New Ron Paul Interview with Counterpunch

Some highlights:

ALI: What would be your plan to get out if you were elected President?

PAUL: I’d just come home as soon as the military could get them out. Whether it was 2 or 3 months, as long as they could get them out safely. And I’d announce to the world our policy is changing, the Navy would be backed off from the Iranian shores and that we’d be willing to talk to people. I think the dollar would go up and oil would do down and they’d probably start talking to each other. You know, they’re talking to each other right now. If we weren’t over there, Israel would probably be talking to the modern Arabs, the Arab League would be involved, even with the civil strife in Lebanon, they would talk to each other, and I think they would do it more so if we were out of there. So, I think sooner we leave the better.

Hey Ron, I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but you did not fucking answer the question. The guy asked for your exit strategy. Which would imply some to show that you were willing to put a minimal amount of thought into considering the basic challenges associated with the problem, and how you would go about overcoming them in the most efficient way possible. You didn't do that. All you said was, "I intend to do it in the fastest way possible, and I believe sunshine will spill out of my butt afterwards."

Holy shit, it's like talking to a five year old. "I think sooner we leave the better"? That's your answer? I'm surprised that you didn't just respond with "very carefully," or "to get to the other side." Both answers would have been equally as effective. Although I suppose that "very carefully" would imply some degree of caution at the expense of speed, which I guess is not what Ron Paul is about.

The big mistake is blaming capitalism. This is what we did in the Depression. They blamed the capitalism gold standard for the Depression, and it was absolutely wrong.

Sure they are, Ron. Just like the people who support evolution. I would trust a vagina doctor over an economist or a historian any day of the week.

PAUL: I didn’t say racism doesn’t exist, but if you’re a true libertarian, you see people as individuals and you don’t even know what group they bond to. I think the instrument that causes so much of this is sort of a subtle thing by the media, and it annoys me to no end. Because every time they analyze campaigns or elections, before or immediately after elections, they immediately go out and say, well, they never say, “How did the individuals vote?” they say, “What did the Muslims do? What did the Jews do? What did the women do? How did they vote?” And everyone is put in a category endlessly. So, we’re conditioned to think we’re not important because we’re an individual, but only because we belong to a group and that was the point of mine making that statement. If people are truly racist, they see people in groups, because if you’re a true libertarian, you don’t see that. Now, there might be some libertarians that drift off, but I think they lose their libertarian credentials if they’re able to do that.

Way to take the Stephen Colbert defense, Ron. After all, you would never generalize voters based on racial demographics, would you? BTW, what were you saying when Wolf Blitzer asked you about the newsletter accusations several months ago? I completely forgot.

Oh, right. That. Well, there you have it folks. Ron Paul does not fall under his own definition of libertarian.

ALI: What’s the future of your “Revolution?” Where do you think it’s going to go?

PAUL: Well, it seems there’s a lot of momentum and a lot of interest and the book is doing well. And I’m going to continue to try my best to keep the momentum going to help people stay energized, give them information, promote education, give people a chance to get involved in politics, run for Office, and all those things that will change the country. So, we have a lot to do here. And, soon, because the total Primary will be ending pretty soon.

So basically, the revolution will continue in more for-profit book sales and more failed runs for office, which I'm sure will bring up the level of annoying to even greater heights. Great.

Ron Paul Spends Campaign Donations On Family

Thanks to the reader who pointed me to this Washington Post article:

And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting.

Campaign aides said they discussed the possibility that involving so many family members could create the impression that nepotism was driving hiring decisions, but ultimately they saw no problem with the practice.

"You always think about those kinds of things," said Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman and, it just so happens, the fiance of one of the candidate's granddaughters (he has been paid $54,573). "But his family is very important to him. There is something important about having a family element involved in a campaign. Having people around you that you can unconditionally trust."

For all their talk of free market competition to select the best and most qualified agents for the job, the Ron Paul campaign seems to be relying on a much older method for choosing his staff: Nepotism. As though we didn't get enough of that with the last Texas GOP presidential candidate.

Given Ron Paul's high success with fund raisers and his low performance in the polls, the Paultards were left with two burning questions: Where was all that money going, and where was Ron Paul finding the idiots who were running his campaign? Well, now we have the answer to both questions.

