to have to watch any more of my military family and friends come home wrecked from them.

    For a much more articulate quasi defense of Paul, you should read Conor Friedersdorf’s article today at the Atlantic, It is by far, the most honest and nuanced discussion of this issue I have seen (at least from the libertarian point of view).

  12. Bandolero
    December 22, 2011, 2:16 pm

    I disagree with Andrew Sullivan. Labeling the medial attack on Ron Paul a “smear campaign by neocons” doesn’t hit the nail on it’s head.

    What it would much better fit would be a zionist driven smear campaign with the Israel lobby in the driver seat. Having Ron Paul on top of the Iowa polls and polling top amongst republican candidates against Barack Obama, the zionist lobby is scared like hell. Ron Paul is not only going to end the US fighting wars for Israel, but he is also going to go after the FED, which is the most important zionist power base.

    One sentence in the NYT (isn’t the NYT a mouth piece of the Israel lobby?) is very revealing, what this is all about.

    “The question now is whether the newsletters’ reappearance will hurt Mr. Paul with some of his younger supporters.”

    As a publisher Ron Paul has responsibility for these newsletters published some 20 years ago, just like the NYT and other MSM have responsibility for their non stop war propaganda. However, the racial slurs in these newsletters published some 20 years ago were not written by Ron Paul, they don’t reflect his beliefs and they never did so. Ron Paul is not a racist – and he never was.

    His “disgrantled former employee” and anti-muslim freedom fighter Eric Dondero, who seems to be the source for most of the insider information on the newsletters, confirmed this recently:

    Many here in the comments section have called Ron Paul, an „anti-Semite.“ I wouldn’t use that phrase exactly. I worked for the guy for 12 years, and never once heard an anti-Semitic word come out of his mouth. He has absolutely no problem with Jewish Americans.

    However, he is most certainly Anti-Israel. He wishes Israel did not exist at all. He told me so numerous times. His basic view is that the Israeli State is much more trouble than it’s worth, and costs the American taxpayer way too much money; better to hand it over to the Arabs he said to me on numerous occasions.

    If that is not a strong motivation for the Israel lobby wanting to do anything to prevent Ron Paul from becoming president, what then? So I’ld expect the most ugly smear campaign in history of the U.S. if Ron Paul manages to step forward with his campaign.

    Will be interesting what ammunition the lobby will use. First they tried to attack him based on his foreign policy. It didn’t work. Then they accused him of not being a friend of Israel. It didn’t work. Then the NYT got Paul Krugman to smear his monetary policy. It diddn’t work.

    Now they try to use the newsletter story published over and over already years ago to alienate his younger and liberal leaning potential supporters and voters. I doubt it will work, and hope the young and educated people see through the intention of the establishment behind the smear campaign. But let’s wait and see.

    My judgement: Being editor of a newsletter was in these ancient times a bit like being a blog owner today. It’s usually common sense that it’s a bad idea to jugde a blog owner by the comments other people publish there. The lobby seems have nothing better to smear Ron Paul anymore – except a story that’s already 20 years old.

    • dahoit
      December 26, 2011, 12:06 pm

      I’m surprise Dondero didn’t use that term “He wants to wipe Israel off the map.”
      About 98 % of Americans would not care one iota if Israel didn’t exist,but those same 98 % would be extremely upset if we didn’t exist.
      A normal patriotic attitude,but I bet not reciprocated in Israel,as we are their enablers,and without US they would not have been recreated.
      But Israel,with its arsenal could probably exist without US today,as Dr.Paul has said.

  13. Redruin
    December 22, 2011, 2:38 pm

    The establishment is running scared. The smear campaign against Ron Paul is in full throttle. I can almost smell the desperation they must feel. If Ron Paul is elected there will be no more wars

  14. David Samel
    December 22, 2011, 2:56 pm

    I’ve been giving a lot of thought to whether I would vote for Paul (in the very unlikely event he was the nominee), and am leaning in that direction, despite my disagreement with a number of things on his domestic agenda, some of which are even repulsive. My reasoning is that the most destructive thing the US does in the world today is its foreign policy. It’s not just blind, unwavering support of Israel, which has prevented any chance of a resolution of the conflict and cost thousands of lives. Israel’s crimes are greatly exceeded by our own. If he had been president the past decade, there probably would be over a million lives that would not have been taken. I think Paul is sincere is in his steadfast opposition to our military adventurism. On balance, to me, the benefits of having him in office would outweigh the costs. What’s he going to do – widen the gap between rich and poor? We’ve been experiencing that for 30 years and Obama didn’t do a damn thing about it. Refuse to give us single payer health care, or even the public option?

    In fact, regarding domestic matters related to foreign policy, such as domestic surveillance and civil liberties, he’s also way ahead of Obama and almost all Dems.

    Also, with respect to foreign policy, the president is far more powerful. As for domestic matters, I hope he would have a strong Democratic opposition on many issues. With Obama, Democratic congressmembers have fallen in lockstep with their Dear Leader. But they could not force him to go to war or maintain the ones we already are fighting.

    Still, I have to say, with respect to his newsletters, even if they are over a decade in the past, he’s got some ‘splaining to do (h/t Ricky Ricardo).

    • Annie Robbins
      December 22, 2011, 3:40 pm

      david, that fairly well describes where i am at although you didn’t mention environmental issues which concern me. but i’m at the stage where if i have to weigh the risks to our domestic concerns vs the death of countless foreigners i’d throw my chips in over the life or death issues. if people here are out of a house or in food lines so be it. i just can’t live with my country being an agent of death on a global scale anymore. at it’s expensive running these wars so that money will come home. i’m not sure how it will come home but we’ve got to figure out a way to run our society without depending on military contracts sucking off the feds for endless wars.

      • Bandolero
        December 22, 2011, 4:44 pm

        I disagree that environment concerns should be a big issue against Ron Paul.

        Of course, Ron Paul wants the federal government only to intervene in cross border environment issues. The states would have to regulate environment issues like their people want it. But on cross border environment issues, Ron Paul is rather tough.

        Ron Paul is off the opinion, that environment is “property”. That’s what I heard Ron Paul saying. I disagreee with that position, but: the right to have property is protected very strictly by the libertarian capitalist ideology Ron Paul is following.

        I guess in result for environment protection issues Ron Paul could be even a net positive from what is now reality. Big polluters damage towns, waters, earth and noone holds them accountable.

        So to me the media bringing up environment issues against Ron Paul just looks like another strategy to discredit him when the important issue is to take action against the abuse of power by the zionist lobby.

      • kapok
        December 22, 2011, 7:43 pm

        the environment is toast; there’s no money in caring for it.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 22, 2011, 10:45 pm

        Bandolero : I disagree that environment concerns should be a big issue against Ron Paul.

        well, i didn’t say it should be a big issue against ron paul. i said you didn’t mention environmental issues which concern me.
        i heard paul say one should be able to (paraphrasing) make decisions ‘on his own property’, but not have the right to pollute his neighbor..which takes it to a whole other level. let’s just say i have concern for what happens to future generations after my life span. i have concerns, but your ‘disagreement’ doesn’t align with anything i wrote.

      • Bandolero
        December 23, 2011, 7:11 am

        @Annie Robbins

        I’m sorry for misreading your statement. Please take my apologies.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 23, 2011, 8:38 am

        hey bandolero, no need to apologize and i didn’t take offense. i was just clarifying..i might have sounded too vague initially anyway. and please, anytime, just call me annie.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 10:13 am

        The environment doesn’t stay within borders, so there is no sanity in permitting one state to decimate its own environment (that is even assuming that the people of a state have a right to decimate their own state’s environment. I think that all of America is a trust for all Americans) as it must have an impact on other people in other states.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 10:18 am

        “i heard paul say one should be able to (paraphrasing) make decisions ‘on his own property’, but not have the right to pollute his neighbor”

        And it is this type of private-property fetishism that is at the root of so much environmental damage. For one, it’s damaged or destroyed pretty much every shoreline ecosystem in the US. There are so many ways in which one “making decision on his own property” that can damage the environment, the ecosystem, beyond merely polluting his neighbor, that a strong government must be able to step in to do the things that we as a people want and need, but which there is no individual incentive to do.

        Anyone who wouldn’t say that the federal government has the right to prevent a man from shooting bald eagles on his own property, because it doesn’t “pollute his neighbor,” or anything similar, is a fucking dangerous idiot in my book.

      • Philip Weiss
        December 23, 2011, 10:32 am

        thanks Woody. I shoulda hit this angle. I’m with you all the way here

      • Bandolero
        December 23, 2011, 12:27 pm

        “Anyone who wouldn’t say that the federal government has the right to prevent a man from shooting bald eagles on his own property, because it doesn’t “pollute his neighbor,” or anything similar, is a fucking dangerous idiot in my book.”
        As far as I understand the libertarian school of thought, they are actually concerned with the environment, but just want to do handle it differently.

        Take the preservation of the bald eagles as an example. They are protected by federal laws. If someone kills a bald eagle he goes to prison for porching and is fined for violating federal law for preserving nature.

        The libertarian school of thought would perhaps propose to sell out bald eagles to a private “society for the preservation of nature”. Bald eagles are very valuable private property then. When someone then kills a bald eagle, the offender would be send to prison for property damage and needs to pay damage compensation.

        The very same system could be applied to coastal shores and many other valuable parts of nature. So, there are some thoughts on how to reach the goal of keeping nature in this ideology. Would that work better than what there exists today? I doubt it.

        I could imagine that such liberterian efforts would end up creating a department somewhere in the executive managing “temporarily” a fund for the preservation of nature and laws with special punishments for “property damages of type nature”. So my guess is that in the end it may become litteraly the same as what exists today, just under other names.

        And in my world view calling mother nature “property” is an insult. But I’m not afraid for the bald eagles very much because I know the libertarian environmentalists do care for nature.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 23, 2011, 12:37 pm

        In a recent interview, Ron Paul stated that the federal government does have a role in this issue as referee and enforcer of property rights and arbitration among the states.

        In the case of the bald eagles, I presume that their exalted status would render them either national or international property, thereby making any shooting of them by an individual state liable for prosecution.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 24, 2011, 11:03 am

        agreed. it speaks directly to the capitalist model – nothing in the capitalist mode of production takes into account societal or systemic risks; whether it be your neighbor, people living near streams in west virginia or everyday people in the middle east…you pay solely for the commodity, contracts are between two parties and thats that…..

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 3:55 pm

        Dan C, but pure capitalism, like pure socialism, does not exist in any country, does it?

      • Dan Crowther
        December 26, 2011, 11:57 am

        Yes, I think it is fair to say. In my view of “pure socialism” there are no “states” as they are today.

        What I was referring to was the inability of capital to regulate its behavior on its own. If there is money in killing Bald Eagles, Bald Eagles are gonna get got…..The Great Prophet’s Of Capitalism knew this to be true, so they said the state (which in their view, was nothing more than the owners of society getting together and making decisions) would have to make sure things didn’t get out of control…

    • Chu
      December 22, 2011, 3:45 pm

      I agree. If he is able to surpass the Republican establishment, he may be a better choice than our current leader that promised changed and delivered relatively nothing. This man offers a change against corrupt Washington that is appealing to a cynical public.

    • Scott
      December 22, 2011, 4:15 pm

      David Samel,
      I agree completely. I contributed to the campaign yesterday–ignoring the things I don’t like or agree with. I don’t expect him to get the nomination, but he can help break the war mindset in the GOP, and encourage Dems who feel likewise. It’s the most important thing.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 7:40 pm

        Ditto here, Scott. I also voted for Paul and contributed to his campaign last primary cycle, and when faced with Obama/Beiden v McCain/Palin, I voted for Obama. I won’t vote for any GOP candidate except Paul & I won’t vote for Obama. So, now what for me?

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 10:42 am

        rocky anderson?

      • dahoit
        December 24, 2011, 11:24 am

        He’s hanging out with Bullwinkle in Minnesota looking for Boris and Natasha with Peter Venkman.

    • dahoit
      December 26, 2011, 12:08 pm

      Nah,Americas crimes far exceed Israel’s,just ask the multi- millions slain by US,and the million?slain by Israel.
      That’s why we need Dr.Paul,because he will limit both wacky actors.

  15. libra
    December 22, 2011, 3:11 pm

    Ron Paul seems a uniquely polarising candidate, his set of policies and views are unlikely to appeal across the board except to a certain type of libertarian. But perhaps there are two broad groups, those who like his domestic policy but not his foreign policy and those who like his foreign policy but not his domestic policy.

    Here at Mondoweiss, it is more likely to be the latter group. We perhaps could have a competition: “I love Ron Paul’s foreign policy but X is a deal breaker for me.” How many X’s could we come up with? For Phil, a few days ago X was possibly Paul’s scepticism on global warming, today it’s his alleged racism. Perhaps something else tomorrow.

    But surely a candidate like Ron Paul should be making us question our priorities? If like Phil, you are well aware that America’s current foreign policy is a disaster for both America and (at least) the Middle East then surely that deal breaker must be very real and very present. Can the alleged racism be so important?

    I would have to ask Phil this question. Who is less racist? Someone politically-correct to a fault but who will maintain, if not expand, America’s empire of bases and associated military interventions in the affairs of nations around the world, killing and wounding innocent civilians along the way. Or the somewhat politically-incorrect man who would shut down the bases, end the military interventions and instead offer trade and friendship to current enemies. In other words, is that video really the product of a racist?

    • dahoit
      December 24, 2011, 11:29 am

      Holy Moly,our domestic affairs are in the toilet already,and circling down the drain,all as the result of trade steals,and outsourcing,and corporate piracy.Even the MSM,with all their machinations,cannot hide it.
      Ah.but they try,by pointing their fickle fingers at Putin or some other foreign leader,in their attempts to obfuscate and obscure the reality of their criminality.

  16. ToivoS
    December 22, 2011, 3:18 pm

    Ron Paul is a product of the South. I really cannot hold it against him that 30 years ago he was insensitive to racist language in a newsletter that he published. He has apologized and that is good enough. Recall that George Wallace was forgiven by black voters (he had the backing of many Alabama civil rights groups in his last campaign for Governor) whose previous racism was orders of magnitude worse than the comments in this newsletter.

