The Ron Paul Survival Report

Paultards Pissed At Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul War Room Gets Hacked

2008-07-19T17:49:00.000-05:00

According to the Ron Paul Tumblelog, the Ron Paul War Room was recently hacked by people who placed hard core pornography on the website. Some War Room you have there.

Also, in other news, Comedian Colbert of the Colbert Report recently made a joke where he states that the part of the brain that fools the body into thinking that a useless pill was medicine is the same part of the brain that gets people to vote for Ron Paul. For the confused Paultards out there, there analogy is that Ron Paul is a useless pill, even though his devotees seem to think that he can cure the economy. Simply screaming "Ron Paul, R[evol]ution!" is not going to be a cure in itself.

BuddyRey writes:
Yeah, I think he was pretty much calling us delusional.
We just got seriously dissed by one of the only allies we ever had in the media.

I think that your first mistake was assuming that Stephen Colbert was your ally, Buddy.

manny229 writes:
Yeah I saw that too..... I was surprised quite a few of the audience members laughed... I thought we were popular among that young cool and hip crowd?

Once again, Manny, this is a common Paultard fallacy. Not knowing the difference between "Most Ron Paul supporters are young people," and "Most young people support Ron Paul." Also, while most Ron Paul supporters might be young, "cool and hip" they certainly ain't.

Ron Paul Campaign Manager Dies, Uninsured, With $400k in Debt

2008-07-16T23:04:00.000-05:00

Today's news story made me sick. Huffington Post and DailyKos report that Ron Paul campaign manager Kent Snyder, recently passed away from pneumonia. Snyder spent two months in the hospital with no insurance, which means that his family must now cover the $400,000 in debt.

Despite his record as a doctor, despite the millions of dollars he raised, and despite his faith in the free market to settle health care matters, Paul was unable to provide for the most basic of care of one of his top staffers. Why didn't Snyder have insurance? Unfortunately, Snyder had a pre-existing condition, which would have made coverage prohibitively expensive. Readers on this site might remember the fact that he was the one man in all of congress to protest the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, which would have allowed companies to diagnose pre-existing genetic conditions at the genetic level, for which his supporters were more than happy to cheer him on for, arguing that they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's misfortune (which, ironically, is sort of the entire point of insurance in the first place). Well, congratulations, guy. The bad news is, your campaign manager couldn't buy insurance to cover his pre-existing defect. The good news is, your campaign member couldn't buy insurance to cover his pre-existing defect. Further, there's the fact that Kent Snyder was openly gay, which means that he couldn't get coverage via marriage. Ron Paul opposes gay marriage, and believes that recognizing gay marriage should be done at the state level.

In New Hampshire, when Ron Paul was asked to provide his stance on making health care affordable, Ron Paul attempted to avoid the subject by going off into one of his general rants on inflation, which in this case, wasn't even an accurate use of the term. In Ron Paul's world, the problem isn't the cost of health care, but inflation. His supporters keep insisting that hyperinflation is inevitable and that the U.S. dollar will be worthless in the next few years. Perhaps they believe that by then, paying off the $400,000 debt will be easy, since it will cost people $400,000 just to pay for groceries? Of course, that's only assuming that their economic predictions will come true. For some reason, I doubt it.

His supporters have begun fund raising for him. Maybe it'll be enough, and maybe it won't. But even if it is, what due they intend to do for the tens of millions of people who are likewise affected by the platform that Ron Paul advocates? Libertarians often look down on government programs, citing private charity as the superior solution, and accusing anyone who doesn't believe in private charity as the solution as being hypocritical. Kent Snyder will put their sincerity to the test.

March of the Paultards: 9/11 was an inside job

2008-07-15T22:51:00.001-05:00

I've been meaning to post about the Ron Paul rally for a while, so I'm getting around to posting about it now. Above is a video of Jack McLamb speaking with a megaphone and calling 9/11 an inside job, much to the delight of the Paultards. You ever wonder why people have a tendency to associate Ron Paul with the truthers? Well, this is why. Hey Ron, if you can't even manage your own rallies that are being held in your own honor, then what chance do you have of managing a country full of people who despise you?
Meanwhile, Wonkette has posted numerous photos from the event. I suggest you check it out.

Behold, the Ron Paul future!

2008-07-05T05:42:00.002-05:00

I was watcing the Twilight Zone the other day, and one episode entitled The Rip Van Winkle Caper caught my eye. It's about a band of gold thieves who steal a million dollars in gold bricks, only to end up fighting amongst themselves over them. Wait until you see the ending.

More Medals: Ron Paul and the Dalai Lama

2008-07-01T18:32:00.001-05:00

The above photo is of the Dalai Lama being awarded a congressional gold medal from last October. Doesn't he look awfully miserable? Ron Paul seems to think so. Ron has a habit of screwing people while claiming to uphold the principles that they stand for, and doing it in their own self-interest. He does this because he assumes that he's a better expert on what those people stand for then they themselves. e.g., the exact sort of patronizing behavior that he hypocritically accuses the state of doing. Ron Paul voted against awarding the Dalai Lama a gold medal, citing the following reasons:

Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.

You'll notice how Ron Paul always makes statements such as these before attempting to screw people over, which is his own version of "with all due respect." In the eyes of the Paultard, this makes Ron Paul exempt from criticism.

I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.

Now, I'm not expert on Buddhist faith, but then, neither is Ron Paul. But I'm pretty sure that Buddhism is about rejecting the desire for and attachment to material possessions, rather than the material possessions themselves. If someone offered you a gold medal, then fine, take it. The Buddhists monks who I've spoken to tell me that they aren't allowed to refuse anything. And if someone put a gun to your head and said "hand it over, or else," then you hand it over. But I don't think that their doctrine forces them to rely on purity of thought alone. That's pretty naive. I mean, what would they eat? Where would they live? What would they sleep on?

True, you could argue that the $30,000 could be spent on other things. But that's a slippery slope. For instance, you could say the same thing about their plane trip, and their living accommodations. And it's ironic for Ron Paul to on the one hand claim to uphold "purity of thought," while on the other hand claim to reject a "feel-good congressional gesture." Again, I'm not an expert, but if the congressional gold medal brings people together and gets them to overlook their differences (with one notable exception), then I think that it would be in line with the whole concept of Buddhist compassion.

Update: Commenter Yokomado Jin chimes in: "You are exactly correct. The physical possession has little meaning, it is the intention that is what important. In this case, this Mr. Paul guy insulted Buddhists two ways. First, by assuming for another things about the faith he doesn't understand- stereotyping us. Secondly, as the world works based on the laws of karma, a gift is a good deed that brings good into the world. By rejecting others desire to give a gift, he is removing their potential reward of good karma. I don't know who this Mr. Paul fellow is, but he strikes me as the typical ignorant westerner who doesn't understand Buddhism beyond what they see in a movie. I've looked at some of the other articles about him and I am not surprised, he seems to be a bitter man. Blessings to his heart that it turns less ignorant."

Paultards who can't read, Part II

2008-06-30T17:45:00.001-05:00

From the previous thread:

NH4RonPaul writes:
The guy who is writing this blog is what I call a PAULTARD.

Someone who has the disease of not being able to stop attacking Ron Paul with weak accusations.

A medal for Rosa is NOT the purview of the Congress.
It has nothing to do with racism, but you KNOW Paultards like that one will try to make it into an issue.

That was already addressed in the FAQ, under points #2, #3, #4, and #13. Which you would know, if you had actually bothered to read it. But, like I said, Paultards can't read. I should point out that Ron Paul has recently also co-sponsored legislation that would not only produce commemorative coins for discriminatory organizations, but would also divert public funds to subsidize them. Where, pray tell, does the constitution allow for one, but not the other?

devil21 writes:
Notice he never refutes the points that were made in this thread about why RP voted NO. Besides, who cares about people like this screaming for our attention now. Your day has come and gone "Ron Lawl". Keep trolling for the blog hits that have now dried up. You're way too transparent.

Yeah dude, my day has come and gone all right. That's why Ron Paul is well on his way to becoming president, just like you predicted. As for your claim that I didn't refute any of the points made in your thread, all you guys basically said was that it was tax-payer funded, and that Ron Paul offered his own money. Which, again, was refuted in my 16-point FAQ, which included actual text from the legislation in question showing that these claims were false.

Update: The Paultards are still at it, and still mocking the fact without having actually read it. Case in point:

NH4RonPaul further adds:
I hate to tell this PAULTARD that writes this sad blog, but no one cares what Ron did or did not do with the Rosa Parks medal. NO ONE! He voted no which was his right no matter the reason. WE know the reason was because this is not how you are supposed to spend taxpayer money.

Well, you guys keep saying that they spent tax payer money, but unfortunately, the actual bill disagrees with you, since it states that the medal will be self-funded through the sale of replicas. Which, again, was covered in the FAQ, under "Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!" Simply repeating the myth that it was tax payer funded, while ignoring hard evidence that says that it wasn't, is not the mark of good debate.

G-Wohl writes:
This guy has to stop wasting his time, because Ron Paul's movement is one made up of people who are educated, well-read, and intelligent. This loser is not.

Unfortunately, this is a common Paultard fallacy. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand the difference between saying that you're most intelligent, and actually being more
intelligent. Hey G-Wohl, I've read all your arguments, and I've refuted them accordingly using links and citations. It's hard to take you take seriously when the only thing you have to say in your defense is an appeal to authority fallacy, where the authority you're appealing to is yourself. It's hard to take your claims of being well read seriously, when you can't even read simple legislation pointing out that the medal was self-funded. Yes, you may be well read in all things related to Ron Paul fellatio, but that is not the same thing as being well read in general.

In surprising news, Paultards can't read

2008-06-29T17:46:00.001-05:00

Someone pointed me to an old post from the Ron Paul Forums mocking our previous FAQ on the Rosa Parks medal. The funny thing is how the first poster writes "check this! Stupidity, really to the bone," only to have everyone regurgitate the very same talking points that have been refuted in the FAQ, without ever actually acknowledge the fact that it was addressed in the FAQ. You know, "It was tax payer funded," "Ron Paul pitched in his own money," yadda yadda yadda.

If you're going to mock an article, then it might help to actually read said article before you fall back on your standard talking points. Especially if the entire point of said article is to refute the talking points in questions. Unfortunately, Paultards aren't capable of doing that. Not only do they refuse to accept contradictory viewpoints, which is normal, they instead have to live in an imaginary world where they pretend that contradictory viewpoints don't exist. That theirs is the only viewpoint on Earth, and the only reason why everyone else hasn't adopted it is because they haven't "woken up" yet.

That's one of the reasons why I wrote the Rosa Parks FAQ in the first place. When you bring up an argument to the Paultards on why Ron Paul is a moron, they will twist and turn in an attempt to avoid all rational discussion on facts, evidence, and theory. The fact that they're willing to launch discussion threads about the FAQ while refusing to actually discuss the content of the FAQ hints at their own vulnerability. The don't want to acknowledge the content, because they know that they're weak on that issue. And their weakness on that issue can be exploited.

Ron Paul Quits?

2008-06-20T06:45:00.000-05:00

Well, I've been busy for a while, and I didn't even get to cover Ron Paul's latest attempt to quit/not quit/raise money without actually campaigning. I was planning on seeing what Encyclopedia Dramatica had to say on the subject, but even they didn't have much to say about the news. I guess when you jerk people around as often as Ron Paul has, it's hard to get them to take them seriously when you actually mean it.

Ron Paul has since abandoned ship on the Ron Paul campaign in favor of the Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty. Because the best way to emphasize on the idea of "it's was never about the Ron Paul, it was about the movement!" is to plaster Ron Paul's name in the fucking title. Narcism, much? I especially love how their banner illuminates Ron Paul from behind so that he can appear as the deified cult figure speaking to his masses.

Meanwhile, a Huffington Post article writes, "Ron Paul Breaks The Hearts Of Creepy People Everywhere." Apparently, the spammers on that site don't take the headline very well. Big surprise. It's funny how after over a year of campaigning, they're still reciting the exact same talking points. Guys, if it didn't work the first 10,000,000 times, why do you think that it'll work now?

Ron Paul is Clueless About the 16th Amendment

2008-06-10T00:26:00.000-05:00

From Goldfish for Thought:

On January 28th 2003, Ron Paul introduced legislation proposing a Constitutional amendment. This amendment, dubbed the Liberty Amendment, proposes to abolish "personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibit the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens." The Liberty Amendment forbids the Federal government from engaging in any "business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution," and all government activities in violation of the amendment are to be liquidated within three years of ratification (Paul).

Furthermore, it will repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in an attempt to abolish the income tax. Paul made a statement in the House of Representatives in which he makes several assertions in support of the Liberty Amendment (Paul):

The 16th Amendment enabled Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals.
Until the passage of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
The founding fathers realized that "the power to tax is the power to destroy," which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax.
America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax.
Each claim will be scrutinized in detail; Paul is seriously misrepresenting the intent of the 16th amendment, and proposing changes to the Constitution that would cripple the federal government. The resulting government would likely have even less power than the confederate government established by the Articles of Confederation.

Paultards will often claim that Ron Paul's ability to deliver 4,000 babies makes him a bigger expert on the constitution than the people who actually studied it in school, and who study it for a living. Here's an article that says otherwise.

New Ron Paul Interview with Counterpunch

2008-05-31T07:02:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-28T18:26:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-26T19:43:00.001-05:00

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

2008-05-25T01:29:00.001-05:00

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

2008-05-19T20:17:00.001-05:00

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

2008-05-18T18:47:00.001-05:00

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

2008-05-16T19:34:00.000-05:00

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!

2008-05-14T05:01:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-13T17:44:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-12T17:31:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-11T08:07:00.000-05:00

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:

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.
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.
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

2008-05-10T05:15:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-08T22:56:00.001-05:00

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!

2008-05-08T05:24:00.000-05:00

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

2008-05-05T15:04:00.002-05:00

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

2008-05-01T09:50:00.001-05:00

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.

Ron Paul squanders campaign money on pointless ads

2008-04-23T10:34:00.004-05:00

One definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over again, while expecting a different result. And we all already knew that Ron Paul is insane. So perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Ron Paul would prove his fiscal conservatism and financial wisdom by pumping even more money into a long deceased campaign. In the above radio ad, Ron Paul goes over his usual list of talking points. You know, the exact same talking points that haven't gotten him very far in the past, where he recites his list of non-accomplishments, talks about his military donations, proclaims himself as the "Champion of the Constitution," in much the same way that Michael Scott proclaims himself as the world's greatest boss. Of course, I suppose that even the radio ad isn't as bad as the "sloppy seconds" posters that his supporters have been using.

Do you notice how often the radio ad mentions Ron Paul by name? As Seth Stevenson at Slate wrote, "I suspect most advertisers avoid the broken-record technique out of fear that it will annoy people. Which it does. But so what? Maybe a small percentage of us will snootily refrain from buying HeadOn—as an act of protest against an ad we find irritating—but this is a small price to pay when millions of other folks are now familiar with HeadOn, curious about it, and unlikely ever to forget its name. The repetition method serves no purpose for a well-established brand ("Coca-Cola: Pour it down your esophagus. Coca-Cola: Pour it down your esophagus"), but for a new product fighting to get noticed, it makes a lot of sense."

I suspect that the Paultards had a similar strategy in mind throughout the campaign. What they neglected to consider, of course, is that there is a huge world of difference between getting people to acknowledge a product, and getting people to buy a product. Conversely, they believe that if the American public doesn't buy Ron Paul, then it must be because they haven't acknowledged him, which is why they're quick to blame media conspiracy. Unfortunately for them, it's going too take a lot more than "Ron Paul, apply directly to DC" to win the office of Presidency.

Wonkette: Ron Paul Freedom Tax Rally Saves Economy!

2008-04-17T08:14:00.004-05:00

Courtesy of Wonkette: "Here are Ron Paul's supporters, still leading the Ron Paul rEVOLution, on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol yesterday at a rally, gazing longingly at George Washington's aluminum-tipped erect penis in the distance. Did you know that Ron Paul will also have a famous obelisk-cum-penis when he is president, again? More pictures of his concubines dancing the dance of Freedom, after the jump!"

