tagged w/ Smear Campaign
-
Ron Paul's supporters love him. He's the guy voters turn to get the government out of their lives and pocketbooks. And he’s consistently not afraid to stand up to rowdy Republican debate audiences with his defiant anti-war stance. He wants to legalize drugs. He seems like the ultimate libertarian — until you hear his position on sex and reproductive rights.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell exposed Ron Paul as a "fake" libertarian because of his position on sex and birth control.
In this week's GOP debate, Ron Paul talked about his unyielding opposition to a woman's right to choose, saying the government should prevent all abortions — the standard Republican Party line.
A real libertarian wouldn't want the government to make any sort of law on sex among consenting adults.
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10489785-rewriting-ron-pauls-fake-libertarianismRon Paul's supporters love him. He's the guy voters turn to get the... more
-
-
Just in case there was any question, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is no friend to women. The latest evidence came during an interview on CNN where he told Piers Morgan that only in cases of “honest rape” would he consider abortion acceptable, and even then in he would just advise the woman to go to the emergency room for “a shot of estrogen.”
“Honest rape”. So, where do we begin?
I guess I would start by asking Paul to follow-up on just what exactly constitutes an “honest” rape. What kind of evidence would we need to show a lack of consent? Does a woman need to have signs she resisted? How much resistance counts before a rape goes from being “fraudulent” to being “honest”? Can spousal rape ever be “honest”? What about other forms of familial rape? What exactly is the bright line here?
Assuming we get some clarity from Paul on the parameters of “honest” rape, I’ve got a few logistical questions also. I’m assuming part of the investigation into whether or not a rape was “honest” would include an exam to collect evidence to support or negate the claim– a rape kit. We will need to have this evidence processed and processed QUICKLY in order to make sure we get that shot of estrogen in time. In order for that to happen, I’m assuming Paul is going to make sure that local law enforcement is fully funded and staffed to process those rape kits. How will this expansion of law enforcement be funded? And what about those women who don’t live in close proximity to a hospital or clinic? Do we have law enforcement come to them with doctors?
About that shot of estrogen. What exactly is this shot of estrogen supposed to do? Paul is purportedly an ob/gyn, so he must know a shot of estrogen won’t do a thing to prevent fertilization and implantation. So what’s that shot for?
I’m not sure what is the most dangerous aspect to come from Paul’s statements here: that is platform is built on a criminal disdain of women or as a doctor he doesn’t know his ear from his elbow.
http://www.care2.com/causes/ron-paul-what-exactly-is-an-honest-rap.htmlJust in case there was any question, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is no friend to women. The... more
-
-
Ron Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white supremacist Don Black and his son Derek. Mr. Black said he received Mr. Paul's controversial newsletters when they were first published about two decades ago and described how the publications were perceived by members of the white supremacist movement. Former KKK Grand Wizard and Louisiana Congressman David Duke also phoned in to explain why he's voting for Mr. Paul.
"Everybody, all of us back in the 80?s and 90?s, felt Ron Paul was, you know, unusual in that he had actually been a Congressman, that he was one of us and now, of course, that he has this broad demographic-broad base of support," Mr. Black said on his broadcast yesterday.
Mr. Black is a former Klansman and member of the American Nazi Party who founded the "white nationalist" website Stormfront in 1995. He donated to Mr. Paul in 2007 and has been photographed with the candidate. Mr. Paul has vocal supporters in Stormfront's online forum.
http://www.bilerico.com/2012/01/ron_paul_endorsed_by_former_kkk_leader.phpRon Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white... more
-
-
I get it, I get it, 1000 times fucking over WE ALL GET IT!
Ron Paul appeals to young-And perhaps not so young- dumb liberals for two primary reasons:
1) Ron Paul claims he will legalize marijuana.
2) Ron Paul claims he would end the wars and bring the troops home immediately.
Now, if you so-called liberal/progressives can turn your vaporizer off for a moment, I would like to introduce you to something called reality, and why claims one and two are complete bullshit.
Presidents don't get elected because they promise anything which is terrible, they get elected by promising something that is good, and admittedly, claims both one and two are good, except if one examines them a bit deeper (remember I said this would require turning off your vaporizers; oh shit man, what a drag!)