Ron Paul: "No" on Rosa Parks, "Yes" on Homophobic Organizations

Readers of this site may remember our article on the Rosa Parks medal of honor, where we analyzed and debunked Ron Paul's reasons for voting against it. The RonPaulogists made several claims defending his position, claiming that it was would have been paid for in tax dollars (an outright lie), and that it was completely unconstitutional (unfounded, and contradicted by history).

So how, then, does this same group defend Ron Paul's vote on H.R. 5872:, also known as "Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act"? This bill entails the following:

• Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act - Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue up to 350,000 $1 coins in commemoration of the centennial of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America.
• Requires the coin design to be emblematic of the 100 years of the organization.
• Restricts issuance of such coins to February 8 through December 31, 2010.
• Subjects coin sales to a surcharge of $10 per coin.
• Requires payment of such surcharges to the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation, to be made available to local councils in the form of grants for the extension of Scouting in hard-to-serve areas

Where exactly does the U.S. Constitution (Ron Paul Edition) give Congress the authority to issue commemorative coins to the Boys Scouts of America, when it apparently doesn't give Congress the authority to issue Rosa Parks a self-funded medal of honor? In fact, H.R. 5872 goes one step further than the Rosa Parks Medal does. Not only do the boy scouts get a coin made in their honor, but they also receive a sizable chunk of the proceeds in hard cash, of up to $3,500,000. Meanwhile, Ron Paul cried foul at the thought of awarding Rosa Parks with a gold medal that would have cost less than 1% of that amount. In fact, Ron Paul not only voted in favor of this bill, but he is also listed as a co-sponsor.

The RonPaulogists would frequently defend Ron Paul by pointing out that he claims respects her. It's a pretty literal translation of prefacing an insult with the phrase, "With all due respect." It smacks of insincerity. Ron Paul voted against giving a congressional medal of honor to Rosa Parks, a civil rights hero who greatly furthered the cause of equal rights. And yet, he has absolutely no problem co-sponsoring a federal fund raiser the Boy Scouts of America, an organization with a long history of outright discrimination against atheists, agnostics, and gays. Their group bylaws even includes a "Declaration of Religious Principle," where all members must swear to recognize God as the "ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

It's time to call the Ron Paul's tendency to shield his beliefs behind the constitution for what it really is: An outright fraud. There is absolutely no constitutional basis that could explain Ron Paul's inconsistency on these two issues. None. The only thing that is consistent is the fact that he'll support groups that promote blatant discrimination, while opposing groups that attempt to promote equality. What's the term for that?

Update: Some Paultards are trying to insist that the Boy Scout Bill is constitutional (Ron Paul Edition) under the coinage clause. I'm going to call bullshit on that. The constitution may give congress the authority to make commemorative coins. But does the constitution (Ron Paul Edition) give them the authority to sell these coins at a surcharge, and then give the profits to a private religious organization? Because that's a separate power. If Congress made a bill to coin $10,000,000 commemorative silver dollars of the ACLU, and then donated those $10,000,000 silver dollars to the ACLU directly, I doubt that most Paultards would be cool about it, despite their supposed love for civil liberties. We know they aren't cool with the Rosa Parks Medal, despite the common welfare clause, and despite the fact that Congressional Medals predate the constitution. In other words, "Anything we like is constitutional. Anything we don't like is unconstitutional. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's actually mentioned in the constitution."

The High Cost of Gold

One of more important Paultard campaigns this past year was their call to return to the gold standard. Oh sure, there were always a few would scoff and insist that Ron Paul wasn't really advocating for a "gold standard," but their clarification on the matter usually amounted to saying that "Monster Island isn't actually an island -- it's actually a Peninsula!" Well, maybe so, but it wasn't the "island" part that concerned me.

Now, we could go over the fact that the gold standard doesn't actually solve any of the problems that Paultards claim that it will, or the fact that the current system grants us with economic flexibility. Instead, I'm going to target one of Ron Paul's more naive claims, his insistence that "there will always be enough gold so long as no one interferes with the free market mechanism." Apparently, Ron Paul believes that the invisible hand can create gold from thin air, so long as the market is there to demand it, like villagers in "Black & White" who pray to the player for grain. Unfortunately, Ron Paul neglects one critical fact: Gold mining is expensive. Not just in raw dollars, but also in terms of the human and environmental toll.

