If it's so bad, why does universal healthcare work everywhere else? Slave wage taxes? Why does EVERY other industrialezed nation pay less for healthcare? Ron Paul's plan, which promotes more healthcare providers at the same through the roof rates, is fucking slave wages, my friend. You've really got to be retarded if you think our healtcare system will be fine with mroe of the same. You were just in an accident. How much would it have cost you if you weren't insured? Is that acceptable when other people pay nothing extra? Again, universal helthcare saves citizens money! Alot more money! All of Ron Pauls strong and legitimate proposals of scalebacks of the government are systems that actually MAKE money for the government. The IRS brings in one trillion dollars a year. He's replacing the Iraq war's waste of money with another. Basically, he's sweeping the country's problems under the rug to his own benefit. AGAIN, what is his plan? Is it not, "You'll have more money, so you can save that into your own personal healthcare plan if you want. If you don't want to, that's fine too."????????????? At least the other Republicans' plans virtually mandate it that you HAVE to put money into a personal healthcare plan. Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about the poverty stricken citizens of America...and let's not even get into the blacks, hispanics, and asians.
Once again Arben .... you fail to look at the big picture. The other countries that have the national healthcare programs are not in the mess we are. They also do not have all the hidden taxes we have. Do you think taxes end with income tax ? I know you don't but do you have any idea just how many there are ? Ron Paul's plan SAVES Social Security and Medicare for those that will need it. The course we're on ... those accounts are already near bankrupt and full of IOU's. Now also consider our system ENCOURAGES HIGH COST CARE .... Free Markets would drive those costs down. Why do you think people want to go over seas for big procedures these days ... why do people want to get their prescription drugs from Canada .... BECAUSE IT'S MUCH MUCH MUCH CHEAPER. A universal plan will make our problems with THIS ECONOMY worse , not better. And the USA will drop from 37th in the world in quality of care to god only knows where. As for who Ron Paul doesn't care about ? Ron Pauls medical practice was in a low income district where his primary patients were "the blacks and hispanics" that he often treated for FREE. So don't give me that bullshit about who he cares about. The free market would bring healthcare and prescriptions down to affordable levels instead of the robberous levels they currently enjoy. Once you realize it's the big corporations and big pharma that DO NOT want Paul's plan .... you'll start to understand. Finally , he's not in any way saying that help to those with income too low to get healthcare would be left out. THAT is the type of program he WOULD support .... but at STATE levels is where they would be enacted.
let's see, getting taxed 14K a year for medical attention. or getting taxed 0 and spending 6K a year on medical care. jeez i wonder which one makes more sense?
Yeah .... give me back the 70-80 I pay a year in taxes and the cost of my health insurance goes down dramatically. Now open up free markets and competition and the cost of healthcare get's sliced in half further reducing the burdens. Also competition makes the quality go up .
Oh yeah...his plan to save social security and medicare... "We'll have more money because the economy will be fixed after we bring the troops home." You mean, why do people get medical care in countries that have a universal healthcare system? Isn't that a stupid question, considering your stance?:doh: Like it did to all the countries before us? Blah blah blah. That means nothing. His policies as a politician do nothing to support them, so he should stick to being a doctor for them. Here's how it WILL play out. Because this is the way big business operates. At first, there will be too many health insurance providers, and the competition will be great. Then eventually, they'll start merging and buying out smaller providers, making a big healtcare provider even bigger. This, of course, will be after a number of years. Eventually, there will only be a select few major healtcare providers, and a few small stragglers. These massive organizations will control the cost upwards and make healthcare expensive again. Still, it might be cheaper than right now (But what isn't?). In the end, big business gets bigger and the middle class gets even more hurt as the big proveders begin to merge, mid-level employees fall through the cracks. So you're saying he supports Mitt Romney? Because that's his healthcare stance, not Ron Paul's.
Where are you getting those bogus figures from? We'd pay $3-4,000 a year in medical taxes each year. That's even less than your expected personal healthcare plan and often times half what we currently pay.