Man, don't you love it when public school teenage hypocrites feel like lecturing the rest of the nation on the taxes that they've never actually had to pay themselves? It also seems as though the Paultards are the last group of people on Earth who still seem to dine on "Wonder Bread." Seriously, people still eat Wonder Bread? It sort of captures them pretty well. The Ron Paul crowd would prefer to live in the past. Others have actually lived through it.

The best comment on that thread comes courtesy of SayItWithWookies: "Oh, this is so sad -- in a Norman Bates 'My mommy's not dead' sorta way. It's the tard without the Paul." Pretty much says it all.

Ron Paul campaigner trespasses on public high school

2008-04-15T01:40:00.006-05:00

Despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to earn the GOP nomination, the douchebaggery among Paultards is still alive and well. HMBeast over at DailyKos reports the following story, about a Paultard Campaign Worker who decided to trespass a local high school with pro-Paul propagandas, urging kids to skip school on April 15th on a so-called "Truth Strike." The Paultard, Joe Baker of Burlington, WI, is also a 9/11 truther. Big surprise! Here's a report of HMBeast's conversation with him:

Me: Sir, not to be rude, but you do realize that you're handing out fliers about the income tax to high school students, students who don't pay the income tax and probably don't care?
Joe Baker: But you will pay the income tax soon! The income tax is unconstitutional (see note below) and fraudulent.
Me: How is the government supposed to pay for things like this school that you're on right now without the taxpayer's money?
Joe Baker: What you'll see if you listen to this series of audiotapes, is that we don't need a government at all.
Me: Good luck with that.

You ever notice how Paultards are completely incapable of forming their own arguments, or recognizing what an argument even is. Instead, it's "google this," and "youtube that." Ironic, considering how they like to boast about how they and they alone are well informed and capable of critical thought, where as everyone else is a sheep. Really, the average Paultard doesn't give a crap about reason or logic. What they're interested in is the general feeling of being convinced. And they hope that if they can point other people to the same video, then the same feeling will be communicated to them as well. But when it comes to breaking down the basic arguments restating those arguments in their own words? That's when they fall short.

Readers may remember our story from last February, when hundreds of anonymous Paultards decided to spam a math teacher's personal livejournal blog, for the high crime of showing actual campaign data regarding Ron Paul. Apparently, showing a real world application of mathematical principles is completely antithetical to the average Paultard. The Paultards responded by maintaining their usual levels of civility; posting the guy's personal information online and tracking his movements.

Some may accuse the Paultards of hypocrisy on this one, but actually, they're pretty consistent. The Paultards aren't against bias in public schools, or using public schools to push an agenda (or lack thereof.). No, the Paultards have an agenda that's deadset against learning itself.

Ron Paul Refuses To Condemn China Over Tibet

2008-04-10T17:43:00.005-05:00

CNN reports the following:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday calling on China to end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for "nonviolent" demonstrations.

The vote was 413-1. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has not dropped out of the presidential race, was the lone congressman voting against it.

The Paultards have already sent their legions over to Digg in an attempt to white wash and spin doctor the incident. Right now, the best argument they seem to provide isn't the the bill was wrong, either in intent or in execution, but simply that it's a "waste of time," and vaguely, a "waste of tax dollars." Which is a pretty pathetic argument to begin with, and which sounds even more pathetic once you actually think about it. How exactly does voting "no" waste significantly less time than voting "yes"? You're still using the same amount of time, either way. So why not use your time to actually make the moral choice?

The "waste of time" issue is also pretty hypocritical when you like at the things that Ron Paul actually has supported in the past. For instance, Ron Paul voted yes on H Con Res 31, which stated that "the public display of the Ten Commandments should be permitted in government offices and courthouses." That's not just a waste of time - it also undermines the establishment clause of the first amendment. Yet Ron Paul still supported it.

You may remember a few months ago, when the Paultards were insisting that Ron Paul couldn't possibly be a racist, because he cited Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as his personal heroes, thanks to their stance on non-violence and civil disobedience. The recent Tibet vote would have been a great opprotunity for Ron Paul to show that he really means it.

If Gandhi were alive today, would Ron Paul be defending him? Would he condemn the British for their oppression of India? Or would he in the rest of the Paultard brigade insist that Gandhi wasn't worthy of their time? Of course, history has judged Gandhi and MLK Jr. to be in the right, so it's not only easy to defend those men today, but it's almost required if you want to be taken seriously. But most Paultards aren't old enough to have actually lived through, so they can't say how they would have reacted. It's amazing how Paultards are always the first to cry foul over their paranoid delusions of media censorship over their supposed "r[evol]ution", yet they can't even speak out in support of the Tibertan protesters without Ron Paul's say so.

This wasn't about economic sanctions or military action, it was about taking a moral stance. If the Paultards can't even go that far, then they have no right to lecture anyone else. Non-violent protest is great, as long as Ron Paul doesn't actually have to listen to or acknowledge it in any way, shape or form. But if Ron Paul won't listen to them, then why in the world should he expect for anyone to listen to him? The people in Tibet are taking real risks and are suffering real consequences. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is a rich old white man who likes to whine that he isn't even wealthier than he is already because he has to pay taxes. Hey Ron Paul, other people have problems too.

Bill Watterson Comments on Ron Paul

2008-03-11T21:43:00.002-05:00

Bill Watterson was truly a prophet of his age. Click here to see the rest of the story.

Paultards paint the town

2008-03-05T21:43:00.003-06:00

The Lancaster Online covers the continuing problem of Paultard vandalism.
Here are some highlights:

Lisa Armellino, another member of the group, suspects a Paul opponent of the vandalism. "None of us would ever do that because we know it's against the law. What I think is it's a supporter of another candidate, clear-cut," she said.

There are at least half a dozen examples of Paul graffiti in the city, and three more that have been scrubbed off already: on the Penn Square monument, 3-foot-tall letters on the Lititz Pike bridge near the Lancaster Stockyards, and on the concrete walls high up on Lancaster Square.

"It's difficult to remove this time of year because we can't use our graffiti machine," Charlotte Katzenmoyer, the city's public works director, said. The high-pressure sprayer uses a baking soda-and-water mixture to wipe spray paint from the walls of buildings, but officials fear the water will freeze over on walkways so they don't use it this time of year.

And later:

It's unclear whether the campaign is organized, but a blogger nicknamed "saveamerika" is running what he calls The Ron Paul Spraypaint Revolution, and has posted stencil images of the candidate to download and cut out.

"I must say that Ron Paul would NEVER endorse any kind of illegal graffiti, destruction of property or unauthorized spray-painting to promote his campaign," writes saveamerika." With that disclaimer stated, I urge you to spraypaint the Ron Paul stencils in areas of clear visibility, high traffic and maximum exposure. (think stoplights, stop signs, areas of interstate congestion)

If the Paultards can't even take responsibility for their own graffiti artists, then how the heck do they expect to take credit for an entire country? "No sir, unemployment and poverty didn't take a sudden upsurge as a result of Ron Paul's policies. I'm sure that this is all a conspiracy from an opposing country, hoping to flood our country with illegals in order to make Ron Paul look bad. Libertarian failure is an oxymoron."

The War On Paultards: Go Outside

2008-03-01T08:45:00.002-06:00

The Paultards have already issued their responses. For example:

It’s now becoming rote for these cryptos to not just laugh at and make fun of us “paultards” – but to actually seek to suppress our voice in advocating for freedom and liberty. Wake up people! There have been massive voter irregularities in primary votes across the country. We need to fight back against these people, and if it’s a war they want, it’s a war they’ll get.

Wonkette Endorses Chris Peden

2008-02-28T07:16:00.002-06:00

From Wonkette:

To most American political fanatics, Ron Paul is just a goofy hobbit whose hilariously doomed online presidential campaign provided standout entertainment in a year that offered a wealth of hilariously doomed campaigns.

But to many of his constituents in Texas Congressional District 14, Ron Paul is just a blame-America-first attention whore who completely ignores the people who put him in office. There are no Democrats running in the 14th District primary next Tuesday — so if Ron Paul loses, he will have the honor of being a double loser in the eyes of his beloved constituents. With this in mind, Wonkette enthusiastically endorses Chris Peden for Congress.

Once again, I don't endorse anyone in that district, and Peden has his own share of loony. However, I did find this particular comment to be lawl worthy:

If delivering a baby is a prerequisite, then I still meet it. I have four children, and I delivered my third son. So I guess I am just as qualified to be a congressman as Ron Paul.

Pwned.

Ron Paul Launches New Ad On Immigration

2008-02-26T20:26:00.003-06:00

Some of you may remember Ron Paul's previous ads on immigration, bragging that he would end birthright citizenship and deny student visas to "terrorist nations." Those were a form of subtle racism. Recently, Ron Paul has decided to go a different route on the matter in order to win back his base: Blatant racism. The following comes courtesy of Wonkette:
Note the caption at the bottom, "Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2008 Prsidential Campaign Committee." For everyone insisting that Ron Paul can't be a racist because we would have seen evidence of it, I give you Exhibit A, and Ron Paul's attempt to turn the above photo into the public image for all immigrants in general. And seriously, "No social security for you?" You're going to invoke a Seinfeld character known as the Soup Nazi in order to justify your racism? Brilliant move.

In addition to playing on the fear of Ron Paul's Aryan supporters, the ad also misses the point. Right now, illegal immigrants are putting money into social security that they will never collect on. The end result is a net benefit for social security. And according to FactCheck.org, "But nobody's proposing paying benefits to illegals, not until and unless they become US citizens or are granted legal status."

Ron Paul is either being dishonest, or he's once again being incompetent. Which is it?

Ron Paul Cowers Away from GOP Debate Primary

2008-02-23T08:38:00.005-06:00

From Captain's Quarters:

Every time we suggested dropping Ron Paul from the national debates, his supporters would go nuts. They claimed in the one instance where he did get dropped, the January 3rd debate just before Iowa, that a grand conspiracy existed to keep his message from the people and to stop the 4% revolution. They demanded boycotts of Fox and of the Iowa GOP. Paul himself complained bitterly about his exclusion, and not without some justification.

Now that Paul's focus has returned to his own Congressional race, he seems much less enthusiastic about debates. After declining to hold a debate with his primary challenger, Chris Peden, Paul got asked yesterday about this seeming hypocrisy at a town-hall meeting in his district. Check out Paul's predictably hysterical response:

Like I said before, I do not endorse Chris Peden, a candidate who might actually be competent at pushing through the GOP Agenda. However, a loss for Ron Paul would be highly amusing. The Paultards campaigned for months and months on a platform of "change." Well, be careful what you wish for.

RonPaulForums blames Obama for their loss

2008-02-23T08:02:00.006-06:00

Yeah dudes, totally. It's Obama's fault for not abandoning his politics and his ideology and dropping out of the race, just so that Ron Paul might get a slight boost to his own poll numbers. Selfish bastard. And I don't mean "selfish bastard" in the Ayn Rand sense, which is supposed to be taken as a compliment. I mean that in the bad sense, which is to say that someone is using selfishness in order to promote their own cause, rather than Ayn Rands cause.

Paultards Enraged At Fake City

2008-02-19T07:49:00.001-06:00

From Wonkette:

Ron Paul’s most fervent supporters were outraged to learn that “Watson University” had rescinded an invitation for the Libertarian congressman to speak there. One commenter on The City Desk declared angrily that “Ron Paul can teach your entire student body more in 1 hour than they learn in 4 years of study.” But the biggest problem with this educational institution isn’t their brazen dis of America’s greatest patriot. It’s that it doesn’t exist.

Oh come on Wonkette, this is the same group that goes on and on about the North American Union. Since when did something actually have to exist before they start complaining about it?

Paultards Spam a Livejournal Post

2008-02-15T13:00:00.005-06:00

Somewhere on the internet, a math teach with an obscure livejournal account wrote up the following post:

That was actually the best part for me -- getting to make fun of Ron Paul and getting all the students to join in. Didn't even have to attack his assinine policies, just showed him on the bottom of the GOP opinion polls month after month, and every time I added a new month's worth of Data and talked about the other candidates rising or falling, and extending the lines on their graphs, I'd end with "and Ron Paul stayed flat" and add another segment to his straight line near the zero marker. The kids loved the running gag. They started to join in, chorusing "and Ron Paul stayed flat!" Some of them even got a little impatient as I talked about the rest of the candidates: "and what about Ron Paul?" "He stayed flat." Cheers. :-D "And Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, dropping his numbers to zero, so Ron Paul finally got ahead of someone." Laughter. It was sweet.

Not surprisingly, the Paultards respond with their typical legion of spam. "Oh, how dare he discuss real world applications of graphs and statistics in a math class!!! This is what's wrong with America, dammit!" As though it's somehow the math teacher's fault that Ron Paul is a complete failure at life. One Paultard even goes a bit further:

We are thinking of making up some T-shirts with this picture on the front, with the the words "PREACHING HIS POLITICAL OPINIONS TO YOUR CHILDREN" on the back, and "GREGORY EARTOFF" under the picture in the front.
We will then mail them to all the residents in the area of your school.

What do you think? Good idea? You see Greg, some lessons in life are tough, especially when you become the example for others. We are crazy you say? Ok then, maybe we will act it then.
Your crazy for fucking with us, asshole. Welcome to the shitlist.

Others have resorted to digging up personal information. Gee, I wonder why no one takes them seriously. You crazy motherfuckers.

FactCheck.org finally gets around to Ron Paul

2008-02-12T23:22:00.003-06:00

After months of putting Ron Paul on the back burner, FactCheck.org finally treats him like they would any other candidate. From their article:

We've given his statements little attention until now. But here we look at some of his more outlandish claims:
Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.
Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.
Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.

Have fun reading.

So Long, Dr. Paul. You were our only hope.

2008-02-11T09:52:00.000-06:00

Many of our readers may already be aware of the fact that Ron Paul has basically given up from his campaign, in order to spend more time with his ~~family~~ district. You may be wondering why we didn't cover this sooner, but that's only because we're still trying to take it in. Honestly, there was a lot of material on Ron Paul that we never got around to publishing, which just isn't as fun anymore. Once again, I wish that we had done this blog a little sooner, when the internet could have used it most.

In his letter, Ron Paul writes that:

"Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you."

A great philosopher once asked, "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." Ron Paul's letter shows his typical rejection of positive liberty in favor of negative liberty. It also shows his tendency to cry wolf, and exaggerate, which is why no one listens to them.

Ron Paul also states that:

I also have another priority ... If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas."

He's right of course, I would probably would have a good laugh about it. The real question is why Ron Paul is even worried. We live in a country where the incumbent has a 90% re-election rate. Hell, we live in a country where Mark Foley came within 2% of being re-elected, and that was after he already dropped out of the race for seducing under-aged male interns. Is Ron Paul conceding that his recent presidential campaign might have made him less popular in his own district, rather than more popular? Because that would still give me something to laugh about. Should readers of this site encourage Republicans in Ron Paul's district to vote for Chris Peden instead? No idea. Peden seems to be pretty crazy in his own right, and he may or may not be competent enough to actually get things done. On the other hand, he might help make the district more vulnerable for a Democratic seat, but that seems unlikely.

Despite the fact that the campaign has already raised more money than they know what to do with, they're still soliciting for more:

"Ron Paul is not going to surrender, and John McCain will not take the Republican nomination without the fight of his life. Your donations and work as Precinct Leaders are needed now more than ever."

Ron Paul still has six million dollars of leftover cash from his previous fund raising efforts. What exactly has he been waiting for? Although it would be illegal for Ron Paul to transfer that money to his congressional run until he officially cancels his campaign, that wouldn't exactly stop him from being able to run general "Ron Paul is great" ~~congressional~~ presidential ads in his home district, with a a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more."

Ron Paul insists that he has no intention of running as a third party candidate, which just goes to show that he's no better than the politicians who he criticizes. Ron Paul talks a lot about revolution and the message, but he's still a republican at the core, and won't do anything to harm the party. That, or he doesn't want a repeat of his 1988 campaign, when the other libertarian candidates gave him a lot of flack for his votes against MLK Day. But I guess it's harder to fall back on the "MLK was an adulterous, gay pedophile" excuse after you already attempted to turn the holiday into your personal piggy bank.

