As anyone who visits this blog knows, Ron Paul used to put out a racist newsletter called "The Ron Paul Survival Report," of which only a few of the originals have been available. But all this is about to change.
On Tucker Carlson's show 45 minutes ago, The New Republic'sJamie Kirchick alleged that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile," and stuffed 20 years' worth of "Ron Paul" newsletters full of "racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective."
Kirchick, whose story for TNR (along with screen-shots of the newsletters themselves) are scheduled to go up at midnight EDT, said that Paul "called black people animals," and spoke at a "pro-secessionist conference." In teeing up the segment, Carlson, who was skeptical about some of Kirchick's claims, reported that the Paul campaign has apologized for the content of the newsletters to both Kirchick and Carlson.
I'm not a big fan of Sean Hannity or FOX News, but Jesus Christ, you guys need to calm the fuck down. For a group that claims to be anti-collectivist, you sure seem to have no problem forming uncontrollable mob groups of your own, only your uncontrollable mob groups are very much in the literal sense, rather than the figurative one. Do you really think that chasing people down like this is going to sway people to your cause? Really?
REP. PAUL: I'll be glad to answer that question because it's something I talk about all the time and it's a very important question. The Wall Street Journal yesterday had a very good chart that explains this. If you look at the price of oil in the last 10 years, if you look at it in terms of dollars, it went up 350 percent. If you look at it in Euros, it went up about 200 percent. If you look at it in the price of gold, it stayed flat. It's the inflation, it's the printing of money, it's the destruction of the value of the dollar.
This is a follow-up to yesterday's post, where Ron Paul managed misdiagnose American health care costs by blaming inflation. This time, Ron Paul manages to misdiagnose the oil crisis, by failing back on his old talking point.
If the issue was inflation, then the sudden increase to oil prices would have been the result of an sudden increase to to our checkbooks, which simply hasn't happened. No, the real problem is basic supply and demand. There isn't enough oil out there for everyone, which means that prices will have to rise in order to separate the people who can afford it from the people who can't. It's a natural, free market response that Ron Paul of all people should be aware of.
Ron Paul attempts to prove his point by citing price increases in other nations, but he ignores a few things: The fact that these nations have different supply/demand structures, the fact that these nations already had much higher gas prices to begin with due to taxes, and the fact that these nations aren't on the gold standard either. Further, his statements on the gold standard ignores the fact that gold would be just as scarce as oil. While the same amount of gold currency might purchase the same amount of oil, it's not like you would have a steady supply of gold currency as income, because there simply wouldn't be enough of it to go around.
Ron Paul is capitalizing on the fact that there is a lot of negative sentiment regarding oil prices, and he's attempting to blame it on his favorite scapegoat. Unfortunately, it's like watching Pat Robertson trying to blame Hurricane Katrina on Ellen Degeneres, or other comparisons that I wouldn't be able to make without invoking the wrath of Godwin. The only real solution is to either radically increase the supply of oil, which seems unlikely, or to significantly reduce demand, which would require increased mileage standards and alternative energies.
As a final note, I suggest everyone read Megan McArdle'sblog post from last December, which covers the same subject: "Ron Paul's supporters see the might of his common sense slashing through the doubletalk of the financial solons. I see a really, really smart economist responding to Ron Paul the same way you react to Cousin Mildred when she corners you after Christmas dinner to complain about the flouridation of the water supply."
REP. PAUL: There is an inflationary factor. We can't afford it. We do have good medical care, but the costs are so high now that our people in this country are actually going to India and getting their heart surgery done. They pay the plane ticket, the hospital, and the hotel and they get it for half price. So it's inflation.
But if you don't understand how inflation comes, we can't solve this problem. It comes from deficit financing with this war-mongering foreign policy we have.
(8:20 in)
In the past, Ron Paul has shown that he fundamentally doesn't understand the basic nature of inflation. But in the New Hampshire debate, Ron Paul reveals that he doesn't even understand his own arguments. Ron Paul usually rallies against inflation because of the fact that it has caused the value of fiat currency to decline, especially compared to the fiat currency in other nations. The Paultards will take this argument and run with it, insisting that the US dollar is "monopoly monopoly" that will soon become worthless.
