muzzled dogg
03-31-2011, 09:34 AM
The Constitutional hypocrisy of Ron Paul
By DOUG THOMPSON
Ron Paul: Ignore the Constitution if it suits your purpose
Fringe Republican Congressman Ron Paul‘s rabid supporters often cite his belief and knowledge of the U.S. Constitution as reasons for their cult-like support of he and his son, freshman Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
*
So what’s the great Constitutional scholar up to now?* Returning to his racist past by advocating nullification of the Constitution by states that disagree with federal laws.
This regresses the nation back by nearly a half-century to the days of the Southern Manifesto, a racist document designed to allow states to avoid integration and civil rights.
This is the same Ron Paul whose newsletters once published racist rants under his name — although he claims now he didn’t write or approve the columns that ran with his by-line — and he joins his equally-racist son, who claimed during last year’s campaign that businesses that serve the public — like restaurants — should be able to ignore the law and refuse to serve minorities.
In a speech to a homeschooling rally, Paul told the faithful that “in principal, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.”
Added Paul:
The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.
In other words, if regressives like Paul can’t get his way in Congress — and he seldom does — just ignore the constitution and returns to the days of the Old South when Alabama and other states thought slavery and repression was still legal in this nation.
This is typical for Paul, who has never strayed far from his racist philosophies of the past. And the comments of his son suggest Rand learned well from his dad’s out-of-sync philosophies.
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” said a column which appeared under Paul’s name in 1992.
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” said another column published under his name that same year.
This is why Ron Paul remains on the fringe with the vast majority of Americans. Despite lofty visions of his small — but vocal — army of brainwashed supporters, he received just one-half of one percent of the vote as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1996 and finished last among four contenders for the GOP nomination for President in 2008.
When he suspended his run for President, Paul diverted the $4.7 million raised from donation by the faithful — but gullible — to the Campaign for Liberty, one of his many ultra right-wing advocacy groups. This is a familiar pattern for Paul. Use a national Presidential campaign to raise money and then use the money for something else. While technically legal it does raise questions about his honesty and true intentions.
And while Paul vilifies the “establishment” politicians of other parties, his advocacy of the nullification movement suggests he is just as hypocritical as the rest.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40111
By DOUG THOMPSON
Ron Paul: Ignore the Constitution if it suits your purpose
Fringe Republican Congressman Ron Paul‘s rabid supporters often cite his belief and knowledge of the U.S. Constitution as reasons for their cult-like support of he and his son, freshman Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
*
So what’s the great Constitutional scholar up to now?* Returning to his racist past by advocating nullification of the Constitution by states that disagree with federal laws.
This regresses the nation back by nearly a half-century to the days of the Southern Manifesto, a racist document designed to allow states to avoid integration and civil rights.
This is the same Ron Paul whose newsletters once published racist rants under his name — although he claims now he didn’t write or approve the columns that ran with his by-line — and he joins his equally-racist son, who claimed during last year’s campaign that businesses that serve the public — like restaurants — should be able to ignore the law and refuse to serve minorities.
In a speech to a homeschooling rally, Paul told the faithful that “in principal, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.”
Added Paul:
The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.
In other words, if regressives like Paul can’t get his way in Congress — and he seldom does — just ignore the constitution and returns to the days of the Old South when Alabama and other states thought slavery and repression was still legal in this nation.
This is typical for Paul, who has never strayed far from his racist philosophies of the past. And the comments of his son suggest Rand learned well from his dad’s out-of-sync philosophies.
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” said a column which appeared under Paul’s name in 1992.
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” said another column published under his name that same year.
This is why Ron Paul remains on the fringe with the vast majority of Americans. Despite lofty visions of his small — but vocal — army of brainwashed supporters, he received just one-half of one percent of the vote as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1996 and finished last among four contenders for the GOP nomination for President in 2008.
When he suspended his run for President, Paul diverted the $4.7 million raised from donation by the faithful — but gullible — to the Campaign for Liberty, one of his many ultra right-wing advocacy groups. This is a familiar pattern for Paul. Use a national Presidential campaign to raise money and then use the money for something else. While technically legal it does raise questions about his honesty and true intentions.
And while Paul vilifies the “establishment” politicians of other parties, his advocacy of the nullification movement suggests he is just as hypocritical as the rest.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40111