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.

Another Day, Another White Supremacist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post Tuesday Fallot

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:

Shocking news! Ron Paul predicts hyperinflation in near future!

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

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.

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.

Ron Paul Officially Bastardizes Martin Luther King Day

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?