Some of you are coming through my blog because of the piece that you saw on Z Net:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17406
Feel free to leave your comments here.
Some of you are coming through my blog because of the piece that you saw on Z Net:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17406
Feel free to leave your comments here.
15 November, 2007 at 10:50 am |
Did you really mis-spell your OWN last name?
“15 November, 2007 by Aura Blogando”
15 November, 2007 at 11:13 am |
[...] Third Party Watch wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptDon’t Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior) 15 November, 2007 by Aura Blogando [ ron_paul_1.jpg] Some of you are coming through my blog because of the piece that you saw on Z Net: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=14282 Feel free to leave your comments here. Posted in Election 08, Immigration, [...]
15 November, 2007 at 11:17 am |
Your attempt to connect dots and paint a negative picture of Dr. Ron Paul is laughable and thanks to YOUTUBE.com and Ron Paul’s 30 year record in the House it is clear who Ron Paul is.And Dr. Paul will be the first to tell you that this Freedom movement is not about him but about bringing the people of this great nation back into power. You are only hurting your own reputation by printing lies about Ron Paul.If you knew anything about Ron Paul ,you would know that he would be willing to sit with you to discuss any issue in great detail and with very straight answers.I challenge you to ask him.
Mark Salom
15 November, 2007 at 11:17 am |
[...] To the Curb put an intriguing blog post on Don’t Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior)Here’s a quick excerpt [...]
15 November, 2007 at 11:31 am |
“Paul’s vision for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social security would only yield monopolies that don’t work for everyday people, much like our current healthcare system.”
Before Paul should even have to explain why he advocates eliminating the Dept. of Education of phasing out Social Security, why don’t YOU explain where the federal government gets the authority for these programs?
Are you kidding? The federal government’s involvement in education and social security have nothing to do with monopoly-prevention.
Federal involvement in education is hurting everyday people by leaving federal bureaucrats in control of something that should be handled by parents, teachers, and administrators at the local level.
Social Security is just another tax on everyday people. It also limits social mobility within and between generations because it minimizes the amount one can invest, save, and pass on to one’s offspring.
“The presidential candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including welfare – again, clearly not anti-capitalist.”
Whether or not you like the result (and it’s obvious that you worship government control in a religious manner) where are the benefits you speak of warranted in the Constitution?
” Add to this the fact that legislation like the 1968 Gun Control Act (which was approved after the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F. Kennedy were killed with um… guns) was passed in a way in which Paul would likely interpret as unconstitutional,”
What “way” is this?
“and you quickly realize how fanatical this man is about the Second Amendment.”
The 2nd Amendment is a part of our Constitution. Get over it. If you don’t like it, then try to get it repealed. Calling him “fanatical” does nothing to advance your hatred for individual freedom.
“Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. Yes, you read correctly, he opposes it. He says there is a war on religion, and that “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”
“If Paul’s theocratic concepts were instituted, we would have Old Testament displays at the nation’s courthouses, and Christian prayers would be part of each child’s school day.”
A display of the Ten Commandments, on which the Western legal tradition is founded, does not amount to an establishment of religion by Congress.
“Teachers should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative Christian ideals about God in any classroom. When I take a biology course, I go to learn about accepted theory. When I want to hear about God, I’ll go to church.”
Enough with your strawmen. Point to sources indicating Paul would interfere with what teachers teach as president?
“Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves “a program of mass murder”. A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter (read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls “unborn people”). Under Paul’s proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or incest, and even when the woman’s life is at risk. Any person that values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do with her own body should take caution – Paul is to the extreme right of the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush’s Supreme Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to eradicate women’s rights doesn’t deserve the attention and praise he’s getting from the Left.”
None of this is even worth addressing. It’s pure drivel. Where does the Constitution indicate that the federal government should be involved in abortion?
“When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul says that federal government should play no role in the matter and that anyone can get married and call their relationship whatever they want. On its surface, that may sound fair enough. However, Paul was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House. Passed in the House in 2004, the bill sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition of same-sex marriage across state lines. For example, a same-sex marriage that took place in Massachusetts would not be acknowledged in Alabama. Addressing the House in 2004, Paul made clear that if he was a member of the Texas legislature he would bar judges from advocating “new definitions” of marriage. Those of us who truly believe that anyone has the right to be married and to be recognized as such should realize that Paul’s sometimes careful wording around the issue camouflages his Christian conservatism which defines marriage as something that can solely occur between a man and a woman.”
More fear-mongering. Mostly not even worth addressing. He has merely said that marriage is a religious issue–not a state issue. Why should you be able to force one state to accept another state’s definition of marriage?
“Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. headed to Washington in March, 1964 to hear the historic Senate debate on the Civil Rights Act. The legislation, which was passed a few months later, banned segregation in schools and public spaces and made it illegal to discriminate in housing and hiring processes. Malcolm, Martin, and millions of people of color and their supporters knew that such legislation would permanently influence and reduce de jure discrimination across entire nation, including the reach of Jim Crow laws in the South. They also knew that it was a necessary step towards reducing the de facto discrimination that followed. Yet Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties.”
The government cannot socially engineer society, despite what you would like to think. There is evidence that there is more segregation today than 40 years ago. A private business should not be forced to contract with anyone, regardless of race, religion, creed.
15 November, 2007 at 11:40 am |
Basically what you’re saying about Ron Paul is that:
-He is pro-capitalist
-He believes in the right of citizens to bear arms
-He believes that individual states should decide on the legality of abortion
-He believes that people should be evaluated based on their merits and character and not on their race
-He does not want people entering the USA illegally
Gee, that’s pretty much sums up most of the candidates on both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Please tell me that you know of an anti-capitalist, anti-gun, pro-choice, is an atheist, is pro-affirmative action, and believes that anyone who wants to become an American citizen should have that right.
This is nothing more than a hit piece becuase you accuse Ron Paul of holding positions that a great majority of all the candidates hold themselves. Why don’t you attack every one of them for these views?
Of all of the candidates from both parties, who do YOU think would make a good president?
15 November, 2007 at 11:58 am |
Thanks for this. I’m going to forward it to all my conservative, republican, friends. Maybe then they’ll see that Paul is their only option. Unless real change takes place, we’ll have to face an ever burgeoning nation of people just like yourself. It’s truly frightening to consider how victimized you see yourself. So much so it seems you’re willing to give away every possible right simply for the promise to lick the hand of your master. Sickening, truly sickening.
15 November, 2007 at 12:00 pm |
Great article.
Not surtprising that the Ron Paul-heads are already in a tizzy. Sad that so many are searching for a savior; sadder still that so many are looking to someone with such dire politics – no doubt for two primary reasons: he opposes the Iraq war and he is quite candid. (Of course, there’s no shortage of candid people, just honest candidates, but that’s to be expected in a plutocracy fronting as a democracy).
As for Mark Salom’s comment:, Ron Paul is a public figure, indeed he’s a friggin’ presidential candidate – it’s not the obligation of a commentator like AB to seek out a face-to-face dialogue with Rep. Paul – his positions are fair game. And AB is doing a great service because it’s obvious that enthusiasm for Paul’s candidacy is growing without serious covereage of some his central positions – the buzz about Paul is due to only one or two issues, along his style, and the fact that people revel in how much of an annoyance he is to the leading Republican candidates. But once his positions are explained it becomes pretty clear that only a fringe on the far-right would continue to endorse his entire platform. C’mon freak, look at Social Security: it’s so popular that the Wall Street types – with all their power and influence – can’t even “reform” it, let alone eliminate it.
15 November, 2007 at 12:03 pm |
Wow, of all the disgusting candidates out there Ron Paul was the one you felt you just had to “take down” with your poorly written article. Get your priorities straight.
15 November, 2007 at 12:14 pm |
Ron Paul is a gun nut, a racist, anti-immigrant, christian fundamentalist. It’s mind boggling to see the hype around a guy who, in spite of his opposition to the war, is just another old white republican on almost all other issues.
Aura: love your morning show on KPFK, i hope you stick around on the air after Sonali comes back!
15 November, 2007 at 12:21 pm |
Thank you for your piece on Ron Paul. It is proving an invaluable tool to convert conservatives to his campaign.
I respect your right to your political view, and you make your case both for and against Dr. Paul very well. If Gravel or Kucinich had any chance at winning the democratic nomination, I’d even understand your position. But when this washes out and you end up voting for Hillary, and costing our soldiers their lives and our people their civil liberties, I wouldn’t be able to count you among the socially responsible electorate.
Voting for a Democrat this year is a protest vote, perhaps you should consider what you’re protesting and what side that puts you on.
15 November, 2007 at 12:23 pm |
Where or where do I begin to pick apart your blatantly biased – and incorrect – article against Ron Paul?
Paul’s vision for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social security would only yield monopolies that don’t work for everyday people, much like our current healthcare system.
Let’s correct some lies here. First, Ron Paul doesn’t support privatizing education. He supports home-schooling – something many Americans support and the kids of these parents usually excel far beyond most kids schooled in our public system. Is that privatization? I don’t think so! Second, if you knew ANYTHING about the healthcare problem, you’d understand that our current problem is not the free market, it’s the insurance companies and the FACT that our premiums are paid by corporations and not the individuals. If we took the burden of the corporations and had everyone buy their own insurance like we do for EVERYTHING else, prices would go down immediately. Everyone knows that the government is a slow and monstrous and our health care would be terrible if they took over. Just take a look at what happened with Katrina.
The presidential candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including welfare
This is a joke right? Welfare works? Now, I understand that you are a socialist, and regardless how many times we PROVE socialism fails, you people – that’s right, you people – try and keep spending my money on your FAILED government programs. How about people get off their asses and get a job?
Now onto the pro-second amendment. I’m glad Dr. Paul supports the 2nd amendment. As a home owner I’m terrified that someone may try and break into my home and I need to be able to defend my family. Never once did I read how Dr. Paul wants all of us to carry around assault rifles so quit being a drama queen.
Paul opposes the separation of Church and State.
This is another example of inflammatory and false remarks from you. Ron Paul does NOT want to force Christianity on us, what he is trying to protect is the RIGHT for kids to pray in school – regardless of religion. Now, if allowing kids to pray in school – or anywhere for that matter is an issue – then too bad. I’m with him on this one.
Roe-V-Wade. Like it or not lefty, Roe-v-Rade allows murder! Want proof? There’s a heartbeat! There IS a life inside a woman and the constitution provides the right to LIFE and LIBERTY FOR ALL PEOPLE. Why is it that a woman can have an abortion up until 9 months and it is completely ok, but if someone kicks that women in the stomach and the fetus dies, he’s a murderer? Tell me, where’s the logic there? The fact is too many women use abortions as a form of birth control and it’s WRONG. Dr. Paul wants to allow the states to decide on this issue. He does not believe the federal government should regulate the states. Now, whether you are with him on this issue or not, it is his right to believe this. And let me finish with there are a LOT of people who value the life of an unborn and to me, the women who think it’s ok for an abortion are nothing more than ok with murder.
Same-Sex-Marriage.
Let me be clear here. Ron Paul does not advocate eliminating this practice and wants to allow the states to decide the issue. Do you see a pattern here? Again, less federal government regulation.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action should be thrown in the trash where it belongs, and before you go saying ok here’s another white guy against affirmative action, you might be surprised to know that I’m a Mexican-American. Affirmative action infringes on liberty because it’s the federal government regulating who employers can hire. For instance, let’s say you are interviewing two people and one is black and the other is white. In a situation where the white candidate is CLEARLY a better candidate, it won’t matter. You are forced to hire the black person. How in the hell is that right? Most educated monorities will tell you that they are against Affirmative Action because it makes them look bad. They want to be judged on their skills and experience like everyone else. To be sure, at the time we created AA, it was neccessary. However, these days everyone is so worried about being PC that this is just another wasted regulation on the American People.
About white supremacist donating to Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul’s campaign has spoken out about this. If those type of people want to donate to a cause that despises their beliefs and does not endorse what they believe; it’s their loss. Don’t single out Ron Paul here lady; look at Giuliani, and the worst offender is Clinton. That lady takes money from China!
Now, I saved the illegal immigration issue for last. Being a Mexican-American I completely agree with Dr. Paul on this issue! My grandparents came to this great country LEGALLY and worked hard to earn their citizenships. I am against illegal immigration and understand the reason they are coming here is because there are incentives. We need to eliminate the FORCED health care for illegal aliens. We need to end education for children of illegal aliens. We need to end the birth-right-citizenship. If we did all three of these things, illegal immigration would cease. Quit trying to make Ron Paul a racist for using the word illegal aliens. What do you want to call them? Oh that’s right undocumented individuals. BS! They are illegally here in this country!
From this point forward, how about you convey the truth and let your readers know that Ron Paul is a federalist? And for those of you who don’t know what federalism means, it means he wants to allow the states to decide on most of these types of issues. He does not want the federal government regulating us like sheep. Most of these issues should be decided at the state level.
Before I go I want to touch on Social security because you are correct that Ron Paul wants to phase it out. Are you telling me that I should be FORCED to pay into a retirement plan? Well thank you MS. Socialism but I’d rather keep my money and invest it how I see fit! While I’m writing this I’d like to remind you that SS probably won’t be around for me anyhow. It will be broke. You see, most of congress – with the exception of RON PAUL – voted to spend SS funds. Ron Paul NEVER ONCE VOTED TO SPEND MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Ron Paul’s solution to SS is simple. First, he’d like to let young people the opportunity to simply opt out. Second, he’d like to make it solvent by reducing out overseas spending. This includes ending the Iraq war and bringing our troops home from Germany, Korea, and the other 100+ countries they are in! That alone will bring us very close to making the program solvent. Third, no new people will be allowed in. That is what we call phasing out a dead and useless program forced on Americans. We are being robbed of our money and it should be illegal!
Lastly, I just want to say that I’m voting for Ron Paul and I hope more Americans realize that all Dr. Paul wants to do is return the power to make decisions back to the people – where it belongs! We have allowed ourselves to be over-taxed and over-regulated, and the founding fathers would be ashamed of us.
I hope my rebuttal to your lame article will be sufficient for most people to understand you are either biased or uneducated about Ron Paul.
