Things I like. On display behind the backseat of my car: Ron Paul bumper sticker, USMC cap, and Charmander.
Things I like. On display behind the backseat of my car: Ron Paul bumper sticker, USMC cap, and Charmander.
Ron Paul Revolution. University of California, Los Angeles. April 4, 2012.
Apparently, I walked by Ricardo (State Hate) and his group.
In what amounts to stinging indictment (from an antiwar and anti-interventionist perspective) of Barack Obama’s foreign policy, prominent warmongering neoconservative Philip Klein will back Obama over Paul because of the latter’s foreign policy:
So then we get to foreign policy. Obviously, if you agree with Paul’s non-interventionist views, it makes sense to back him. But if, like me, you find Paul’s ideas dangerous, then as bad as he is, Obama is preferable. Despite the many problems I have with Obama on foreign policy, he has continued many of President Bush’s counterterrorism policies and did prove willing to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki. At the end of the day, Obama wants to be politically popular and so there are some limits to how far off the reservation he’d veer on foreign policy.
The choice is clear: if you want 16 years of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, vote for Obama. If you dissent from the supreme crimes against humanity committed under our name, then Paul is your president.
Ron Paul becomes the first presidential candidate to identify with the Occupy Movement:
“I identify with both groups,” Paul said, responding to a question at a campaign appearance at GuideOne Insurance in West Des Moines Wednesday about the effectiveness of the Occupy the Caucuses movement that has pledged to occupy candidate headquarters and perhaps disrupt events this week.
“Both groups are unhappy about what’s happening around the country,” he said “The Tea Party thinks the debt is too big and government should shrink; the Occupation addresses the subject of the very rich.”
Paul was careful not to appear in lockstep with the Occupy demonstrators, saying their opposition to the Wall Street bank bailout dovetails with his own criticism of the issue, while at the same time calling the movement “a mixed blessing.”
“We should address that,” Paul said. “But the people who have gotten very wealthy in a free market by producing an honest product are different and shouldn’t be lumped togehter.”
Paul said both the Tea Party and Occupy movements are healthy. “I think some people like to paint Occupy as on the left and the Tea Party as on the right, but it just makes my point that people are unhappy. They are just tired of it all.”
This is refreshing to hear from someone who is both an active occupier and a previous tea party sympathizer. Paul gets it: there is an undercurrent of extreme dissatisfaction in 99 percent that is beginning to reject this corrupt, corporatist-controlled two-party establishment.
The question is: are they dissatisfied enough to upend the status quo?
SAN ANTONIO — Ron Paul wants to legalize pot and shut down the Federal Reserve. He thinks the federal government has no authority to outlaw abortion, no business bombing Iran to keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and no justification to print money unless it’s backed up by gold bars.
And he might win the Iowa caucuses.
And once that happens, the Iowa Caucuses will become instantly irrelevant.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, eviscerates the various smears directed at Ron Paul and included these words of encouragement:
They think they can just ignore him. They believe their lies will destroy him. They will stop at nothing to sabotage the populist movement he has created almost single-handedly. But no matter. We will defeat the War Party, which is hated by ordinary Americans: we will beat and humiliate the regnant elites who think they can dictate the boundaries of the political discourse. Let the media loosen its cannons on their target and do their best to slime a near saintly man, whose gentleness and sincerity is a visible presence on that debate stage – and a stark contrast to the sleazy shifty-eyed Gingrich, the thousand-mile stare of Bachmann, and the palpable insincerity of the robotic Romney. The more the mainstream media attacks Paul, the more the Republican electorate – as well as Americans of all political stripes – will rally to his cause.
We shall overcome.
It is a long read, but well worth it.
It is not just Ron Paul that will be attacked in this election cycle. It seems that the corporate media has shifted its efforts to smearing the liberty activists of Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty.
These fresh attacks lends further credence to my point that it is not merely Paul the corporate media and the partisan hacks are after: it is everyone associated with his brand of fiercely antiwar and anti-racist libertarian movement.
Yesterday, Tumblr blog Ron Paul is Not Racist posted this image:
It is a legitimate question: why the relentless attack on Ron Paul’s character?