First of all, you can throw Ron Paul's claims One and Two right out the fucking window for the following reasons, even IF Ron Paul were elected, he would not be able to do what he claims he wants to do concerning items One and Two willy-nilly, (which he well knows) because they would never, NEVER pass them in the Senate or in Congress, so grow up and get the hell over it, America is culturally and socially backward, and it shall remain so as long as plutocrats are in control (and Ron Paul is a card-carrying plutocrat if ever there was one) simply because it is always in the interest of a plutocracy to have a really dumbed down population, which as evidenced by the growing popularity of such a genocidal philosophy as libertarianism, it would appear the plutocrats have certainly succeeded indeed.
Secondly, the most dangerous thing which is not so obvious, is that libertarianism is one of the most self-centered, egocentric, psychopathic philosophies ever developed, if one cannot see or understand the convoluted logic behind that very mentally unstable (and ultimately hypocritical) Patriarch of libertarianism Ayn Rand, I simply don't know what to say, except that all you Paulbots out there appear to be in the same intellectual consensuses trance, the same cult of personality obsession, as the citizens of 1930s Germany did with Adolf Hitler, I can guarantee you, if that accursed, wretched little man became president, you'd be singing a different tune two or three years later.
Unlike Libertarians, I believe in paying taxes, I believe that our current tax system is totally fucked right now, that it's 180° out of order, the wealthy, whether they be corporations or individuals, pay essentially nothing, and the rest of us wage slave scum pay the rest.
That shit needs to stop.
But a no good son of a bitch who Doesn't won't to pay ANY taxes for ANYTHING, I have absolutely no use for, and I don't give a rats ass about any of their convoluted Anti-logic arguments to the contrary, because as far as a libertarian is concerned, they would rather let their own mother die, as long as some kind of proposal did not include them paying ANY tax, I have always despised greedy self-centered people, which if any of you Paulbots out there would Admit it, Is exactly the reason why this once great nation is in the condition it's in right now. Fuck Libertarianism. And fuck Ron Paul!
You may turn your vaporizers back on now.
As always, I remain, VI get it, I get it, 1000 times fucking over WE ALL GET IT!
Ron Paul appeals to... more
-
-
By David Edwards
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul claimed on Sunday that Americans don’t have a right to entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.
During a debate hosted by NBC, WHDH’s Andy Hiller asked Paul: “In your opinion, what services are Americans entitled to expect to get from government?”
“Entitlements are not rights,” Paul flatly stated. “Rights mean you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.”
“Earlier on here, there was a little discussion about gay rights. I, in a way, don’t like to use those terms: gay rights, women’s rights, minority rights, religious rights. There’s only one type of right: It’s a right to your liberty.”
He added: “No, they’re not entitled. One group isn’t entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there’s a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys, the rich people, they get the entitlements, the military-industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.”
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of entitlement is “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/08/ron-paul-entitlements-are-not-rights/
Watch this video from MSNBC, uploaded Jan. 8, 2012.
"Eeesh this Poor Fella, did he just say 'The Fruits of my Labor' does he realize that Social Security is the Fruits of my Labor???"By David Edwards
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Republican presidential candidate Ron... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
The Iowa cucuses came and went, and the message from a certain astute conservative columnist offered months ago has been proven correct. New Hampshire will only delay the inevitable cold slap of reality that normal Earthlings in South Carolina will eagerly convey to the Paulbots.
So with resounding glee, let the message be said again to every Ron Paul supporter who shouted down other speakers, astroturfed message boards, and yelled at dissenters, either in person, or in all capital letters on the information highway.
Listen closely Paulbots.
You don't matter.
Complete story at:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/jan/6/iowa-caucus-epilogue-paulbots-15-minutes-are/
Although I hate quoting conservatards, I'm afraid this one is so spot on right that I will have to bow to his wisdom. I guess they can't be wrong all the time.The Iowa cucuses came and went, and the message from a certain astute conservative... more
-
-
People are finally realizing this guy is just a prop!
Here's a pretty bizarre moment in Ron Paul's quite-long speech celebrating his third place finish in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday.
...and we had the task, for which we are very successful, is reintroducing some ideas Republicans needed for a long time, and that is the conviction that freedom is popular.
[applause]
But once again, we have had a fantastic showing for this cause and challenging people. Not the status quo that we have been putting up with for decade after decade. But challenging 'em and saying 'You know, let's challenge them. Let's go back to this real old fashioned idea, this very dangerous idea, let's obey the Constitution!
