In this piece in Rolling Stone, about Rush Limbaugh, and Republican "morning after" analysis (har har) ,Matt Taibbi dials back the venom and really tries to "help". But the reason Romney lost is exactly that Obama and the Democrats quite successfully portrayed him as anti-woman, anti-working person, anti-poor, anti-hispanic, pro-(HORRORS) business, pro rich people, etc. Romney, for his part, never gave anyone anything resembling a concrete reason to vote FOR him. OH, and special mention to the Republican Party for flushing millions of votes by marginalizing Ron Paul and his supporters at the convention, stealing his delegates, and refusing to accord him the respect he deserved. Have fun talking to yourself, Rush.
Ron Paul's Speech After New Hampshire Primary
Ron Paul New Hampshire Speech\nMAGNIFICENT. Last time, New Hampshire was such a bitter defeat, this time, an incredible vindication;\n
Watch Ron Pauls Speech After New Hampshire Primary - YouTube.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d2e4b0ea4e44459757">Ron Paul New Hampshire Speech MAGNIFICENT. Last time, New Hampshire was such a bitter defeat, this time, an incredible vindication;
Watch Ron Pauls Speech After New Hampshire Primary - YouTube.
What Went Wrong in 2008 On Wall Street
\"...capitalism has been hijacked, and I'm infuriated. For capitalism to work, people who assume risk should reap the rewards of success, but they also must suffer when losses occur.\" ~Leland H. Faust\n In the 2008 implosion, the banks that were bailed out should have been left to go under - their assets stripped and sold, their officers indicted for fraud or driven out into the street, their profits disgorged, they and their children made outcasts, leaving them in the outer darkness,wailing and gnashing their teeth.\n
This, after all, is the basic moral logic of capitalism - success is rewarded, failure mercilessly punished. And this is EXACTLY what the politicians prevented from happening - all of them, except Ron Paul, who warned about it, and tried to stop it.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d1e4b0ea4e44459752">"...capitalism has been hijacked, and I'm infuriated. For capitalism to work, people who assume risk should reap the rewards of success, but they also must suffer when losses occur." ~Leland H. Faust In the 2008 implosion, the banks that were bailed out should have been left to go under - their assets stripped and sold, their officers indicted for fraud or driven out into the street, their profits disgorged, they and their children made outcasts, leaving them in the outer darkness,wailing and gnashing their teeth.
This, after all, is the basic moral logic of capitalism - success is rewarded, failure mercilessly punished. And this is EXACTLY what the politicians prevented from happening - all of them, except Ron Paul, who warned about it, and tried to stop it.
Elizabeth Warren, and that "Social Contract"
Sheldon Richman points out in The Freeman today that Elizabeth Warren, late of presidential advising, and snubbed for a prime sinecure is running for Senate from Massachussetts. Her ads mar all my Facebook pages, and as Sheldon points out, her entire schtick is that rich corporations benefitted from taxpayer largesse, so they should pay more, a lot more. Left out of this equation are the other 100 - 200 million taxpayers, and what THEY would rather have done with the money. But that's life in the Left Lane, isn't it? Full of sleight-of-hand and rhetorical tricks.\nI commute in southern New Jersey on either I-295 (taxpayer-paid) or the New Jersey Turnpike (user-fee paid with some taxpayer subsidy) \u2013 they run roughly parallel along this stretch, so they \u201Ccompete\u201D for users. Because the NJTPK is tolled, while I-295 is not, you would think that a business using this route, say Bolt Bus or one of the Chinatown buses would use I-295 exclusively. In fact, while there is some of both, most of them appear to prefer the Turnpike. Why is that so? After all, they are already paying corporate tax, payroll tax, fuel tax, and apportioned highway taxes, but on TOP of that, to use the Turnpike, they ALSO have to pay a (presumably significant) TOLL. Why, exactly, IS that?","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5cfe4b0ea4e44459717">
Sheldon Richman points out in The Freeman today that Elizabeth Warren, late of presidential advising, and snubbed for a prime sinecure is running for Senate from Massachussetts. Her ads mar all my Facebook pages, and as Sheldon points out, her entire schtick is that rich corporations benefitted from taxpayer largesse, so they should pay more, a lot more. Left out of this equation are the other 100 - 200 million taxpayers, and what THEY would rather have done with the money. But that's life in the Left Lane, isn't it? Full of sleight-of-hand and rhetorical tricks. I commute in southern New Jersey on either I-295 (taxpayer-paid) or the New Jersey Turnpike (user-fee paid with some taxpayer subsidy) – they run roughly parallel along this stretch, so they “compete” for users. Because the NJTPK is tolled, while I-295 is not, you would think that a business using this route, say Bolt Bus or one of the Chinatown buses would use I-295 exclusively. In fact, while there is some of both, most of them appear to prefer the Turnpike. Why is that so? After all, they are already paying corporate tax, payroll tax, fuel tax, and apportioned highway taxes, but on TOP of that, to use the Turnpike, they ALSO have to pay a (presumably significant) TOLL. Why, exactly, IS that?
Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust - YouTube
If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
"...the one potential Presidential candidate (Ron Paul) who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be -- this time around -- a Republican." via Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year).
About That "Right" to "Healthcare"
You have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, and you have a right to your justly-acquired property. All three rights are aspects of a right to property. There is no way to derive a right to force others to pay for a service for you, whether it be healthcare or anything else. Moreover, the entire \"healthcare\" meme is a kind of fraud. Medical treatment has some moral sanction in society and has always been recognized as, while not a \"right\", an obligation or duty placed upon the community. \"Healthcare\" as coined by modern statists contains a whole raft of things never dreamed of in four or more millenia of historical medicine. So even if there were some kind of vague \"right\" to medical treatment, appropriate to certain civilizational norms, a \"right\" to \"healthcare\" is simply a front for a particularly gross kind of corporatism, as illustrated by the ObamaCare Plan's action of handing over 40 million new unwilling customers to the insurance companies at the point of a gun.","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c7e4b0ea4e44459686">
You have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, and you have a right to your justly-acquired property. All three rights are aspects of a right to property. There is no way to derive a right to force others to pay for a service for you, whether it be healthcare or anything else. Moreover, the entire "healthcare" meme is a kind of fraud. Medical treatment has some moral sanction in society and has always been recognized as, while not a "right", an obligation or duty placed upon the community. "Healthcare" as coined by modern statists contains a whole raft of things never dreamed of in four or more millenia of historical medicine. So even if there were some kind of vague "right" to medical treatment, appropriate to certain civilizational norms, a "right" to "healthcare" is simply a front for a particularly gross kind of corporatism, as illustrated by the ObamaCare Plan's action of handing over 40 million new unwilling customers to the insurance companies at the point of a gun.
