Paultards who can't read, Part II

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

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.

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."

Follow-Up on Bill Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Day, Another White Supremacist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul 2008: Hope for Gattaca

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul Launches New Ad On Immigration

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?

Austin Chapter NAACP President Backs Away from Ron Paul

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?

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

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's Neo-Confederate Endrosement

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.

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.

Some Guy Tries to Defend Ron Paul

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

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 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.

BREAKING: Ron Paul's Klansman Kampaign Koordinator

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

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."