It is must be known that the complete lack of empathy for the suffering and deaths of foreign people who are the victims of this country’s murderous foreign policy is what informs a partisan hack’s politics. This lack of empathy also extends towards the victims of this country’s drug policies.
The attack on Paul over texts he has already taken moral responsibility for and repeatedly disavowed while ignoring the brutal and racist policies that Barack Obama is continuing abroad and at home is pure and petty partisanship. The partisans’ sudden concern for racism is suspect, politically-motivated, and a product of opportunism and cynicism that so afflicts our political process.
However, it is not merely Paul that is the ultimate target of these coordinated and bipartisan attacks. This is an attempt to marginalize and halt the growth of the libertarian movement which poses a legitimate political threat to the entrenched left-right establishment. The attack on Paul is ultimately an attack on all concerned liberty-minded Americans who tire of the status quo, who are sick of politics-as-usual, and who are desperately looking for alternatives to the welfare-warfare politics that defines the corporatist-controlled two-party establishment. It must be remembered that in the early days of both the tea party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, they were labeled as racist and anti-Semitic respectively. It is a tried and true charge that partisan hacks like to levy against their opponents even as their party of choice implement truly brutal and racist policies in the war on drugs and war on terror.
Republicans fear the liberty movement because it thoroughly discredits the establishment. Democrats fear the liberty movement because it exposes them for what they truly are: warmongers.
There is a deafening silence from partisan hacks (like Alex Ryking, Politicalprof, and Ari Kohen at Tumblr or every deluded blogger at DailyKos) on the supreme crimes against humanity that Obama has committed against the people of this world, yet make ample time to write and promote smears against a very decent man. Through their anti-Paul invectives, they project their fears and hatred for Paul and the entire movement he represents for it forces them to confront the hollowness and utter pettiness of their partisanship.
Against these efforts, the libertarian must maintain constant vigilance and resist any attempts to crush this legitimate peace movement. Pay no heed to these warmongers, these partisan hacks! To want for a better world, a peaceful world, and a freer world is not a sin.
At one point during his speech, Paul said: “The American people are waking up….They’re tired of what they heard from the two parties and get promises.”
“If the Democrats promise one thing, then they get in and act like Republicans. Republicans promise something, they get in and act like Democrats. But the people are upset. They are getting angry. They are speaking out and I think it’s very healthy.”
“We have a tea party movement, we have an Occupy movement and people are saying, ‘We’ve had enough. We don’t want to be ripped off anymore. We want to do away with this crony corporatism and we want to restore individual liberty for each and every American citizen,’” Paul added.
This is why Ron Paul is being attacked by partisans from both parties: he perfectly personifies and taps into the anti-establishment sentiment that has gripped this country. When an establishment Republican like Newt Gingrich repeats the same charges partisan hacks from the Democratic Party are levying against someone, you know this target poses a threat to the moneymaking and horrifically profitable status quo.
What does Paul represent? A truly populist uprising that will strip away power from the corporatists and war profiteers that establishment Republicans and Democrats, including Barack Obama, are beholden to.
If 2008 was the rebellion, then 2012 is the revolution.
Another serious blow to Rick Perry’s viability and electability:
Rick Perry has been knocked off the Virginia GOP primary ballot, a key bar for candidate credibility past the early states – and a surprising state of affairs for the only campaign other than Mitt Romney that has had the resources with which to organize.
And there is this:
The only two candidates certified so far for the ballot are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman failed to submit the signatures.
The 10,000 signatures that Paul garnered must be all spambots. Fringe!
Objective and neutral journalist Gloria Borger, the infamous CNN reporter who attempted to tarnish Ron Paul over his controversial newsletters, is married to chief war profiteer Lance Morgan of Powell Tate.
Is it a conflict of interest when you politically smear a presidential candidate who will directly impact and threaten your husband’s line of murderous work?
I have no idea, but it sure smells like it.
You know who is? The supporters of Ron Paul themselves.
There is quiet revolution occurring in Republican Party county committees throughout the country. The Ron Paul Republicans are organizing and infiltrating the party apparatus, and while it is not so obvious, there are some signs that they might be succeeding.