15 November, 2007 at 12:35 pm |
Let’s be clear. Ron Paul supporters ALL understand his positions. It’s the people like the writer of this article who do not understand his positions.
The problem is most people have grown to believe the government is suppossed to take care of us from cradle to grave. How about a little self-reliance?
Bottom line – if you want socialism: please move to China or Russia! Oh that’s right! They all want to come here to get away from it!
15 November, 2007 at 12:37 pm |
Americans, if you are tired of being regulated to death and believe in Ron Paul, join us as we again make history! Pledge to donate $100 to Ron Paul on December 16th at http://www.teaParty07.com
15 November, 2007 at 12:37 pm |
Interesting read. I’m Canadian, but I have followed Ron Paul since at least 2000. I’m a practicing specialist, and because Aura seems to strongly believe in identity politics, I’m a “person of colour”, atheist, but of muslim ancestry.
When I first read about Ron Paul, I thought he was a bit extreme – several libertarian websites posted his articles year back. But when I read his actual stances, I was incredibly impressed. He does things ETHICALLY and MORALLY. He believes in the inherent good-hearted nature of people, and not in government mandating people to do things for us.
Ron Paul is personally against abortion. So what? SO are tons of people. What is amazing about Paul is that he thinks laws on this matter should be done at the local level unlike many republicans that want to ban abortion everywhere – he understands that the culture of South Dakota is different than California which is different than Arkansas. At the state level, places like New York and California will certainly approve abortion. Mississippi or Arkansas may not – but hey – one could just go to another state to get one. He just thinks that the federal government should have no say in the matter – and it shouldn’t.
Agaisnt affirmative action? Most whites, and large percentages of others are against it. Are they all evil?? IT leads to the promotion of people that are often unqualified, reinforcing stereotupes. Canada doesn’t have it in it’s education system (yet) – the benefit is that all graduates of medical/dental/law schools came in with a reasonable standard of achievement – that in not true in the US and very evident in the several times I have visited US teaching hospitals.
The 2nd ammendment is part of the US constitution. I suppose you could start a movement to get it repealed.
The only reason why white nationalists/supremacists asupport Paul is because he is the only candidate that supports privacy laws and freedom of speech. Many deride him because he supports people of all ethniciities. Let us not forget that of the 4000 babies he’s delivered, a very high percentage were poor hispanics for which he took NO PAYMENT!!!
He is against Illegal immigrants because…well…they are illegal!!! He supports legal immigration. Being against illegal immigration is supported by a majority of Americans – I suppose they are all bigoted scum right? And many of the hispanics against illegal immigration must be self hating right?
The funny thing about Ron Paul is that he is the one candidate that would support your freedom of speech and right to democratic representation above anyone else. The fact that you despise this man that has volunteered to treat poor people and refuses a congressional pension(!!) is mind boggling.
The hate inside you is really really shameful – I can only hope that one day you will learn to control it.
15 November, 2007 at 12:40 pm |
This article is full of disgusting lies about Ron Paul. Enjoy your one day surge of readership. People, if you want to know the truth about Ron Paul, do a search for “Ron Paul” on youtube.
15 November, 2007 at 12:43 pm |
Some of these right-wing comments are as dumb as a sack of hammers! (A lil’ Texas talk for good ol’ Ron Paul)
15 November, 2007 at 12:50 pm |
Being a single mom I want to be clear that I’m a Ron Paul supporter. I’ve worked all my life and never once took any form of payment via welfare or social security. However, I find it reprehensible that the government steals my money to pay for these programs.
15 November, 2007 at 12:51 pm |
To the writer – none of us Ron Paul supporters ever said he is our savior. Stupid!
We do, however, think he will change a lot of what’s wrong in America.
15 November, 2007 at 12:53 pm |
If you think the government’s job is to take care of you from cradle to grave; don’t vote for Ron Paul.
15 November, 2007 at 1:10 pm |
It’s always the people looking for handouts who fight against Ron Paul!
Working Americans who want lower taxes and less government interference NEVER fight him.
15 November, 2007 at 1:12 pm |
Yeah, Ron Paul’s a jerk. There’s nothing wrong with me working two days a week for the government. NOT!!!!!!!!!!
15 November, 2007 at 1:35 pm |
Unfortunately, given the unprecedented amount of attention Aura’s worthless, and virtually unknown blog is getting, I predict her vile smear campaign against a candidate about which she knows nothing will only continue!
15 November, 2007 at 1:55 pm |
Nice ad hominem! Ron Paul…You just got DECONSTRUCTED!
15 November, 2007 at 2:03 pm |
You should read the transcripts from the committee meeting where Paul was shot down for proposing a declaration of war on Iraq to vote on instead of just negating constitutional law. Your precious friends were real quick to shut him down.
15 November, 2007 at 2:10 pm |
You are the misinformed person on earth. You sound like a communist and someone should take away your license or blow you away!
You are a complete moron and know absolutely nothing about Ron Paul. Get lost!
15 November, 2007 at 2:38 pm |
I guess the US Supreme Court are a bunch of gun nuts also…
As the US Supreme Court stated in United States v. Cruikshank.
“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither
is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existance.
The second amendment means no more then that it shall not be
infringed by Congress, and has no other effect then to restrict the
powers of the national government.”
15 November, 2007 at 2:57 pm |
social protections prevent complete dependency on private tyrannies.
as an example if you cant afford the fire department should we let your house burn.
i don’t understand this confusion.
these are rights that have been fought against the wealthy bible touting industrialists who defiantly want as all divided and would have us non rich people join in on third world conditions if it puts more money and power into their pockets.
would you rather work 14 hrs for some private employer/corporation. this country has rights that are federally protected and are still being eroded.
Ron Paul supporters can’t separate the social protection via taxes, from corrupt ‘defense’ spending scams and tax cuts for the wealthy?
its a system, like any system it’s effects are influenced by those who control it.
with potential human rights protection advantages that can be continued, and corruption that should be exposed, in my opinion.
15 November, 2007 at 5:33 pm |
This article is lame. Your attempts to paint Paul in a negative light are poorly done when viewed by anyone who knows anything about the guy.
“He’s not anti-capitalist! Oh noes, he’s only anti-corporatist! How awful of him!”
Give me a freakin’ break.
15 November, 2007 at 5:34 pm |
It’s funny how neocons and liberals alike get so offended at the thought of abiding by the U.S. Constitution. They love the ACLU but when it comes to losing gov’t handouts they freak.
So, an obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies thinks a life starts at conception. He seems to have greater jurisdiction than a woman who doesn’t want to take responsibility for her actions. Don’t give me the rape and incest line, it’s nonsense and not a reason to end a life. Same for the “underground abortions of way back when abortion was illegal” – abortion has been legal and women are still throwing their babies in rivers, drowning them in bathtubs and piling them under their beds in plastic bags. That’s never going to change unfortunately.
The other answers are obvious. There are way better answers to SS in privatization. Gore and Clinton held the impending SS doom over our heads for years just like the neocons hold terrorism over our heads. Get over it.
15 November, 2007 at 5:54 pm |
Its REALLY getting tiring to see the same old identical smear tactics done by people that either are complete liars or just don’t have the time to spend five minutes to do their homework.
Paul is being accused of being anti poor, a racist, anti everything that generally is considered good, but when one look at his interviews, his record, one may find all of that to be nothing but hogwash.
However, would that stop the idiots out there making up stuff, or repeating information that was made up? Apparently not.
The general notion among the ignorant “bloggers’ is that if you take money from a racist you are thena racist. This is the same logic that if a racist shops a your store, you must then be a racist. Get a life!
RON PAUL 2008! teaparty07 dot com
15 November, 2007 at 5:54 pm |
” Paul wears is an ultra nationalist, gun loving Christian conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman’s right to choose and same-sex marriage. And… oh yeah: he hates immigrants.”
_______________________________________________________
I know and THATS WHY I LOVE RON PAUL!!!!!
-People should be judged on ability not skin color, Affirmative action sucks.
-Illegal aliens should be deported yesterday
-We have the right to own guns under the constitution.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO CARES ABOUT THE POOR! HE WANTS TO GET RID OF INFLATION AND RESTORE THE US DOLLAR!
the only poor people who should be worried about Ron Paul are the lazy, worthless people on Medicaid.
15 November, 2007 at 6:37 pm |
Ron Paul is far from perfect from my point of view, but he is the only presidential candidate with a cogent critique of American imperialism, endless war, and the repression which they require. It is icing on the cake that he discerns that the monetary policies of the government are crushing the poor and middle classes.
It is ridiculous to expect him to be a liberal or a leftist as well. Democrats, liberals and leftists should be asking why _they_ can’t produce someone like Ron Paul, instead of a bunch of big-ticket war freaks.
15 November, 2007 at 7:13 pm |
My impression is that Ron Paul supporters don’t want me to vote for their candidate because I’m a socialist. This is a tactical error. We on the far left are quite familiar with voting for lesser evils and Ron Paul is anti-war and candid about his views. This makes him a better candidate than any of the democrats that I think have any chance of winning. I wish it were otherwise, but I don’t think the majority wants socialism and I don’t think there’s a candidate that can convince them. I have some hope that Paul would attempt to transition to his vision of society in as painless a way as he can manage and would not crack down on anti-authoritarian solidarity-based solutions to the pains that do manifest.
So, fellow commenters, please don’t use hateful and dismissive language against socialists.
I also think this piece was an irritating attempted hit for Paul’s left supporters and would not want to be associated with it.
15 November, 2007 at 7:32 pm |
I heard the writer try to portray Ron Paul as a racist on KPFK this evening. She should ask herself, if Ron Paul is such a racist why does he advocate:
1. Ending the War on Drugs?
2. Opposition to the Death Penalty?
3. Ending Guantanamo (how many white people sent there?)
Don’t these disproportionately affect minorities? What would he have to gain with his “racist, homophobic” constituency by taking these positions?
She also said that Ron Paul specifically tailors his message to the audience. This is BS. At the so-called “value voters” conference he specifically said that a ban on gay marriage or abortion would be unconstitutional.
Get a clue!
15 November, 2007 at 10:26 pm |
This post is absurd.. you completely misinterpret so many of Dr. Paul’s positions that I have to believe you unintentionally cherry-pick. I would assume that the reaction you had to specific lines about Dr. Paul in which you read were immediately consumed by the anger of your prejudices. Then, you failed to read deeper or actually comprehend the position – you had enough evidence to let your illusions put the rest together..
Luckily, Paul supporters are the majority that don’t feel all too cozy with either of the current extremes in politics – the crazy “right-wing” war lovers or the crazy “left-wing” people in lala land, who think they’ve figured it all out and everybody else ought to live as they want.
By the way – why didn’t you mention civil liberties like the national ID card.. or the North American Union.. or how about the IRS, Federal Income Tax or the Federal Reserve and the fiat currency which is sliding by the minute..
These are after all the most important issues – if solved would make the issues you distorted (in order to paint Dr. Paul as the evil stereotype of the moment in your head) all the easier to fix… and frankly- he’s correct about all of those things.. try actually digging deeper and make a realistic argument.. you will get completely owned on this one – I guarantee it.
15 November, 2007 at 10:30 pm |
Jorzo, nice threat there.. “oh no!! we lost the smug socialists vote!!”
This was a hit piece plain and simple.. so much distortion it’s gonna get a harsh reaction – that’s obvious. You should learn to recognize patterns in nature.. maybe you wouldn’t be a socialist?
15 November, 2007 at 10:36 pm |
You do realize that all of those issues mentioned are out of the hands of the President………. except for the war.
If he gets elected, Aura here thinks that we’d suddenly be in some crazy western with gunfights and lynchings.. too much TV Aura.. too much TV..
16 November, 2007 at 12:58 am |
[...] something negative about Ron Paul. All the Paul-crazies will flock to your blog. No Comments Comments [...]
16 November, 2007 at 3:23 am |
You should stick with your day job, Aura. Ron Paul obviously doesn’t hate anyone. All you have to do is observe him for a few moments to notice that he speaks from his heart and has compassion for all. As someone just mentioned, if he is so anti black, anti poor,
“racist”why is he the only candidate for repealing the war on drugs, against the death penalty, anti torture…. Did you notice that he clearly stated in more than one debate that illegal immigrants are the current “Scapegoates”? You obviously “cherry picked” your information and extrapolated from there.
I am very suprised that no one has mentioned that the honorable Dr. Paul is the only
candidate with the independence and the intention to follow through and prevent
this country from becoming a domino in the elite rulers’ quest for one world government, also known as “new world order” (that is EU plus North American Union plus Amero=New World order). It’s all on the books, just as the “patriot” act and plans for war with Iraq were already in place in the first year of the Bush Administration; insiders say within the first weeks, as acknowledged by former Bush administration officials who have spoken out your radio station. You should try watching some of the films that your station offers as premiums in its pledge drives and then you might be a little bit more well informed.
People throng to the Ron Paul campaign once they take a GOOD LOOK at the man and his record; it’s a no brainer. I for one would not want to live in a country where the only people with weapons are the thugs, the police (and other armed forces, though i have i have never owned a gun and wouldn’t know what to do with one personally, it might be nice to have a few folks with the ability to fight back in self defense should it become necessary.).
Do you realize that if you were to achieve your goal of totally federal government enforced “rights” (now there’s an oxymoron) without doing anything about the fony “fed”, their private collection agency (the IRS), this worthless currency, and corporate free trade fanatics, what would result would be a fascist police state that would make Hitler blush.
You owe Ron Paul an apology, and you and Jerry, Quick, Quigley should invite him to speak for a half an hour on “Beneath the Surface” to respond to the slanderous claims you have tossed out there so casually after your cursory little research project.
If we don’t recover our “republic” by the way (whose value you seem to question) you kiss your constitutionally guaranteed “inalienable” rights good by. Here is a little more food
for thought on your most emotionally charged issue.
In my opinion, this immigration nightmare is a tactic of “divide and
conquer” and a huge distraction. The banksters need every red
herring they can muster right about now as they seek to hurriedly
collapse this government and finalize the installation of one world
government (at which time there would supposedly be no borders,
all of us would be diminished in status (no more constitutionally
guaranteed “inalienable rights”), the dollar would be exposed as
absolutely worthless and the new currency “amero” would be
touted widely and brazenly as the “solution” to our economic
ills, domestic “terrorists” (people like us who don’t welcome the
program), alienated youth and other “troublemakers” (homeless,
desperate, disabled, jobless, etc.) would be swept off the streets
so that the “good little citizens” could feel more “safe”,etc., etc.