Ron Paul and the "Reo-Cons"

2008-02-11T09:26:00.000-06:00

Editors Note: The following article comes from a site visitor named John, and not by the creator of this blog:

Gary North is a former congressional aid for Ron Paul, but North is also a major figure in Christian Reconstructionism. When most people think of right-wing Christianity they will often assume that the lunatics are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Which is correct, but one must not also forget the Reo-Cons like Gary North:

“when people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime”-Gary North

“The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death”

“....And he the blasphemeth the name of the Lord,he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him” (source)

The above statements are pretty bad ass, and sounds like something Osama Bin Laden would advocate for. So then why would someone like Ron Paul have Gary North be a member of his staff? Maybe its because they both want to return to the gold standard,and return to a LewRockwellian sized government. I have pretty good hunch though Ron Paul is up to something else, and i think it rhymes with “newsletter”.

In Angry White Man, James Kirchick not only brings up the newsletter,but he also brings up Gary North,and Christian Reconstructionism. Kirchich also points out that Ron Paul and Gary North are pretty close. For example Ron Paul stated in a letter “Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnat Review about my exposes of government abuse.” Does Ron Paul read Christian Reconstructionism literature,and share similar views? Of course. Just look at Ron Paul's rants at LewRockwell.com. In one The Moral Promise of Freedom, Ron Paul defends David Koresh, and refers to him as the “groups spiritual leader." Paul continues to defend Koresh's cult, and portrays them as peace loving hippies. Koresh was a child molester, and brainwashed those “handmaidens of the lord.” The fact that Ron Paul would defend Koresh is beyond me. Actually its not, and it just shows how Ron Paul thinks property rights should trump individual rights. So not only does Paul think Koresh is the man,but he also sounds just as nuts as Gary North.

If you still think Ron Paul is America's last hope, and are still feeding on his fear mongering Then you should probably start building your bomb shelter. If you need help with the construction of this, or are unsure of what to do I have a solution. Pick up the phone and contact Gary North. I am sure he still knows how to build the ultimate pillow fort, after all he did predict the end of the world to happen during Y2K. If you have ever talked to a Ron Paul supporter you to may realize they fear the end is near.

Gary North and Ron Paul arent the only one's who are caught in the web of Christian Reconstructionism. In fact they are perhaps the one's who are trying to do there best to create a Christian Republic. The Reo-Cons, and Ron Paul have a very similar agenda,and it is perhaps the most illogical one on capital hill. Property rights would re-place individual rights,and the state would have the right enforce sodomy laws. Reo-Cons would also treat women like second class citizens. This is no surprise since Ron Paul's book freedom under siege implies that women should cease with sexual harassment suits,and instead find another job.

Ron Paul can play senile about the newsletter,and fool a few paultards,but he isn't going to fool most when it comes to We The People Act. If this bill was actually passed then it would be pretty easy for states to enforce current sodomy laws. It would also make it impossible for the supreme court to rule such violations as unconstitutional. This comes as no surprise since Ron Paul has met with the National Reform Association,and is perhaps a strong believer in there libertarian policy's. As of yet I know they have only met once,and the fact there first trip to capital hill involved Ron Paul is a little suspicious. This meeting occurred on march first, and during the year 2001, one year after Y2K.

The Paultards can talk all they want about Ron Paul,or even tell me to Google him. They can talk about change,and even loose change. When it comes down to it though they will still have to dig through his records just like I have. Once the paultards actually dig through his record they may do one of two things. Paultards will either continue to defend him and David Koresh,or actually do some research. Its pretty simple to see now why an informed opinion would not rally behind Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Bounces Back, Wins Another Online Poll

2008-02-09T22:21:00.000-06:00

Looks like we're in trouble, guys. A Newsday Online Poll asks the following question, and gets the following response:Because if there's one thing that we learned from Paultards these past several months, it's that online polls are far more accurate than random sampling, since they're not influenced by the mainstream media conspiracy.

Another Case of Paultard Persecution

2008-02-09T08:04:00.000-06:00

And in today's headlines:

OWATONNA, Minn. - An 18-year-old Republican's enthusiasm for presidential hopeful Ron Paul could cost him more than $550.

Cody Hauer has been cited four times in one week for displaying a 13-inch-by-40-inch "Ron Paul Revolution" decal in the rear window of his car. The problem is that such decals are illegal if they obstruct the driver's view.

"I support Ron Paul, the city police department doesn't," he said. "They gave me a DWR — driving while Republican."

See Paultards, this is why no one takes your cries of persecution and censorship very seriously. Because you're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Yeah, I'm sure that the current regulations against obstructing the driver's view were designed specifically to deter republicans. That's exactly what happened.

Oh, and another thing: If you really want to attract other people to your "revolution," maybe you should avoid using a campaign advertisement that actively puts their lives in danger. I think that John McCain learned that the hard way, when his 2000 campaign involved engraving "Vote John McCain" on bullet casings and firing them into random crowds. As a general rule, people usually don't respond well to threats of vehicular homicide. Don't ask me how I know this.

Prophetic Episode from the Simpsons

2008-02-08T18:49:00.000-06:00

Hey everyone, who does this remind you of?

Ned: Since the police can't seem to get off their duff-a-roonies to do something about this burglar-ino, I propose we start out own neighborhood watch (pause) aroony! (everyone cheers) Now, who should lead the group?

Man: You!

Everyone: (cheering again) Flanders! Flanders! Flanders!

Ned: Well, I don't have much experience, but I'd be--

Moe: Someone else!

Ned: (more cheers) Someone else! Someone else! Someone else!

Homer: I'm someone else!

Lenny: He's right!

Homer: We don't need a thinker, we need a doer! Someone who'll act without considering the consequences!

And we all know how well that turned out.

Of course, I'm sure that more than a few Paultards will respond by citing the "It's a two party system!" Halloween special. Completely ignoring the fact that Ron Paul is a republican, and the fact that people just don't like him no matter what.

I Vow To Donate $100 to Ron Paul

2008-02-08T01:48:00.000-06:00

That's right, folks, I'm saying this hear and now. A lot of people think that I have an unfair vendetta against Ron Paul. That couldn't be any further from the truth. I think that I'm completely fair to Ron Paul. But even his strongest supporters should be willing to look at Ron Paul objectively now and then.

In fact, just to prove that I can be completely fair to Ron Paul, I hearby pledge to donate $100 to Ron Paul's campaign, which he can use to purchase $30 million worth of ads. If Ron Paul hopes to succeed after his super Tuesday ~~failure~~ persecution, then he's going to need it. But only if someone can compile a list of 300,000 other people who will pledge to donate $100 to Ron Paul's campaign. Right now. Just like the Paultards give Ron Paul credit for "volunteering" to donate $100 to Rosa Parks medal if the majority of congress would do the same, I'm sure that they will likewise give me credit for donating $100 to his campaign.

So how about it, Paultards? Are you willing to do it? Put your money where your mouth is? Finding 300,000 donors should be easy, more people than that voted for Ron Paul last Tuesday.

Or do none of you actually support Ron Paul?

Austin Chapter NAACP President Backs Away from Ron Paul

2008-02-07T01:15:00.000-06:00

Remember a few weeks ago, when the Austin Chapter NAACP President Nelson Linder defended Ron Paul, and the Paultards ran away with it? The story quickly morphed into "The NAACP President endorses Ron Paul," and then into "The NAACP endorses Ron Paul," and finally into "All fleet footed Negroes love Ron Paul more than they love life itself. Which is amazing, because fleet footed Negroes usually hate white people, not that I'm saying that Ron Paul is white, because libertarians are incapable of racism because we don't see color."

For a while, you couldn't point out Ron Paul's history of racism without having a Paultard bring up Nelson Linder, followed by the sight of him stuffing his own head firmly between his ass cheeks in order to avoid any further argument. Unfortunately, it turns out that the story of Linder's "endorsement" may have been highly exaggerated, just like everything else from the Ron Paul campaign. Alex Jones has since been forced to order a retraction:

UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted prisonplanet.com to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul.

Good job, Paultards. Good job. A black man gives you guys an inch, and you decide to exploit him for a mile. Perhaps if you didn't plaster every black man you saw as the poster child for your campaign, these types of incidents wouldn't happen?

CLCV: Ron Paul's Stance on Global Warming

2008-02-06T16:40:00.000-06:00

The California League of Conservation Voters has recently released a breakdown of where all the candidates stand on the issue of global warming. Ron Paul currently lists energy and environment as two of the major issues on his official campaign website. So surely, you would think that Ron Paul would be willing to put some thought on the very issues that he's hoping to campaign on, right? Think again. From their website under Ron Paul:

LCV Lifetime Score: 30%
Carbon Cap And Targets: No articulated position
Fuel Efficiency: Opposed 33 mpg in 2005
Renewable Electricity Standard: No articulated position
Efficiency Targets: No articulated position
New Coal Plants And Liquid Coal: No articulated position
Answers to our questions? Did not answer

The Ron Paul campaign a campaign of empty promises. His supporters will proclaim his as a straight talker who's willing to give thoughtful responses to the pressing issues of our day, but his inability to even answer basic question says otherwise. The Ron Paul campaign boils down to a few sound bites like "I will work to restore a free-market in energy," without going into detail on how that would actually work, much less actually delivering on it. In short, Ron Paul is a politician, and not even a very good politician. Global warming is one of the most pressing matters of our age, and the "free" market has decided that they enjoy Al Gore's message a lot more than Ron Paul's. Why does Ron Paul hate the free market so?

Of course, Paultards will probably insist that the potential devastation of the all human life as we know it isn't a "real" issue, like Ron Paul's doomsday prediction on hyperinflation. Because imagining a scenario where the factories at the US Mint goes crazy ala I Love Lucy and starts doubling our money supply exponentially over and over again is so much more plausible than believing that an unchecked and massive output in carbon emissions might produce problems faster than the free market can correct for.

Post Tuesday Fallot

2008-02-06T06:56:00.000-06:00

All I can say is, karma is a bitch. After watching the Paultards spend months and months ruining the internet and vandalizing our schools, they now get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. My one regret is that I didn't start this website sooner, but oh well. Next time a Ron Paul appears, the internet will be ready. I remember once reading about how before the iPod came out, everyone was speculating on what would be the "next walkman," and after the iPod came out, everyone speculated on the next "iPod killer." When Ron Paul began his candidacy, people started wondering if Ron Paul would be the next Ross Perot. But I think that Ron Paul has officially taken his place in loser dome. At least Ross Perot managed to get actual votes.

Ron Paul placed 4th place in nearly every state yesterday, averaging roughly 4-5% of the popular vote. In Alaska, he managed to place as high as 3rd place, with 17% of the vote. I guess that people who love the bridge to nowhere would also love Ron Paul. In California, Ron Paul managed to place 5th place, with 4% of the vote. Fifth place out of the four republicans still running.

The guy who runs the Ron Paul Tumblelog has been hunting around for the Paultard reaction. Here's what he found:

Super Tuesday Posting

2008-02-05T08:35:00.000-06:00

Go get 'em, Paultards! Before you go out today, here are a few Paultard tips of the trade to keep in mind:

Always assume that everyone who doesn't follow Ron Paul is a sheep, and that you're the Shepherd. Yes, that does make you Jesus.
When addressing the conservatives, insist that Ron Paul is a true republican, and all the other candidates are just posers. When addressing the liberals, insist that Ron Paul is more of a democrat than all of the democrats currently running, and they should look past the "R" after his name. Remember, people are sheep.
The only thing preventing people from voting for Ron Paul is the fact that they haven't seen his name yet, in large part because of the media conspiracy/censorship against him. However, this problem can be corrected by hanging up signs, which will instantly convince the sheep to vote for him.
If anyone tells you that they're voting for someone else, ask them why they hate the constitution, and imply that they're commie soviets.
If someone ever challenges one of your conspiracy theories, look back at them in disbelief and shout, "What do you mean, 'crazy?'" It's real!" By asserting that your conspiracy theory is real, rather than fake, you automatically win the argument.

Ron Paul Flatlines

2008-02-04T18:10:00.000-06:00

From James Joyner of Outside the Beltway:

Ron Paul’s numbers are flatlined. He’s the only one of the remaining quartet that isn’t up substantially from six months ago. Despite the field winnowing from ten candidates to four, Paul continues to appeal to no more than 5-6 percent of Republicans.

With most candidates, the obvious explanation would be that their support has shifted to one of the frontrunners in a strategic move to avoid “wasting” their vote. Given the depth of Paul’s support, though, that strikes me as incredibly unlikely. The hard-core libertarians who back Paul are mostly dead-enders who would rather write in Paul’s name than deign to compromise for one of the Establishment candidates.

Could it be that hard-core libertarians are just a relatively small group? That, despite being organized and enthusiastic, there aren’t enough of them to elect a president? Barring a better explanation, I’m leaning in that direction.

Hah!

(h/t to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)

Twilight Canal Zone

2008-02-04T16:42:00.000-06:00

One of the few things I like about John McCain is that he, like me, is a member of the semi-exclusive fraternity of Americans who were born on foreign soil to two American citizens, and is therefore a natural-born American without being, strictly speaking, a native-born American. The reason this is significant is because Article II, section 1 states that "No person except a natural born Citizen..." can become President. If elected, McCain (born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone) would be the first President born outside the incorporated territory of the United States. Pretty cool, huh? Well, I thought so, anyway.

Every few years, some overly excitable person with a nativist streak and a hazy memory of the Constitutional requirements for the office of the President rediscovers that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, and--in an argument reminiscent of the chuckleheads who say we don't have to pay taxes because Ohio wasn't really a state--declares that McCain is ineligible to become President; wackiness typically ensues. Given the distinct nativist streak and general zaniness that typify a lot of Ron Paul supporters, you will not be surprised to learn that this argument has begun to make the rounds among the faithful over the past week or two now that McCain has taken a commanding lead for the nomination.

One Robert Werden, a dedicated fan of the Ronster, makes the case (or at least I think that's what he's trying to do):

A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign Country.

So there.

In fact, there's no debate here. Since 1790, U.S. laws have held that children born abroad to U.S. citizens acquire United States citizenship at birth, and no knowledgeable person seriously believes that there are any Constitutional issues that would remotely prohibit McCain from becoming President due to the circumstances of his birth. Of course, we're not talking about knowledgeable people, we're talking about Paulbots.

"I mean, I could really care less about where he was born," says "gangreneday" at dailypaul.com, "but the constitution needs to be amended then, if he does get the nomination (god forbid) right?" Right.

"Terri and Dustin," one or both of whom organize the Ron Paul Meetup in Knoxville Tennessee, offer up this lengthy screed from something called AmericanVoiceRadio.net, which somehow manages to bring in the USS Liberty incident--a favorite obsession of anti-Semitic nutjobs everywhere--and reminds us that "Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican." (Mexican, for God's sake!!)

Not everyone who makes this argument is a racist; some are simply morons. Like Carl at ronpaulforums.com who speaks with all the self-assured dickishness of the truly ignorant:

Yes he is disqualified, he was born on foreign soil. A child born to parents outside of the United States Proper is not a natural born citizen of the United States even if that birth takes place upon a U.S. military base. Every military parent is told this. If he was born in Germany, even upon a U.S. base, he would be considered a German citizen and subject to their military draft system.

(Emphasis mine.) I'll have to ask my parents if the U.S. Marine Corps put them in touch with Carl after I was born so that he could give them this important information. I may unwittingly be AWOL from the Philippine military even as I write this.

Fortunately, a Paultard who appears to go by the name "Sir David-Andrew" has figured it all out.

...McCain is not a natural born Citizen; therefore, is he not eligible to hold the office of the presidency. I suspect that there is a deal between McCain and Clinton over this very issue. After Clinton steals the DemocRATic nomination and McCain steals the Republican nomination, and then Clinton planned on challenging McCain about his citizenship and McCain would be more then willing to bow out the election a week or two before the General Election. Leveling Billary to steal the election unopposed.

However, Blomberg most likely is aware of this fix and is ready to step in and run as well, or maybe, Blomberg was planning on bumping McCain himself with is trump card. Either way, both Clinton and Blomberg are both able to buy McCain's loyalty.

Got all that? Good.

