David Spero quoted an article including this snip:
"Or the crazy-as-fuck John Birch Society, to which Paul is more than
happy to grant the occasional interview and even speak at their
dinners ..."
followed by a line calling Ron Paul a neo-Nazi. In a later post Spero says
Paul is the biggest threat out there to democracy, that he will usher in
fasciism through the back door and return the US to pre-FDR days.
Mr. Spero, who is it who is saying all this? That amorphous indefinable
consciousness which you claim moves through you? Or you as a body/mind shell,
empty of substance? If it is the latter, it is not worth listening to a shell.
If it is the former, I question the nature of that force that controls you.
Universal consciousness, is it? Or is it the god(s) you worshipped on your
path? How so in the interest of their continued rule for politics to continue
in the direction of global government and all the other things Ron Paul stands
against. Paul is for the individual, for freedom of each person from control by
government. This is as anti-fasciist as it gets. But if he got in, it would
strike a big blow against the elite's agenda of increasing government power.
Therefore they try to make Paul look like the very thing they themselves are.
When I was a newspaper journalist, I did a special feature on the John Birch
Society -- described in your quote as "crazy-as-a-fuck," and found that
contrary to all the hoopla about them, their beliefs are founded on a firm and
literal interpretation of the US constitution. They are anything but crazy.
They are libertarians, calling for much-needed reform.
To call a libertarian like Ron Paul a neo-Nazi is just as misplaced and
disturbing. Why would anyone call a person who preaches grass-roots empowerment
a Nazi? Nazis are for total government rule and suppression of the individual.
Paul is completely in the other camp. So why this attempt to label him a Nazi?
I would suggest, because Nazi is such a frightening word, and if people can be
taught to fear him, they will forget about him as a real possible contender in
the race. Yes, he wants to return us to the life patterns of a simpler time, a
time before FDR. FDR instituted the changes in government that began to take
away our freedoms.
You call Paul a threat to democracy? Democracy is government by the people.
Why are you twisting the facts, or should I say, why is that which works
through you twisting the facts? Who is this Being of yours that is so intent on
defeating libertarians? More evidence for my theory, Mr. Spero.
oneradiantbeing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-radical-rights-man-
in.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington
from Daily Kos:
posted last May:
THE STRANGE CASE OF LARRY PRATT
In 1996, presidential candidate Pat Buchanan got in hot water when
the Center for Public Integrity revealed connections between
Buchanan's campaign co-chairman Larry Pratt and Pastor Pete Peters, a
leader of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement. Pratt,
the executive director of Gun Owners of America, had been a frequent
guest at meetings and on radio and television programs hosted by
Peters, who inveighed against "Talmudic filth" as Pratt looked on. On
February 15, 1996, Pratt took a leave of absence from the Buchanan
campaign, so as to avoid causing a "distraction."
The very next day, reported the San Antonio Express-News on February
18, Ron Paul distributed a press release touting Pratt's endorsement
of Paul's candidacy for the U.S. Congress. Pratt's endorsement of
Paul was anything but pro forma; the February 22, 1996 issue of Roll
Call noted that Paul and Mike Gunn, a Republican candidate for
Congress in Mississippi who had done some work for David Duke in the
latter's 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial campaign, were the only two
candidates formally endorsed for office that year by Pratt's
organization. Paul's opponent in the Republican primary, Rep. Greg
Laughlin, called upon Paul to repudiate Pratt; Paul declined to do
so, with his spokesman saying that Paul opposed racism but
that "nothing has been proven against Mr. Pratt. He has denied it."
(Pratt's enthusiasm for Paul continues to this day, as this quasi-
endorsement of Paul's 2008 presidential campaign makes clear.)
THE COMPANY RON PAUL KEEPS
Paul's disinclination to separate himself from the Larry Pratts of
the world is part of a pattern that over the last 20 years has seen
him snuggling up to some extremely questionable characters on the far
right fringe. Like, for example, secessionists, who gathered at a
conference in April of 1995 to hear Paul speak about the "once and
future Republic of Texas." Or the beady-eyed listeners of The
Political Cesspool. It's the unofficial radio program of the Council
of Conservative Citizens--you know, the repainted White Citizens
Council that got Trent Lott into a bit of trouble a few years ago.