In as little as 10 years, we might see a wholly different Republican Party. One that is closer to its purported platform of truly limited government, humble foreign policy, and respect for civil liberties.
Unless, of course, they are co-opted by war-hawks and scream for the continuation of the futile war on terror. If that is the case, I rather see the Ron Paul Revolution be soundly defeated now to make way for the rise of a legitimate peace movement.
Here is Andrew Sullivan’s take on Ron Paul and the Republican future.
The problem, of course, is that the Party keeps evolving, and never stays the same. What you’re saying about the future of the GOP is indeed true—in much the way that the same was true in 1964, post Goldwater. The Goldwater folks were well organized, and got involved, and over the course of the next 16 years, became the dominant force in the Party—nearly helping Ronald Reagan to steal the nomination from President Ford in 1976, and helping him to win the nomination in 1980. But even so, time marches on, and things and people change, and the young idealists of the early 60s became the new right conservatives of the 80s, and the entrenched “senior establishment” of the GOP today. There’s no doubt that the Paul supporters will play an important role in the Party over the next decade, but the real question is how much THEY’LL change as they find themselves in positions of leadership in the Party, with new responsibilities.
Therein lies the challenge of Ron Paul Republicans when they take their turn as the entrenched establishment in the Republican Party. How much compromise are they willing to tolerate in order to gain more power within the establishment? Will they follow Paul’s example and steadfastly refuse capitulation in their principles. As I have mentioned before in my warning for the Occupy Wall Street movement:
Significant progress cannot be made by a protest movement if it is rendered ineffectual by becoming a mere arm of the establishment: an arm subject to its control and whims.
It would do much disservice to Paul’s ideas if in the future the Ron Paul Revolution becomes the Ron Paul Establishment.
I like that Ron Paul uses their money to promote a libertarian agenda, which is inherently anti-racist in its celebration of individuals. Paul himself has explained why someone who truly espouses libertarian beliefs cannot be racist:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
Ron Paul is as incorruptible as they come, so no this does not concern me. And money that is voluntarily given by these individuals can be put into direct actions that completely repudiates their beliefs. If warmongers in both parties started donating to Paul’s campaign, should he return that as well? I find warmongers more odious (and more racist) than some harmless tool making a fool of himself somewhere.
As for campaigning against groups, why should he? I rather that he devote his energy campaigning against racist policies, not against some ineffective group that have been marginalized and made irrelevant by the growing message of liberty. In fact, Paul has been the most vocal critic of the destructive and the most racist government policies this country has ever undertaken: the war on drugs and the war on terror.
We can debate ad naseum about Paul’s supporters, but the same charge can be levied against Santorum’s, or Bachmann’s, or Romney’s supporters as well. Is it productive or relevant? No, on all counts. Paul is running for president, not some dude somewhere.
Everyone ought to challenge Paul on his beliefs, but why hand-wring over the beliefs of a small, insignificant minority of his supporters?
Which is racist? Paul receiving small donations from racist individuals or Barack Obama’s endless wars against brown-skinned Muslims, the deportation of record number of illegal immigrants, and continued escalation of the drug war?
This is what i learned from this New York Times piece by Ross Douthat:
So Iowa Tea Partiers face a choice. If the town hall crashers and Washington Mall marchers of 2009 settle on a Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider as their not-Romney standard bearer in 2012, then every liberal who ever sneered at the Tea Party will get to say “I told you so.” If Paul wins the caucuses, on the other hand, the movement will keep its honor – but also deliver the Republican nomination gift-wrapped to Mitt Romney.
Headline predictions if Ron Paul does win Iowa: “Santorum beats Romney for second place!” or “Huntsman surges to epic fourth place win!”
There is a definite cognitive dissonance from the corporate media that sees a Republican electorate waking up to Ron Paul as an endorsement of Mitt Romney’s candidacy.
If Paul were to become the Republican presidential nominee and faces Barack Obama in the general election, I am willing to bet $10,000 that the approved corporate media narrative will be that a vote for Paul is really a vote for Obama.