Add "Ron Paul Racing" to the list of Ron Paul Fail

2008-02-04T10:25:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Wonkette for the find. From the same trolls who brought you the Ron Paul blimp, and who tried to make it so that uppity Negroes would be forever branded as a living billboard for Ron Paul, comes the latest batch of fail: Ron Paul ~~Racism~~ Racing. I love the idea that the Paultards have literally thousands of internet trolls at their disposal who pride themselves on being free market gurus and who can brainstorm ideas 24/7, and these are the types of things they come up with.

At some point, the Paultards need to just bite the bullet and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, none of them know what the hell they're doing. Maybe the reason they can't prop their guy up as the next president isn't because of some elaborate conspiracy against them, or the fact that the rest of the population is completely sheep-like and uninformed. Maybe the real problem is just the fact that getting a guy elected to the presidency is a fucking hard thing to do, vastly more challenging than uploading a cell phone video to youtube, and Paultards simply don't have what it takes to pull it off.

Clarification on the Commnent Policy

2008-02-03T11:47:00.000-06:00

Wow, the Rosa Parks article has recently sparked a lot more comments than normal, in a much shorter range of time. For the record, comments are moderated. When I first started this site, I figured that I could either open myself up to the spambots, or I could take a firm line against them. So here are a few guidelines:

Don't post spam. "Ron Paul has never voted for this, Ron Paul has never voted for that." Trust me, we've already seen it. The problem is, we aren't very impressed.
Don't make arguments that have already been addressed. "But Ron Paul volunteered to donate his own money!" If you can't show the courtesy of reading the article, then don't expect the courtesy of getting published. On the other hand, if you make a good argument, then chances are that I'll publish it. Because if you make that argument here, then you can make it somewhere else, and I'll want my readers to know how to address it.
Don't try to change the subject. The purpose of the post is nailing Paultards on concrete issue that's easy to test and verify, and which should be fairly painless to concede to. When you attempt to change the subject, you only prove my point.

You can claim that it's a minor issue, but if it were so minor, then you should either be willing to concede to the argument, or ignore it. Yesterday's post on Paultards drinking Fiji was a lot more minor than this one, but I didn't see any of you Paultards commenting on that one. It seems like I've managed to strike a nerve here, "nailed" you where it hurts, and now you're trying to run off to Iraq or somewhere else where you think you can maintain the moral high ground. Personally, I think that the fact that Ron Paul wants to completely revamp the US Economy when he doesn't even understand the basic workings of the US Mint is pretty damn important.

Update: And sure enough, the Paultards are still responding with things that have already been refuted in the FAQ ("They can't use my tax dollars to fund the medal, dammit!") or attempting to change the subject to Iraq. Funny how Iraq seems to be only worth bringing up on this post, and not on one of the dozens of other postings to this site. You guys must be really desperate to change the subject. Again, if it's such a minor point, then it shouldn't be hard for you to concede.

For the record, here's my stance on Iraq:

I was protesting the war from the start, and you guys still suck.
Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke are also the war in Iraq, but I'm not voting for them either. Why? Simple. Because they're batshit crazy.
The entire purpose of the thread was to see if Paultards could be nailed down to something concrete and specific. If you want to discuss Iraq, then give us an actual exit strategy. Oh wait -- you guys don't have one. You want to bring troops out just as recklessly as Bush brought them in. Only, you guys seem to think that Ron Paul will have a magic wand, and that he'll bring everyone home just by having them click their ruby slippers.
Ron Paul's promises to take us out of Iraq is only meaningful if I had any faith that he could actually follow through on it. Ron Paul couldn't even follow through on his promise to contribute a token $100 donation to the Rosa Parks medal by purchasing a replica, and he's rich. Why should I believe that Ron Paul could succeed in immediate withdrawal?
The democrats have a policy of phased withdrawal for the vast majority of troops, based on the maximum number of brigades that we would be able to pull out per month, with a small number of troops remaining to protect the U.S. embassy. Somehow, the Paultards have distorted that position into being "pro-war."
Listening to Paultards saying that that all the democrats are "pro-war" because they live in a reality is stupid. It's like listening to someone insist that if you don't believe scientology can cure AIDS, then that means that you're "pro-AIDS" as a result.

How to Nail a Paultard, Part 1: The Rosa Park Medal

2008-02-03T00:01:00.002-06:00

If you're reading this blog, then chances are that you find Paultards annoying. But how do you deal with a Paultard? How do you get them to shut up? How do you bring their idiocy and hypocrisy out in the open?

In order to understand how to deal with a Paultard, you need to understand the nature of what a Paultard isGenerally, the Paultard will make claims and warants are as vague and as abstract as possible, which is what I like to call "horoscope style debating." This means that their claims can't be tested or falsified, which also makes it so that their claims are completely meaningless. After all, how do you disprove a horoscope? Paultards may talk about personal accountability, but since they're also massive hypocrites, accountability doesn't really matter. Dealing with a Paultard is dealing with a phantom, a spirit. There's nothing to hold onto. In order to nail a Paultard, you really need to nail them down. Fix them to something concrete and tangible, and then youattack them. The Paultard will struggle. The Paultard will resist. Don't let him get away that easily.

In this series, "How to Nail a Paultard," we will discuss specific issues and arguments that you can nail the Paultards on. This will save you time and energy, since it will give you something clear and specific to focus on, rather than an abstract tangent. It will also make it harder for them to writhe and squirm, since it doesn't give them much room to lie and spin. This should come in handy every time you get annoyed by a particularly persistent Paultard, which should be often.

In part one in this series, we'll discuss the Rosa Parks Medal, which several of our readers have stated would be an effective strategy on dealing with the Paultards. The Rosa Parks incident is very cut and dry, very concise and to the point, and I recommend that you bring it up the next time you deal with a Paultard at the first opportunity. It's comes in handy for attacking Ron Paul and his army of Paultards on any of the following subjects:

The fact that Ron Paul's rhetoric regarding the constitution is worthless.
The fact that Ron Paul is willing to make speeches and votes on false pretenses.
The fact that Ron Paul is incompetent and unwilling to engage in even the most basic of fact checking on extremely unpopular votes.
The fact that Ron Paul is willing to make promises that he is unwilling to follow through on.
The fact that Ron Paul has a over tendency to "cry wolf" and vote against things without even reading them, thus making his "nay" votes worthless in general.
The fact that Paultards will accept anything that Ron Paul says as absolute truth, without reading it themselves

Basic background on the Rosa Parks Medal
In April of 1999, Congress held a vote on whether or not to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. Congress was unanimously in favor of the award, with only one exception: Ron Paul. In order to justify his lone nay vote, Ron Paul delivered a speech, where he made the following arguments:

That the medal was tax-payer funded, and that we should look for alternative sources for funding.
That the medal was was unconstitutional
That the medal goes against the spirit of Rosa Parks.

In order to nail Ron Paul, we need to take this down point-by-point. The Paultards assert that you might not agree with Ron Paul, but that doesn't invalidate his reasoning. They're wrong. If you're dealing with a Paultard who seems brainwashed and unreasonable, this is a great tactic for proving it. The Paultard will be objectively and verifiably wrong, and yet, chances are that they'll still refuse to concede.

Point #1: Was the medal against the spirit of Rosa Parks?
We already knew that Ron Paul deludes himself into believing that he can speak on behalf of the long dead founding fathers, but apparently, Ron Paul also seems to think that he can speak for people who were still alive at the time. Here's what Rosa Parks, the real Rosa Parks, had to say on the subject:

"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

I think that it's incredibly arrogant for Ron Paul to assume that he has a greater authority to speak on behalf of Rosa Parks than Rosa Parks herself, something that he has also done with Martin Luther King.

Point #2: Was the Medal Unconstitutional?
I dare anyone who says this to cite the specific passage within the constitution that prohibits the awarding of medals. They won't be able to do this, because there isn't one. At best, they can argue that the awarding of medals isn't "explicitly" endorsed in the constitution, which therefore makes it unconstitutional. Now, you could try arguing that it falls under sections like the necessary-and-propers clause, but that will only give them room to squirm. Instead, I would point out that Congressional Gold Medals have been around longer than the constitution itself, and have been given out ever since. Here's a brief history of some of the earliest awards:

1776 George Washington.
1777 Major General Horatio Gates
1779 Major Henry Lee
1781 Major General Nathaniel Greene
1787 John Paul Jones
1800 Captain Thomas Truxtun

If the founding fathers disapproved of Congressional Gold Medals on principle and found them unconstitutional, then why isn't there any record of this? Why do the founding fathers need Ron Paul to speak on their behalf? Is it the same reason that Rosa Parks needs Ron Paul to speak on her behalf?

Point #3: But those were military gold medals, not civilian!
Please let us know the exact passage in the constitution that says that congress can award medals to the military, but not to civilians. Oh wait -- it doesn't. If you're going to make an argument on constitutional grounds, then you need to be apply the constitution consistently. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the constitution that endorses or restricts either of these awards. Either both types of awards are constitutional, or both types of awards are unconstitutional. The first case disproves Ron Paul, and the second case is disproved by history. Which is it?

Point #4: Congressional Gold Medals Fall Under the Tenth Amendment!
Ah, the "states right" argument. It's bullshit. Are you honestly telling me that the authority of Congressional Gold Medals falls under the individual states? Do you even understand what the phrase congressional gold medal entails? Do you actually believe that when Captain Thomas Truxtun was awarded the congressional medal in 1800, that he received that award on behalf of the individual states, and not on behalf of all of congress?

Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!
Wrong. The bill in question was only a few pages long, and would have taken less time to read then it would have taken for him to deliver his speech against it. If he didn't read it, then that's another example of Ron Paul incompetence. If he did read it, then he would have caught the following passage:

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS. The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS. The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. FUNDING. (a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS.--There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act. (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. 113 Stat. 50-51

In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.

Point #6: Is there any evidence that a medal was ever created?
Yes, there was. In fact, you can still order a replica online from the US Mint for $38. Of course, this is another attempt to twist and squirm, since Ron Paul never opposed the bill on the basis that they would be unable to live up to section three.

Point #7: But what if they couldn't sell enough replicas to cover the cost?
Another attempt to twist and squirm, because Ron Paul never opposed the medal on the basis that he didn't think that the replicas wouldn't be popular enough to cover costs. Which is a silly argument to begin with, because why should profitability be our main criterion for whether or not we honor an American hero?

Point #8: But the first medal was still tax payer funded!
Wrong. From the US Mint Homepage:

Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.

What part of "self-funded agency" do Paultards not understand? The US Mint has been around since the time of our founding fathers, and not are they non-tax payer funded, but they also turn over a surplus that provides an additional source of revenue (which would actually save money in the long run.). They make over a billion dollars per year, from the sale of coins and medals, which is enough to cover the cost of the Rosa Parks medal 33,333 times over. Far from being a waste of money, the popularity of the Rosa Parks Medal would have likely been very profitable for the US Mint. I think they've been around long enough and made enough in sales to know what they can and can't make money from.

So no, the medal wouldn't have been tax payer funded. The initial cost would have been funded from the sale of previous products, and the revenue from the duplicates would be used to fund more congressional medals in the future. That's sort of how the US Mint works, which I was able to figure out after two minutes on google. I would hope that Ron Paul, a congressman hoping to run for President based on his knowledge of economic policy, would be aware of US Mint.

Point #9: But the sale of congressional gold medals is unprofitable!
This line comes from an article by Joelle Cannon, a congressional staffer. The article reads as follows:

As of September 11, 2006, gold’s closing price was around $590.40. According to the Treasury, each Congressional Gold Medal contains 14.5 troy ounces or 16 regular ounces of gold. Thus, the gold in a medal minted today is worth roughly $9,446.40. As stated below, the CBO estimates the cost of the bill to be $35,000. Sales of most duplicate medals are not strong enough to offset the cost of the gold medal (source: http://goldprice.org/gold-price.html).

Sound pretty damning, huh? Few problems. First off, the article isn't written in response to the Rosa Parks medals. It was written in response to a congressional medal for Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, who I'm sure that most people have never even heard of, so it's hardly surprising that his medal would have been unprofitable. And since the proposal never made it past the opening introductions, it's irrelevant. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Rosa Parks is a tad bit more well known, and would have slightly better sales. Moreover, this claim on insufficient isn't warranted or qualified in anyway:

The source provided doesn't actually support the main claim on profitability, it only supports the claim that gold is expensive. And why is a congressional staffer citing goldprices.org anyway? Shouldn't they be citing something more official?
In April of 1999, the cost of gold was roughly $280-$285, less than half of the 2006 figure cited in the article. So even if a Congressional Gold Medal wouldn't be profitable today, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be profitable in 1999.
No numbers are provided to back up the claim. Examples, "In the past 50 years, duplicates only pull in an average of X dollars in profit per medal, while the medals themselves have cost Y dollars produced, using constant dollars that were adjusted for inflation."
There is a fallacy in assuming that just because some or even most congressional medals are unpopular, they must all be unprofitable, or even unprofitable as a whole. This is a faulty assumption. Along the same lines, most movies have traditionally been unprofitable, when you factor in the costs of marketing and productions. However, the movies that did pull in a profit were so profitable that they were able to make up for the difference.

Of course, this is all just another attempt to twist and squirm. The fact is, even if most medals are unprofitable, there is no evidence to suggest that the Rosa Parks medal was unprofitable, and Ron Paul never made his argument based on this assumption anyway. The US Mint is profitable overall, completely self-funded, and the cost of the Rosa Parks medal is still insignificant in terms of their overall expenses and revenue.

Point #10: But if the US Mint is a source of revenue, then any loss in revenue would have to be made up for in tax dollars!
This is a really, really, really stupid attempt to twist and squirm, and again, not the argument that Ron Paul was making. You can't equate a potential loss of additional revenue with direct tax payer funding. This argument is such an incredible stretch that it's hard to come up with a sensible analog. The best I can come up with is a person who spends $1000 on a new computer, assuming that the productivity gains from the new computer will pay for itself in the long run, and someone else insisting that the purchase on the new computer represents an unfair waste of tax payer money, because the person who spends $1000 on a new computer will have less money to donate to the his son's high school school and the school will have to make up for the funds in elsewhere. Huh? And of course, this is only assuming that the Rosa Parks medal is a complete failure and pulls in zero dollars of revenue, which is entirely baseless.

Point #9: But Ron Paul said it was tax payer funded!
Well, it wasn't. Read the bill for yourself. Either Ron Paul is lying, or he's incompetent.

Point #10: Ron Paul volunteered to donate $100 of his own money to the medal!
Well, then he lied, because he didn't. This speaks wonders on Ron Paul's ability to live up to his own promises. He got his wish, the medal wasn't tax payer funded, and it would be paid for by private donations (through the sale of replicas.). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Ron Paul ever followed through on this promise, not even from Ron Paul himself, even though he's had ample opprotunity to bring it up. Hell, remember that $500 that he received from Don Black a few months ago, which Ron Paul refused to return? Ron Paul could have purchased 13 bronze medals with that money. Why didn't he? He had the cash, he didn't need it, and it would have shown that he was sincere in his rejection of Neo-Nazi support and his praise of Rosa Parks. Instead, I supposed that Ron Paul figured that the money would be better spent on more important things, like turning uppity Negroes into living billboards.

Point #11: Ron Paul never promised to donate to a duplicate, he only promised to donate if other congressmen did!!
So in other words... Ron Paul was only willing to donate to charity if it was mandatory for all congressmen? And not from the kindness of his heart? That's not the libertarian rhetoric I've heard regarding private charity in the past. But I forgot -- most libertarians are raging hypocrites. They like to talk about private charity all right, but actually contributing is another matter.

Point #12: But Ron Paul also voted aginst the medals for Ronald Reagan, the Tony Blair, and Frank Sinatra!
Yeah, so? Ron Paul has called Ronald Reagan a complete failure, and he's called Tony Blaire a pinko commie. And while Frank Sinatra might be a great guy, I don't think he's quite at the level of Rosa Parks.

Point #13: The point is that Ron Paul is consistent!
No he's not. In December of 2001, Ron Paul actually attempted to introduce legislation to congressional medals to every veteran of the cold war:

Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

`(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.

`(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.

`(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.

`(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'

Estimated cost: $240,000,000. Enough to pay for the Rosa Parks Gold medal 8,000 with 8,000 different designs. And unlike the Rosa Parks medal, these medals medals actually would have been tax payer funded.