[applause]
And too often, those who preach limited government and small government, they forget that invasion of your privacy is big government and we have to emphasize protecting your personal rights and your economic rights are what the government's supposed to do.
Before I continue with the transcription, let me just interject the observation that Ron Paul abandons the whole "protect your personal rights" when it comes to things like same-sex marriage, LGBT issues, and women's right to choose what happens to their bodies, even in cases of rape and/or incest. But I digress. Back to the speech.
They're not supposed to run our lives or spend our money.
[applause]
And also, along those lines, what we have introduced with so much enthusiasm I hear so often from so many volunteers -- The other day someone came up to me and he was refreshing my memory because he knew I - knew the statement because I've said it.
Back in the old days in the early 70s, Nixon said we're all Keynesians now, which meant that even the Republicans accepted liberal economics. He says I'm waiting for the day when we can say we're all Austrians now.
But the biggest change I think in intellectual and political changes that we have brought about is the emphasis on a very important matter: Making sure we get to the bottom of the ultimate bailouters, and that is our Federal Reserve system, we need reforms there, and we need a new monetary system and obey the Constitution. This is something that we made great progress on, so the first and initial and important step that we've worked so hard for and it's on the table. Today there was a national poll came out and they were talking about how many people supported the gold standard. How long has it been since they've taken a national poll on the gold standard? And guess what? The majority of the American people believe we should have a gold standard and not a paper standard.
But also, also the great strides that we have made has been really on the foreign policy. The fact that we can once again talk in Republican circles and make it credible, talking about what Eisenhower said, to beware of the military-industrial complex. Talk about the old days when Robert Taft, Mr. Republican said we shouldn't be engaged in these entangling alliances. He believed what the founders taught us. He didn't even want to be in NATO. We certainly don't need NATO and the UN to tell us when to go to war.
But we have seen a great difference. The majority of the American people are behind us on this total war effort. They're tired of the war, it costs too much money, too many people get killed, too many people get injured, too many people get sick, and the majority, maybe 70 or 80 percent of the American people now are saying it's time to get out of Afghanistan.
A couple of comments. First, Ron Paul is an expert at finding wedge issues to split liberals. The wars are one; the privacy issues are another; and the Federal reserve is the third. He uses these like candy to feed to the willing masses. I seriously doubt those who were polled on the gold standard have the slightest idea what a return to that monetary standard would mean for this country, and the 99 percent in particular. The same for privacy issues. He's all about being against privacy invasion until it involves a woman's private dealings with her doctor or what two consenting adults might do in their bedroom. Finally, on the wars, yes. Most of us not only think it's time to get out of Afghanistan, but we also think we should never have gone there in the first place. This is not news. And it's in process.
I'll just close with this excellent post by David Atkins over at Digby's blog. This is why liberals and progressives do not vote for Ron Paul:
Which leads us to Ron Paul, a man whose detestable ideals are directly in opposition to those of liberalism--even if he happens, like a stopped clock, to end up in the right place a couple of times for entirely the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul is against the drug war, yes, but for the same reasons he is against preventing factories from dumping mercury in our rivers: he opposes any sort of intervention at all by the government to assist those in need, or to stop those who would do harm to others, except in the most simplistic cases of the use of force.
Ron Paul is against foreign interventions, yes, but for the same reason he opposes providing healthcare to sick people: he believes that the U.S. government should not be in the business of interfering against almost anyone, on behalf of anyone else.
Unless that person is a fetus, in which case state intervention is apparently just fine. Or unless that interference is taking place by, say, the State of Alabama, in which it's just fine, as opposed to the evil jackboots in Washington, D.C. trying to tell those good Alabamans just what they can and can't do with gays, undocumented immigrants, and women seeking abortions.People are finally realizing this guy is just a prop!
Here's a pretty bizarre... more
-
-
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 2, 2012
With the nation’s first primary vote just a day away, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has lost his momentum after climbing to the top of the polls. He is down four points from last week, according to a survey released by Public Policy Polling (PPP) on Sunday night.
Despite the drop, Paul is still on top with 20 percent of the vote. But former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trails behind by only 1 percent and Rick Santorum trails behind by only two percent.