The Paultards look at a hunk of gold, and all they see is a glittering rock. They don't really put much thought in how it got there, like a person who loves eating meat, but who doesn't want to know the conditions that the animal was raised in. A recent article from Spiegel online reports the some of following hard truths associated with their beloved metal:

• Mining enough gold for just one wedding ring produces about 20 tons worth of waste.
• There are no proper environmental standards, nor do miners consider the rights of local restaurants. For example, in Guatamala, mines have been set up in areas which the residents consider sacred.
• Goldmines use an estimated 182,000 tons of cyanide a year, effectively destroying the land. Further, the toxic waste poisons the ground water and rivers, and in Indonesia, it is dumped directly into the Ocean. In fact, these substances are so toxic that we are still dealing with the effects of waste products left behind by the Ancient Roman Empire.
• Mining operations tend to only employ a few people, and local residents rarely see the benefits to their economy.

Meanwhile, in Mozambique, the high price on gold has encouraged a hefty rise of slave labor, prostitution, and disease. Drinkable water is also becoming scarce as a result of pollution. The temperatures reach below freezing levels at night, causing workers to freeze to death. And all this for a few grams of gold dust, scattered throughout the Earth.

The problems in the gold industry combines two things that makes libertarianism what it is: A love for gold, and a hatred of regulation. The problem is bad enough right now, when gold is primarily used for the sake of technology and jewelry. But what happens if we increase the demand for gold even further, by forcing people to exchange in gold currencies for all transactions in general? Returning to the gold standard under a libertarian system would cause the price to skyrocket even further, causing people to harvest as much gold as possible for as little cost as possible, environmental and social concerns be damned.

This is also the main reason why Ron Paul's solution of returning to the gold standard to end the oil crisis doesn't work. He's not actually increasing the supply of oil at all, he's simply matching one hard to extract finite resource to another hard to extract finite resource, in the hopes that two wrongs can make a right. It's sort of like having a diet plan that hopes to bring a 500 pound man to average body mass, not by asking him to lose weight, but by forcing everyone else to become fatter.

Followup on Burma

A Ron Paul support by by the name of Funky Dung has recently weighed in on the recent Burma controversy, by going straight to Lew Rockwell for clarification. Dung sent in the following:

I think what bothered me more is that though he voted no regarding Burma, he voted yes for domestic frivolities. Where does the Constitution say that Congress can/should pass silly resolutions praising sports teams?

Also, the resolution for Burma offered no aid. The line that a Paul spokesman said offended him suggested that a referendum election be postponed in favor of humanitarian efforts. What's wrong with that? Is diplomacy beyond the scope of Congress' powers? If Congress threatened violence or sanctions for noncompliance with its suggestion, it would of course be wholly in the wrong. However, I cannot see why states cannot or should not suggest to others how they ought to address important matters, so long as those suggestions can be freely ignored without fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile, Rockwell responds the only way he knows how. Which is, to say, by not really responding at all, and by relying on the same libertarian talking points that we've heard time and time again:

"It is none of the US government's business, which is using the disaster to try to expand the empire. The US government, like all governments, engages in theft and murder. It can keep its charity to itself. On the other hand, the US would not allow foreign help for the victims of Katrina."

Dung laments by asking, "Ever get the feeling you're not being listened to? He didn't address a single point I made, preferring instead to add to his list of red herrings." Welcome to our world, FD.

In other news, Allah Pundit from Hotair.com offers the following critique:

Commenter JohnTant raises a curious anomaly in the comments to the Headlines item about this, though: If it’s all about minding our own business or not deigning to vote on meaningless hortatory resolutions, why’d America’s Greatest Patriot cast a yes on an old measure regarding intercountry adoptions in Romania? Or on one condemning jihadist attacks in Egypt? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that makes that a necessary and proper power of Congress — but only with respect to countries other than Israel, because when it came time to condemn a terror attack there, the Paulnut politely declined. On principle, I’m sure.

"Dr. Nay" Votes "Yes" to Football

You remember all of Ron Paul's horrendous no votes where he refused to condemn China over Tibet, and he refused to offer sympathy to the victims of the Cyclone Nargis. Ron Paul's defenders on Digg were quick to defend Ron Paul by claiming that the resolution was meaningless and a waste of tax dollars, and that there was nothing in the constitution to support it. It's a pretty lame excuse, since Ron Paul is wasting just as much time/tax dollars by voting no than he would have wasted voting "yes."