What good does it do to vote for the man/woman who will give
you so called “pro choice”, “amnesty”, etc., when all you have
to look forward to under anyone else is “papers please” at every
turn, no matter what your color or background? How shall anyone
expect to have any choice about anything in such a climate???
On the real side, certainly, many indigenous people from south
of the border have as much right to cross back and forth as they
have done for centuries as most of us have to be here at all;
many can trace there ancestry back to the indigenous people
who were decimated by the colonization of this place centuries
ago. Beyond that these same people who instigate divisiveness
based on race, are not only the people who constantly profit on
low wage laborers on both sides of the border, but who also, of
course, intend for there to be NO BORDERS in very short order.
Dr. Paul acknowledges that Hispanic/latino immigrants
are the current SCAPEGOAT, and does not speak harshly of
them, but says that once we get our currency straightened out
and stop meddling in other people’s affairs (south of the border
along with everywhere else) then there will be less necessity
for people to leave their homes for work in this country. He
does not speak of immigrant people in any kind of harsh or
strident tones, even though he does not believe in blanket
amnesty. (Because he knows that there is no substance
to our currency and we cannot promise any more people
what we do not have to give, be they Russian, middle
eastern, French, Latino, whatever. He knows that the
corporate elite have enticed people here to keep wages low
and to keep a class of slave laborers to maximize corporate
profits and this is the same elite that has gone south and
taken over whole countries and industries in central and south
America, debasing currencies, toppling democratically elected
governments, decimating and enslaving entire populations. (Is
this beginning to sound familiar….???)
There are two humongous issues, two elephants in the room,
only two, not a herd of them; WAR (fearmongering and warmongering)
and the ECONOMY, PERIOD.
THE COURAGEOUS, TOTALLY HONEST, HUMBLE, GENIUS OF
A MAN, OUR Dr. Ron Paul, IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT GETS
IT RIGHT ON SUBJECTS RELATED TO THESE CRITICAL ISSUES,
THAT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER WE SURVIVE AS FREE PEOPLE
IN A TRUE REPUBLIC. WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THAT???
16 November, 2007 at 3:35 am |
Interesting…I have to say that I disagree with a lot of stuff in the article (and much of what the author believes), but I agree that Ron Paul is not such a great option for America. I’m also surprised that there are so many people on both sides that seem to have decided that Ron Paul just came down from heaven. The one point that I like more about Ron Paul than anyone else is his stance on the war.
I’m not for government control from cradle to grave, but a lot of people here also obviously don’t understand what it is to be born in poverty. I don’t advocate giving money freely to “lazy asses who should just get a job,” but the fact remains that no matter how much some people might WANT a job, it might not be possible or it might not pay enough to live. Imagine that you were born to a teenage mother in the Bronx. Obviously your mother made some mistakes, but what about you? You grow up going to substandard schools, moving from house to house, your mom can’t find a better job than housecleaning and MacDonalds, and since she’s working two jobs just to feed you, she’s not around to watch you and read to you. You never know too much beyond inner city life, gangs, drugs, and bad education. With that bad education, you can pretty much assume that you won’t find a job that’ll pay too much…and the cycle continues. Is it your fault? Your background can’t be used as an excuse to do nothing, but there are also structural factors that make it awfully hard to dig yourself out. Structural changes are not all, but are certainly part, of the solution.
Then there’s the immigration thing. In my mind, this goes back to the kid born to the teenage mother in the Bronx. Is the kid at fault? Obviously not–don’t punish him for the sins of his father[s]. Is a child of an illegal immigrant at fault for being born in the US? Should he be denied citizenship simply because his parents made certain decisions? I didn’t choose where I was born and you didn’t choose where you were born. I was born in the States and now live and work in Romania. Simply because of the fact that I was born in the States I have more options and opportunities (not to mention that I’m paid more) than those with whom I live and work. Is this fair? No.
So yes, I believe that it is the responsibility of people in the government to make decisions to make things a little fairer for those who started out at a disadvantage. You don’t seem to realize the advantages and disadvantages you have based on things that were never in your control. I guess you could say that I’m more afraid of the attitudes of many people who think Ron Paul is amazing than I am of Paul himself.
By the way, I happen to be a morally conservative Christian, against abortion and the death penalty, as well as same-sex marriage. It’s my faith that leads me in believing that I have a responsibility to those less fortunate than myself.
16 November, 2007 at 6:16 am |
I wonder if you realize that the gun control act of 1968 was fashioned almost word for word after the gun control act Hitler used in 1934 to disarm people in Germany prior to the Holocaust. There are lots fo countries , almost all in fact that worship all kinds of “Socialism” please feel “FREE” to go ther , but leave the United States of it. Pro Capitalist, Freedom, GO RON PAUL!
16 November, 2007 at 7:49 am |
I’d like to know why she believes privatizing education and Social Security would lead to monopolies? Consider that no private company in history has ever been able sustain a monopoly without the use of government coercion against their possible competitors. I’d also like to know why she believes that, if that were possible, why it would be worse than the monopoly the government currently mismanages in those areas? Listen, folks. Coercive force doesn’t work no matter what you call it; socialism, communism, fascism… all have consistently failed miserably. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Lets try peace, individual responsibility and freedom for a change.
16 November, 2007 at 7:49 am |
I have just one question: If the government is the only source for a particular service (i.e. education, health care etc) how is this not a monopoly?
Definition: exclusive ownership through legal privilege; a commodity controlled by one party.
Why is this better than the free market, when time and time and time again it can be shown that government wastes resources and limits access.
16 November, 2007 at 10:24 am |
Dear Aura,
I heard your interview on KPFK last evening and am glad to hear that someone else is taking the threat of Ron Paul seriously. I was disappointed though that you didn’t address the economic ideas of Mr. Paul and what they mean to progressives. In my experience many who think of themselves as progressives are equally influenced by Mr. Paul’s views on The Federal Reserve and the IRS as they are by his anti-war stance. I believe that these ideas are rooted in the agenda of the far right and find it deeply ominous that our brothers and sisters in progressive circles are attracted to them.
My dialog with a group of local supporters follows:
A Dialog With Ron Paul Supporters
By Craig Vivas,
craigiev@cs.com
On October 27, 2007, I got a message from Arie, a local Internet activist, about Ron Paul. I decided to look into this miracle Republican that some of my friends had become enraptured with. The dialog below is what followed.
I thought it would be an easy task to alert my progressive friends to the danger that Ron Paul’s anti-choice and anti-environment positions presented. The discussion quickly turned to Paul’s peculiar ideas about the Federal Reserve and the IRS; that is that they should be eliminated. Trying to keep an open mind, but also skeptical or the objectivity of a libertarian on economic matters, I investigated Paul’s position on the Fed and the IRS. The observant reader will see my view on this matter evolve in the dialog below. The truth is that I don’t know whether we would be better off radically reworking our money system or not. I am not well versed enough on economics to have a well-informed position on this. What’s clear is that it is easy to find fault with the money system but I suspect Mr. Paul’s libertarian ideology would make his alternative far worse than what it is now. If he is consistent with his ideology, he would not replace the checks and balances on big capitalism that the Fed currently provides in any scheme he would back.
A book that has influenced the thinking of many anti-Federal Reserve people is “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. One reviewer of this book claims that the author is a member of The John Birch Society. I could not find independent confirmation of this assertion but I did a cursory look into the positions of The John Birch Society and can imagine that elimination of the Fed and IRS would be among them. I have noticed that some of my friends who support Mr. Paul and his ideas about the Fed are believers in multiple intertwined conspiracy theories that boil down to the idea that Zionist bankers have a plot to enslave the world in a one-world socialist system. These ideas have been on the platform of the John Birch Society since its inception in the late 1950’s.
Regarding the elimination of the IRS, this is an idea that has gained popularity in progressive circles thanks to Aaron Russo’s documentary “From Freedom to Fascism” that alleges that the IRS is unconstitutional and that there is no valid law on the books requiring US citizens to pay income taxes. The New York Times article pasted in at the end of this document in my opinion convincingly refutes these assertions. Again the pertinent question is what Mr. Russo and Mr. Paul would replace our current method of taxation with. I seriously doubt that they would favor a more progressive system of taxation. The fact is that our tax policy has become much more regressive (that is that the rich bear less tax burden and the poor, more) over the past 30 years thanks to what I see as policies that have been driven by the sort of libertarian thinking that Mr. Paul advocates.
“Looks like I’ll have to do the unthinkable and register Republican
so I can vote for Ron Paul in the state primary… This is definitely
one of those times when Party is not the issue… This man is the only
candidate with a possible chance that is against all wars… Peace, Arie
Greetings all,
Below is a link to a wonderful video on Ron Paul who is running for
U.S. President. Please take the time to watch and share it with others.
Om Mani Padme Hum –
Kathryn Ariel
http://www.songofthedovefoundation.org”
C’mon Arie! Are you against a woman’s right to choose? Do you want oil drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge? Don’t you want single payer Health Insurance? Ron Paul is on the wrong side of all these issues. He is a libertarian, which is the extreme far right of the Republican party. This branch of the party doesn’t believe in government as a solution to social issues but strictly the free market as a panacea to almost every problem.
Ron Paul is a nice guy with sincerely held opinions and a willingness to say what’s on his mind that are a breath of fresh air among politicians. His stand on the war certainly resonates with progressives but on almost all other issues, he is most certainly not a progressive.
I am not a knee jerk Democratic voter. I held my nose and voted for Clinton twice just because I believed the alternative was so toxic. I’ve been voting every year since Jimmy Carter and Clinton was the first presidential candidate I ever voted for who won. I really believe that all of the Democratic candidates, including Hillary, who is my last choice, offer a huge difference between their Republican counterparts. We have a real chance of getting universal healthcare if any of these candidates is elected but no chance with any of the Republicans, including Ron Paul. This is enough reason for me to vote Democratic.
If you are just being strategic and trying to get a candidate who is not as hideously obnoxious as the others on the Republican side of the ballot, I still think it’s a mistake. I think Ron Paul might actually appeal to more people than the other ghouls in the Republican race and possibly ace out the Democratic choice, which would be a disaster. Better I think to get behind the most progressive candidate on the Democratic side who has a chance of winning and try to get someone other than Hillary on the Democratic side. The media is making it seem like Hillary is a shoe-in and maybe they’re right but it seems to me that she has the least chance of the contenders to defeat the Republicans with all of the negative sentiment she stirs up with both them and progressives.
Sincerely,
Craig Vivas
Larry Says:
Ron Paul is also against Social Security, Medicare, all solutions to the
health care crisis that involve the government (in other words, all
solutions,) etc. He is against the Federal Reserve Bank, most banking
laws, the SEC and all institutions that presently protect those who do
not have the sophistication to survive in bear-knuckle capitalistic
world. Can’t make it? Tough. Starve.
That is the real Ron Paul. The whole Ron Paul. Oh yes, he also wants to
stop the war.
Larry Marks
Dave says:
“Hey Craig,
What we all know is the MONEY GAME is the pivotal controlling issue for all others.
With that given fact stated Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate who addresses this issue by suggesting the elimination of the Federal Reserve. NOW that would resolve most of the issues. John F. Kennedy attempted to do this &took a bullet. I suggest everyone read: The Creature from Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve By: G. Edward Griffin
Finally, why don’t we all get REAL here &deal with the fact we have a RIGGED election system (see:www.votescam.com &www.blackboxvoting.org) … so until we have legitimate elections we are just intellectually masterbating &we have better things to do with our time … at least I do !!!
Best,
David Casebeer”
Dear Dave,
OK, I’ll admit I’m no expert on macro economics or the intricacies of the Federal Reserve but I am familiar with some of the arguments against it. I agree that, like so many other things in this oligarchy that we live in, it is designed to extract the fruits of the working person’s labors for the benefit of the ruling elite. This has been the same story ever since our species laid down the spear and picked up the hoe. What I haven’t heard from those who are stridently against the Federal Reserve is what they propose as an alternative. Would it be a return to the gold standard? I guess that would be a way to keep the system more honest by preventing the unlegislated and regressive taxation that is accomplished by just printing more money when the government needs to pay for something. I guess I could get behind a return to the gold standard. I’m sure there would be unforeseen and unpredictable downsides as with any kind of economic manipulations so I would like to hear a scholarly debate of the pros and cons before leaping in that direction. Even with a return to the gold standard there would have to be some sort of bureaucracy to oversee money supply. How does Ron Paul propose we deal with this?
I think the biggest problem in the world today is the increasing gap between rich and poor. Probably the largest blow to the middle class in this country was the attack on organized labor that culminated in the firing of the striking air traffic controllers by Ronald Reagan. Ever since then we have watched the conditions of working people degrade to lower and lower levels. The flight of manufacturing jobs to the third world, the evaporation of pension and health benefits, and many other things are linked to this. Do you have any idea of where Ron Paul stands on labor issues?
He certainly has made it clear that he opposes any solution that would decrease the role of the private sector in bringing (or not bringing) healthcare to Americans. This is in keeping with his libertarian ideology that has been the basis of the free market mantra that most of our leaders since Ronald Reagan have been babbling nonstop. Would Ron Paul be different from the rest by eliminating the entitlements that have been enjoyed by big money cronies while, at the same time taking away the social safety net that has kept many of the least fortunate from sleeping on the streets? That might be some progress, but not enough for my taste.
I agree that the voting system isn’t fair and resulted in us getting an un-elected moron as President for 8 years but what does that have to do with voting for Ron Paul? Where does he stand on electoral reform? If you believe that voting is insignificant, why are we having this debate at all?
I personally believe that the wave of privatization of formally public services has only been a boondoggle for political cronies. Look at Haliburton, Blackwater, and Enron. Has privatization really brought us the efficiency that libertarian ideologues have promised? Do you really want a President who will only increase the speed of this march over the cliff that we have been on for the past 25 years or so?
I would appreciate answers that are your own synthesis and not just a reference to a website or book.