Point #14: But the cold war veterans were more deserving than Rosa Parks!
Really? The one that was won without a single shot being fired? That cold war? I'm not going to say that Rosa Parks put herself in more danger than all of them, but I am willing to say that she probably put herself in more danger than at least some of them. Mind you, it's not like soldiers serve entirely for free, and without compensation. They get money and training for the time they spend in the military, as well as plenty of other benefits. Rosa Parks? Not so much.

Point #15: Is any of this really important?
Well, it proves that Ron Paul is a liar, a hypocrite, and generally incompetent. So... yes. It also sets the backdrop for any future debate. Unfortunately, most Paultards have a habit of falling back on an Appeal to Ron Paul fallacy, where they assume that Ron Paul is honest and infallible and therefore we should always assume that whatever he says must automatically be true.

Point #16: But it's such a minor and insignificant point!
Then you should have no problem conceding it. Unfortunately, if you can't even concede on a "minor point" even when you're completely and utterly wrong, then you concede to the fact that you're completely incapable of rational/open minded debate. And if you're incapable of rational/open minded debate, then there's no point in going any further, with more abstract/general matters that would give you more room to twist and squirm and generally avoid accountability. On the other hand, if you refuse to concede because you think that you're right, then you should be willing to present an actual argument, rather than attempting to change the subject.

Conclusion:
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough. That's how you nail a Paultard, folks, but you have to stay firm and stand your ground. Don't let them evade, and don't let them change the subject until they've managed to settle the subject at hand. The goal is to stay as specific and as concrete as possible.

Link to this Article

Ron Paul Drinks Fiji Water

2008-02-02T23:13:00.000-06:00

(h/t to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)

Shocking news! Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in near future!

2008-02-02T20:06:00.000-06:00

From the Congressional Record:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the feasibility of establishing a gold standard.

As you know, I have introduced, and other members have cosponsored, H.R. 7874, which is a comprehensive bill to place the United States on a full gold coin standard within two years of the date of its passage.

I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse.

Absolutely shocking and completely frightening. If Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in the near future, then dammit, it must be true. Even more shocking is when the speech was given: February 23, 1981. That means that we're 27 years overdue, and that the hyperinflation that Ron Paul predicted in the near future is even nearer.

BTW, what about the rest of the article? Here's a basic summary of what Ron Paul has to say:

Myth #1: There isn't enough gold. False. There will always be enough gold, as long as we put our faith in the invisible hand to provide it.
Myth #2: A gold standard would enable Russia and South Africa to hold us hostage. False. There's a rumor that Russia already sold a lot of gold to Saudi Arabia, so we would actually be held hostage by the Middle East. Also, the only reason why gold is considered valuable is because of fear and panic, so if we return to the gold standard, than the fear and panic would end and gold wouldn't be valuable anymore and Russia wouldn't be in a favorable position, even though the value of gold was the very reason I advocate a return to the gold standard in the first place.
Myth #3: Gold causes depressions. False. Actual statement: "Were we to establish a gold standard, we would have to pursue a course that would not result in deflation and would not cause a depression. We would redeem at the market price for a period of one year the greenbacks we have printed, and then cease redemption, allowing the gold coins we have put into circulation to function as our money of account. If we proceed to a gold standard in an orderly fashion, such as I have proposed in my bill H.R. 7874, then there will be no depression. A gold standard cannot be achieved if we do not end our budget deficits as well. The standard must be accompanied by tax cuts, an end to the printing of paper money, and a significant reduction of federal regulations if we expect a restoration of a sound economy. Unless we are committed to all these things, even the establishment of 100 percent gold coin standard cannot stop our descent into economic chaos." Dear readers, feel free to cite this excerpt the next time you hear Ron Paul insist that he is only advocating for "competing currencies.
Myth #4: Gold causes inflation. False. It's almost as bad as the people who criticize Michael Bay for being too intellectual for audiences.
Myth #5: Gold would be speculative. False. After all, how could the invisible hand ever lead to economic instability?

Quick Links

2008-02-01T23:20:00.000-06:00

For people who want more content, here are some links to other blogs you might be interested in:

Paul Can Run But He Can't Hide: "The Paul campaign said in a prepared statement that Gray was not forthcoming about his background. But way back in August, Gray posted a notice on a prominent white nationalist blog announcing his involvement in the campaign. Moreover, this blog, along with others, exposed Randy Gray's activities before January 17 (that's when I first reported it). The Paul campaign, in releasing the statement, claims that they only learned about this over the past few days. This is a lie, since they took down the photograph of Paul and Gray as soon as vigilant bloggers exposed Paul's association with Gray."
Stunning Ignorance: "Good grief. First, Paul isn't about defending the Constitution at all. He is a states rights conservative who confuses the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. Worse, a lot of his philosophy is squarely in the neo-confederate camp." (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
Ron Paul is an Ignoramus Part II: "Ron Paul could not be more wrong in his economic arguments. He blames government intervention and the Federal Reserve for economic problems. He says monetary policies are the cause of the business cycle. When was the Federal Reserve created? How interventionist was the federal government prior to that moment? Why do we have government intervention in the first place?" (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
More independent research on Ron Paul's vote against MLK Day, and his criticism against Phil Gramm for not doing the same. (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
A Dimension of the Hegemony of Whiteness: "Paul is thus useful to the elite and this is why the media is playing along with the charade. To be sure, the corporate media pushes him back down when he starts to get a little too popular. Capitalists discovered in in the first half of the twentieth century that when you go all the way with right-wing authoritarian types, the results leave a lot to be desired. Thus it's better to have the ideas injected into the public and manipulate them that way rather than have the countermovement actually come to power." (Thanks to Andrew Austin).
Ron Paul Forums: "Why can't Ron Paul do what the other CFR does? Why can't we run 5 Ron Paul Republicans, so we can max out our donations to each of them...then let them all drop out one by one and endorse Ron Paul?" (Thanks to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)
DailyPaul.com attempts to steal a page from Bioshock. (Thanks to the Ron Paul Tumblelog)
Ron Paul Campaign removes Vox Day Endorsement from website. (Thanks to Sultan Knish).
Top Ron Paul Supporter Defends Slavery (Thanks to Sultan Knish)

If there are any other blogs I should know about, post a link.

Paultards Attempt to Ruin Huffington Post

2008-02-01T17:28:00.000-06:00

A fw days ago, a first time blogger named Heath Calvert wrote an article on the Huffington Post entitled "Why I support Ron Paul." The article follows the same talking points and assumptions that we have come to expect from Ron Paul Democrats: The idea of supporting Ron Paul would have seemed crazy a few months ago, youtube is only source of objective information, the federal reserve and the IRS are bad and should be eliminated, America is uninformed, Ron Paul isn't a "real" republican, the only reason people don't support Ron Paul is because they've been brainwashed by the media, no we're not crazy, and if you would only listen to Ron Paul speak for yourself you would realize that he is the new messiah who's only seen as crazy because he loves the constitution.

The vast majority of commenters there are supportive of Calvert. Does that prove that Ron Paul has more support among liberals than anyone could have anticipated? Does that prove that Ron Paul really could pull a victory off? No. Because it looks like the Paultards are attempting to spam Huffington Post, the same way they spam everything else. Huffington Post proudly displays which sites are linking to their articles, and here's are what they have:

Sites Linking to This Page...

Source Views

lewrockwell.com 5517

people.ronpaul2008.com 647

ronpaulforums.com 574

dailypaul.com 351

godlikeproductions.com 159

Hey Paultards, no one is falling for this. If they were, then you wouldn't need to send you legion of 5500 from lewrockwell.com just to spam them.

The Rise of the Ron Paul Democrat

2008-02-01T07:09:00.000-06:00

A few days ago, I made a post in mockery of Paultard "pshycology". It was fun for a laugh and all, but sure enough, in the past few days, I've noticed a lot of Paultards following ship. Has anyone else seen a rise in the self proclaimed Ron Paul democrats, or is it just me?

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Ron Paul democrats, it basically goes like this. They'll usually be in their late teens, and claim that they had affiliated themselves with the democrats for their entire lives, but after conducting some unbiased independent research (Re: Youtube), they are no planning to jump ship and join the Ron Paul bandwagon. They will urge their "fellow" democrats to be willing to cross party lines, and vote for Ron Paul.

So what defines a Ron Paul democrat? Well, usually, they're staunch believers in the Austrian School of Economics, who claim that taxes are a form of theft and that "men with guns" will come by if they don't pay. They support a return to the gold standard. They oppose labor laws, labor unions, and the minimum wage. They might claim that they disapprove of climate change and racism, but they believe that the invisible hand is the best solution to address it. They don't mind "don't ask, don't tell," and they consider gay sex immoral. They think that life begins at conception, and that abortion is a form of murder. There's a good chance that they don't accept the theory of evolution.

Most real world democrats are nowhere near that conservative. In fact, most republicans aren't even that conservative. Chances are that the typical Ron Paul "democrat" can't name a single policy that they disagree with Ron Paul on. Which means that they're either republicans, or they're life long Dixiecrats. The Paultards have realized that they're not gaining much traction within their own party, so they're deluding themselves into believing that Ron Paul has bipartisan appeal. When will the Paultards realize that they're not going to win many votes with these sorts of tactics?

Paultards are whiny crybabies

2008-01-31T08:43:00.000-06:00

See Paultard.

See Paultard cry.

Cry, Paultard, cry.

"Waaahhh!!! These elections are rigged! It's as if they were heavily biased in favor of the candidates who have actual support, or something! Why can't these debates be more like youtube, where a vocal minority can spam anyone we disagree with into oblivion? It's not fair, dammit!"

If Ron Paul can't even handle a simple debate, then how the fuck does he expect to run an entire country?

A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11 Drops out of the Race

2008-01-30T20:01:00.000-06:00

Rudy Giuliani has officially dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain. Will the Paultards please stop using "But Ron Paul beat Rudy!" as a talking point now? Big whoop, Ron Paul beat some guy who only won one delegate and isn't even running anymore. Real impressive.

Ninja vs. The Libertarian Party

2008-01-29T09:31:00.001-06:00

From SomethingAwful. Some of the comments are priceless.

A lot of the Paultards keep running conspiracy theories about upcoming assassination attempts. I think that this is the scenario that they have in mind.

Paultards attempt to use a little "pshycology"

2008-01-27T15:59:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Wonkette for picking this up. Chances are, you've seen the tactic used by Paultards in the past. But now, when people use this tactic, you can feel free to mock them by by citing this thread.

Ron Paul's Neo-Confederate Endrosement

2008-01-26T18:54:00.000-06:00

If you check out Ron Paul's official campaign website, you'll notice that one of his endorsements comes from a man name Jacob Bogle. Who is Jacob Bogle?

Jacob Bogle is actually the Chairman of the Southern Party of Tennessee, the Tennessee Division Commander of the Southern Confederate Front, the former Vice Chairman of the Southern Independence Party of Tennessee and oh yes, the creator of the Jefferson Davis Fan Club. In other words he's a neo-confederate and he does not appear to be a working minister.

That sure provides a whole other context to those "once glorious days", as does this badly misspelled essay on The Law of Natural Segregation on his website or this charming little poem on his party's website

You can read more about Jacob on the campaign site.

Samuel L. Jackson: Ron Paul can kiss my black ass

2008-01-25T21:16:00.000-06:00

Hilarious article that comes Samuel L. Jackson. No, it's not really him, but it is worth reading:

I went to a restaurant last night (secret place–I ain’t like those paparazzi pap-smears who make got-damn sure everyone in the world knows when they’re eating at a restaurant), and I had to take a shit. So I excused myself from the table, walked back to the men’s room, picked a stall, dropped my pants, and sat my black ass down on the cold motherfucking porcelain. Relaxed a bit, let it all fall out. Between the first and second shit-package, my ass made a sound not unlike “Ron Paul”. The next thing I knew, there were fifteen Ron Paul supporters outside the got-damn door, gyrating and blogging and commenting on how wonderful my Sam Jack shit was. Now, I know for fact that if I’d farted out a good “Mitt Romney,” wouldn’t nobody have done so much as a golf-clap.

They also have a fake blog for Ron Paul, but it's not as funny.

Randy Gray Hits the Big Time

2008-01-25T12:32:00.000-06:00

Hi, folks. Paul Henry here; you may be familiar with my Ron Paul diaries on Daily Kos, including the story I broke (picked up here) about Randy Gray, Ron Paul's official county coordinator for Midland County, Michigan, who also turns out to be an organizer with a faction of the Ku Klux Klan. Shortly after I began inquiring about the situation, all traces of Gray quietly disappeared from both the national and Michigan campaign Web sites, without any statement from the campaign on the matter... or so I thought. Last Sunday, Michigan field coordinator Leslie Roszman--to her credit--finally addressed the matter with a statement posted at ronpaul2008.com:

“It has come to my attention that one of our volunteers here in Michigan, Randy Gray, has affiliations with a racist and hateful organization. He was appointed to the volunteer position of county organizer for one of Michigan’s 83 counties. Randy Gray was not forthcoming about his background and he was in clear violation of the campaign’s code of conduct for volunteers. No one affiliated with racist organizations would ever knowingly be allowed to have any role with the campaign. Dr. Paul’s philosophy of freedom and individual liberty is the antithesis of racism.”

The Saginaw News subsequently ran a story on the matter, as did WNEM-TV, the CBS affiliate in Saginaw (if anyone has video of this story, I'd love to see it). Meanwhile, our old friends over at ronpaulforums.com deal with this story the only way they know how: deny, deny, deny.

"I'm still trying to figure out why racists would be attracted to Ron Paul. He is for individual liberty and they are not. I think they are plants."

"farrakhan endorses 0bama whats the big deal?"

"Maybe we should be focusing on the actual candidate they support instead of their supporters. The more KKK supporters the better. Right now I am inviting all KKK to join Ron Paul. All this means is more support for Ron Paul."

"Exposed - now we finally got a fall guy for newsletter authorship."

Links to other Anti-Paul Blogs

2008-01-25T05:32:00.000-06:00

It's not easy trying to keep up with all of the silliness that surrounds Ron Paul, and usually I try to pace myself. But for the readers who would like to see more, here are some other blogs you can check out:

First off, there's the Ron Paul Tumblelog. This site focuses on brief, easy to digest snippets. The Ron Paul Tumblelog includes a few news items that I didn't report on this site, but which I probably should have. These include:

Current blimp status. Epic fail. The Ron Paul blimp ran out of funding, and couldn't even succeed in making it's final trip to Boca Raton. Included is a link to the delusional fan reaction, crying conspiracy theory.
A link to a new Wired rticle: "One Candidate Has Mastered Online Campaigning. Too Bad It's Ron Paul." More on this later.
A link to James Kirchick commenting on the response to his story.

Next up, there's Revolusion 2008, by Sultan Knish. Sultan's claim to fame is his Pulitzer Prize winning reporting on DaronWestbrooke, poster child for the Ron Paulogist movement, and for his analysis ont he use of first person accounts in Ron Paul's newsletter. Sultan mainly focuses on finding amusing bits from Paultards for easy laughs.

Finally, there's Andrew Austin's blog, Freedom and Reason. Although it's not really a Paul specific blog, it does write a lot against him. Austin takes a much more academic approach, and was the one who located the microfilm proving that Ron Paul voted against MLK Day.

Ron Paul has over 100,000 "Endorsements," Paultards Continue to Ruin Digg

2008-01-24T00:36:00.000-06:00

A Paultard by the name of hedonisticpleasureseeker recently posted to the comments thread, bragging about how Ron Paul recently recieved over 100,000 endorsements. And not just any old endorsements, either, but endorsements from "bigwigs in academia, business, science, finance, media, and economics, all of whom say RP is "dead on" in his assessments of the economy and the state of human and civil rights in the U.S." That's a pretty bold claim. The source? Well, apparently, it came from a from a Digg link to a forum posting:
The original thread was posted back in November, and the Digg submission was only posted two days ago. Yet the Digg submission has managed to receive one Digg for ever three page views (And keep in mind that most people will visit a thread more than one time, in order to check out new postings). Also keep in mind that the forum post in question doesn't include a convenient "Digg this" button on it. This is strong evidence of the fact that Paultards will Digg just about everything on Digg without actually bothering to read it first. It also suggests that although Paultards are relatively small in numbers, they benefit from the fact that a disproportionately large number of them are spammers and Diggbots. A forum post with only a few hundred views can magically achieve 70 Diggs, just by saying something favorable about Ron Paul.