:bears: ------------------------------------------ Ron Paul, Fox News, & Me Dear Customer, Because Overstock advertises on Fox channels, Overstock has been receiving calls and email messages about Fox News decision to exclude Dr. Ron Paul from the upcoming January 6 forum in New Hampshire, a decision that seems especially rank given the fact that in yesterdays Iowa Caucus Dr. Paul out-polled Mayor Giuliani by a factor of 2.5:1. I always enjoy hearing from our customers, particularly those who display political commitment of any flavor, and I thank them for their calls and emails. In October Dr. Paul came to Utah, and he and I visited for an hour in my office. After that meeting, I gave him the largest donation I could under federal law: it is rare to meet a politician who understands the Constitution, and rarer still to meet one who thinks it binds the government meaningfully (I would give Dr. Paul more were there not now a federal blackout on free speech known as "McCain-Feingold"). In a television interview last week I stated that, while for the first time in my life I felt there are several candidates qualified to be president, my #1 choice would be Dr. Paul. That said, I believe that pulling Overstocks advertising from Fox would represent an inappropriate conflation of my personal politics with my corporate responsibilities: thus, fellow supporters of Dr. Paul, my answer to you is, "no." However, I have contacted Fox and told them that, as a major advertiser, I believe it is unconscionable of them to exclude Dr. Paul from participating in this forum on January 6, thus denying our polity the opportunity to make an informed choice. Respectfully, Patrick M. Byrne, Ph.D. CEO, Overstock.com PS If you wish to join me in asking Fox to refrain from trying to warp the public discourse, email Fox Senior Political Producer Marty Ryan
ok, 3-4K on medical taxes on top of the taxes i already paid (let's say 10K) and that's a total of 13-14K. get rid of incometax, and i pay 6K in medical costs, as you say i would and i still have 6 to 7K a year to invest in my retirement. get it now, or are #'s not your forte.
No offense Arben , but me debating this with you is a waste of time because you don't understand fundamentals and you want to simplify a very complicated problem. So my advice to you is this ... be careful what you wish for , because you might just get it.
Ron Paul's plan in the long run: Government pwned. Everybody happy, healthy and rich. Ron Paul's plan in the short run (i.e. the 4-8 years he would have): Rich get richer, poor get poorer. Less access to proper health care, infrastructure in ruins.
Time to post a video of Ron Paul continuing to say exactly what I've said to you!!! Once again, you just cop out.
He's stated himself that he can't get rid of income tax. What is 7,000 minus 3,000? That is how much you would save in healthcare. The numbers aren't hard.
Oh yeah! His campaign is built off of false promises and they're glaringly evident. "Bring the troops home!" That'll cost more than what we're paying right now and probably take more than a decade to do. Get rid of the IRS! So then we can just subtract one trillion dollars a year from our government!
Cops applaud presidential candidate RON PAUL By Jim Kouri web posted January 7, 2008 While most of the politicians vying for their party's nomination for President of the United States pay lip service to the nation's law enforcement officers, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is actually doing something to earn the respect and gratitude of America's cops, according to many police officers and organizations. Ron PaulFor example, the American Federation of Police -- with well over 100,000 members -- recently praised Ron Paul for introducing a bill that would help cops obtain topnotch body armor that would withstand rounds fired from most firearms. Rep. Paul's bill -- HR 3304 -- would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide for a tax credit to law enforcement officers who purchase their own body armor. "I urge all police officers and concerned citizens to contact their congressmen and ask them to support Rep. Paul's bill," said Deputy Sheriff Dennis Wise, president of the American Federation of Police. "I would also like to applaud Congressman Ron Paul for his support and forward thinking in trying to help make law enforcement officers across our nation safer each day," said Wise. Rep. Ron Paul appears to be popular with many US cops. "He's never found it necessary to force police officers to stand with him for photo opportunities the way other presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton do," said New York Police Officer Edna Aguayo. One police officer claims cops in New York and other states are forced to pose with the likes of Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If an officer refuses, he or she is charged with insubordination by their superiors. "It's a joke how these cops are used as props during election campaigns. But Ron Paul doesn't pay cops lip service -- he actually works to help them enforce the law," said another cop forced to pose with Sen. Clinton during one of her staged "rallies." Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data from its October 12-14 polling that indicates that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul leads his GOP opponents against Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton among likely voters ages 30-49. He is the leading White House contender for the key demographic, polling higher than Clinton among baby boomers. Congressman Paul polls in at 47%, compared with Clinton's 44%, among likely voters aged 40-49. The 30-49 demographic has been a key indicator in recent elections, and one in which Republicans tend to fare well in hotly-contested elections. In 2004, exit polls reveal that George Bush beat John Kerry 53% to 46% among 30-44 year olds, and all accounts indicate that this will be the most instrumental demographic in the 2008 presidential election as well. “Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton,†claims political strategist Kent Snyder. More than 3,000 police officers' lives have been saved by body armor since the mid-1970s when the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) began testing and developing body armor and performance standards for ballistic and stab resistance. Recognition and acceptance of the NIJ standard has grown worldwide, making it the performance benchmark for ballistic-resistant body armor. Body armor can provide protection against a significant number of types of handgun ammunition, but law enforcement personnel must keep in mind that armor is categorized and rated for different threat levels. Additional protection should be worn for SWAT team operations, hostage rescues, or Special Operations assignments, when officers may be exposed to a weapon threat greater than the protection provided by regular duty armor, according to the National Institute of Justice. Rank-and-file police officers also applaud Rep. Paul for his pro-sovereignty stance. "The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked," said the Texas congressman during a campaign rally. In addition, Congressman Ron Paul believes that the Second Amendment is "not about duck hunting." It is an individual right that is guaranteed. He stated that he believes it is about the citizenry having the ability to restrain tyrannical governments and would be dictators. He believes the Second Amendment is about self-defense from criminal attack and from governments that break away from the chains of the Constitution. According to a poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, more than 75% of the nation's police officers agree with Rep. Paul's stance on gun ownership including private citizens carrying concealed weapons for personal protection. Just recently Congressman Paul opposed the reauthorization of the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto gun ban. He opposes gun and gunowner registration. And Paul opposes government permission systems that force law-abiding citizens "prove" their innocence before buying or owning firearms. AFP president Dennis Wise agrees with Rep. Paul's stance on gun control. "When our founding fathers assembled to write one of the greatest papers ever written -- our Constitution -- they put down the amendments ... in the order of their importance," said Wise. ESR