Yours,
Craig
Rose says:
“Hi Arie:
I think it is important to set the record straight on Ron Paul and his record. If you have Larry Marks’ email could you or someone else send this on to him. I believe to say this kindly, he and others are “misrepresenting” Ron Paul’s view on Social Security. I just had time for this issues, this morning but I will address the other “myths” about Ron Paul later. It is “blatantly untrue” that Ron Paul is against Social Security. In fact he has introduced a bill “to stop taxing” seniors who are on Social Security. I wonder where the so-called liberal/war monger Hillary Clinton is on this one?
Rose
See: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
Here is Ron Paul’s stance on Social Security taken directly from the horses mouth/his website (What a concept you can actually go to his website and see his stances on these issues).
“In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.
Social Security
Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.
Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.”
Craig to Rose:
“Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.”
This is untrue. The situation is that if nothing is done to increase funding to Social Security, the system will begin to pay out more than it is taking in in 35 years or so. That would be if the economy and stock market performs at its worst historical average between now and then.
“The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.”
I agree with most of this but he doesn’t mention the simple solution of removing the upper income limit that stops withholding Social Security taxes on income above around $90,000 per year. A major loophole for the rich and very rich that Republicans always forget to mention when discussing the issue.
“We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.”
Does this sound like someone we know? This is exactly what our pal Bush was proposing in the beginning of his second term before he go slapped down. Conservative economist, Paul Krugman lays the argument against this thinking out well. If you divert money away from Social Security back to the taxpayers to invest on their own, you only increase the funding problem for the program and put the government into even more massive debt. Benefits still have to be paid to those who depend on them. Some individuals may do better by investing by themselves but some will not. Some will lose all of their money. What happens to these poor souls? Do we let them starve on the street? I hope not.
This would be just another boondoggle for Republican cronies on Wall Street at the expense of the taxpayer. It is a not so sly attempt to privatize Social Security.
Rose, I know you and I really don’t think Ron Paul stands for the kind of vision you have for America. Take another close look at what he is saying being careful to remember that he is also a politician trying to cash in on the populist appeal some of his opinions may have on progressives such as yourself.
Yours,
Craig
Joy says:
To: Congressman Dr. Ron Paul,
Greetings.
To nip the following points made about you in the bud and what I believe to be erroneous,
would you kindly respond to the statements put forth about your beliefs on economic and Constitutional matters and clarify the issue(s) put forth below? I have responded to some within (blue) brackets; the others obviously to me have been misunderstood in intent and several do not take into consideration the kind of healthy economy we could expect given freedom from central banking and the kind of actually PRIVATIZED central banking program we have now, which would naturally eliminate unnecessary “community” support programs. Please clarify all if you would be so good to do so. It looks to me that someone has intentionally misrepresented and/or seriously misunderstood your economic/social ideas, because I have heard you express on several occasions that “no one would be put out on the street, but that any programs phased out would be done so with the certainty that all would have economic means of valid support.” Knowing that you do have a Heart and Soul, and deeply CARE for America and its people, I can’t imagine any heartlessness demonstrated in any changes hoped to be made.
I and other supporters of you, especially in these parts of Northern California, would be grateful for this clarification that we may more easily pass it on.
Thank you.
Best and kindest regards,
Taylor Joy Hunt
Mt. Shasta, CA
galacticjoy@yahoo.com
Dear Joy
Thank you for copying me on your message to Ron Paul. I am really glad that this debate is occurring. Your message highlights a philosophical divide that causes some people to become fervent Ron Paul supporters while to others, like me, he is 180 degrees out of synch with what I see as progress.
Your reasons for supporting Ron Paul as I understand them could be summarized as follows:
1) He favors eliminating the Federal Reserve.
2) He favors eliminating income tax.
3) He favors eliminating government insurance and pension programs, which in your view make people slaves to a big government master.
4) He favors eliminating restrictions on business and and believes that they should be controlled by only by a free market.
1) On the first point, I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know a whole lot about the Federal Reserve. I know it’s a private corporation with some links to the federal government. For example, it’s Chairman, (Alan Greenspan before, and) Ben Bernake, is a presidential appointment. After he is appointed, the Chairman, theoretically, is not bound to obey anyone in political office but makes his decisions based on what the Board of Directors and he decide. (I guess this means that he can’t be fired by the President like a Supreme Court Justice, but I don’t know that for sure.) I read in Wikipedia that the current Federal Reserve system was founded in 1913 by a Democratic initiative that was heavily influenced by a plan made in secret meetings of banking moguls such as JP Morgan and the like. In general, a central bank was opposed by Republicans, who thought that business would lose control of monetary policy and that interest rates should be driven exclusively by a free market. Democrats, influenced by what the Germans were doing, favored a central bank independent of political influence because it would have less tendency to sway to political trends and operate more on sound economic principals.
What the Fed does is establish the “prime” interest rate that banks get when borrowing money from them and control how much money is printed and minted. They do a balancing act by raising rates and controlling money supply to avoid inflation while lowering interest rates and easing money supply to avoid economic recession.
I tend to believe that the Fed is run by a class of people who have more in common with the business elite than the working man or woman and that there is room for corruption and political manipulation as is always the case when significant money is involved. There is no doubt that we are currently seeing a huge fall in the value of the Dollar because we are printing money to pay for the war so we won’t have to raise income taxes.
What I would like to hear from Mr. Paul is what he would put in place of the current banking system. Until I learn more, I remain open on this point.
2) On eliminating income tax, I am firmly in favor of a progressive income tax. I think it should extend equally to income made on capital gains, which is not the case now. Any sort of flat tax or consumption taxes such as sales taxes are fundamentally regressive, meaning that the poor bear a larger burden than the rich. At this point, many will say “but wait a minute, rich people buy more than poor people so consumption taxes tax them more.” While it is true that rich people buy more than poor people, a family making $20,000 per year will spend a far greater proportion of its income on consumption than a family making $200,000. In fact the first family will probably spend almost all of its income on basic needs while the second family will be able to live extremely well while socking away $100,000 per year or so.
If you believe as I do that a fundamental role of government is to provide safety and security to its population, including those who are the worst off, then there has to be some redistribution of wealth in the form of taxation. Think of it in the way you think about insurance. You pay into a system that you hope never to have to use to lessen the feeling of insecurity of knowing that bad things happen to nice people such as yourself.
What’s wrong with our tax system in my opinion is that it is not progressive enough. The very wealthy make lots of money that they pay little or no taxes on. They can afford to hire financial consultants who have creative ways to hide income. Even if they are not trying to avoid taxation, the wealthy in America pay a much smaller percentage of their income than almost every other liberal democracy in the world. Conservatives will say low taxes stimulate people to take risks that result in the innovations that made America the economic powerhouse that it is today. I say it’s probably more due to being in the right place at the right time. In Europe, the economy is doing quite well in spite of very high income taxes. I paid close to 50% of my income in taxes when I lived in The Netherlands but did not have to spend money on a car because of excellent subsidized transportation. My wife got her Master’s degree at a prestigious university at a very low cost because of government subsidies. Along with everyone else, I had excellent no-wait healthcare with the doctor of my choice at half the cost of what it would have been here (it would have been free if I had made less than $30K/year). If I had become disabled and lost all of my money, I would still have been able to live a dignified, decent lifestyle for the rest of my life. I was also able to put away money and live a very good life. If that’s slavery, then strap on them manacles and whip me baby!
Don’t believe the hype you hear. Many European countries have higher standards of living than the US and there is lots of innovation coming from there.
3) I think I have stated my view on the third point already so I won’t elaborate here.
4) Conservatives have been trying to eliminate regulations on business since the dawn of time. The Great Depression of the 1930s was ushered in by the administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover who deregulated business. The Savings and Loan debacle of the 1980s was the result of outright fraud and corruption brought by Ronald Reagan’s deregulation of that industry. Enron, Blackwater, and Haliburton are all examples of what happens when government fails to give proper oversight to private business serving a public need.
In my view, the economic ideas of Ron Paul are just an extension of the economic policies re-popularized by Ronald Reagan after a 50 year sleep and followed by every president since then. He is just a little more extreme.
All the best,
Craig
Joel says:
“Craig,
I can’t go too far into this debate as I’m preoccupied with work and the like, but let me please point out that all roads of corruption lead to the federal reserve. A good example is the savings and loans scandals. Companies were often times engineer to go under in order to be swallowed up by the world bankers/federal reserve. They print money to cover for their own high risk enterprises that go bunk (creature from Jekyll Island), there by taking more of the pie and placing the burden on the tax payer through inflation. It’s a simple game.
In conclusion, I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s positions in policy making but I don’t expect to. He is striking the root. A really nasty root that has cost some politicians their lives. I support him for his courage and determination to strike at the root of the problem. I don’t disagree with you about your criticisms but I implore you to stop shaking your saber at your teammates and start working with them, regardless of the small ideological differences. Nothing can truly be accomplished until the federal reserve is thrown from the bow of the ship guiding our nation.
Sincerely,
Joel Colombero”
Dear Joel,
I don’t have small ideological differences with Ron Paul. I have a fundamental problem with his libertarian philosophy. At this point, I don’t support eliminating the Federal Reserve and I am certainly in favor of progressive income taxes. Both of these things in my view could use reform but not in the ways a libertarian would change them. I don’t see the Federal Reserve as the root of all evil. I understand that you are convinced that the Fed must be eliminated but find it odd that you, Dave, and Rose would choose that as the single issue to base your voting decision on while throwing so many of your other principals by the wayside.
Do you consider yourself a libertarian or agree with the principals of libertarianism? It’s important for me to know this before we go further with this discussion. (This goes for the rest of the Ron Paul supporters on the list.) If the answer is yes, that’s OK. We can still be friends but I think it is pointless to discuss politics or economics because we see the world in such a different way.
Don’t work too hard.
Craig
PS: I still don’t know what Mr. Paul proposes as the alternative to the Fed but would like to hear his (and your) ideas.
Joy says:
”Dear Craig,
I think you are fixated on the label “Libertarianism” or “Libertarian”.
Wise not to stereotype, especially with Ron Paul. Dr. Ron Paul has described
how he is different than Libertarian…one is that he is
“not an isolationist”. He is more a Taft Republican…representing
earlier Republican views before the NeoCons corrupted intentions
of Republican Party. He is also one who believes that one should be
neither a “good Republican” or a “good Democrat”, but rather a “good
American”. He knows that Party is a charade anyway, as the owners of
our government (Federal Reserve private owners) own both parties.
View some of his videos and go and hear
him speak if you have the opportunity. Ask him
questions. I find him very approachable in this way, as
he wishes to be understood. Ron Paul represents a different
type of politician…a truthful one. I find he also does not
voice his views just to win approval…He doesn’t have an
ego problem or is just out to win votes, but to offer a
constructive change for our nation and people, which he wants
all the best for. I find he genuinely
cares for America, and is genuinely informed also, and I don’t think
you could find anyone
else who understands better about our true economic system and
is ready to do constructive change on it as he is able…that means
“able” as given a Congress in Agreement with changes he would
pursue. A president cannot Constitutionally do it all by himself…and
one such as Ron Paul very well appreciates changes only being made
as it represents the WILL of the people, which he intends to serve
Constitutionally.
Blessings,
Joy”
Dear Joy,
It is not the label libertarian that I am fixated on but the ideas that can be conveniently summarized as essentially libertarian. I don’t hate libertarians. Some of the nicest people I know are libertarian. They tend to be honest, hard working, and extremely generous people who believe strongly that their views are in the best interest of “the people.” I like libertarians. I think a lot of what they believe in such as the free market, staying out of imperial adventures, and personal liberty is right on. The rugged individualistic mentality of Americans has led this country to a heritage that is strongly influenced by libertarian values. The Republican Party before Newt Gingrich and his “contract with America” was essentially libertarian in it’s attitude of letting business run itself with little to no government oversight. Clinton trumped the Republicans by adopting economic policies that were also essentially libertarian. Alan Greenspan recently described Clinton as “the best Republican President I have ever worked with.” The Republican party that followed Gingrich retained many of it’s libertarian features but needed new buttons to push to expand its base so it began reaching out to the “family values” crowd, racists, and low-brow populists.
I don’t want to pigeon hole you, Ron Paul or anyone else with a label. I wouldn’t want you to pigeon hole me as a democratic socialist, though that is the model of government I most favor. I recognize that with the complexities of the modern state, all governments will inevitably be a mixture of free market capitalism with a socialist safety net. “Socialism” to me means that government’s most important function is to do its best to assure that all members of it’s society, including the most unfortunate and members of unpopular minorities, get no less than a minimal level of agreed-upon basic human needs. “Libertarianism” is essentially the opposite. Libertarians believe that the role of government is to provide military and police protection to its citizens and to stay out of the way of free enterprise. They believe in the free market’s ability to work things out.
The optimism of libertarians is enviable. It’s a sort of “things will work themselves out” mentality. “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” I would like to be friends with that sort of person but I wouldn’t want that person to be the Chief of Police or the fireman who comes to rescue me from my burning house. The President is the top cop. The problem with the libertarian influenced governments we have had is that essentially these people really don’t believe in the government they’re supposed to be running. They “starve the beast” of government programs and then declare them a failure and sell them off as bargain prices to friends who can afford it. They only occasionally and reluctantly enforce laws that regulate business excesses. This has led to scandals of epic proportions … at the taxpayer’s expense.
I agree with Ron Paul that we should get out of the Middle East, get back to a gold standard, and stop taxing people through inflation. I disagree that we should eliminate the central bank or make it a political branch. I think that the decisions of the central bank, like the Supreme Court should be as independent of the winds of political change as possible. Politics always has been and always will be stacked in favor of the wealthy elite. If the central bank becomes more political, it will only make this dominance worse.
The elite will only make concessions to working people when they know we are paying attention and will not give them what they want from us unless they treat us fairly. We do this by recognizing the role of class in society and organizing as a class to negotiate a better place for ourselves.
I am really glad to be a part of this discussion. I have learned a lot about how our banking system works and come to respect Ron Paul’s views on many points. More importantly I think I understand some of my best friends a little better. Thank you for letting me take part.
