Look at this smear job!

[Mastiff]

Someone with some time and good writing skills needs to slap this guy down with a good comment (or 50):

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272615728.shtml

[Mister Grieves]

The neo-cons are sandbagging the levees.

Encouraging.

[happyphilter]

Wow... That just seems so skewed

[Spirit of '76]

JB Williams puts out one of these lie-filled diatribes against Paul at least once a week.

He's obviously not very smart, but he is clever enough to only publish his crap on sites that don't allow comments, so his lies can't neatly be refuted right there.

[bc2208]

So at what point do we just enlist a bunch of hackers and just shut these people down? lol

I HATE PROPAGANDA!!!

[bcmiller]

They do not have posted comments just letters to the author.

He is trying the old, he voted against a law banning online predators, he is for child abuse!

The author pretends he is for the constitution but rails against Ron Paul for voting against things that are not constitutional. Congress shall make no law. He believes that you should stick the gist of the constitution and not get all wrapped up in the details. He makes several gratuitous assertions about online spamming and the motivations of the RP supporters. And of course, according to the laws of logic any gratuitous assertion can be equally as gratuitously denied, the "am not, are too" debate rages on.

[mconder]

In my experience there is always a good reason on why he votes the way he does. The bills are a lot more complex than the way this guy makes them out to be.

Take this one:

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

I bet anything required state funding for some program or could be 100 other things that are repulsive to a conservative in it. Does this guy break them down in detail. Does he quote Ron's explanation for any of them? No.

He might as well have said that because Ron Paul voted against the patriot act, he is not a true patriot. Same thing with these other bills. I bet if someone took the time to look though each one, they would find a very good Reason for what Dr. Paul did with his vote.

[jb4ronpaul]

Someone with some time and good writing skills needs to slap this guy down with a good comment (or 50):

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272615728.shtml

I did, but its not posted.

[mconder]

Will you post it here? Just interested.

[jb4ronpaul]

I reminded him about what the word Republic and Republican means, because many of the votes he has a problem with are the federal government telling the states what to do. I also reminded him about warnings from the founders about entangling alliances, and that true conservatives want to conserve our founding values with a non interventionist foreign policy. The usual neocon rebuttals.

[SewrRatt]

My comment to the author: "You have many very good points and you've won me over. I now agree with you wholeheartedly that the (at least) 50% fictional Ron Paul you've invented in your twisted, hateful little mind is indeed an abhorrent non-person."

[RonPaulalways]

What a piece of shit. I sent him a letter.

[cac1963]

My comment to the author: "You have many very good points and you've won me over. I now agree with you wholeheartedly that the (at least) 50% fictional Ron Paul you've invented in your twisted, hateful little mind is indeed an abhorrent non-person."

It reminds me of the two guys running for president in Head of State, where the Cheney-wannabe neocon slams the populist candidate in an ad that says because the populist candidate didn't attend the anti-cancer rally in DC, he's pro-cancer.

[V-rod]

Good thing there are more people who read this post today than would ever have read his lame article this year.

[Akus]

Someone with some time and good writing skills needs to slap this guy down with a good comment (or 50):

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272615728.shtml

Well, you know what they say: the most vicious lie is a lie that is mixed with the truth.

[Cowlesy]

If I didn't work a nasty fulltime job I'd:
1.) Pull the bills he mentions, and find out what else was attached to them
2.) If Ron Paul voted no, chances are it was unconstitutional or violated personal freedoms
3.) 534 other members of the Congress most likely had a vote, and I'm sure many who this guy supports voted the same way as Paul.

This guy is probably easy to disprove, just takes some time to create an ironclad document that completely refutes him.

[fourameuphoria]

Well, it's starting to pop up over the Neocon blogosphere, so we should be ready for this one.

[kenc9]

Jane Fonda??? I guess we have them needing to be desperate to dig that far back ;)

-ken

[bbachtung]

I love that the author of the smear piece believes in the liberal view of a "living, breathing" Constitution (which means a Constitution that only means what the Supreme Court wants it to mean for as long as the court wants it to mean that); this, in effect, eliminates the Constitution and replaces it with the tyranny of the judiciary.

As far as the interstate transport of minors for abortions business, as Ron Paul has said so frequently (and as the Constitution provides), the federal government is not supposed to be in the business of enacting and enforcing most criminal laws (the Constitution only contains three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting). Here's (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=634) his take on the pro-life community ignoring the Constitution for short-term gains:



Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.

***

For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life.


The following is a concise and well-reasoned argument (by Ron Paul, of course) for unconstitutionality of regulating abortion (and gay marriage and everything else having to do with social values) at the federal level:



As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446