Ron Paul at...The Guggenheim?!?
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="490" caption="Recognizing in art the unreality of fiat money"]
[/caption]Well, not the Good Doctor himself, but apparently his message about the Federal Reserve and the dollar is permeating the art world. Hans Peter Feldmann, winner of the 2010 Hugo Boss art prize, took the $100,000 he earned, converted it to one-dollar bills, and pinned it to a wall in the Guggenheim Museum. From the catalog description;
"Bank notes, like artworks, are objects that have no inherent worth beyond what society agrees to invest them with, and in using them as his medium, Feldmann raises questions about notions of value in art."
Of course, it devolves into vaguely anti-capitalist cant after that, but when was the last time you saw a critique of the Fed in a museum?
I am DEFINITELY going to catch this one.
(Image from the Guggenheim)
A Real Global Drug-Policy Breakthrough, or a Global Tax Setup?
Hard to know what to make of this sudden elite \"epiphany\" on the futility of criminalizing the consumption of certain disapproved substances by adults. After all, it has been articulated for years by many principled, patriotic, sane, thoughtful, credible people, notably recently by Ron Paul (to wild applause, in SOUTH CAROLINA). Is it a global tax-grab to save the world's nations from their self-inflicted mortal financial wounds, or a reacharound to soften us up for something even worse?","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c5e4b0ea4e44459645">
Hard to know what to make of this sudden elite "epiphany" on the futility of criminalizing the consumption of certain disapproved substances by adults. After all, it has been articulated for years by many principled, patriotic, sane, thoughtful, credible people, notably recently by Ron Paul (to wild applause, in SOUTH CAROLINA). Is it a global tax-grab to save the world's nations from their self-inflicted mortal financial wounds, or a reacharound to soften us up for something even worse?
Ron Paul versus Michael Gerson on Drugs
Gerson, neocon that he is, uses Ron's principled stand for liberty and against putting people in prison against him, as though rabid criminalization were somehow evidence of \"compassion\". I politely argued otherwise;\n\"Congressman Paul was speaking of principles, not of policy. He has stated, clearly and repeatedly that the states can and should be the locus for any (slight) conditions under which adults can consume certain (or any) substances. And he makes the point within a framework where the choice to abuse drugs, being no longer supported within a welfare state, carries high personal and economic costs, high enough to be a deterrent to most people, even if his exposition was a tad too facile. The problem with Gerson's allegedly more \"complex\" conservative response to drug use, prostitution, etc is it fails to consider any of these issues other than in a sterile vacuum. For most of our history drugs were legal, widely recognized for their dangers, and their use self-limiting. The medicalization of everything in our culture and the concurrent criminalization of certain substances has effectively subsidized irresponsible, widespread, and growing use of illicit drugs, while at the same time greatly increasing overall societal costs from their use. The current course is financially unsustainable, and deadly to personal and political freedom. Kudos to Dr. Paul for having the courage to finally declare it.\"","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c4e4b0ea4e44459617">
Gerson, neocon that he is, uses Ron's principled stand for liberty and against putting people in prison against him, as though rabid criminalization were somehow evidence of "compassion". I politely argued otherwise; "Congressman Paul was speaking of principles, not of policy. He has stated, clearly and repeatedly that the states can and should be the locus for any (slight) conditions under which adults can consume certain (or any) substances. And he makes the point within a framework where the choice to abuse drugs, being no longer supported within a welfare state, carries high personal and economic costs, high enough to be a deterrent to most people, even if his exposition was a tad too facile. The problem with Gerson's allegedly more "complex" conservative response to drug use, prostitution, etc is it fails to consider any of these issues other than in a sterile vacuum. For most of our history drugs were legal, widely recognized for their dangers, and their use self-limiting. The medicalization of everything in our culture and the concurrent criminalization of certain substances has effectively subsidized irresponsible, widespread, and growing use of illicit drugs, while at the same time greatly increasing overall societal costs from their use. The current course is financially unsustainable, and deadly to personal and political freedom. Kudos to Dr. Paul for having the courage to finally declare it."
The Truth about The Wikileaks Cablegate Event
Reading a few of the cables on Wikileaks, and observing the US government attempts to smash them, it is clear that the real "secrets" at issue consist largely of the depth of corruption, and the breadth of the ignorance of our "leaders". Patronize the mirror sites as often as you can (ICYMI updates them frequently), deny Joe Lieberman the satisfaction he seeks;
http://www.facebook.com/incaseyoumissedit
More mirrors;
Ron Paul Is My President
The only national (Republican) figure who is standing up to the racist, fascist PR that has been ginned up around Cordoba House (the "Ground Zero" mosque). I am proud to say that I voted for Ron Paul for President, and hope to again;
The Republican Party Just Hung Up
Caller: \"Good evening, do you identify with the Republican Party?\"Me: \"Well, you know, I don't, exactly\"\nCaller: \"Thank you, good night, God bless\".\nNot a follow-up question. Not the slightest curiosity why I, a registered (Ron Paul) Republican, would answer that way (they clearly called me from a precinct list).\nI really think they are heading for much-deserved oblivion. ","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5afe4b0ea4e44459487">
Caller: "Good evening, do you identify with the Republican Party?"Me: "Well, you know, I don't, exactly" Caller: "Thank you, good night, God bless". Not a follow-up question. Not the slightest curiosity why I, a registered (Ron Paul) Republican, would answer that way (they clearly called me from a precinct list). I really think they are heading for much-deserved oblivion.
Setting Regular Republicans Straight About Liberty
Steven Greenhut, Orange County Register columnist and Friend of Liberty, wrote a column for Independence Day that was less than completely reverential toward our Gargantuan Imperial Military. Chip Hanlon, writing in Red County, took off after Greenhut, viciously smearing him, libertarians in general, and incredibly but oh-so-predictably Ron Paul.\nScores of commenters wrote back defending Greenhut, so my addition was probably piling on, but I really like it as a statement of Liberty;\n
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb599e4b0ea4e44459304">Does Chip Even Read What He Writes?