Cheers,
Craig
Jake says:
“We don’t have to eliminate centralized banking, we need to eliminate our dependence on it, which would solve itself through going back to a gold standard. If you can instantly trade a currency for gold, you have no need for a bank to assure you it’s worth something. In that, we eliminate a huge payments we make to these banks to do nothing but tell the rest of the world our money is good.”
Seems logical and to me. I’m just not sure why, after 38 years, this suddenly is so important that my friends are so hung up on it that they’re willing to throw other important (and politically more realistic goals) by the wayside and not advance but retreat back to the dark days of Herbert Hoover.
Craig
“From:jake@minnesotacomputers.com
To:CraigieV@cs.com
Received from Internet:
Politicians love the current system, because it for any money they can’t get through taxes, they can take from loans, meaning they can fund pretty much anything. They love being able to get unbalanced budgets approved regardless of them requiring a loan to do so much that it’s almost impossible to find a guy in congress who’s willing to reject it. Not to mention, anyone who in the history of the world has gone into a fiat has found nothing but economic nightmares. I for one don’t think a step backward is a bad thing if you’re stepping away from a disaster. “
The thing is that, because of what you say about Congress, we probably won’t get an end to the Federal Reserve note but we will probably also will not see universal healthcare if a conservative Republican like Ron Paul is elected. We will probably also not see any meaningful moves to curtail carbon emissions or stop drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. That’s too big a price for me to pay for an unrealistic goal. There first has to be a groundswell of support for the gold standard as there is now for healthcare and the environment. I don’t think sabotaging these goals by supporting a libertarian presidential candidate will further your goal of a gold standard.
Cheers,
Craig
Jake said:
“Healthcare costs money, unless of course they can pass one of their plans in which you would just legally need to have health insurance, just like car insurance. If you’re actually going to get something in place that mimics what Canada/England/(The list goes on) has, then you are going to need a lot of money. So taxes will be raised. Now I who never get sick am paying for the doctor visits of everyone else. Ron Pauls idea on the subject is to avoid tax raises by cutting unnecessary institutions (DMV, IRS, too many to mention, all of which I’m sure would spark a lot of debate). And not making it mandatory for anyone to give anyone else healthcare, but let free market do it’s thing (Employee won’t work at company A, if company B pays the same + Health Plan). As far as the environment goes, a government can only do so much without very seriously impeding on the civil liberties of the people. This is an issue that’s bigger than government, it needs to be done through corporations, individuals as well. We cracked the human genome privately and that guy will make a fortune, we figured out global warming was a problem largely through private research. Why are subsidies now required for the solution? Why carbon tax’s that are basically saying it’s alright to pollute as long as you pay? If we can find a solution, then by all means lets march to congress and get the cash to do it. But until that point, I don’t see the government being able to wave a magic wand over this one.”
Dear Jake,
I understand and respect your point of view that basically the free market is the best solution to all problems but I don’t agree with it. I think your view on national healthcare is based on fallacies that, thanks to private sector misinformation campaigns are commonly believed in this country but virtually nowhere else.
Our current healthcare “system” costs us about 50% more in terms of GDP than the next highest spending country. We are nowhere near the top of the list when comes to delivering healthcare to our people in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy and virtually every other way of measuring it. In fact, we are rated number 43 by the W.H.O.. Our country has a mixture of private and public programs. The public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system have administrative overheads of around 3% while private insurers average around 20%. Many other countries, like The Netherlands where I used to live, have mixed systems but the difference between the US and the rest of the world is that virtually every other industrialized country guarantees healthcare to all its citizens as a fundamental human right. In all of the European systems that I know, you can choose whatever doctor or hospital you want. Though I’m sure you can find horror stories about long waits and bad treatment, I received great, no wait service in the times I had to use the Dutch system. Britons and Canadians are overwhelming positive about their systems when polled.
Why not mimic countries who have systems that cost less, cover all of their citizens, and have better patient outcomes? Why take apart the one part of our own healthcare system that is working fairly well (ie: our publically funded services)? In the end you pay for it one way or the other and the fact is that the free market just doesn’t work to deliver healthcare efficiently as well as socialized systems.
If you want to read more about this, I attached an article by Paul Krugman, an economist who worked for both Reagan and Bush #1. Though he has views that are similar to your’s about the free market, he is willing to recognize its limitations when it comes to healthcare.
I don’t believe in subsidies that pay companies not to pollute. I believe in regulations that will make it a crime to do so. There is money to be made in green business but there is also big, big money in business that has a vested interest in continuing to pollute. It will take more than the free market to reign them in.
Cheers,
Craig
After a thought-provoking conversation with Dave yesterday, I spent a few hours this morning researching the ideas behind the movement to abolish the Fed. It seems to me now that the ideas of G. Edward Griffin in The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve and endorsed by Ron Paul are not simply libertarian, but also combine some of the ideas promoted by The John Birch Society.
I pasted the beginning of the Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society below. I also pasted some of the reader reviews from Amazon.com of the above-mentioned book that I found interesting. Sounds to me that the author presented the facts about the formation of the Fed accurately. He is on shakier ground with the conclusions he arrives at and solutions he proposes.
Food for thought.
All the best,
Craig
The John Birch Society is a conservative American organization.[1] It was founded in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1958 to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, especially a suspected Communist infiltration of the United States government, and to support free enterprise. It promotes a conspiracist view of history and current reality, linking political and social events to the globalist agendas of secret cabals working behind the scenes. The Society had been greatly marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s.[2] It was named after John Birch, a United States military intelligence officer and Baptist missionary in World War II who was killed in 1945 by armed supporters of the Communist Party of China, and whom the JBS describes as “the first American victim of the Cold War.” His parents joined the society as life members. Based in Appleton, Wisconsin , the society describes itself as “a membership-based organization dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution.” It says that members come from all walks of life and are active in all 50 states via local chapters. Its mission is to achieve “Less Government, More Responsibility, and — With God’s Help — a Better World.” The JBS was formed as an educational organization and does not endorse candidates but has often come out against political figures seen as un-American.
Core values
The John Birch Society is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, and anti-Fascist. It strenuously defends what it sees as the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. It idealizes the Founding Fathers as patriotic anti-Communists. The John Birch Society opposes what it describes as collectivism, which in its view includes wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. The John Birch Society believes that cabals and conspiracies throughout the world have significantly shaped history, and it seeks to expose and eliminate their claimed control in government in the modern era. It has subsequently been labeled “conspiracist” and has become isolated from many other conservative groups.[citation needed] During the 1960s, The John Birch Society opposed aspects of the Civil Rights Movement because of concerns that the movement had a number of Communists in important positions and because they suspected that it was backed and supported by the American Communist Party. The John Birch Society opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the belief that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to make laws regarding Civil Rights.[citation needed] Finally, The John Birch Society is against a unified world government and has an illegal immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It has been a major opponent of the United Nations, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, and other free-trade agreements with other nations, believing them to be destructive to American principles, the economy, freedom and national sovereignty.[citation needed]
Reader reviews of “The Creature from Jeckle Island”
“WHAT DO WE WANT?, April 29, 2007
By Arlan Ebel (Aurora, Colorado United States) – See all my reviews
Obviously the reactions to this book will depend on the perceptions and values of those who read it. There are people (I am one) who understand how the Federal Reserve System works and loathe it and think it should be abolished; and there are also those who understand how it works and think it should be preserved at just about any cost; and there are countless variations on these polar positions that will never find a common meeting ground. So it is pointless to rant from any of these positions because no one will listen to you except those who already agree with you to some degree.
So my comments are directed only at those readers who, like Griffin and me, would like to see the Fed done away with. We know what our reasons are for wanting this, so there’s no need to go over that. Here is the crucial question/issue for us Nay-Sayers: Griffin maintains a nice neat ethical distinction between what he thinks of as genuine competitive capitalism and the monstrosity created by the likes of the Morgan, Warburg, and Rockefeller families. But he does not sufficiently stand up to the unavoidable fact that these families were simply the most successful capitalists and that capitalists, by the very nature of what they are, create under them variously sized crowds of employees whose interaction eventually begins to look “collective” and “socialistic” and “herd-like” simply by virtue of the fact that they are the employees and not the capitalists. In a so-called capitalist society, there are only a handful of actual capitalists and the rest of the people are ultimately only employees and this comes about precisely through competition. Corporate capitalism is only capitalism that has been around long enough for the islands of power to become that powerful. The creation of the Federal Reserve System was merely a means for the most powerful capitalists to maintain their superiority. (Remember that the great capitalist families in America were not just bankers, they were industrial giants as well: steel, railroads, oil, etc.) And now we live in an America where most of the population is not one of free-holders in any sense of the word, but one of virtual employees, permanently indebted employees. But was this actually avoidable in a capitalist society? I doubt it. When the Founding Fathers restricted the coining of money and the regulating of the value thereof to Congress and warned stridently of the dangers of a “central bank,” they were not thinking deeply enough about the relationship between the “freedoms” they wanted to preserve and the very nature of the economic system that they were adopting. The clash was inevitable. The question now is: If we want to preserve the constitutional freedoms of the people, then what sort of economic system can we actually maintain? If we abolish the Fed (and corporate capitalism would inevitably go down with it), then what will we erect in its ruins? To simply return the function of the Fed to Congress will not stop the thrust of capitalism that led directly to the creation of the Fed. The idea of a permanently small-town capitalism is a fantasy because there will always be someone who wants more control and more power. So if we don’t want this capitalism and we don’t want socialism or any other collectivist sort of system, then what do we want? And what role will the tidal wave of globalizing technologies in a context of culture clashes play in our decisions? What do we mean by “freedoms’?
Griffin’s valuable book is required reading, but it only introduces a deeper challenge to those who really take it seriously. ”
another reader’s perspective:
“Money is a medium that has evolved in virtually every society in order to facilitate trade and commerce. Private banks issued their own money prior to the 20th century. In 1913 our government became the sole US provider of currency which could be traded to any bank for gold. In 1971 the United States government abandoned the gold standard, as had every other major world currency. Paper currency is worth what it is worth because of its purchasing power in relation to other currencies and a faith in that government’s monetary policy. This is where the Federal Reserve comes in.
There is a strong consensus among economists – our author is not one of these – that business cycles are best managed by monetary policy. For monetary authorities to do their job responsibly, it is crucial that they be politically independent. Evidence shows that countries whose Fed equivalent is subject to political meddling have consistently higher rates of monetary instability and inflation. It is significant that the most important economic leaders in our government, the Federal Reserve Board Members, are appointed to 14-year terms, which keeps one president from stacking the board with his cronies. They are not elected so they don’t have to answer to voters. The Fed can quickly address a perceived monetary problem with two tools involving manipulation of interest rates or manipulation of money supply, and they can do either with a phone call.
Monetary policy is quite complex, which I suppose makes it easy prey for a conspiracy theory. Our author has not worked in banking, is a John Birch Society leader, and makes a good living off his website and this book. The book is well-written, if a bit tedious, and contains enough truth to make a good story.
A good conspiracy theory usually comes from someone who is NOT an insider, who uses partial or circumstantial evidence, addresses a process that has broad emotional impact to a wide audience, reduces complex phenomenon to simple, immoral actions, argues using logical fallacies, and enjoys zero credibility in expert communities. I believe this is what we have here… ”
still another (less literate) reader:
“…in addition to detailing thet workings of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Griffin weaves a spellbinding tale of a global conspiracy that dates back to the Rothschild’s. Illuminati who are in positions of power and looking to dominate the world. Among many of Mr. Griffin’s conspiritorial allegations are that the Luistania was arranged to be sunk by Winston Churchill in order to push the US into the first world war.
…So, in addition, Io read a book on the sinking of the Lusitania that disproves some of the elements of Mr. Griffin’s story. In short, this book seems a bit like the Da Vinci code. It took the factual workings of the Federal Reserve and married it to the Illuminati conspiracy theory. ”
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin
Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 31, 2006
Aaron Russo, the producer of films like “Trading Places” and “The Rose,” promotes his new film, “America: From Freedom to Fascism,” which opened Friday, as having had its international premiere before a packed audience “during the Cannes Film Festival.”
The film was not on the program at Cannes, however, not even for screenings made under the festival’s aegis without being in the awards competition. Mr. Russo, the film’s director, writer and producer, just set up an inflatable screen on a beach. Photographs posted at one of Mr. Russo’s Web sites depict an audience of fewer than 50 people spread out on a platform on the sand.
Hyping films with fanciful claims is nothing new in Hollywood. But examination of the assertions in Mr. Russo’s documentary, which purports to expose “two frauds” perpetrated by the federal government, taxing wages and creating the Federal Reserve to coin money, shows that they too collapse under the weight of fact.
Still, at free showings the film has drawn long lines of people eager to watch a documentary that feeds on the estrangement many Americans feel from their government, especially those who believe they played by the rules and yet see their finances strained or broken. Many of the reviews in major newspapers have accepted as having some factual basis the film’s main contention, that the government illegally extracts income taxes, even though every court that has ever ruled on these issues has upheld the constitutionality of the income tax.
The film’s appeal, Mr. Russo said during a phone interview last week, is not left or right, but concentrated among those who see the United States evolving into a police state ruled by an oligarchy that has tricked Americans into paying taxes.
Not mentioned in the film is that Mr. Russo has more than $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service , California and New York for unpaid federal and state taxes. Mr. Russo declined to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film.
Early in the film Mr. Russo, the narrator, asserts that every president since Woodrow Wilson and every member of Congress has perpetrated a hoax to tax people’s wages and issue them dubious currency. All of the federal income tax revenue, the film says, goes to these bankers to pay interest on the national debt, even though by the broadest measure the federal government’s interest payments are less than 40 percent of the individual income taxes, according to an examination of every federal budget since 1995.
The film opens by calling the 16th Amendment and its subsequent income tax and the Federal Reserve the product of a “silent coup d’état” in 1913 by “international bankers.” In the style of low-budget television documentaries, photographs appear on screen of J. P. Morgan, Paul Warburg and John D. Rockefeller.
The documentary includes interviews with a host of people who are presented as experts, scholars and whistle-blowers. All deny the legitimacy of the income-tax laws, including Irwin Schiff, now serving his third prison term for tax crimes.
The cornerstone of Mr. Russo’s case is whether any law requires Americans to pay income taxes on wages.