BTW, what exactly is the methodology of the page? Well, it's not just flawed, it manages to completely live up to the title of "Paultard. Apparently some guy ran the phrase "endorses Ron Paul" through google, got 100,000 hits, and concluded that every hit represents an individual bigwig endorsement. By the same Paultard logic, we can safely conclude that Al Gore didn't just win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that he won it over 4,000 different times. Honestly, only a Paultard could find this type of argument convincing.

Oh yeah, and the original thread which claims that Keith Olbermann backs Ron Paul? Yeah, that's just as dishonest as anything else you can come to expect from the Paultards. It links to a youtube video where Keith Olbermann states that "The crowd at a Republican debate booed not Ron Paul, not Adolf Hitler, but John McCain," and interprets that as an endorsement for Ron Paul. By that same deluded Paultard logic, it would also be an endorsement for Adolph Hitler. I'm pretty sure that Keith Olbermann wasn't endorsing Adolph Hitler.

Internal Paultard Chaos Erupts Over Possible Astronaut Endorsement

2008-01-23T18:00:00.000-06:00

The Paultards are continuing their tactic of reading endorsements into situations where no endorsement exists. From Wonkette:

In one of the better recent threads at Ron Paul Forums yesterday, someone floated the idea of courting Neil Armstrong’s support based on a blurb from the famous astronaut’s Wikipedia page: “The first man to walk on the Moon was also approached by political parties from both ends of the spectrum. Unlike former astronauts and United States Senators John Glenn and Harrison Schmitt, Armstrong has turned down all offers.” Later in the thread however, Armstrong’s ties with the CORPORATES are revealed — he’s a Freemason and a Skull & Bonesman, it seems, and therefore made up the moon landing!

And they wonder why people accuse them of being crazy.

Ron Paul joins anti-abortion protesters for Roe v. Wade anniversary

2008-01-23T17:56:00.001-06:00

This one comes from Raw Story:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul joined a Tuesday Washington, DC protest of the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for legal abortions in the United States. The anti-war and pro-liberty candidate showed that pro-life positions were also a central part of his political agenda in an address before the 2008 "March For Life."

The Paultards will ask if Ron Paul's stance on abortion really matters. Well, Ron Paul seems to think that it does. Why can't the people who are actually affected by his policies think the same?

Ron Paul Exagerrates His Stance Against the War on Drugs

2008-01-22T21:04:00.000-06:00

In his attempt to deflect accusations of racism, Ron Paul is quick to bring up his stance against the war on drugs. For instance, in his infamous CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul made the following argument:

"So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidates will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes."

For the moment, let's ignore Ron Paul's implication that helping out the drug community is the same thing as helping out the black community. And let's ignore the fact that just because you oppose the war on drugs doesn't exempt you from being a racist. Instead, let's look at Ron Paul's own writings and Ron Paul's own history. He may claims that his stance against the war on drugs proves that he's the anti-racist, but does his own website support him on this?

A quick search on Ron Paul's website pulls up four articles about the war on drugs. But his actual opposition to the war on drugs has absolutely nothing to do with race. Ron Paul is not against the war on drugs because he sees it as a war on black people, he's against the war on drugs because he sees it as a war on doctors, and a war on pain relief. Yes, black people do seem to account for a disproportionate number of drug arrests for things like cocaine relative to actual usage, and that's a major problem. But Ron Paul's articles don't seem to address drugs such as cocaine. Instead, he focuses on the drug laws surrounding things like OxyContin. If you actually read Ron Paul's writings on the subject, he's not terribly concerned with helping out the minorities of the world. He seems to be more concerned with helping out people like Rush Limbaugh:

"Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush The controversy surrounding popular radio host Rush Limbaugh’s use of the painkiller OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. In most cases patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, so doctors become the target of overzealous federal prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to ordinary doctors prescribing perfectly legal drugs. Federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers are being abused to ensnare innocent doctors.

It looks like the Paultards are now attempting to spin Ron Paul's defense of Rush Limbaugh into an example of how Ron Paul is a champion of minority rights. The record disagrees. His latest comments on CNN are a reflection of political opportunism, rather than genuine advocacy. Of all the minorities who are currently being arrested on drug charges, how many of them are being arrested for OxyContin? Of Ron Paul's four articles on the war on drugs, three of them center around pain killers, and two of them center around Rush Limbaugh. None of them center on race.

Some Guy Tries to Defend Ron Paul

2008-01-22T08:24:00.000-06:00

James W. Harris writes an essay in defense of Ron Paul. Here's a cliff notes version:

I do paid and volunteer work for a non-partisan group. And by non-partisan, I mean staunchly libertarian.
Ron Paul is the most honest and infallible candidate, because he says he is. And you can believe what he says, because he's so honest and infallible.
Ron Paul isn't a Nazi, he just likes to associate with them.
What's so bad about the gold standard? And please don't answer that question if you're not an Austrian economist.
The LA Riots piece was indeed indefensible, but I don't believe that Ron Paul wrote it. Please ignore the historical record where Ron Paul defended the piece, and took credit for writing it.
Other people believe Ron Paul. Why don't you?
I'm going to quote Kirchick out of context now and claim that he's reaching a conclusion that he doesn't actually reach, without recognizing the irony of my criticism.
Ron Paul was so busy as a public speaker that he didn't have time to read over his own material.
It's not like Ron Paul was the only conservative sending out racist newsletters back then. It was peer pressure!
Five years is an extremely short time period. Can anyone really expect Ron Paul to inspect his own newsletter once every 60 months?
Ron Paul isn't a bad person, he just follows really bad advice.
The fact that Ron Paul follows bad advice is actually a good thing, because it shows off just how determined he can be once he sets his mind to something.
If you add the word "clearly" to an assertion, it means that assertion is true.
If Ron Paul isn't racist on TV, then he couldn't possibly be racist in a private newsletter.
If something hasn't been recorded on audio/video, then it never happened.
Ron Paul can't be racist because he says that racism is an ugly form of collectivism. In much the same way that Ted Haggard can't be gay because he says that gay sex is immoral.
Ron Paul once signed a letter on behalf of a gay man. And we all know how carefully Ron Paul monitors his own signature.
Ron Paul likes Rosa Parks so much that he's willing to deny her a gold medal and insist that he knows what she would have wanted better than Rosa Parks herself would know what she would have wanted.
Ron Paul is Jesus.
Ron Paul is not a racist, because he's willing to fight tooth and nail for Rush Limbaugh.

Paultards Don't Care About Black People

2008-01-22T00:17:00.000-06:00

As we all know, the Paultards attempted to prove how anti-racist they are by changing the focus of Martin Luther King Day into a massive fundraising event for the man who voted against it. They were hoping to break brand new records in both cash and donors, and ended up failing miserably on both counts. The $1.85 million that Ron Paul raised for himself yesterday might sound impressive, but it was less than half of what they raised for Guy Fawkes Day, and a third of what they raised for blimp inauguration day. Apparently, the Paultards care more about a failed British terrorist who attempted to commit mass murder for the sake of issuing a Catholic Monarchy than they care about Martin Luther King. It isn't even close.

Is the Ron Paul voter base starting to dry out? Well, maybe not. It looks like David Duke, the Anti-Racist Grand Wizard, hosted his own money bomb yesterday. So perhaps Ron Paul's voter base is just strong as its ever been, but the people who would normally vote for Ron Paul would rather spend their money on Robert E. Lee?

Wonkette provided the above video of one of the Paultard MLK marches. Ron Paul supporters are to Martin Luther King Day what the Cadbury Bunny is to Jesus. The only minority I spotted during the rally up at the 1:00 mark. He's not holding any sign and keeps avoiding the camera, so he may simply be a bystander who was trying to catch a cab. At the 2:30 mark, you see a guy with a Guy Fawkes mask. Because, you know, Martin Luther King and Guy Fawkes are totally interchangeable.

Ron Paul Scores Second in Nevada

2008-01-20T02:57:00.001-06:00

So it looks like the the online Paultard-ary will be renewed for another two months. Ron Paul scored second place in Nevada, which will likely fuel another round of conspiracy theories, delusions, and accusations of media censorship.

Although Ron Paul managed to score second, it's the least impressive second place in the entire race, but in terms of raw percentage, and in terms of the difference between first and second place. Mitt Romney earned nearly four times as many votes as Ron Paul, so it's not as though Ron is nipping at his heels.
Turnout was low. Really low. To put it into perspective, Mitt Romney barely earned more votes in Nevada than what Dennis Kucinich earned in Michigan. Ron Paul received half as many votes in Nevada compared to what Bill Richardson earned in Nevada. Which just goes to show, Paultards tend to do better in the races where other people don't catch up, because those are the ones that are the easiest to spam.
Because of the predicted low turnout, the other candidates didn't bother to make an effort. Ron Paul had radio and TV advertisements almost entirely to himself.
In terms of raw percentage, 13% isn't that much of an improvement compared to how well Ron Paul has done in other races.

Anyway, none of this will shut the Paultards up, who desperately need something, anything that they can cling to. Remember, these people are conspiracy theorists, they'll take what they can get. My suggestion is to reply with a snarky remark, like "Gee, that's really impressive. It would be even more impressive if anyone actually bothered to show up." If you have your own suggestions, feel free to put them in the comments.

Paultards still don't get it

2008-01-17T03:57:00.001-06:00

Guys, the problem isn't the perception that your guy can't win, the problem is the perception that your guy is fucking crazy.

Ron Paul Speaks at Bob Jones University

2008-01-16T23:44:00.001-06:00

In anticipation of his upcoming MLK Day money bomb, Ron Paul has decided that the best way to prove that he isn't a racist is by appearing as a guest speaker at Bob Jones University. For those of you who aren't familiar with the controversy, Bob Jones University refused to admit black students until the 1970s, and only for the sake of maintaining their tax exempt status. The school is also infamous for their policy against interracial dating.

A few days ago, I went on a tangent about Ron Paul's refusal to award Rosa Parks a congressional medal, despite calling her one of her heroes. A lot of Paultards are even tasteless enough to cite his speech against her medal as evidence against being racist. So let's get this out in the open, once and for all:

Ron Paul claims that the bill is immoral because it uses tax-payer money. False. If Ron Paul had actually read the bill, which was only a few pages long, then he would known that the medal would have been funded through the sell of replicas.
Ron Paul claims that the medal would be unconstitutional. False. Congress has been giving out medals since 1776. Obviously, the founding fathers didn't mind.
Ron Paul claims that the medal wasn't in the spirit of Rosa Parks. False. Rosa Parks was still alive at the time. If she didn't approve of a medal, doesn't Ron Paul think that Parks would have said so? It's not like she's a stranger to standing up for herself. What gives Ron Paul the authority to speak on her behalf?

The Paultards would like to brag that Ron Paul thinks of Rosa Parks as his hero, and how he heroically volunteered to donate $100 for it if he could avoid charging the tax payers. But did he go through with it, by purchasing replica? Or did he make the promise, and then not go through with it? We don't know. But since Ron Paul continues to insist that he volunteered to pay $100, rather than simply saying that he purchased a regular to contribute to her fund, it seems unlikely.

Ron Paul Chalk Art

2008-01-16T23:20:00.000-06:00

Tired of seeing Paultards messing up public property? SpencerSHU has the right idea. Here's huge gallery of Ron Paul Chalk art, available on flickr. These were put up last October. I don't have an account on flickr, but if anyone could give him a heads up about this site, that would be nice.

New Flyer: Fans of Ron Paul, this is your future.

2008-01-16T09:15:00.000-06:00

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I haven't had any to display until now. Anyway, in light of the recent election results, there will be some Paultards who will feel demoralized, and others who will feel that they need to work harder than ever. For the second group, here's a flyer that you can use to send them a message:
In related news, somethingawful.com just created a page called the Ron Paul Political Report: Kidz Page. It features some printable graphics for general mockery.

Ron Paul: Where 6% is a victory

2008-01-16T01:33:00.001-06:00

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Update: Here's a copy of the bill. The part about using taxpayer money? Wrong. The medal was paid for by the sale of replicas.

More Newsletters Emerge, Ron Paul Listed as Editor

2008-01-15T20:08:00.000-06:00

How did we miss this one? The New Republic has gone up yet another notch, by providing yet another batch of Ron Paul's old newsletters. You can find them here. The most damning piece of information is that the fact that Ron Paul is listed as the editor and publisher. So Ron, if you weren't the editor and publisher, then who was? Was there a ghost editor that we should know about?

Newsletter Authorship

The masthead of March 1987 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists "the Hon. Ron Paul" as "Editor and Publisher" and "Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr." as one of several contributing editors.
An undated personal solicitation letter--signed by Paul--asking the recipient to subscribe to his newsletter in anticipation of (presumably) the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominating convention.

The April 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Paul as Editor.

The May 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Lew Rockwell as Editor. It also advertises books by the far-right conspiracy theorist Gary Allen, who was a contributing editor to the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

How will the Paultards spin themselves out of this one? If Ron Paul can find the time to list himself as the editor during his 1988 presidential run, then how can he claim that he didn't have time to work on it when his presidential campaign was over? As always, our FAQ be updated momentarily.

Meanwhile, the Paultards on Digg have ran a successful keeping this story buried. Media blackout, anyone? It's funny, because when you search for "Kirchick" or "Angry White Man," you'll find plenty of articles attempting to refute the piece (usually with nothing more than personal attacks against the author), but no actual reference to the piece itself. Kirchick's story has been featured on the national news and even forced CNN to defend himself, but apparently it doesn't meet the high standard of Digg.

BREAKING: Ron Paul's Klansman Kampaign Koordinator

2008-01-15T19:30:00.000-06:00

Paul Henry of dailykos has the story:

As voters in Michigan go to the polls to vote in today's primary, volunteer coordinators for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are working hard across the state. One of these is Randy Gray, a 29-year-old resident of Midland, Michigan whom the Ron Paul 2008 Michigan Campaign Web site lists as the Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. Gray's campaign profile page, a cached version of which can be seen here, doesn't go into much detail; there's a picture of Gray with the candidate, along with Gray's statement that "I support Ron Paul because he is in the fight for freedom." The page contains no mention of one of Gray's other roles: organizer with the Knight's Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan.

This is almost poetic. First the Blacks, then the Whites, and now the Grays.

In other news: Happy Birthday, Dr. King. I hope you're looking forward to Ron Paul's upcoming fund raiser in your your name.

Paultards Digg a Bigger Hole For Themselves

2008-01-15T04:32:00.000-06:00

So the Paultards have shown us their latest attempt at posting internet humor: "Proof of Ron Paul's Racism! ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE!" It's apparently an entire page dedicated to every minority who has has ever been photographed next to Ron Paul, as if to say, "Hey, Ron Paul isn't racist, libertarians don't see color. And just to prove it, here's him standing next to someone, who's black."

It's roughly equivalent to finding a photo of Scott Peterson where he isn't murdering someone, and then writing a link entitled, "Proof of Scott Peterson's murder! ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE, lol!" That's not funny. That's not even offensive. That's just stupid. But, like DaronWestbrooke has demonstrated to us, that doesn't matter. The goal isn't to come up with a solid argument, the goal is to come up with an argument that you can repeat often enough so that the thought will eventually become reality.

The real problem with this attempt at humor is that there's no punchline. The only thing that it proves is that the creators are completely clueless on matters of race. Sorry, but you can't undo decades worth of overt racism with a few snapshots. It doesn't work like that. Frankly, it trivializes the entire civil rights movements.

That websites a joke right? If not I have to say I'm sort of appalled and EMBARRASSED by what I'm reading here. You make a WEBSITE dedicated to the fact that you happen to have black friends? Let me ask you this, if you think that having black friends is novelty enough that you'd make a corny poorly designed website dedicated to it.... you're singling out black people as somehow being different enough that it's strange for whites to befriend them. That as far as I'm concerned is a form of racism. By the way, the pictures that you've plastered all over your site are ridiculous. Unless this is in fact a joke site, I feel that you've basically eliminated all your credibility.