    It might help if he could get some endorsements from some civil rights groups, or if not that some statements that this shouldn’t be an issue.

    • lysias
      December 22, 2011, 3:32 pm

      [Austin] NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist (Jan. 13, 2008):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 7:45 pm

        In the Iowa debate Paul was the only one who came out directly against the overrepresentation of blacks in our jails and prisons, and he is totally against imprisoning people for holding pot; in fact he is against the whole war on drugs, and against the erosion of our basic civil rights via Homeland Security & its progeny.

    • Scott
      December 22, 2011, 3:44 pm

      I don’t think that’s the reason for the newsletters. I think it’s described here by Michael Dougherty — the low rent Kevin Phillipsian scheme by some libertarian intellectuals to “reach out” to rednecks to make inroads for their brand of libertariananism. Murray Rothbard (smart if quirky guy, NY Jewish I believe) was one of the planners.

    • dahoit
      December 24, 2011, 11:34 am

      And Mitt Romney is a product of the north,the hypocrite section of America,where racism is tolerated and veiled by yuppie politics and media.Please.

    • dahoit
      December 26, 2011, 12:12 pm

      Sir,as a citizen of the North,the racism was and is just as prevalent as in the South’s,and maybe more deceitful,despite alleged liberal claims from gated and elite communities.

    • Charon
      December 22, 2011, 4:00 pm

      Ironic. All the other candidates have been accused of racism toward blacks, Arabs, and Latinos. They’re focusing on Paul because they’re scared. They’re saying if he wins Iowa it will make Iowa ‘irrelevant.’ What a sad state of affairs. Politics, IMO, are not some sort of sacred religious-like topic. When people get offended when you ‘pry’ into their opinions about who they support, those people are ridiculous. Secrecy in politics is a problem for me. Even if you’re just an average middle class joe. IMO, other than Paul, the only ‘serious’ GOP contender is Romney. I wouldn’t vote for Romney unless you like the status quo, war, and are pro-Israel (or Mormon). If you like war and the status quo, I’m sorry to hear that. The other candidates are a joke. Even if Obama is shackled and trying to change things in secret, it’s not good enough. He had plenty of time to grow a pair and instead sucked up to the elite and the status quo.

  17. mhuizenga
    December 22, 2011, 3:45 pm

    Oops. I didn’t see that the Atlantic article had already been linked in the discussion.
    Sorry. Anyway, here’s a nifty article (from NPR of all places!) that succinctly explains Paul’s conservatism and why the establishment Republicans are afraid of him. Surprise, surprise-it’s his opposition to wars mostly!

    • kalithea
      December 23, 2011, 12:47 am

      Funny that. Zionist Democrats kinda use the same strategy, they support social causes so they can turn around and then shove the Zionist agenda down everyone’s throat.

      Not that I agree that Ron Paul is playing that game or any hidden agenda game.

  18. stopaipac
    December 22, 2011, 3:55 pm

    Phil, why in the world would you bother to “promote Paul” when he is advocating extremist Right-wing agenda. Not only his racist views, which are quite well documented, but his views on the environment, labor rights, immigrant rights, and just about every issue except some foreign affairs issues are antithetical to thinking people everywhere. for god’s sakes, he is the darling of the John Birch Society. Hitching the cause of justice for Palestinians to a rightwing fool will ruin our progress in making the issue part of the progressive agenda. Why help associate it with the Bircher cult?

    We don’t need false leaders. We can promote a peaceful, just society that will end US imperialism. Don’t let anyone convince you that we need Ron Paul to do that.

    • Chu
      December 22, 2011, 4:13 pm

      We already have a false leader. I mean why change the status quo, right?

    • libra
      December 22, 2011, 4:16 pm

      Why do you call yourself “stopaipac” when you are so hostile to the only candidate who might just do that?

      I sense something more false about you than Ron Paul.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 22, 2011, 4:27 pm

        heads up libra, i know stopaipac offline, one thing he is not it is false. been on this issue a long long long time.

      • libra
        December 22, 2011, 4:39 pm

        Thanks annie for pointing that out and I apologise to stopaipac for questioning his sincerity on actually stopping AIPAC.

        Yet I do wonder about the reasoning of someone who can write this on the front page of his website and yet be so hostile to Ron Paul:

        “AIPAC had played a key role in fomenting support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  It is playing an even greater role in supporting a future military strike against the people of Iran.”

        I mean, if Ron Paul would not attack Iran, what is the relevance of the support or otherwise of the John Birch Society for him. Who even thinks the John Birch Society is relevant today anyway?

      • lysias
        December 22, 2011, 4:54 pm

        The John Birch Society opposed Bush’s wars.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 22, 2011, 4:54 pm

        if, big if, paul wins the gop nomination (or even if he doesn’t and runs as an independent pulling votes from both sides) we’re in for a hella american conversation libra. paul’s no liberal, he’s certainly no socialist (which is my leaning). it would hurt the poor and the middle class to have so many services cut as well as the privatization of schools..there’s lots of reasons i could strongly oppose a paul presidency. it just so happens i am more angry at our foreign policy that slaughters innocent people as they sleep in their beds. but any way you look at it there are bitter pills all around.

        Who even thinks the John Birch Society is relevant today anyway?

        how old are you? we’re in ugly times and there’s no easy way out of this mess. the last thing i want to see is a fight amongst those of us who want these wars to stop. but let’s not start questioning the motives of people who have been activists for the good of the world and this country, many of them for decades. we’re not going to all agree with eachother, but there is nothing more that the enemy would like than for us to start ripping each others guts out.

      • libra
        December 22, 2011, 5:32 pm

        Annie, we surely both know that in Zionism are up against something that transcends left and right, so any solution is likely to similarly transcend those labels.

        Have you noticed our regular Zionist commenters haven’t bothered with this Ron Paul thread? Even though Paul is the only candidate they don’t have a handle on. They don’t need to because they can rely on those on the left who put ideological purity above results to do their work far more effectively. So I think you should spend more time lecturing the likes of stopaipac than me.

      • stopaipac
        December 22, 2011, 9:11 pm

        “Who even thinks the John Birch Society is relevant today anyway?” that would be my question, Libra. I used to live in Southern California, and thought they more or less faded away, they were becoming a joke even there, way back in the 80’s.

        But they just had a big festival in Reno . and who were the big speakers? The Pauls, of course. and what was their (the John Birch Society) Number One item on their legislative agenda? Laws that will effectively disenfranchise minority and working class voters. (Sad to say, the Council for the National Interest was also there… why they would work so hard to woo support from such a wacky and marginal group, is anyone’s guess… but the JBS is well-funded … that would be my guess… boy, just like politicians as they pander to aipac, others pander to the right-wing.

      • kalithea
        December 23, 2011, 12:29 am

        Someone who accuses Ron Paul of being “a stinking racist”, which is perhaps, exactly the scripted hit Aipac might be putting out on him to assassinate his character and sabotage his campaign, is TRUSTWORTHY?

        Oh yeah it’s just a “coincidence” that all of a sudden “stop” and aipac” are on the same page.

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 12:32 pm

        Isn’t the John Birch Society a right wing American nationalist org. just like Likud is a right wing nationalist party in Israel?And the Birchers are far from the halls of power,unlike Likud.I haven’t heard our MSM critique them.

      • stopaipac
        December 22, 2011, 4:37 pm

        We don’t need no stinking racist politicians, we need a movement. No false messiahs necessary.

      • libra
        December 22, 2011, 4:55 pm

        stopaipac: “We don’t need no stinking racist politicians, we need a movement. No false messiahs necessary.”

        Idealogical purity is everything. OK. In the meantime let’s hope for the Iranian people’s sake we don’t end up with John Bolton as Secretary of State.

      • Bandolero
        December 22, 2011, 4:59 pm

        AIPAC plays politics left and right.

        My impression is: If you really want to stop AIPAC and finish their disastrous policies, you need everyone you can get – left and right.

      • kalithea
        December 23, 2011, 12:20 am

        “No false messiahs”.

        Yeah, I kinda get how your might be a tad cynical about “false messiahs” seeing as how Obama practically summoned angels with harps from the firmament with his soaring baloney and then turned out to be a wet noodle. Believe me, I sympathize! But hopefully you won’t compare someone who prostrates himself on the altar of Aipac to someone who’s ready to kick their ass with STRAIGHT TALK.

      • Shingo
        December 24, 2011, 1:27 am

        Hey Stopaipac,

        Apparently those who should be most concerned about racism are the least concerned about it.

        CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 3:58 pm

        Or Dennis Ross; oh yeah, he was our de facto one for a good stretch.

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 12:34 pm

        Wet noodle,or just a stinking phony liar?

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 11:55 pm

      How can anyone who pretends to be so awake be so utterly BLIND? I don’t believe it. I know you see; just like I do. You see exactly what Ron Paul is doing! Have you “evah” seen anyone speak the truth the way this man is doing? Have you ever seen such a game changer? Mind-blowing, isn’t it? The only way to free ourselves from the Dragon Lobby you say you want to “stop” is with someone fearless enough to UTTER the unmentionable TRUTH that is actually getting Americans listening!

      What are you really afraid of??? Because it’s DEFINITELY NOT Ron Paul becoming President and screwing the poor! That’s only what you want us to believe you’re afraid of, because you’re definitely not afraid of THAT ever happening! Don’t make me laugh, puh-leeez. In fact, you know it’ll never happen. So it must be annihilating THE PRESENT NARRATIVE, that scared you so silly into writing stupidity like that. I might be kinder if you were honest with us. I loathe dishonesty. Is it that he might screw with the Zionist Narrative, the safe, FAMILIAR, Zionist territory that you don’t want to see completely obliterated? Lol! Disclaimer: Don’t worry, I didn’t mean Israaaaaael itself.

      Ron Paul goes where angels fear to tread. Good on him!

      Come out with it already, don’t give me that bullshit you just wrote, that you really believe Ron Paul will be allowed to go the distance…don’t give me THAT! You know and I know; you don’t believe that. So what’s got your shorts in a knot, cause it ain’t the fear that Ron Paul will reach the point where he’ll tamper with your social safety net or be mean to Mexican immigrants? It’s definitely not that! But you’re not being sincere, you’re holding back SOMETHING. I’m a radar for this kind of thing.

      What’s wrong with pushing Ron Paul as far up the mountain as he will go with this different narrative that we DESPERATELY NEED? Why do you want to SA BO TAGE the hope that maybe, just maybe, this man will be a CATALYST in freeing the collective mindset of America from the grips of AIPAC? Haven’t we all been waiting for years to have someone rise up and challenge the Neo-Zio narrative this way and especially, get the attention of the American masses away from the biased lamestream media and thinking about what’s really going on here? Who would’a thought that someone with your moniker would stand in the way of the dragon slayer?

      “We can promote a peaceful, just society that will end US imperialism. Don’t let anyone convince you that we need Ron Paul to do that.”

      Oh yeah, you have the LUXURY OF TIME to bitch on your keyboard about how the poor Palestinians are being mistreated? Do they or the Iranians have the luxury of waiting for YOU to change anything, let alone that Zionist narrative??? Peaceful, just society, MY EYE! You don’t want peace and justice while you’re SABOTAGING this moment of the AWAKENING of the American masses with smear against the man who’s accomplishing just that; something you haven’t figured out how to do YOURSELF. So, “gracefully” step aside please, and if you have nothing but smear to say about the man; kindly, shut up!

      Oh, and if you can’t or won’t, ’cause who am I, right to tell you what’s right? Do me a favor, at least change your moniker! Pathe-tic.

      2 years from now when Iran is attacked and Palestinians are suffering and ignored under the massive bombing-spree-on-Iran distraction and tens of thousand of Iranians are being killed monthly; you’ll be pounding away at your keyboard pumped up by your indignation and your “reason for being”. Meanwhile “peace and justice” will be the casualties of your present “lapse in judgment”, and believe me, I am trying to be kind, when I say “lapse in judgment”…. I’m trying.

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 12:40 pm

        The poor are rising rapidly(page 67 in two lines right below the Exxon ad from the NYTs lie factory,sic) in a America as the result of racism by our neolibcon criminal leaders whose policies suck,and Dr.Paul has opposed all those racist policies.

    • yourstruly
      December 24, 2011, 10:51 am

      if he runs on the justice party ticket, rocky anderson would be the one candidate promoting both the peaceful, just society and ending u.s imperialism (see dickerson’s comment, above)

  19. Oscar
    December 22, 2011, 3:56 pm

    Phil, don’t let the GOP neocons manipulate you. Ron Paul is the only candidate who conforms with the Mondoweiss worldview. Stay the course.

  20. Richard Witty
    December 22, 2011, 4:14 pm

    The common view is that politicians follow mostly, follow their constituents in whatever jurisdiction they preside over.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy has giant holes, particularly that the US is dependent on the supply chain for global oil and other materials, and is in treaties (of constitutional authority) to defend other states that are also dependent on the supply chain for global oil and other materials.

    It would be unconstitutional for a president to renounce a treaty, say NATO, on the basis of his personal determination, or to choose to not enforce a law enacted by Congress.

    The bully pulpit theme of “unconstitutionality” is of literally nothing that he could deliver on.

    He might not initiate new treaties (somehow imagining that events don’t change), or might propose that treaties be altered, but if they are on the books, they are of higher constitutional authority than Congressional legislation once ratified.

    The US political structure is a complex knot of dependencies.

    That the dissenting community here has not single-mindedly pursued an effort to reduce the national institutional consumption of fossil fuels, is an indication of the lack of seriousness, of this community.

    • Chu
      December 22, 2011, 4:31 pm

      I always get a laugh reading your trite analysis. It’s sad that no one ever
      taught you about b/s meter. But you keep on believing you’re smarter than everyone.

    • lysias
      December 22, 2011, 4:31 pm

      No treaty compels us to go to war if Congress does not first approve the war in question. The Senate made sure that was clear before it ratified the North Atlantic Treaty and the UN Charter.