PPP notes that “momentum in the race is completely on Santorum’s side.” He has gained 8 points in support since last week, while no other presidential candidate has seen more than a one point gain. Among voters who say they decided who to vote for in the last seven days, Santorum leads Romney by 12 points and Paul by 13 points.
The final result of the Iowa caucuses will probably be determined by who turns out to vote. A strong turnout among young voters and independents could propel Paul to the top, while a strong turnout among traditional Republicans is likely to bolster the chances of Romney or Santorum.
Paul’s campaign is still optimistic, regardless of losing their momentum. The candidate who once labeled nothing more than a “gadfly” by a former Bush strategist is still on top, albeit barely.
“As evidenced by the standing-room only crowds, Ron Paul has broad support and a top notch ground organization,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Despite a coordinated assault by the establishment, Congressman Paul is in the lead and headed toward a top finish in the Hawkeye state.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/02/ron-paul-loses-momentum-in-iowa-santorum-gains-support/
"LMFAO!!!!! Ha ain't neither one of them worth a Sh*t!!!!" Oh I can barely Stop Laughing... =) =) =) =) =) =)By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 2, 2012
With the nation’s first primary... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign released another video targeting rival Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on New Years Eve.
The video is modeled on the science-fiction series The Twilight Zone and attempts to portray Paul as a kook who believes in conspiracy theories. The video shows clips of the Texas congressman talking about the secret society of the Skull and Bones, and discussing New World Order conspiracies.
In one clip, Paul says that the civil war was “senseless,” and that the northern states should have bought southern slaves and released them instead of going to war. In another, he says that U.S. foreign policy led to the 9/11 terror attacks.
Paul has given multiple interviews to conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones.
The ad concludes with slides that state, “Tune in next week for more of The Ron Paul Chronicles.”
A video released by the Huntsman campaign last week branded Paul as “unelectable” because of racist, hate-filled newsletters that were published under his name about 20 years ago.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/01/huntsman-hits-ron-paul-with-another-ad/
Watch the ad, uploaded to YouTube
"I Love it when they Eat their Own!!!" =)By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Jon Huntsman’s presidential... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then." - Ron Paul
Hmmm...and if a black man were to marry a white woman the authorities would have entered that "bedroom" and dragged both to jail...and it was started waaaay back then even before Ron Paul's "back then"! Weren't THEIR civil liberties being infringed upon by the "law of the land" at that time?
And, Ron Paul, how long would it take for these "changes in attitudes" to come around without the law of the land altering and thereby stepping in to remedy injustices, eh? Another one hundred years after the Civil War certainly wasn't enough time. Two hundred years would do the trick? Three? Do I hear four?
And what about all those laws on the "books" that prevented the races from coming together? Ever think about that one, Mr. Ron Paul?
No?
Myopia of the mind is a terrible thing to witness!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they... more
-
-
With the eminent collapse of the European Union, and the World Wide Financial House of cards in 2012 the long desired Austerity cuts to our most prized Social Security System Ron Paul would like nothing more then to sign those measures into law! 30 years of unrealistic Tax Breaks for the wealthy have put our nation in debt, not Social Safety nets such as Medicare and Social Security. I can't think of a more perfect way of letting the Rich skate away with your money that have refused to pay in raises and job creation. Don't forget it was the Republicans that have put in place two Wars to suck the nation dry from the bottom up, stopping at just above the middle Class to pay for these Wars. And now a Republican is supposed to fix it? Sure, it's right out of the Republican play book!
A public weary of our Imperialistic Foreign policy's, is a given and a wonderful idea to pull out everywhere around the World. But to place a Perfect Trojan Horse in Ron Paul in the most powerful job would be an extremely bad idea. Mr. Paul is on record of his hatred of abortion, Medicare, Social Security, and several Departments within the Government. I'm not sure how much he alone could do as President to destroy these programs but it has been a Republican wet dream to destroy the FDR New Deal for decades. Just when the Government will be needed to shore up such programs, an anti-social agent would be in the White House. The outright majority of Americans want the Rich to pay a bigger share of Taxes because they alone have benefited from extremely low Tax rates for 3 decades. Don't fall for this charade that is Ron Paul! A Ron Paul Presidency would be a Progressive Nightmare, and when polled recently the most popular political word was Progressive by a landslide! Just as we Progressives are about to turn the corner the worst thing would be a Ron Paul Presidency!With the eminent collapse of the European Union, and the World Wide Financial House of... more
-
-
By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, December 29, 2011
As part of their promise to “go big,” protesters with the 99 Percent movement have been interrupting campaign-related events all over Iowa in the week leading up to the nation’s first major presidential candidate selection contest, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul was not given an exception.
