Monday, May 26, 2008

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."

14 comments:

FuckRonPaul said...

I believe the correct term for that is racist, homophobic douchebag.

Also, I just found the topic of your next post. Check out who Ron Paul has been hiring with his Paultard donations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601620.html

Anonymous said...

"Congress has the right to coin currency and regulate the value thereof"

Um, I think you need to read the Constitution again sir.

And Ron Paul offered to pitch in some of his own money for the Rosa Parks, but sadly he was the only one in Congress to do so...

So sadly, you are mistaken.

Ron Lawl said...

So where does it say that Congress has the right to coin currency to serve as PRIVATE FUNDRAISERS FOR PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS? Because that's sort of the key point here, Anonymous Coward.

The constitution gives congress the right to regulate commerce, but you Paultards cry foul when they act on it. It gives congress the power to tax, and you Paultards cry foul when they act on it. If gives congress the power to fund the general welfare, and you Paultards cry foul. But somehow, when it comes to the coining clause, it apparently gives congress the right to allocate funds to anyone of their pleasing, so long as it's tangentially related to coining? Please.

Oh yeah, and Ron Paul's offer to donate his own money: He lied. It's in the goddamned fact. He made a BS offer with absolutely no precedent, and then failed to follow up on it. The medal was self-funded through the sale of replicas. Ron Paul never bought one, despite his offer. QED, Ron Paul is a dirty liar.

Anonymous said...

//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.//

I guess this act violates the 1st?

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised you haven't figured it out yet.

Ron Paul wants militias. He sees the boy scouts as being the training grounds for a militia. He wants good, god fearing boys ready for the comming race war.

Sophie said...

Either you don't know much about Coinage Acts, or you don't care to do your research about how the U.S. Mint works.

Congress has the authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and thus have the ability to honor American people, places, events, and institutions. Although they are legal tender, the coins are not meant for general circulation and are limited in quantity. The U.S. Mint actually *makes* money from the minting and sale of the two commemorative coins they're allowed to release per year.

The surcharges you mention are effectively donations given by the individuals who purchase the coins to benefit whatever the Act specifies -- whether it be maintaining the Vietnam War Memorial, supporting Olympic programs, or in this case, the Boy Scouts of America. And if you had read H.R. 5872 carefully, you would have known that the money is paid to the BSA for them to spend only on local work "for the extension of Scouting in hard to serve areas" and such activities and expenses are subject to audit.

Ron Lawl said...

Non-sequitur, Sophie. You're saying that congress has the power to coin oney, and you're arguing that giving money to the boy scouts is a good thing. But you see, you haven't established that Congress has the authority to give the boy scouts money. That's just something that you snuck in. Moreover, you haven't explained why the boy scouts are okay, but Rosa Parks is not.

Sophie said...

Congress isn't giving the Boy Scouts of America any tax dollars.

They are directing the U.S. Mint (which operates for profit) to make money for the government by, in this case, selling a coin that commemorates an American institution. The $10 surcharge is willingly paid by the people who purchase the coins for their collections, and it goes to the BSA with conditions attached. No one is forcing you to buy commemorative coins, and the government is actually earning money from the sales.

Ron Lawl said...

You're changing the subject again, Sophie. I asked you where the constitution had the authority to give the boy scouts money. You insist that this wasn't tax money. But tax money or not, that doesn't answer my question. Where does the constitution give congress the authority to give the boy scouts that money? Oh wait, it doesn't. Your entire argument is bullshit.

Moreover, the Rosa Parks medal was likewise self-funded, paid wllingly by people willing to purchase replicas (A list that doesn't include Ron Paul himself, despite his previous offer.).

Only in her case, Rosa Parks never received any of the cash herself. 100% of the money went back into the Public Enterprise Fund. So why did Ron Paul vote against Rosa Parks, but not the boy scouts?
You're trying to defend the boy scouts. What I'm asking you to do is defend the HYPOCRISY. Can you do that, or not?

Sophie said...

Are you saying that the U.S. Mint is unConstitutional? Payment of surcharges to recipient organizations is regulated by Section 5134(f) of Title 31 of the United States Code. Please refer to it.