Near the film’s beginning Mr. Russo says, and others appear on screen asserting, that the Internal Revenue Service has refused every request to show any law making Americans liable for an income tax on their wages.
Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress, but Mr. Russo denied this fact.
“Title 26,” Mr. Russo said in an interview last week, “is not the law, it is I.R.S. regulations and to be a law it has to be passed by Congress.” Mr. Russo added that he had studied the matter closely and was confident that he had the facts.
Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them. But even though the penalty was quintupled, from $5,000, it has not deterred those who assert this and other claims that Congress and the courts deemed “frivolous arguments.”
The film also states repeatedly that people are tricked into paying income taxes because no law makes them liable for taxes. The tax code uses the word impose, whose definition includes the concept of liability, courts have held in published decisions.
The film includes the voice of this reporter, off camera, asking the I.R.S. commissioner, Mark W. Everson, to answer protesters outside the Treasury building who wanted to know what law makes them liable for taxes. Mr. Everson then makes rambling comments without, as the film notes, answering the question. Mr. Russo also said that “Congress has no authority to tax people’s labor.” Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution begins with the phrase “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.” Only three limitations are placed on that power, none of which bars a tax on wages. One limitation, however, was a requirement that taxes be “apportioned among the several states.” The 16th Amendment repealed apportionment, but Mr. Russo says in the film that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and thus a tax on wages is unconstitutional. This claim has been made in various forms by thousands of tax protesters since 1913, and so far their batting average with the courts is .000. To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted. Judge Fox, the transcript shows, concluded that no court would accept any argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified and therefore invalid. The film includes a brief interview with Sheldon Cohen, who was I.R.S. commissioner in the Johnson administration. Mr. Cohen said Mr. Russo used editing that “ twists my views” to create a false impression. Mr. Russo said he considered the assertion laughable. Mr. Russo was Bette Midler’s manager for seven years early in his career and has produced music as well as films. He also sought the Libertarian Party nomination for president in 2004 but dropped out because of ill health. Despite hundreds and perhaps thousands of tax protesters going to prison, and many more losing their homes and life savings, the movement appears today to be more widespread than ever. “The tax protest movement is like a cult,” said J J MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst who is writing a book about protesters and who has sat through six trials of people prosecuted for refusing to pay taxes under the theories espoused by Mr. Russo’s film. One tax protester featured in the film, Irwin Schiff of Las Vegas, is now serving his third prison sentence after being convicted of tax evasion crimes. Mr. Schiff introduced into his criminal case the notes of his psychiatrist, who wrote that Mr. Schiff was a successful tax shelter salesman until a con artist ripped him and his clients off. The psychiatrist concluded that Mr. Schiff became delusional, believing he alone could properly interpret the tax code, as a way to avoid acknowledging reality. Later, one of Mr. Schiff’s confederates, who was also later convicted and sent to prison, sent e-mail messages to supporters saying that the psychiatrist’s notes were introduced as part of a ruse to help Mr. Schiff escape prosecution. Ms. MacNab, who has testified before Congress, said that at each of the trials prosecutors showed how the accused took out of context sections of the law and court decisions while ignoring other sections, including those shown to them by I.R.S. agents. “People who are drawn into this movement just refuse to acknowledge facts that show their beliefs have no basis in fact,” she said. “Most of them have failed, their business has failed, their marriage has failed, and instead of taking responsibility for it they want to blame the government.” « Previous Page
1
2
Correction: Aug. 3, 2006 An article in The Arts on Monday about assertions regarding the income tax made in the documentary “America: From Freedom to Fascism” misstated the political experience of the film’s director, Aaron Russo, who ran for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 2004. He finished second in the voting at the party’s national convention; he did not drop out for health reasons
A Dialog With Ron Paul Supporters
By Craig Vivas,
craigiev@cs.com
On October 27, 2007, I got a message from Arie, a local Internet activist, about Ron Paul. I decided to look into this miracle Republican that some of my friends had become enraptured with. The dialog below is what followed.
I thought it would be an easy task to alert my progressive friends to the danger that Ron Paul’s anti-choice and anti-environment positions presented. The discussion quickly turned to Paul’s peculiar ideas about the Federal Reserve and the IRS; that is that they should be eliminated. Trying to keep an open mind, but also skeptical or the objectivity of a libertarian on economic matters, I investigated Paul’s position on the Fed and the IRS. The observant reader will see my view on this matter evolve in the dialog below. The truth is that I don’t know whether we would be better off radically reworking our money system or not. I am not well versed enough on economics to have a well-informed position on this. What’s clear is that it is easy to find fault with the money system but I suspect Mr. Paul’s libertarian ideology would make his alternative far worse than what it is now. If he is consistent with his ideology, he would not replace the checks and balances on big capitalism that the Fed currently provides in any scheme he would back.
A book that has influenced the thinking of many anti-Federal Reserve people is “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. One reviewer of this book claims that the author is a member of The John Birch Society. I could not find independent confirmation of this assertion but I did a cursory look into the positions of The John Birch Society and can imagine that elimination of the Fed and IRS would be among them. I have noticed that some of my friends who support Mr. Paul and his ideas about the Fed are believers in multiple intertwined conspiracy theories that boil down to the idea that Zionist bankers have a plot to enslave the world in a one-world socialist system. These ideas have been on the platform of the John Birch Society since its inception in the late 1950’s.
Regarding the elimination of the IRS, this is an idea that has gained popularity in progressive circles thanks to Aaron Russo’s documentary “From Freedom to Fascism” that alleges that the IRS is unconstitutional and that there is no valid law on the books requiring US citizens to pay income taxes. The New York Times article pasted at the end of this document in my opinion convincingly refutes these assertions. Again the pertinent question is what Mr. Russo and Mr. Paul would replace our current method of taxation with. I seriously doubt that they would favor a more progressive system of taxation. The fact is that our tax policy has become much more regressive (that is that the rich bear less tax burden and the poor, more) over the past 30 years thanks to what I see as policies that have been driven by the sort of libertarian thinking that Mr. Paul advocates.
“Looks like I’ll have to do the unthinkable and register Republican
so I can vote for Ron Paul in the state primary… This is definitely
one of those times when Party is not the issue… This man is the only
candidate with a possible chance that is against all wars… Peace, Arie
Greetings all,
Below is a link to a wonderful video on Ron Paul who is running for
U.S. President. Please take the time to watch and share it with others.
Om Mani Padme Hum –
Kathryn Ariel
http://www.songofthedovefoundation.org”
C’mon Arie! Are you against a woman’s right to choose? Do you want oil drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge? Don’t you want single payer Health Insurance? Ron Paul is on the wrong side of all these issues. He is a libertarian, which is the extreme far right of the Republican party. This branch of the party doesn’t believe in government as a solution to social issues but strictly the free market as a panacea to almost every problem.
Ron Paul is a nice guy with sincerely held opinions and a willingness to say what’s on his mind that are a breath of fresh air among politicians. His stand on the war certainly resonates with progressives but on almost all other issues, he is most certainly not a progressive.
I am not a knee jerk Democratic voter. I held my nose and voted for Clinton twice just because I believed the alternative was so toxic. I’ve been voting every year since Jimmy Carter and Clinton was the first presidential candidate I ever voted for who won. I really believe that all of the Democratic candidates, including Hillary, who is my last choice, offer a huge difference between their Republican counterparts. We have a real chance of getting universal healthcare if any of these candidates is elected but no chance with any of the Republicans, including Ron Paul. This is enough reason for me to vote Democratic.
If you are just being strategic and trying to get a candidate who is not as hideously obnoxious as the others on the Republican side of the ballot, I still think it’s a mistake. I think Ron Paul might actually appeal to more people than the other ghouls in the Republican race and possibly ace out the Democratic choice, which would be a disaster. Better I think to get behind the most progressive candidate on the Democratic side who has a chance of winning and try to get someone other than Hillary on the Democratic side. The media is making it seem like Hillary is a shoe-in and maybe they’re right but it seems to me that she has the least chance of the contenders to defeat the Republicans with all of the negative sentiment she stirs up with both them and progressives.
Sincerely,
Craig Vivas
Larry Says:
Ron Paul is also against Social Security, Medicare, all solutions to the
health care crisis that involve the government (in other words, all
solutions,) etc. He is against the Federal Reserve Bank, most banking
laws, the SEC and all institutions that presently protect those who do
not have the sophistication to survive in bear-knuckle capitalistic
world. Can’t make it? Tough. Starve.
That is the real Ron Paul. The whole Ron Paul. Oh yes, he also wants to
stop the war.
Larry Marks
Dave says:
“Hey Craig,
What we all know is the MONEY GAME is the pivotal controlling issue for all others.
With that given fact stated Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate who addresses this issue by suggesting the elimination of the Federal Reserve. NOW that would resolve most of the issues. John F. Kennedy attempted to do this &took a bullet. I suggest everyone read: The Creature from Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve By: G. Edward Griffin
Finally, why don’t we all get REAL here &deal with the fact we have a RIGGED election system (see:www.votescam.com &www.blackboxvoting.org) … so until we have legitimate elections we are just intellectually masterbating &we have better things to do with our time … at leas
16 November, 2007 at 11:01 am |
If only the author would have read this short piece before writing this:
“The Socialist Case for Ron Paul” by Christian Socialist, Jieil Schalkwijk (Netherlands).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html
It renders most, if not all of her negative opinions obsolete. Here, he explains how Paul’s philosophy of freedom is good for people of all political persuasions; Democrats, Socialists, Greens, Communitarians and even Communists. He provides answers here for social liberals who believe they can’t support RP for one reason or another. He explains here how a Paul presidency will not only be best for the US, but for the world as well.
Paul is by far the leading proponent for states rights and re-localization (go local!) and the only candidate I’ve even heard mention the word. Eat your heart out, Bernie Sanders!
Friends, don’t let friends vote Democrat, not this time! Gag if you have to, but please register (or re-register) Republican today and vote in your state’s primary for Ron Paul (especially those of you in key primary states). If I could do it, so can you! Any true liberal or conservative would be a fool not to support his candidacy, unles of course, you are anti-constitution.
btw: I too was fooled by misinformation until I discovered that Ron Paul condemned the racist piece you alluded to and immediately fired the staffer for writing it on his letterhead.
16 November, 2007 at 11:57 am |
Is there anyway you can post where you cited all of you info from? thanks
16 November, 2007 at 12:40 pm |
This article is just more evidence of the left’s emptiness. And to think that I once called myself a lefty and subscribed to Zmag. Oh, the shame.
I’m voting for Ron Paul because he correctly perceives that our own government is the greatest threat to my life, liberty, and property. No other entity on this earth can do the amount of damage that government can do to me. So while lefties like Aura cling to their rotting, individual-defeating identity politics, I’m getting on board with the only candidate that understands what’s at stake here.
GO RON! GO!
16 November, 2007 at 12:52 pm |
Thanks for a very useful piece! I too was shocked to see such a large number of left-wing antiwar folks at the Chicago Oct. 27th demo with Ron Paul stuff and think you are absolutely on the mark in your comments—and his positions you site are easy to confirm.
Only one point I would add, which I’ll be elaborating on in an upcoming piece for the International Socialist Review. I think it’s worth taking on the basic assumptions of his libertarianism (as well as the anarchist variety from the left). The notion that there is anything progressive or pro-working class about being in opposition to nationalized services and institutions needs to be challenged. The logical ramifications of this are to “liberate” the old and sick from Medicare; “liberate” the retired from Social Security; and establish the “freedom” to starve to death and drop dead for lack of health care (without state interference!). These are wildly reactionary ideas—no matter who spouts them.
16 November, 2007 at 12:53 pm |
Thanks for a very useful piece! I too was shocked to see such a large number of left-wing antiwar folks at the Chicago Oct. 27th demo with Ron Paul stuff and think you are absolutely on the mark in your comments.
Only one point I would add, which I’ll be elaborating on in an upcoming piece for the International Socialist Review. I think it’s worth taking on the basic assumptions of his libertarianism (as well as the anarchist variety from the left). The notion that there is anything progressive or pro-working class about being in opposition to nationalized services and institutions needs to be challenged. The logical ramifications of this are to “liberate” the old and sick from Medicare; “liberate” the retired from Social Security; and establish the “freedom” to starve to death and drop dead for lack of health care (without state interference!). These are wildly reactionary ideas—no matter who spouts them.
16 November, 2007 at 1:13 pm |
Dear Ms. Sherry Wolf,
While you’re at it, please outline in your article how one can be free of coercive State action and at the same time have “nationalized services and institutions.” The latter must be funded through taxation, which is state-sponsored appropriation (i.e., theft) of individual resources. The problem is that I cannot realize personal freedom and liberty if the state lays claim to my income and hence the energy I invest in work. Of course it could be that one is disinterested in individual liberty and it would thus make sense to accept the coercive state. However, the left must confront this dilemma if it wishes to have any moral legitimacy. I hope that you take up the challenge in your article. Best wishes, SS.
16 November, 2007 at 2:39 pm |
It is an error to claim that Ron Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. When you cited Ron Paul objecting to court decisions and cultural indoctrination that drive religion from public view, he is objecting to the power of the State being used to suppress religion. The State putting its boot to the Church and forcing the Church out of view isn’t separation.
Ron Paul would stop the State from using force and threat of force to push out religion. That would achieve separation of Church and State, and separation is not what we have now.
It is also an error to claim Ron Paul would impose any requirement on any school. Regardless of what Ron Paul thinks should be taught in school, if he were President he would remove the federal government from any influence or interference with schools. That would mean what is taught in school would be left up to states, local school boards and parents. I can appreciate your ideals of what should be taught in school or in science, but you need to realize not everyone thinks like you do. If you attempt to use the federal government to impose by force your ideal on schools, children, and parents that do not accept your ideal, you are engaged in tyranny.
Ultimately, the reason to vote for Ron Paul is that he is the only honest candidate who you can trust. If elected he will not betray you and take away your rights as a human being. Only he will do this, and only he will restore rights that were illegally taken away from us during the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty, or earlier.
16 November, 2007 at 5:59 pm |
Great article. Ron Paul supporters are deluded, and from the look of their comments here, they lack both the ability to comprehend written English and the sophistication to mask their right-wing, self-serving ideologies.