So does "Doctor No" only vote "yes" when absolutely necessary? Apparently not. For all their talk of doing your own research and looking into Ron Paul's voting record, Paultards rarely practice as they preach. Nick Curran from Radar Online did some digging, and discovered that Ron Paul recently voted "yes" on all of the following bills:

• The University of Kansas football team for "winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl and having the most successful year in program history"
• The New York Giants for "winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the most remarkable post-season runs in professional sports history"
• The Louisiana State University football team for winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series national championship game

It looks like the Paultards may need to find another excuse to fall back on. Where in the constitution does it mention football?

In other news, one of the posters on Ron Paul's official website writes the following:

Ron Paul wants to be the President of the United States and forsake the glamor and the power of the position to restore and protect the liberty of the individual. Who better for an endorsement than an NFL lineman??? How’s this for a free market alternative to Secret Service Protection: Todd Wade, Val Venis (Sean Morley) and Kane (Glenn Jacobs) in badges and armor. When the “small guy” is billed as 6′3″ 260, thats enough meat to turn a riot into a book club.

Stay classy, guys.

Ron Paul Opposes Condolence Bill to Burma

Reprinted from the Ron Paul Tumblelog:

H. Res. 1181: Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis.

Passed 410-1.

Ron Paul opposed a condolence bill to Burma because it also called on Burma’s military junta to postpone a referendum which would solidify their oppressive regime over the already-suffering country.

His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills: “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country. It’s just none of our business.” Note that the bill does not call for interference; it only contains an admonishment, not an invasion.

Take note: not only did Ron Paul refuse to express sadness for the plight of an Asian people burdened by the double disaster of natural calamity and tyrannical government, but he explicitly supports said military tyranny under the guise of a weak-handed isolationism.

Vote For Miss Ron Paul!

Wonkette reports the following story: "Hey there Paultards who like to look at women online! Now you can elect your favorite female Libertarian standard-bearer in a beauty pageant that's attracting literally dozens of votes. There are several Miss Ron Pauls to choose from and you can vote twice a day before May 31, because that is what Freedom is all about: voting twice."

You can check out the five leading candidates here, with all the glamor that Ron Paul is famous for. Surprise, surprise: All five of them are white, four of them are blonde, and the last one looks like she needs to be carded. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising, coming from a political ideology that thinks that child pornography laws are a bad thing.

Paultards Reject Free Market, Demand Government Intervention

h/t to Wonkette for this:
So the Paultards will defend laissez-faire when it comes to the freedom to discriminate against minorities solely for being minorities, or when a business pollutes the local land, air, and water table with toxic carcinogens. In other words, things that cause actual harm to actual people. But when a business decides to to put Ron Paul's books at the back of the store? Well, now you've gone too far, big business, and you deserve to see our lawyers! Keep in mind... this is the same group that doesn't believe that Rosa Parks deserves a gold medal, because she didn't want to sit in the back of the bus.

Paultards will often defend free market offenses by relying on free market solution, which usually amounts to "let's let the problem work itself out." Ironically, there actually is a free market solution in this case. See, what they don't realize is that most publishers actually pay to have their books placed in a prominent position, it's part of how a book store earns its money. Ron Paul apparently didn't pay up like his competitors did.

Paulville Neglects to Pay Hosting Fees

Yes, we've heard it all before. "The campaign was never about getting Ron Paul elected, it was about the movement." No one ever bothered to explain what they meant by that, with few exceptions. One example of this is Paulville, the Paultard attempt at creating their own Rapture in honor of Ron Paul, an idea so creepy that even Ron Paul himself wouldn't want to live there. This is what happen when the revolution goes beyond the grasp of its messiah.

Paulville.org was the brainchild of Jason Ebacher, founder of the West Central Minnesota Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group. It recently ended, as all Paultard projects do, with humiliating and incompetent failure. Did the mainstream media conspire to keep them down? Was it the Federal Reserve? Good guesses, but no. Apparently, Jason was thwarted by something that we call "hosting fees." It's pretty silly when you're trying to start your own pocket civilization, and you can't even make a simple credit card payment.

Ron Paul may not approve of Paulville, but this is what happens when you campaign on a vague message of "freedom" and "liberty" without any actual guidance or leadership, or even competence. What exactly did Ron Paul expect to happen? If it's about the movement, then what is your movement?