\nWhat you write, repeatedly, is that libertarians (and by implication, incredibly, Ron Paul) are all kooks, because sometimes they make statements that are at odds with your well-entrenched beliefs. You even pull quotes out of context that seem to support your position, but you have made absolutely NO attempt to understand, much less attempt to honestly and intelligently refute them. Your debate techniques are the same ones used by all but one of the Republican candidates, including the eventual nominee.
\nYou see where that has got us. Ron Paul told us all in the debates that if the Republican Party didn't get serious about reversing the Bush welfare-warfare-torture- spying state, and cutting back on spending and empire, we were not only going down to defeat in November, but that the party would subsequently self-destruct. You don't have to be crazy to see and understand that he was 100% right.
\nLook, I accept that not everyone is ready to keep peeling away at the onion of government. Over my political life's journey, I have been at first shocked by many principled libertarian positions. Then, after mulling them over, I often come to see that in many instances (e.g., drug prohibition, gay marriage, pre-emptive war, central and fractional reserve banks, taxes, governmment spying), and putting aside my merely personal feelings, I have come to understand that the libertarian position logically and morally flows from the fundamental principle of freedom. The libertarian non-aggression axiom is the purest expression of the ideals, if not always the actions of the founders.
\nA standing military, particularly one as aggressive and imperial as ours, would absolutely shock and dismay many of them.\u00A0 Steve Greenhut isn't speaking a Republican heresy, he is simply stating his (in my view correct) opinion that the military establishment is out of political, strategic and financial control, and needs, not to be lauded for its unconstitutional size and scope, but rather reined in, hard. Any honest person, who takes a look at the trail of wreckage left behind by the US military over the past, well, century or two, has to see this.
\nWhat we need in this country is a return to the ideals of the founders, minus the bigotry. What we need is a DRASTICALLY smaller government.
\nWhat we need is Liberty.
Steven Greenhut, Orange County Register columnist and Friend of Liberty, wrote a column for Independence Day that was less than completely reverential toward our Gargantuan Imperial Military. Chip Hanlon, writing in Red County, took off after Greenhut, viciously smearing him, libertarians in general, and incredibly but oh-so-predictably Ron Paul. Scores of commenters wrote back defending Greenhut, so my addition was probably piling on, but I really like it as a statement of Liberty;
Does Chip Even Read What He Writes?
What you write, repeatedly, is that libertarians (and by implication, incredibly, Ron Paul) are all kooks, because sometimes they make statements that are at odds with your well-entrenched beliefs. You even pull quotes out of context that seem to support your position, but you have made absolutely NO attempt to understand, much less attempt to honestly and intelligently refute them. Your debate techniques are the same ones used by all but one of the Republican candidates, including the eventual nominee.
You see where that has got us. Ron Paul told us all in the debates that if the Republican Party didn't get serious about reversing the Bush welfare-warfare-torture- spying state, and cutting back on spending and empire, we were not only going down to defeat in November, but that the party would subsequently self-destruct. You don't have to be crazy to see and understand that he was 100% right.
Look, I accept that not everyone is ready to keep peeling away at the onion of government. Over my political life's journey, I have been at first shocked by many principled libertarian positions. Then, after mulling them over, I often come to see that in many instances (e.g., drug prohibition, gay marriage, pre-emptive war, central and fractional reserve banks, taxes, governmment spying), and putting aside my merely personal feelings, I have come to understand that the libertarian position logically and morally flows from the fundamental principle of freedom. The libertarian non-aggression axiom is the purest expression of the ideals, if not always the actions of the founders.
A standing military, particularly one as aggressive and imperial as ours, would absolutely shock and dismay many of them. Steve Greenhut isn't speaking a Republican heresy, he is simply stating his (in my view correct) opinion that the military establishment is out of political, strategic and financial control, and needs, not to be lauded for its unconstitutional size and scope, but rather reined in, hard. Any honest person, who takes a look at the trail of wreckage left behind by the US military over the past, well, century or two, has to see this.
What we need in this country is a return to the ideals of the founders, minus the bigotry. What we need is a DRASTICALLY smaller government.
What we need is Liberty.
If Massive Government Spending Is So Important, Why Didn't They Do It Sooner?
Katrina VanDenHuevel displays a popular ignorance of economics in this piece, in which she enthusiastically endorses Future President Obama's proposal to create hundreds of billions of dollars out of nothing (in addition to the trillions in bailouts which US taxpayers have already been obligated to fund) for \"infrastructure\" spending (refer to our previous piece for the relevant definition).\nAm I being petty when I ask why, if government spending on infrastructure is SO important, we haven't done this before now? Even Ron Paul pointed out in the debates our crumbling roads and bridges as a higher use of the trillions being blown on wars abroad, for instance.\n
So why wasn't this already done, particularly in the wake of such catastrophic infrastructure failures as the levies in New Orleans, and the I-34 bridge in Minneapolis? Do the billions of dollars lately wasted on the Big Dig, or being lavished on a tiny handful of residents of Manhattan's East Side, 1, 2 qualify, and count toward some ideal level of infrastructure spending?\u00A0 WTF is going on here?
\nI suspect that a big reason Bush and his co-conspirators \"ignored\" the need for an \"adequate\" level of infrastructure spending in this country in favor of invading the world relates to an old, old engineering joke;
\nQ: What's the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
\nA: Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb540e4b0ea4e444587f5">Katrina VanDenHuevel displays a popular ignorance of economics in this piece, in which she enthusiastically endorses Future President Obama's proposal to create hundreds of billions of dollars out of nothing (in addition to the trillions in bailouts which US taxpayers have already been obligated to fund) for "infrastructure" spending (refer to our previous piece for the relevant definition). Am I being petty when I ask why, if government spending on infrastructure is SO important, we haven't done this before now? Even Ron Paul pointed out in the debates our crumbling roads and bridges as a higher use of the trillions being blown on wars abroad, for instance.
So why wasn't this already done, particularly in the wake of such catastrophic infrastructure failures as the levies in New Orleans, and the I-34 bridge in Minneapolis? Do the billions of dollars lately wasted on the Big Dig, or being lavished on a tiny handful of residents of Manhattan's East Side, 1, 2 qualify, and count toward some ideal level of infrastructure spending? WTF is going on here?