--Arkera

If you want someone who pulls off the same joke correctly, check blackpeopleloveus.com. See, this type of website is funny when Johnny and Sally do it, because they realize that the entire argument is a joke. One of the mock testimonials describe what the Paulards are going for pretty accurately: "Sally has a habit of showing me her running tally of the number of black people she greets everyday. I feel unique and special to be part of her statistical list."

Followup on Jennifer Call

2008-01-14T15:51:00.000-06:00

A few days ago, we did a story on how Paultards were harassing an election worker named Jennifer Call, over their recent bout with soreloseritis. Now, it looks like the Paultards have an official explanation for their behavior: It's a conspiracy!

David805
Member

Some reality's of life.

1. Yes.. SOME of our ... Supporters are nuts ..

2. Some of the people here are not supporters of Ron Paul but claim they are.

3. The possibility that the people who called/sent email's /etc to this woman threating her and calling her names. Are actually not Ron paul supporters but GOP or even Democrat's who are trying to soil Ron Paul's name is quite high.

4. The recount will be done.. UNTIL the recount is done and a investigation is done NO ONE knows exactly all the facts. So i Caution anyone from causing hysteria before there is some evidence to prove without a doubt that fraud took place.

5. Those people who did harass this poor woman do not support Ron Paul.. If they did they would never have done what they did.

6. Until Proof Beyond a shadow of a doubt is presented we can not rationaly form a INFORMED opinion about this issue.

Ah, the "libertarians are infallible and anything that says otherwise must therefore be wrong" fallacy. After all, Paultards would never amount to harassing people, right?

Edit: Reading through that thread, the most annoying thing about it are the Paultards who insist that "Saying that it was an honest mistake is not enough!", as though they've never made a mistake before in their entire lives. Honest mistakes happen. This was a mistake of minor consequence. The only thing you can do is correct your mistakes when they're pointed out to you, which she did. Which is a lot more than I can say for Ron Paul. What's done is done. What more do you want from her? At this point, the Paultards are just upset over their recent defeats, and they're just looking for someone to vent their frustrations on.

Ron Paul gains support among the Blacks!

2008-01-14T09:03:00.000-06:00

I think the above graphic speaks for itself.

In other news, people are still complaining, "But if Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, then why would he oppose the war on drugs?" So to settle this, here's his solicitation letter. Check out page one, second to the last paragraph.

Alert the presses! A Mexican Staffer Supports Ron Paul!

2008-01-13T23:44:00.000-06:00

As a followup to our earlier post, here's a new one by former Ron Paul staffer, Stewart Rhodes, who writes that I am a Mexican-American, I worked for Ron Paul in the 1990’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist! Here's the gist of it:

People wouldn't be digging so much dirt on Ron Paul unless he was innocent.
Stewart is a Mexican American, and Ron Paul never once spit on him.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, and libertarians are infallible. Ergo, Ron Paul is infallible.
How could Ron Paul possibly be a racist, when his own website denies it?
I failed high school history, and still don't know the difference between "socialist," "national socialist," and "not-libertarian."
Did you know that I'm not a Nazi? Therefore, Ron Paul can't be a racist.
Libertarianism and racism are antithetical. In fact, the only thing that we have in common with them is that we both want a lot more liberty.
Ron Paul is the champion of the constitution. He earned the title after a grudge match with Mr. T, who may or may not be black (Only collectivists see color).
It's absurd to say that the constitution was racist. In other news, slavery isn't racist.
Ron Paul denies the story on his website. I believe him. Why are we still discussing this?
Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race, and apparently not on whether or not they're qualified to write articles under Ron Paul's name in the first person detailing Ron Paul's personal experience before Ron Paul signs off on them.
I never heard a racist comment from any of the staff. The ghost writer was literally ghost like. As in, a dead person's intangible spirit. Remember the PBS children's show? Like that.

Completely lacking in this article: How the newsletter could be printed for decades without anyone on the staff even being aware of the contents. Yes, Stewart Rhodes claims that he never saw anything racist while working there. If he said otherwise, he would have to explain while he was still working for a blatant racist. Unfortunately, that still doesn't explain how so many articles could slip through without a single staffer being aware of them.

Alert the presses! Another black man supports Ron Paul!

2008-01-13T19:47:00.000-06:00

It's pretty funny, and pretty sad. It seems that whenever we have evidence that Ron Paul is a racist, the best that the Paulbots can do is say, "Oh yeah? Well, what about these photos of Ron Paul hanging out with black people? And he's not lynching them or throwing things at their heads or nothing!" For instance, in light of the recent Kirchick scandal, the best that the camp could do was to distribute a photos from the 1960s of Ron Paul standing next to a black family. The Paulbots at the ronpaulwarroom acted as though this one photo completely disproved all accusations of racism, with comments like, "Nice research, M. York. Too bad the major media didn’t have time to check this story out before spreading it like so much manure on a garden."

There are even people in that thread who are trying to spin the story into saying that the woman in that photo was actually Rosa Parks. Because that's exactly how Rosa Parks looked in that era. Actually, that's exactly how all black people look, period. All black people look alike. One of them writes, "Stokely Carmichael, I believe is the gentleman on the left side of the photo. I don’t recognize the man to the right of Rosa but he looks familiar. I believe he worked with Martin Luther King too."

The problem with this type of rebuttal is that it is incredibly insulting. First off, it does nothing to refute the evidence. Second, you're assuming that because a few black people support Ron Paul, then they all must support Ron Paul. Remember, only 10% of black people vote republican, so how can the small group of Paul supporters speak for the entire race? Third, it shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding on what racism actually is. Here's a hint: Just because you don't own slaves, that doesn't mean that you're not a racism.

But what's even funnier is how we always seem to see the exact same photos, and the exact same youtube videos, regardless of the board I happen to visit. It's almost comical, as though whenever a black republican uploads a photo of himself standing next to Ron Paul, the Ron Paul community goes bananas. "OMG, another black man supports Ron Paul! Quick, alert the presses! Alert your friends! Tell the world!!!" Again, it's pretty insulting. As those the entire minority population should flock like lemmings over a single Pied Piper.

The latest example comes from a black man named Nelson Linder, President of the Austin chapter of the NAACP. Alex Jones of Prison Planet reports that Linder doesn't think Ron Paul is a racist, and sure enough, the blogosphere is now on fire with their comments of "OMG, THE (Austin) NAACP President says that Ron Paul isn't a racist! Case closed! There is no further discussion!" I see these postings everywhere, from sheep looking to spread the word. Because is one black man supports Ron Paul, then they all should support Ron Paul. Otherwise, they've be acting as collectivists. Mind you, Linder doesn't actually address any of the evidence or the accusations directly. All that he says is that he doesn't believe that Ron Paul is a racist, and that Ron Paul was being quoted out of context. Great. And there are women out there who believe that Richard Ramirez is innocent, but that doesn't disprove the fact that Ramirez was a murderer and a rapist. "I believe" is not an argument.

Why is it that when a white supremacist supports Ron Paul, the Paulbots will dismiss it as irrelevant, but when a black person supports Ron Paul, OMG, it becomes the most relevant piece of evidence ever? Especially when Ron Paul is vastly more popular among the white supremacists? It's almost as though there's some sort of double standard. Remember, a white supremacist is defined by his personal ideology, so it's fair to assume that he supports Ron Paul for ideological reason. On the other hand, a black person has absolutely no control over being black. So their reasons for supporting Ron Paul could be completely unrelated.

For instance, Nelson Linder might support Ron Paul because he lives in Ron Paul's district and Ron Paul is good at bringing home earmarks, he might support Ron Paul because he's an active listener of Alex Jones and he believes that 9/11 was an inside job, or he might support Ron Paul because he's wealth and because he doesn't like to pay taxes. Who knows? For some reason, the Paulbots seem to believe that the race of a few supporters is a better indication of your ideology than the ideology of your supporters. Isn't that a bit racist in itself, by any standard?

Update: Ron Paul's website reads, "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism." Does that include the Austin Chapter of the NAACP?

Newsletter FAQ Updated Again

2008-01-13T07:55:00.000-06:00

The newsletter FAQ has been updated again. It's late, so I'll proofread it later. The main change has been to include some articles from Reason.com and Cato, which provide a wealth of references and opinions.

By the way, here's a flashback from Ron Paul's 12/23/07 interview on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "'Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000. No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?
REP. PAUL: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part, that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas. That was the tradition, the Robert/Taft wing of the party. There was a time when the Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending. So the radicals, the ones who really don't belong in the Republican Party and why the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals any more. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as Republican. I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian. But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now.

This was three weeks before the Kirchick story broke. Does anyone else notice how Ron Paul never denies Russert's reference to his newsletter?

New FreeAtLast 2008 Video

2008-01-13T00:23:00.000-06:00

The campaign at FreeAtLast2008.com have released a new ad, which attempts to use footage and audio from MLK to imply that he would have endorsed Ron Paul's campaign:

This isn't the first time the right wing has pulled a stunt like this. In 1996, advocates for Proposition 209 used images of Martin Luther King in their advertisements, in order to imply that he would be against affirmative action, until the King family protested. Now, it looks like history may be repeating itself. And it's not a coincidence. During the video, the narrator makes the following statement:

"Please join us on January 21st, as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by acting together to support Dr. Ron Paul. A new hero who fights for the same American principles of liberty and justice for all."

The last sentence is seems out of place. Out of all the documents you had availabel to you, why quote the pledge of allegiance? This looks like it may be a reference to Ward Connerly, a republican/libertarian who was the main driving force behind proposition 209. With Liberty and Justice For All was the title of his 1996 essay, where he would once again falsely imply that Martin Luther King would have opposed against affirmative action. Ron Paul and his cronies are wrong when they say that they respect Martin Luther King, when what they actually seem to respect is the Ward Connerly reinvention of him. It isn't all that different from what they did to supply side Jesus.

Paultards on the Attack

2008-01-12T20:57:00.000-06:00

Some of you may have heard about the conspiracy theories involving "voter fraud" in New Hampshire. Basically, an election worker makes a simple mistake, and the Paultards freak out. It's amazing how they can easily forgive Ron Paul for decades of racist newsletter articles, but one volunteer worker makes an inconsequential mistake about Ron Paul, and suddenly there's hell to pay. The Concord Monitor reports the story:

The assault picked up after lunch. Paul supporters phoning Call claimed to be from the media. Others just yelled, saying she had committed treason, fraud. One person said she should be shot. She received as many as 40 calls that day.

"One person said he was on a nationally syndicated radio station," Call said, "and he has given out my phone number and they need to call the town of Sutton to find out why there's voter fraud."

The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.

A man from Texas e-mailed that he was "contacting, by certified mail, the Attorney General of New Hampshire . . . and requesting a complete investigation and prosecution of any and all parties involved."

A police dispatcher in New London said yesterday she'd received inquiries about the clerk's office phone.

Call got a handful of calls that night at home, refusing to pick up whenever an out-of-state number appeared on her screen.

Although some of the posters at ronpaulforums are apologetic, others are not:

this really only begs one question, If Jennifer Call didn't write the wrong vote down, then:
WHO WROTE DOWN THE WRONG VOTE?

gimmie a name
Until she fesses up who forged the wrong tally for Paul, then she deserves every single little damn bit of hell she receives. Give her Hell till she Confesses who it was that forged the wrong tally. Dont dare let her weasel out with a plea for pity!

And later...

what kinda idiots do they have running the voting there if they cant properly record a number from one peice of paper to another. i mean a 7 year old could do that. = clearly indicates fraud, and they thought they could slide with it. Look to the person that Actually wrote the Zero vote down for Paul. THAT guy is the criminal here.

Irony, thy name is Ron Paul.

Lighter News: The Conscience of a Ron Paul Supporter

2008-01-12T20:19:00.000-06:00

This one comes from Sultan Knish, who writes the following:

Ever wonder what goes on inside the head of a Ron Paul supporter who isn't a giant racist and actually has to rationalize supporting a blatantly lying candidate? Here you can have a look at how a Ron Paul supporters off the Ron Paul forums reacts to the revelations about the newsletters, tries to cope with it and adopts a "party line" which he doesn't really believe himself.

It's an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to "learn to love big brother" in the form of Ron Paul.

It's a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies. Since it's graphic intensive, it's rendered in a separate screen.

This article needs to be seen to be believed. We all knew that the Paultards were delusional freaks who would bend over backwards to defend Ron Paul, but rarely do we see one who is willing to chronicle his thought process, out loud, from beginning to end. The next time you're dealing with a particularly stubborn Paultard, I recommend that you point them to this article, so that everyone can have a good laugh at DaronWestbrooke's expense.

Keli Ata, a commenter at Sultan's blog, writes the following:

I'm pretty sure there's a psychological term for when one person's ego becomes so totally dependent upon a cult figure that a failure of one is the failure of the other. Daron isn't only defending Ron Paul--he's also defending himself

More on Ron Paul and Martin Luther King

2008-01-12T08:47:00.000-06:00

Was Ron Paul in favor of Martin Luther King Day?
If there's one thing that Paulbots love, it's spreading rumors to the point where they are accepted as irrefutable truth, even if there is no real evidence to support it. From Ameros to staff firings to to the idea that Ron Paul voted in favor of Martin Luther King Day. Unfortunately for them, they always seem to be short on actual evidence. Even more unfortunate, Andrew Austin, Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, has dug up at least one example to the contrary. The scan on the right comes from The Paris News (11/21/79).

Ron Paul and LewRockwell.com
LewRockwell.com currently features several pieces of Anti-MLK propaganda and other criticisms. For instance, Michael Epstein's Myths of Martin Luther King accuses King of being a plagiarist, a communist, and an adulterer. Despite this, not only does Ron Paul freely choose to associate with Lew Rockwell and write regular columns for him, but Lew Rockwell boasts that his website has received Ron Paul's first Freedom Website Award. The Paultards will likely respond by talking about freedom of speech even if you disagree with the content, but that's irrelevant. I have the freedom of speech as well, but I don't that Ron Paul will award me with a Freedom Website Award anytime soon.

Does Ron Paul support Martin Luther King's actual policies?
The following excerpts were pulled from The Right Has a Dream by Paul Rockwell (No relation to Lew as far as I know) and Misreading the Dream by Tim Wise:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." -MLK, "Why We Can't Wait"

"...for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation." -MLK, 1965 interview

Wise also presents the following real life example of how republicans had come to distort Dr. King's message, until protested by the King family estate:

For example, during the ultimately successful campaign in California to eliminate racial "preferences," supporters of Proposition 209 conjured the image of King repeatedly and, until criticized by the King family, had been planning to air a TV spot showing the "content of their character" segment of King's "Dream" speech.

Ron Paul insists that he considers Martin Luther King to be a hero. Does that mean that he actually supports and respect Dr. King's real policies? Is Ron Paul even familiar with Martin Luther King's real policies? Ron Paul's FreeAtLast2008 campaign appears to be making the same mistake as the Prop 209 campaign, attempting to capitalize on Dr. King's image to promote a platform that he would have opposed.

FreeAtLast2008's Disclaimer
When FreeAtLast2008 first went public at DailyPaul.com, even some of their own supporters cried foul. One of them wrote the following:

On December 21st, 2007 cactus1010 says:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE KING FAMILY LINK...NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION. YOU CANNOT USE HIS NAME FOR PUBLICITY WITHOUT PERMISSION. AND I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD GO FOR USING IT TO RAISE MONEY AS WELL.

The website founder, Vijay Boyapati thinks that it's important to create a disclaimer disassociating the website from Ron Paul's campaign, but he doesn't think to provide the same courtesy and respect to the family of Doctor King Family Estate. This, despite the fact that all of the graphics and banners rely entirely on the use of Dr. King's image, rather than Ron Paul's. This, despite the fact that Ron Paul has publicly endorsed the campaign in the national media and referred to it as "our" campaign, where as the King Family has not.