During a rally with veterans last night, candidate Paul saw his speech interrupted by a group of about 20 occupiers, who began shouting as Paul was mid-sentence. After a few seconds, the crowd responded with a boisterous chant of the candidate’s name, over and over again.
“Why do you hate gays?” one of the protesters shouted. “Why do you hate the 99 percent?” Another reportedly asked why he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade and “control a woman’s reproductive decisions.”
“Freedom of speech, ain’t it wonderful?” Paul responded.
As the candidate’s supporters pushed them out of the hall, one woman kept audibly insisting that she’s a veteran, as is much of her family. Others with the group tried to explain that they supported Paul as well.
Paul has been by far the most friendly toward the 99 Percent movement out of all the Republican presidential candidates, calling it a “healthy” expression and a “legitimate effort,” although he’s also said that he’s not quite sure what they are protesting.
He’s further said that if the occupiers favor going after “crony capitalism,” he’s all for it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/29/occupy-protesters-interrupt-ron-paul-why-do-you-hate-gays/
This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011.
"D'OH!!!!"By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, December 29, 2011
As part of their promise to... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
Ron Paul has developed a “live and let live” approach to same-sex marriage and gay rights on the campaign trail, but his efforts to attract Evangelical voters ahead of the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses have revealed, a darker social conservative side to the libertarian Republican from Texas. For instance, earlier this week, the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of Reverend Phillip Kayser, pastor of Dominion Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska, for the “enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser has previously argued that the Bible justifies capital punishment against gay people — and still stands by this belief:
“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/29/395688/paul-campaign-touts-endorsement-of-preacher-who-advocates-death-penalty-for-gays/Ron Paul has developed a “live and let live” approach to same-sex marriage... more
-
-
This article pretty much sums it up!
Libertarian candidate tries to duck responsibility for racist, homophobic and conspiratorial writings that bore his name
by Thomas Schaller
To look at him, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems harmless. He's cute and contrarian. He wears poorly fitting suits. He's decidedly un-slick. You almost want to pat him on the head.
So we're not supposed to criticize Dr. Paul as a nutjob who subscribes to some rather wacky ideas. And subscribe is the operative word here, folks: The newsletters Dr. Paul published for nearly two decades during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are chock full of racist, homophobic and anti-new world order rants.
From Dr. Paul now comes the nuttiest claim of all. He wants us to believe newsletters published with the titles Ron Paul's Freedom Report; Ron Paul Political Report; and, weirdest of all, The Ron Paul Survival Report do not reflect the views of, um, Ron Paul. He says he never wrote them, never even read them, and now disavows them. (Question: Why disavow words you neither wrote nor read?)
Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles, his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son, Robert, is a physician.
Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what? When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every word they contained — period.
What's in them? Four years ago, during Dr. Paul's first bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The New Republic's James Kirchick dug through state libraries, found old copies and took an inventory. "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays," Mr. Kirchick concluded. "In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing — but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
Is Dr. Paul also not responsible for his votes in the House of Representatives, like the one he cast in 2004 on a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equal access to the ballot and public facilities for all Americans? The final roll call was 414 ayes, one nay. A free subscription to The Ron Paul Survival Report for anyone who can guess the name of the lone dissenter.
None of Dr. Paul's radical beliefs would really matter if the Texas congressman were slogging around in fifth or sixth place in the Republican primary. But he isn't. His poll numbers are rising. He might win the Iowa caucuses next week.
Dr. Paul projects a mild manner and policy humility. He wants to reign in federal spending. He wants the government, and in particular its military industrial complex, to control its imperialist impulses. He'd like America to protect its core civil liberties. (Unless, of course, you happen to be pregnant.)
But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking responsibility for his writings.
I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense: Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he is.This article pretty much sums it up!
Libertarian candidate tries to duck... more
-
-
By Megan Carpentier
Monday, December 26, 2011
Former Ron Paul campaign and Congressional staffer Eric Dondero issued a statement to Right Wing News today denying that his former boss is racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic as part of a larger attack on what Dondero terms Paul’s “isolationism” and his position on the war in Afghanistan and the state of Israel.
Though Dondero stresses that Paul isn’t an anti-Semite, referring to everything from his own Jewish ancestry to Paul’s political courtship of “a few Jews” in Paul’s Congressional district as evidence, Dondero does state unequivocally that Paul is opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
But despite Dondero’s insistence that Paul is not anti-Semitic, he confirms a local paper’s account of a opponent’s press conference to discuss Paul’s supposed anti-Semitism, in which Dondero was pressed to attend “dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke [sic], and other Jewish adornments.” And, perhaps most problematically, Dondero recounts conversations in which Paul asserted that “the United States had [no] business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWI”‘ because “‘saving the Jews’ was absolutely none of our business.”
Read More: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/26/former-staffer-ron-paul-wishes-the-israeli-state-did-not-exist/
"Ouch!!! That's gonna Hurt Ron Paul in the worst way!!!"By Megan Carpentier
Monday, December 26, 2011
Former Ron Paul campaign and... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
Ron Paul is currently surging in the polls, especially in Iowa. So, let the dirt be dug up and the skeletons unearthed. The good folks over at Mediaite discovered this little Ron Paul gem from 2007. During an appearance on Meet The Press with the late Tim Russert, Paul said that he would have favored a federal slaveholder bailout over the Civil War. Such a bailout would have required the government to buy 4 million slaves and then set them free. Russert asked about Paul’s comments to The Washington Post regarding Abraham Lincoln, slavery, and the Civil War.
RUSSERT: “I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. ‘According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.’”
PAUL: “Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”
RUSSERT: “We’d still have slavery.”
PAUL: “Oh, come on. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
Here’s the footage: (VIDEO)
So, Ron Paul favored Abraham Lincoln bailing out the slave owners as a way to end slavery and prevent Civil War. The problem is that Paul is wrong. First, Abraham Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. The South did by attacking Fort Sumter. Second, Paul is supporting slave owners as if they’re the victims. He should tell that to all the slaves that were brutally mistreated before, during, and after the Civil War. Third, Paul is advocating for a federal bailout for people who didn’t deserve one. That kinda goes against his opposition to the 2008 bailout of the banks.
Paul is also naïve if he really thinks slavery would’ve ended in America simply by purchasing all the slaves and freeing them. What stops slave owners from simply getting more slaves? Southerners used slaves to pick the crops and do all of the work around the plantations. Many Southerners were also very racist. It’s unlikely they would have agreed with selling their slaves only for them to be set free. That’s one of the reasons why the South wanted to secede in the first place. They also didn’t want government telling them what to do, so they certainly wouldn’t obey orders to not own slaves. Purchasing the slaves would have also been expensive. In Britain, the government bought the 40,000 slaves still in servitude and set them free. It cost £20 million. The United States government would have had to purchase 4 million slaves, which would have amounted to an impossible price tag to come up with. Unless of course Paul was advocating for borrowing money from other nations or printing exorbitant amounts of cash here in the states, which would cause inflation and huge debt. Either way, it contradicts Paul’s economic philosophy that he has been preaching for years now.
Honestly, it sounds to me like Paul wanted the government to pay off the South in exchange for not starting a war. That’s bribery, not to mention hostage taking. It also sounds to me like he wanted the South to have all the money and the Federal Treasury to have massive debt. Can you imagine the power the South would have possessed with all that cash? They could have had a better army, and more clothing, food, and weapons to equip them with. In other words, the South would have just started a civil war anyway and with the money from their bailout, the Confederacy could definitely have won the Civil War, which would have made all of Paul’s dreams of anarchy a reality. With the defeat of the Union, the South would have just brought slavery back. They’d have the power, the money, and their precious institution of slavery. The Civil Rights Act would’ve never happened. The 13th 14th, and 15th amendments would never have been added to the Constitution. And you just know that 150 years later, Ron Paul would have finally been elected President, of the Confederate States of America.Ron Paul is currently surging in the polls, especially in Iowa. So, let the dirt be... more
-
-
– Friday the National Police in Spain arrested thee individuals suspected to be members of “hactivist” group Anonymous. The suspects were charged with organizing DDoS attacks against websites maintained by Sony Corp, governments and banks. Currently they have not been associated with the recent attacks on Sony’s PlayStation Network.– Friday the National Police in Spain arrested thee individuals suspected to be... more
-
-
(Reuters) - Spanish police arrested three suspected members of the so-called "Anonymous" group on Friday on charges of cyber-attacks against targets including Sony's PlayStation network, governments, businesses and banks.
The police said the accused, arrested in Almeria, Barcelona and Alicante, were guilty of coordinated computer hacking attacks from a server set up in a house in Gijon in the north of Spain.
Read more:
http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/06/spanish-police-arrest-anonymous-over.html(Reuters) - Spanish police arrested three suspected members of the so-called... more
-
-
On the one hand, it’s a badge of honor of sorts to see the most powerful political lobby, the Chamber of Commerce, have its operatives moving from the “ignore you” to the “fight you” stage of engagement. The flip side is that the tactics that they are willing to consider don’t reflect at all well on their commitment to principles like the rule of law or decency.
ThinkProgress today broke the story of the dirty works being considered. Readers may be aware of a massive leak of e-mails of the security firm HB Gary Federal which made the mistake of trying to hack the computers of Anonymous, the group that has taken to punishing organizations that cut off donations to Wikileaks.
Anonymous obtained and leaked the internal messages and rubbed HB Gary’s face in it a bit too.
The e-mail dump exposed some dirty laundry, namely that of a disinformation campaign that HB Gary plus two other “security” firms Palantir, and Berico Technologies (which together called themselves Team Themis had started to map out for a law firm the Chamber of Commerce works actively with, Hunton & Williams. From ThinkProgress:
According to one document prepared by Team Themis, the campaign included an entrapment project. The proposal called for first creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then to subsequently expose the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents. In addition, the group proposed creating a “fake insider persona” to “generate communications” with Change to Win. View a screenshot:(at link)
Screen shot 2011-02-11 at 4.36.15 AM
The security firms hoped to obtain $200,000 for initial background research, then charge up to $2 million for a larger disinformation campaign against progressives. We don’t know if the proposal was accepted after Phase 1 was completed.
To be clear, as Marcy Wheeler points out, Team Themis group had been asked to do Phase 1 on spec. So there was clearly an interest in this sort of work.
A second element of this campaign was to discredit prominent figures, which was the same approach that HB Gary pitched to Bank of America regarding Glenn Greenwald, which HB Gary deemed to be a target by virtue of his pieces sympathetic to Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. This is now in the terrain of private detectives looking to find “compromising” information. Again from ThinkProgress:
According to one document prepared by Team Themis, the campaign included an entrapment project. The proposal called for first creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then to subsequently expose the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents. In addition, the group proposed creating a “fake insider persona” to “generate communications” with Change to Win. View a screenshot below:
Screen shot 2011-02-11 at 4.36.15 AM
The security firms hoped to obtain $200,000 for initial background research, then charge up to $2 million for a larger disinformation campaign against progressives. We don’t know if the proposal was accepted after Phase 1 was completed.
One of the targets was Mike Gehrke, a former staffer with Change to Win. Among the information circulated about Gehrke was the specific “Jewish church” he attended and a link to pictures of his wife and two children…
This tactic of targeting opponents’ personal lives and family was not simply a random event. Rather, it was a concerted and deliberate effort to use anything possible to smear the Chamber’s political opponents. To dramatize his firm’s intimidation tactics, Barr sent an email to Hunton & Williams attorney John Woods that contained personal details about fellow Hunton attorney Richard Wyatt, who was representing the Chamber. The email was intended to show Woods and Wyatt how “vulnerable” they are:
Screen shot 2011-02-11 at 4.57.21 AM
The Chamber of Commerce issued a pious and legalistic denial:
We’re incredulous that anyone would attempt to associate such activities with the Chamber as we’ve seen today from the Center for American Progress. The security firm referenced by ThinkProgress was not hired by the Chamber or by anyone else on the Chamber’s behalf. We have never seen the document in question nor has it ever been discussed with us
We’re incredulous that anyone would attempt to associate such activities with the Chamber as we’ve seen today from the Center for American Progress. The security firm referenced by ThinkProgress was not hired by the Chamber or by anyone else on the Chamber’s behalf. We have never seen the document in question nor has it ever been discussed with us.