I suspect that a big reason Bush and his co-conspirators "ignored" the need for an "adequate" level of infrastructure spending in this country in favor of invading the world relates to an old, old engineering joke;
Q: What's the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
A: Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets.
Liberty's Best Week Ever!
Ron Paul on Rachel Maddow\nNO, I am not talking about the impending undemocratic, non-election about to be perpetrated on us a couple of days hence between Wall Street Candidate A and Wall Street candidate A' This one has been decided already - ordinary Americans have lost, and the banksters have won.\n
I am, rather, calling attention to the surprising upside to the continuing global financial collapse. The completely deserted checkout lanes today at my local wholesale club underscored the rapid retreat of consumer spending that's occurring now. What is occurring now in the public intellectual mind is both thoroughly awful, and blindingly brilliant.
\nAwful, due to the present and future suffering of millions, nay, billions of people around the world, but brilliant, because the fact is that the economic predictive power of Austrian-School economics has been thoroughly vindicated, no matter what stupid, nonsensical things the Keynesians and Friedmanites say. We were right, we told them all what was coming, and they failed to listen. More Important, we have the correct answers.
\nAnd, better late than never, even some mainstream journalists, conservative Republicans, and left progressives are trying to re-orient their thinking in the midst of an unprecedented global financial calamity, where suddenly \"Liberal\" nor \"Conservative\" (as we have been brainwashed to call Socialist and Fascist policy 'solutions') ideas seem to have no discernible relevance at all.
\nThis week two astounding interviews took place, between serious people of the left, and two of the current stars of the Austro-Libertarian movement.
\nOn Thursday, the charming, brainy lefty journalist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC interviewed Ron Paul, focusing on his eerie (not to us of course) prescience on the economic meltdown, and on the significance of his recent campaign, and what it portends for the future of Republican Party as well as the electoral system.
\nOn Friday, Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute interviewed Naomi Wolf on his podcast. This is a MUST LISTEN interview with the principled, thoughtful left-wing journalist. Ms Wolf, author of several books, including \"The Beauty Myth\", and more notably \"The End of America\", was last heard of in libertarian circles promoting, along with Ron Paul the American Freedom Agenda, calling for an end to America's belligerent foreign policy and its depredations on domestic liberty.
\nListen to her questioning Lew about definitions of libertarianism, and her response to his answers - I half held my breath throughout the unedited 50-minute conversation, waiting perhaps to hear Lew say something to make Ms Wolf 'fall out of the ether' as they say in the car business.
\nHe doesn't, and she didn't. It is an extended dialog on the principled embrace of universal liberty, in honest, non-agendized terms that will speak to the heart of every thinking, compassionate person on the left, right, or middle. This shows how there is not, and never has been, such a thing as Democrat liberty, or Republican liberty, only Liberty For All.
\nDo yourself and your loved ones (particularly intelligent, leftish and rightish ones) a favor and get them to listen to this podcast to give them an understanding why you are a principled, onsistent advocate of liberty.
\nThen go to www.campaignforliberty.com , and get involved.
\nUPDATE: If you are still, for some unfathomable reason a McCain supporter, PLEASE watch this video of Dr. Paul taking apart McCain's dumbass foreign policy prescriptions in the St. Petersburg debate;
\n[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9WzCrLuC4]
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb53be4b0ea4e44458799">Ron Paul on Rachel Maddow NO, I am not talking about the impending undemocratic, non-election about to be perpetrated on us a couple of days hence between Wall Street Candidate A and Wall Street candidate A' This one has been decided already - ordinary Americans have lost, and the banksters have won.
I am, rather, calling attention to the surprising upside to the continuing global financial collapse. The completely deserted checkout lanes today at my local wholesale club underscored the rapid retreat of consumer spending that's occurring now. What is occurring now in the public intellectual mind is both thoroughly awful, and blindingly brilliant.
Awful, due to the present and future suffering of millions, nay, billions of people around the world, but brilliant, because the fact is that the economic predictive power of Austrian-School economics has been thoroughly vindicated, no matter what stupid, nonsensical things the Keynesians and Friedmanites say. We were right, we told them all what was coming, and they failed to listen. More Important, we have the correct answers.
And, better late than never, even some mainstream journalists, conservative Republicans, and left progressives are trying to re-orient their thinking in the midst of an unprecedented global financial calamity, where suddenly "Liberal" nor "Conservative" (as we have been brainwashed to call Socialist and Fascist policy 'solutions') ideas seem to have no discernible relevance at all.
This week two astounding interviews took place, between serious people of the left, and two of the current stars of the Austro-Libertarian movement.
On Thursday, the charming, brainy lefty journalist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC interviewed Ron Paul, focusing on his eerie (not to us of course) prescience on the economic meltdown, and on the significance of his recent campaign, and what it portends for the future of Republican Party as well as the electoral system.
On Friday, Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute interviewed Naomi Wolf on his podcast. This is a MUST LISTEN interview with the principled, thoughtful left-wing journalist. Ms Wolf, author of several books, including "The Beauty Myth", and more notably "The End of America", was last heard of in libertarian circles promoting, along with Ron Paul the American Freedom Agenda, calling for an end to America's belligerent foreign policy and its depredations on domestic liberty.
Listen to her questioning Lew about definitions of libertarianism, and her response to his answers - I half held my breath throughout the unedited 50-minute conversation, waiting perhaps to hear Lew say something to make Ms Wolf 'fall out of the ether' as they say in the car business.
He doesn't, and she didn't. It is an extended dialog on the principled embrace of universal liberty, in honest, non-agendized terms that will speak to the heart of every thinking, compassionate person on the left, right, or middle. This shows how there is not, and never has been, such a thing as Democrat liberty, or Republican liberty, only Liberty For All.
Do yourself and your loved ones (particularly intelligent, leftish and rightish ones) a favor and get them to listen to this podcast to give them an understanding why you are a principled, onsistent advocate of liberty.
Then go to www.campaignforliberty.com , and get involved.