We've established that the U.S. Mint is a for-profit government organization. Before any payments are made to designated organizations such as the BSA, all costs acquired by the production of the coins must first be covered by the sales. If not enough people had bothered to buy the commemorative coins, the BSA would have received zero, zip, zilch, nada.

As for the Rosa Parks medal, it was paid for by our money -- it came from public funds. The U.S. Mint was entrusted with the responsibility to earn money from the sale of replicas to offset the cost of the medal. However, Rosa Parks would still have received the $30,000 gold medal regardless of the outcome of the replica sales.

Ron Lawl said...

Sophie, stop changing the subject. Once again, I'm not asking you to defend the boy scouts, I'm asking you to defend the hypocrisy. Why are the boy scouts consistent with the constitution, but not Rosa Parks?

Saying, "Well, the US Mint code allows for the boy scouts coin" is irrelevant, because the US Mint code also allows for the production of congressional medals of honor. Hence, if the Boy Scouts are constitutional by this standard, then so is Rosa Parks, and you still need to explain why one is okay but not the other.

And your point of "well, if 0 people paid for the Rosa Parks medal, then the Mint would have lost money" is likewise non-unique (i.e., it applies to the boy scouts just as well, and therefore, doesn't refute the hypocrisy). For one thing, even if the sales were zero, the cost associated with the medal still would not have been paid for by tax dollars, it would have been paid for through the sale of replicas of other medals. Secondly, let's assume that the boy scouts coin had 0 sales. Who would foot the bill for production and design?

Why are you assuming that the sale of the Rosa Parks medal would be zero, but the sale of the boy scouts coin will be in the millions? Why do you need to rely on creating double standards in order to defend Ron Paul's hypocrisy or something?

Sophie said...

Congress maintains the authority to make commemorative coin theme selections and to allocate funds via appropriations. As the Supreme Court stated, "The constitutionality of this delegation of authority has never been seriously questioned."

Commemorative coins are privately sponsored, and the current coin program allows theme sponsors to receive financial benefits that help the community. Since the U.S. Mint operates for-profit to enrich the public coffers, the choice to honor an organization such as the Boy Scouts is a smart financial move. All profits and losses are incurred in the process of the government's money-making business venture.

Congressional medal of honors, on the other hand, are immoral. Granted, the U.S. Mint makes money from the sale of replicas, but that is in order to recoup the tens of thousands of dollars already spent. The fact is that public funds -- our money -- is being used for the purchase of the medals. In essence, free money is being handed to a private individual by Congress with no conditions attached.


I care not for your accusations or for your obsession with the activities and practices of the BSA. However, it does trouble me when you continue to project your own hypocrisy on those you don't even respect enough to intelligently study their positions.

Ron Lawl said...

Sophie, are you just mentally incapable of making a coherent argument? You're trying to argue that the Boy Scouts coin is constitutional because of SOME reasons, while ignoring that the exact same reasons would apply to Rosa Parks. And that the Rosa Parks medal was unconstitutional because of completely unrelated reasons, while ignoring that the same reasons would apply to the boy scouts. Why are you completely incapable of applying the SAME STANDARD to BOTH cases? Oh, that's right, because you're a hypocrite.

You're saying that the boy scouts medal is okay because Congress has the authority and the SC hasn't challenged them. And that's different from Rosa Parks... how? At least in the case of Rosa Parks, there is precedent of congressional medals of honor while the founding fathers were still alive. No such precedent for the boy scouts.

Funny how when the US Mint coughs up the green to sponsor the production of a boy scout coin, it's PRIVATELY funded, even before a single coin has been sold, and therefore moral. But when the same US Mint coughts up green to sponsor the Rosa Parks medal, suddenly it's PUBLIC FUNDS, and therefore immoral. Funny how your description of the exact same scenario seems to change depending on the recipient, huh? You'll notice how the only difference between the two situations you provided is in the label, rather than the action.

Paultards are people who like to talk about reason and integrity and principles, but who don't actually have any.

Anonymous said...

the only correct answer sophie is that you and ron paul are racist