Ron Paul to be honored as America’s Civil Rights leader?
It just keeps getting worse and worse. Apparently the Paultards are using this event, not just to absolve Ron Paul of racism, but to try to prop him up as the next great civil rights leader. Check out the article here, which writes that freeatlast2008 is "designed to honor both Dr. Paul and Dr. King as Civil Rights leaders," and will "generate a 10 million dollar plus cash infusion for Paul’s campaign along with nationwide marches to honor Dr. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

In other words, just like a dog can be programmed to associate the idea of a ringing bell with salivation, the Paultards are trying to program their followers to associate the idea of "Dr. Paul" to "Dr. King." When you think Ron Paul, think "Nobel Prize Winner." You may think you're donating to Ron Paul, but you're really donating to civil rights. You may think you see people marching for Dr. King, but they're really marching for Ron Paul. Success! I'm surprised I haven't seen any youtube videos of Paul morphing into King and vice verse, but maybe that's only because I haven't looked

Ron Paul and his "Language"
In yesterday's post, I mentioned the January 1991 edition of Paul's newsletter. Here's an excerpt:

The official line among some conservatives and libertarians is that the civil rights movement started out well, but went astray after King’s death. In fact, it was bad from the beginning, never seeking the mere removal of Jim Crow laws, which would have been legitimate, but forced integration and wealth redistribution.

In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday.

The Paultards will claim that this was a ghostwriter. If this was a ghostwriter, then why bring up Ron Paul's personal experience from the 1988 campaign for Libertarian Presidential candidate? Why would he refer to his past congressional votes? The Paultards will claim that this is not Ron Paul's language. Note Paul's criticism of the civil rights movement as "forced integration," a term her would use to justify his vote against the civil rights act in 2004. But is it really Ron Paul's language? Lots of people could use that phrase? Well, maybe. But I found something on google just now.

"forced integration" yields 26,600 results.
"forced integration" +"Ron Paul" yields 4,230 results.
"forced integration" -"Ron Paul" yields 22,100 results.

In other words, if you find a page with the phrase "forced integration" on it, then there's a 1 in 6 chance that the page will somehow be related to Ron Paul. And that's just a general use of the phrase -- rather than in the specific context of an opinion column protesting the civil rights act.

Similarly, when Wolf Blitzer ran the newsletter segment, the first quotation he provided was "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Later, Ron Paul attempted to defended himself by claiming that he didn't "participate in that type of language," only to use that same phrase several more times during the interview.

Follow-Up: Ron's Defense on CNN

2008-01-11T20:24:00.001-06:00

This is a follow-up to yesterday's CNN story. A transcript is available as well. For those who want a cliff-notes version, the picture below pretty much sums it up:Remember kids, when the Paulbots proclaim that Ron Paul isn't a racist, contradict them. Instead, reply by saying, "Oh, that's right, he's the anti-racist," and then snicker. The snickering is what makes it funny. Oh, and if Ron Paul doesn't see people in groups, then why does his campaign ads promise to end visas for students from "terrorist nations," as though being born in the wrong country somehow makes you a terrorist? The people at Stormfront enjoy that ad so much that it shows up on every forum post on their site. But the ad isn't racist. It's anti-racist.

Racist: I hate the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.
Anti-Racist: I love the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.

Our FAQ sheet regarding the newsletter has been updated once again. A common Paulbot denial is that the "ghostwriter" had already been fired. But Ron Paul claims that he never knew about the newsletter, and never knew the name of the writer, so his own story would make that impossible. In related news, it turns out that the subscription manager of Ron Paul's newsletter is now the Texas Field Coordinator.

Dear Paultards: Stop leaving comments about how libertarians really are infallible, and how they really can't be racist. Those types of arguments aren't going to win people over. It's not only a non-sequitor, but it's also a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. You can't advocate a policy of "absolute freedom, except when you use your freedom to be racist, which is unacceptable." Doesn't work like that. Especially after you vote for the Civil Rights Act because it infringes on your freedom to discriminate.

Finally, I once again urge people to write into the Martin Luther King Estate, and ask them if they approve of Ron Paul's use of Martin Luther King's image to make money. Ask them if they approve of or endorse Ron Paul's platform on addressing racism, or the fact that he voted against Martin Luther King Day.

Ron Paul Officially Bastardizes Martin Luther King Day

2008-01-10T19:43:00.000-06:00

In today's interview with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul claims that he's the "anti-racist," and denies the allegations against him involving the recent newsletter. As proof of this fact, he lists the upcoming freeatlast2008, where he plans to hold his next "money bomb" on Martin Luther King Day. This is an event that's so tasteless that even a large group of Paultards from the ronpaulforums thought that it was a bad idea, although mostly because they didn't want to sully Dr. Paul's reputation by associating him with a filthy communist. I haven't written much about this in the past, because a) it didn't seem to be getting much publicity, and b) the Paultards could deny it by insisting that it wasn't part of the official campaign. Guess what? Not anymore. Check 1:50 into the video.

Hey Ron Paul, here's a newsflash: If you want to convince people that you aren't a racist, then using your own name to raise money for minority causes might help. On the other hand, exploiting Martin Luther King Day for your personal benefit, and without the permission of his family, makes it even worse. It's like the people who try to show off their patriotism by selling cheap plastic flags that were made in China at $5 a pop. Does Ron Paul think that minorities are stupid, and won't even notice? He must There is no other explanation for this.

The Paultards have tried to justify the use of MLK using their own twisted logic of how they both upheld freedom. Right. I'm sure that if MLK was alive today, he would start holding fundraisers in honor of religious terrorism, and advocating gun rights as his main platform. I'm sure that if MLK was alive today, he would be comparing Edward and Elaine Brown to Gandhi and to himself, just like Ron Paul did. I'm sure that MLK would have had his thugs chasing reporters down like rabid zombies while yelling obscenities and throwing snowballs. I'm sure that Martin Luther King would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Rosa Parks Medal of Honor, and Affirmative Action (Yes, contrary to what republicans have done to bastardize the King, here are his real stances on affirmative action.).

Ron Paul wants to claim that he is the anti-racist candidate, so I'm going to say four words that are long overdue, and which I haven't said until now: Fuck you, Ron Paul. You can't even handle the racism in your own staff in your own name, how the fuck can you proclaim to be the anti-racist candidate for the entire country? In order to bolster his point, Ron Paul uses some weak logic to say that he is the only candidate on either side willing to protect minorities from drug laws. There are some problems with this:

The argument seems to be based around the idea that if you oppose the war on drugs, then you can't be racist. I guess this means that Stormfront must not be racist either.
Yes, the war on drugs unfairly hurts minorities. A lot of things do, because minorities tend to be the least capable of defending themselves from abuse. Ron Paul's opposition to the war on drugs is entirely coincidental. Even if war on drugs was racially equitable, he would still oppose it.
Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs, nor will he protect people from anti-drug laws. He's simply going to make it a state issue, like he wants to do for abortion and gay rights. In other words, Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs. He's going to end the war on some drugs, in some states.
The main reason why the war on drugs is racist is because the inequalities involving cocaine enforcement. Guess what? Cocaine would still be illegal at the state level.
At best, most states would only decriminalize medicinal marijuana, which requires a prescription. Of course, most of the leading democrats have promised to decriminalize medicinal marijuana at the federal level as well. So what's your point?

Dear Paultards, I know that I have made the zombie comparison before, so let me make this clear: Leave the dead alone. Ron Paul is not Guy Fawkes, he is not Thomas Jefferson, he is not Mahatma Gandhi, and he sure as heck is not Martin Luther King. Stop exploiting the memories of dead people who can't speak for themselves. Why isn't it enough for Ron Paul to just be Ron Paul? Why can't you hoist Ron Paul up on his own accomplishments, rather than the accomplishments of others? Oh, that's right, because Ron Paul sucks, and his own list of accomplishments are non-existent. Good job.

I suggest that everyone write to the Martin Luther King Estate and ask them how they feel about Ron Paul using Dr. King's name for personal gain. Let's see how they respond. Surely, Ron Paul would have taken this simple step of seeing how they felt about his upcoming fund raiser before boasting about it on the air? I mean, it's not like he's completely incompetent and uncaring to the opinions of minorities, right?

Update: To everyone crying "That's a grassroots efforts, Ron Paul can't be held responsible!" don't bother. Ron Paul is the one bringing up the money bomb, and he's bringing it up in a way to suggest that it should absolve him of racism. He refers to the money bomb in the first person plural, rather than the third person plural. So Ron Paul still wants to take credit for this event, while denying responsibility for it. Gee, where have we seen that before?

Update: New Additions to the FAQ

2008-01-10T06:37:00.000-06:00

Just as a heads up, I recently update the FAQ regarding Ron Paul's racist newsletter, in response to the latest additions by James Kirchick. Tell your friends.

The folks at reason.com have started surveying the feedback within the libertarian community. Some, such as David Harsanyi, say they're done with Ron Paul. Others, like David Bernstein and Andrew Sullivan, are calling Ron Paul out for his poor judgment and management.

Meanwhile, a small group of Paultards at the ronpaulforums are disgusted by how Ron Paul is handling the matter, and demanding that his campaign do a better job at running damage control. Others continue to bury their head in the sand and insist that the problem has already been dealt with, and should never be brought up ever again. Guys, that's the sort of indifferent attitude that keeps you out of touch with the American people. The best quote comes from a person named Shavenyak:

Being a libertarian is inherently anti-racist. That alone should remove all doubt.

Ah yes, I forgot about the holier-than-thou "libertarians are infallible, and you're a full to ever think otherwise" defense. That argument must go over great in the real world. Especially among non-libertarians. I think the next libertarian candidate should have the slogan, "Vote for us, we're inherently better than you are."

Paultards wonder why women don't like them

2008-01-10T04:45:00.000-06:00

From the ronpaulforums:

We are losing big time with all these women voting for Huck/Mccain/Romney. What the hell these women thinking? Look at all the CNN exit polls. Ron only gets few percent of the women votes!! This is outrageous! All people here mostly guys?! Are meetup group people mainly guys?! Our men have no girlfriends/spouse/mistress?? Start talking to girls! Make them fall in love in Ron Paul by telling them the message of liberty! If that does not work, make them fall in love with Ron by falling in love with you. There are millions of desperate housewives, young girls, hillary girls waiting to hear our message of liberty!

That's right, Paultards. How dare you hypothetically associate yourself with women folk who have support a different candidate. What's wrong with you? You need to be all, "Bitch! Where's my dinner? And then after you fix my dinner, I want you to vote for Ron Paul! Bitch!"

Ron Paul doesn't like to speak in emotions. The womens can't understand him.

And it's exactly that sort of attitude that makes their lack of success among women all the more baffling. I think I understand the sway of the Ron Paul meetup groups. It's probably the closest thing that any of their membership have gotten to human contact in their entire lives.

Paultards Continue to Deface Our Currency

2008-01-09T19:19:00.000-06:00

Someone posted this to Ebay:

You are bidding on a piece of '08 Election History. This is a genuine 10 dollar bill with a stamp that says "RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT" on each side of the Bill.

Hey Paultards, stop pulling this shit. You're not winning any converts by vandalizing the monetary supply, sorry.

Paultards R Smarter than U11111

2008-01-09T07:24:00.001-06:00

In another attempt to explain their crushing defeat, the Paultards have reverted to a new strategy: Insist that no one understands them because they're just too damned intelligent. Yes, a group of people who can't even grasp the concept of random sampling are much smarter than you are. How do they know this? Because someone found a chart showing that some people have higher IQs than other people, so we can safely conclude that the people with higher IQs must be Ron Paul supporters. It's the sort perfectly sound logic you would come to expect from an intellectually superior individual.

Of course, the Paultards can't help but gush over their "discovery," and using that to rationalize their unhappiness and misery. It doesn't dawn on most of them that the bell curve is symmetrical and therefore goes both ways, that measuring IQ isn't the same thing as measuring an adherence to a specific ideology, and that bragging about your ~~penis size~~ IQ score doesn't hold much weight when you do it online.

Defeated Paultards Turn to Steve Buscemi for Inspiration

2008-01-09T06:35:00.000-06:00

Whenever libertarians talk to me about taxes and charity, I always think back to the opening scene from Reservoir Dogs, when Steve Buscemi tries to explain why he doesn't tip the waitress. Steve tries to take a principled stand on how he doesn't tip because society says he has to, but what it really boils down to is this: Steve Buscemi is a cheap bastard, who doesn't like to give his money to other people. At one point, one of the characters points out that the waitresses has to pay taxes on the tips, and Steve Buscemi answers back with, "Show me a paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball."

Ladies and gentleman, I now present you with the latest Paultard strategy to win votes after their humiliating defeat in New Hampshire, No Taxes on Tips. After watching all of their other efforts fail, this is what they're hoping that it will all come down to. Because yeah, Ron Paul might be crazy. He might be incompetent, he might be racist, he might deny evolution and attract the crazy vote. On the other hand, Ron Paul will make it so that you can stiff your waitress, completely guilt free. So I think it's worth it.

In an unsurprising turn of events, the Paultards are once again proving themselves to be sore losers. Some blogs have expressed disbelief over the fact that Ron Paul's performance in New Hampshire could be worse than his performance in Iowa, and are now crying foul. It turns out that New Hampshire had over twice the turnout that Iowa did, and it's a lot harder to spam elections when other people actually show up.

Another Crushing Defeat for Ron Paul

2008-01-09T01:42:00.000-06:00

Well, the results for New Hampshire are out. Ron Paul once again takes 5th place, and falls back into single digits. This defeat is even more crushing when you consider the fact that New Hampshire is generally considered to be the most libertarian state in the nation, home of the failed Free State Project. This proves what we knew all along: A small group of dedicated spammers and trolls do not speak for the entire nation.

Exit polls provide further data on Ron Paul's loss. Some basic findings:

Ron Paul receives votes from 11% of men, but only 4% of women.
Most Ron Paul voters are young.
Republicans are generally split on whether they approve of Bush.
Ron Paul voters are less likely to have a college degree than the average republican.
Ron Paul has the highest unfavorable rating of any other republican (57%). Second place goes to Mike Huckabee (44%). This refutes the argument of "The more people hear about Ron Paul, the more they like him."
Only 24% of republicans who believe that Iraq is most important issue. Of those, McCain supporters outnumber Paul supporters 6:1. Romney supporters outnumber Paul supporters 3:1. That's bad, since this is Ron Paul's main selling point.
In general, republicans favor reducing the deficit over cutting taxes by a margin of 54% to 44%.
81% of republicans are worried about terrorism, the remaining 18% are not.
Generally, the more recently the voter made up their mind, the less likely they will have voted for Ron Paul. This, again, suggests that Ron Paul has tapped out most of his available base.

Pretty enlightening.

James Kirchick Exposes Ron Paul's Newsletter

2008-01-08T18:28:00.000-06:00

James Kirchick's expose on Ron Paul's newsletter has just been released. Here's an excerpt:

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Kirchick has gone one step further than anyone else has, by presenting actual scans from the newsletter.

So how will this effect Ron Paul's campaign? The Paultards will likely reply with their canned excuses and talking points, most of which have already been refuted in a previous article. They had a hard enough time believing that Ron Paul would accuse black people of being fleet-footed, they will never believe that Ron Paul would accuse MLK of being a gay pedophile.

Allow me to suggest an alternative strategy. This article is important for a number of reasons. First, it will bring this story to the mainstream, where it belongs. Second, it will shed more light on Ron Paul's incompetence. If Ron Paul can't even handle an 8-page monthly newsletter, then how does he expect to be able to handle an entire country? If Ron Paul can't even prevent his own newsletter from calling MLK a gay pedophile, then how can he honestly consider himself an authority on addressing racism within the entire country? Ron Paul lists racism as one of his main campaign issues. He has zero credibility on the subject.

Remember, as stated in the previous FAQ, the best evidence against Ron Paul is Ron Paul's own statements. The Paultards can attempt to explain away the newsletter, but they have a much harder time explaining Ron Paul's official statements when Lefty Morris first broke the story in 1996. Every time a Paultard begins to twist and squirm, always bring them back to this key fact, and don't let them change the subject.

Chances are, you will probably never be able to convince a dedicated Paultard that Ron Paul wrote that newsletter. Instead, change your approach: If Ron Paul didn't write the newsletter, then how do you explain how he first responded? If Ron Paul is really fit to serve as president, then why hasn't he shown better leadership? These questions are just as important.

Source	Views
lewrockwell.com	5517
people.ronpaul2008.com	647
ronpaulforums.com	574
dailypaul.com	351
godlikeproductions.com	159