UPDATE: If you are still, for some unfathomable reason a McCain supporter, PLEASE watch this video of Dr. Paul taking apart McCain's dumbass foreign policy prescriptions in the St. Petersburg debate;
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9WzCrLuC4]
Hank Paulson's Taxpayer Takedown Strategy
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50kWy6FaZKA]\n(CLIP: Leroy Smith Shows How To Set Up An Opponent For A Takedown.)\n
My local Ron Paul Meetup (yes, it's still around) has been loosely organizing a letter-writing and phone campaign against the absolutely unconscionable, immoral, illegal, undemocratic bank-bailout bill\u00A0 that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (R, Goldman-Sachs) dragged up the steps of the Capitol the other day.
\nOne writer suggested this emphasis, I thought it good enough to use, initially;
\n\n\"I am writing to strongly discourage you from supporting the Treasury Secretary Paulson's \"bank bailout\" proposal. This bill will ensure the indentured servitude of Americans for generations to come as it will become increasingly certain that the US will never be able to service is debt obligations. Why should I as an honest and responsible citizen be required to bailout the willfully negligent behavior of executives in the financial industry?
\nMoreover, I find Section 8 of the proposal particularly disturbing:
\nSec. 8. Review.\nDecisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
\nThis bill in effect makes Secretary Paulson a \"Financial Dictator\" subject to no Congressional oversight and no judicial oversight. He is immune from any future prosecution with respect to his appropriations of bailout funds.\"
Later I remembered what my old wrestling coach taught me about executing a takedown, that the most effective setup is often one where you use your opponent's own reaction to help you execute the move, so I wrote this;
\nThis bill must be defeated, not modified.
\nThis is a classic setup, a case of action - reaction - action.
\nIf you wrestled in high school or college, you will, upon reflection realize that the Paulson proposal is in part a 'set-up' for a financial takedown.
\nThey tie us up with the banking implosion.
\nPush us (and our representatives) with this unbelievably egregious proposal.
\nWe (and our congresscritters) push back (\"we want mortgage forgiveness, salary caps, blah, blah, blah\").
\nPaulson and Bush then drop down and \"Fireman's Carry\" our asses up into the rafters, and down onto the mat - 4 points, and a pin to win.
\nWe never ever see it coming.
\nHank's real goal is to ensure that the bad debt is bailed out at 'face value', instead of at a steep market discount. This will cost further trillions of dollars (money that we do not have) and prevent market prices of the underlying assets from correcting for years, if ever. The bankers will escape completely unscathed, while the taxpayer watches his money rot.
\nThis is why the proposal must not be modified, but defeated utterly.
\nIf the banking system, and our fiat economy, is ready to collapse, then we must Let It Fall.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb538e4b0ea4e44458770">[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50kWy6FaZKA] (CLIP: Leroy Smith Shows How To Set Up An Opponent For A Takedown.)
My local Ron Paul Meetup (yes, it's still around) has been loosely organizing a letter-writing and phone campaign against the absolutely unconscionable, immoral, illegal, undemocratic bank-bailout bill that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (R, Goldman-Sachs) dragged up the steps of the Capitol the other day.
One writer suggested this emphasis, I thought it good enough to use, initially;
"I am writing to strongly discourage you from supporting the Treasury Secretary Paulson's "bank bailout" proposal. This bill will ensure the indentured servitude of Americans for generations to come as it will become increasingly certain that the US will never be able to service is debt obligations. Why should I as an honest and responsible citizen be required to bailout the willfully negligent behavior of executives in the financial industry?
Moreover, I find Section 8 of the proposal particularly disturbing:
Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
This bill in effect makes Secretary Paulson a "Financial Dictator" subject to no Congressional oversight and no judicial oversight. He is immune from any future prosecution with respect to his appropriations of bailout funds."
Later I remembered what my old wrestling coach taught me about executing a takedown, that the most effective setup is often one where you use your opponent's own reaction to help you execute the move, so I wrote this;
This bill must be defeated, not modified.
This is a classic setup, a case of action - reaction - action.
If you wrestled in high school or college, you will, upon reflection realize that the Paulson proposal is in part a 'set-up' for a financial takedown.
They tie us up with the banking implosion.
Push us (and our representatives) with this unbelievably egregious proposal.
We (and our congresscritters) push back ("we want mortgage forgiveness, salary caps, blah, blah, blah").
Paulson and Bush then drop down and "Fireman's Carry" our asses up into the rafters, and down onto the mat - 4 points, and a pin to win.
We never ever see it coming.
Hank's real goal is to ensure that the bad debt is bailed out at 'face value', instead of at a steep market discount. This will cost further trillions of dollars (money that we do not have) and prevent market prices of the underlying assets from correcting for years, if ever. The bankers will escape completely unscathed, while the taxpayer watches his money rot.
This is why the proposal must not be modified, but defeated utterly.
If the banking system, and our fiat economy, is ready to collapse, then we must Let It Fall.
If We Could See The Crisis Coming, Why Couldn't Anybody Else?
We thought that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch over the weekend, the two latest \"victims\" in the financial calamity unfolding in our newspapers and on our TV screens, was an excellent opportunity for us to point out how right we were about the mortgage mess even before it started;\nEvery Homeowner...(6/9/2004);\n
...especially those who are mortgaged to the hilt, should read this article;
\nAn excerpt;
\n\nSigns of a \"\"new era\"\" in housing are everywhere. Housing construction is taking place at record rates. New records for real estate prices are being set across the country, especially on the east and west coasts...As one loan officer explained to me: \"\"It's almost too good to be true.\"\"In fact, it is too good to be true. What the prophets of the new housing paradigm don't discuss is that real estate markets have experienced similar cycles in the past and that periods described as new paradigms are often followed by periods of distress in real estate markets, including foreclosure sales, bankruptcy and bank failures.
OOOH, This Is BAD (7/2/2004);
\nFrom today's WSJ;
\n\nThe Johnsons thought they had it all figured out. After changing jobs, Paul had planned to rollover the $36,000 balance from his former employer's 401(k) plan into an IRA. But a desire to live closer to their parents and worries that mortgage rates would head higher spurred them to cash out the 401(k) account last year and use some of the money to buy a home...\"We're making more money, but a lot of that is going into improvements on the home.\"\"The couple also still owes state and federal taxes on the retirement-account withdrawal, and they haven't started to rebuild their nest egg.
No real-estate bubble you say?;
\nA President's Job Is Never Done (8/24/2004);
\nI just spotted this on the Mises Institute blog. James Bovard (always a must-read) wrote in Barron's about George Bush's initiative to close the gap between rich and poor. I can't even start to comment on it. Here are some clips:
\n\n* A White House Fact Sheet issued June 17, 2002, declared that Bush's agenda \"\"will help tear down the barriers to homeownership that stand in the way of our nation's African-American, Hispanic and other minority families. ... The single biggest barrier to homeownership is accumulating funds for a down payment.\"\"
\n* Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher said in January 2004 that \"\"the White House doesn't think those who can afford the monthly payment but have been unable to save for a down payment should be deprived from owning a home,\"\" National Mortgage News reported.
\n* While zero-downpayment mortgages have long been considered profoundly unsafe (especially for borrowers with dubious credit history), Weicher confidently asserted: \"\"We do not anticipate any costs to taxpayers.\"\"
\nAlthough Barron's is a pay site, the full text of the article is on the blog if you scroll down a little. I just have one question that Bovard leave's unanswered: Did we indeed elect Al Gore in 2000?
Some Eagles Fans Have Really, Really Lost Their Minds (2/3/2005);
\n...and could lose their houses.
\nFrom \"\"The Rude Awakening\"\", published by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin, authors of Financial Reckoning Day comes the following;
\n\"\"Mr. Dave Brekher, president and co-owner of North American Federal Mortgage Co. in blue-collar Northeast Philadelphia, realizes that enthusiasm is not the same as good credit.
\nHis company has been asked to lend money to local football fans wishing to mortgage their houses so they can afford to go to the Super Bowl. \"\"No,\"\" he said.
\n\"\"If someone is that desperate, there's always repercussions,\"\" he explained.
\nI Hope the Voters Remember This When He's Up for Reelection (2/4/2005);
\nThis is from the Philadelphia Daily News:
\nKevin P. O'Donoghue, 36, of Glen Mills, sank $4,000 into a Super Bowl package that includes round-trip airfare, a four-night hotel stay, and one ticket.
\nHe said that he told his wife after the Eagles defeated the Atlanta Falcons for the NFC championship: \"\"I don't care if we have to mortgage our house, I'm going.\"\"
\nHe applied for a home-equity line of credit that required him to put up his home as collateral. He's getting the money in a few days.
\n\"\"Sometimes the cards are maxed out, and you got to do what you got to do,\"\" he said.
\nFor those of you who don't know him, O'Donoghue is the township supervisor where I live so he wields fiduciary responsibility over my money. I will surely not forget this next time it comes time to elect a township supervisor. .
\nWe Hate To Say We Told You So... (10/17/2005);
\n...but the \"\"crack-up boom\"\" is about to bite us all in the ass. Just this week;
\n- \n
- Detroit's sales are down 33% over last year, with GM's sales down FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT, \n
- Delphi Automotive filed for bankruptcy, will offload its $10B pension obligations on you and I, \n
- Hewlett-Packard is laying off over 14,000 employees, \n
- 30-year mortgage rates are over 6%, probably for the forseeable future, \n
- Oil prices are hitting record highs, \n
- Hey, gold is up! (cool!), \n
- The housing bubble is beginning to implode, and; \n
- Bankruptcy filings exploded ahead of the Federal government's reinstitution of debt peonage. \n
When you get right down to it, people vote their pocketbooks.
\nAnd they are all about to be given a HARD kick.
\nTaking Advantage Of FHA, Buyers, Beazer Destroys Lives, Neighborhoods (3/28/2007);
\nWhen we last left this sorry tale, builder Beazer Homes had sold crappy 2-bedroom starter houses to low-income buyers in Charlotte, NC, an average of 20% of whom, it turns out, have since had those homes foreclosed.
\nNow the FBI, and the US Attorney in Charlotte are involved, and Beazer's stock price is tanking, down 17%\u00A0from an already low point.
\nAs great as it is to see such a corporate pig get skewered, Beazer was only doing what the Bush Administration was urging them to do, which is to sell houses to people who have no realistic way to ever pay for them.
\n(link from Breitbart.com)
\nThe Fed's Fatal Overreach (4/1/2008);
\nJust when you think you have seen it all, a proposal has arisen from the Bush White House to empower the Federal Reserve to take over the entire US financial system.
\nNow right about now, anyone like us who has followed the Fed-inflated real-estate bubble, followed by the collapse of the housing market,\u00A0the\u00A0Fed origins of the mortgage crisis, and the Fed-caused recession\u00A0can be forgiven for making a gurgling noise as their head explodes from the unbelievable hubris, the BALLS behind such a move.
\n![making a gurgling noise as their head explodes](\"http://madaboutmovies.net/blog/wp-content/movieposters/ScannersStill.jpg\"){kind=link}
The prescient words of the great Ron Paul chill the spine at this moment;
\n\nWe had missed the 5:30 Ferry, but the good people at Shepler's quickly boarded us on another boat and made a special run to take us and Ron Paul over to the Island..
\n...\u00A0I asked him how much longer he thought those guys in Washington could keep going before everything started to collapse, and he said \"\"Not much longer, things are starting to fall apart and this time they will not be able to stop it.\"\"
To singlehandedly destroy an economy, quickly steal away from the scene, then return with a flourish annoncing that salvation is at hand is exactly what compulsive arsonists do.
\nAnd the people should rise up and put them in exactly the same place as arsonists - in prison, every last one of them.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb536e4b0ea4e44458758">We thought that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch over the weekend, the two latest "victims" in the financial calamity unfolding in our newspapers and on our TV screens, was an excellent opportunity for us to point out how right we were about the mortgage mess even before it started; Every Homeowner...(6/9/2004);
...especially those who are mortgaged to the hilt, should read this article;
An excerpt;
Signs of a ""new era"" in housing are everywhere. Housing construction is taking place at record rates. New records for real estate prices are being set across the country, especially on the east and west coasts...As one loan officer explained to me: ""It's almost too good to be true.""In fact, it is too good to be true. What the prophets of the new housing paradigm don't discuss is that real estate markets have experienced similar cycles in the past and that periods described as new paradigms are often followed by periods of distress in real estate markets, including foreclosure sales, bankruptcy and bank failures.