(Tune in tonight for their special program on "the disastrous Brown
vs. Topeka Board of Education decision, one which ushered in an era
of radical leftist ideology upon the American citizenry.") Paul has
been a guest on the program; you'll find him listed under P, right
above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo.
Or the crazy-as-fuck John Birch Society, to which Paul is more than
happy to grant the occasional interview and even speak at their
dinners (the podcast, I am sorry to report, no longer seems to be
available). In fact, Paul is the only member of Congress to receive a
perfect 100 from the John Birch Society in its most recent member
ratings.
THE KLAN'S MAN IN WASHINGTON
Like many members of Congress, the prolific Paul posts his speeches,
columns, and statements on his House Web site. He allows anyone to
republish and distribute them, and many do. For example, our old
friends the Council of Conservative Citizens occasionally publish
Paul in its newsletter, the Citizens Informer (warning: PDF). And
then there's David Duke, who can't get enough of Ron Paul; you can
find his columns on davidduke.com here and here and here and here and
here. If you're more of a dead-tree fan, you can find Paul's thoughts
on foreign policy reprinted in the January 2007 issue of the National
Times, a white supremacist newspaper that apparently gets distributed
through the time-honored neo-Nazi method of throwing the thing onto
unsuspecting people's porches in the middle of the night and
scurrying away.
For a real look inside the tiny, demented mind of the neo-Nazi,
though, we need to go to Stormfront. Stormfront is the oldest and
largest white supremacist site on the World Wide Web; its discussion
boards provide an unequaled opportunity for eavesdropping on the
thoughts and plans of the racist underground in America and around
the world. And you don't have to visit for very long before one thing
jumps out at you: they positively adore Ron Paul. (Please note that
links in this paragraph go to a hate site and should probably be
considered NSFW.) An "Is Ron Paul the One?" topic is currently
stickied in Stormfront's Newslinks & Articles forum; another active
topic on Paul's candidacy has received 446 posts and 12,040 pageviews
since late March. A topic called "Ron Paul's Race Problem" (hey,
Wonkette musta read my diary!) was just started today and already has
17 replies. They're busy little racists over there.
DOES ANY OF THIS STUFF REALLY MATTER?
Politicians can't choose their supporters, after all. Isn't it a bit
unfair to tar Paul by association to these lunatics? No, it isn't.
This stuff matters because Paul makes so little effort to
disassociate himself from the racist, anti-Semitic, crackpot groups
that support him. Whether he shares these groups' beliefs or not, the
fact that he doesn't care enough to do anything about them speaks
volumes. I'll wrap up by turning the floor over to Eric Dondero, a
senior aid to Paul from 1997 to 2003, who had this to say in a blog
comment in May:
Ron Paul has had some ties that are nothing to be proud of in the
past to far-right groups. My former boss IS NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE.
However, he is grossly inattentive in dealing with groups who are
blatantly anti-Semitic.
....Whether they are using him to gain in credibility, or whether it's
just coincidence doesn't matter much. It's the image that counts. No
doubt this will all come to haunt him in his race for the Presidency.
MORE FROM LAST MAY'S DAILY KOS:
RON PAUL HATES YOU!
Let's have a look at some of the many, many issues on which Ron Paul
places himself squarely in opposition to me and, presumably, you:
Abortion: Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the
right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R.
1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from
conception." He voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell
bill.
The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not
a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization
gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent
Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF). He doesn't fare much better
in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of
Conservation Voters. Paul's abysmal record on the environment is
driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th
Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE
contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to
allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay
royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par
for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science,
bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism
masquerading as environmentalism."
Immigration: Paul marches in lock-step with the xenophobic right wing
on immigration, calling last month's compromise immigration bill "a
compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a
compromise of the Second Amendment." Yet even the hardcore nativists
in the immigration debate have been hesitant to support repealing
birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, as
Paul has done. His proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced as
H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: "Any person born after the
date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father,
neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who
owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a
citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of
birth in the United States." Only four other Representatives, all
Republicans, were willing to cosponsor this proposed amendment.
