Like said...Ron Paul is Ayn Rand in drag. "The Tea Party, The Greedy Rich and Ayn Rand--Parasites, Lice and Moochers" http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Tea-Party-The-Greedy-by-JON-LARSEN-110423-710.html
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > 5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution -- > 'Cuddly' Libertarian Has Some Very Dark Politics > > He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality > and anti-education, and that's just the start. > > August 26, 2011 | > > Description: > http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/blogteaser_ronpaulrevolution.jpg_3 > 10x220 > > There are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the > warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, > the Republican presidential candidate. "The anti-war Republican," people > say, as if that's good enough. > > But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act > Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a > gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an > anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite > congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a > Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the > anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, > anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I > can see how he'd be your guy. > > Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to > the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the > Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the > single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's > opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be > determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally > immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people > with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the > Paul agenda. (Tough on you blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, > old people without money.) > > Ron Paul's anti-war stance, you see, comes not from a cry for peace, but > from the deeply held isolationism of the far right. Some may say that, when > it comes to ending the slaughter of innocents, the ends justify the means. > But, in the case of Ron Paul, the ends involve trading the rights and > security of a great many Americans for the promise of non-intervention. > > Here's a list -- by no means comprehensive -- of Ron Paul positions and > associates that should explain, once and for all, why no self-respecting > progressive could possibly sidle up to Paul. > > 1) Ron Paul on Race > > Based on his religious adherence to his purportedly libertarian principles, > Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unlike his son, Sen. Rand Paul, > R-Ky., Ron Paul has not even tried to walk back from this position. In fact, > he wears it proudly. Here's an excerpt > <http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html> from Ron Paul's 2004 floor > speech about the Civil Rights Act, in which he explains why he voted against > a House resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the law: > > The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced > individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting > racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges > cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the > only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating > the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a > business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or > judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing > employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to > racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these > quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. > > He also said this > <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/533817/ron_pauls_libertarian_newsl > etters_revealed_pg4.html?cat=9> : "[T]he forced integration dictated by the > Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing > individual liberty." > > Ron Paul also occasionally appears at events sponsored by the John Birch > Society, the segregationist right-wing organization that is closely aligned > with the Christian Reconstructionist wing of the religious right. > > In 2008, James Kirchick brought to light in the pages of the New Republic a > number of newsletters with Paul's name in the title -- Ron Paul's Freedom > Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron > Paul Investment Letter -- that contained baldly racist material, which Paul > denied writing. > > At NewsOne, Casey Gane-McCalla reported > <http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-su > premacist/> a number of these vitriolic diatribes, including this, on the > L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict: "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." > > In a related piece > <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/533817/ron_pauls_libertarian_newsl > etters_revealed_pg5.html?cat=9> , Jon C. Hopwood of Yahoo!'s Associated > Content cites a Reuters report > <http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW200801 > 08> on Paul's response to the TNR story, which came in the form of a written > 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.... I have publicly taken moral > responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my > name. > > 2) Ron Paul on Reproductive Rights > > The sponsor of a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul's libertarianism > does not apply to women, though it does apply to zygotes. His is a > no-exceptions anti-abortion position, essentially empowering a rapist to > sire a child with a woman of his choosing. Although Paul attributes his > stance on abortion to his background as an ob-gyn physician, it should be > noted that most ob-gyns are pro-choice, and that Paul's draconian position > tracks exactly with that of his Christian Reconstructionist friends. > > While mainstream media, when they're not busy ignoring his presidential > campaign in favor of the badly trailing former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, > invariably focus on Paul's economic libertarianism, Sarah Posner, writing > for the > <http://www.thenation.com/article/162778/gop-front-runners-hostility-governm > ent-motivates-fiscal-social-conservatives-iowa> Nation, noted that during > his appearances leading up to the Iowa straw poll (in which Paul finished > second only to Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minn., by a 200-vote margin), > "launched into gruesome descriptions of abortion, a departure from his stump > speech focused on cutting taxes, shutting down the Federal Reserve, getting > out of Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing the Patriot Act." > > 3) Ron Paul on LGBT People > > While it's true that Paul advocates leaving it to the states > <http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/05/05/177394/ron-paul-marriage-gop-debat > e/> to determine whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, > it's not because he's a friend to LGBT people. Paul's position on same-sex > marriage stems from his beliefs about the limits of the federal government's > role vis-a-vis his novel interpretation of the Constitution. > > In fact, a newsletter called the Ron Paul Poltiical Report, unearthed by > Kirchick > <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-a > c15-4532a7da84ca> , shows Paul on a rant > <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/533817/ron_pauls_libertarian_newsl > etters_revealed_pg4.html?cat=9> against a range of foes and conspiracies, > including "the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS," to which Paul > parenthetically adds, "my training as a physician helps me see through this > one." The passage, which also portends a "coming race war in our big > cities," complains of the "perverted" and "pagan" annual romp for the rich > and powerful known as Bohemian Grove, and takes aim at the "demonic" Skull > and Bones Society at Yale, not to mention the "Israeli lobby," begins with > the paranoid claim, "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't > scare me." > > While Paul denied, in 2001, writing most of the scurrilous material that > ran, without attribution, in newsletters that bore his name in the title, > this passage, according to Jon Hopwood > <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/533817/ron_pauls_libertarian_newsl > etters_revealed_pg4.html?cat=9> , bears Paul's byline. > > 4) Ron Paul Calls Social Security Unconstitutional, Compares it to Slavery > > Earlier this year, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Paul declared both > Social Security and Medicare to be unconstitutional, essentially saying they > should be abolished for the great evil that they are -- just like slavery. > Here's the transcript, via ThinkProgress > <http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/15/166363/paul-ss-medicare-slaver > y/> : > > ["FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS] WALLACE: You talk a lot about the > Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all > unconstitutional. > > PAUL: Technically, they are. . There's no authority [in the Constitution]. > Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for > people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals > are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . That is such an extreme > liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and > that's what we have to reverse-that very notion that you're presenting. > > WALLACE: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of > the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was > constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. > > PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal, too, and > we had to reverse that. > > 5) Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionists and the John Birch Society > > The year 2008 was a telling one in the annals of Ron Paul's ideology. For > starters, it was the year in which he delivered the keynote address > <http://vimeo.com/19602654> [video] at the 50th anniversary gala of the > John Birch Society, the famous anti-communist, anti-civil-rights > organization hatched in the 1950s by North Carolina candy magnate Robert > Welch, with the help of Fred Koch, founder of what is now Koch Industries, > and a handful of well-heeled friends. The JBS is also remembered for its > role in helping to launch the 1964 presidential candidacy of the late Sen. > Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., and for later backing the segregationist Alabama > Gov. George Wallace in his 1968 third-party presidential bid. > > The semi-secular ideology of the John Birch Society -- libertarian market > and fiscal theory laced with flourishes of cultural supremacy -- finds its > religious counterpart, as Fred Clarkson noted > <http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/172426/4273> , in the theonomy of > Christian Reconstructionism, the right-wing religious-political school of > thought founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. The ultimate goal of Christian > Reconstructionists is to reconstitute the law of the Hebrew Bible -- which > calls for the execution of adulterers and men who have sex with other men -- > as the law of the land. The Constitution Party constitutes the political > wing of Reconstructionism, and the CP has found a good friend in Ron Paul. > > When Paul launched his second presidential quest in 2008, he won the > endorsement of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist pastor who travels in Christian > Reconstructionist circles, though he is not precisely a Reconstructionist > himself (for reasons having to do with his interpretation of how the end > times will go down). When Paul dropped out of the race, instead of endorsing > Republican nominee John McCain, or even Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, > Paul endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin (who promised, in his > acceptance speech, to uphold the Constitution Party platform, which looks > curiously similar to the Ron Paul agenda, right down to the no-exceptions > abortion proscription and ending the Fed). > > At his shadow rally that year in Minneapolis, held on the eve of the > Republican National Convention, Paul invited Constitution Party founder > Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist, to address the crowd of > end-the-Fed-cheering post-pubescents. (In his early congressional career, > Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches > <http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/2679/rand_paul_ > and_the_influence_of_christian_reconstructionism__> , Paul hired as a > staffer Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist leader and Rushdoony's > son-in-law.) > > At a "Pastor's Forum" at Baldwin's Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, > Paul was asked by a congregant about his lack of support for Israel, which > many right-wing Christians support because of the role Israel plays in what > is known as premillennialist end-times theology. "Premillennialist" refers > to the belief that after Jesus returns, according to conditions on the > ground in Israel, the righteous will rule. But Christian Reconstructionists > have a different view, believing the righteous must first rule for 1,000 > years before Jesus will return. > > They also believe, according to Clarkson > <http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html> , "that 'the > Christians' are the 'new chosen people of God,' commanded to do what 'Adam > in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do...create the society that God > requires.' Further, Jews, once the 'chosen people,' failed to live up to > God's covenant and therefore are no longer God's chosen. Christians, of the > correct sort, now are." > > Responding to Baldwin's congregant, Paul explained, "I may see it slightly > differently than others because I think of the Israeli government as > different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli > government doesn't happen to be reflecting God's views. Some of them are > atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support... And > there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so > narrowly defined as only the Jews -- that maybe there's a broader definition > of that." > > At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another > favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: > that of the "remnant" left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary > North's publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul's > keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch > Society, explained, "He claimed that the important role the JBS has played > was to nurture that remnant and added, 'The remnant holds the truth > together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'" > > Is there a progressive willing to join that fold? > > Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington bureau chief. Follow her on Twitter: > www.twitter.com/addiestan >