You can call it whatever you want , but when you can't show you understand the serious economic crisis this country is entering into , there's absolutely no reason I should waste my time debating this with you. Like I said ... You're candidates ideas come from the tooth fairy.
BIG TIME SMEAR PIECE written on Ron Paul for day of NH Caucus ... ------------------ The New Republic Angry White Man by James Kirchick The bigoted past of Ron Paul. Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008 If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped." Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul. Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter. The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own." Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author. But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books. The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it." The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."
Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England." This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems." Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust." Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration." While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website. Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals." The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick." The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little." Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States." A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL." When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero." In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it. What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years. Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." North is perhaps best known for Gary North's Remnant Review, a "Christian and pro free-market" newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, "Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse." Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker." From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate. Corrections: This article originally misidentified ABC's Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected. James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.
Ron Paul's response ------------------- Press Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’ “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.â€
Attorney Devy Kidd responds to this hit piece ... [SIZE=+4]Major Hit Piece Unleashed On Ron Paul[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] From Devvy Kidd devvyk@earthlink.net 1-8-8[/SIZE] <dt> </dt><dt><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="555"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="100%"> <dl><dt></dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]I have no doubt Sean Hannity will go after this like a man dying of thirst who suddenly sees a waterfall.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Ron Paul Shock Newsletters Unearthed:[/SIZE] </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Claim MLK a Gay Pedophile, Praise David Duke,[/SIZE] </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Speculate 1993 WTC Bombing Was Mossad Job... [/SIZE][SIZE=+1](click link)[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Drudge's site has almost 22 MILLION hits the past 24 hrs and it will increase with the election "returns." No doubt Drudge will leave this one up there as long as he can.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]The site must be getting massive hits because even though I have DSL, it took about five minutes to load the story[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]This is a MAJOR hit piece.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]While the author says several times there's no way to know if Ron Paul actually wrote the text of the newsletters, you can see how devastating comments like this will be:[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]"Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]"According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks."[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]And, without specifically saying, he didn't know who wrote this one, the author really honed word smithing and this will get plastered everywhere:[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]"In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1] A friend sent me mail about that Ron Paul hit piece and said it was bogus. I truly hope that's the case, but.....[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]This James Kirchick claims to have these news letters. Would he lie so boldly and ruin any credibility he has? Kirchick says this:[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]"Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society."[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt></dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Knowing this will be an explosion for Ron Paul's campaign, would he actually lie about them? I mean, such a thing is so easy to prove false. Okay, yeah, he could say he has them and doesn't and the damage is done, but only someone who wants to ruin their career would do that.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]I suspect Shawn Hannity is on the phone with Kirchick right now inviting him on his show with the proof. Then the two of them will sit there, hold up these newsletters and read from them with something like, "There's no byline on this one, but it says this and that and it is Ron Paul's name on the newsletter."[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Seen it all before. Next - if they exist - you'll see them scanned and plastered all over the Internet.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Also, it didn't take long. Right under the big red headlines on Drudge, he's added a new category:[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Shock quotes[/SIZE] </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Kirchick's main objective was to hit and kill and he massaged the wording in his column to do just that.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]We know how too many Americans will simply skim over it or just read 'shock quotes' and brand Ron Paul all kinds of labels. Some of this stuff is so imflammatory, I can honestly say I fear for his life.[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]This quiet, decent, honorable man has just been shoved into a galatic crap storm that he's going to have a difficult time dealing with. Would I be delusional in thinking it might just go away and no one will notice it on Drudge?[/SIZE]</dt><dd> </dd><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Of course, timing is everything considering today, the day this hits, just happens to be the New Hampshire primary.[/SIZE] </dt><dt> </dt><dt>[SIZE=+1]Devvy[/SIZE] </dt></dl></td></tr></tbody></table></dt>
Drudge is s shit website more concerned about getting the news first than getting the news right. I suspect this is a bullshit piece that wasn't fact checked.