Paul's official is that "I don’t think that’s the solution. You want to spread out and be as pervasive as possible." Unfortunately, the closest that the Paultards have ever come to being "persuasive" are sticker bombs and outright vandalism. Paulville may have been an idiotic idea, but at least it would have given the Paultards an opportunity to really put their money where their mouths were, and to test whether they could practice what they preach. It may not have been wise, but at least it had a somewhat naive sincerity to it. But if the rEVOLution can't even manage to run their own pocket community, then why should we immediately reward them for that failure by trusting them to run the entire nation? That argument doesn't make any sense, and it isn't exactly very persuasive.

Stickerbombs and Conspiracy Theories

In light of their recent failures as a political movement, the Paultards have have recently introduced their latest strategy for bringing a swift and sudden victory for the Doctor: The Ron Paul sticker bomb. Because I guess that this is Ron Paul's greatest hurdle, the fact that he doesn't have enough vandalism going on under his name. Because obviously, all those past efforts to bumper sticker the city have worked out really, really well. I know the stock response, "It's not about Ron Paul, it's about the movement." So just out of curiosity, what happens to this sticker when you take Ron Paul out of the equation?

Meanwhile, the Ron Paul Tumblelog finds one DailyPaul poster asking the other DailyPaul posters to cut down on the conspiracy theories. It doesn't go over very well.

And finally, a few notes to all of the anonymous RonPaulogists who like to comment on this site:

1. When I call you a Paultard, it's not so you guys can start whining about how I hurt your feelings , and how persecuted you are, and how you supposedly have a 180-point internet IQ. No, when I call you a Paultard, it's a challenge, to see if you can prove me wrong by adding a rational argument. For a group of wanna-be revolutionaries, you guys seem to have an incredibly thin spine.
   
2. BlogSpot shows me your comments, but it doesn't say which post the comment is responding to. So the only way I know what you're responding to is if your comment somehow makes it clear to me. Here's the deal: If you comment doesn't make it clear to me, then chances are, you aren't responding to any post in particular. And if you aren't responding to any post in particular, then chances are that you aren't responding to any argument in particular. And if you aren't responding to a particular argument, then it's extremely difficult for you to find the flaws of that argument, much less develop an argument of your own. In other words, if it isn't clear what you comment is responding to, then your comment is probably garbage, and not worth publishing. Common examples are the people who accuse me of spreading lies and smears, but who never actually explain why I'm using them.
   
3. I've been arguing with libertarians for years and Paultards for months, and honestly, most of your arguments are pretty derivative. Chances are that if you're repeating something that you heard from someone else, then I've heard it as well, and I've already refuted it. If you want to impress me, then try to think on your own for a change. I know that's a lot to ask, from a group that supposedly prides itself for its individuality, but please bear with me.

That's all for now. Peace out.

Follow-Up on Bill Johnson

New updates on the Bill Johnson scandal. It seems as though Ron Paul was close enough to Johnson to host a fund raiser at his house last September. Admission for the event was completely sold out, at $2,000 a person. Good lord! Someone should submit that story to Digg. Of all the venues where they could have held their fund raiser, it seems that Ron Paul was unlucky enough to host it at the home of a known white supremacist. Whoops! This of course forces the question... exactly how much money did Bill Johnson help raise for Ron Paul?

Right now, the Ron Paulogists are incredibly confused in their response. Some of them are arguing that Bill Johnson is no-true-Ron Paul republican, because unlike Ron Paul, Bill Johnson actually does support the theory of evolution. Others are trying to argue that Bill Johnson is a reformed racist. And finally, another group is trying to argue that they know Bill Johnson, and that Bill Johnson isn't a racist. The Metropolitan News Company has evidence to the contrary:

“Johnson denied speculation that he may be the real man behind the nom de plume James O. Pace. He insisted that the author of the book is a U.S. lawyer who is working out of the country but refused to divulge his real name.
“The privately published, 179-page book identifies Pace as having been educated at Columbia University and Harvard University law schools and as a former member of the Board of Editors of the Harvard International Law Journal.
“The publications director of Harvard Law School, Deborah Gallagher, said the school investigated the claim last year and discovered that the author did attend the law school for one year and was on that journal board. However, she said the school promised not to reveal the person’s real name or what year he attended Harvard. The journal’s 1980 volume shows a William D. Johnson as being on the staff. Records at Columbia University Law School show that a William Daniel Johnson attended there in 1983.
“Daniel Johnson said he did attend Columbia, but he said he never attended Harvard and that his first name is not William.”
The pieces came together, and it was soon clear that the book’s author, and attorney William Daniel Johnson, and the spokesperson for Pace Amendment Advocates were one and the same person.

Meanwhile, Tom Metzger, founder of the "White Aryan Resistance," has recently uploaded a 1980s interview to his Youtube account, where he talks to one of the leading advocates of the Pace Movement, and where the two of them refer to one of Bill Johnson's known aliases as mastermind for the amendment. (About 8 minutes in).

The defense for Bill Johnson parallels the defense for Ron Paul, complete with flaws. In both cases, the men attempt to pin the writings on someone who they are completely unwilling to name. In both cases, the writings entail highly specific personal details about the author which perfectly describe the accused. In both cases, these accusations haven't been so much refuted, so much as denied. "I have met Ron Paul Bill Johnson. I do not believe that Ron Paul Bill Johnson to be a racist. Therefore, the accusations against him are lies." Occasionally, these statements will be peppered with largely irrelevant details. "I'm a minority, and Ron Paul Bill Johnson didn't once spit on my when I met him! Instead, he respectfully accepted my $2,000 donation, just as he would if I had been a white donor."

Despite their supposed love of the constitution, both Ron Paul and Bill Johnson have a common enemy of the 14th Amendment. You may remember that several months ago, Ron Paul actively campaigned on the fact that he would amend the constitution and end birthright
citizenship. Bill Johnson states that his views on race are identical to Ron Paul's, which isn't surprising, since they're both fighting for the same thing.

Another Day, Another White Supremacist

Wonkette has recently informed me that Ron Paul has been caught with his pants down with yet another white supremacist wrapped firmly around his manhood. This time, it comes in the form of Bill Johnson, a candidate who Ron Paul previously endorsed in the run for Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. Bill Johnson is the leader of a Ron Paul Meetup group. He also wrote the Pace Amendment, which reads:

"No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States."

Ron Paul's entire defense of the newsletter accusations all boiled down to the idea that racism was antithetical to Ron Paul's politics, and therefore, Ron Paul is completely incapable of racism. Meanwhile, people like Bill Johnson manage to undermine that premise time and time again, leaving Ron Paul with no defense remaining. Is anyone genuinely surprised to discover that Ron Paul's racist and factually incorrect anti-immigration ads would also appeal to white supremacists? Unfortunately, Ron Paul lives in a bizarro libertarian world where the only real racism is reverse racism, and the only real racists are the minorities.

Johnson campaign manager, Holly Clearman, also happens to be the woman who Ron Paul assigned to work as State Coordinator for the entire state of California, the largest and one of the most diverse states in the entire country. And the person who Ron Paul assigned either was too stupid to realize that she was promoting a blatant racist, or she knew all along, but didn't care. Either way, it doesn't speak very well of Ron Paul, or his judgement. The biggest problem is that Ron Paul is a man who is arrogant enough to believe that he understands the problems and solutions with racism better than the actual minority groups who experience it, and yet, he can't even spot the blatant racists within his own campaign. A campaign of people who he claims should be incapable of racism to begin with. Ron Paul's ultimate solution to racism is blind faith that the problem will work out on its own, so long as we do nothing. How has that been working out so far?

Just like Ron Paul tried to defend his past newsletter writings with his flimsy ghostwriter excuse, he's now attempting to defend his Bill Johnson endorsement as something that somehow slipped through the cracks of a usually foolproof procedure. Unfortunately, the fact that his state coordinator was actively managing his campaign suggests that this was no mere oversight. Let's add "endorsements" to the long list of things that Ron Paul is either too incompetent or too evil to manage, right before "exit strategies," but right after the "economy."

Johnson has been active in the Ron Paul for president campaign (he says his views on race now are identical to Paul's) and is relying on Paul supporters to rally for him. They just might do it, making it more important than ever for voters to act -- and to choose Bianco.

The Paultards have attempted to rationalize the electoral failure of Ron Paul, by insisting, "It's not about the man, it's about the movement, and the rEVOLution," without ever being clear on what the "movement" actually entailed. Well, there's your answer.

Welcome to Paulville!

If you're a reader of this site, then you probably know about Ron Paul. If if you already know about Ron Paul, then you've probably heard of Paulville, the latest adolescent fantasy from the Paultard community. The Paultards live a paradoxical exist, where they claim to uphold the values of freedom and liberty, but where they abhor the fact that people might use their freedom and liberty to do things and believe things that they personally disagree with. What's that? Someone is using their freedom to doubt intelligent design as valid science? How dare they!