Duh, the firms were not yet “hired” because no money had changed hands. And note the denial is limited to a specific document and discussions around it. The idea that Hunton & Williams would spend a lot of cycles on an effort that its client would not be interested in entertaining seems quite a stretch. As Marcy Wheeler tells us:
Note, first of all, that they’re not denying hiring Hunton & Williams, the law firm/lobbyist which they hired last year to sue the Yes Men. They’re not even denying that they retain Hunton & Williams right now….
They didn’t hire HBGary and they didn’t read the particular document TP linked to.
But that is far short of denying that they’ve been discussing such a plot with HBGary and/or Hunton & Williams.
Now this is getting into the coercion territory (and I use this word quite deliberately, since libertarians insist that only the state has the power to coerce). HB Gary sought to discredit Glenn Greenwald to the point where he would worry about “professional preservation,” meaning being able to get paid white collar work. But the snooping and the children’s photos point to leveling more basic threats to physical security. Now we have no idea of how low Team Themis would go, but if you don’t think this sort of thing goes on, I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. I know antiforeclosure lawyers who have gotten the “somebody is going to get hurt if you don’t back down” and “we know where your children are” threats. One had his neighbor alert him to the fact that a black SUV with six men parked behind his house and the men had broken in. The police intercepted them, and nothing appeared to have been removed, but one wonders what the intent was (recall the bugging scene from The Lives of Others).
Since HB Gary also works for the Department of Justice, the odds of it being busted for hacking into home computers is zero. But it also seems naive to think that many of the people they are targeting will back down so easily. True, the act of breaking into someone’s computer, the knowledge of that degree of surveillance, is for the vast majority of people, worse than any dirt one might find. And people who decide to take a stand against the current power structure are by nature somewhat outside it, and in many cases not hostage to the sort of bourgeois conformism that seems to be the logic underlying this sort of thing.
As much as this is creepy and reflects badly on the prospective perps, it also shows how a climate of economic insecurity and class stratification has lowered the bar for effective coercion. HG Bary wouldn’t default to these sort of strategies if they weren’t normally effective. But something is seriously amiss in the body politic if people who are merely on the anti corporate side of the debate can expect to be subjected to surveillance, character/professional reputation assassination, and perhaps even threats to their safety.On the one hand, it’s a badge of honor of sorts to see the most powerful... more
-
-
Earlier today, ThinkProgress published an exclusive report that the law firm representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a right-wing trade association representing big business, is working with set of “private security” companies and lobbying firms to undermine their political opponents, including ThinkProgress. According to e-mails obtained by ThinkProgress, the Chamber hired the lobbying firm Hunton and Williams. Attorneys for the firm solicited a set of private security firms — HB Gary Federal, Palantir, and Berico Technologies (collectively called Team Themis) — to develop a sabotage campaign against progressive groups and labor unions, including ThinkProgress, the labor coalition Change to Win, SEIU, US Chamber Watch, and StopTheChamber.com.
New emails reveal that the private spy company investigated the families and children of the Chamber’s political opponents. The apparent spearhead of this project was Aaron Barr, an executive at HB Gary. Barr circulated numerous emails and documents detailing information about political opponents’ children, spouses, and personal lives.
One of the targets was Mike Gehrke, a former staffer with Change to Win. Among the information circulated about Gehrke was the specific “Jewish church” he attended and a link to pictures of his wife and two children (sensitive information was redacted by ThinkProgress):
(IMAGE OF EMAIL AT LINK)
Another target was Brad Friedman, co-founder of The Brad Blog. Barr’s profile of Freidman included information about his life partner and his home address (sensitive information redacted by ThinkProgress):
(IMAGE OF EMAIL AT LINK)
This tactic of targeting opponents’ personal lives and family was not simply a random event. Rather, it was a concerted and deliberate effort to use anything possible to smear the Chamber’s political opponents. To dramatize his firm’s intimidation tactics, Barr sent an email to Hunton & Williams attorney John Woods that contained personal details about fellow Hunton attorney Richard Wyatt, who was representing the Chamber. The email was intended to show Woods and Wyatt how “vulnerable” they are:
(IMAGE OF EMAIL AT LINK)Earlier today, ThinkProgress published an exclusive report that the law firm... more
-