So how does this argument against inflation apply to his example regarding India? It doesn't. The person who flies to India for a surgery isn't paying for the surgery in backed currency gold bullion. He isn't getting a job in Indian tech support to earn Indian backed currency until he has enough money for an Indian surgery. No, the person is taking the American dollars that he earned from his American job, and spending that money in a different nation. The money is adjusted for inflation, and it's adjusted for the currency exchange.
The fact that his money goes twice as far in India compared to how far it does in America isn't a sign that our dollar is weak. Quite the contrary. It's a sign that our dollar is relatively strong. Now, perhaps Ron Paul could try argue that while our dollar may be strong compared to India, it isn't as strong as it should be, and so the difference should be even greater. But that's not the argument that he was trying to make.
Ron Paul is making the argument that if people in India can perform surgeries for half as much money, then so should we. And maybe we should. But this isn't a problem with a problem with inflation. Remember, Cuba is another nation where surgery is much cheaper than in the US, and yet I doubt that Ron Paul would ask us to model our monetary system after Cuba. Ron Paul may be a doctor, but he's a doctor who likes to misdiagnose our economy based on his own personal biases, rather then finding the actual problems.
I've been spending quite a bit of time at Ron Paul's archives hosted at www.lewrockwell.com. There are a lot of articles there, all written by Ron Paul with the majority being his responses to specific bills in congress. Of course we have the old favorites such as his response to Lawrence V. Texas, or his calls to end birthright citizenship. But if you look closer you will find that these archives are a whole treasure trove of crazy.
This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.
This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.
Strong words by a brave man. Except none of it is actually true.
Ron Paul also explains how the Federal Government has no authority to be involved in the abortion debate.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
Of course he is ignoring that pesky little 14th Amendment but hey state's rights and all that. Now I know a lot of Paultards are pro-choice but let's look at why exactly Ron Paul would want to remove the federal government from the abortion debate. Hey, looks like he answers that question right here.
Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states
We will end this update with one more article. In this one Ron Paul truly stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am talking of course about David Koresh.
Of course this is not the first time Ron Paul has taken a heroic stand against the Federal Government. When talking about famous income tax Ed and Elaine Brown, Ron said,
People who point this out and fight the tax code and fight the monetary code are heroic. I compare them to people like Gandhi, who's willing to speak out and try to bring about change in a peaceful manner; Martin Luther King fought laws that were unfair and unjust, and he suffered, too.
A contributor to the site recently sent us some graphics for our website, with plans for more in the near future. Feel free to use them. However, I have no idea what Blogger's policy is on hotlinking pictures, but I wouldn't count on it, so you may have to use your own service until I figure something out.
Well, the Paultards may be licking their wounds from Iowa, but they're already working on their next offensive. Do you see that unintelligible speck in the photo to your right? Well, that photo is supposed to be the key to their upcoming victory. Yes folks, several weeks after the failed attempt at a Ron Paul Blimp, their new idea is to rent out a helicopter and to fly a Ron Paul Air Corps Banner.
Paultards still haven't learned their lesson, and continue to believe that the only reason that people won't for Ron Paul is because they haven't heard of him, and not because Ron Paul is just batshit crazy. As soon as people look up in the sky and see the photo for Blurry McBlurBlur, they'll instantly swoon over the thought of having someone new to vote for.
Hey Paultards, at some point, you need to stop focus on "making noise," and start focus on actual campaigning. Quality over quantity. Instead of spamming people, try talking to them. And more important, try listening. Hey, believe it or not, but some people might actually have a valid reason not to vote for Ron Paul, and acting like a complete asshole doesn't help your case. Instead of telling people about what they should be concerned about, how about you try asking them what they're concerned about? You might be surprised by the results.
Introducing the latest effort to raise some publicity and cash for Ron Paul: The Hotties For Ron Paul Calendar. The Calendar is looking to pull together the best look Ron Paul supporters in the countries, which is what makes it sad. The group hopes to show off their patriotism by taking the American flag and using it as a bath towel.
This project was the brainchild of Juliet Annerino, who writes:
It is my great pleasure to introduce to you a new concept in the pin-up calendar, the "Hotties for Ron Paul" 2008 edition. Graced with beauty not just skin-deep, but down-to-every-chiseled-cheek-bone deep, in social awareness and political activism, each and every one of these women is a dynamic advocate of Peace and Freedom in their support for the only man running for the U.S. presidency who can bring this dream to reality. That man is Congressman, Ron Paul, and these ladies are the torch-bearers of his New American Revolution. Inside you'll find words of wisdom, not just from our young women, but from Dr. Paul, himself, as well as other great statesman, authors, and visionaries.
As of this posting, the calendar has raised a grand total of $51, from two contributors.
The New Hampshire Attorney General has determined that anti-Mormon push polls employed earlier this fall were organized by the polling firm Moore-Information, Inc. Read the press release.
Moore Information has not yet confirmed the sponsor of the poll, but the firm lists presidential candidate Ron Paul as one of its clients. Paul is the only presidential client listed on Moore's website.
However, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, I can't help but be skeptical of this story. After all, push polling is done over the phone, and we all know that Paultards don't use landlines.
After Ron Paul's unsurprising finish in Iowa, the Paultards began to break down. And after months of hearing about how he will finish in the top three I have to admit this was extremely satisfying. Here are some choice quotes from the official forums for you...
Good lord people! Get a grip! This is one state filled with jesus freaks terrified of evil terrrists. There's no way the voters of Iowa (did you see all those old people?!?!) represent voters across the country. Don't give up the ship over this one state. Its far from over.
I hope this is wrong. I'd be frick'n pissed. Did I send them too much money? Maybe it would be better spent on the blimp and what not.
My favorite quote of the night however comes the most popular Ron Paul group on Facebook, where one user posted a thread with the apt title, "Fuck Democracy."
Fuck this shit. I am so pissed right now. Why should the majority rule over good people like us, as the vast majority of people are worthless slobs who don't deserve the right to vote.
I'm so fucking... not mad, disgusted with humanity right now. Like, i want to fucking find wolf blitzer and choke him until he turns blue. WOLF BLITZER what the fuck kind of a name is that. Mainstream news is geared towards a 7th grade audience. jesus christ. The incompetence around us is just disgusting. From now on i'm a misanthrope. I'm going to spit on people as they walk by me just because they're fucking worthless
The discussion continues for a bit and then we get this gem.
A libertarian dictatorship wouldnt be too bad. It'd be better than a socialistic democracy. And why is it our duty to convince other people they're wrong, you know that Libertarian Quotes application? There's one in there from Ayn Rand that says something like, "i am only political so I do not have to be political". Pretty good sum of my feelings. There shouldn't even be a debate, humans should be free. Though there are grey areas, we should reserve politics for these and these alone. Leave the grey areas to the states, and allow freedom of movement, woot woot!
There were 356,000 votes cast in the Iowa caucas. We know how the candidates did within their own respective parties, but how well did the candidates do among the general turnout? Groupnewsblog provides the estimates:
24.5% Obama 20.5% Edwards 19.8% Clinton 11.4% Huckabee (R)
Based on these numbers, Ron Paul may have broken double digits among republicans, but he only scored 3.3% of the general public (Based on how many votes he earned relative to Huckabee.). This is even worth when you consider the fact that Ron Paul supporters tend to be more enthusiastic and evangelytical than other supporters, and would therefore be far more likely to show up. In a real election, the Paultards would be drowned out even further.
During the Iowa straw poll, where he only earned 9.1% among republic voters. That was back in August. Five months later, despite massive efforts to fund raise and spam the heck out of the internet, and Ron Paul isn't faring much better. This confirms what I have already suspected all along: Anyone who would vote for Ron Paul has probably already heard of him. Meanwhile, the rest of us are only starting to get annoyed.
And in a stunning turn of events, Iowa proves once again that being popular on the internet doesn't mean jack shit in the real world. The Paultards spent months and months trying to cheat every poll they could, only to learn that they were really cheating themselves.
As usual, the response from Paultards ranges from being delusional to being paranoid. Some of them will insist that fifth place proves that Ron Paul is a viable candidate, while others are going with the traditional conspiracy theories. A few of them are looking for ways to use the delegate system to subvert the popular vote. One member writes, "Delegate system is BS. But... I won't argue against it much if it's working in our favor for once =P". Way to stick to your principles, guys!
Paul, an anti-abortion Republican who is against the war in Iraq and favors an economic policy that includes a return to the gold standard, is still a long-shot in Iowa and beyond.
"He seems to attract a wide assortment of people with all different agendas," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University. "For example, he has got this Libertarian streak, and yet he combines it with an anti-abortion stance — he cuts across normal party division."
So basically, Ron Paul is a uniter because he combines right wing viewpoints of economic conservatism with the right wing viewpoints of social conservatism. Man, if only there was a political party for people like that? But what in the world wold you call them?
Ever wonder what Paultards do when they're not being such Paultards? Have you ever wondered how their social skills of spamming and trolling might translate in the real world? Libby Copeland of the Washington Post attempts to investigate, in her shocking expose, "To Be Young And in Love With Ron Paul."
During spare moments, which are rare, the Paul boys watch guy movies such as "Transformers" and wish there were more girls around.
Oh well, says Adam Kirschner, 23, of Ozark Christian College, leaning against a wall in the campaign office. "We didn't come here for the chicks."
"Speak for yourself," says Eddie Siegel, 18.
You tell them, Eddie. Adam Kirschner may not be aware of this, but I've personally managed to pick up many a chicks in the bars simply by telling them to google Ron Paul. As soon as they hear about his plans to return the gold standard, they become putty in my arms.
We always wondered what the deal was with the backwards "love" in "revolution." My hunch is that it's a Paultard attempt at subliminal seduction. That's just creepy, guys. Really, really creepy.
Cogitamusblog.com casts the GOP Primary candidates as Buffy villains. Fred Thompson is The Judge, Mitt Romney is the Mayor, John McCain is the Master, etc. And our boy, Ron Paul? Ron Paul: Moloch the Corruptor
He's been around a long time, but he only recently absorbed himself into the internet, where he now has a bunch of overexcited followers who spend too much time online.
Jake Young from science blogs, who had previously endorsed Ron Paul and his return to the gold standard despite Ron Paul's denial of evolution and his "flagrant disregard for evidence and fact," has recently changed his mind after reading a post by Megan McArdle. It appears that more people are starting to learn, when confronted with facts and deep analysis, Ron Paul is a bad idea. From her article:
However, over the last fifty years, economists have settled on some very broad areas of consensus. The first is, as famous libertarian monetary economist Milton Friedman wrote, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". When the supply of money outstrips the demand, prices rise. And this is by no means limited to fiat currencies; see the great Spanish inflation of the 16th & 17th centuries, thanks to the steady influx of gold from the New World. Or check out the price of basic commodities in mining towns during the Gold Rush, when all anyone had was gold.
The second is that a little bit of inflation is okay--possibly even beneficial, since it helps the economy to overcome the problem of sticky wages when the relative value of labour has fallen. But a lot of inflation is very, very bad. Exhibit A is Zimbabwe; Exhibits B-∞ are every other economy that has had inflation near or above the double-digit mark; the higher the inflation, the worse the economy did. The feeling that the currency will experience an unpredictable amount of inflation dampens the willingness of the citizens to save and invest, which is why so many third-world loans are denominated in dollars.
The third is that deflation is also bad, and at the lower percentage values, often even worse than inflation. This surprises/offends/meets with the frank disbelief of many "sound money" types, who think that, barring local shortage, in an ideal world everything ought to cost the same or less than it did when Grandpa was a boy. (These sorts of opinions are cemented further by the fact that Grandpa, who is often the source of them, is usually living on a fixed income, and therefore feels that he would make out better in a deflationary economy.) The problem is, deflation does rather devastating things to anyone who has debt, since they now have to repay what they borrowed in more expensive dollars. Deflation means that, thanks to the abovementioned sticky wages, the economy has to deal with demand shocks by lowering output. Deflation can result in what's known as a liquidity trap, a concept pioneered by liberal economist John Maynard Keynes and best elucidated by liberal economist Paul Krugman back before he left economics writing to focus on his hatred of George W. Bush. Deflation is what made the Great Depression so memorable. Deflation is so bad that almost everyone agrees that moderate inflation, in the range of 1-2%, is better than risking even a small amount of deflation.
It's a good read that I would recommend for anyone who's looking for a rebuttal to the gold standard argument. Many people will try to argue that Ron Paul isn't looking for a true return to the gold standard, but simply some form of "sound currency." However, as long as there are no safe guards outlined against deflation, then the end result is still the same, and the same criticisms will apply.
Ron Paul supporters have a habit of always referring to Ron Paul as Dr. Ron Paul, as though delivering 4,000 babies somehow makes you more qualified to be president. We often hear that since Ron Paul is a doctor, he therefore possesses unique knowledge on the problem and solution with the current health care system.
Orac from scienceblogs.com writes a very thorough article to the contrary. Orac addresses Ron Paul's grasp of medical science, and calls him a quackery enabler.
Orac also points to a blog post by Greg Laden, where a commenter by the name of AndreCJ wrote the following:
Well there goes my hero worship for Ron Paul. If he rejects something so fundamental like evolution how can I put my trust in him in things like monetary change, ie if he can be so wrong about evolution he may be equally as wrong in matters of political and economic importance, and it was his honest and humble manner that converted me into his way of thinking in the first place. Would Austrian economics really work? I am beginning to have my doubts.
It looks like some people are finally starting to get the idea. Let's hope this trend continues.
Popular Mechanics has recently set up a page which breaks down the top twelve Presidential candidates based on their opinions on eight different subject that are important to their readers: Autos, Digital/Tech, Energy/Climate, Environment, Firearms, Infrastructure, Science/Education, and Space. According to Popular Mechanics, "We did not analyze any of the proposals, and we do not necessarily endorse them."
On these issues, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee and the least defined candidates currently running, with established positions on only three of the eight subjects: Digital/Tech, Environment, and Firearms. Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has no response on energy/climate, and one of only three candidates who has no response on the auto industry. While Ron Paul does comment on environmental policy, his response consists of nothing more than typical "Let's privatize everything and hope that the problem fixes itself" libertarian rhetoric.
The Ron Paul supporters would like to keep the focus on Iraq, because they know that this is where Ron Paul is popular. However, we need to remember that there are other major issues that will present themselves in the upcoming years. First, there is the issue of climate change, which has world wide implications that might persist for centuries to come. Just about everyone who lives on Earth has a reason to be concerned about climate change. Secondly, there is the issue of universal health care, which not only affects the 40 million Americans who aren't currently being covered, but also the millions of Americans who are denied coverage despite being being insured.
How can Ron Paul hope to represent the American people, if he doesn't plan on addressing the bulk of their concerns?
Mother Jones writes an interesting article on how the internet meme known as Ron Paul, by analyzing the mindset of the average Paultard, especially Paultards in the techie community.
Later McBride explained why he hadn't tried to talk further: He already knew what his hero would say on just about any topic. Libertarianism, he glowed, "is the only place where the answers to all questions have actually been resolved."
Bold words, Paultard. Yes, Ron Paul doesn't even accept the theory of evolution, but he single handedly has figured out and resolved the answers to all questions. It's like listening to a cultist talk about their cult leader. Hey Paultards, here's a tip: Talking about your candidate like he's completely all knowing and completely infallible does not make him look more attractive. It only makes you look more delusional.
Ron Paul recently released a new ad on the issue of immigration. Even Justin Raimondo, a blogger who has defended Ron Paul rigorously in the past, is now calling him out on it:
“No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’”?
Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced – and it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations” to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations” entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations” – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.