16 November, 2007 at 6:22 pm |
This article was obviously written to convince otherwise intelligent people why they shouldn’t get excited about Ron. To all the right-wing wacko, free-market worshipping, Milton Friedman fellating “libertarians” (such a perversion of the term) leaving comments, THIS ARTICLE DOESN’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. Go back to your little blogs where you can write about how affirmative action is big government-funded reverse racism.
16 November, 2007 at 7:24 pm |
The only thing worse than this article is the defense of it offered by Ms. Bogado’s supporters. Completely lacking in substance (thank you, Gary and Peter Adams and many others). You guys are starting to sound like neo-cons!
With friends like these, I sure hope Ms. Bogado doesn’t have any enemies.
16 November, 2007 at 7:57 pm |
“Not surprisingly, Paul offensive terms like “illegal alien”, “illegal immigrant” or plain-old “illegals” when referring to human beings who live in the United States without proper documentation.”
The truth is offensive? Typical wacko.
What do you mean “support people of color”?
What have you done to be supportive of Whites?
16 November, 2007 at 8:03 pm |
The Civil Rights Act of ‘64 WAS unconstitutional. Whites are OFFICIALLY second-class citizens in a country WHITES MADE (Don’t believe me? Try to find a comparable country made by Blacks or Hispanics.) Look at how EVERY ethnic group has been allowed to trademark their phrase [Black Pride, etc...] but the ONE rejection has been “WHITE PRIDE.”
http://www.adversity.net/USPTO/ethnic_pride/
That is rock-solid proof of what I say.
So, again, what have you done to support the civil rights of Whites?
16 November, 2007 at 8:04 pm |
Regardless of what Ms. Bogado writes or says in an attempt to smear Congressman Paul, she cannot change the spirit that he is generating throughout the country. And it is that spirit that matters.
) Thank Ms. Bogado, for she is but helping us sharpen our wit in preparation for the many other obstacles we face in changing the system now in place–which does not serve us.
16 November, 2007 at 8:19 pm |
For those that believe that, since Ron Paul is an advocate of federalism and opposes much federal legislation that is supported by progressives, he must be a racist. Well lets see what a true racist had to say about federalism:
“National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states.” – Adolf Hitler
I guess its great when the “correct” people are running the government. Does anybody really know what ideology would prevail at the national level in 20 years? It wasn’t too long ago when eugenicists were running Planned Parenthood.
16 November, 2007 at 8:52 pm |
Honey, if they’re not Illegal Aliens, what the hell are they? They are here in violation of our relativly gentle immigration laws (illegal). They are not native to this country (alien). What’s your beef? Did you ever pass basic courses in language or logic or law, without being on your back? You are a Tranzi Shill and will be ignored. Bu-bye…
16 November, 2007 at 9:09 pm |
Hi Boyle,
I used to listen to Free Speech Radio News everyday a few years ago. I used to be anti-gun and pro-immigrant. I’ll focus my comments here on why you should reconsider the gun issue. You can find a link on my blog at the bottom to read my side of the immigration story. Thank you for reading.
re: JFK, MLK, and RFK were “killed by…um….guns.”
Ever think: Tyrants were killed by um….guns!
Do pencils mispel words? Do cars make people drive drunk? Should we ban cars because people die in them?
Guns are ALWAYS going to be owned by the government. I’m not “pro-gun”, I’m AGAINST GOVERNMENT HAVING A MONOPOLY ON THE MOST DEADLY USE OF FORCE.
1. THE GOVERNMENT is the biggest unnatural cause of death, officially. Add up the numbers yourself. CONSERVATIVELY, they have killed 170 million people in the last century….with/using….guns. See my article detailing a small sample of government genocides here.
2. History shows us that gun registration, gun control, and gun confiscation legislation has ALWAYS preceded genocides (and in that order).
3. Speaking of the BLACK ISSUE – Gun control legislation banned blacks from owning guns and in slavery. After the blacks were freed, laws requiring gun registration kept freed blacks far from safe. From 1880-1965, mobs lynched more than 3500 black people, sometimes for real crimes, sometimes for simply insults against whites, sometimes mobs snatched blacks from the streets or jails. They were abused, tortured, mutilated, and killed.
Defense of the poor sometimes prevails. In Colombia, South Carolina, a 14 year old girl stops a lynch mob from seizing a black prisoner, by holding a lynch mob at bay with a revolver she doesn’t even know how to shoot.
“Free Negros may not carry firearms.” –Florida law 1831, Mississippi Law 1852, Alabama Law 1866, Louisiana Law – post civil war.
“A license shall not be granted if the applicant…is a Jew.” -Nazi Law that enabled the Jews to be rounded up into concentration camps.
“All sales of firearms must be reported to the Ministry of Defense.” -Guatemala law, before 200,000 “disappearances” and murderers.
“Any violation of laws concerning…firearms is punishable by forced labor.”
-Communist USSR, 60 Million conservatively killed by gun control
Governments (not to be trusted based on their criminal history) are always going to have guns.
Criminals and assasins are ALWAYS going to get weapons no matter what (black market?), they are criminals BECAUSE they DON’T follow laws! Therefore, passing laws does not stop them!
Gun control DOES HOWEVER disarm victims.
Mao Zedong himself says “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” BTW, the communist Chinese killed 100 million of its UNARMED citizens, due to gun bans.
So, you don’t think the Zapatista’s should use guns? What should they use sticks?
I’m confuses me that “liberals” are for disarming civilians (Dennis Kucinich’s POV) and monopolizing the use of force.
What Liberals Don’t know about illegal immigration – http://veganmatt.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-liberals-dont-know-about-illegal.html
For mass murderers, gun control works (period.).
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it.” –Martin Luther King Jr.
16 November, 2007 at 9:10 pm |
Also, RP is against heterosexual marriages being recognized by the government, so please stop harping on him for being against gay marriage being recognized. People can do whatever they want.
16 November, 2007 at 9:16 pm |
My link to 3 lengthy published articles about the other side of the gun control issue (in case you want further reading):
http://veganmatt.blogspot.com/2007/11/for-mass-murderers-gun-control-works.html#links
16 November, 2007 at 9:29 pm |
Just to let you know – your saying “ron paul is a typical free market republican” when your listeners probably don’t know what a true free market is, and when most republicans are NOT in support of a true free market.
Free market is NOT synonymous with “free trade” as the progressives call it. “Free trade” has been exposed to actually be “government-managed trade” [Chomsky's writtings about the WTO]. Giving subsidies to U.S. Corporations and then allowing the artificially cheap goods to go into Mexico and destroy the Mexican businesses is NOT FREE TRADE, NOR IS IT FREE MARKET.
I think a lot of your listeners think the two terms are synonymous, since you guys cover the anti-WTO/World Bank corporate globalization issues a lot, and when you say “free trade” you usually don’t make the distinction between “free trade” and correctly and what is really is.
Wikipedia defines free market as:
“…a market where prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. The opposite of a free market is a controlled market, where government sets or regulates prices directly or through regulating supply and/or demand.[1] Although a free market necessitates that government does not regulate supply, demand, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or mislead each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary.”
Ron Paul is against the WTO and all that corporate globalization.
Some might argue you deceived listeners by calling him “free market” when your listeners are ignorant of free market economics and confuse it with government-managed trade/WTO-type stuff.
16 November, 2007 at 9:55 pm |
“who doesn’t care for the rights of workers or the poor”
omg another cheap shot!
The truth to that statement is, you, boyle, believe that big government is the solution for workers and the poor. Ron Paul, does care about them, maybe as much or more than you, but feels the current system of big government is inadequate at addressing the needs of those people.
Yes, RP is against government regulation of things like minimum wage. But think about it – how effective is the minimum wage law at giving workers what they need? It’s not working. Minimum wage isn’t a living wage – that law means nothing. Ron Paul is for workers organizing labor unions, in all circumstances. The role of government in protecting workers, is to enforce rights of workers to organize without being fired or threatened. Right now, there are many examples where, even tho we have a minimum wage, people in certain sectors of the economy can not legally organize for better pay, conditions, etc. Actually, if they strike, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will come in and break up the strike and force them to start working again, or, arrest strikers. That’s the government for you – THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO WORKER RIGHTS. IF IT WERE, EVERY WORKER IN AMERICA WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH THEIR PAY AND CONDITIONS.
similar idea w/ the poor. welfare creates dependency and isn’t solving much. we still have 35 million or more americans below the poverty line.
it’s late and i left u enough comments for 1 day – maybe i’ll write back in a few days explaining more on the poverty issue, aside from the obvious ways RP will help: No inflation, no military recruiters taking advantage of the poor, less taxes, everything i said in the worker paragraph, yada yada…
he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA,
16 November, 2007 at 10:53 pm |
Boy, that was a waste of space. It seems you don’t understand Ron Paul’s idea of the Constitution, and in particular, the idea of “separation of church and state.” Do you know what Jefferson intended with that phrase? That the government would not interfere with Baptists’ freedom of worship, unhindered by the state. It wasn’t so that Baptists wouldn’t have an open influence in government or politics or the society around them. Ron Paul is completely consistent with Jefferson and the other founders. You, on the other hand, are obviously a socialist and thus completely at odds with the roots of American order.
17 November, 2007 at 1:21 am |
I adore Dr. Paul! And I agree with much of his platform. But…..I believe a few years of a Ron Paul lead administration would only slightly delay the inevitable. In the end we are all destined to become enslaved by a western led global corporate dictatorship. In the end Ron Paul is just waking us up so we may be aware of the manner of our own demise.
17 November, 2007 at 5:15 am |
There wasn’t much truth or substance in your Anti Ron Paul rant, and moreover, it was stale and boring. Yawn. I may support Dr. Paul as rabidly as you oppose him, but come on, you can do better than that. Reading your thing was like watching a drunk trying to throw a punch in a bar; you miss your target, you trip, and you fall on your face
17 November, 2007 at 11:25 am |
There seems to be a surfeit of Ron Paul Flying monkies in the comments section of this post.
Look at this post by a Libertarian nutjob named Scott Horton who works at Antiwar.com
http://thestressblog.com/2007/11/16/leninists-against-paul/
Among the idiotic things this man says (see the third and fourth comments in that blog), Aura Bogado and ZNET are leninists, she is a pathetic commie rat, a fuckhole etc etc.
What a revealing vomiting.
The man is clearly upset at Bogado’s unwillingness to support his favorite candidate. This libertarianism is a crazy religion. It seems to be a very sophomoric doctrine with no connection to the reality. They see conspiracies everywhere, They have no problem with Wealth Inequality. The guys are a bunch of loonies.
17 November, 2007 at 6:26 pm |
I always knew there was something weird about Ron Paul….And not just his striking resemblance to Heaven’s Gate Cult leader Marshall Applewhite!!! (see links below!)….
Marshall Applewhite
http://www.nndb.com/people/781/000028697/marshappl.jpg
Ron Paul
http://artforthemasses.us/images/RonPaul/ap_ron_paul_070507_ms.jpg
17 November, 2007 at 10:07 pm |
Aura,
Illegal alien is the most apt term there is for the people crossing the border “illegally”. The fact that you liken it to a derogatory insult is very enlightening as to your reasons and methods bad mouthing Ron Paul.
By now you hopefully see the error of your ways and have opened your mind a little. Undocumented is someone who forgets their social security card to apply for a passport. Illegal is someone who breaks the laws of the U.S. and enters without a passport, get it?
The same ignorance and shortsighted bias shows throughout your entire article so I find no reason to refute line by line all that you have attempted to outline. All I can offer is a suggestion that you leave writing articles about people to the ones that actually have the skills to do research and tell the truth.
The saddest thing is that of all the candidates out there, it would appear that all would do harm to the people of this country. It’s the least amount of harm I am interested in. It’s not about the lesser of evils it’s about the least amount of evil.
To all that agree with Aura I say this, wake up! You’ve had your head in a hole so long that you have fallen asleep. It’s not about protecting your party it’s about protecting your lives….
At this point I’d offer a word to the wise but I fear I’d have no audience……
18 November, 2007 at 11:51 am |
Here is a Detailed Response I wrote to this article:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1044330#i
I believe that you were out of line in your attack of Ron Paul. You have many different opinions than Ron Paul, we get it! You made multiple unsustantiated claims based on your assumptions.
I do apologize for apparently spelling your last name incorrectly – when I wrote this, I was going with the spelling that was listed at the bottom of the article.
19 November, 2007 at 12:20 am |
Your views are so biases, i’m amazed that you have the gall to call him out on anything. You clearly state that there is institutionalized racism, which you made NO claim of factual base to back up your arrogant RAMBLINGS. I bet you are one of those people that will call hip hop or rap ‘black culture’, and will give the phrase a racial identity which is based on your OPINION, but when Mr Paul states the fact that we all put our pants on one leg at a time, we all bleed red blood, and we should not give privilege nor punishment to any certain race, you call him a racist. Your trying to skew your opinion with established fact, and while you can clearly call him names for “95 percent of African Americans in [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”, I think an off-site link to a GOVERNMENT website will clear up any confusion as to where his claims are based: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Thanks for this opinion piece, its fun to read what people think about others.
20 November, 2007 at 2:24 am |
Ron Paul is toast.
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/
His greatest drawback is his base. They offend everyone. Even Ron Paul supporters.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617319.shtml
http://www.strawpoll08.com/ronpaul.htm
Dave Neiwert at Orcinus has the goods on him.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
Vote for Ron Paul. Make the KKK and Neo-Nazis happy because Ron Paul knows black people are really farm implements.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=646986
20 November, 2007 at 1:32 pm |
I am a Baltimore Orioles fan. The O’s haven’t had a winning season since 1997, it’s very sad. Would it be OK for me to sneak my way into a game at Red Sox v. Yankees game in New York without a ticket and assume that security should give me a seat at club level? I’m not an illegal spectator, I’m undocumented.
22 November, 2007 at 10:01 am |
I used to view ZNet as gospel, but articles like yours and recent blog by Prof Chomsky preferring Mrs Clinton over Dr Paul has been a rude awakening for me. I had no idea Chomsky prized his socialist agenda over the need to end the killing in unjust wars. Curious that most of his writings gave no clue to this inclination.