Paulville's solution is to set up a gated community designed to keep out the undesirables, thanks in large part to the genetic discrimination policies that Ron Paul valiantly fought to protect. Right now, a lot of blogs are reporting on the story, so I decided to report from Encyclopedia Dramatica:

Exodus: The founding of a new (sovereign) nation!
Meanwhile, in another small part of Texas, embittered Paultards are building a gated compound- uh, I mean, a 'gated community' named (wait for it...!) PAULVILLE. Yeah, you read correctly. No doubt an homage to Smallville because Dr. Paul is like Superman to his followers. The website says "The goal of Paulville.org it (sic) to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty", though they warn "These communities are not for the faint at heard (sic)". The whole affair appears to be organized along the lines of a co-op and is located somewhere near Waco. Given the general level of batshit-crazy that will consolidate there, this probably won't end well, will it?

"Pick a fucking side you fucks! You hate Dems and lefties but then you say that people living in Paulville are a joke... For choosing to uphold the constitution?? You are absolute morons if you believe for a second that the U.S. greenback is worth what wall street pretends it is and you knock the gold standard... Then you also CLAIM to dislike stupid government intervention, however, you mock those who creat (sic) a community to limit it??? ...Your site is one big sad fucking joke that gets all the facts but then fails to properly process the information. Please kill yourselves. You can blame your deaths on “the terrorists”. Assmunch!" -- a batshit-insane Paultard emails all the way from fucking Canada to BAAAW about a right-wing website making fun of "Paulville"

Please be careful about clicking those links if you don't already know what you're in for.

Ron Paul 2008: Hope for Gattaca

Last week, Congress voted 414-1 on outlawing genetic discrimination. Guess who voted against it?

Some may question Ron Paul's judgment on this matter. But when most of your supporters are white supremacists who believe that their inherently superior Aryan genes are being held back back by genetically inferior black people and Jews, then of course you're going to support the genetic discrimination of minorities. These are the same group of kids who have barely paid any taxes at all in their entire lives, but who are absolutely convinced that they would have had the innate qualities to become millionaires if it wasn't for the evil tax payer funded roads and tax payer funded schools holding them back.

If you have a healthier genome than the average person, then that healthy genome should be reward in itself. Congratulations, you get to live a longer, healthier, and more productive life. In a fair and just society, you do not deserve an additional financial reward on top of that. It's not like th people with cancer prone genes are going to start partying at the idea of painful cancer treatments. Those people are going to be suffering. Why are libertarians so intent on making their suffering even worse? And honestly, even if we could objectively gauge genetic risk, and even if it wasn't morally deplorable to financially punish someone for possessing a genome beyond their control, you still need to deal with the fact that there wouldn't be any standard percentage for profit margins. Some groups would do a better job of arguing for lower rates based on their defects than other groups. And I think we all know who I'm referring to.

Worse yet, by giving insurance companies the ability to discriminate, you pretty much force employers to do the same, because now they have to factor in an employee's potential insurance cost when hiring them. "No sir, I didn't discriminate against the black guy for being black, I discriminated against him for having costly black genes!" Why am I not looking forward to this?

Meanwhile, the Ron Paul Tumblelog managed to dig up this nugget from the Ron Paul forums: "Anytime you see such overwhelming support for a bill you can bet it’s inherently flawed." The guy has a good point, you know. It's the same reason why I reject the theory of gravity.

From Online Polls to Straw Polls to Amazon.com

Recently, it came to my attention that Ron Paul was considering taking all the money that he didn't spend on his failed campaign run and putting it into a for-profit publishing company for libertarian propaganda. The Paultards, still in full Stockholm mode, are still defensive of the measure, saying that they support him because it will "spread the message." Question to Paultards: If people weren't buying the message when it was free, then why the hell would they pay good hard cash for it towards a for-profit company whom they are ideologically opposed to?

One example of this brilliant plan is Ron Paul's latest Manifesto, which is currently for sale on Amazon.com. Not surprisingly, the Paultards have already taken to spamming the site, the same way they spam online polls and straw polls, under the misguided assumption that anyone else really gives a shit about these transparent acts of manipulation. Which of course comes from their assumption that everyone else is an unthinking sheep, and they should therefore react accordingly.

Wonkette has done the work of finding some of the more interesting book reviews highlights. Go check it out.