Civil Rights: Paul doesn't much care for ensuring your right to vote.
Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted for the
bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill.
But at least Ron Paul knows who's responsible for racism in America:
you are. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality," he
writes, "the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate
racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it
views individuals only as members of racial groups." So now you know.
(Apparently, saying that "[i]f you have ever been robbed by a black
teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"
is not racist, as long as it's said with a proper appreciation for
free-market economics.)
Gay Rights: Paul's rigid, uncompromising libertarianism leads him to
take a number of positions that liberals find objectionable or even
reprehensible but which should not in themselves be taken as ipso
facto evidence of bigotry. His reflexive opposition to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, for example, is consistent with libertarian
positions on federalism and the right of the individual to be free
from government "coercion," even if that means limiting the ability
of minorities to seek employment and housing free from discrimination.
Still, libertarian orthodoxy can't fully explain Paul's hostility to
gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian
Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988,
has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the
beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the "Federal Marriage
Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he
actually cosponsored the odious "Marriage Protection Act," which
would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to
the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. "The definition
of marriage--a union between a man and a woman--can be found in any
dictionary," he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul's disingenuous
claims that he is a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars
agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be
unconstitutional.
You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the
Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal
the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from
serving in the military. Maybe he's worried that they'll take
their "gay agenda" to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn't
want gay people adopting children while they're not serving in the
military, either.
On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates
homosexuality with "sexual deviance." And let's not forget his wink-
wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a far leftist with very
close female friends".
Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping
the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict
constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated
separation of church and state. "Religious morality will always
inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths," he
writes. "...The collectivist left" --that's you!-- "is threatened by
strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing
federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our
society.... So the real motivation behind the insistence on a
separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First
amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of
religious conservatives at the ballot box."
And just in case the dirty liberals in the federal court system might
take it into their heads to enforce the Establishment Clause, Mr.
Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts
from hearing any such cases. No wonder James Dobson's Family Research
Council gave Paul a 75 percent rating on their 2005 scorecard.
International Relations: Like crackpot paleoconservatives everywhere,
Paul wants us out of the United Nations, which is just a bunch of un-
American non-Americans out to destroy America. Darfur is also filled
with non-Americans, so you certainly won't find Ron Paul lifting a
finger to stop the genocide, or even acknowledge that genocide is
taking place. I guess that's why he's one of only four members of
Congress to receive an "F" rating on Darfur from the Genocide
Intervention Network.
Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about
Paul's opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have
been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn't it?
Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45
percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little
better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent--easily the top score
for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it
beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.)
And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much
use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F"
rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not
easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with
only six other members of the House.
Taxes: Do we even need to go into this one? If you audaciously
believe that we need a progressive system of taxation in this
country, here's what Ron Paul thinks of you:
* "[W]e have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system
championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with
such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in
this country simply doesn't believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they
believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it
via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical 'social
justice.'... The class war tactic highlights what the left does best:
divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth
and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If
one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it-
even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them.... Upward mobility
is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas
collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are."
* "Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of
becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment
of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful
people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from
humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually
impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the
pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a
society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the
polls."
Screw this; this diary's way too long already. Worker rights: Voted
to defund OSHA's ergonomics rules. Voted against increasing mine
safety standards. Hates unions. Campaign finance reform: Opposes.
Social Security and Medicare: Repeats the Republicans' lies about the
programs' solvency. Consumer protection: Voted for the bankruptcy
bill. Voted to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits.
Universal health care: don't make me laugh. Privatizing everything:
the Internets are not large enough to hold all the citations.
"But he's against the war!" Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is
David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire
today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to
praise their "independence," to gush about how well of course I
wouldn't vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you
truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he
oppose the war?
Think about it.
Posted by Adam Holland at 1:20 AM
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