Both you and Prof Chomsky branded Dr Paul’s foreign policy as “ultranationalist” and “isolationist”. Assuming that the both of you are well informed, I can only conclude you are deliberately attempting to mislead your readers.
Both you and Prof Chomsky deliberately fail to inform your readers that Dr Paul would immediately lift sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and everyone else. Dr Paul considers sanctions as an act of war, and such actions against Iran, Cuba, Venezuela et al are illegal and morally unjust. Dr Paul rejects the Mercantallistic notion of securing resources that drives much of our involvement in the Middle East, citing how Japan secures its resource requirements without military conquest.
In addition Dr Paul would initiate dialog and trade with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and everyone else. How can that be described as isolationism?!
And even if you are somehow correct, how is the world any worse off with an “ultranationalist” self centered US than an aggresive, brutal imperial US?
Oh and your hit piece with the KKK rivals that of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reiley. You should be proud.
This has been a rude awakening for me. I see ZNet for what it is now.
24 November, 2007 at 8:37 am |
“gun loving Christian conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman’s right to choose and same-sex marriage.”
Christian conservative: Love how you pointed out “Christian conservative” to try to associate him with Bush & Neocons. But you’re way off: Time and time again he has shown his religion has nothing to do with his politics, take a look at his voting record.
“opposes affirmative action”: Good, it’s institutionalized discrimination.
“opposes a woman’s right to choose and same-sex marriage”: Wrong & Wrong he just doesn’t want the federal government deciding on those issues. And it makes the most sense, if it’s decided on the state level, more people will be satisfied with the outcome. And people will migrate to states that share their views, MA for gay-marriage for example. Think about it: Does it make sense to have the same gun control laws in Wyoming that we have in NY City?
“Paul’s vision for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social security…”
Again you need to get your facts straight, he doesn’t want to privatize social security, he wants to abolish it (if not let the states decide their own programs). Of course this is unrealistic to do overnight, as he acknowledges, so people would begin to have the choice to opt out of it (as I’m sure many people would because Social Security IS broken because Congress [with the exception of Ron Paul] votes to spend that money for other programs).
“isolationist concept of abolishing the United Nations”
“Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).”-wikipedia
He isn’t an isolationist and I’m sick of hearing that. He isn’t a protectionist, he would get rid of NAFTA, WTO, etc (killing those treaties is something he CAN accomplish as president, a lot of his ideas that I’m against wouldn’t get by Congress [keep that in mind] and he wouldn’t use executive orders AT ALL since it’s unconstitutional – no more executive abuses).
As for the U.N. What if the UN decided to write a new charter/constitution that we don’t like? Should we sign on? It would OVERRIDE our constitution, our Bill of Rights!!! Us United States citizens would have NO OVERSIGHT, our politicians would. Do you trust out politicians that much to hand them a government body that can override our Bill of Rights? I don’t.
-The whole “Paul and the Christian Right” section-
You’re totally distorting his views, once again. You’re worse than Fox News. “He believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level.”-wikipedia (do a little research before you go on some liberal rant) This negates pretty much everything you said on schools. Keep in mind he doesn’t want the government controlling schools so it’s not like your kids will have to attend a school that advocates religion – it’s simply FREEDOM OF CHOICE for you.
“Any person that values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do with her own body should take caution – Paul is to the extreme right of the political spectrum on this issue.”
Ahh… more spin. Decisions on a state level is “extreme right”? He is PERSONALLY against abortion. Do you understand yet that this man is the ONLY honest politician in Congress? Have you seen his freaking voting record? He is not going to impose his personal beliefs on the public (unlike every other politican). I already explained why decisions on a state level make more sense so I won’t repeat myeself.
On gay marriage all you need to know is he doesn’t want the federal government deciding. Leave it to the states.
“the bill sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition of same-sex marriage across state lines. For example, a same-sex marriage that took place in Massachusetts would not be acknowledged in Alabama.”
Again with the spin… “In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which limited the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by ALLOWING STATES TO REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE “same-sex marriages” PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES if they so choose. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.”-wikipedia (aka: the no spin zone)
Good spin, but all he was really doing was protecting states’ rights from the intrustive federal government.
“Yet Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties.”
“Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[198] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. All of Texas’ representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.”-wikipedia (a little research debunks all these arguments)
Affirmative Action I already touched on. It’s simply institutionalized discrimination. Meeting racial/gender quotas forces discrimination.
“In 2001, Paul took “moral responsibility” for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist”) were “the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.”[59] The magazine defended Paul’s decision to protect the writer’s confidence in 1996, concluding, “In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.”[34] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations “quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.”[10]“-wikipedia (again)
“offensive terms like “illegal alien”, “illegal immigrant” or plain-old “illegals” when referring to human beings who live in the United States without proper documentation.”
lol, Jesus H. Christ what is this country coming to…? Buncha emo cry-babies… I call my illegal friend “illegal” all the time, he isn’t crying so why are all these white liberals? >_<
Sorry I can’t finish your article, that did me in, laughing too hard
Anyone taking this article seriously needs to do a bit of research, it’s all VERY BIASED–On par with Fox News. Wikipedia alone will debunk this author.
27 November, 2007 at 3:44 am |
kudos for this! i didn’t actually read everyone’s reply, but the few i saw are trying to defend this paul guy(which of course i respect that too!), but you fail to see that the root to the reason why we are all in this situation we are in today and that is something that mr. paul has no intention to do away with at all…
no what is needed here, and in the whole world over is a radical political, social, and economic change, and that can never be acheived through democracy… for only the bourgeois have that right! the right to actually be involved in politics
“freedom lies in the recognition and transformation of necessity” and what is needed more than ever now, what is possible actually too is revolution… not ron paul’s revolution, but rather the revolution of the proletariat class! to socialism and then to communism
if anyone is interested in seeing a talk on this check out “Revolution: Why It’s Necessary; Why It’s Possible; What It’s All About”… but enough of this whoring of Bob Avakian’s talks…
why i really wanted to comment here is to give thanks to Aura Bogado for this writing
i am glad to see someone is thinking critically of this guy… while everyone else seems to think he is the solution
and this system really wants everyone to not have any dissent or critical thinking, so people will not think at all, not realize they are not free… continue to believe in democracy… believe that america is the greatest country in the world… to chase that american dream that in reality is a nightmare for all of humanity imposed by the bourgeois class
to keep us down so we won’t revolt
and they also desire to do away with people like myself altogether… because i am one of those “communist trouble-makers”
people need to wake up! and stop valuing your life more than your own rights!
“how can we be sure if we have anything to live for unless if we are willing to die for it?”
2 December, 2007 at 9:21 am |
Your faith in a Superior Political Class which is so much more intelligent , more charitable than each of us as individuals that they should be the only ones to be able to own weapons is astounding .
In your quest for a savior , you choose a state monopoly of force over market choice despite the horrendous failures of such philosophies thru the 20th century from Lenin to Hitler to Stalin and Mao to Pol Pot — to Bush .
Dangerous arrogance .
4 December, 2007 at 2:54 pm |
After reading this article, I know who the real kook, nutjob, fringe, racist is and it is NOT Ron Paul, its the writer of this article and everyone who agrees with it.
4 December, 2007 at 6:10 pm |
Ron Paul is NOT a “racist” and he is BEST candidate for ALL of America! FACT! So what if he is pro-life! Isn’t it more important that he is NOT a treasonous traitor like the rest of them running who are REAL traitors and belong to treasonous Council on Foreign Relations? All except Ron, Dennis K and Gravel and possibly Tancredo are ALL members of treasonous CFR! See the list here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=202239&Disp=0 , isn’t saving our Constitution and FREEDOMS and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and NOT getting into anymore wars, and dissolving the damn Criminals in Action(CIA) and getting out of corrupt, treasonous Federal Reserve, who are PURPOSEDLY collapsing our dollar, MORE DAMN IMPORTANT!? It is NOT against immigrants! And they ARE “illegal immigrants” They DID break the law! So calling them “illegal” is appropiate! While I support RP, I know he alone can’t save America, the sheeple in our nation MUST raise up and take back our gov’t and country and SOON OR all is lost! If idiots like you, who are against RP, would worry more about our FREEDOMS and Constitution, then if he calls “illegals” illegals, our nation MIGHT be in better shape! And with our fascist gov’t we have, YOU had better believe we need our guns! Or do you all want to be rounded up and taken to those 800 FEMA civilian camps they have?? Yes, there IS 800 FEMA camps, for us “civilians” Google it! I too used to be for gun control but NOT with the treasonous, fascist government we have NOW! Unless you want to wind up in those FEMA camps!? WAKE UP! While I don’t agree with every position RP takes, I DO the MAJOR ones! I.E. Saving America and our freedoms and having right to own guns to defend ourselves AGAINST TRYANNY HERE AT HOME, FROM A FASCIST, PURE EVIL GOV’T!
8 December, 2007 at 9:14 am |
Half of the things you wrote about RP and his views are bullshit, and based on your own warped view of the world. The other half is completely nonsensical or unsubstantiated.
Also, you are really out there on the word illegal immigrant being bigot langauge. The way you think, anyone who calls any proven criminal a criminal or whatever would also be a bigot.
11 December, 2007 at 12:17 am |
Wow, what a mess.
I see no corroboration of the charges of racism you allege against Ron Paul. You might try some links or footnotes in the future.
Have you seen the choices out there?
The one line that irked me the most was your connection of the second amendment to the assassinations of JFK, MLK and others. These were government sponsored assassinations, completely irrelevant to your critique. Are you kidding me? You think Lee Harvey Oswald buying a hunting rifle is what led to the JFK killing?
I read crap like that a lot on ZNet — ignoring obvious government conspiracies, for some reason appealling to (some) reader ignorance.
Anyway, I like Ron Paul for several reasons:
1) Defense of civil liberties: read the congressional record. While neo-fascists like Hillary and Ghouliani would erase the rest of the bill of rights, Ron Paul would rollback the patriot act and other unconstitutional, unlawful acts.
2) Open to reinvestigate 9/11. Other neofascist candidates want to solidify the dictatorship ushered in by Bush/Cheney. Paul is the only one with a chance at election that wil go in the OPPOSITE direction.
3) End the wars in the middle east and DISMANTLE THE EMPIRE OF MILTARY BASES AROUND THE WORLD. No one else is even considering this. Paul would bring ALL the troops back to US soil.
If that’s not enough to at least listen to what the man has to say, then you are just not worth any more of my time.
18 December, 2007 at 7:11 am |
Are you NUTS!!!!!
this article is as disgusting as Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Hillary and all those who are pro-war and pro-BUSH… i dont need to explain my reasonings because all of my fellow Ron Paul supporters have layed down the SMACK on you already…
Moron!
18 December, 2007 at 11:33 am |
The message is more important than the man. Especially now that the rights granted to all Americans by the constitution have been so grossly manipulated. He has proven by his Congressional voting record that his ‘agenda’ is to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution. That means he’s the least likely of all the candidates to say one thing, and do another. I don’t agree with most of his moral positions, and that’s fine. It’s fine because Ron Paul doesn’t want to impose his beliefs on the rest of the country. He wants to ensure that America and all its citizens maintain the lives and liberties that the founders of this country laid out for us to have.
29 December, 2007 at 9:17 pm |
Unfortunately you have no understanding of the principles Dr. Paul believes in, and that so many others believe. You are not alone in your misguidance. I can’t even call your defamation of him (and those who operate on the same principles) an argument. What you will find is that those who believe in Ron Paul are people who have made up there own minds independent of interference. Those who support Ron Paul are the most likely to drop him if they feel supporting him compromises, even slightly, their autonomous integrity. When you deal with individuals in mass, no amount of ad hominems can come between us and what we know to be sound and rational. Goodluck scraping yourself off of the dirty floor with your true self in tact, you bring nothing to the table. FYI Ron Paul is not a racist…but even if he was, that alone does not define his principle as wrong. Please take a logic class, and get back to us when the common good has given you a new brain.
18 January, 2008 at 6:15 am |
What’s up lesbo? Pussy got ur tongue?
23 April, 2008 at 9:34 am |
I had spent time reading your recent articles, which were rather decent for quite sometime, and I must say, rather comical when it came to Hillary Clinton and Taco Bell. Just recently I found this article, and I read it, realizing it was written by you at that hyperlink.
Honestly, it reveals your narrow-minded, funneled, dogmatic perception and you clearly evident lack of understanding for Libertarianism, economics and Constitutional application, I’m not sure if you are conscious of this. I hate to say it, but in this piece on Ron Paul, you capitulate the ignorance that exists and flows throughout much of this nation’s populous, and that you just have a general mental diarrhea.
I respect your divinely given right to blog on the Internet, and post what you think, but I certainly have no respect for your capabilities.
I have no problem respectively dissenting with someone over ideological or political, or even philosophical differences, but you don’t even criticize him justly, because you don’t even have any sense of grip on what he stands for.
Please, do the Internet blogging community a grandeous favor and cease writing out of mere gutsy intuition and reload your intellectual jargon with say, facts and perhaps a larger breadth of knowledge?
23 April, 2008 at 9:36 am |
…and just for the record, so you don’t think I’m part of that mass feeding frenzy that has been aptly named “Paulies”, I find common ground with you in that I rather dislike them as well.
30 July, 2008 at 9:17 pm |
I think there are some interesting points here, but I wonder how this will all play out in the next few weeks…???
4 March, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! wow. you are an idiot. you obviously know nothing about the constitution, states rights, or history for that matter.
29 March, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
Ron Paul may not be my savior. But, I can tell you this… He has his head on straight. Obama voted for the bailout while in the Senate so did John McCain. Isn’t a bailout keeping these big mega banks running and continuing the same old tricks on public? You talk about Monopolies… Ron Paul would let them die out instead of giving them a hand out. You need to check yourself again.
23 April, 2009 at 11:48 am |
The fed is still a joke, Ron Paul is still right, i was a democrat, im not a republican, ron paul is still right, he isnt anybody’s savior, he isnt a flat issue repubbie or braindead dem.
what is the double headed eagle one head left wing, other head right wing
SAME BIRD
wake up please, ron paul is still right
ron paul signs all over my neighborhood
south side of chicago
woot!