This piece was obviously designed to damage Ron Paul's campaign and timed for the NH Caucus where it was originally projected he'd do very well.
Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H. <!-- sphereit start --> Kurt Nimmo Truth News January 8, 2008 According to a post this evening on the Ron Paul Forums, vote fraud occurred in Sutton, New Hampshire: Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for paul but poster in Sutton posted: My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know??? Originally Posted by sstjean View Post This was posted to ronpaul-801 tonight: “This town numbers are wrong wrong wrong on this map. I am from Sutton originally and my parents and one aunt all voted for Ron Paul today and Sutton says 0. So this is wrong. This is a town that had 20 people counting the ballots and I have no reason to believe that they cheated. Small town and I was born and raised there. The real numbers will come in by morning. The electronic machines in the big towns are the ones we have to worry about.†Of course, there is plenty of room for hank-panky, as Michael Collins notes: 81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as “Premierâ€). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say “but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!†But they’re not. They’re counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount…. In short, the stage was set by Diebold and Republican operatives to rig yet another election, as the above first-hand account seems to indicate.
How Wrong Were The Polls? 09 Jan 2008 12:08 am Commenter Brian makes an observation "No one is talking about how the polls actually nailed Obama's number. Obama didn't lose this election. He stayed steady and Hillary surged ahead." That seems to be true. Here's a chart comparing the actual results to the most recent Pollster.com current standard estimate polling average. Just as Brian says, the difference between the Obama poll level and the Obama vote total level seems to just be your basic statistical variance. The pollsters underestimated Clinton's level of support. People who were undecided as of the last round of polling seem to have gone overwhelmingly in her direction. [also note the relevance of this to Wilder/Bradley effect speculations]
January 08, 2008 "Pimply- Faced Youth" Slanders Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson Show Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at January 8, 2008 01:11 PM An emailer informed me this morning that a young kid whom he called a "grossly uneducated, pimply-faced youth" slandered both Ron Paul and myself on the Tucker Carlson show last night. The pimply-faced youth (PFY) is one Jamie Kirchick, who writes for the left-wing, pro-war New Republic magazine. In the YouTube video of the conversation the PFY asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a "racist." When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist remark he says "No." But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, the PFY announces: "BUT," he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995!! Aha! Gotcha! This ignorant little kid posing as a "journalist" then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a "neo-Confederate" group and that Ron Paul speaks to "the neo-Confederate community," whatever that is, "in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly "fictional" Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the "Neo-Confederate Community" as well). Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. The PFY did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist. My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William Wright). The famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Northern secessionist whose credo was "No Covenant with Death," the "covenant" being the U.S. Constitition, and "death" being slavery. Other papers had to do with the Quebec secession movement, European secession movements, federalism in general, how the U.S. was created by a war of secession from the British empire, and even "How to Secede in Business" by substituting arbitration for litigation. But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference, which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book: Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University, Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it especially relevant to social scientists. In fact, secession remains a lively topic of academic discourse, something that the PFY is obviously unfamiliar with. A few weeks ago a secession conference sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities was held in Chrleston, South Carolina, featuring some thirty historians and legal scholars. In little Jamie Kirchick's empty mind, the NEH must necessarily be a hotbed of pro-slavery sentiment. (A friend in academe tells me that the participants in this conference spanned the ideological spectrum from left/liberal to Marxist). Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure. I, however, am not a public figure.
Funny interview with Ron Paul and Laura Ingraham <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jJXRa2n6Fe4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jJXRa2n6Fe4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> :clap:
