[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
When I was a wee lass I heard tell of a nefarious organization of rabid right wing political activism named after some sort of toilet tree. At least that is the kind of association that a child's mind makes when she hears the words john and birch mentioned by adults. The John Birchers earned a reputation similar to the Satan worshipers portrayed in an Ira Levin novel. I ran into them again during the Mitt Romney campaign when I learned that Romney was a big fan of Cleon Skousen who had investigated the semi-secret John Birch network for the FBI. Even more recently the Birchers have been spotlighted for their association with Ron Paul and "Father" Nicholas Gruner.

Mr. Paul was featured as the keynote speaker last week at Gruner's Fatima Center. Gruner is a defrocked Catholic priest who promotes the New World Order conspiracy theory of Jewish global domination. Some of his associates have even been accused of advocating a static Earth paradigm. The Masons are a critical part of this conspiracy theory. One of the sins of the Masons is that they initiate Jews without requiring conversion to the Roman religion. Imagine a fraternity that does not exclude Jewish members. Gasp! Horror! (Like the Vatican, though, the Masons only include women as auxiliary members.)

Gruner, Paul, and the John Birchers all oppose the United Nations. They see it as a threat to all of the mom and apple pie freedoms: denying poor women access to reproductive health services, obtaining firearms without a license, spewing pollutants into the environment, bringing other species of life to the brink of extinction, consuming fossil fuels at a profligate rate. These are the things that made America what it is today and the UN poses a threat to all of them, at least in the minds of the Birchers of the world.

I am not happy with the performance of the UN either, but not for the same reasons cited by the likes of Ron Paul. The UN has served as a pawn in the hands of cowboy capitalists who used it to rationalize the invasion of Iraq. The UN weapons inspection effort in Iraq was resisted by the Iraqis but it was also sidetracked by Western intelligence players. Still, I keep my fingers crossed that the Russians and Chinese can use the UN to slow down the push to escalate the conflict in Syria.

Does it surprise you that Ron Paul agreed to speak to a group of infamous anti-Semites? What do you think of his excuse of trying to convert them to his way of thinking?

Links: Chris Gentilviso on reaction to Ron Paul's appearance at the Fatima Center. Nicholas Gruner on the New World Order conspiracy theory. John Birch Society video on the horrors of the UN. Cleon Skousen's report on the John Birch Society. Scott Ritter on the Iraq weapons inspection debacle.
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
Here'a a wacky theory. Is it just me or Ron Paul might be setting up his son Rand Paul for a VP run along with Romney? (Plans for a hypothetical future run for president aside).



Dr Ron might be having some issues with his voting record, his connection to the newsletters, as well as some pretty crazy stuff he has said on some policies, but on the other hand there might be a good deal of leftist support for him lurking somewhere out there because of his libertarian (read: anarcho-socialist? - if seen from the right angle, that is) stance on some issues. As for his sonny, he might've had one or two missteps in the past, but still he may be able to accumulate some support from the RP fans, and as a bonus, without all his daddy's baggage.

It's clear that Romney has already got the support of most of the wealthy voters plus the more moderate right. Meanwhile, the right-wing folks would support just about anyone who isn't Obama. And if Rand Paul could pick the fruits from his father's popularity among certain circles, that means extra points for Romney and more troubles for Obama. If so, this run could be a pretty rough ride for the president. I think even tougher than Romney just picking up some right-wing nut and raising more eyebrows than he is now. IMO Romney+Paul (or why not Romney+Christie) looks a bit stronger an option than Romney+Huckabee (is he ever gonna run anyway?), or the more obvious Romney+Santorum. Respectively, Romney + anything moderate looks stronger that a Romney + right-wing formula.

Oh, and question. If the former ends up being the GOP choice, would that mean 2012 is the end of the political shift towards the far-right, as the Mayans had predicted? ;)

Ron Who?

1/1/12 06:21
[identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Missing

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. - Ron Paul

There is little doubt that Ron Paul has a fanatic base of supporters. Their idolatry approaches cultism. Now he is being hailed as a leader near the top of the pack in popularity for the Republican presidential nomination.


So? What about him? )

[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com
1) I have to admit that I spent some time thinking about the post we had a few days ago about prejudice being used for a good end.

A real-world example that we might all want to think about is provided in the movie Outrage! where republican lawmakers who make anti-gay laws are outted by the gay community to the rest of the world--this uses prejudice to get those republicans out of office, because the republicans gay-hating voters will now gay-hate the republican.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. Just a real-world example.
I retract some of my harsher language on that front.

2) Who the HELL would run as Ron Paul's VP if he actually gets the nomination?
Can you imagine which whackjob would WANT to run with Ron Paul? Who's crazy enough? Any guesses? What's the funniest ticket you could realistically imagine?
[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
I actually started writing a post on the Ron Paul's recent racist newsletter scandal and the conservative reaction to the same but jonathankorman beat me to the punch. As such I'm shifting the topic slightly to something that came up in the comments.

Now I like Ron Paul, As jonathankorman said;

He vigorously opposes American military adventurism and the military-industrial complex. He has pointed out how the financial industry has perversely benefitted from the financial crisis they created. He speaks in defense of civil liberties and has fought against attacks on them like the PATRIOT Act. He calls the War On Some Drugs the madness that it is. And often he says this stuff well.

But his response to the scandal namely, "I didn't know what was in the letters but I put my name on them anyway" has dramatically lowered my respect for him. You see, if he's telling the truth, such a decision demonstrates a high level political incompetance. What kind of fool would out-source his reputation in such a way? and what kind of fool would run for president without taking care of the skeletons in his closet first? If he did write those letters (even if he were simply playing to the crowd) he's simply dishonest and unwilling or unable to take the heat.

Niether of these qualities speak well of him, and to be frank I expect higher quality bullshit from my elected officials.

That said, I flinch internally anytime I hear someone frame an argument about politicians or policy in terms of good and evil. In my opinion you can either pick a team, or pursue the truth. When you frame an argument in such a way you've basically declared your preference for the former.

[identity profile] jonathankorman.livejournal.com
I know a few people who have been touched with Ron Paul Fever, and it seems like new examples crop up all the time. So I finally posted this index of information to my personal blog.

I get the appeal. He vigorously opposes American military adventurism and the military-industrial complex. He has pointed out how the financial industry has perversely benefitted from the financial crisis they created. He speaks in defense of civil liberties and has fought against attacks on them like the PATRIOT Act. He calls the War On Some Drugs the madness that it is. And often he says this stuff well. When we cannot even reliably expect Democrats to step up on these subjects, Rep. Paul's rhetoric can be refreshing, even thrilling.

But if you dig into him, it becomes clear that Representative Ron Paul is an evil crackpot.
Read more... )
[identity profile] malasadas.livejournal.com
With Newt Gingrich's rapid rise to the top of the Republican nomination scrum already taking hits in recent polls, it seems the Ron Paul campaign is potentially reaping benefits of the sizeable "Anyone But Mitt" contingent in the Republican base.

And, as could be predicted, old allegation of racism in Mr. Paul's newsletter have resurfaced. This time the allegations are coming from "The Weekly Standard" published by notable neo-conservative William Kristol. And in this case, neo-con is not a loosely applied catch-all term for everyone to the right of Bill Clinton -- Mr. Kristol is a bonafide neo-conservative with deep ties to that wing from the former administration of President George W. Bush.

It is no secret that Mr. Romney is the favorite of many "establishment" Republicans who see his calm and technocratic demeanor as their best bet to peel away the independent vote from President Obama in the general election. But the passionate base who swept in the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and trimmed the Democratic majority in the Senate to a mere fraction is far less enchanted. In fact, they have spent the entire campaign to date looking for ANYONE not named Mitt Romney to support. And now that Speaker Gingrich is falling in polls, Representative Paul is rising -- and here comes William Kristol, Mr. Insider Establishment Himself, to revive accusations from the 2008 campaign.

For fun, type in the phrase "Ruling Class Republicans" and see the ocean of comments from sites like "Freerepublic" to see the animosity some of the activist base have towards figures like Mr. Kristol -- it fairly rivals anything said about Senator Lieberman from the liberal/progressive base and is aimed at many more figures. My discussion question is this: assuming that the Republican establishment manages to maneuver Mr. Romney into the nomination by consistently taking down his opponents as they find favor from the base, what will that base do in retaliation?
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com


Texas Primary Voter on Governor Rick Perry allowing the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a man who was probably innocent: It takes balls to execute an innocent man.




Brian Williams to Governor Rick Perry: Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times…

(Audience bursts into applause and whistles)


Read more )
[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com

No, seriously. Why is everyone pretending that Ron Paul doesn't exist? He's been doing quite well in recent polls, he came a couple hundred votes short of beating Michelle Bachmann on the Straw Poll in Iowa (not that this is a big indication of a winner, rather it's more likely to show a loser), and all in all, he's been kicking Santorum's and even Romney's ass all the way, not to mention Pawlenty who by the way quit as early as hurdle #1 (well, what a surprise? duh).

Now, I'm aware that Ron Paul might not be the darling of the Republican establishment - he's consistently voiced his opinion which on many issues differs from theirs, from his opposition to military adventures abroad and military over-spending, to criticizing the Fed, etc etc. In a way, as Stewart said here, he's like "patient #0 of the Tea Party". So, if the Tea Party is where it's at, right now, as far as conservatives' moods are concerned, and RP is the original Tea-Partier (his son being a prominent figure of the TP, and all), and the real maverick (as opposed to that joke McCain), then why is he still being looked down upon by the conservative establishment, plus their mouthpiece in the media, Fox?

These could be rhetorical questions, really, but, after all, would we like to explore them or not?
[identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
1) If any state makes any thing a tender in payment of debts which isn't gold and silver coin, then that state has broken the supreme law of the land vis-a-vis Article one Section ten.
2) All fifty states make federal reserve notes a tender in payment of debts.
Therefore:
3) All fifty states have broken the supreme law of the land.

Some of you want to say the U.S. constitution is irrelevant, or the interpretation of the U.S. constitution is somehow fallacious. I'd like to point you to Cornell Law School's site. Notice how there's a hyperlink in section nine for the direct taxes clause, and the link takes you to the sixteenth amendment. The U.S. went through the amendment process to invalidate an original law of the constitution, but the Federal Reserve Act merely went through Congress and then to the President's desk. The exact same thing happens with the war on drugs. We amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol, but we don't amend the constitution to prohibit a less harmful drug like marijuana.

Where's the irrefutable logic which shows how the U.S. doesn't have to amend the constitution?
[identity profile] lucy-chronicles.livejournal.com
Now to get the darn thing through the Senate. I've been finishing-up Bob Barr's book on the Impeachment of Clinton "The meaning of 'Is'" and am at the chapter on getting this trial through the Senate who poo poo'd the whole thing, gutting most/all of the REAL charges against Clinton including those w/in the Repub party. It is hauntingly sad to read the blow by blow, hence I hold scant hope for the bill but at least Dr. Paul found a way to get it moving, with out w/o the 300+ sponsors. There are just too many repeat behaviors from the Senate, and gov in general, for me to hold water in an ACTUAL audit of the Fed... but I'm still glad to know he found away around it since the gutted the original thing.
-----------------------------------
The House Financial Services Committee has approved Rep. Ron Paul’s measure to drastically expand the government’s power to audit the Federal Reserve.

The measure, based on a Paul proposal that has attracted more than 300 co-sponsors, passed, 43-26, as an amendment to a financial reform bill. Florida Democrat and fellow Fed critic Alan Grayson co-sponsored the amendment with Paul and played a leading role drumming up support for it among committee members. The adoption of this amendment is an extraordinary victory for Paul, whose libertarian, anti-Fed leanings have often been dismissed by the political establishment.


The amendment would give the Government Accountability Office much greater to audit the Federal Reserve, which has a long history of independence from congressional audits. Paul and Grayson beat out a competing measure offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), who after weeks of negotiations with the pair felt their measure would threaten the Fed’s monetary policy.


This is a big victory in our effort to get an audit of the private central bank that is destroying this country. The people are tired, and action is starting to be taken thanks to Ron Paul.

Here is Congressman Paul's introduction of the amendment:

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com
No, not the 'Die Quickly' one, but something new. And only years after they could have implemented reforms of their own but didn't.

Boehner said the Republican version would cover millions of presently uninsured Americans but didn't get into specifics how that would work. There was one big funny in the article:

Even some diehard liberals are looking for a better alternative to Democrats' proposals. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) on November 1 reiterated his opposition to creating a new government-run public health-insurance plan. He said he wouldn’t try to block debate on the Democratic bill, but he would join the Republicans if they move to block a vote on the bill.

Joe Lieberman a diehard liberal? He's their example?

Then there is RON PAUL! (warning: youtube) on CNN with his message that HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT. To which I want to respond: Who cares? No, it isn't laid out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, like any number of other things we've done since the fricking 1700's.

What I don't get is why there an issue with the U.S. taking a similar approach to health care as virtually every other first world country? Because all of those other countries have recognized that the benefits outweigh the costs and strangely, the same premonitions of doom & gloom predicted should America cover its citizens hasn't visited any of those countries. Or as I like to say to my conservative friends 'Why do you hate Israeli-style healthcare?'

Now, dear Ron also believes that the "doctor-patient" relationship needs to be preserved and then he goes on to blame nefarious government agencies for interfering with that. And ignoring the fact that in reality, insurance companies are far more involved in dictating that relationship for most Americans. The ones that have coverage, that is.

So I'll agree that universal health care is not a right. And I'll also say that it's stupid and backwards of America not to provide it. And expensive, as constant bailing out of hospitals and government spending already on healthcare to plug those extensive holes is out of control.

But since the Republicans started this trend of coming up with ideas late to the table, what are some reforms to health care you see as essential? And do you have any ideas how we could have near-universal coverage without it turning Kafkaesque?
[identity profile] lucy-chronicles.livejournal.com
Just got an email from the ol' folks in Orange county. they're trying to get 200 people together for a screening. Interesting in getting one going on your own? call Frank - 714-397-4040

Spread the word and the link!

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031