      The Constitution, which requires a congressional declaration of war, trumps any treaty. A treaty only has the legal force of an Act of Congress. The Constitution is higher law, and no treaty can compel us to violate the Constitution.

    • Woody Tanaka
      December 22, 2011, 4:54 pm

      “It would be unconstitutional for a president to renounce a treaty, say NATO, on the basis of his personal determination, or to choose to not enforce a law enacted by Congress.”

      Nope. The Supreme Court has basically said that it is a political question, which means that they wouldn’t stop a President from doing so, which means that the act of the President would stand.

      “but if they are on the books, they are of higher constitutional authority than Congressional legislation once ratified.”

      False. Treaties are the equivalent to congressional legislation. The Congress can even pass laws which violate the terms of the treaty and can modify or repeal the treaties at will.

    • Shingo
      December 22, 2011, 5:18 pm

      Ron Paul’s foreign policy has giant holes, particularly that the US is dependent on the supply chain for global oil and other materials

      Oil and resources do not require military intervention to secure, especially seeing as only 12% of US oil supplies comes from the ME.

      The only hole in his FP is the aid to Israel and puppet dictators (same thing).

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 8:01 pm

        Europe depends on ME oil, and Europe has come out against the Israeli settlements. In the past, various Israeli leaders have made it known that Israel could take out Europe with its nuclear missiles, while Europe of course has no nuclear weapons, but depends on NATO. The US supports the settlements de facto in the face of the whole world, and the US is part of NATO. The US has an agreement with Israel, put in place by Kissinger, that requires the US to make sure Israel gets the oil it needs and this promise has specific priority over the oil needs of the American people.

    • libra
      December 22, 2011, 8:24 pm

      RW: “Ron Paul’s foreign policy has giant holes, particularly that the US is dependent on the supply chain for global oil and other materials…”

      Richard, I suspect the only supply chain you have any real familiarity with is the one that delivers a daily dose of hasbara to our doorstep here at Mondoweiss. And I have to say this particular effort of yours shows just how woefully inefficient this supply chain is when faced with the need to come up with something fresh.

      • Richard Witty
        December 22, 2011, 9:48 pm

        A truly sad response.

        Don’t get hypnotized by the ad. There is no foreign policy that is only between friends.

        And, when the United States faces a need that requires even abusive military intervention, it will do it, including in a Ron Paul administration. If Congress enacts war, and he disagrees, and does not pursue war in earnest, he will be justly impeached.

        I hate war, but I also hate false ideological contortion.

        The point about the oil is that you ignore the complexity in the world.

        You are willing to expose Israel to harrassment, beyond accountability for expansion, but for existing. And, that is the case currently with Iran managing a proxy army in Hezbollah, and formerly less directly in Syria and Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

        Hasbara. You are so disrespectful of independent thinking. It is so ironic as your stock in trade has to be that you are thinking independently, rather than passively repeating what you’ve been told.

        And, here it is again, conformity, fawning.

        As repugnant as it may be, the US currently is a super-power, a required super-power in the world.

        Unless you are proposing revolution in the US, in which the federal government is dismembered, then they only choices to be made are how the US is to be a super-power, dependent and depended on.

        The 10th amendment, giving power to the states, is MORE colonial residue than the federal government. How do you think the states were formed? They were granted by England to compliant aristocrats. They were cheap fiefdoms.

        Don’t get trivial, get thoughtful.

      • Richard Witty
        December 22, 2011, 10:06 pm

        Just for clarification, I thought the ad was very effective at conveying “how would you feel if…”, but went way beyond the point where it was effective to the point that it was deceptive.

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2011, 12:22 am

        The US does not have the right to go to war over oil Witty. If we want it, we will buy it, and pay the highest price for it if we need to.

        No one is obliged to sell it to us and we have no right to force them to do so.

        The only thing that concerns you Witty, is that a Paul government would not go to war for Israel. It would not defend and code Israel.

        You’re a disgusting chicken- hawk. Thereis nothing liberal about you.

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2011, 12:23 am

        As repugnant as it may be, the US currently is a super-power, a required super-power in the world.

        How can it be required and repugnant at the same time?

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 10:26 am

        “And, when the United States faces a need that requires even abusive military intervention, it will do it, including in a Ron Paul administration. If Congress enacts war, and he disagrees, and does not pursue war in earnest, he will be justly impeached.”

        LMAO. Do you even know what impeachment is? Do you know when it can be enacted? Do you even know what the President’s power regarding the office of Commander in Chief are?

        “You are willing to expose Israel to harrassment, beyond accountability for expansion, but for existing.”

        You Zios are addicted to the pity, aren’t you?

        “Hasbara. You are so disrespectful of independent thinking.”

        LMAO. The fact that you and your ilk do little but spew hasbara is a direct rebuke to your inability to demonstrate independent thinking.

        “As repugnant as it may be, the US currently is a super-power, a required super-power in the world.”

        The word “required” is false, as are all the implication that arise from it.

        “Unless you are proposing revolution in the US, in which the federal government is dismembered, then they only choices to be made are how the US is to be a super-power, dependent and depended on.”

        Nonsense. There is nothing in the US system, the Constitution or national or world politics which require any superpower or require that the US be it.

        “Don’t get trivial, get thoughtful.”

        Given the notable superficiality of your posts, this is rich, Rich.

      • Richard Witty
        December 23, 2011, 10:46 am

        He’s running for a job with responsibilities that he doesn’t want.

        Calvin Coolidge (they even look somewhat alike).

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 4:33 am

        Witty, no matter how complex world oil distribution is, the US will gets what it needs; our foreign aid to Israel and continual support of its policies is not something Big Oil really wants to live with; Big Oil could do better without the “special relationship,” is the reality, and always has been. Presently, we get very little oil from the ME; that’s not a trivial fact.

      • Richard Witty
        December 24, 2011, 9:46 am

        The US will not always get what it needs, which is why the US is involved intimately in political affairs in the middle east.

        The US relationships with powers in the mideast are complex, and largely revolve around mutually beneficial relationship between big oil, US government, US military, and Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE powers.

        Big oil historically hates Israel, and has been the source of “realist” approaches to distance the US from Israel.

        The theme of the US distancing from all foreign military obligations, Arab world and Israeli, is a disaster for US economic stability.

        The negligence of the dissenting community here is astounding, in seeking to claim that the Iraq War was not primarily (if not exclusively) about oil, and then to fail to put their weight into developing energy conservation strategies at every economic scale.

        The US gets a great deal of oil from the middle east, and gets a greater deal of price stabilization from the middle east.

        It is NOT natural price stability. The politically motivated disruptions in supply would be severe if not enforced by extensions of power.

        Its not a good thing to be so extended, but it IS an irresponsible proposal to just demand that someone else do something about it, that dissent here does not do the thinking and acting to make change possible.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 10:01 am

        Witty: “You are willing to expose Israel to harrassment, beyond accountability for expansion, but for existing.”

        And what have the Zionists exposed the Palestinian people to for generations now simply because they exist? You sound like that blubbering, shrieking young Jew on the YouTube clip whining about how Israel is such victim when “she just wants to exist! Boo-hoo.”

        The little native kids showered with white phosphorous probably wanted to exist too, and the babies in the native wombs didn’t want to be born carrying Israeli-made deformity in their genes.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 2:39 pm

        Witty, you say, “The US gets a great deal of oil from the middle east, and gets a greater deal of price stabilization from the middle east.”

        As usual you don’t support anything you say because facts are nothing to you in your zeal to defend Israel at all cost to the 98% non-Jewish America and to those Jewish Americans who don’t put tribe first and always. So this is your idea of “a great deal of oil from the middle east?”

        All in all, the United States got over 75% of its crude oil from non Arab states in November of 2010.

        Readers here can judge for themselves if and how misleading our resident Mr Dick is.
        And here’s the breakdown by countries we get our oil from:

        Price stabilization? You mean like how the American people paid through the nose for years due to the Arab Oil Boycott responsive to Nixon giving Israel everything but our Army kitchen sink to beat back the Arabs (because Kissinger convinced him Israel really would nuke up the place if America didn’t rescue her)?

      • dahoit
        December 26, 2011, 12:48 pm

        He is the epitome of a liberal(modern).Do as I say not as I do.Hypocrites.
        And so are these alleged modern conservatives,unlike Dr.Paul’s traditional conservatism.Did anyone notice Dr.Pauls favorite choice as POTUS,Grover Cleveland,a POTUS ignored by modern historians,and now I think I know why. And a Democrat to boot!You gotta love the honesty in this politician.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 9:17 pm

      Here’s one of the most moronic statements I’ve ever read: “The bully pulpit theme of “unconstitutionality” is of literally nothing that he could deliver on.”

      Only someone who views the U.S. Constitution as a dishrag for all Neo-Ziocon hands to twist around would think this.

      “or might propose that treaties be altered” oh yeah! Tell your Zionist friends to be very afraid, very, VERY AFRAID.

      “The US political structure is a complex knot of dependencies.”

      Yes, because the founding fathers were thinking “complex” ball-and-chain FOREIGN entanglements when the Republic was founded! I wonder how they’d view wars for Israel, AIPAC meddling and the Congress being paraded around at Aipac’s convention?

      Oh, and the thought of the U.S. being anything more self-reliant than a junkie for oil would definitely scare the willies out of the Zionist Settler Nation of Israel that clings to the hegemonic leg of U.S. foreign policy like a yappy mutt in heat.

    • dahoit
      December 24, 2011, 11:44 am

      Well,nobody has ever said to US that we can’t PURCHASE their raw materials instead of invading and murdering for them,like we’ve done for for the last 60+years.
      And I’ve got solar panels on my house,do you?
      And where are the plug ins?Damnit.

  21. lysias
    December 22, 2011, 4:44 pm

    Breaking New Hampshire: Ron Paul 21% Pulls Ahead Of Gingrich 16%!:

    Mitt Romney continues to lead the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Preference Primary with 35%. Jumping into second place is Ron Paul with 21%. Newt Gingrich is now in third place with 16% and Jon Huntsman is in fourth place with 13%.

  22. lottaann
    December 22, 2011, 4:54 pm

    It’s my birthday, and that video is my favorite present. Thank you!

  23. smd341
    December 22, 2011, 5:03 pm

    I like Ron Paul’s ad. But the problem with foreign policy is that its likely that you can’t just treat others as you wish to be treated (as implied in this video). You don’t think China or other economic powers would seek to establish military bases if we didn’t have them? Its Game Theory 101.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 6:45 pm

      Backward-thinking conclusion. The U.S. hegemonic race is what has destroyed all the evolutionary potential that the human race and this planet were destined for.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 8:03 pm

        The US spends 8X more on military in terms of GDP, than China does; China spends the next most on its military–I think France, spending much less than either, is 3rd highest spender on its military in terms of GDP.

    • dahoit
      December 23, 2011, 11:04 am

      No,as they are an advanced people who mostly mind their own business(check the historical record ),unlike the Old Testament reactionary wacko racist Zionists who drive our policy.
      Game Theory 101;Sounds like a Zio mantra that we are all corrupt,when we aint,or at least as corrupt as Zionists.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 4:37 am

        Game Theory is just that–they always get befuddled in the real world and don’t know why.

  24. seafoid
    December 22, 2011, 5:55 pm

    Imagine Israel assassinating Paul

    • lysias
      December 22, 2011, 6:38 pm

      The reactor at Dimona went critical on Dec. 26, 1963. Interesting date. Quite a Christmas present.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2011, 8:06 pm

        And JFK was murdered November 22, 1963. JFK had been striving hard to convince Israel not to build the bomb, and had been pestering Israel to let inspectors in….

      • dahoit
        December 24, 2011, 11:47 am

        I can’t see the Israelis as THAT mad.Now Meyer Lansky and the mob,hmmm.Kennedy refused to re-enrich their Cuban money bomb.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 6:48 pm

      Zionists are already in the process of assassinating his character. If he survives this; he’s going to need to ask Pope Benedict to lend him the popemobile. He better ask for security detail soon.

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 22, 2011, 6:55 pm

      RE: “Imagine Israel assassinating Paul” ~ seafoid

      REPLY: They are not quite that stupid/insane/depraved, but some members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) and/or the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO) might very well be.

      • kalithea
        December 22, 2011, 7:46 pm

        Stupid/insane/depraved is EXACTLY how I’d describe the Eastern bloc and New Jersey migrants.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 7:42 pm

      One more thing, if they do get such a heinous idea, they’ll use an Iranian Manchurian assassin to do the job.

      • dahoit
        December 24, 2011, 11:49 am

        Yeah,some crazy used car salesman.
        Isn’t lying to involve US in war a crime?A pin drops.

  25. DICKERSON3870
    December 22, 2011, 6:37 pm

    RE: “But that doesn’t mean I’d vote for Paul. I might– but he’s got to do a much better job of apologizing for that racism and putting it behind
    him.” ~ Weiss

    FROM GLENN GREENWALD, 12/22/11: . . . For a thoughtful, nuanced, very smart examination of the specific issue of Ron Paul and the newsletters, and more so, the general issue of Ron Paul’s candidacy, read this* from The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf. It’s long, but well worth the time.

    * FRIEDERSDORF COMMENTARY: Grappling With Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters, by Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, 12/21/11

    (excerpts). . . Do I think that Paul wrote the offending newsletters? I do not. Their style and racially bigoted philosophy is so starkly different from anything he has publicly espoused during his long career in public life — and he is so forthright and uncensored in his pronouncements, even when they depart from mainstream or politically correct opinion — that I’d wager substantially against his authorship if Las Vegas took such bets. Did I mention how bad some of the newsletters are? It’s a level of bigotry that would be exceptionally difficult for a longtime public figure to hide…
    …One reason I preferred former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson to Ron Paul in the 2012 primary, beyond his executive experience, is his complete lack of taint from the ugliest strains of “paleolibertarianism.” Obviously the bulk of libertarians in America prefer Paul to Johnson, not because they’re comfortable with racism, but because Paul is a more effective debater and spokesman, and has been building support for presidential runs for many years. His appeal is precisely his plainspoken message against war, drug prohibition, Wall Street bailouts, and cronyism.
    That’s why he draws so much of his support from young people.
    Since I first learned about the controversial newsletters in 2008, I’ve listened closely to see if I could hear any racist dog whistles in Paul’s speeches. I never have. As far as I can tell, that ugly part of American politics is entirely absent from his presidential campaigns. . .