OOOH, This Is BAD (7/2/2004);
From today's WSJ;
The Johnsons thought they had it all figured out. After changing jobs, Paul had planned to rollover the $36,000 balance from his former employer's 401(k) plan into an IRA. But a desire to live closer to their parents and worries that mortgage rates would head higher spurred them to cash out the 401(k) account last year and use some of the money to buy a home..."We're making more money, but a lot of that is going into improvements on the home.""The couple also still owes state and federal taxes on the retirement-account withdrawal, and they haven't started to rebuild their nest egg.
No real-estate bubble you say?;
A President's Job Is Never Done (8/24/2004);
I just spotted this on the Mises Institute blog. James Bovard (always a must-read) wrote in Barron's about George Bush's initiative to close the gap between rich and poor. I can't even start to comment on it. Here are some clips:
* A White House Fact Sheet issued June 17, 2002, declared that Bush's agenda ""will help tear down the barriers to homeownership that stand in the way of our nation's African-American, Hispanic and other minority families. ... The single biggest barrier to homeownership is accumulating funds for a down payment.""
* Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher said in January 2004 that ""the White House doesn't think those who can afford the monthly payment but have been unable to save for a down payment should be deprived from owning a home,"" National Mortgage News reported.
* While zero-downpayment mortgages have long been considered profoundly unsafe (especially for borrowers with dubious credit history), Weicher confidently asserted: ""We do not anticipate any costs to taxpayers.""
Although Barron's is a pay site, the full text of the article is on the blog if you scroll down a little. I just have one question that Bovard leave's unanswered: Did we indeed elect Al Gore in 2000?
Some Eagles Fans Have Really, Really Lost Their Minds (2/3/2005);
...and could lose their houses.
From ""The Rude Awakening"", published by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin, authors of Financial Reckoning Day comes the following;
""Mr. Dave Brekher, president and co-owner of North American Federal Mortgage Co. in blue-collar Northeast Philadelphia, realizes that enthusiasm is not the same as good credit.
His company has been asked to lend money to local football fans wishing to mortgage their houses so they can afford to go to the Super Bowl. ""No,"" he said.
""If someone is that desperate, there's always repercussions,"" he explained.
I Hope the Voters Remember This When He's Up for Reelection (2/4/2005);
This is from the Philadelphia Daily News:
Kevin P. O'Donoghue, 36, of Glen Mills, sank $4,000 into a Super Bowl package that includes round-trip airfare, a four-night hotel stay, and one ticket.
He said that he told his wife after the Eagles defeated the Atlanta Falcons for the NFC championship: ""I don't care if we have to mortgage our house, I'm going.""
He applied for a home-equity line of credit that required him to put up his home as collateral. He's getting the money in a few days.
""Sometimes the cards are maxed out, and you got to do what you got to do,"" he said.
For those of you who don't know him, O'Donoghue is the township supervisor where I live so he wields fiduciary responsibility over my money. I will surely not forget this next time it comes time to elect a township supervisor. .
We Hate To Say We Told You So... (10/17/2005);
...but the ""crack-up boom"" is about to bite us all in the ass. Just this week;
- Detroit's sales are down 33% over last year, with GM's sales down FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT,
- Delphi Automotive filed for bankruptcy, will offload its $10B pension obligations on you and I,
- Hewlett-Packard is laying off over 14,000 employees,
- 30-year mortgage rates are over 6%, probably for the forseeable future,
- Oil prices are hitting record highs,
- Hey, gold is up! (cool!),
- The housing bubble is beginning to implode, and;
- Bankruptcy filings exploded ahead of the Federal government's reinstitution of debt peonage.
When you get right down to it, people vote their pocketbooks.
And they are all about to be given a HARD kick.
Taking Advantage Of FHA, Buyers, Beazer Destroys Lives, Neighborhoods (3/28/2007);
When we last left this sorry tale, builder Beazer Homes had sold crappy 2-bedroom starter houses to low-income buyers in Charlotte, NC, an average of 20% of whom, it turns out, have since had those homes foreclosed.
Now the FBI, and the US Attorney in Charlotte are involved, and Beazer's stock price is tanking, down 17% from an already low point.
As great as it is to see such a corporate pig get skewered, Beazer was only doing what the Bush Administration was urging them to do, which is to sell houses to people who have no realistic way to ever pay for them.
(link from Breitbart.com)
The Fed's Fatal Overreach (4/1/2008);
Just when you think you have seen it all, a proposal has arisen from the Bush White House to empower the Federal Reserve to take over the entire US financial system.
Now right about now, anyone like us who has followed the Fed-inflated real-estate bubble, followed by the collapse of the housing market, the Fed origins of the mortgage crisis, and the Fed-caused recession can be forgiven for making a gurgling noise as their head explodes from the unbelievable hubris, the BALLS behind such a move.
The prescient words of the great Ron Paul chill the spine at this moment;
We had missed the 5:30 Ferry, but the good people at Shepler's quickly boarded us on another boat and made a special run to take us and Ron Paul over to the Island..
... I asked him how much longer he thought those guys in Washington could keep going before everything started to collapse, and he said ""Not much longer, things are starting to fall apart and this time they will not be able to stop it.""
To singlehandedly destroy an economy, quickly steal away from the scene, then return with a flourish annoncing that salvation is at hand is exactly what compulsive arsonists do.
And the people should rise up and put them in exactly the same place as arsonists - in prison, every last one of them.
Did Ron Paul Write It, Or Didn't He?
[caption id=\"attachment_259\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\" caption=\"Seize That Car! It Could Be Evidence!\"]![\"Seize](\"http://static.squarespace.com/static/507cb3fee4b043a0058639ca/507cb4f0e4b0ea4e444581c9/507cb4f8e4b0ea4e444582b3/1220920601000/?format=original\" "\\"ron_paul_signing_lovebug\\"")
[/caption]\nAmidst the political and rhetorical (if not yet electoral) triumph of Ron Paul at the Rally For The Republic last week, an article designed to steal a hard-earned moment of success creeped its way across the pages of a major periodical (where have we seen this before?)It seems some 'sore winners' in the press have taken a very ordinary occurrance, that of an author taking someone's notes and quotes, and editing it into a very successful book under the second person's name, and tried to portray it as something sinister.\n
[/caption]\nAmidst the political and rhetorical (if not yet electoral) triumph of Ron Paul at the Rally For The Republic last week, an article designed to steal a hard-earned moment of success creeped its way across the pages of a major periodical (where have we seen this before?)It seems some 'sore winners' in the press have taken a very ordinary occurrance, that of an author taking someone's notes and quotes, and editing it into a very successful book under the second person's name, and tried to portray it as something sinister.\nIn this case, it is a particularly puzzling bit of scruple being fretted about here, since the credited author and the alleged ghostwriter are both closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Dr. Woods spoke at Dr. Paul's valedictory (a good speech it was too).\u00A0 While the alleged ghostwriter is an accomplished writer in his own right, the words in the book are, er, MANIFESTLY Dr. Paul's, reflecting his campaign rhetoric, and his lifelong obsession with liberty and free markets.
\nIndeed, this is standard operating procedure for campaign books, and it is naieve in the extreme to expect a politician in the middle of the race of his life to spend the time and effort necessary to self-edit a manuscript along with the million and a half other things he has to do, particularly if said candidate is a current officeholder who takes those duties seriously. Who in that situation would turn down help to do it? (Barack Obama, if you believe some people, that's who, and what's it to ya?)
\nBut to the writer of the piece, this is evidence of a soul so perfidious that he feels duty-bound to report on this fact as if it were the freaking Rosetta Stone. Clearly, authorship to some members of the press means taking pencil to hand and writing a complete edited manuscript longhand, or perhaps tapping it out on sheets of bond paper with a trusty old Smith-Corona. Anything less doesn't count, in their estimation.
\nExcept, of course, when it fits a particular agenda, such as smearing a candidate the day before the biggest electoral test in an early primary season. Then it doesn't matter whether the person wore down a pack of #2 Ticonderogas, or simply gave permission for a pitbull or pitbulls to write intemperate (but widely accepted in conservative - to - centrist circles at the time) words critical of certain public figures and of certain classes of people under his name.
\nIt doesn't matter under what circumstances, for what purpose, to what audience, or how long ago the words were written, nor does it matter that the candidate had disavowed the words decades prior, nor how many times the candidate had apologized (culminating in a bobbled, dissembling disavowal with apology, true), they are HIS WORDS.
\nWell, which is it?
\nYou can't have it both ways.
\nWell, unless you are a hypocrite.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb534e4b0ea4e44458743">[caption id="attachment_259" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="Seize That Car! It Could Be Evidence!"]
In this case, it is a particularly puzzling bit of scruple being fretted about here, since the credited author and the alleged ghostwriter are both closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Dr. Woods spoke at Dr. Paul's valedictory (a good speech it was too). While the alleged ghostwriter is an accomplished writer in his own right, the words in the book are, er, MANIFESTLY Dr. Paul's, reflecting his campaign rhetoric, and his lifelong obsession with liberty and free markets.
Indeed, this is standard operating procedure for campaign books, and it is naieve in the extreme to expect a politician in the middle of the race of his life to spend the time and effort necessary to self-edit a manuscript along with the million and a half other things he has to do, particularly if said candidate is a current officeholder who takes those duties seriously. Who in that situation would turn down help to do it? (Barack Obama, if you believe some people, that's who, and what's it to ya?)
But to the writer of the piece, this is evidence of a soul so perfidious that he feels duty-bound to report on this fact as if it were the freaking Rosetta Stone. Clearly, authorship to some members of the press means taking pencil to hand and writing a complete edited manuscript longhand, or perhaps tapping it out on sheets of bond paper with a trusty old Smith-Corona. Anything less doesn't count, in their estimation.
Except, of course, when it fits a particular agenda, such as smearing a candidate the day before the biggest electoral test in an early primary season. Then it doesn't matter whether the person wore down a pack of #2 Ticonderogas, or simply gave permission for a pitbull or pitbulls to write intemperate (but widely accepted in conservative - to - centrist circles at the time) words critical of certain public figures and of certain classes of people under his name.
It doesn't matter under what circumstances, for what purpose, to what audience, or how long ago the words were written, nor does it matter that the candidate had disavowed the words decades prior, nor how many times the candidate had apologized (culminating in a bobbled, dissembling disavowal with apology, true), they are HIS WORDS.
Well, which is it?
You can't have it both ways.
Well, unless you are a hypocrite.
Is Ron Paul Going Third-Party?
[caption id=\"attachment_250\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"190\" caption=\"I'm Keeping Mine Crossed\"]![\"Ron](\"http://static.squarespace.com/static/507cb3fee4b043a0058639ca/507cb4f0e4b0ea4e444581c9/507cb4f8e4b0ea4e444582ad/1220662459000/?format=original\" "\\"22paul1901\\"")
[/caption]\nOn the Campaign For Liberty website, a tantalizing blog entry giving hope that, despite my previous post, it may NOT be quite over, after all;\n
[/caption]\nOn the Campaign For Liberty website, a tantalizing blog entry giving hope that, despite my previous post, it may NOT be quite over, after all;\n\n\nRon Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week
\nFriends,
\nDr. Paul just authorized me to send this press release to the national wire. Stay tuned!
\n\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0\u00A0 CONTACT: Jesse Benton\nSeptember 5, 2008\n
\nALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA \u2013 On the heels of his historic three-day rally in Minneapolis that drew over 12,000 attendees, Congressman Ron Paul will make a major announcement next week in Washington at the National Press Club.
\nMore details will be announced Monday.
Also, Eric Garris reports on the Lew Rockwell Blog that the Montana Constitution Party has removed Chuck Baldwin's name from the state presidential ballot, and replaced it with Ron Paul and Michael Peroutka.
\nThe next 60 days could be very, VERY interesting.
","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb533e4b0ea4e4445873a">[caption id="attachment_250" align="aligncenter" width="190" caption="I'm Keeping Mine Crossed"]
Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week
Friends,
Dr. Paul just authorized me to send this press release to the national wire. Stay tuned!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jesse Benton September 5, 2008
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA – On the heels of his historic three-day rally in Minneapolis that drew over 12,000 attendees, Congressman Ron Paul will make a major announcement next week in Washington at the National Press Club.
More details will be announced Monday.
Also, Eric Garris reports on the Lew Rockwell Blog that the Montana Constitution Party has removed Chuck Baldwin's name from the state presidential ballot, and replaced it with Ron Paul and Michael Peroutka.
The next 60 days could be very, VERY interesting.