More Medals: Ron Paul and the Dalai Lama

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."

Ron Paul is Clueless About the 16th Amendment

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):

1. The 16th Amendment enabled Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals.
2. Until the passage of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
3. 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.
4. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Followup on Burma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dr. Nay" Votes "Yes" to Football

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay classy, guys.

Paultards Reject Free Market, Demand Government Intervention

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

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

Wonkette: Ron Paul Freedom Tax Rally Saves Economy!

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

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

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.

Ron Paul Cowers Away from GOP Debate Primary

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

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.

I Vow To Donate $100 to Ron Paul

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?

CLCV: Ron Paul's Stance on Global Warming

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.

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

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:

1. That the medal was tax-payer funded, and that we should look for alternative sources for funding.
2. That the medal was was unconstitutional
3. 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

The Rise of the Ron Paul Democrat

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?

Ron Paul Exagerrates His Stance Against the War on Drugs

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.

Ron Paul Speaks at Bob Jones University

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: Where 6% is a victory

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

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.