  26. kalithea
    December 22, 2011, 6:39 pm

    Jason Linkins at Huffpo has just done a VILE HATCHET piece on Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn’t only scare Republicans; he scares Obama and his drunk-on-kool-aid BOTS and he especially scares ZIOOOOOOOONISTS. And everyone knows huff is a come-ye-hither lair for all manner of the latter type of snakes be they of blue (Democrat) or red stripes because the venom of either type is just as deadly.

    The piece is so full of crap, so cheap and vulgar, so dense in understanding human nature and the complexity or reason behind self-restraint that makes one man hesitate before rushing to lynch another publicly. I mean it’s pure “huffy” vomit at its worst!

    Thanks to this smeary piece of trash huffpo spit out, I am now 200% in Ron Paul’s corner and more determined than ever to defend the man!

    • dahoit
      December 24, 2011, 11:53 am

      Same as Salon,with Kornacki and Pareene(among others),all team players on the Zio Dem bloviation tribal train of disaster.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 24, 2011, 11:55 am

        Zio Dem bloviation tribal train of disaster.

        lol, you certainly have a way w/words dahoit.

  27. emanresu
    December 22, 2011, 6:51 pm

    Why can’t an ordinary liberal, moderate, or conservative politician advocate an end to imperial wars? Why must this honorable position be advanced by a libertarian mad hatter who wants to end social security, medicare, medicaid, federal R&D spending, aid to the states, national parks, food stamps, FDA, EPA, and OSHA?

    I will not vote for Paul. A four year halt to U.S. imperialism is not worth the destruction of American society, at least not to me.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 7:48 pm

      “a libertarian mad hatter” “A four year halt to U.S. imperialism is not worth…”

      LOL! Four years??? You really ARE clueless!

    • Bandolero
      December 22, 2011, 9:28 pm

      “Why can’t an ordinary liberal, moderate, or conservative politician advocate an end to imperial wars?”
      Oh, there are many who do this. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel ran in the Democratic primaries 2008. Cynthia McKinney campaigned on a green ticket for President in 2008. Peta Lindsay is nominated by the Party for Socialism and Liberation for the 2012 presidential election. But nobody votes them. Instead they vote for Obama, Clinton and other war mongers the zionist media networks present to them as electable.

      What the “libertarian mad hatter” Ron Paul has done is to form a support base from very different groups that is independent from the zionist mass media complex. Proposing massive federal budget cuts is a position largely abandoned by the zionist controlled establishment and it boosts his support base to numbers far higher than Dennis Kucinich. Add to other forgotten groups like “raw milk drinkers”, people with drug addicts in friends and family and so on. All that is needed to build such a large support base as he has.

      The good news for all those for all those who like “social security, medicare, medicaid, federal R&D spending, aid to the states, national parks, food stamps, FDA, EPA, and OSHA” is that he proposes to give authority to the states, so if you live in a state where that’s popular you can replace it with state level legislation. As Ron Paul proposes federal tax cuts the states could collect taxes to finance such spending in states where it’s popular.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 23, 2011, 10:29 am

        “The good news for all those for all those who like ‘social security, medicare, medicaid, federal R&D spending, aid to the states, national parks, food stamps, FDA, EPA, and OSHA’ is that he proposes to give authority to the states, so if you live in a state where that’s popular you can replace it with state level legislation. ”

        And everywhere else, die quickly so the rest of us can live our low-tax lifestyles here in Galt’s Gulch.

      • dahoit
        December 23, 2011, 10:53 am

        Yeah,spin the alphabet soup of governmental programs to protect our people but which have turned into cash cows for corporate criminals,and document any of these agencies preventing pollution,media monopolies,worker protection,prescription drug ills prevention or any recent effort by these corrupted agencies of criminal wealth production to do what they were intended to do.
        Noble sounding scams,sort of like the CR act of 64 which ostensibly made life for minorities better,belied by our actual decline of the communities they addressed,with no jobs,full jails and ghetto multiplication,amid recent efforts to deny the minority vote.
        A massive scam,and sheeple believe it.

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 11:10 am

        the reason why hasn’t CR acit of 64 made life better for minorities is that it doesn’t touch on economic issues, especially poverty.

      • dahoit
        December 24, 2011, 12:00 pm

        Didn’t Obomba just put through another Galtian tax cut?
        Can you live on SS alone?Has the FDA prevented drugs that kill?Has the EPA stopped gas fracking pollution,or Gulf pollution?And R and D,just what has that brought US but war machines,and how about healthcare costs?$16,000 a year for HI?And rising?My God,take off the rose colored glasses, man.

    • dahoit
      December 23, 2011, 10:56 am

      You must live in one of those gated communities,as America is imploding as you speak.
      Or a stinkin bankster.(living in a gated community with multiple guards,so as not to wreck your beautiful mind.)

  28. Sumud
    December 22, 2011, 6:51 pm

    The BEST political ad I’ve ever seen.

    • split
      December 22, 2011, 8:57 pm

      “The BEST political ad I’ve ever seen”… and for free, no kiddin’, after 28 years as an commercial artist (visual) on 2 continents and 2 shopping Meccas in Europe and US
      happen to agree ,…

  29. kalithea
    December 22, 2011, 8:10 pm

    Ron Paul is attacking all the SACRED COWS. He’s voicing the frustration of millions of Americans who feel like they’ve been hijacked to the evil twin America that was duplicated by some mad Zionist scientists in a parallel universe where the masses are silenced, duped and driven to mass hysteria and Muslim loathing by repetitive fear-mongering and biased propaganda emitted by the equally hijacked lamestream media and forced to choose between two parties under the spell of these zio-sci-freaks.

    Ron Paul, the force be with you.

  30. MarkF
    December 22, 2011, 8:27 pm

    He needs to hit back, and hit back hard at the neocons exposing THEIR extreme racism against Arabs by the likes of Pam Geller and her cohorts. Put their words up to show how they’re smearing Ron while they are racist to the core.

    Gotta show the hypocrisy otherwise they get away with it. Preferably from the right/conservative point of view.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 10:18 pm

      I’d hate to see that hating hyena, Geller, take her revenge by sinking her venom- spewing fangs into an unsuspecting Ron Paul, but exposing the rampant Islamophobia that defines the Neo-Ziocon animal farm with a montage of dozens of quotes from these Muslim bashers splattered onto screenshots building up in some kind of bolero, carmina burana-like crescendo of cacophony might be very effective to counter this attempted assassination of Ron Paul’s character.

      • yourstruly
        December 24, 2011, 11:13 am

        wow! powerful!

  31. dbroncos
    December 22, 2011, 8:43 pm

    “dbroncos, so you prefer WW3 to Ron Paul’s call to make all Americans put in something in the kitty for their freedom and benefits, however smal

    A false choice, Citizen. I prefer a President, a Congress and an electorate that acts like they respect the real challenges facing America and the wider world: education, poverty, injustice, kleptocracy, insolvancy and global climate change – a problem which stands to compound and make worse all the other major problems we face. To his credit, Ron Paul has pointed out ways in which our militarism has contributed to injustices around the world and to the fiscal insanity of our government but he has in no way contributed anything useful to the debate about how to manage the affairs of 300 million Americans. Dog eat dog is the political philosophy of monsters.

    • kalithea
      December 22, 2011, 10:43 pm

      You will never see that UTOPIA; that’ll never happen with the baboons that run Congress, until someone like Ron Paul razes the corrupt, toxic earth in Washington first! Ron Paul is doing what in my heart of hearts I expected Obama to do: He’s trying to slay the dragon by exposing everything shocking that every other politician even the best daren’t utter out loud. Where there is fear to utter the truth; there’s subversive FASCISM.

      He’s fearless.

      Not only is Ron Paul the man who can avert the next big war; he’s the man who could pardon Bradley Manning!

  32. split
    December 22, 2011, 8:47 pm

    ‘published in Ron Paul’s political newsletter in the 1990s’ ,…

    Wow, the neo-con-artists must be pretty desperate to dig out this crap after 2 decades, exploiting black hoodlums and gays in the attempt to get rid of him ,…

  33. Kris
    December 22, 2011, 9:24 pm

    Wonderful video, thank you for posting it! It seems obvious to me that no matter who is elected, domestic suffering is a given.

    Since Ron Paul would stop the wars, stop aid to Israel, stop the war on drugs (which is really a war on minorities), and restore the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus, I support Paul for President.

    In fact, I am even planning to attend a Republican (gasp!) caucus in my state (Washington), so I can vote for Paul there.

  34. jayn0t
    December 22, 2011, 9:42 pm

    Ron Paul must “do a much better job of apologizing for that racism” before Phil will vote for him. And maybe change his views on climate change. Aren’t you being a bit fussy?

  35. Keith
    December 22, 2011, 11:31 pm

    An interesting discussion which nonetheless suffers from the fact that it is virtually impossible to adequately discuss political economy in the comments section of Mondoweiss. Permit me to add a few observations.

    First is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are a vast improvement over what we have now. However, his domestic policies would be an unmitigated disaster. He, like Alan Greenspan, is an ideological soul mate of Ayn Rand, a modern day advocate of Social Darwinism. I fear that his foreign policy ideas would be stomped into the ground, whereas, his domestic policies would grease the skids of neoliberalism. I, like Dan Crowther, am disturbed by the cult like obsessive loyalty of his Mondoweiss supporters. It is one thing to support a lesser evil, but to turn a blind eye to obvious faults and react defensively is not good.

    In regards to the Federal Reserve, there seems to be some confusion as to the absolute necessity to have a central bank versus the extremely dysfunctional consequences of a PRIVATELY run central bank working to advance the financial sector at the expense of the real economy. It is our privately controlled financial system in conjunction with our debt money monetary system in conjunction with unmoderated compounding interest which is the root cause of much of our problem. Not the only problem, but the underlying driving force. The driving force behind neoliberal globalization and structural adjustment, I might add.

    Finally, there also appears to be some confusion regarding what exactly a National Security State is. The term is a euphemism for a soft version of fascism, which is essentially military Keynesianism. One can have all sorts of government intervention in the economy without hiding it by military spending and warmongering, however, larger military budgets and empire go hand in hand. Reference to historical US militarism, while true, doesn’t adequately address the changes in our economy, and their impact on policy. For example, while the Indian Wars following the Civil War were superficially similar to current imperial depredations, these wars themselves were considered an EXPENSE incurred to achieve certain economic advantages. Currently, imperial war fighting costs are viewed as an ECONOMIC STIMULUS to prime the economic pump. That is to say, war itself has become a primary objective of our warfare economy.

    • Shingo
      December 23, 2011, 6:26 am

      First is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are a vast improvement over what we have now. However, his domestic policies would be an unmitigated disaster.

      What many like yourself never get Keith is that foreign policy is almost entirely driven by domestic policies. You. An’t change one without the other.

      He, like Alan Greenspan, is an ideological soul mate of Ayn Rand, a modern day advocate of Social Darwinism.

      Greenspan gave up his Ayan Randian roots when he agreed to keep interests rates low after the dot com crash.

      I fear that his foreign policy ideas would be stomped into the ground, whereas, his domestic policies would grease the skids of neoliberalism.

      The exact opposite is much more likely. While domestic matters will remain under the thumb of Comgress, a president has a great deal more latitude on foreign policy.

      I, like Dan Crowther, am disturbed by the cult like obsessive loyalty of his Mondoweiss supporters.

      I, like Kalithea, am disturbed by the cult like obsession of his detractors, who have scoured every minutia of Paul’s very long career in a desperate effirt to find a gradual or dirt on the guy, whether real or imagined.

      It is one thing to support a lesser evil, but to turn a blind eye to obvious faults and react defensively is not good.

      Yeah right Keith, it’s not like anyone ever did that with Obama, like when he stated during his campaign for the 2008 election, that Jerusalem should remain the divided capital of Israel in front of the AIPAC crowd – yet ignored that and clung to his Cairo speech as proof of where his politicsq lied.

      • dahoit
        December 23, 2011, 10:39 am

        C’mon,Greenspan is the FED,and he wants the books closed,while Dr.Paul wants them to see the light of day.I bet Keith thinks his son is named Rand,when it’s Randall.
        And as far as domestic policy,how are we doing following the bankster NWO of trade steals and nation destruction?Last I looked we were many trillions in the red,and our exports are all harbingers of death,from tobacco and alcohol to war machines,a sign of depravity.
        C’mon Dr. Paul!

      • Keith
        December 23, 2011, 7:35 pm

        SHINGO- “What many like yourself never get Keith is that foreign policy is almost entirely driven by domestic policies….While domestic matters will remain under the thumb of Comgress, a president has a great deal more latitude on foreign policy.”

        Are you not aware that these two statements taken together are a logical contradiction? As a matter of fact, foreign policy is overwhelmingly influenced by domestic concentrations of power such as the military-industrial complex, the Zionist power configuration, the media, etc. That is why the overall thrust of US foreign policy has remained quite consistent over time. US foreign policy is consistent with a national security state empire.

        In order to change US militarism, it is necessary to eliminate empire. This will require shifting the focus from military spending to domestic spending, from building weapons to building schools and providing free education and healthcare for all. To direct the flow of money from war making to creating a sustainable society. Ron Paul opposes government intervention in the economy, preferring instead de facto business rule. Yet, to eliminate military spending without increasing non-military spending would be economic suicide. Unlike you, I cannot imagine him being able to cut military spending significantly, however, I can imagine he and his fellow “conservative” Republicans agreeing to eviscerate all functions of the federal government which benefit the average person, with the Democrats going along.

        The bottom line is that Ron Paul is a one trick pony. It is a good and timely trick, and I like it just fine, and I am very pleased that he is providing some semblance of sanity in this one area, however, overall he is totally incapable of doing what is needed. I shall continue to vote third party or independent, knowing that ultimately concentrated economic power, primarily finance capital, is calling the shots and that we will likely go from bad to worse, as is happening now.

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2011, 10:34 pm


        Your argument doesn’t hold water.

        Firt of all, whe it comes to foreign policy, much of it is enacted and formulated it without the involvement of Congress. The executive has significant powers to take actions that it deems to be in the national interest. As the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president has the ultimate authority over the military, not Congress.

        By simply ending or refusing to engage in overseas deployments and starting wars, nearly half of military spending could be cut immediately. Congress has shown that it lacks the resolve or consensus to declare wars, so that’s a no brainier for a president. On top this, there are signing statements and executive orders that could prevent such wars.

        If Obama got on a plane to Tehran and shook hands with their leaders, that would be the end of all the drums being for war. It would be a huge gamble for Obama, but it would be effective. There is nothing Congress could do about it.

        Ron Paul opposes government intervention in the economy, preferring instead de facto business rule.

        Not quite. By opposing government intervention in the economy, he also makes business fully accountable for their actions. It’s fair to suggest that the banks and larger corporations behaved as they did because they were confident that they were too big to fail. They lobbied for regulations that put them at an advantage over small businesses. Having former Goldman Sachs and Citigroup execs in the administration would surely have given the industry a great sense of. Incidence and security that their interest were protected.

        This is the antithesis of Paul’s policy.

        Yet, to eliminate military spending without increasing non-military spending would be economic suicide.

        First of al, this is simply rubbish. Money spent on the military, apart from being a huge gravy train and cesspit of waste, does little to benefit the economy, so how could cutting this spending in itself adversely affect the economy?

        You sound as unhinged as Dan. You like the idea of ending empire, but you consider ghost to be too high.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 24, 2011, 12:17 am

        @ Shingo

        If Obama got on a plane to Tehran and shook hands with their leaders, that would be the end of all the drums being for war


        Recall Nixon’s covert trip to China through Pakistan. What a game-changer that was!

        And this would be a great strategy for Obama to get re-elected – plus get a mandate to clean house and get rid off a lot of war-mongers in his second term – if he was really inclined to do so (not too sure about that).

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 4:46 am

        Keith, the best way to show your displeasure at, and to correct the fact that “ultimately concentrated economic power, primarily finance capital, is calling the shots” is to vote for Ron Paul. No other candidate comes close; indeed no other candidate is attacking our current debt monetization system.

      • dahoit
        December 24, 2011, 12:19 pm

        Would you rather be fooled by one trick?,or multiple tricks as we have now.Are you a masochist or a magician apprentice?

  36. CloakAndDagger
    December 23, 2011, 12:09 am

    It is interesting to see the passionate debate here from both those who are pro-Paul and those that are anti-Paul, and of course those who are “anti-Paul except for Foreign Policy”.

    I am definitely pro-Paul. I maxed out my contributions to his campaign, just as I did in 2007. I won’t repeat all the excellent points that others have made supporting him. I am not even going to try to convince those who are anti-Paul to reconsider. But I will ask everyone this:

    Imagine a general election where Ron Paul is one contender and President Obama is the other. Imagine the issues being debated and the American masses being exposed to issues that they didn’t even know existed. Imagine sunlight being shone on the dark recesses of the lobby and what our imperial practices have wrought on the world. Imagine every citizen being bombarded by campaign ads like the one above on a daily basis.

    You dont have to vote for Ron Paul in those general elections, although I hope that you will. However, I contend that in the cause of patriotism to this nation, you have to enable such a debate to happen. The forces of treason that engulf our country would not want this debate to occur since they already know its outcome, but you should desire it with all your heart.

    To do that, you have to help get him nominated by the Republican party. Hold your nose if you must and register as a “blue republican” in the primaries. After that, vote for whomever you wish in the general elections, but vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Who knows, maybe you will be surprised by what you yourself learn about this man during the course of heated debates with the incumbent president.

    You do not have to get Ron Paul elected as president, but you owe it to all of us, and the generations that will follow, to force such a debate to happen. Let’s not fight amongst ourselves when we should be fighting together for America, the one I was brought up to believe in and owe my allegiance to.

    “Patriot” is not an act, but patriotism requires action.

    • yourstruly
      December 24, 2011, 11:28 am

      your argument that paul’s positions (especially on emperialism) must be heard is convincing

  37. DICKERSON3870
    December 23, 2011, 12:57 am

    ALSO SEE: Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul? ~ by John Nichols, The Nation, 12/21/11
    LINK –

    • dahoit
      December 23, 2011, 10:32 am

      Yeah,saw it,just more neolibcon BS from a useless formerly somewhat credible source that has gone weird just like every alleged liberal rag ,controlled all by Zionists,just like every alleged liberal publication in America.A pox on the hypocrites.
      Why do you think they want to shut down the internet,they hate freedom,these alleged liberals,who only want to hear and see what they want to hear and see,just like the Nazis and Commies.

  38. kalithea
    December 23, 2011, 1:54 am

    I suppose when Robert Byrd got up on the Senate Floor and gave his “ON THE BRINK OF WAR SPEECH”, to try and stop the march into Iraq, STOPAIPAC, got up on his high and mighty horse in front of the tube and railed “that stinking racist has no right to be in the Senate or to speak for me or the anti-war movement”!! I don’t want any false prophets fighting on my side! Don’t do me any favors!”

    Do ME a favor STOPAIPAC ; CHANGE YOUR NAME! Then think of the orgy of cluster bombs raining down on Fallujah’s population, the children slaughtered and those children born and growing up with uranium depletion deformities, AND GROW UP! Oh yeah, and if I could kindly ask you to shut up about Ron Paul….if you have nothing better than dirt up your sleeve.

    Gimme this “racist” any day of the week over the high and mighty Stopaipac!:

    Thank God for the likes of Robert Byrd, Ron Paulllll and every other man, woman or child who speaks TRUTH to power regardless of his failings!!! Robert Bryd can go to heaven knowing that he tried to stop the senseless murder of men, women and children from his position of some authority and influence, but STOPAIPAC would pronounce judgment on him in a frenzy of self-righteousness and ridicule him as a racist, batty old man as he’s doing with Ron Paul today! Because his righteousness is so holier-than-thou, so beyond the stratosphere of morality that the fate of millions of Iranians, I mean Iraqis, no I really mean Iranians, pales in comparison and must hang on the coming of a pure and virtuous hero with StopAipac’s “blessing” or a weakling like Obama, who gives nice speeches on racial understanding and who can practically conjure up heavenly apparitions with his eloquence, but whom Aipac has by the balls.

    You don’t get to choose who THE TRUTH uses as its vehicle and mouthpiece. Who are YOU to determine how the truth finds its way to the top, Mr. Judge and Jury??? You’re certainly not someone who can STOP Aipac or anyone else from the downward spiral into death and destruction we’ve been trapped in! So puh-leeeez let someone in a better position than YOU, who is actually changing the narrative, SPEAK and who is actually achieving the impossible feat of harnessing the attention of the hapless Zionist- brainwashed American sheeple, achieve the impossible and actually, STOP AIPAC.

    Stop trying to sabotage what you pretend is your goal and stop trying to shoot the messenger!

    And just to irritate and annoy you some more: God Bless Robert Bryd and God Bless Ron Paul and may the force of the TRUTH decimate whatever tries to tear him and the truth down with him.

  39. kalithea
    December 23, 2011, 3:25 am

    Just for you stopaipac….just grin and bear it for a moment.:

    Oh me! Oh my! What a “stinking racist”!

  40. Citizen
    December 23, 2011, 9:59 am

    I agree with Shingo, CloakAndDagger, and kalithea . Vote 4 Ron Paul in the primary, fund his campaign, don’t diss him. There is no other way to bring to the American public’s attention the sorry state of our foreign policy and our monetary policy, two items that impact everything domestic, two macros that need drastic change above everything else. Ron Paul is actually forcing our MSM and cable TVNews to address these huge issues for the first time. If he can keep up steam with our help finally Dick and Jane might actually start thinking about these issues via Ron Paul’s spontaneous, plain talk, his vision of what is, and what should be devoid of prompters and sound bites.

    Printing endless dollars assuming the dollar will remain the reserve currency of the world–when there’s already movement away from that by many major countries? And isn’t it striking that Ron Paul is the soldier’s candidate, that 1% who actually see what we do in other countries, and who actually literally bleed for that other 1%, those targeted by OWS? Our real warriors dying for our chicken hawk government?

    What do you want, Keith & fellow travelers, a wheelbarrel of freshly printed dollars to pay for a much greater price of bread & gas sure to come, right along with endless war by chicken hawks? That’s the way to go for Dick and Jane and, oh, the rest of the world?

  41. dahoit
    December 23, 2011, 10:13 am

    This whole racism charge is ludicrous coming from the same people who have backed every nation destroying trade deal,prison construction, mandatory drug sentences,war promotion,and policies that have left minorities and working people as Helots in America,stuck in impoverished ghettos,jails and slave jobs,with health insurance beyond their means,and one step from living under bridge abutments,and now these actual racist criminals are calling the one guy who will rescue US from these wacko evil scum,and who opposes every one of these policies of disaster the racist.
    And just about every voice critiquing him is Zionist or works for Zionists,the most racist people in world history, whose track record has been obscured by their media friends,but is still visible as a pile of excrement.
    Keep up the good work ,sayanim,you expose yourself as the traitors you are,and America is waking up.

  42. kma
    December 23, 2011, 8:44 pm

    all this commotion over whether Ron Paul is racist or not? most people are. the mainstream republican candidates are coached in which words to use, but they are falling all over each other to do away with Muslims, due process, immigrants, etc. and gays, too. are you guys all just so numb to this stuff that you can’t see it?

    and Obama – we all cried when he was inaugurated! he won a nobel prize, but I think it was meant for us voters who the world thought were too racist to vote for him. but how black is he, really? he called a cop “stupid” for roughing up a real black guy, and then when the cops frowned, Obama changed his tune. he learned his manners in white schools and has done NOTHING for this nation that a good republican wouldn’t. and, if 95% of DC’s black males are criminals, more than that of the white guys are, and Obama is one of them.

    Ron Paul is head and shoulders above all the republican candidates who would do WORSE with every issue you guys bring up. beyond that, I’d say our current “commander in speech” is a smooth talker, but actions are what matter. what is Obama doing to the 99% protesters right now? do we want the weight of the party marching us to fascism? or real change?

  43. Citizen
    December 24, 2011, 4:49 am

    Looks like this thread is about done, so I am taking the liberty to put a fat period on it:

    Why Ron Paul Can Win
    Thursday, December 22, 2011 – by James Jaeger

    James Jaeger
    If you have been watching the news, you know that Ron Paul is now beating both Gingrich and Romney in the polls and could walk away with a win in Iowa.

    Some say he could also walk away with a win in New Hampshire, and possibly even win the Republican (GOP) nomination.

    For the Republican National Committee (RNC), this must be uncomfortable − the idea that they would be forced to nominate a principled, Constitutionalist just because WE THE PEOPLE demanded it.

    But here’s what really terrifies them: Ron Paul is in a position to hand the election of 2012 over to Barack Obama and the Democrats because he would be a “spoiler.” But even more terrifying is the fact that Dr. Paul is in a position to be much more than a “spoiler” − he’s in a position to be a “winner.”

    Etymology of the term SPOILER:

    The term “spoiler” is a derogatory term that was dreamt up by statists in the Democratic and Republican parties in order to sucker the public into continuously voting for no one outside the Establishment. In other words, if you vote your conscience, YOU are a “spoiler.” If you run on principles of your conscience and take votes away from an Establishment candidate, YOU are also a “spoiler.”

    Thus, since Ron Paul votes his conscience, since he rejects certain aspects of the Establishment − such as the Federal Reserve’s abuse of the monetary system and its financing of the welfare-warfare empire we have now become − there is no way apparatchiks in the GOP will nominate Dr. Paul no matter what WE THE PEOPLE want.

    And to this end, lackey pundits in the CFR-dominated, mainstream media continuously chant that Ron Paul has “no chance to get the Republican nomination.” They spew this so often, it’s obvious they don’t believe their own lies.

    But here’s the joker: Ron Paul does not even need the GOP to win the general election. If he were to walk away for a third party, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take another 15% from the Independents and at least 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough of the vote to win the Presidency in a three-man race.

    GOP strategists know all this and this is why you will never hear them utter these statistics in the mainstream media. If the public were to become too “hopeful” − if they were to understand the mathematics of the situation − even more people would vote for Ron Paul if for no other reason than to be on the winner’s bandwagon.

    So, the GOP has some serious choices to make.

    Either they morph into a small-government party and support the Ron Paul Revolution of “getting back to the Constitution,” or they risk losing their power to a new political party. And a new political party would not only mean the demise of the Republican party, but the Democratic party as well.

    Since the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party are BOTH the parties of BIG government, a new political party of SMALL government would reveal to the public − more than ever − what the two mainstream parties have become.

    The two mainstream parties − the Democrats and Republicans − have become, in essence, two departments of the same police state. They are the same political party, in effect: growing the government ever larger and ever more militaristic, both domestically and internationally. The PATRIOT Act expands the police state domestically, and the UN, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, GATT and NATO −which they BOTH continuously and blindly support − expand the police state internationally.

    Due to serious abridgments of the US Constitution and principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the United States are now run by a dictating oligarchy known as the UNITED STATES. And this dictating oligarchy is dominated by cultural Marxists and corporate fascists who have hijacked the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.

    The “DemoPublicans” have established the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of administering their police state and the PATRIOT Act has become their new Constitution.

    If you accept the idea that the Democrats and Republicans (again the “DemoPublicans”) have become two departments of the same police state − two wings of the same ugly bird − you will have to accept that ultimately it does not matter whether a Democrat or Republican is elected to the presidency. It does not matter if Obama or Romney is elected president. Establishment politicians in either of these “two” parties will continue to use the Federal Reserve System to monetize debt (print money out of thin air) and use this fraudulent “fiat” currency to build their welfare-warfare state.

    It could be said that Republicans specialize in printing money to build weapons and wage wars − Democrats specialize in printing money to address the sick and the poor. The Republicans thus CREATE the sick and the poor with their WAR-fare policies and the Democrats HEAL the sick and the poor with their WELL-fare policies.

    Thus when an entity controls the HEALING and HURTING of Humankind, doesn’t that entity, in essence, CONTROL Humankind? Well, welcome to the DemoPublican control mechanism − something you might think about the next time you vote or mindlessly scream out for your Clinton-, Bush-, Obama-, Gingrich- or Romney-candidate.

    Taken as a whole, the Demopublican machine − now assembled more by supra-national, international banking families than American citizens − has destroyed US politics that used to center on constitutional principles. Controllers in this CFR-led embryonic world government have created a well-oiled machine to maximize the plunder of millions, if not billions of people, through the mechanism of central banking, debt and the hurting-healing cycle. Would it not be reasonable to posit that the Democratic and Republican Parties are thus primary tools in what seems to be a master plan of globalization?

    Ron Paul − a strict limited-government Constitutionalist with an appreciation for ethnonationalism − does not fit in with the New World Order’s management plans. Therefore, if he wins the popular vote not only in Iowa and New Hampshire but across the nation, the DemoPublican controllers have a serious problem.

    They can either rig the elections so it looks like Dr. Paul did “not” win, or they can blackmail him by threatening his family, like they did when Ross Perot was getting too popular.

    If Dr. Paul walks away from the GOP to go Indy, in reality he will “spoil” nothing, for as discussed above, the Democrats and Republicans are the same political party in effect, so there is nothing that CAN be “spoiled”.

    Also, since the DemoPublicans must continue the cockfight between them − so the illusion that they are “different” parties can be maintained − this fighting has been, of necessity, escalating into a GRIDLOCK. Note the endless fighting about extending payroll tax cuts, Obamacare and illegal immigration. Thus, even if Ron Paul is labeled a “spoiler” − for thwarting the Establishment Controller’s plan to get one of their puppets nominated or elected − he will spoil nothing.





    The term “spoiler” is used by two groups of people:

    1) the ignorant or IQ-challenged person who knows little or nothing about politics or the art of war, and

    2) the statist propaganda-merchant who is trying to give the public the illusion that there is a “difference” between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

    The reason the statist propaganda-merchant is trying to perpetuate the meme that there is a difference between the two major parties is so the general public will not look elsewhere for the solution to their problems. If one can get the Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other, it gives the illusion that they are “different” to the degree they “fight.” Indeed they DO have “differences”; however, the differences are over trivial issues. On all the major issues the Democrats and Republicans are identical, overtly and covertly, thus they are the same political party in effect. You saw how many of Bush’s policies Obama kept in place when he came into office ostensibly to “change” things. The same thing will happen if the Republicans take back the White House, ad infinitum.

    So this is why Ron Paul is such a threat to the Establishment. He’s running on the GOP ticket basically so he can get mainstream media exposure. The mainstream tried to ignore him in the last election. Remember how Hannity practically spat on Dr. Paul in the 2008 election? Remember how all the other pundits treated him? Then, when he suddenly raised millions of dollars with his “money bombs” and millions of voters started joining the grassroots Ron Paul Revolution − which kicked off the Tea Party Revolution − it wasn’t “politically correct” to spit on him any longer. Worse, they couldn’t ignore him into oblivion like they ignored all other dissenting candidates. Third-party candidate Ross Perot was only able to get mainstream media exposure because he purchased it with his personal wealth. Neither Ralph Nader nor Harry Brown, on the other hand, have been able to purchase such exposure; thus they have never been able to get an alternative vision into the public domain.

    Thus, if Ron Paul continues to get support from the rest of the nation he’s currently getting in Iowa, the GOP should technically nominate him, but it’s a long-shot they will.

    After all, for Ron Paul to win and use the vote to destroy the cultural Marxist-infested, totalitarian fiat empire, being built by controllers of the “liberal world order” is incomprehensible to them even though Pat Buchanan details in his new book, Suicide of a Superpower, the reasons why the moment of globalism and “free” trade has passed.

    But such is the power of the zeitgeist for the world is in revolt, from the Middle East to Wall Street. The 99-percent don’t know exactly HOW they have been screwed, but they do know that they HAVE been screwed − at least for the past 100 years. From the Tea Partiers to the Wall Street Occupiers in America, WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with:

    1) a Congress that has been bought and sold by corporate fascists,

    2) Presidents that start wars and act like Marxist dictators,

    3) an activist Supreme Court that legislates from the bench making one-size-fits-all laws that ignore the original intent of the Founders.

    WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with many other things, but both the “Right” and the “Left” can agree with much of what Ron Paul offers, because his principles are American principles, and American principles are Constitutional Principles which accommodate both liberals and conservatives, Left or Right.

    So don’t let CFR-infested, Establishment propaganda spewed through the mainstream media or the DemoPublican police state dissuade you from voting for Ron Paul, whether he stays on the GOP ticket, goes Independent or starts a new party.

    It is vital that all Americans stay true to their conscience, NOT their political parties. Remember, the US Constitution does not even mention political parties. In fact, many of the Founders warned us against them; they called them “factions” and said that membership in them is dangerous to a democratic form of government. They warned us to stay away from entrenched political parties − such as the Democrats and Republicans − because entrenched political parties are only one step away from dictatorships.

    It is not too late to act. Vote out the incumbent congressmen and vote in Ron Paul no matter what scare tactics the pundits on CNN, FOX News or MSNBC attempt to use on you. Ron Paul CAN get 38% of the vote and win the presidency. This is not an opinion; it’s mathematical fact.

    • CloakAndDagger
      December 24, 2011, 6:45 am

      Excellent post, Citizen!
      Could I get the link to the Jaeger article. I intend to reuse it.

    • kalithea
      December 24, 2011, 12:27 pm

      “The two mainstream parties − the Democrats and Republicans − have become, in essence, two departments of the same police state.

      And both parties parade and bow before Zionism and the AIPAC convention. Is this what the authors of the Constitution envisioned? Congress controlled by a foreign entity? Treason, is how they would describe this spectacle. Meanwhile billions of dollars are funnelled to Israel and trillions are spent on Israel’s wars while 146 million Americans are going hungry.

  44. Citizen
    December 24, 2011, 6:03 am

    Anyone catch that the bill Obama signed yesterday included $236 million to Israel (additional to the $10B gift already in progress)? Now that Americans are really down and out and Congress is cutting social welfare programs and military spending, and talking about cutting foreign aid, our welfare-warfare bipolar Establishment, the Demopublican Part, who all hate and fear Ron Paul, feel the least they can do is shower more fiat cash on Israel so we can cement the indenture of our grandchildren.

    • kalithea
      December 24, 2011, 12:16 pm

      146 million Americans living in poverty and ISRAEL is devouring their future!

  45. MRW
    December 24, 2011, 8:23 am

    Citizen, you’ve known me on this blog for years. So you have a history with me. I think a Paul presidency would be a massive shake-up because the US President controls foreign policy. But I am begging you –BEGGING YOU–to read this book, which is not contradictory to your perspective, but expands upon it and deals with reality:
    “The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy”

    I insist that you get to Part III in his book. The book is about 120 pages long.

    EDIT: You can also buy on Amazon, which contains critical handwritten error addendum.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2011, 12:23 pm

      MRW, thanks for the link. So far, I’ve read the introduction defining the seven deadly and common myths of economic policy, and I’ve read Part III thru p 117, which is as far as the pdf goes. I’ve yet to tackle the torso of the book. For me, it’s a lot to wrap my head around. Paper money workings are elusive. Sometimes he makes sense, but sometimes I wished he was in front of me so I could ask him a question regarding his abstract terms fit they way he fit them in his assertions. I will read the rest, but not at the moment. Meanwhile, what would you say his most important point is? His practical solutions to jump start our economy seem right up Obama’s alley, don’t they? His cursory examples and discussion of Military Defense are banal and childishly naive.

      • MRW
        December 25, 2011, 1:18 pm

        Citizen, I will give you a thoughtful answer this week, because I have just got to get a massive computer database problem under control and today is the day to do it. This site contains the same economic underpinnings. You’ll notice that it’s also the home of Dr. William (Bill) K Black, who is calling for the proper investigation of the crooks who caused the 2008 crisis, and for Geithner and Eric Holder to be fired, like yesterday. There’s a great video on there of Stephanie Kelton giving a talk in which she describes MMT that I think you might enjoy listening to while you’re doing something else. It’s here:

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 25, 2011, 3:26 pm

        @ Citizen, MRW: I am reading the Mosler link now. Technically he is correct — the govt does not need to tax to first spend — but that does not mean the guys isn’t a lunatic nonetheless.

        Look, everything he says about the US Treasury and the Fed can also be said about Argentina or Peru or Ecuador or so many other nations or national monetary authorities. Look at Greece now — they should not have to cut bedgets or increase taxes or clamp down on public sector pension plans? No, they should just print drachmas! MRW, don`t you see the flaw in this guy’s thinking? -N49.

      • MRW
        December 25, 2011, 9:23 pm

        N49, you can call him a whack job all you want, but it’s how the monetary system works right here, right now. (Call up the Fed and Treasury and ask; I did over the course of several months.) Ditto in Canada, except that Canada has the proper regulatory checks and balances in place, which is why it avoided the economic mess we have in the US although it suffered from overlaps with our system.

        When the US allowed regulated banks that issued mortgages to reorganize themselves as “mortgage banks” in the 90s and thereby escape regulatory oversight, and when the US govt removed the protection of Glass-Steagall and other regulatory checks in the late 90s, and when the Republican congress on Dec 15, 2000 ruled that it was against the law to regulate derivatives, it created the mess we are in now. The PR campaign about ‘less regulation’, which our idiot population bought because it sounded vaguely like Reaganism or freedom or individual rights or what have you, has been our demise.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 26, 2011, 1:50 am

        @ MRW:N49, you can call him a whack job all you want, but it’s how the monetary system works right here, right now.

        Yes –I agreed with you on this point: the Fed can print money. And that is the problem!

        Any monetary authoruty can print money in a pure fiat system. And they do print money.

        Folks in the non western world know all about this, for local currencies diappear on a fairly regualr basis, wiping out the savings of the “average” person. (The rich typically get away scot-free.)

        If this dude Mosler were to ride into in town talking like that, he would strung up by nightfall. -N49.

      • tree
        December 26, 2011, 5:16 am

        Look at Greece now — they should not have to cut bedgets or increase taxes or clamp down on public sector pension plans? No, they should just print drachmas!

        Greece’s money is no longer the drachma. It is the Euro, a currency that is not controlled by Greece but by by the larger international eurozone. Molser clearly differentiates between a government which has control of its own currency and one which does not. This lack of control is in fact part of Greece’s problem, and it has been suggested that defaulting, leaving the Euro monetary system, and returning to a totally Greek controlled drachma would be a possible solution to the problem.
        See here:

        I’ve just started reading the Mosler piece, and I don’t find anything that Mosler has said so far (in the link from MRW) “lunatic fringe” or “faulty
        thinking”. I was an economics major in college decades ago, and I grant you its all a bit rusty, but so far he’s making complete sense to me.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 26, 2011, 10:04 am

        @ Tree Greece’s money is no longer the drachma.

        Yes, I know. I was being ironic. My point being that if Greek could print drachmas, it would — and what would that do to the value of the drachma?

        Meanwhile, to compensate, Germany has agreed to print Euros.

        As for the solution to the problem, hey: was Argentina helped by printing pesos? Was Ecuador helped by printing sucres? Was Peru helped by Soles?

        Was Germany helped by printing Reichmarks back in Weimar days?

        Many would argue that printing money was the prime cause of Hitler’s rise to power. Just sayin’… -N49.

      • tree
        December 26, 2011, 7:50 pm


        I don’t think you understood Mosler’s point. He is not advocating the government simply “printing money” to solve the economic downturn. (The term itself is quite hopelessly out of date-“printing” is not necessary to increase the money supply, nor is it done for that purpose in this day and age.) He of course recognizes that under the wrong circumstances an increase in money relative to goods produced can lead to inflation, and if wildly unchecked, to hyperinflation, but it does not, and can not, lead to bankruptcy by a government that produces and controls its own currency. His point is that the federal government does not need to tax first in order to spend and that insisting on a “balanced budget” or even worse, a surplus, when in a period of recession is in fact grossly counterproductive to improving the economy.

        Many would argue that printing money was the prime cause of Hitler’s rise to power. Just sayin’…

        And they would be wrong. The hyperinflation in Weimar Germany, which lasted only from mid 1922 to the end of 1923, was caused in part by the heavy reparations required of Germany post WWI, and German resistance to paying them. The revaluation that resulted from the introduction of the rentenmark, which put an end to the hyperinflation, likewise caused considerable economic hardship in Germany and led to numerous corporate bankruptcies. The combination of those two elements- the loss of WWI, and the economic hardships throughout the hyperinflation period and the revaluation, and the global depression, along with the loss of its overseas colonies, were most likely the main forces behind Hitler’s rise. Germany, by being denied its access to foreign colonies as the result of WWI, chose to expand markets by creating “colonies” within Europe instead. The treatment of other Europeans by Germans during WWII was totally in line with the then current European treatment of third world peoples (all highly deplorable). Of course, Europeans weren’t accustomed to being treated the way they treated third world countries and peoples and thus WWII.

      • Shingo
        December 27, 2011, 3:23 am


        Both you and MRW have repeated the argument that printing money is an anachronism from th days of the gold standard, but Bernanke himself has used this expression a number of times.

        Moesler’s argument that the Federal government does not need to tax in ord to spend is actually part of the problem. Like I said earlier, if the government doesn’t need to collected taxes before spending, then it could be argued that it doesn’t need to collect taxes at all. If issuing currency is a hedge against any possibility of going bankrupt, then why both with issuing government bonds?

        His point is that the federal government does not need to tax first in order to spend and that insisting on a “balanced budget” or even worse, a surplus, when in a period of recession is in fact grossly counterproductive to improving the economy.

        Excuse me, but does Moesler suggest that running a balanced budget under any economic conditions is even necessary? After all, according to him, a balanced budget woud imply zero savings in the nongovernmental sector.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 11:35 am

        Shingo, with all due respect–and believe me, I have a lot for you on this board–you’ve given this a cursory one hour once-over. What Mosler is saying is not new. Wynne Godley (died May, 2010 age 83) head of Applied Economics at Cambridge was warning over 20 years ago about the lack of understanding by politicians and neoclassical economists of what replaced going off the gold standard. Godley, specifically with the creation of the Euro, in 1992 or 1994 with a brilliant article in the London Review of Books at the time. He was mocked. Now, he is seen as prescient.

        The people connected with this line of thought are Wynne Godley, Abba Lerner, Hyman Minsky, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Dr. William K Black (whose video I indicated to you), Marshall Auerback, James Galbraith, Scott Fullwiler. Mosler did not make this up out of thin air.

        Read this, not long. The people mentioned above accurately predicted over 10 years ago what would happen to the Euro and also warned about our current economic crisis. They didn’t just issue one or two sentence statements. They wrote detailed papers why, and they were right:

        This is wrong: “Like I said earlier, if the government doesn’t need to collected taxes before spending, then it could be argued that it doesn’t need to collect taxes at all. “

        Taxes are not used to collect revenue. They are used to control what economists call “aggregate demand” which is just a fancy phrase for spending. So when the economy is too cool, unemployment is high, you drop or eliminate taxes, the payroll tax in the US being the most regressive. When the economy is too hot, employment is at full or near full capacity, and the risk of inflation is there because there are too many dollars available for the purchase of society’s goods (productivity) which will raise the price of those goods, you raise taxes. [Taxes are just a Speed Limit. Incidentally, one guy who gets this is the BBC documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis. Watch his brilliant series, The Trap.]

        I know this piece is too long to read in one sitting, but read the first two screen of this page. At least get to the discussion of the vertical/horizontal aspects to the economy.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 12:14 pm

        One more thing, Shingo.

        One of the problems with our uneducated US population–and it’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that they are uninformed, an ignorant and overpaid-for-their-value broadcast media being a main cause–is that we still equate the activity of the economy with the jejune argument of big government vs us…without having a goddam clue what we are talking about. It’s just knee-jerk and jingoistic. How anyone can follow an ex-house-painter (Sean Hannity) who has never bothered to educate himself or read is beyond me.

        The big government vs us argument is the ‘ole Reagan/Milton Friedman/Monetarist argument that the economy is there to serve financial indices, and not society. Society involves a partnership between government and private sector. Which is why you have a country like Canada (which also has a sovereign currency that is not on the gold standard) able to provide health care for all its citizens, take far better care of its poor, and weather the 2008 financial crisis to the point where it was declared the most stable economy in the world, surpassing Switzerland, I might add. But then, Canada has got, or had, a finance minister (maybe he’s with the Bank of Canada) Mike Carney who does understands how the non-gold standard monetary system works in reality, and whatever you think of Harper–I’d like to glue a dildo to his chair sometimes–he’s an economist as well.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 12:26 pm

        Shingo, here’s another BTW: China adopted the Mosler/Godley/Lerner/Minsky monetary policy in 1999 and experienced 10% growth per year in the time since. From a dead halt.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 3:17 pm

        @ MRW The people connected with this line of thought are Wynne Godley, Abba Lerner, Hyman Minsky, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Dr. William K Black (whose video I indicated to you), Marshall Auerback, James Galbraith, Scott Fullwiler. Mosler did not make this up out of thin air.

        I know at least one of these persons personally (and he knows me.) We’ve worked together in a financial capacity. I can guarentee you that he does not believe in the tonics you or Mosler prescribe. -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 3:22 pm

        @ tree [Mosler] of course recognizes that under the wrong circumstances an increase in money relative to goods produced can lead to inflation, and if wildly unchecked, to hyperinflation, but it does not, and can not, lead to bankruptcy by a government that produces and controls its own currency.

        Mosler right up to a point. A nation can avoid bankruptcy but only as long as a counterparty accepts said nation’s fiat currency as good payment. If you inflate enough, a currency will not be accepted as good payment. For example, Ecuador found that counterparties would not accept the sucre as good payment. It then went broke, even as it could still print sucres.

        The US lives in a bubble. This won’t last forever. -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 3:26 pm

        The hyperinflation in Weimar Germany, which lasted only from mid 1922 to the end of 1923, was caused in part by the heavy reparations required of Germany

        Yes, the hyperinflation became the most acute manifestation of the reparation scheme — that’s how people felt it. And boy, did they feel it. Middle class homes had to sell their pianos and send their daughters out to “work.” The rise of the far right started soon after the hyperinflation subsided. Look it up. -N49.

      • Citizen
        December 27, 2011, 3:33 pm

        Nice to know that the private cartel Federal Reserve & the public Treasury are like a married couple and hence are not liable to each other because they are married. If I was married to the government, and I wanted most to feather my own nest, what’s to stop me from doing so at the expense of John Q Pubic–who does not even know we are married, nor what that marriage means?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 3:35 pm

        @ Tree: He of course recognizes that under the wrong circumstances an increase in money relative to goods produced can lead to inflation, and if wildly unchecked, to hyperinflation

        Guys, you are missing my point (time after time after time.) I know that governments can print money (and yes that is still the correct term). My point — and Ron Paul’s point, a point you continually dodge — is that governments should not be able to print money.

        1. Governments get hooked on this and destroy the currency. It always ends up this way. Always always always.

        2. Printing money distorts the true cost of capital and thus results in malinvestment which in turn results in bubble & busts.


      • Citizen
        December 27, 2011, 3:41 pm

        N49, you made Ron Paul’s point. MRW’s lesson in how monetary system in USA really works does nothing to quell anxiety over a repeat of Weimar super-inflation.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 11:08 pm

        N49, you could only be talking about Auerback @ December 27, 2011 at 3:17 pm.

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2011, 8:11 am


        Sorry I haven’t responded to your comments, but I am on vacation and the Internet connection here is limited as is the time I have to blog. The feeling of respect is certainly mutual, and I will indeed invest the time to read through your references when I can. I should have refrained from commenting until I had been more thorough, so accept my apologies.

        Having said that, and having reviewed your exchange with N49 ( which has made for excellent reading, so thanks to you both) a point that N49 raised which struck me as important too – that the currency of any country is only as good as it’s trading partners believe it to be. I can’t help but feel that this is the flaw in Moesler’s argument.

        I can’t help but feel that Koesler’s thesis has not been fully tested due to the status the US dollar enjoys as the international currency of trade. Had that not been the case, then surely the US government/Fed would not have enjoyed such latitude to inflate the currency, but more importantly, the inflationary repercussions of the US government flooding the system with dollars would have become obvious long ago.

        Failing that, the only other system whereby Moesler’s thesis would work (IMO of course) would be a closed system whereby the US closes its borders to exports and imports and operates as a closed economy.

        What am I missing?

        The other point that stood out for me, and I’m not sure if you are Tree made it, was the argument that inflation or hyperinflation would result from the government creating too much money without productivity – but what happens when what we assumed to be the evidence of productivity (ie. the housing bubble and associated paper) turns out to be worthless?

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 28, 2011, 8:31 pm

        @ MRW re 11:08 — Not true!

      • Shingo
        December 25, 2011, 4:15 pm

        I also read some of Moesler’s piece, and one is left wondering if the fundamental laws of economics simply don’t apply to the treausry or the fed.

        I mean seriously, when else does does one get to buy stocks in a company and still get to the keep and spend the money that they used to bu those stocks?

        His Huffingtonpost piece is even more surreal. As N49 explainined, if one were to take Moslers’s a logic to it’s inevitable conclusion, there is no need to use taxes or T bills to raise revenue. As the issuer of currency, the government should simpy be able to create all the money it needs.

      • MRW
        December 25, 2011, 8:46 pm

        N49 and Shingo, this link might give you more:

      • MRW
        December 25, 2011, 9:36 pm

        N49 and Shingo, this guy, Dr. Bill Black, teaches what you find absurd. Listen to him at Occupy LA

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2011, 5:24 am


        Thank you for that excellent YouTube link. I am more than familiar with the issues he raised. Frontline did an excellent series of reports on the financial meltdown and Brooksley Bourne.

        I didn’t notice him addressing any or Moesler’s arguments however.

      • MRW
        December 26, 2011, 6:32 pm

        Well, Shingo, Black teaches it at U of K. Mosler, and the rest of the MMTers advocate exactly what Black says must be done to the CEO frauds who created the crisis. Because of the site-wide crash, I’ll be posting this link to other post on this thread, but you might be interested in this.

        Long (explains it. you can’t read in one sitting, so bookmark it, but read the first screen, at least, now)

      • Citizen
        December 27, 2011, 4:29 am

        MRW, I read the first screen explaining our de facto modern monetary system.
        It seem to me to make fools of all our political leaders’ statements about how to solve our current economic mess. It also makes me wonder if Bernake and Geithner don’t themselves have a misperception of fundamental reality as Greenspan admitted he had a mote in his eye for forty years. So far, I don’t see the linkage between how our fiat, horizontal-vertical debit-credit operation is affected by, or affects things such as, so many jobs shipped overseas, computerization of former human jobs, and the fact there’s little relationship between increasingly high worker productivity and static wages, and the ever widening income gap between the 99% & 1% (Wall St, CEOs). Money may be like a ticket to the theatre with no intrinsic value, but if most of those tickets end up in the hands of the upper, say 5% of the population, as they have been doing for the last 30 years or more, the question is how long before a hostile crowd appears at the theatre door, upset they can’t see the show? And wasn’t that the starting point of both OWS and Tea Party?

        Also, the distinction made between the state, the government, the private versus public sector–all of these assume a reality that ultimately does not exist–something like a chessboard and its pieces versus real life. In short, the article itself seems more theoretical than it’s claim it is not a theory at all, but a simple translation of how our financial “alchemists” work.

        Ron Paul may not have a good grasp of economics because Nixon ended the gold standard’s leftovers, but Paul did predict our last few big bubbles and their collapse when our fearless financial and political leaders did not. And he did it with Austrian theory.

        And our modern monetary system still has to worry about too few goods chasing too much currency.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 2:08 pm

        Citizen, according to those who can really explain Geithner according to MMT, Geithner is a crook:

        Part 3 of Mosler’s book addresses the Public Purpose of an economy. Mosler doesn’t go into detail. He lists them simply. What Clinton allowed Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, Gramm, and Levitt (the latter honorably has screamed mea culpa every since the crisis) was criminal. It set up this economic crisis for one thing: greed. The monetary system and fiscal policy are two different things, which you are blending together. The monetary system is how it works. The fiscal policy is what we, the people, decide to do with it. Except we don’t decide, do we? We are subject to these greedmeisters having full throttle control over our lives and jobs and economy to our detriment. And as long as we continue to entertain the idea that the economy is supposed to satisfy some financial index (the monetarists, Friedman, and current Reaganites) instead of serve society, we are phucked.

        Ron Paul believes in a hybrid form of Austrian theory as espoused by Richard Maybury. I know this for an absolute fact. Maybury is an honorable man, and wicked smart…and part of his theory does involve MMT, especially the velocity of sectors.

        My point, Citizen, is that if more people knew how the monetary system works in actuality–13 year kids understand it when it’s explained to them–they would come out swinging demanding that our politicians fix the fiscal policy.

      • Citizen
        December 27, 2011, 3:26 pm

        Hi, MRW. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of how monetary policy actually works in the USA. I will admit, I am still trying to digest it, and, at this point, I don’t even doubt it. But the translation of monetary policy into fiscal policy is exactly what I am trying to discern, and you have not helped me, or I just don’t get it. It’s obvious that we Americans need to know: how best actuality of monetary policy translates into the best (for the most) fiscal policy. Can you help people like me here on this question?

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 3:42 pm


        John Carney (CNBC Senior Editor) wrote this yesterday. “Modern Monetary Theory and Austrian Economics” Does this help a bit?

        P.S. It’s hard to digest. I admit I threw up every block in the world. Didn’t make sense until I started to ask if this (monetary system) was really how it worked, and I made calls to the Treasury and the Fed. Took me goddam months/close to a year. This discussion was what made the breakthrough for me. I’m a simpleton. I need little pictures (BTW, check out the rest of Stephanie Kelton’s posts. She is a clear writer):
        “What Happens When the Government Tightens its Belt?”
        “What Happens When the Government Tightens its Belt? (Part II)”

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 3:55 pm

        Citizen, more…

        “It’s obvious that we Americans need to know: how best actuality of monetary policy translates into the best (for the most) fiscal policy. Can you help people like me here on this question?”

        Well, fiscal policy is, basically, what do we want our government to spend its [OUR] money on. The notion that we have to trim Social Security and Medicare is an utter fallacy. The argument that we leave our debt to our grandchildren, that it’s intergenerational, is another. (Our economy was in far worse shape after WWII. Did succeeding generations suffer as a result?) The fact that we need to fix our infrastructure but can’t afford to do it without heavy taxation is yet another. If people understood our current monetary system they would know that these arguments are 100% bogus. So start at the beginning and understand how it works. We’re smart enough to re-aright this ship once we know the basics.

        James Galbraith, Randall Wray, and Warren Mosler wrote this paper “The Case Against Intergenerational Accounting, the Accounting Campaign Against Social Security and Medicare” published by The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College in 2009. It’s pretty dry, but it speaks, academically, to an underpinning of fiscal policy. Don’t have link, just the paper sitting on my desk. (I’m such a nerd.)

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 4:31 pm

        Citizen, and once you’ve read John Carney’s piece, which Mosler highlighted on his blog, read the comments from his blog…so you’ll see there’s lots of yelling and screaming. Mosler’s blog comment section is inhabited by financial types who talk in economic shorthand that I find difficulty following sometimes; they’re arguing among themselves. The University of Kansas (neweconomicperspectives) is designed for students, more my speed. But Mosler comments on his blog entries. He’s taciturn and humble, but will correct what he thinks is wrong thinking fairly quickly. Search YouTube for some of his videos. Galbraith was right: he’s not a blowhard, he’s not looking for a following, and he’s principled.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 5:51 pm

        @ MRW: I read your link to CNBC. Yeah, that’s alright, but he thinks his school of thought resembles the Austrian school too much by half. It really doesn’t. For example: “In short, the MMTers agree with Rothbard on the purpose and effect of government control of money…” just isn’t true.

        And he says: “The MMTers aren’t engaged with arguing about the Austrian-optimum financial system. They are engaged in describing the actual financial system we have—which tends toward crisis. ”

        And he just misses it. At least some of you here believe that free markets work sometimes, in some areas. Like, say, the gasoline market. If the price of gas goes up, you drive less, so there is less demand and that has the effect of easing prices. In this sense, markets are inherently self-regulating.

        The one market over which the government has total control is the market for money. Governments (or their agents) control the price of money, and they almost always price it too low. Like the gas price in Venzuala. And, like gasoline in Venzuala, money in this way gets wasted and mismanaged. (Like, for example, invading foreign countries and building empires. ) But because there is no feedback mechanism (higher prices, -> drive less), the symptoms of a mis-priced money market remain undetected for years. Then boom! Sh1t hits the fan. That’s where we are now.

        I am not for no government; indeed, I think government does many things better than the private sector (this sets me apart from the RP camp.) But if there is one thing governments should not control the price of, it is money. They screw it up every time.

        It is not about theorizing about an ideal system (as per CNBC link), but rather about adopting a system that isn’t inherently unstable. Until the “MMTer” get this, they share nothing with Austrians. -N49.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 7:06 pm

        N49, we’re on a floating exchange. The currency markets control it.

      • MRW
        December 27, 2011, 8:12 pm

        BTW, N49, you ever see these?

        The Trap – 1 – F*k You Buddy

        The Trap – 2 – The Lonely Robot

        The Trap – 3 – We Will Force U 2 Be Free

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 9:24 pm

        @ MRWre N49, we’re on a floating exchange. The currency markets control it.

        In finance lingo, the price of money refers to interest rates. The Fed has always controlled the short end of the curve. Now it also, post Lehman, controls the long end of the curve as well. -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        December 27, 2011, 9:51 pm

        I haven’t seen these. I will take a look. Thanks. -N49.

  46. Citizen
    December 24, 2011, 8:39 am

    For those here who think Ron Paul is not the one to vote for, please listen to this speech of his on July 10, 2003. He tells the American people exactly what a neocon is, who they are, and where they come from in terms of philosophical vision, and how they have hijacked our government and way of life:

    Too bad too many are still not listening to him. It is urgent for our country to do all we can to give this man more exposure!

  47. ish
    December 24, 2011, 9:57 am

    What a scary scary thread. Ron Paul is a right-wing idiot. I find it tragic that thinking people, in the aftermath of Obama’s betrayals, would have such an insane reaction as to go for some creepy libertarian rightwinger who, if you pull a paper bag over your head, almost sounds like he might have some acceptable foreign policy positions if you squint. The man and his supporters are also f**king nuts. This thread has ample proof of that.

    “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” – Ron Paul, June 4, 2004. That’s him, not some questionable newsletter that he authorized.

    If Obama sold out the Palestinians, and the Republicans promise to do worse, perhaps the solution is changing the game. Which does not mean for voting for this racist crackpot.

    Wake up! Occupy everywhere.

    • kalithea
      December 24, 2011, 12:10 pm

      Bullshit! You’re no better than a Neocon fear-mongerer. What’s wrong with Ron Paul going as far as he can go changing the Zionist narrative??? I’m not buying this smear character assassination. This smear put out by a NEOCON site. Now I’m witnessing what happened prior to the Iraq War Resolution. I’m witnessing Democrats and Republicans especially Neocons ganging up together to shut down the TRUTH, and YOU are part of it!! Yeah, Robert Bryd was a true blue southern racist, but he tried to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis!! You sicken me with your high and mighty, hoity-toity self-righteousness! When hundreds of thousands of Iranians are being slaughtered because you SILENCED the ONLY candidate who wants to shut down that war, get back to me! You know whats staggering – the HYPOCRISY surrounding this character assassination! Go spread your fear to some sap who’ll buy your swampland too!

      • ish
        December 24, 2011, 3:36 pm

        a RATIONAL person DOES not COMMENT like THAT.

    • Scott
      December 24, 2011, 12:29 pm

      To me, there’s a vast gap between opposing, even retrospectively, the 1964 Act and the race-baiting of the newsletters. But I see no harm for progressives or anyone else in a debate–between Obama and Ron Paul–on the issue. Obama would win, and rightly so. But that certainly doesn’t rule out supporting Paul for the GOP nomination, or welcoming the foreign policy debate he has brought into the contest.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2011, 12:34 pm

      Actually, ish, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did improve race relations and enhance freedom but it has been partially at the expense of individual liberty, and hence, it also increased racial tensions.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 12:50 pm

        ish, two examples of government policy that flowed directly from said Act that have been at the expense of some loss of individual liberty and have created racial tension : forced busing of children by race, and affirmative action. Just saying.

      • ish
        December 24, 2011, 3:38 pm

        Wow.”forced busing.” It’s pretty clear that Ron Paul’s world is whites only. You kind of just proved it.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 4:07 pm

        I guess neither you or your kids, if you have any, ever experienced forced busing, ish–too young, or did you and/or your parents live in a posh neighborhood where the righteous liberals never dared to do it? What exactly ish, did I just prove? You act like the busing issue was, and is irrelevant.

      • ish
        December 24, 2011, 4:19 pm

        Fascinating that people like you always presume that anyone disagreeing with you must be “posh.” That narrative in your head is very loud. And wrong.

        “Forced busing” is a racist codeword. Period. At 53 I’m old enough to recognize that.

      • Citizen
        December 25, 2011, 11:15 am

        So “forced busing” is a racist codeword? Are you saying nobody’s kids were ever taken from their schools and bussed to other schools under mandate of law, enforced by the state? At 53 you sure are ignorant of facts occurring in your own lifetime.

        It’s not a code word at all; here, ish learn something–get out of your kool-aid rut:

      • lysias
        December 25, 2011, 8:44 pm

        It’s pretty clear that Ron Paul’s world is whites only.

        You mean nonwhites are incapable of believing that ending the wars is more important than other issues?

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2011, 4:08 am

        I guess it’s not pretty obvious that all the people we’ve been killing in our endless war on “terror” are brown. If Ron Paul world is for whites only, he sure has an absurd foreign policy for that world.

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2011, 4:20 am

        It’s pretty clear that Ron Paul’s world is whites only

        Sadly for you and your white ilk, non whites disagree with you.

      • ish
        December 26, 2011, 9:18 am

        Believe what you want. George W. Bush ran on a platform of less US involvement abroad and an end to American “nation-building” of foreign countries. That worked out well, right?

        Anyone who thinks voting for Ron Paul will mean an end to war is delusional.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2011, 6:26 pm

        Yeah, Shingo, it’s amazing how some folks here are trying to bury Ron Paul as a racist–non-whites like Ron Paul more than any other GOP candidate:

      • Shingo
        December 27, 2011, 3:27 am

        Believe what you want. George W. Bush ran on a platform of less US involvement abroad and an end to American “nation-building” of foreign countries. That worked out well, right?

        Hey Ish, you cretin, are you even aware that Ron Paul was thirst to make this argument in the debated during the 2008 primaries. The difference between Bush and Paul of course, is that Paul has been opposed to war and military invention throughout his career. Bush on the other hand stated that in his opinion, a president can only be great by becoming a war time president.

        Anyone who thinks voting for Ron Paul will mean an end to war is delusional.

        That means that either:

        a) you believe another candidate is capable of ending war
        b) no candidate is capable of ending war
        c) you’re opposed to ending war and criticizing Ppaul for even guesting it

      • ish
        December 27, 2011, 8:09 am

        infowars. Now there’s a reputable source of information.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2011, 1:31 pm

        ish, the Ron Paul quote you gave was made in 2004, and, when asked by Tim Russert in (if memory serves, 2007), about it, he said his main objection was that the federal government had no Constitutional right to tell the private sector how to run run its business or home. He claimed a private business had a right to decide who enters its doors, to limit its customers, and ditto wrt who one wanted to enter their home. He also pointed out it was the federal government who had maintained segregation in the Army for so long. He had no problem with such limitations on individual liberty when it came to federal mandates as to federal property rights and working pre-conditions, etc. He also suggested a person had a right to smoke a cigar outside federal spaces, and, of course in his or her home. I’m a smoker and a gun owner, and I love cheeseburgers. I think Ron Paul needs to realize more that his personal liberty ends where yours and mine begins, but I wish a large chunk of the Nanny State would go away too–Nanny has police power, I don’t. And anyway I look at it his stance on foreign policy and national defense is HUGE, too huge not to work to get his voice heard because nobody else with the camera’s eye is saying it; in fact they are doing their best to obfuscate it.

      • ish
        December 24, 2011, 4:21 pm
      • Oscar
        December 25, 2011, 12:20 pm

        Citizen, you’re spot-on as always. Ron Paul has the momentum now to go the distance and with a proportional delegate system for the primaries, he’s in it for the duration. The MSM intentionally suppresses the depth and breadth of RP’s support — he and Romney have been at it since the 2008, and they have set up a nationwide infrastructure to make a serious run for the presidency. It’s why all the other candidates did not qualify for Virginia — amateur hour for Gingrich, Perry and the rest.

        Unfortunately for the neocons, they dropped this smear too early. Ron Paul is highly likely to win Iowa, will place #1 or #2 in NH. Then Santorum and possibly Bachmann will drop out. Gingrich will continue to plunge. RP will be in a dog fight with Romney, who will be capped out because the GOP voters can’t get behind a permanent war neo-con who created RomneyCare. RP will win big states like Texas and California, while Romney will take Florida. But it won’t be a winner takes all scenario — proportional delegates which will benefit Ron Paul.

        It is possible. Don’t ever give up the fight. Ron Paul is the ONLY CANDIDATE acceptable to Mondoweiss readers.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2011, 6:29 pm

        ish, and readers here on MW, yes do read ish’s linked blog, and don’t just read the often illogical and unsupported, out of context Paul-bashing article, do also read all the comments beneath it, including the one listing and applying the 10 steps to communism to Obama’s stance.

  48. kalithea
    December 24, 2011, 12:33 pm

    Right-wing Zionists don’t have to worry about shutting down Ron Paul because LIBERAL ZIONISTS are doing all the dirty work for them!!

  49. lyn117
    December 24, 2011, 1:27 pm

    “Lame” describes Ron Paul’s “apology” perfectly. I don’t really understand why libertarians hang out with racists, or vice versa. Sadly there are huge numbers of racists around, of the old-fashioned anti-semitic anti-black kind, and I’m sure Ron Paul is aware that they form a significant part of his political base. I would not be surprised to learn there were more racists than conscious anti-racists. I thought the video was great too, considering its obviously low-budget production.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2011, 2:48 pm

      lyn117, I don’t know any Ron Paul fans who are racist. Where do you meet them? I don’t know a single Ron Paul fan who is a Zionist or Israel Firster, do you? I’m sure those folks deeply value their liberty to be Zionist racists, right?

      • lyn117
        December 24, 2011, 5:34 pm

        Evidently, the writers of the 1990’s “Ron Paul Political Report” are both racist and fans of Ron Paul.

        I don’t mean to imply libertarians are racist. I can’t even say whether Ron Paul is racist. More that racists latch onto libertarians (and their anti-government message) and libertarians don’t always disavow them the way, say, left-wing anarchist of the pacifist variety (who have an anti-government message of a different kind) would.

      • Citizen
        December 25, 2011, 11:22 am

        Your implied characterization of libertarians as right-wing anarchist/war-mongers reveals your ignorance. Stop it.

  50. kma
    December 24, 2011, 2:42 pm

    regarding citizen’s James Jaeger article: I always thought the fake fighting over trivial issues between the “two” parties was no more than an old-fashioned divide-and-conquer tactic. We The People split up behind both of them while the parties’ sponsors walk off with the spoils. this is why the occupy movement is so scary to them. very good article!

    regarding the racism label against Ron Paul: the ACTIONS, not just the QUOTES of nearly all the other candidates, including Obama are as racist – you don’t see? last week my town held a vigil over the NDAA, and Japanese citizens vowed not to let Muslims be interned.

    furthermore, if we can’t integrate ourselves and respect our fellow citizens of color as though they DO have EQUAL rights, do we then blame Ron Paul for it? can he stop us? pulling quotes out to change the subject is another divide tactic. it’s the establishment that’s the enemy, the one that wants to hide from us behind military weapons, and Paul appears to be on OUR SIDE.

  51. john h
    December 24, 2011, 11:51 pm

    Latest Republican news…

    Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman, and Santorum, all fail to qualify for the Virginia vote. That leaves Paul and Romney.

    Trump leaves the Republicans, possibly to run as an Independent. If he did, that would be likely to benefit Obama.

  52. MHughes976
    December 25, 2011, 5:38 pm

    That does seem remarkable news, especially because the Paul vote seems to be a way of conveying popular disquiet over the ‘war with Iran’ drumbeats. To my foreign eyes Paul is a right-wing politician who has seized a chance to build a coalition by moving left. For years the world has been dominated by those making the opposite flip, the Clintons and Blairs. But looking at all – I should say ‘what little’ – I know of Paul I’d still feel some compunction about People Like Us voting for People Like Him.

    • Citizen
      December 26, 2011, 4:13 am

      MHughes976, if you go on youtube you can find videos of Ron Paul stating his current positions–decades ago. More recently, in 2002, he laid out everything about the neocons, plain, simple, and dead on target.

  53. Dan Crowther
    December 27, 2011, 4:38 pm

    I will state once more (with feeling!) – I think Paul’s economic views are “unsavory” BUT, he WILL get my vote, if hes on the massachusetts ballot. I’d rather duke it out in a “libertarian” state that values civil liberties than duke it out against the drones that are assured to be hovering over head in another Obama term.

    But, I hope that if he does turn out to be full of it, the Paul supporters will become his most ardent critics!

Leave a Reply